**1. Introduction**

The waste managemen<sup>t</sup> hierarchy has been adopted into South African waste legislation [1] as a means to support sustainable development. However, in 2011, an estimated 90% of all waste generated was still being disposed of in landfills [2]. Diverting recyclables from landfills is a worldwide concern in the drive towards a circular economy that strives to keep resources in use for as long as possible through reuse, recycling, and recovery [3–5]. South Africa has successfully grown a recycling economy over the past three decades [6]. In South Africa, about half of all post-consumer packaging waste was recycled in 2012 [7]. However, as is the case in most developing countries, the contribution of the active informal sector is acknowledged in achieving the encouraging recycling figures [8,9]. Growing the circular economy provides opportunities to improve the livelihoods and working conditions of waste pickers as well as to improve the methods used to collect materials for recycling [10]. The South African National Waste Management Strategy (NWMS) set targets for diversion of 25% of recyclables from landfills by 2016 [11], but, due to a lack of accurate waste data, there is no evidence suggesting that these targets were met. Agenda 2063, which is the 50-year strategic socio-economic transformation framework for Africa, set diversion targets for Africa [12]. The NWMS is in the process of being updated in line with the Agenda 2063 target of 50% diversion of waste from landfill by 2023 [12] and a target of 50% of households separating waste at source by 2023 [13]. For such ambitious targets to be reached, separation of recyclables at source becomes essential. In addition, separation at a household level is an opportunity to improve the quality of the recyclables as well as the working conditions of the informal sector.

Caution should be taken when comparing results from earlier studies when participation in recycling initiatives were mostly voluntary with results from later studies where curbside collection of "multiple materials" were more likely to be the norm [14] (p. 106). In South Africa, to date, household participation in recycling is still voluntary either by taking recyclables to buy-back or drop-off centers [15] or via street collection where such a recycling scheme is available. This voluntary household recycling resulted in 4.0% of South Africans living in the large urban areas recycling their paper and packaging on a regular basis in 2010 [16]. Although there was a decrease in the percentage households that do not recycle—from 74.0% in 2010 to 66.6% in 2015—only 7.2% of South African urban households reported in 2015 that they are dedicated recycling households, i.e., regularly recycling more than half of their recyclable waste [16].

This paper reports results from an empirical study conducted in 2010 on the reasons why households living in large urban areas think South Africans do not recycle. This study on a national level is a first for South Africa. The objective of this study is to ascertain the reasons why South Africans do not recycle, i.e., the barriers to recycling that they experience or perceive to experience. The results from this study will assist decision makers in the waste sector by pointing out possible interventions to encourage household participation in recycling initiatives to reach targets in line with national and African policy objectives.

#### **2. Literature on Barriers to Household Recycling**

Schultz and co-workers grouped variables having an effect on recycling behavior into personal and situational factors when they reviewed published empirical studies on recycling behavior [14]. Personal factors include attitude towards and beliefs about the environment, knowledge about recycling, taking responsibility, locus of control, and demographic variables (age, gender, income, education, etc.) [14]. Situational factors include the antecedents (e.g., collection method, goal-setting, normative factors, removing of any barriers, prompting) and consequence variables (e.g., rewards, feedback) [14].

Barr differentiated between environmental values, situational variables (which include the behavioral context such as recycling facilities and services, the socio-demographic variables such as age, gender, education, and income, and the knowledge and experience variables) and psychological factors (taking responsibility, altruism, intrinsic motivation, social norm, and self- efficacy or perceived behavioral control, which encompass time, space, and convenience among others) [17]. Results from Barr's study in the United Kingdom showed that a combination of two psychological factors (perceptions of convenience and acceptance of recycling as a social norm) and two situational factors (curbside collection for recyclables and knowledge of recycling services) are the most likely to increase both intention to recycle and recycling behavior [17].

Godfrey et al. grouped factors with the potential to influence recycling behavior into socio-demographic factors (e.g., age, gender, level of education), recycling facilities and services (also called the behavioral factors), and psychological factors (e.g., values, attitudes) [18].

The examples above show how the clustering of variables that affect recycling behavior differs between studies. For the purpose of this study, reasons for non-recycling obtained from the published literature are grouped into four main issues known as: situational factors at a household level, situational (knowledge), situational factors related to recycling facilities and services, and psychological factors (Table 1).


#### **Table 1.** Variables or factors affecting recycling behavior.

#### **3. Materials and Methods**

#### *3.1. Research Design*

This paper ascertains the reasons why South Africans do not recycle. A descriptive quantitative research approach [39] with a fixed form survey [40] was followed. Recycling behavior of the household is obtained from self-reporting on questions relating to frequency, number of materials recycled, and a qualitative measurement of quantities recycled. The initial list of reasons why people do not recycle were obtained from literature (refer to Table 1).

#### *3.2. Sampling Method and Data Collection*

Ipsos was contracted to include a set of recycling behavior questions in their annual household survey. Using a standard random probability selection procedure, the survey targeted a representative sample of 2000 households in the large cities. Starting points were selected at random and a kish-grid was used to select individual respondents [41]. Due to the survey instrument and representative sample, the results can be generalized to the population [42].

#### *3.3. Questionnaire Design*

This study considered methods followed in previous studies. While some previous studies allowed respondents to formulate their own perceived barriers to recycling [28,43], others tested several situational and psychological variables, which are thought to have an effect on recycling behavior [17]. In another UK study, respondents indicated three reasons why they recycle or do not recycle and the reasons "ranked according to their popularity to allow comparisons to be made" [24] (p. 64). Kaciak and Kushner followed a qualitative approach to determine barriers to recycling by using open-ended questions such as: "*in your opinion, why do you think others don't recycle?*" [44].

Due to the envisaged sample size of 2000 respondents, the national quantitative survey followed the example of Barr et al. by providing 10 possible pre-selected reasons for non-recycling to choose from [17]. Following Kaciak and Kushner's example [44], the question "*what would you say are the reasons why people do not recycle?*" was phrased in an impersonal manner. First, to prevent a desirability bias which could be caused by feelings of guilt of non-recycling households and, second, to provide respondents that recycle the opportunity to also convey their perceptions about why they think non-recyclers do not recycle. It can be argued that those respondents that recycled at the time of the study would have noted difficulties with recycling they experience from day-to-day as well as the barriers they think others might experience.

The 10 reasons to include was selected as follows: First, a list of possible reasons for non-recycling was compiled from a review of international literature [17,21,28,45–47]. Second, a qualitative pre-study with open-ended questions was conducted [39] to identify gaps in the international literature, to test for relevance, and to adjust phrasing where appropriate for South African circumstances. Third, a set of 10 factors was tested in a pilot study (*n* = 59) where respondents could tick any number of statements with which they agree and circle the most important ones. The results from the pilot study were difficult to analyze because some respondents ticked all 10 options and others ticked one only. This learning was taken forward and the main study was adapted accordingly.

Each respondent was presented with a "show card" on which the 10 possible reasons why people do not recycle were listed. The respondents had the opportunity to study the options before selecting the three main reasons [24] and indicating the most important reason from the selected three reasons. The order of the factors was rotated on the "show card" to ensure that the order of the statements does not bias the response. The structured format of the question with options allows for uniformity in responses from a large sample size within a short period of time [48].

Recycling behavior of the household is calculated from self-reporting on questions relating to frequency, number of materials recycled, and a qualitative measurement of quantities recycled (Appendix A). Demographic information was obtained from the questions included in the standard Ipsos questionnaire.

#### *3.4. Data Collection*

Face-to-face interviews were conducted in November 2010 at the homes of the respondents. Respondents that refused to participate in the study were substituted using the same probability selection procedure. The participants in the study received a briefing pamphlet, which stated the purpose of the study, how the information will be used, on whose behalf the survey is conducted, and contact details where further information could be obtained. The participants also received assurance

#### *Recycling* **2018**, *3*, 41

that they would stay anonymous. The data was captured in a manner that could not be linked back to the individual respondent.
