The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Public Attitudes to the Environment in Scotland

4.2 CURRENT RECYCLING BEHAVIOURS

Respondents were asked how much glass, paper, cans and plastic their household recycled (Table 4.4). Glass and paper were most commonly recycled with two in ten people saying they recycled all their glass and paper and a further one in ten saying they recycled most of their glass and paper. One in ten people recycled all their cans but just one in twenty recycled all their plastic. Over eight in ten recycled no plastic, over seven in ten recycled no cans, six in ten recycled no paper and half recycled no glass.

Urban or rural location

Those living in large urban areas and other urban areas were least likely to recycle their glass while those in accessible rural areas and remote small towns were particularly likely to recycle glass. Six in ten of those in the large urban areas (59%) recycled no glass, compared with a third of those in accessible rural areas (34%) and remote small towns (35%). The proportion of people recycling paper did not vary as much by area, although those in remote small towns were particularly likely to recycle paper (30% recycled all their paper). These findings may reflect the availability of door-step collection services, with urban dwellers recycling paper because it is easy to do so and not recycling glass which is not so easy for them. Those in rural areas were perhaps more likely to be driving to places where they might be able to recycle materials (Table 4.5). The availability of space to store materials awaiting recycling might also be a factor in explaining these urban - rural differences in recycling (Section 4.4 provides more details on barriers to recycling).

Age

Those aged 45 and over were more likely to recycle all their glass and paper than their younger counterparts, however there remained large proportions of those in these age groups who did not recycle any glass (Table 4.5). For paper, the youngest group aged 16-24 were least likely to recycle at all (69% recycled no paper compared with 53% of those aged 45-64). There were not large differences by age in recycling of cans and plastic where overall levels of recycling were low.

Sex

Small differences in levels of recycling were identified by sex for paper and plastic, with women more likely to report that they recycled these materials (Table not shown).

Highest educational qualification

Levels of recycling of glass, paper and cans increased with highest educational qualification. For example, 38% of those with degrees or professional qualifications recycled all their glass compared with 15% of those with no qualifications (Table 4.6).

Tenure type

Owner occupiers and private renters were more likely to recycle each type of material than social renters. While a quarter of those who owned their home or rented it privately recycled all their glass, only one in ten social renters did the same - and two thirds of social renters did not recycle any of their glass. For paper there was also variation between owner occupiers and private renters, with a higher proportion of the former group recycling paper (Table 4.6).

Availability of a car

Access to a car was strongly related to recycling behaviour, for example, while 42% of those with a car in their household did not recycle any glass, this proportion rose to 72% for those in households without a car (Table 4.6).

The relationship between recycling behaviour and access to recycling facilities is very interesting (Figure 4.5 and Table 4.7). While almost half of those with home collection of paper said they recycled all their paper (45%) and just 22% of those with home collection recycled no paper only a quarter of those with home collection of glass recycled all their glass, and half recycled no glass. A higher proportion of people with a recycling bank within 5 minutes walk recycled all their glass (36%) than among those with home collection of glass ⁵⁰. Only just over a quarter of those with a recycling bank within 5 minutes walk recycled no glass. Section 4.4 considers potential barriers to using a door-step recycling service, which may help to explain why some people do not recycle even when it is made easy for them.

While it might be expected that rates of recycling would tail off substantially with distance to a recycling bank, in fact the rates of recycling of paper, glass and cans were very similar for those with a recycling bank between 5 and 10 minutes walk from their home, 10 and 20 minutes, and those with a bank over 20 minutes away. This may be explained by a predominance of people driving to a recycling bank rather than taking materials on foot thus making distance less important. Some of those who did not know how to recycle in their area reported that their household recycled some materials; presumably this is because other household members undertook recycling.

Logistic regression analysis was undertaken to identify which of the variables related to recycling behaviour remained significant once the inter-relationships between the variables were controlled for ⁵¹. As can be seen in Figure 4.6, for each material (glass, paper, cans and plastic) the two most significant factors in predicting people who recycled and those who did not, were access to facilities for recycling and access to a car ⁵². Age and highest educational qualification were also significant for each material except plastic. The relationship between tenure and recycling behaviour did not remain once other effects had been controlled for. The relationship between recycling of glass and sex identified in Figure 4.6 is interesting since earlier in this section it was reported that there was no difference between women and men in the proportions who recycled glass. The proportions of women in the oldest age group and in the group with no qualifications are greater than for men (see section 1.4). This may have obscured a difference between the sexes in recycling behaviour which the regression analysis has now identified. Thus women appear more likely to recycle glass than men, once other factors are taken into account.

The overwhelming importance of access to facilities for recycling is not surprising given the fact that people with no access to facilities are simply not able to recycle. A second series of analyses were run taking this factor out of the regression model (see Figure 4.7). For glass all the other factors identified in Figure 4.6 remained significant, and for paper housing tenure became relevant. For paper and plastic, urban or rural location was no longer significant.

« Previous | Contents | Next »