Trash Behavior Nudge
This project was part of “Design Research” class at Cornell Tech. The aim of this project was to more specifically guide research embedded within the design process while understanding and deciding various interventions to help people improve their trash throwing habits.
Being a research project, this report, therefore, has multiple iterations guiding us towards our final design based intervention.
PROJECT DETAILS
Project Type: Design Research
Platform: Kiosk, IoT
Tools: Raspberry Pi, Arduino, SPSS, Pen & Paper Prototyping, Photoshop
Timeline: 3 Months
Team Size: 2 People
Overview — 1st Iteration
The high-level objective of our project was to make recycling more engaging and informative. Currently, the recycling process does not provide a sense of — being part of the greater good initiative. Our hope is that by converting such a process into a community-based design solution, which brings their efforts into the foreground, we can improve the recycling efficiency for cities. By means of this project, we want to encourage community recycling efforts in both urban & residential settings through design.
Throughout this assignment, we used Double-Diamond design process.
DISCOVER PHASE
Some of the questions which we wanted to explore at the very beginning of the research process were:
- Who are the various stakeholders involved in the recycling process?
- What is the process of recycling for various trash items? What are the challenges in the process?
- What kind of information is available to the public for recycling activities?
- What are the major challenges for the public in recycling?
- What level of recycling awareness do people currently possess? How can we increase awareness about recycling best practices?
- What are the most fun and rewarding ways to achieve this objective?
- What kind of feedback users receive about their recycling impact, if any?
To have a flare of the space, we decided to immerse ourselves into the following activities with the corresponding objectives mentioned in Table 1.
Our observations from the activity-1 above revealed four broad categories of recycling initiatives (shown in the figure below) namely: community, retail, government, and household. We observed that retail and community-based recycling initiatives have explicit initiatives for community involvement in comparison to government ones. However, government initiatives were less primitive and involved in smart technology.
For activity-2, we conducted online research to understand the recycling ecosystem in NYC which suggested that anyone looking to enhance their knowledge about recycling in and around the city should visit “Garbage & Recycling” section on “NYC311” web portal.
More specifically, if one has the following 4 items (a cell phone, a battery, a credit card with EMV chip and an acrylic sheet) and is looking to recycle them in NYC, they should follow specific instructions (mentioned in the picture below). Our main takeaway from this activity was that even though there is extensive information available around recycling complex products, such as credit cards, people are mostly unaware of it.
- There are some interesting initiatives happening in NYC to increase awareness around waste disposal and recycling:
- #TalkTrashNewYork — https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/talktrashny/index.html#
- Adopt-a-Basket Program — https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/site/contact/get-involved/adopt-a-basket-program
- Clean Community Campaign — https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/site/contact/get-involved
- NYC311 — https://www1.nyc.gov/311/
- GrowNYC — https://www.grownyc.org/ - New York City residents currently recycle only about 17% of their total waste (Source: GrowNYC)
- New York City has no landfills or incinerators, yet residents produce 12,000 tons of waste every day. (Source: GrowNYC)
- NYC is the most wasteful city in the world. (Source: Business Insider)
To better understand the interactions, we looked at various Public Service Announcements (Activity-3) and how they try to engage daily users. We divided our findings into 4 verticals (Text, Digital, Icon, Audio) and 2 horizontals (Info-based announcements and Rule-based announcements). Doing so, gave us an opportunity to understand the limitations in the modalities of such announcements and a clear gap in improving such interactions.
Finally, simply observing people and their interactions with the trash bins yielded some interesting questions in our mind:
- How “soiled” is soiled enough for containers such as pizza boxes to be considered for recycling?
- How do you recycle mixed material such as a paper package with bubble wrap around it?
- What are some best practices in preparing food waste for composting?
- How do you encourage blind/low vision people to recycle in a city where 99% of recycling announcements are done visually?
DEFINE PHASE
Taking forward the broad idea to encourage community recycling efforts in both urban & residential settings through design, we tried to explore the various nitty-gritty of the space in an effort to map the territory in which we will be working. For this, we primarily conducted an extensive literature review and ideation sessions in the space.
Who else is in the space?
As part of our literature review, we have identified a curated list of Institutions who have deployed similar efforts, Startups working across stages of Solid Waste Management, Case Studies indicating how governments/municipalities around the world have been tackling the issue and finally, Peer Reviewed Articles both within and neighboring our domain of study. (See Bibliography)
The field of solid waste management is spread across 6 stages.
It is an intertwined process in which the following stages heavily depend on stages in the beginning. Given that Separation at Source (Waste Generation) drives the stages forward, it is imperative to involve Waste Generators and Primary Collectors in the process.
To quickly validate our findings and direction, we interviewed some Waste Generators and Primary Collectors.
“I sometimes separate recyclables by hand if the effort of doing so is not too much. Otherwise, I just let go of the mixed stream of trash/recyclables. It is not really my duty if residents are not doing their part.” — Primary Collector (at the source level) at The House At Cornell Tech, Male, 26 Years old.
Are there conferences, organizations, or secret underground societies devoted to your topic? Are there magazines or journals to keep you current?
Most of the peer-reviewed work within and neighboring our domain lies at the intersection of HCI/IxD, Environmental Science & Data Science. (paper analysis here)
Based on our readings of peer-reviewed articles, we highlight the following themes:
- Interaction time with the trash should be kept to a minimum.
- People do not like spending more than a few seconds with the trash bin. - Reflection-in-action > reflection post-action
- Real-Time feedback given at the moment trash is being dumped tends to have a better impact on the end-user compared to providing feedback after the action of throwing has been completed (delayed). - Peer-based/group-based reflections (eg: gamification) do not keep motivation levels up in the long run
- Users are motivated if they are shown monetary wastage associated with food trash
- Interventions involving trash bins and/or related activities coming into users’ personal space were not welcomed.
- We should let people go into bins’ space instead of vice-versa - Given the diversity of NYC, there are cultural constraints associated with recycling since people from many countries do not understand/have not heard about the concept of recycling.
What fields neighbor your domain?
The phrase “Separation at Source” although narrowed down from the 6 Solid Waste Management stages, yet is very broad. To further drill down in order to understand activities better, we have categorized the neighboring fields into three groupings:
Impacts and Regulations to Incentivize development and establishment of
- Civic Participation
- Reward Based Incentives
- Building Certification Incentives
- Renewable Energy Credits based Incentives
Awareness Options: methods or techniques to raise awareness or inform the public about a specific initiative or service-offering
- Social Media
- Direct Outreach (SMS, Stakeholder-specific)
- TV/Radio
- Mobile Application Ads
- Door to Door
- PSAs (Billboards, Banners, Digital Kiosks)
- Peer-Based Actions
Engagement Options:
- Social Media Forums
- Neighborhood Forums
- Direct Messaging (WhatsApp, Slack, etc.)
- Public Polling (SMS, Mobile App, Door to Door)
- Education
How can you visualize the territory in a way that is succinct and communicates the opportunities or obstacles your project will face?
For the final part, we began our ideation by keeping bin as an actor in focus and tried to understand the interaction space that builds around the bin. We aimed at exploring the space through various types of information we had collected while doing the review of recycling space. For instance, we looked at a list of 25 startups that are working in the space of recycling to and categorized them based on the type of waste they target (plastic, e-waste), the medium of their intervention (non-tech vs. tech), the type of actions that constitute their effort (awareness, recycling or interaction). A similar analysis was also done for 5 case studies as well as 16 peer-reviewed papers.
Based on our analysis, we shaped our here and there space. We came up with 3 major principles to define our here space:
- One of the major challenges of recycling occurs at the source when users discard the garbage in the wrong bins. This problem further exacerbates as the recycling waste mixes with the general trash down the line. This also increases the overall cost of waste segregation at primary and secondary collection points. Therefore, our focus evolved from bin to the interaction between the bin and the user, focussing on the behavior change of the user.
- Additionally, we want to design interventions that place the users in the context of bins in its natural environment. Doing that allows us to increase our chances of creating scenarios for the behavior change.
- Lastly, we wanted our interventions to be based on reflection-in-action the can have better chances of behavioral change.
Based on these three principles, we defined our intervention to comprise between the user and the bin (actors) that involved interaction and awareness (action) around plastic waste (entity) using technology interventions (Medium) in a public space (environment).
DEVELOP PHASE
Once our “Here and There” space was defined, we brainstormed design ideas. We originally started with doing a crazy 8’s idea generation sprint. Following that, we scored our original ideas collectively (Figure below) and eventually went on and brainstormed 5 preliminary design ideas to address the problem of separation at source.
Idea #1: Digital Story Telling
The idea here is that whenever someone comes near the bin to trash their waste, they scan the barcode of the recyclable they are about to trash. That translates into a story (such as the impact the person is creating on the environment by doing the deed of recycling. Eg: You helped save 5 fishes by dumping your plastic bottles). The story serves both to create awareness and knowledge. Alongside the impact on the environment, it also shows how incorrect/correct separation at the source can help ease the process/steps/money when dealing with the trash during following stages of the Solid Waste Management process.
Idea #2: Bin as a changemaker
It’s an effort to show what community has been collectively dumping inside the bin and how that affects the bin health. Last 10 dumpings are shown in an anthropomorphized manner (To help inform the type of recyclable that is being dumped, the user is quickly asked to select a category from a list displayed on the screen above). A green bar indicates positive bin health (i.e. everyone is correctly dumping recyclables only in the recyclable bin). Whenever someone starts dumping other stuff, bin starts raising the red bar indicating negative overall health. The facial expressions of the bin change from happy to sad as the dumping style changes.
Idea #3: Recycling through empathy
The idea here is to involve Primary Collector (At source level) to motivate recycling through empathy. Every night during collection time, the primary waste collector’s task is to segregate the recyclables and trash to the extent they can. They can take this moment to report how much incorrect dumping happened that day.
Next morning, the community can be shown the extra effort the primary collector had to spend as well as the negative impact such incorrect dumpings have on the environment to try and motivate them to separate their trash correctly next time onwards.
Idea #4: Bin Motivated Action
Bin Bots (Trash and Recycle based) go to the users and urge them to dump specific items inside them. Based upon whatever the user trashes, a piece of alternate lifestyle advice is provided to the user. For eg: If someone dumps food waste, they can be provided with the advice of proper way to dispose of their food waste next time (by freezing and storing for composting purposes), etc.
Idea #5: User Motivated Action
For those confused users who do not know what trash goes where whenever they see 10s of different styles of bins in front of them, they can always ask their personal chatbot assistant for recommendations!
DELIVER PHASE
FINAL IDEA
In the last couple of years, the absence of waste segregation by users at various public locations has caused significant problems in the recycling efforts. The cost of separation increases as the waste moves further down the line. Therefore, it is important to understand and create interventions that can promote the user’s behavior to separate waste at source in public spaces. Research literature has shown that reflection in action is one of the important ways of cultivating such behavior.
Therefore, our final idea is “a study to understand the type of reflection-in-action intervention that can promote users to separate their waste products during the disposal process.”
Our three interventions capture the behavior and attitude of users (a) just before they throw their trash in the bins, (b) while they throw trash in the bins, © and immediately after they throw the trash in the bins. We conducted a between-group study with 40 participants (10 participants in each condition). The setup was assembled at Cornell Tech Cafe and the subjects were exposed to a mixed methods evaluation (Survey, Observations, Interviews). The questions were an adaptation of the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale. Our results indicate that (a) and (b) are statistically better at modifying the behavior of the subjects. We, therefore, urge HCI designers and environment protagonists to focus on these two conditions to impact environmental action of dumping trash/recyclables.
METHODOLOGY
Research Question
“To understand what kind of behavior nudge interventions impact environmental behavior action”.
This question is framed based upon Dunlap and Van Liere’s New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale from Behavioral Research and captures the nuances associated with behavior change. Our independent variable here is “behavior nudge interventions”, i.e., our three treatment conditions and one control condition. Our dependent variable for the study is “environmental behavior action”, i.e., if the user corrected their action after receiving feedback.
Participant Recruitment
The setup was assembled at Cornell Tech Cafe. The study was conducted during non-rush hours over the weekends. Anyone who dumped a recyclable in our trash labeled bin was pursued with a survey a few minutes later.
Experiment Design
We tested out three treatment scenarios — a) before user disposes of plastic in the trash bin; b) while the user is disposing of plastic in the trash bin; c) After the user has disposed of plastic in the trash bin against a control scenario — Where we allow users to trash whatever way they want to without providing any intervention. For each scenario, we showed the user a specifically designed message for corrective action along with signifier (LED Display and Audio) indicating non-corrective actions.
The setup comprises of two bins (TRASH and PLASTIC recycle) placed a meter apart. The trash bin with all the hardware installed looked like the video on the left side. The metric that we measured as part of this experiment is If the user performs a corrective action after performing a non-corrective action.
The study was conducted as a between-group study with three conditions:
Before Dumping Trash
- The user enters the trash proximity space (~2 meters radius from the TRASH bin)
- If the user enters the TRASH bin proximity with Plastic, they are shown a message (with an arrow) asking them to go and dump the plastic in the PLASTIC bin
- The user either continues his action and dumps plastic in TRASH bin (non-corrective) OR the user changes direction and goes to the PLASTIC bin placed ~1-meter apart and dumps plastic in it (corrective)
- If the user takes corrective action, they are shown a message stating how much positive impact their action has had on the environment. Additionally, there will be an audio message conveying the same. There will also be a GREEN LED that starts glowing. - The user goes out of the trash proximity space and while they are walking away, they are presented with a ~2-min survey/interview intervention to understand their Attitude and Behavior.
During Dumping Trash
- If the user is dumping Plastic inside TRASH bin, we will (in a wizard of oz manner) ask them using a screen if they want to change their decision and go and dump the trash in the PLASTIC bin (placed ~1 meter away). There can be two situations at this stage:
- The user still has plastic recyclable in their hands when they retrospect about the message
- (because it is a split second task) The user has performed the dumping action. In that case, a shelf will bring their Plastic trash back up from inside the TRASH bin so that the user is given a second chance to change their action (i.e., pick it up and take it to PLASTIC bin) - If the plastic still goes in the TRASH bin, then a RED LED will glow on the bin and a message will appear on the screen saying that their action is non-corrective. Additionally, there will be an audio message conveying the same.
- If the plastic goes in the PLASTIC bin, then a GREEN LED will glow and a message will appear on the screen saying that their action is corrective. Additionally, there will be an audio message conveying the same.
- The user goes out of the trash proximity space and while they are walking away, they are presented with a ~2-min survey/interview intervention to understand their Attitude and Behavior.
After Dumping Trash
- Once the user has dumped trash and is walking almost out of the proximity space (~2 meters), they are presented with a message on the screen reading that their action is non-corrective and instruction on how to correct it. Additionally, an audio message saying that their action is non-corrective alongside glowing RED LED.
- User’s Reaction
- EITHER the user walks away after seeing/hearing the message
- OR they correct their action by taking out their plastic from TRASH bin and dumping it inside PLASTIC bin. - The user goes out of the trash proximity space and while they are walking away, they are presented with a ~2-min survey/interview intervention to understand their Attitude and Behavior.
Survey and Interview Design
We wanted to understand behavior scales out there in order to gauge things like how perception, attitudes, norms, self-efficacy change in the user’s action specifically in context with the environment and trash/recycling behavior. Therefore, we referred to various scales available in Behavioral Change literature such as Promote Environmental behavior (PEB) Scale, Dunlap, and Van Liere’s New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale, Theory of Planned Behavior, and Behavior Change Theory. We finally used the NEP scale to frame questions for our survey (Appendix A).
Only on occasions where the participants agreed, did we conduct a short 10-minute semi-structured interview with them (Appendix B).
FINDINGS
Qualitative Findings
The chart below shows the number of people who changed their action after performing a non-corrective action, i.e., dumping a recyclable inside a trash bin.
Our qualitative findings suggest that Post Dumping condition was least useful in capturing users’ attention (to our surprise). The beeping timer in the During Dumping condition created a sense of urgency driving the conversion rate up.
Interviews
In Third Condition (during throwing), 3 participants suggested that the beeping timer distinguished itself from other elements (text/images) creating a sense of urgency. We also received the feedback that there was a lot of text on the slide which was difficult to comprehend (in the other conditions). A distinguished (Red color) timer, therefore was something that gained users’ attention.
In Fourth Condition (post throwing), crowd noise effect nullified the sound feedback. All the 6 participants that we interviewed suggested that they did not hear the noise when they had dumped the trash and were leaving the place. This is opposite to what we were thinking since we thought that noise would add a social pressure component to the situation which did not end up happening.
Observations
A handful of people, while they did not interact with the bin, were curious about the design and closely examined the structure of the bin. This validates the fact that the bin was able to capture people’s attention. Although curious, yet most of the people did not try to understand if the bin is trash-only or recycle-only. A person literally trashed all the items from his tray (stuff remaining after lunch for a family of 4) in the same bin without bothering to separate. In this case, he was not in a rush but still did not care.
To better capture where users were coming from, how they were dumping and how they were finally leaving the premises, we created a flow map visualization (shown in Figure below).
The visualization indicates that in Null condition, people were throwing from everywhere (since there was no screen to block the throwing angle). In other conditions, because of the placement of monitor, everyone was made to come in the front and check out the instructions and everything else before throwing. We believe that this is both good and bad. It is good because it prompts the user to read the message that we want to convey but at the same time, the overall structure is not flexible enough because the throwing angle was restrictive.
Quantitative Findings
Our quantitative results indicate positive results, overall. To understand the reliability of the data we collected, we ran preliminary descriptive statistics. We found our data to be normally distributed in all the four conditions, as shown in the figure below.
Overall, our results showed statistically significant differences between the four conditions in one-way ANOVA. The f-value between the four groups was found to be (13.045,3) with p = 0.01. Moreover, to understand whether our results will hold true for subsequent studies, especially with larger sample sizes, we conducted the univariate test and estimated the sample effect size. We got a value of ƞ2 = 0.473. This indicates our study results will hold true only approximately 48% of the cases when a sample is randomly drawn from the population.
To further understand the source of significance, we conducted a post-hoc analysis to understand those conditions that actually lead to behavior change among the participants. For this purpose, we conducted Games-Howell multiple comparison test.
Our results showed that our intervention-2 (Just before throwing trash) and intervention-3 (during throwing trash) were both significant in behavior change of our participants (.847). However, intervention-4 (just after throwing trash) was not successful in changing the behavior of our participants. Please see the following figure for the details.
DISCUSSION
Intervention-3 and 4 were effective because of three reasons. First, users had to position themselves in front of the trash bin while throwing the trash. This allowed the users more time to observe and react to the alerts shown on the monitors. This was also evident in our observations. Second, we felt that the flashing countdown timer made users motivated to reconsider their decisions. Third, it is possible that significant results may be due to the novelty factor. We will need to control for novelty effects as a possible mediating variable.
Sample sizes were too small to consider it to be completely successful. We will need a larger sample size to consider the results. The effect size shows a good chance of replicating significant results with larger sample sizes.
CHALLENGES
The biggest hindrance was the fact that we were not allowed to videotape the interactions (since we did not ask for formal approval to do so). We, however, recorded the flow of interaction in the three conditions (Appendix D).
Bibliography
Peer Reviewed Articles
1. Simbelis, Vygandas’ Vegas, et al. “Repurposing bits and pieces of the digital.” Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2016.
2. Lessel, Pascal, Maximilian Altmeyer, and Antonio Krüger. “Analysis of recycling capabilities of individuals and crowds to encourage and educate people to separate their garbage playfully.” Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2015.
3. Ganglbauer, Eva, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Florian Güldenpfennig. “Why and what did we throw out?: Probing on Reflection through the Food Waste Diary.” Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2015.
4. Bates, Oliver, et al. “Towards a holistic view of the energy and environmental impacts of domestic media and IT.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2014.
5. Thieme, Anja, et al. “We’ve bin watching you: designing for reflection and social persuasion to promote sustainable lifestyles.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2012.
6. Kim, Sunyoung, and Eric Paulos. “Practices in the creative reuse of e-waste.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2011.
7. Law, Edith, et al. “A Wizard-of-Oz study of curiosity in human-robot interaction.” 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 2017.
8. Yang, Stephen, et al. “Experiences developing socially acceptable interactions for a robotic trash barrel.” 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 2015.
9. Mori, T., et al. “Social trash box robot: Behavior parsing and goal inferences in dynamic interactions.” The 1 st International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. 2013.
10. Fischer, Kerstin, et al. “Initiating interactions and negotiating approach: a robotic trash can in the field.” 2015 AAAI Spring Symposium Series. 2015.
11. Timlett, Rose E., and Ian D. Williams. “Public participation and recycling performance in England: A comparison of tools for behavior change.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52.4 (2008): 622–634.
12. Altarriba, Ferran, et al. “The grumpy bin: reducing food waste through playful social interactions.” Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, 2017.
13. Yang, Stephen, et al. “Experiences developing socially acceptable interactions for a robotic trash barrel.” 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 2015.
14. Dai, Y. C., et al. “Information strategy failure: personal interaction success, in urban residential food waste segregation.” Journal of Cleaner Production 134 (2016): 298–309.
15. Guerrero, Lilliana Abarca, Ger Maas, and William Hogland. “Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries.” Waste management 33.1 (2013): 220–232.
Case-Studies
1. MOPA http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002617/261736e.pdf
2. Social Trash Bot, Japan https://www.cnet.com/news/social-garbage-bin-tells-you-to-pick-up-the-trash/
3. Chatbot, Yokohama, Japan http://senseable.mit.edu/trashtrack/how-it-works.php?id=3
Startups
1. Zerocycle-http://www.zerocycle.co/#home
2. Waris-https://waaris.weebly.com/services.html
3. Let’s Do It-https://www.letsdoitworld.org/about/overview/
4. Protoprint-https://www.socialseva.org/protoprint/
5. Kabadiwala Connect — https://www.kabadiwallaconnect.in/
6. Mr. Bin https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id= com.trashpickupreminder.mrbin&hl=en_US
7. Food Shift-http://foodshift.net/
8. Compost Now-https://compostnow.org/
9. Agora Tech-https://www.agoratechlab.com/
10. mSurvey-https://msurvey.co/
11. ZenCity-https://zencity.io/
12. Side Walk Labs-https://www.sidewalklabs.com/
13. Busch Systems- https://www.buschsystems.com/recycling-waste-container-bin-cart-categories/event-recycling-and-waste-bins/
14. Seabin-https://www.seabinproject.com/the-product/
15. Bin-e-http://bine.world/
16. CleanRobotics’ TrashBot- http://www.cleanrobotics.com/#about
APPENDIX A
Participants were asked to rate the following statements on a Likert scale of 0–5 (as part of Survey) -
Attitude, beliefs, and awareness
- I believe that my recent recycling behavior will help reduce wasteful use of landfills
- I believe that my recent recycling behavior will help conserve natural resources
- I felt good after performing the recent recycling action.
- I believe that my recent recycling activities will help improve environmental quality.
- I believe that my recent action has too much hassle to do regularly.
- I thought through clearly about the separation of my waste before dumping
Behavior
- I easily understood the signs on the bin to throw my waste
- I did my best to segregate waste properly
- My action made me introspect more critically about how I will behave in the future
- Digital feedback information was useful to segregate the waste
- Self-efficacy
- I am confident of my actions in my recent interaction with the bin.
- I am satisfied with my actions in my recent interaction with the bin.
- I am confused by my actions in my recent interaction with the bin.
In future:
- I am more confident about disposing of recyclable items properly.
- I am more confused about disposing of recyclable items properly.
- I will think thoroughly before separating my waste into recyclables and trash
- I am likely to change how I segregate my trash based on the information I saw
Subjective norm
- I am familiar with the recycling facilities in my area.
- I am familiar with the materials accepted for recycling in the recycling facilities in my area.
- I believe that my recycling activities will help improve environmental quality.
APPENDIX B
Interview questions -
- What is the biggest challenge that you face while recycling and why?
- On a weekly basis, what percentage of all the trash that you generate is recycled?
- Have you ever provided recycling/disposal related feedback to anyone?
APPENDIX C
Following are the various modalities we used -
Visual — Second Condition
Visual — Third & Fourth Conditions
APPENDIX D
First Condition
Second Condition
Third Condition
Fourth Condition
