Motivation or Inconvenience—What matters most? Understanding recycling behavior of healthcare waste

IF 3.7 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Cecilie Wagner Harden, Torben Pedersen, Peter D. Ørberg Jensen
{"title":"Motivation or Inconvenience—What matters most? Understanding recycling behavior of healthcare waste","authors":"Cecilie Wagner Harden,&nbsp;Torben Pedersen,&nbsp;Peter D. Ørberg Jensen","doi":"10.1016/j.clrc.2024.100240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recycling programs are widely used to address global environmental challenges, with the active participation of end users being crucial for the successful return of products at the end of use. However, individuals have different motivations for recycling and face various obstacles in doing so. We lack an understanding of these motivations and the inconveniences of engaging in this behavior, especially within the healthcare industry. By drawing insights from the take-back program Returpen<sup>TM</sup>, which was introduced in Denmark and the UK, this study addresses how different types of motivation influence end-user participation in take-back programs and the extent to which motivation offsets the inconveniences. The results showed that individuals' underlying motivations vary, with altruism emerging as the primary motivator, followed by social norms, while direct personal benefits play a relatively minor role. While 92% of respondents indicated their intention to engage in the take-back program, the actual return rate in the Danish program was approximately 22%, which points to a clear intention-behavior gap.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34617,"journal":{"name":"Cleaner and Responsible Consumption","volume":"15 ","pages":"Article 100240"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleaner and Responsible Consumption","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666784324000731","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recycling programs are widely used to address global environmental challenges, with the active participation of end users being crucial for the successful return of products at the end of use. However, individuals have different motivations for recycling and face various obstacles in doing so. We lack an understanding of these motivations and the inconveniences of engaging in this behavior, especially within the healthcare industry. By drawing insights from the take-back program ReturpenTM, which was introduced in Denmark and the UK, this study addresses how different types of motivation influence end-user participation in take-back programs and the extent to which motivation offsets the inconveniences. The results showed that individuals' underlying motivations vary, with altruism emerging as the primary motivator, followed by social norms, while direct personal benefits play a relatively minor role. While 92% of respondents indicated their intention to engage in the take-back program, the actual return rate in the Danish program was approximately 22%, which points to a clear intention-behavior gap.
动机还是麻烦——哪个更重要?了解医疗废物的回收行为
回收计划被广泛用于应对全球环境挑战,最终用户的积极参与对于产品在使用结束时的成功回收至关重要。然而,每个人都有不同的回收动机,在这样做的过程中面临着各种各样的障碍。我们缺乏对这些动机的理解,以及从事这种行为的不便,特别是在医疗保健行业。通过借鉴在丹麦和英国推出的回收计划ReturpenTM的见解,本研究解决了不同类型的动机如何影响终端用户参与回收计划,以及动机在多大程度上抵消了不便。结果表明,个体的潜在动机各不相同,利他主义是最主要的动机,其次是社会规范,而直接个人利益的作用相对较小。虽然92%的受访者表示他们有意参与回收计划,但丹麦计划的实际回报率约为22%,这表明了明显的意图-行为差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
99 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信