Saving Our Resources. Consumer Attitudes and Beliefs on Recycling and the Environment. A Report by. April 2014

Transcription

1 Saving Our Resources Consumer Attitudes and Beliefs on Recycling and the Environment April 2014 A Report by

2

3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 04 PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENT Table 1: Environmental Concerns by Region 06 Table 2: Environmental Concerns by State 07 Table 3: Personal Value Proposition By Region 08 Table 4: Value Proposition by State 09 Table 5: Impact of Recycling Efforts by Region 09 Table 6: Impact of Recycling Efforts by State 10 PART 2: RECYCLING 11 Table 7: Recycling Frequency by Region 11 Table 8: Recycling Worth by Region 12 Table 9: Barriers and Motivators for Recycling by Region 12 Table 10: Predictors of Recycling Participation by Region 13 Table 11: Predictors of Recycling Participation by State 14 CONCLUSION 15

4 Executive Summary For the glass manufacturing industry, access to quality cullet through effective recycling programs is critical to reducing energy use and natural resources, cutting CO2 emissions, and improving economic efficiencies. Glass containers are also 100% and endlessly recyclable. Since consumer recycling is key to returning high-quality recycled glass for use in new glass packaging, the Glass Packaging Institute conducted a survey in April 2013 to explore the differences related to geography, region and demographics that have an impact on the willingness or ability of consumers to recycle. In the Spring of 2013, the Glass Packaging Institute partnered with EcoFocus Worldwide Research to conduct a sample of 4,046 nationally representative adults aged to assess knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about packaging materials and recycling. While our first report from that survey looked at consumer preferences for packaging, in this report, we examinedthe factors that play an influence in consumer recycling on a regional basis. REGIONS Southeast MidWest Southwest West Northeast Mid-Atlantic 04

5 The findings are reported by the six U.S. Census Regions--MidWest, Southeast, West, Northeast, Southwest and the Mid-Atlantic. In addition, there was a strong enough sampling among twelve states to provide some state-specific information. Those states included California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia. First measured were consumer concerns about the environment as expressed through a number of viewpoints and consumer practices as well as to discover some influencers for action. Questions were divided into two parts first, to assess consumer outlook on the environment, and then to ascertain habits, outlooks and perceptions with regard to recycling practices. What was found was important to those of us concerned about recycling and the environment. Attitudes about the environment can vary considerably from region to region, indicating a need to examine attitudes and beliefs to develop messaging targeting each region, and in some cases particular states, with messaging that is tailored to their particular outlook and the issues they face. More than any other factor, the primary environmental concern for consumers is the loss of natural resources. This is a primary driver for consumers over threats of climate change or worries about a proliferation of dumps and landfills. When it comes to being eco-friendly, consumers are more willing to pay more to get products that are more environmentally appealing, but are less likely to accept compromises on product performance. Consumers feel strongly that there is a cumulative effect of the little changes they make to have an impact on the environment and believe that it improves their quality of life. While there is high participation in recycling, there are definitely some regions of the country, e.g., the Western and Northeast Regions, where extremely high levels of recycling occur. Consumers are concerned that despite their efforts, many recyclables that they put into recycling bins eventually end up in landfills, and if they thought otherwise, it might spur them on to greater efforts at recycling. Consumers living in regions that have public programs such as curbside recycling and bottle deposit laws had much higher rates of recycling participation than those in regions without such policies. 05

6 Part 1: Outlook on the Environment What are the things about the environment that concern consumers--and therefore motivate them--the most? We first sought to get feedback on how consumers in various geographic regions felt about three key environmental issues that are affected by recycling the proliferation of landfills and dumps, the threat of climate change and the loss of our natural resources. We asked consumers to rank their concern about each of these issues by indicating on a scale from Extremely or Very Concerned to Not Very Concerned or Not at All Concerned. Below are the percentages of those who rated each topic as being one about which they were either Extremely or Very Concerned by Census Region. Table 1: Environmental Concerns by Region Area of Concern MidWest Southeast West Northeast Southwest Mid-Atlantic Landfills and dumps Threat of climate change Loss of natural resources The loss of natural resources stood out as the number one issue with a majority of consumers across regions, with the most sensitive region to this issue the Southeast, followed by the West. The issue of the next greatest concern was the threat of climate change, but only in the Northeast was this issue raised by a majority of respondents. Finally, the proliferation of landfills and dumps appeared to be the area of least concern to those surveyed and was not named by a majority of consumers in any region. These results show that when recycling is encouraged because it protects our natural resources, across regions, that message is likely to be the greatest motivator for most people across the U.S. 06

7 What motivates consumers about the environment? Messages encouraging consumers to recycle might resonate most clearly with audiences if they are tied to the issue of loss of natural resources Looking at concerns about key environmental issues state-by-state, some states, such as New Jersey, Florida and California, were all particularly concerned about the loss of natural resources. Survey respondents in Virginia, New York and Michigan were less concerned. Climate change was also more important (among a majority of respondents) in some states, such as Illinois, Florida, California, New York and Virginia. However, with the exception of New York, in each state the loss of natural resources was the number one concern regarding the environment, reinforcing the regional results (Table 1). Table 2: Environmental Concerns by State Area of Concern IL MI FL GA NC CA NJ NY TX PA OH VA Landfills and dumps Threat of climate change Loss of natural resources While the former question dealt with the societal values around the environment, the next survey questions explored the more personal relationship consumers have vis-a-vis the proposition of recycling. How willing are survey respondents to look for ways to be more eco-friendly? What are respondent attitudes with respect to recycling? Is it a matter of cost or personal convenience? Accordingly, we asked people whether or not they are actively involved in looking for ways to be greener, and in doing so, would they pay more for eco-friendly products or make compromises on performance? What we found was that clearly most consumers are highly interested in looking for ways to be more eco-friendly, with over 70 percent in each region saying so. The greatest sensitivity to this was again in the Southeast, followed by the Northeast, with the lowest interest in the Mid-Atlantic states. 07

8 Table 3: Personal Value Proposition by Region Area of Concern MidWest Southeast West Northeast Southwest Mid-Atlantic I look for changes that we can do as a family to make our home or lifestyle greener or more eco-friendly To me, it is usually worth paying more for ecofriendly products I am not willing to make compromises on performance for eco-friendly products There is a significant drop-off of interest in being more eco-friendly, however, if consumers have to compromise on performance for eco-friendly products. There is even less appeal in being green if they have to pay more for eco-friendly products, particularly in the Mid- Atlantic states, though it was an issue that had a nearly uniform impact across geographies. Looking to the value proposition issue, consumers in some states, such as North Carolina and Pennsylvania, were particularly motivated to look for changes that they can make in their lives to be more eco-friendly. In other states, such as Ohio and Georgia, consumers were far less willing to pay more for eco-friendly products. Curiously, consumers in New Jersey were less likely to say that they look for changes to make their lifestyle greener, despite the fact that they were also the state to have respondents voice that they were most concerned about the loss of natural resources (Table 2). 08

9 Table 4: Value Proposition by State Area of Concern IL MI FL GA NC CA NJ NY TX PA OH VA I look for changes that we can do as a family to make our home or lifestyle greener or more eco-friendly To me, it is usually worth paying more for ecofriendly products I am not willing to make compromises on performance for eco-friendly products Next, the survey asked whether or not people thought that their personal actions would have an impact on the environment. Does recycling matter and if so, is it a near- or longterm effort? Results showed that while a minority felt that their actions would not have an immediate effect during their lifetime, overwhelming numbers of respondents felt that it would. The Southwest and Northeast regions reflected the most positive outlook, while the Mid-Atlantic was somewhat less likely to embrace this notion. Table 5: Impact of Recycling Efforts by Region Area of Concern MidWest Southeast West Northeast Southwest Mid-Atlantic Most of the efforts I take to be green or eco-friendly probably won t have an effect in my lifetime Little changes I make to my lifestyle can add up to big improvements for the environment Being eco-friendly is a way to improve my quality of life

10 Not only was there a high level of optimism that small eco-friendly changes on a personal level could have a large cumulative effect on the environment, but ultimately, it was a way to improve a personal quality of life... This sentiment appeared to be shared across the states with a fair amount of uniformity. Respondents in Michigan showed the most positive response, with 89.7 percent of respondents stating that the little things done individually can make a difference. The lowest sentiment in this regard was in Ohio with 73.5 percent. Table 6: Impact of Recycling Efforts by State Area of Concern IL MI FL GA NC CA NJ NY TX PA OH VA Most of the efforts I take to be green or eco-friendly probably won t have an effect in my lifetime Little changes I make to my lifestyle can add up to big improvements for the environment Being eco-friendly is a way to improve my quality of life

11 Part 2: Recycling With a better understanding of consumer attitudes regarding the environment in general, we next sought to gain insight into patterns related directly to recycling, including the importance of recycling and any barriers that consumers perceived to improving their recycling practices. To start, we first sought to gain insight into survey respondents dedication to recycling by asking them if they always or usually recycled. What we found was a wide disparity by region. The Northeast and Western regions both had over 80 percent of respondents stating that they always or usually recycled, while the Southeast and Southwestern regions both registered in the low 60 percentile, a significant difference. In fact, outside of the Northeast and Western regions, no other area registered above 68 percent. It is particularly noteworthy that the Southeast, which had expressed the highest concern about natural resources (Table 1), scored here with the lowest percentage of people who were participating in recycling. The gap between concern and action merits further examination as to the cause. Table 7: Recycling Frequency I always/ usually Recycle MidWest Southeast West Northeast Southwest Mid-Atlantic Strongly Agree/ Agree We also asked whether or not consumers considered recycling to be a bother, but still found it worth the effort. Across the board, a majority of consumers felt that recycling, while a bother, is worth the effort. There was far less disparity among the regions than seen with most other questions. In fact, five of the six regions were relatively the same with respect to recycling frequency, and all the regions registered a majority of respondents who thought that despite the fact that it was a chore, recycling had value. 11

12 Table 8: Recycling Worth Recycling is a bother, but worth it MidWest Southeast West Northeast Southwest Mid-Atlantic Strongly Agree/ Agree The lowest ranking region, the Mid-Atlantic, was also the region that ranked concern about the environment the lowest (Table 1), as well as the region least concerned about the growth of landfills and dumps. The highest areas of recycling frequency (Table 7) was topped by the West and Northeast Regions, and perhaps not surprisingly, the West and Northeast regions ranked first and third, respectively, for the percent of consumers who said recycling was worth the effort (Table 8). With insights into what motivates consumers toward recycling, we also wanted to gather information on what attitudes or beliefs stood in the way of greater recycling participation. We asked about the confidence levels people had in recycling. We asked them for their level of agreement regarding whether or not they had confidence that their efforts in recycling actually resulted in lessening the burden on landfills, and knowing whether their recycled material was, in fact, recycled would motivate them to recycle to a greater extent. Skepticism about whether recycled goods end up in landfills or gets recycled is not always a predictor when it comes to recycling participation of consumers Table 9: Barriers and Motivators for Recycling by Region Area of Concern MidWest Southeast West Northeast Southwest Mid-Atlantic I always/usually Recycle Strongly Agree/ Agree Many recyclables people put into bins still go into a landfill I would recycle more if I knew it were reliably recycled

13 Despite the fact that the West had the highest level of skepticism about whether recycled materials ended up in landfills (49 percent), it was also the region to have the highest rate of recycling participation (Table 7). Conversely, the second highest level of skepticism about recycling was seen in the Southeastern Region, which had the lowest level of participation in recycling ( Table 7). We also saw that in four of the six regions a majority of respondents said that they would be more motivated to recycle if they knew that the material were going to be reliably recycled. It is noteworthy that the mid-atlantic region had the lowest level of skepticism (39.3 percent) about whether items are actually recycled. The region also had, as well the lowest level of motivation to increase recycling (44.1 percent) if it were known that the materials were reliably recycled. This suggests that the various regions may have different circumstances that affect their recycling outlooks and habits and that regional, targeted approaches to communications and policy development will be more effective than broad based, national efforts. It also indicates that the skepticism about recycling is not necessarily a predictor of recycling practices. Finally, looking to the differences among geographic regions, the highest level of skepticism around recycling was in the West. It is also the region where people would be willing to recycle more if they knew that the material was going to be reliably recycled. Any effort that tied education about recycling reliability would likely have the greatest impact in this region, but would not necessarily be as great a motivator in the Mid-Atlantic states. If not skepticism, what then are some of the other factors that affect recycling? We wanted to see how access to recycling programs affected participation in recycling by region. While intuitive, it becomes clear that the greater access people have to convenient means for recycling, there is a higher level of participation among consumers Table 10: Predictors of Recycling Participation I always/ usually Recycle MidWest Southeast West Northeast Southwest Mid-Atlantic I always/usually Recycle Strongly Agree/ Agree Percent of Respondents with access to a curbside program Percent of Respondents who had access to dropoff facilities only

14 What seems logical respecting recycling participation and access in fact bears out in reality access to convenient recycling programs is a predictor of participation. Regions which had access to curbside programs for recycling the West and Northeast also had the highest rates of participation. These were the regions with the highest participation level in recycling and the highest rate of access to curbside collection. Conversely, they were the two regions with the lowest percentages of people who had to rely on drop-off facilities for recycling. The regions with the lowest level of recycling participation also had the lowest percentage of consumers having access to curbside programs. The Southeast and Southwest with the lowest rates of recycling participation also had the lowest access to curbside programs and the highest percentages of people having to go to drop-off facilities to recycle. This is a pattern that generally holds up when looking at respondent answers on a stateby-state level. The states that had the highest response to the question about frequency of recycling were California, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, ranging from a high of 88.2 percent (California and New Jersey) to a low of 82.9 percent (Pennsylvania). Three of these states--california, New Jersey and New York--also had the highest percentage of respondents with access to curbside programs and two of them, California and New York, are also states with bottle deposit laws. Table 11: Predictors of Recycling Participation By State Area of Concern IL MI FL GA NC CA NJ NY TX PA OH VA I always/usually Recycle Percent of Respondents with access to a curbside program Percent of Respondents who had access to dropoff facilities only In addition, of the three states with the lowest recycling rates--texas (61.5 percent), Georgia (63 percent) and Ohio (63.6 percent)--two states (Georgia and Ohio) also indicated that they had among the lowest access to curbside programs. Ohio was among the top three states with the highest percentage of respondentssaying they only had access to drop-off facilities for recycling. Clearly, programs that support recycling have adirect impact on the willingness and ability of consumers to recycle. 14

15 Conclusion An estimated 80% of recovered glass containers are made into new glass bottles. In 2012, 41% of glass beer and soft drink bottles were recycled, over 34% of wine and liquor bottles, and over 34% of all glass containers. In some states, like California, glass bottle recycling reaches over 80%. Recycling benefits the environment and the glass packaging industry at the same time. Effective recycling programs save raw materials. Over a ton of natural resources are conserved for every ton of glass recycled, including 1,300 pounds of sand, 410 pounds of soda ash, 380 pounds of limestone, and 160 pounds of feldspar. And recycling puts a lesser demand for energy into play with energy costs dropping about 2-3% for every 10% cullet used in the manufacturing process. Finally, recycling cuts CO2 emissions For every six tons of recycled container glass used, a ton of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is reduced. A relative 10% increase in cullet reduces particulates by 8%, nitrogen oxide by 4%, and sulfur oxides by 10%. For these reasons and many more, recycling needs to be encouraged in every way possible, particularly for glass, which can be endlessly recycled without affecting purity or container quality with public policies and programs that enhance recycling. 15

16 1220 N. Fillmore Street, Suite 400, Arlington, VA p: e: 16