- )ˆ˝+˝˚* ,**ˆ4 : ˇ )’˙$˚%€¦ · each citizen of the Russian Federation produces about...

3Alleviating the Waste Problem in Russia

Socio-Economic Practicesof Russia’s Population:

Alleviating the Waste Problem

Marina SHABANOvA

Abstract: The author has relied on the results of the All-Russia Repre-sentative Survey (2017, N=2000) to present for the first time informationabout the level of real and potential involvement of Russia’s population inseparate waste collection (SWC) as well as varied social-economic practicesrelated directly or indirectly to waste generation. These practices include areduced use of plastic single-use shopping bags; purchase of goods in recy-clable/dissolvable containers, with minimum or without any packaging atall; donating unnecessary items in good condition to others; buying exactlythe amount of food that is needed so as not to throw away the excess; avoid-ance of overconsumption or of buying items that are not really necessary;reducing energy and water consumption. It has been established that the con-temporary space of alleviating practices varies where their participants areconfirmed; they differ by their social and demographic characteristics, thestatuses of the settlements they live in; axiological orientations and attitudes,etc. and by the motives that drive them—either egoistical and/or prosocial.A binary logit-regression model is applied to assess the connection betweenthe involvement of individuals in various practices and their socio-demo-graphic characteristics, education, income, type of the population center,specific value orientations as well as membership in associations, participa-tion in NPOs and civil initiatives. The degree of intersection of participantsin various practices as well as their positions on involvement (and non-involvement) in separate collection of household waste has been clarified. Itwas discovered that the contemporary space of practices related to the alle-viation of the waste problem in Russia is fragmented as well as the degree

M. Shabanova, D. Sc. (Sociology), professor, leading research fellow, Center for studies ofcivil society and the nonprofit sector, National Research University “Higher School of Eco-nomics.” E-mail: [email protected]. This article was first published in Russian in the jour-nal Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya (Sociological studies. 2019. No. 6, pp. 50-63; DOI:10.31857/S013216250005481-2). The article is based on the results of the studies carried outby the author at the Center for Studies of Civil Society and the Nonprofit Sector, NationalResearch University “Higher School of Economics” (NRU HSE) within the Program of Fun-damental Studies of the NRU HSE.

Shabanova, Marina, Levina, Valentina. Socio-Economic Practices of Russia’s Population: Alleviating the Waste Problem. Social Sciences (Vol. 50, No. 2) pp. 3-19 This PDF is provided free of charge by East View Press, Inc. Commercial use, including redistribution is prohibited.

SOCIAL SCIENCES Vol. 50, No. 2, 20194

and conditions of their intersection with the separate collection of householdwaste issue. This means that this sphere needs a more integrated policy towiden the channels and possibilities for the groups wishing to join it.

Keywords: problem of waste, civil society, ecological and social respon-sibility of the user, proenvironmental behavior, separate collection of house-hold waste, social-economic practices.

DOI: 10.21146/0134-5486-2019-50-2-3-20

Formulating the problem. The waste problem in Russia is worsening yearby year. According to the RF Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment,each citizen of the Russian Federation produces about 400 kg of householdwaste every year. Today only 5% of this amount is recycled which is about nineto ten times less than in the EU members. The bulk of waste is sent to (officialand unofficial) landfills; this poisons soil, water and air and lowers the quality oflife of those who live nearby; creates health risks and stirs up population protestsin the form of “waste riots” and “anti-garbage dump meetings.” Waste-relatedexperiments and campaigns flare up and die out, which means that there are cer-tain discrepancies between the interests and resources of the main sidesinvolved. The situation is further complicated by the fact that waste-relatedissues are deeply rooted in a non-transparent and highly corrupt sphere the keyactors of which are hand-in-glove with the criminal structures that keep the so-called grey landfills under control. The managing and transport companies, ontheir side, grow rich on garbage removal (due to kickbacks, illegal removal oftrash, etc.) and, therefore, need no changes. These facts are safely ignored topoint at common people as a “weak link” in the social mechanism of institu-tionalization of contemporary practices in the sphere of waste. Without any rea-sons it is said that common people are allegedly not ready or even unable tomake their contribution to the solution of this acute problem.

Population (households) is an important (but not the only one) actor thatcould help alleviate the problem of waste. The spectrum of practices throughwhich individuals are involved in the process is very wide: varied practices ofreduction of waste generation including separate collection of solid wasteaccepted by the world as the most efficient method of alleviation [9, p. 27],reduced use of plastic packaging, donation of unnecessary items in good condi-tion to others so that to avoid throwing them away; voluntary decision to avoidoverconsumption; and saving energy and water. Households are free to joint sev-eral types of activities and do this for different reasons: some of them areresolved on their own free will to spend more time, efforts and money to allevi-ate the common problem; others might be driven by egoistical considerations,while still others might be seeking a compromise between their personal andpublic interests or/and trying to reduce the discomfort caused by the conflictbetween them. Today we know practically next to nothing about the level of


readiness of the citizens of Russia to join, about the motive why they join dif-ferent types of activities and whether they are related (or unrelated) to separatecollection of solid waste.

Which of the practices designed to alleviate the waste problem do Russiansfind most attractive? In which way do they intersect? Are the same individualsinvolved in waste sorting and waste reduction or do different groups chose thechannels they find more suitable to alleviate the waste problem? In which waydoes involvement in different types of such activities correlate with participationin (readiness to join) separate collection of waste? On which factors and condi-tions does this readiness depend? If answered, these questions would have deep-ened our ideas about the contemporary space of civil society as well as help uselaborate a more comprehensive policy designed to alleviate the waste problemin Russia. In this article, I have posed myself the task to identify the level towhich Russians are involved in the separate collection of waste and other prac-tices that help alleviate the waste problem; the specifics and the degree to whichtheir participants intersect as well as the factors of promoting separate collectionof waste at the expense of participants in these practices.

Theoretical-methodological foundations. Contemporary concepts ofmoral economics [16; 6], as well as the active and constructive approach to shap-ing new consumer practices [2; 7; 3; 21], are needed to correctly understand thenature and prospects of socio-economic practices that somehow suppress theacuteness of the waste problem in a society with weak institutionalized “links.”The basic theoretical-methodological principles are outlined in their correlationwith the subject of this study.

The institutional system at any given moment relies on a certain set of val-ues; it supports a definite “moral texture” of practices and, therefore, has a moraldimension [16, p. 265]. The “moral texture” of contemporary Russian institu-tions in fact does not support the individuals involved in alleviating the wasteproblem; it does not, on the other hand, condemns those who are not involved.To tell the truth, involvement in new practices creates certain discomfort for andrequires additional efforts from individuals. No wonder, at the initial stages, asmall group of enthusiasts driven by strong prosocial and proenvironmental val-ues is ready to take part.

Individuals are driven at the same time by egoistical and moral-cultural con-siderations that might contradict one another and may produce different results[6, p. 115]. Sometimes the barriers (“sacrifices”) on the road to a new practiceare high even for the environmentally minded people who sympathize with thosewho live close to landfills and yet decide not to be involved. Many actions, how-ever (something to which Adam Smith pointed in his time), prove to be highlyuseful to the individual and to others (which means that no sacrifices are need-ed) [16, p. 264]. In our case, this might be buying energy-saving home appli-ances and electric bulbs, reusable rather than disposable packaging. This meansthat individual may joint prosocial practices of their choice to maximize theirpersonal economic gains. Irrespective of the reasons, there are unintentionalrepercussions with moral dimensions [16, pp. 265-266].

Alleviating the Waste Problem in Russia 5



When choosing the consumption model the individuals create their ownsocial identities, that is, reproduce themselves as members of society [7; 3; 21].According to Jean Baudrillard, “consumption is surely not that passive processof absorption and appropriation... consumption is an active form of relation (notonly to objects, but also to society and to the world)... what is consummated andconsumed is never the object but the relationship itself, signified yet absent,simultaneously included and excluded; it is the idea of the relationship that isconsumed in the series of objects that displays it” [2, pp. 199, 201].

Different practices that alleviate the waste problem in the given institution-alized and cultural milieu are promoted for different reasons, prosocial and/oregoistical. They might differ by different correlations between the costs andgains and be strongly affected by moral and social factors [4]. Important role ofprosocial factors, social and ecological responsibility and concerns have beenregistered practically in all studies of population inclusion in separate waste col-lection practice (see, for example, [13; 1; 8; 12]). Presence of an adequate infra-structure and institutions that demand from the individual (household) a certainamount of efforts and time, complete awareness, voluntary involvement, etc. canbe described as another key factor (see [10; 13]). The extent and the nature ofimpact of both factors depend largely on the degree of activeness all other inter-ested sides (power, business, NPOs and others) demonstrate.

Some waste-alleviating practices are studied better than others are. So far,separate waste collection remains much better studied even if in recent years dif-ferent types of civil activities including the efforts to cut down waste generationhave attracted a lot of attention. Studies of varied practices are extended by anactive interest in the effects of spillover of some practices into others (wheninclusion in one type of behavior increases or lowers a possibility of inclusion inanother) and their account by management strategies (see, for example, [22; 11;20; 19; 14]). In Russia, before moving in this direction, we should establish inwhich way the composition of participants in different practices differ (or inter-sect) and find out the motives and conditions on which they joined these prac-tices. This is all the more important since the SWC studies are a new field inRussia [17]; there are no studies of the ways SWC is related to other practicesand of their intersection.

Hypotheses and data. The main hypothesis is related to the heterogeneousnature of participants in different practices and the motive and factors of theirinclusion. Undeveloped SWC infrastructure; inadequate awareness of the popu-lation about the problems of household waste and the means and methods ofdealing with it; absence of encouragement and sanctions; very different milieusin different types of settlements; promotion of water meters and power-savingbehavior solely as highly advantageous for the users - all these are factors thatgenerated the following hypotheses.

H1: The contemporary space of activity of Russians designed to alleviate thewaste problem is highly fragmentary: the bigger part is involved in one or twopractices; different types of activity are weakly correlated, in particular, thoseinvolved in SWC and in the waste reduction practices practically do not intersect.



H2: The individuals who treat the values of supra-individual nature as thecore of their most important values are normally involved in separate waste col-lection; they do not use plastic packages/containers and donate unnecessaryitems in good condition to other people. They stand apart by their prosocial atti-tudes (they are ready to join others with similar interests and aims), are membersof social organizations or take part in their activities. Those who treat their indi-vidualistic values as the core of values are more likely to prefer the practices thatpromise personal gain like water and/or power economy; they are very carefulwith the amount of foodstuffs they buy (“buying wisely”); they never buy thingsthey do not badly need (“no to overconsumption”), etc.

H3: The higher the personal income of an individual the bigger is the chancethat he is involved in donating unnecessary items; on the other side, the chanceof his involvement in all alleviating practices is lower.

H4: Those who live in mega-cities are more active in all practices related,directly or indirectly, to alleviating the problem of household waste generation

H5: Women (who are normally more concerned with ecological problemsthan men are) and people with higher education (they are better informed and aresocially more responsible) are more actively involved in all practices alleviatingthe waste problem.

This analysis is based on the results of the All-Russia Representative Poll(N=2000, 2017, multistage stratified territorial random sampling, sampling errornot higher than 2.6%; method—formalized interview). The model of binarylogit-regression was used, together with descriptive analysis involved to identi-fy the degree of intersection of participants in different practices as well as themotives of involvement of some of them, to assess the connections between dif-ferent factors and involvement of individuals in different practices. The depen-dent variable took one of the two possible values: 1—participant in any of thealleviating practices, 0—other individuals.

Socioeconomic practices of Russians designed to alleviate the wasteproblem: general characteristics. Our studies have confirmed that Russians arepracticing various types of activities to reduce waste generation both directly(deliberately) and indirectly (unintended effect of actions pursued for differentreasons). It should be said that the degrees of their popularity, stability and thepotential of increasing the number of participants in different practices are notidentical (Table 1).

Today, the water/power economy practices are the most massive and sus-tainable: an absolute majority of the Russian citizens (70%) is involved at leastin one of them on a more or less regular basis; nearly half of them (47%) areinvolved in both. Closer related to a wider (ecological) problem, their effects,however, on the waste problem are considerable. Nuclear power stations createa problem of radioactive waste, so far, without eco-friendly processing; coal dustemissions from thermoelectric power stations pollute water and air by carbondioxide (“atmospheric garbage”), etc. Water economy helps preserve energyresources used for its purification at pumping filtering stations, delivery to theusers and wastewater treatment (“water garbage”). According to official data,today only 11% of wastewater is purified before it reaches water basins [24].



The practices of avoiding the use of disposable plastic shopping bags aswell as buying goods in recyclable/degradable packaging, minimal packagingor without packaging are less popular (7.5 and 4% correspondingly). Overall,one in ten respondents was involved at least in one of these practices. The “pack-aging-container” practices have the lowest stability coefficient, which meansthat people find it hard to adapt to them. At the same time, the replacement coef-ficient is very high (Table 1). They do not require additional spending, theirdevelopment prospects are very good especially if vigor is added to the already

PracticesDothis

today

Intend to dothis in the next

1-2 years

Stabilityratio*

Replacementratio**

Sorting and moving householdwaste in separated containers, wastecollection points

13 29 0.81 7.78

Reduced use of single-use bags infavor of re-usable shopping bags

7.5 14 0.65 3.35

Buy things in recycled/degradablecontainers or without them

4 8 0.56 3.82

Donate no longer needed items ingood state to churches, charityshops and points of social aid

17 23.5 0.70 2.27

Give clothes, furniture and electricappliances you no longer need tofriends, acquaintances and neighbors

32 33 0.75 1.07

Buy as much foodstuffs as you real-ly need to avoid throwing food away

43 48 0.81 1.56

Stop buying things you do not real-ly need; avoid overconsumption

18 19 0.73 1.16

Use energy-saving domestic appli-ances and light bulbs, alwaysswitch off the light in empty rooms

59 62 0.87 1.35

Save water and avoid wasting waterwhen washing or laundering

57 64 0.91 2.26

Notes. * Stability ratio—the correlation between the number of those who are determinedto continue their consumption practices in the next couple of years and the totalnumber of people following their consumption practices.** Replacement ratio—the correlation between the number of those who intend tojoin any given practice and the number of those resolved to abandon it in a coupleof years.

T a b l e 1

Involvement of Russians in SWC and the practice of reduction

of waste generation: real involvement and intentions

(% of the number of respondents)


existing practice of informing consumers about the developments in this sphere;the same applies to the work of NPO with big commercial networks.

So far, separate household waste collection is not widespread: only 13% ofthe respondents (“real participants”) are involved. The group of those whointend to join in the next couple of years (“potential participants”, 19%) andthose who intend to remain in the SWC practice constitute 29%. The bulk of theRussian population (68%) is not involved; what is more, these people do notintend to join in the next couple of years (the indifferent). Separate waste collec-tion has a high stability coefficient and has left the replacement coefficient farbehind (Table 1). This means that this practice has a good social base in Russia.

High fragmentation can be described as the most typical feature of the con-temporary space of alleviating practices: 25% of the respondents are involved inone of them, 30% in two, 19% in three, and only 12% in four-seven.

In fact, in view of the weakly developed separate waste collection, interest-ed individuals can take up several practices to minimize household waste gener-ation by cutting down or abandoning single-use shopping bags; buying goods inrecyclable/dissolvable packaging, minimal packaging or without it. Packagingconstitutes the biggest part (up to 60-70% according to different sources) ofhousehold waste yet even those involved in SWC are practically unaware of theproblem and, overall, are not ready to change their consumer habits. Today, 75%of them are not ready to abandon disposable packaging or to do this in the nextcouple of years; 83% realize a similar behavior model when dealing with recy-clable (dissolvable, minimal) packaging or complete rejection of it. On thewhole, today only 21% of Russians are involved in the SWC practices and in/or“packaging-container” practices most closely connected with waste generation;18% of them are involved in one; 3% in two or three practices.

It should be noted that those involved in SWC trail behind the participants inall other practices in water/power economy, buying the strictly necessary amountof foodstuffs so that not to through food away (“buying wisely”) (Table 2). Thesepeople occupy very moderate positions on buying or, rather, not buying not verymuch needed things, they reject overconsumption (“no to overconsumption”).This is, probably, a sort of disguise of well-known effects of “moral licensing” orthe “contribution ethics” when people prefer to keep away from new types ofbehavior to alleviate certain specific problems if convinced that they have donewhat they could and can rest on laurels [22; 19]. Their positions on donation ofno longer needed items to other people (not directly related in peoples’ minds tothe waste problem) are progressive: 54% against 38.5% of the total.

People who minimize the use of disposable bags (“packaging”) and con-tainers (“containers”) (Table 2) more actively than others do join direct or indi-rect alleviation measures. Rejection of overconsumption (“no to overconsump-tion”) is to the greatest extent related to both rational attitude to the amount offoodstuffs bought so that not to throw away what was not used (“buying wise-ly”) and water/power economy (“saving resources”). It is rather a block ofpractices promoted not so much by concern for public benefit but by personalgain.



This means that today Russians, consciously or not, help alleviate the wasteproblem through various practices: 86% of Russians participates at least in oneof them. There practices, however, are weakly connected with one another. Toassess the potentials of expanding the number of participants in each of them, weshould understand the motives that drive Russians.

Motives of inclusion in various practices. Economic motives are mostprominent in the most popular practices—power and/or water economy; peopleinvolved in less popular practices (such as SWC) are driven by prosocial andproenvironmental considerations. Indeed, 69% of those who save power/waterdo this to cut down their utility bills; a much smaller share (4%) of them wantto make their contribution to protect nature and the environment; 24% are guid-ed by a combination of two reasons. There are much more people—17 against8-9% in other groups—among those guided solely by ecological motives whohave been disappointed (determined to leave this practice in the next couple ofyears).

This dependence is also typical of determination not to buy things that arenot badly needed to avoid overconsumption. The absolute majority (76%)explain their determination by worsened material status and money shortage.The respondents invited to refer to two main reasons, 68% limited themselves toone, purely economic, reason while 8% supported it with other considerations.The desire to work less to be able to spend more time with the family andfavorite occupations trails far behind (14%). The desire to contribute to natureand environmental protection inspired 16% of the respondents (for 9% it was theonly reason). Here, too, there are much more disenchanted participants in the lat-


PracticesS

WC

“P

ack

agin

g”

“C

on

tain

ers”

“N

o t

o

over

con

sum

pti

on

”

“B

uyin

g w

isel

y”

“S

avin

g r

esou

rces

”

“D

on

ati

ng i

tem

s”

On

th

e w

hole

SWC Х 19 27 17 13 12 18 13

“Packaging” 11 Х 32 14 10 9 12.5 7.5

“Containers” 8 16 Х 6 4 4 6 4

“No to overconsumption” 24 33 29 Х 28 23 22 18

“Buying wisely” 44 59 51 67.5 Х 54 50 43

“Saving resources” 67 81 79 89 87 Х 76 70

“Donating items” 54 64 59 47.5 45 42 Х 38.5

T a b l e 2

The spheres in which waste-alleviating practices intersect

(% in each column)



ter group resolved to discontinue this practice in the next one or two years: 36against 18% among voluntary participants (the desire to work less) and 26%among those who were forced to simplify their consumption standards (worsematerial status).

Those who have joined the separate waste collection practice today demon-strate fundamentally different reasons of their involvement. Since involvementin SWC is absolutely voluntary (no economic and social stimuli/sanctions arepresent), the motives of supra-individual nature predominate: the desire to beaware of oneself as a person responsible for the state of the environment (47%);the desire to contribute to the common effort to improve ecology, well-being ofthe present and future generations (36%); conviction that this is highly benefi-cial for society as a whole (29%); 37% explain their involvement by their con-viction that everybody should join, which is twice as many as all other reasons.Overall, 88% of those involved in SWC pointed to the components of the “greenmoral code” that united these four reasons [4, p. 564].

Today, the motives of purely individual (economic or non-economic) gainare practically absent. Only 10% of the polled spoke of economic gains forhouseholds; 4%, about their desire to pose as responsible people. On the whole,only 11% referred to one of the two personal reasons. The secondary role of ego-istical motives is not fortuitous: cultural norms have not yet taken final shape;economic gains are not that impressive and, therefore, look attractive to highlyspecific social groups (mainly to guest workers employed as street cleaners andhomeless people who live rough).

The wide gaps between the motives for which people join different practicesmight speak of highly different characteristics of the participants in each of them.

Heterogeneity of the participants in different practices. To identify theheterogeneous nature of the people involved in different practices, we relied onthe mechanism of binary logit-regression. Available information allowed us toassess the connection between involvement in different practices and the fol-lowing characteristics of individuals: sex, age, educational level, personalincome in the previous month, type of settlement, specifics of value orientationsand attitudes as well as membership in public organizations, involvement inNPOs and civil initiatives. Table 3 presents the average partial effects (APE)based on six binary logit-regressions. They demonstrate how many percentagepoints (p.p.) on average change a possibility of an individual’s inclusion in anygiven practice if only one or another independent variable changes while allother independent variables remain the same.

Women are more like to join all practices, even if for different reasons. Thisis typical to the greatest degree of the “donation of items” practice (the proba-bility of women involvement is greater by 17.2 p.p. than that of men) and care-ful attitude to foodstuffs (by 10.9 p.p.); their involvement in the “packaging andcontainer economy” and SWC is least probable (by 3.1 and 3.7 p.p. respective-ly). This means that here the H5 hypothesis is not rejected. Women not only moreactively than men are involved in ethical buying (see, for example, [15; 5; 11;18; 27]); they more actively than men participate in all practices that directly or



Independent

variables SW

C

“P

ack

agin

g”

“D

on

ati

on

s

of

item

s”

Wate

r/p

ow

er

econ

om

y

“B

uyin

g

wis

ely”

“N

o t

o o

ver

-

con

sum

pti

on

”

Ready to join forces with other people for joint actions if their interests coincide

Unquestionably/rather ready

0.080***

(0.021)─

0.091***

(0.025)─ ─ ─

Membership in public organizations, involvement in NPO, civil initiatives

At least in one0.035**

(0.015)0.041***

(0.014)0.154***

(0.022)0.061***

(0.023)0.056**

(0.024)0.033*

(0.018)

Include into the core of most important life values (not more than 5 out of 15) values:

Supra-individu-alistic nature(from 1 to 3)

0.038**

(0.015)0.052***

(0.014)0.086***

(0.022)0.037*

(00.021)─ ─

Individualisticvalues(from1 to 3)

–0.045***

(0.016)─ ─

0.147***

(0.023)0.085***

(0.028)

Social-demographic characteristics, education

Gender: women0.037**

(0.015)0.031**

(0.014)0.172***

(0.020)0.058***

(0.020)0.109***

(0.022)0.065***

(0.018)

Education:university

─0.033**

(0.014)─ ─ ─

0.034*(0.019)

Age (years) ─ ─ ─0.003***

(0.001)0.003***

(0.001)─

Personal income in previous month: not more than 10 thousand rubles—base

10.1–20 thousandrub.

─ ─ ─ ─ ─

20.1–30 thousandrub.

─ ─ ─ ─ ─

over 30 thousandrub.

─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─

No income–0.073**

(0.033)–0.086***

(0.029)–0.120**

(0.050)─ ─

–0.072*

0.040)

T a b l e 3

Heterogeneous nature of participants in different practices:

results of regressive analysis


indirectly alleviate the waste problem, SWC including. University educationpositively affects involvement only in “packaging-container economy”: as betterinformed about the waste problem people with higher education know muchmore about the development level of SWC infrastructure and chose for them-selves the most acceptable type of involvement.

There is an obviously positive (yet similarly different for various practices)intersection between possible participation and membership in public organiza-tions, involvement in NPOs, civil initiatives and civil movements. A possibility


T a b l e 3 (c o n t i n u e d)

Independent

variables SW

C

“P

ack

agin

g”

“D

on

ati

on

s

of

item

s”

Wate

r/p

ow

er

econ

om

y

“B

uyin

g

wis

ely”

“N

o t

o o

ver

-

con

sum

pti

on

”

Refused toanswer the ques-tion

–0.062**

(0.027)–0.080***

(0.026)─ ─ ─

–0.055*

(0.033)

Type of the settlement: village-based

Moscow–0.060**

(0.030)─ ─

0.100**

(0.049)0.197***

(0.053)─

Mega-cities0.105***

(0.036)0.102***

(0.031)─

0.145***

(0.036)0.131***

(0.042)0.073**

(0.035)

Cities with popu-lations from 500thousand to 1million.

0.052*

(0.029)─ ─

0.126***

(0.038)0.066*

(0.040)─

Cities with 100to 500 thousand

─0.044*

(0.023)─

0.112***

(0.034)0.096***

(0.036)─

Towns with lessthan 100 thou-sand and urbansettlements

–0.048**

(0.019)─

0.081***

(0.029)0.104***

(0.027)0.149***

(0.029)─

Number ofobservations

2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

Probability >chi-square

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Pseudo R2 0.1186 0.0643 0.0785 0.0813 0.0519 0.0372

Notes. * p<0.1; ** p<0.05; ***p<0.01. Robust standard errors are quoted in brackets.Regions (8 federal districts) are controlled.

«–»—variables insignificant for the present model


of involvement in separate waste collection for those involved in public activi-ties versus those who are not involved is higher by 3.5 p.p.; involvement in dona-tion of no longer needed clothing or other items in a good state to other peopleis higher by 15.4 p.p. Participants in different practices have different value ori-entations and attitudes. Those prepared to close ranks with others if their inter-ests and aims coincide are more ready to join SWC and donations of clothing (by8.0 and 9.1 p.p. respectively). Those who include into the core of important (butnor more than 5 out of 15) values of supra-individual nature (well-being for allpeople and nature, pride of Russia as their Motherland, of its might and flour-ishing; supporting those who need help) are involved in “donation of clothing”and “packaging-container” practices. Those who concentrate at individualisticvalues (material comfort, personal security and security of the family, pleasuresand enjoyment) are more probable to join the water/power economy practice andcareful buying of foodstuffs (by 14.7 and 8.5 p.p. against the base group respec-tively) (H2 hypothesis is not rejected).

It is much more probable that people living in mega-cities (Moscow is notincluded) are more likely to be involved in all practices (with the exception of“donation of clothing”) than people living in the countryside. With all other def-initions being equal, they are more likely to take part in SWC and “packaging-container economy” by 10.5 and 10.2 p.p. respectively; a possibility of theirinvolvement in water/power economy and careful treatment of foodstuffs is evenhigher (Table 3). It is more probable that those who live in Moscow will join thetwo latter practices and are less active when it comes to SWC (their probableinvolvement is by 6.0 p.p. lower than even among the villagers). This can beexpected since in the rate of the cities with the best conditions for separate wastecollection (Greenpeace of Russia, over 160 cities with the populations of 100thousand and more) Moscow comes 52nd [25]. Muscovites do not differ muchfrom villagers when it comes to inclusion in “packaging-container economy”even if for different reasons (comfort vs. economy). This means that H4 hypoth-esis is partly not confirmed.

The personal incomes in the previous month revealed no significant con-nections with possible inclusion in different practices (including item donation)(H3 hypothesis is not confirmed). Two groups, however, differ greatly from thebase one—those with the personal income of not more than 10 thousand rubles(the subsistence level at the time of the poll) and those who had no income in theprevious month. This means that, as can be expected, people in constrained cir-cumstances with unstable incomes (there are quite a few of them in this group)are less interested (than those with incomes not higher than the subsistence level)in prosocial practices (SWC, “packaging-container,” donation of items). Like-wise, there is no much difference when it comes to involvement in money-sav-ing practices (water/power economy, thrifty use of food and avoidance of over-consumption).

It is much harder to explain the position of the second group, those whorefused to reveal their personal incomes. Their inclusion in SWC and “packag-ing-container” practices is lower by 6.2 and 8.0 p.p. than that of the base group



and more or less the same when it comes to all other practices. This group, how-ever, might include people with high incomes and those who are too shy to revealtheir low incomes or merely do not want to talk about this which means that thisa patchwork group in which people with above average incomes predominate(37 against 8% in the base group and 29% in the massive). At the same time, theshare of families with the material status lower than average (15 against 56% inthe basic group and 25.5% for the massive as a whole). Businesspersons and topmanagers or department heads constitute a big part (15 against 2% in the basegroup and 8% for the massive as a whole). This means that H3 hypothesis shouldbe further tested.

On the whole, we can say that the contemporary space of practices that alle-viate, in one way or another, the waste problem is highly varied by the compo-sition of the participants and motives of their involvement. There are no reasonsto expect that involvement in some practices shortens the distances betweenthem. What positions do the participants in various practices occupy in relationto SWC as the most efficient of the alleviating practices?

Participants in different practices differently assess SWC (Table 4). Thegreatest number of real and potential participants in SWC is among those whorealize ethical behavior models by being included in the “single-use packagingand container” practice. The same group is marked by the smallest share of thoseindifferent to SWC (52-54% against 61-67% in other groups).

T a b l e 4

Attitude of participants/nonparticipants* in different practices toward SWC

(% along the line)

The participants in the majority of practices are more actively than nonpar-ticipants either already involved in separate waste collection or intend to join inthe next two years, the “buying wisely” practice being the only exception. Thedifference between the participants and nonparticipants are statistically indistin-guishable when it comes to their attitude to SWC. It seems that this practice has


PracticesAttitudes toward SWC

Totalreal potential indifference

Packaging 21/12 26/18 53/70 100/100

Donation of items 18/9 21/18 61/73 100/100

Power and/or water economy 12/14 21/14 67/72 100/100

Buying wisely 13/13 20/18 67/69 100/100

No to consumerism 17/12 20/19 63/69 100/100

Total for the massive 13 19 68 100

Note. * Here and in Table 5 the share of participants is highlighted in bold type and the shareof nonparticipants—by italics.



strong cultural reasons deeply rooted in the memory of the older and middle-agegenerations (wartime children, deficit of Soviet times, reforms of the 1990s,etc.). In some groups, they outweigh economic and/or ecological considerations.The participants in this practice and in water/power economy are highly indi-vidualistic (Table 3) which affects their position on SWC.

Participants in all practices without exception are guided by prosocial andproenvironmental motives when joining (remaining in) SWC that greatly out-weigh individualistic motives (economic and non-economic)—72-88% against11-14%. Participants in “packaging-container” practices once again stand apartagainst this background. They lag behind only the current participants in SWCwhere the components of the “green moral index” are concerned (80 against88%) and are much firmer than the participants in SWC and all other practicesin their conviction that their efforts are not wasted and that they can contributeto the solution of this important problem (36 against 2-24%).

Participants in various practices formulate similar conditions of their inclu-sion (continued participation) in SWC (Table 5). First, containers for separatecollection of waste should be placed near dwellings; second, the separately gath-ered waste will be recycled, correctly removed in due time and moved withinacceptable period of time to waste collection points or special containers, etc.Participants in the “packaging-container” practice, who pay a lot of attention tothe efficiency of their efforts more often than others, point to the importance ofa smoothly working recycling system (removal on time, correct recycling).Overall, participants in all practices formulate much higher demands than non-participants to the conditions of their involvement in SWC (Table 5). We can sur-mise that unlike nonparticipants they at least consider SWC and ponder on theconditions of their inclusion in this practice. Those not involved in power and/orwater economy are most conservative in their attitude to SWC: one out of fivedoes not want to be involved in SWC no matter what.

This means that the greatest “flow” to separate waste collection can beexpected from the closest “packaging-container” and prosocial (“item dona-tion”) practices; at the same time, the participants in these practices formulatethe highest demands to the conditions of their joining SWC.

Conclusions and final considerations. All sorts of social-economic prac-tices of households, even those the participants in which do not directly associ-ate them with the waste problem, help alleviate it. Today, the most popularamong such practices are those driven by economic considerations (water/powereconomy) while proeconomic and prosocial practices are most promising (SWCas the practice with the highest substitution coefficient). Different types of activ-ity attract different groups to different degrees. The heterogeneity of the partici-pants points to the importance of realization of a comprehensive policy of deal-ing with household waste that attracts different groups and connecting this poli-cy with other types of social-economic policy. Together with SWC, “packaging-container economy” available today remain the weak point: against the back-ground of the low figures of involvement, they demonstrate the lowest stabilitycoefficients. Their development, however, would have helped lower the volume



of household waste to a great extent and change their structures.The variety of contemporary space of waste-related practices either by the

composition of people involved (social-demographic descriptions, settlementstatus, value orientations and attitudes, etc.) or by the motives of their involve-ment (egoistical and/or altruistic) indicates that there are no reasons to expectthat involvement on some practices will considerably shorted the road to others.This requires additional measures: informational, infrastructural and institution-al. The accumulated scientific knowledge points to the importance of differenti-ation of these measures depending on the triggers of inclusion (non-inclusion) inthe first practice, its comparative complexity and its similarity to later practices[22; 11; 19; 14]. As applied to the waste problem this means, in particular, that

Conditions

of participation/inclusion SW

C

Pack

agin

g-

con

tain

er

Don

ati

on

of

item

s

Savin

g

reso

urc

es

Bu

yin

g

wis

ely

No t

o o

ver

con

-

sum

pti

on

Tota

l

Containers for separate wastecollection close to dwellings 79/67 76/68 77/64 75/55 73/65,5 77/67 69

Absolute assurance that theseparately collected waste willbe recycled

30/26 39/25 35,5/21 30/19 31/23 30/26 26

Time and correct manner ofwaste removal 20/19 32/17 26/14 23/10 21/17 22/18 19

Acceptable time of bringingthe waste to points of wastecollection or separate contain-ers

20/16 22/16 22/13 18/13.5 20/14 18/16 17

Information about the placesto which separately collectedwaste can be taken

15/16 23/15 19/14 17/13 20/12.5 18/15 16

Involvement of the greaterpart of neighbors in separatewaste collection

17/22 19/12 17/10 15/7 15/11 15/12 13

Fines or additional paymentsimposed on those who refuseto sort out waste

13/10.5 18/10 12.5/10 12/8.5 13.5/9 12/11 11

Under no conditions 7/14 5/14 7.5/16 9/21 10/15 8/14 13

Note. N=2000 people. The answers are arranged by the “Total” column.

T a b l e 5

Conditions on which participants/nonparticipants

in different practices will join (or remain) in SWC

(% per column)


water economy (installing water meters) imposed from above coupled withemphasis on lower utility bills (as this was done in Russia) might push to thelogic of comparing profits and costs of involvement in other types of proenvi-ronmental behavior. Ecological identity and more active involvement of citizensin other types of proenvironmental behavior can be further promoted by inform-ing the consumers about positive environmental effects of their behavior andthanking them as highly responsible people rather than playing on their feelingof guilt or their fears.

Today, separate waste collection as the main instrument of alleviating thewaste problem is mostly driven by proenvironmental and prosocial considera-tions not only of those directly involved in this practice but also participants inall other practices. Compared with nonparticipants, the latter as a rule demon-strate not only a higher level of real involvement (or readiness to be involved) inSWC but formulate much higher demands on which they are ready to join thispractice. If all institutional and infrastructural conditions of SWC are fulfilled,we cannot exclude a possibility that in future this will add weight to the proen-vironmental and prosocial motives of joining the practices driven so far by pure-ly egoistical motives.

The fragmented space of practices as well as the degree and conditions oftheir intersection with SWC identified by our poll mean that future studies of theinstitutionalized-infrastructural aspects of the problem, the social and social-psy-chological mechanisms and triggers of positive and negatives spillover of differ-ent practices and the nature of their intersection will be highly productive for acomprehensive policy of alleviating the waste problem in Russia.

We have concentrated on one, albeit the biggest, actor which is population(households). Further monitoring of its involvement in alleviating the wasteproblem in Russia is of an independent importance, yet the conditions on whichthis actor is prepared to join separate waste collection—development of the insti-tutionalized and infrastructural milieu—mean that the problem’s solutiondepends on the concerted efforts of actors of different levels and types (power,business, NPO, the independent media, etc.). This means that the nature anddynamics of interaction between them require special studies. At the same time,in view of the fact that the waste problem is deeply immersed in the illegal con-text it would be no exaggeration to conclude that irrespective of the attitudes andactions of the population related to the set of problems connected with the wasteproblem any noticeable progress in its solution depends, first and foremost onthe political will to decriminalize this sphere.

References

1. Arbues F., Villanua I. Determinants of Behavior toward Selective Collectionof Batteries in Spain. A Bivariate Probit Model. Resources, Conservationand Recycling. 2016. Vol. 106, pp.1-8.

2. Baudrillard J. The System of Objects. Transl. by J. Benedict. London; New



York: Verso, 2002.3. Beck U. Interview. Journal of Consumer Culture. 2001. Vol. 1. No. 2, pp. 261-

277.4. Berglund C. The Assessment of Households’ Recycling Costs: The Role of

Personal Motives. Ecological Economics. 2006. Vol. 56. No. 4, pp. 560-569.5. Diamantopoulos A., Schlegelmilch В., Sinkovics R., Bohlen G. Can

Sociodemographics Still Play a Role in Profiling Green Consumers? AReview of the Evidence and an Empirical Investigation. Journal of BusinessResearch. 2003. Vol. 56. No. 6, pp. 465-480.

6. Etzioni A. Toward a New Socio-Economic Paradigm. Socio-EconomicReview. 2003. Vol. 1. No. 1, pp. 105-118.

7. Ilyin V. I. Consumer Behavior. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2000. (In Russian.)8. Iyer E. S., Kashyap R. K. Consumer Recycling: Role of Incentives, Infor-

mation, and Social Class. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 2007. Vol. 6. No. 1,pp. 32-47.

9. Hoornweg D., Bhada-Tata В. Р. What a Waste: A Global Review of SolidWaste Management. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2012. (Urban Develop-ment Series. No. 15).

10. Kirakozian A. The Determinants of Household Recycling: Social Influence,Public Policies and Environmental Preferences. Applied Economics. 2016.Vol. 48. No. 16, pp. 1481-1503.

11. Lauren N., Smith L. D. G., Louis W. R., Dean A. J. Promoting Spillover:How Past Behaviors Increase Environmental Intentions by Cueing Self-Per-ceptions. Environment and Behavior. 2017. Vol. 51. Issue 3, pp. 235-258.

12. Lee K. Gender Differences in Hong Kong Adolescent Consumers’ GreenPurchasing Behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 2009. Vol. 26. No. 2,pp. 87-96.

13. Miafodzyeva S., Brandt N. Recycling Behaviour among Householders: Syn-thesizing Determinants Via a Meta-analysis. Waste and Biomass Valoriza-tion. 2013. Vol. 4. No. 2, pp. 221-235.

14. Nilsson A., Bergquist M., Schultz W. P. Spillover Effects in EnvironmentalBehaviors, Across Time and Context: a Review and Research Agenda. Envi-ronmental Education Research. 2017. Vol. 23. No. 4, pp. 573-589.

15. Olli E., Grendstad G., Wollebaek D. Correlates of Environmental Behaviors:Bringing Back Social Context. Environment and Behavior. 2001. Vol. 33.No. 2, pp. 181-208.

16. Sayer A. Moral Economy as Critique. New Political Economy. 2007. Vol. 12.No. 2, pp. 261-270.

17. Shabanova M. Separate Waste Collection in Russia: the Level, Factors, andPotential for Citizens’ Engagement. Mir Rossii [The Universe of Russia].2019. No. 3. (In Russian.)

18. Starr M. A. The Social Economics of Ethical Consumption: TheoreticalConsiderations and Empirical Evidence. Journal of Socio-Economics. 2009.Vol. 38. No. 6, pp. 916-925.

19. Thøgersen J., Crompton T. Simple and Painless? The Limitations of Spillover



in Environmental Campaigning. Journal of Consumer Policy. 2009. Vol. 32,pp. 141-163.

20. Thøgersen J., Ölander F. Spillover of Environment-Friendly Consumer Behav-ior. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2003. Vol. 23. Issue 3, pp. 225-236.

21. Trentmannn F. Citizenship and Consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture.2007. Vol. 7. No. 2, pp. 147-158.

22. Truelove H. B., Carrico A. R., Weber E. U., Raimi K. T., Vandenbergh M. P.Positive and Negative Spillover of Pro-Environmental Behavior: An Inte-grative Review and Theoretical Framework. Global Environmental Change.2014. Vol. 29, pp. 127-138.

Media Sources

23. Aleksey Gordeev met the State Duma Committee on Ecology and Environ-mental Protection. Pravitelstvo Rossii (The Government of Russia). 2018.19 July. Available at: http://government.ru/news/33322/.

24. Prosecutor General’s Office: Landfills Occupy 4 Million Hectares of theTerritory of Russia. Agency of Social Information. 2018. 28 June. Availableat: https://www.asi.org.ru/news/2018/06/28/svalki-genprokuratura/.

25. Rating of the Cities Best Suited for Separate Waste Collection. Greenpeace.2018. 31 January. Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/russia/ru/news/2018/0131-rating-rso-2018/.

Translated by Valentina Levina



- )ˆ˝+˝˚* ,**ˆ4 : ˇ )’˙$˚%€¦ · each citizen of the Russian Federation produces about...

Documents

Transcript of - )ˆ˝+˝˚* ,**ˆ4 : ˇ )’˙$˚%€¦ · each citizen of the Russian Federation produces about...