| Literature DB >> 22493693 |
Heidi C Pearson1, Lauren N Dawson, Carmen Radecki Breitkopf.
Abstract
We examined attitudes and behavior surrounding voluntary recycling in a population of low-income Hispanic women. Participants (N = 1,512) 18-55 years of age completed a self-report survey and responded to questions regarding household recycling behavior, recycling knowledge, recycling beliefs, potential barriers to recycling (transportation mode, time), acculturation, demographic characteristics (age, income, employment, marital status, education, number of children, birth country), and social desirability. Forty-six percent of participants (n = 810) indicated that they or someone else in their household recycled. In a logistic regression model controlling for social desirability, recycling behavior was related to increased age (P<0.05), lower acculturation (P<0.01), knowing what to recycle (P<0.01), knowing that recycling saves landfill space (P<0.05), and disagreeing that recycling takes too much time (P<0.001). A Sobel test revealed that acculturation mediated the relationship between recycling knowledge and recycling behavior (P<0.05). We offer new information on recycling behavior among Hispanic women and highlight the need for educational outreach and intervention strategies to increase recycling behavior within this understudied population.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22493693 PMCID: PMC3321016 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034469
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Sampling characteristics by recycling behavior (Yes/No) (N = 1,512).
| Characteristic | Subcharacteristic | Recycle | Pearson | df |
| |
| Yes ( | No ( | |||||
| Marital status | Unmarried | 300 | 444 | 20.417 | 1 | <0.001 |
| Married | 381 | 351 | ||||
| Income | <$15,000/year | 334 | 420 | 4.173 | 1 | 0.041 |
| ≥$15,000/year | 277 | 277 | ||||
| Education | <High school | 340 | 390 | 0.035 | 1 | 0.852 |
| ≥High school | 354 | 414 | ||||
| Employment | Unemployed | 401 | 415 | 4.893 | 1 | 0.027 |
| Employed | 257 | 338 | ||||
| Birth country | U.S. | 209 | 348 | 27.913 | 1 | <0.001 |
| Outside U.S. | 492 | 462 | ||||
| Typical transportation | Drives own car | 475 | 555 | 0.573 | 1 | 0.449 |
| Other | 210 | 225 | ||||
| Recycling service | None | 39 | 47 | 15.181 | 3 | 0.002 |
| Curbside | 106 | 105 | ||||
| Drop-off | 154 | 255 | ||||
| Both curbside and drop-off | 355 | 373 | ||||
| “I don't know | Disagree | 534 | 542 | 15.359 | 1 | <0.001 |
| what to recycle” | Agree | 168 | 268 | |||
| “Recycling takes | Disagree | 599 | 549 | 63.369 | 1 | <0.001 |
| too much time” | Agree | 103 | 261 | |||
| “Recycling helps save | Disagree | 67 | 113 | 6.963 | 1 | 0.008 |
| landfill space” | Agree | 635 | 697 | |||
Results of logistic regression model for predictors of recycling behavior (N = 1,512).
| Predictor | B | SE β |
| Odds ratio (95% CI) |
| Constant | −0.576 | 0.405 | 0.155 | — |
| Marital status (married) | 0.273 | 0.169 | 0.106 | 1.314 (0.943, 1.831) |
| Income (≥$15,000/year) | 0.106 | 0.146 | 0.465 | 1.112 (0.836, 1.479) |
| Employed | 0.098 | 0.157 | 0.533 | 1.103 (0.810, 1.502) |
| Birth country (U.S.) | 0.200 | 0.248 | 0.422 | 1.221 (0.750, 1.986) |
| Recycling service: None | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Recycling service: Curbside | 0.010 | 0.324 | 0.976 | 1.010 (0.535, 1.905) |
| Recycling service: Drop-off | −0.396 | 0.300 | 0.187 | 0.673 (0.373, 1.212) |
| Recycling service: Both curbside and drop-off | −0.122 | 0.293 | 0.677 | 0.885 (0.499, 1.571) |
| “I don't know what to recycle” (Agree) | −0.414 | 0.159 | 0.009 | 0.661 (0.484, 0.902) |
| “Recycling takes too much time” (Agree) | −1.197 | 0.175 | <0.001 | 0.302 (0.215, 0.426) |
| “Recycling helps save landfill space” (Agree) | 0.540 | 0.223 | 0.016 | 1.716 (1.107, 2.659) |
| Age | 0.022 | 0.009 | 0.019 | — |
| Number of children | 0.050 | 0.059 | 0.395 | — |
| Acculturation | −0.260 | 0.089 | 0.003 | — |
| Social desirability | −0.108 | 0.043 | 0.011 | — |
Ref = reference group in the analysis.