IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i15p11600-d1203976.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Demographic Considerations in Incenting Reuse of Corrugated Cardboard Boxes

Author

Listed:
  • Harshwardhan Ketkale

    (Systems Engineering Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA)

  • Steven Simske

    (Systems Engineering Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA)

Abstract

Climate change is heavily impacted by greenhouse gases. Many sustainability efforts directly or indirectly affect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the environment. In order to address climate change, sustainability efforts are promoted all around the world. The need to motivate the general population was identified by authors in their previous research. This paper proposes to use a positive reinforcement ethos as a psychological incentive to motivate the general population. This paper further examines the findings of the previous paper to better construct the structure of motivating the general population with the use of this positive reinforcement ethos. This paper attempts to segment the general population based on demographic information including age, gender, awareness of climate change, and current recycling efforts to examine its relevance with persuasion and operant conditions. Further, this paper also tests the hypothesis of using entropy as a tool to identify confusing/leading questions on the survey. Two different sustainability effort options are explored: returning and reusing Corrugated Cardboard Boxes (CCBs). An online survey is conducted, and its data are analyzed to test these hypotheses. The results indicate that reusing CCBs is statistically significantly preferred over returning them. Also, ethos and aesthetics are statistically significantly preferred over logos and pathos. Segmenting the general population based on demographic does not yield any significant effect on motivating the general population. The results of this study can be applied to motivate the general population for different sustainability efforts such as promoting green energy, waste management, and other initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Harshwardhan Ketkale & Steven Simske, 2023. "Demographic Considerations in Incenting Reuse of Corrugated Cardboard Boxes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-23, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11600-:d:1203976
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11600/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11600/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Turner, David A. & Williams, Ian D. & Kemp, Simon, 2015. "Greenhouse gas emission factors for recycling of source-segregated waste materials," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PA), pages 186-197.
    2. Seonghoon Hong & Richard M. Adams, 1999. "Household Responses to Price Incentives for Recycling: Some Further Evidence," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(4), pages 505-514.
    3. Harshwardhan Ketkale & Steven Simske, 2022. "Encouraging Reuse in the Corrugated Packaging Industry Using Persuasion and Operant Conditioning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-28, May.
    4. Gilli, Marianna & Nicolli, Francesco & Farinelli, Paola, 2018. "Behavioural attitudes towards waste prevention and recycling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 294-305.
    5. Harshwardhan Ketkale & Steven Simske, 2023. "A LifeCycle Analysis and Economic Cost Analysis of Corrugated Cardboard Box Reuse and Recycling in the United States," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Viscusi, W. Kip & Huber, Joel & Bell, Jason, 2023. "Changes in household recycling behavior: Evidence from panel data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    2. Valente, Marica, 2023. "Policy evaluation of waste pricing programs using heterogeneous causal effect estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    3. Harshwardhan Ketkale & Steven Simske, 2022. "Encouraging Reuse in the Corrugated Packaging Industry Using Persuasion and Operant Conditioning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-28, May.
    4. Bashir Bashiri & Janna Cropotova & Kristine Kvangarsnes & Olga Gavrilova & Raivo Vilu, 2024. "Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Assessment of Enzymatic Hydrolysis-Based Fish Protein and Oil Extraction," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, April.
    5. Maarten A. Allers & Corine Hoeben, 2010. "Effects of Unit-Based Garbage Pricing: A Differences-in-Differences Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 405-428, March.
    6. Jenkins, Robin R. & Martinez, Salvador A. & Palmer, Karen & Podolsky, Michael J., 2003. "The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 294-318, March.
    7. Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Vittucci Marzetti, Giuseppe, 2019. "Recycling and Waste Generation: An Estimate of the Source Reduction Effect of Recycling Programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 321-329.
    8. Phu Nguyen-Van & Anne Stenger & Tuyen Tiet, 2021. "Social incentive factors in interventions promoting sustainable behaviors: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-27, December.
    9. Starr, Jared & Nicolson, Craig, 2015. "Patterns in trash: Factors driving municipal recycling in Massachusetts," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 7-18.
    10. Harshwardhan Ketkale & Steven Simske, 2023. "A LifeCycle Analysis and Economic Cost Analysis of Corrugated Cardboard Box Reuse and Recycling in the United States," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
    11. Silvia Vela & Chiara Calderini & Paolo Rosasco & Carlo Strazza, 2022. "Economic and Environmental Evaluation of a Single-Story Steel Building in Its Life Cycle: A Comprehensive Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-22, November.
    12. Usui, Takehiro, 2008. "Estimating the effect of unit-based pricing in the presence of sample selection bias under Japanese Recycling Law," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 282-288, June.
    13. Leonzio Rizzo & Riccardo Secomandi, 2020. "Pay as you throw: evidence on the incentive to recycle," Working papers 88, Società Italiana di Economia Pubblica.
    14. Aidong Zhao & Limin Zhang & Xianlei Ma & Fugang Gao & Honggen Zhu, 2022. "Effectiveness of Extrinsic Incentives for Promoting Rural Waste Sorting in Developing Countries: Evidence from China," The Developing Economies, Institute of Developing Economies, vol. 60(3), pages 123-154, September.
    15. Chiara Franco & Claudia Ghisetti, 2022. "What shapes the “value-action” gap? The role of time perception reconsidered," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(3), pages 1023-1053, October.
    16. Jaehong Lee & Hans Han & Jong-Yoon Park & David Lee, 2021. "Urban Informatics in Sustainable Waste Management: A Spatial Analysis of Korea’s Informal Recycling Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, March.
    17. Nick Johnstone & Julien Labonne, 2004. "Generation of Household Solid Waste in OECD Countries: An Empirical Analysis Using Macroeconomic Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(4).
    18. Brandon C. Koford & Glenn C. Blomquist & David M. Hardesty & Kenneth R. Troske & Margaret Hughes & Fred Morgan, 2012. "Estimating Consumer Willingness to Supply and Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 745-763.
    19. Heller, Marit H. & Vatn, Arild, 2017. "The divisive and disruptive effect of a weight-based waste fee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 275-285.
    20. Jereme, Innocent A. & Siwar, Chamhuri & Alam, Md. Mahmudul, 2019. "Waste Recycling In Malaysia: Transition From Developing To Developed Country," SocArXiv xgf8k, Center for Open Science.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11600-:d:1203976. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.