Saving Our Resources
Consumer Attitudes and Beliefs on
Recycling and the Enviroment
April 2014
A Report by
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY04
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: RECYCLING11
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
CONCLUSION15
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 18-65 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.
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.
REGIONS
Southeast
MidWest
Southwest
West
Northeast
• 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.
Mid-Atlantic
04
05
Part 1: Outlook on the Environment
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…
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
Table 2: Environmental Concerns by State
MidWest
Southeast
West
Northeast
Southwest
Mid-Atlantic
Landfills
and dumps
38.3
40.7
42.4
38.0
36.2
33.8
Threat of
climate change
43.6
44.8
49.1
50.9
44.9
Loss of natural
resources
53.5
59.1
58.8
55.4
52.8
Area of
Concern
IL
MI
FL
GA
NC
CA
NJ
NY
TX
PA
OH
VA
Landfills
and dumps
47.1
38.5
42.6
40.5
38.1
42.0
42.7
40.6
37.9
36.7
36.4
32.0
47.8
Threat of
climate change
53.7
43.9
51.3
43.5
43.0
50.2
56.0
51.8
47.5
44.4
40.7
51.0
51.8
Loss of natural
resources
54.9
53.3
62.8
58.5
54.9
59.6
63.0
51.4
56.5
54.8
58.0
51.7
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
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).
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
Table 3: Personal Value Proposition by Region
Table 4: Value Proposition by State
Area of
Concern
Area of
Concern
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
MidWest
74.7
50.0
40.3
Southeast
78.1
49.1
32.9
West
74.9
52.4
38.9
Northeast
77.3
53.7
44.0
Southwest
73.5
50.1
44.1
Mid-Atlantic
70.0
46.9
26.4
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 MidAtlantic 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).
IL
MI
FL
GA
NC
CA
NJ
NY
TX
PA
OH
VA
73.4
70.0
77.3
79.2
88.3
77.2
66.8
82.5
76.8
78.1
78.4
71.7
To me, it is usually
worth paying
more for ecofriendly products
58.5
53.6
52.0
47.8
55.9
53.2
51.3
59.1
52.2
50.1
39.7
56.1
I am not willing
to make
compromises
on performance
for eco-friendly
products
39.0
42.6
34.8
39.3
32.9
40.8
57.9
44.0
41.5
45.6
43.8
24.0
I look for changes
that we can do as
a family to make
our home or
lifestyle greener or
more eco-friendly
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
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.
08
MidWest
Southeast
West
Northeast
Southwest
Mid-Atlantic
33.0
33.7
34.0
35.3
30.1
29.0
80.3
79.2
83.1
83.2
83.4
78.4
74.3
75.4
80.8
76.2
77.7
72.4
09
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.
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.
Table 6: Impact of Recycling Efforts by State
Area of
Concern
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.
IL
MI
FL
GA
NC
CA
NJ
NY
TX
PA
OH
VA
36.7
39.6
27.9
35.9
31.0
37.9
45.6
31.4
29.8
34.1
29.8
30.7
82.2
89.7
83.6
74.6
82.9
81.9
86.7
78.3
85.8
79.7
73.5
85.0
73.9
70.6
74.3
71.9
76.1
80.6
82.9
73.9
79.0
75.9
78.4
76.5
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
68.0
61.6
85.3
83.8
63.1
68.0
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.
10
11
Table 8: Recycling Worth
Recycling
is a bother,
but worth it…
MidWest
Southeast
West
Northeast
Southwest
Mid-Atlantic
Strongly Agree/
Agree
55.5
55.6
57.8
56.5
57.1
50.2
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 …
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
Table 9: Barriers and Motivators for Recycling by Region
Area of
Concern
12
I always/
usually Recycle
MidWest
Southeast
West
Northeast
Southwest
Mid-Atlantic
68.0
61.6
85.3
83.8
63.1
68.0
68.0
I always/usually
Recycle
Strongly Agree/
Agree
27.0
22.0
38.0
36.0
23.0
28.0
39.3
Percent of
Respondents
with access to a
curbside program
20.0
23.0
19.0
10.0
21.0
19.0
44.1
Percent of
Respondents who
had access to dropoff facilities only
MidWest
Southeast
West
Northeast
Southwest
Mid-Atlantic
I always/usually
Recycle
Strongly Agree/
Agree
68.0
61.6
85.3
83.8
63.1
Many recyclables
people put into
bins still go into
a landfill
42.7
I would recycle
more if I knew
it were reliably
recycled
53.4
46.3
55.2
49.0
57.7
44.8
49.4
44.7
56.2
13
Conclusion
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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
71.7
66.1
69.9
63.0
72.9
88.2
88.2
85.4
61.5
82.9
63.6
66.4
Percent of
Respondents
with access to a
curbside program
31.2
25.2
34.6
20.6
20.5
39.5
43.6
40.8
25.3
29.7
21.0
28.9
Percent of
Respondents who
had access to dropoff facilities only
11.1
24.2
10.6
22.9
29.0
19.0
1.8
7.7
18.6
12.6
27.7
25.3
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
1001 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 301, Alexandria, VA 22314
p: 703.684.6359 e: [email protected]
www.gpi.org
16