hric

084

KnowledgeLocal authorityOpinionSeparate collectionWaste management

nowno (usim

cling required by the Italian legislation. Structured questionnaires were administered to a sample of 500

nowleano eteedma

impossible to correctly participate in the program (Alexanderet al., 2009). Thus it is important to investigate the knowledge ofthe citizens involved in separate collection programs. Knowingtheir opinions is analogously important because from it we can

ato San Severino,f Salernol administstem since

guaranteeing more than the minimum level of recycling reby the Italian legislation. Moreover, the city of Mercato Sanno adopted a pay-as-you-throw program (PAYT) during 200izens are charged for the collection of MSW based on the amountthey throw away) and it is one of the few municipalities doing thisin Southern Italy. Thus, the municipality under study has to be con-sidered as a needle in a haystack. It is important to point out thatthe adoption of the PAYT programwas strongly supported and pro-moted by the Mayor of Mercato San Severino whose popularity in

Address: Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Salerno, viaGiovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084 Fisciano, SA, Italy. Tel.: +39 089 964113; fax: +39 089968738.

E-mail address: g.defeo@unisa.it

Waste Management 34 (2014) 13691380

Contents lists availab

Waste Man

elslection is at the early stages of MSW management, it affects all thesubsequent phases (Cossu and Masi, 2013). A separate collectionprogram is based on several rules that the citizen has to follow. Ifhe (she) does not have the correct instructional information, it is

side of the coin. In fact, the municipality of Merca city of about 22,000 people in the province o50 km far from Naples (under the same regionahas adopted an effective kerbside collection syhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.02.0090956-053X/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.aroundration),2001,quiredSeveri-5 (cit-Williams, 2007) suggesting that greater awareness and/or under-standing of environmental issues leads to a greater level of actionin the form of pro-environmental behaviour (De Feo and Williams,2013). This is also true for the municipal solid waste (MSW)management sector and specically for the participation in separatecollection programs (De Feo and De Gisi, 2010a). Since separate col-

suffering from a serious solid waste emergency that has lasted over17 years due to the absence of MSW treatment facilities asdescribed in details by De Feo and De Gisi (2010a,b) and De Feoet al. (2013). However, the image of heaps of rubbish in the streetsof Naples (the capital of Campania) and other nearby cities,impressively documented by the international press, is only one1. Introduction

Diverse studies have shown that ktal issues affects behaviour (GuagnCorraliza and Berenguer, 2000; Stpeople in 2010. Chi-square tests of independence were applied to state whether the differences were sta-tistically signicant (5%). About 90% of the sample stated that the success of the separate collection pro-gram was due to either the citizens and local authority or only the local authority, highlighting theleading role of the local authority and conrming that trust is the key to any social program success.The registered level of knowledge was better than that of nearby university students and citizens. Thehigher the education level, the greater the level of knowledge was.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

dge about environmen-al., 1995; Chan, 1998;n, 2005; Gunton and

obtain information useful to change for the better their behavioursby means of educational programs (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000).

Education has a vital role in waste management especially forthose areas of historic unpopularity in terms of waste emergency(Martin et al., 2006). The Campania region of south Italy is an areaKeywords:Behaviour

only one side of the coin. Mercato San Severino has adopted an effective kerbside collection system since2001 and a pay-as-you-throw program during 2005, guaranteeing more than the minimum level of recy-Sociological survey in a municipality witcollection programme in an area of histo

Giovanni De Feo Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Salerno, via Ponte don Melillo, 1, 84

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 October 2013Accepted 12 February 2014Available online 3 March 2014

a b s t r a c t

Behaviours, opinions and kcity of Mercato San Severiarea suffering from a serioof treatment facilities. The

journal homepage: www.a high level separateunpopularity

Fisciano, SA, Italy

ledge of citizens on MSW and separate collection were investigated in theabout 22,000 people), in the Campania region of Southern Italy that is ansolid waste emergency that has lasted over 17 years due to the absenceage of heaps of rubbish in the streets of Naples and other nearby cities is

le at ScienceDirect

agement

evier .com/locate /wasman

It is low densely populated and urbanized, with the presence ofhigh- and low-rise buildings (especially detached houses and block

menof ats). Finally, the third area is over 2 km from the EnvironmentalCentre. It includes the centre of the city which is more denselypopulated, more urbanized, with the presence of modern high-and low-rise buildings (especially blocks of ats and detachedhouses). In general, due to its position, the EC is almost entirelyused by car owners.

The householder that does not separate MSW has to pay themaximum amount corresponding to the total surface area of hishome and the number of household members. Whereas, if thehouseholder separates MSW and delivers the various materialsnear his (or her) home, putting them in the corresponding bag withthe relative label, respecting the schedule, he (or she) receives aItaly is strongly linked to the signicant success of the separate col-lection program in an area of historic unpopularity. The MercatoSan Severino waste management system has gradually become amodel to be imitated by other cities in the Region because it alwaysallowed both to effectively collect waste and to pay the waste feewith a cutting-edge system.

The principal aim of this work was to investigate (by means of astructured questionnaire) the behaviours, opinions and level ofknowledge of citizens in a municipality with a high level separatecollection programme in an area suffering from a serious solidwaste emergency exploring the inuence of personal attributessuch as age, level of education and occupation.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Characteristics of the study area

The questionnaires were administered during 2010 in the cityof Mercato San Severino in the province of Salerno, in the Campa-nia region of Southern Italy. The population of Mercato San Severi-no was 21,590 inhabitants (derived from the databases of theItalian National Institute of Statistics, Istat) that corresponds to apopulation density of 714.7 inhabitants/km2 since its area is30.21 km2. The city has one principal centre (named MercatoSan Severino) and twenty-one geographical districts. In terms ofaltitude, the maximum is 957 m above sea level (asl), the medianis 520.5 m asl, and the minimum is 84 m asl. The municipal roadshave a length of 48.8 km (corresponding to 1.61 km/km2 and2.26 km/1000 inhabitants).

MSW is collected by means of a separate kerbside collectionsystem. MSW is separated in the following components: putresci-bles for composting (three times a week), paper and cardboard(once a week), glass (twice a month), aluminium and other metals(once a week), plastic for recycling (once a week), non-recyclingresidues for RDF production (twice a week), bulk refuses andWaste Electrical and Electronic (WEEE), used clothing and, nally,hazardous MSW. Putrescibles and recyclables were sent out of theCampania region due to the absence of treatment facilities, whilstnon-recycling residues were sent to an RDF production plant in thecity of Battipaglia, in the Province of Salerno.

Each MSW component is directly collected near the home ofevery resident except for bulk refuse andWEEE which are collectedon demand or directly delivered to a unique Environmental Centre(EC) of the city. As detailed described in De Feo and De Gisi(2010b), the city is composed by three main areas. The rst area,containing the EC, is medium densely populated and urbanized,with high- and low-rise buildings (especially blocks of ats andcottages). The second area is between one and 2 km from the EC.

1370 G. De Feo /Waste Managediscount proportional to the amount of recyclables (see Table 1,left). In particular, the collection worker with an optical readerscans the barcode relating to the householder/customer as wellas the particular recyclable. The householder can increase theamount of the discount by directly delivering the recyclables tothe EC where they are weighed (see Table 1, right). For example,citizens delivering plastics near their home obtain a discount of0.40 /bag (if the bag is totally lled, otherwise the worker recordsa volume fraction on his/her electronic device). With bags of 20 li-tres and a specic weight of 0.1 kg/litre, this amount correspondsto 0.20 /kg of plastics that is 17% lesser than the discount obtaineddirectly delivering the plastics to the EC (0.24 /kg). Fig. 1 showsthe principal elements of the PAYT system of Mercato San Severino.No dispute so far has been registered with the implementation ofthe PAYT policy.

The recycling rate averaged less than 38% in 2001, between 50%and 55% in the period 20022004, 5557% in the period 20052007, and between 62% and 64% in the period 20082010. The Ital-ian legislation was based on a minimum level of recycling of 25% toreach and exceed no later than March 2001, 35% no later thanMarch 2003, extended until to December 2006, 40% no later thanDecember 2007, 50% no later than December 2009 and 60% toovertake no later than December 2011. In general, if an Italianmunicipality falls short of the legislated recycling rate there is apenalty consisting in an increase of 20% of the fee for waste dis-posal in landlls (Legislative Decree, 152/2006). The municipalityof Mercato San Severino has always respected the rules in termsof the minimum percentage of separate collection.

2.2. Questionnaire

The questionnaire was made up of two principal parts, asshown in Table 2. The rst part of the questionnaire contains thepersonal attributes such as age, sex, marital status, occupation aswell as educational qualication. Other personal behaviours wereinvestigated such as watching TV, reading newspapers, and usingthe Internet. The second part contains 21 questions (Qi) relatedto the following social aspects: behaviour (8 questions: Q1, Q2,Q3, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q11, Q12), opinion (4 questions: Q4, Q5, Q13, Q19), spe-cic knowledge of the separate collection system of the city understudy (2 questions: Q6, Q10), general knowledge on MSW manage-ment (5 questions: Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18), and nally two ques-tions aimed at evaluating the questionnaire (Q20 and Q21).

Analogously to De Feo and De Gisi (2010a,b), the questionnaireswere administered by means of anonymous street interviews con-ducted by two undergraduate students of the Faculty of Engineer-ing of the University of Salerno by means of two sides A4 in orderto get through the questions quickly and not take up too muchtime. The two interviewers (showing an identity document) ap-proached people by saying who they were and their organizationand emphasising that they were not selling anything. Moreover,they showed people their survey, explaining that it was shortand hopefully not put them off answering questions. Finally, theyexplained that the questionnaire was anonymous and what hap-pened to their views and where the information was going.

Since the sample of people was extracted to perfectly reproducethe population in terms of male and female percentages for eachage subdivision, at the beginning, it was quite easy to nd peoplebelonging to the several age subdivisions. Going toward the endof each subdivision, it was more and more difcult to nd the cor-rect category of people. Therefore, the interviewers administeredthe questionnaire in places where it was easier to nd people ofthe required age (De Feo and De Gisi, 2010a).

2.3. Construction of the sample of people to interview

t 34 (2014) 13691380As shown in Table 3, the sample was extracted in order toreproduce the structure of the population of the city of MercatoSan Severino in terms of male and female percentages for each

emenTable 1Discount received by the householders of Mercato San Severino during 2010.

G. De Feo /Waste Managadopted age subdivision: (1) 1120, (2) 2130, (3) 3140, (4)4150, (5) 5160, (6) 6170, (7) over 70. Thus, inhabitants noyounger than 11 years old were considered in this study. Thisnumber was equal to 19,082 (01/01/2010, Italian National

Citizens delivering recyclables near their home

Plastics 0.40 /bagAluminium 0.50 /bagTinplate 0.50 /bagPaper 0.26 /bagCardboard 0.26 /bagWood and textile

Fig. 1. Principal elements of the pay-as-you-throw program (PAYT) system of the city ocomputerized management system; (d) reading of user card; (e) reading of MSW materspecic containers.t 34 (2014) 13691380 1371Institute of Statistics). A sample of 500 people (2.6% of the inhab-itants not less than 11 years) was interviewed, corresponding toa condence level of 99% (95%) and a condence interval of5.69% (4.33%).

Citizens delivering recyclables to the Environmental Centre

Plastics 0.24 /kgAluminium 0.36 /kgTinplate 0.10 /kgPaper 0.06 /kgCardboard 0.16 /kgWood and textile 0.02 /kg

f Mercato San Severino: (a) barcode readers; (b) barcode readers downloaders; (c)ial code; (f) and (g) weighing of recyclables; and (h) transferring of recyclables into

Table 2The submitted questionnaire (English translation and adaptation).

Social aspect No. Question Answers

Personal attributes andbehaviours

Age

Sex Male; femaleMarital status Married; singleWhat is your occupation? Student; housewife; ofce worker; worker; trader;

teacher; professional; retired; unemployed; otherWhat is your level of education? Nothing; rst level (primary); second level (secondary);

third level (high); fourth level (degree); otherWhat type of building do you live in? Small villa; detached house; semi-detached house;

condominiumWhat street do you live in? How many times a week do you buy a local newspaper? Never; once a week; a couple of days a week; every dayHow many times a week do you buy a national newspaper? Never; once a week; a couple of days a week; every dayHow many times a week do you listen to local televisionnewscasts?

Never; once a week; a couple of days a week; every day

How many times a week do you listen to national televisionnewscasts?

Never; once a week; a couple of days a week; every day

How many times a week do you use the Internet? Never; once a week; a couple of days a week; every day

Behaviour Q1 How many times a week do you carry MSW onto the street? Never; once a week; a couple of days a week; every dayQ2 How many persons are there in your home? Q3 How many of you take care of MSW? All; only me; other

Opinion Q4 How do you evaluate the quality of the separate collectionsystem?

Very bad; bad; sufcient; good; very good; I do not know

Q5 What is the main shortcoming of the separate collection system? No problem; smell in home; too many containers at home;nd a safe place to leave the bag in the street; stray animalsrummaging in bags and containers; other

Specic knowledge Q6 Do you know that in your municipality there is an EnvironmentalCentre where you can directly carry the separate waste and thisgive you a discount on the annual MSW fee?

Yes; no; I do not know

Behaviour Q7 If the answer to Q6 is Yes: How many times do you go to theEnvironmental Centre?

Never; once a month; once a week; more than once a week

Q8 If the answer to Q6 is Yes: Who goes to the EnvironmentalCentre?

All; only me; other

Q9 If the answer to Q7 is Never: Why do you never go theEnvironmental Centre?

I do not have time; it is too far; it is not convenient; other

Specic knowledge Q10 Do you know that there are barcodes to add onto the bags? Yes; no; I do not knowBehaviour Q11 If the answer to Q10 is Yes: Do you use the barcodes at your

home?Yes; no; I do not know

Q12 If the answer to Q10 is No: Why you do not use the barcodes? It is a waste of time; I do not believe in saving; we go theEnvironmental Centre

Opinion Q13 How do you dene the fractions that you separate from MSW forthe separate collection?

Discards; Materials; I do not know

General knowledge Q14 What is the MSW component with the highest weightpercentage?

Paper; plastic; glass; putrescibles; metals;I do not know

Q15 What is the average daily production of MSW per capita in yourmunicipality?

10 g; 100 g; 1 kg; 10 kg; 100 kg; I do not know

Q16 What is compost? A special container; a chemical compound; a fertilizer; I do notknow

Q17 What does RDF mean? Resource description framework; reality distortion eld;refuse derived fuel; I do not know

Q18 Do you know what you pay for MSW? A tax; a fee; I do not know

Opinion Q19 Who is the main responsible for the success of the programof separate collection in your municipality?

Citizens; local authority; citizens and local authority

Questions evaluation Q20 How were these questions? Easy; difcult; I do not knowQ21 How do you evaluate these questions? Useful; useless; I do not know

Table 3Extraction of the sample of people to interview.

Age subdivision Male Female Total

Population Sample (number) Population Sample (number) Population Sample (number)

(number) (%) (number) (%) (number) (%)

1120 1272 6.7 33 1222 6.4 32 2494 13.1 652130 1480 7.8 39 1461 7.7 38 2941 15.4 773140 1704 8.9 45 1782 9.3 47 3486 18.3 914150 1623 8.5 43 1592 8.3 42 3215 16.8 845160 1264 6.6 33 1292 6.8 34 2556 13.4 676170 1002 5.3 26 1013 5.3 27 2015 10.6 53>70 969 5.1 25 1406 7.4 37 2375 12.4 62Total 9314 48.8 244 9768 51.2 256 19,082 100.0 500

1372 G. De Feo /Waste Management 34 (2014) 13691380

To the best of my knowledge, this is the rst time that a so de-tailed subdivision of the age groups has been adopted in a sociolog-ical survey about MSW. Extending the youngest group down to11 years (in order to involve students of secondary school) is an-other peculiarity of the adopted sampling procedure.

2.4. Data analyses

Frequencies of observed and expected values were analysed bymeans of cross-tabulations. By examining these frequencies, rela-

environmental knowledge in order to select the areas and agegroups with a low level of knowledge in a municipality in theCampania region around 15 km from the city of Mercato San Seve-rino, and 11.8 years by De Feo and De Gisi (2010b) who analysedand compared the opinions and awareness of citizens and kerbsidecollection workers on this subject in the city of Mercato San Seve-rino during 2009.

Table 4 shows some personal attributes and behaviours of thesample per age group. The percentage of married people growswith the age up to 5160, and after decreases as a natural conse-

with 10% of the expected values was less than 5).

er

G. De Feo /Waste Management 34 (2014) 13691380 1373tions between cross-tabulated variables were identied.Moreover, the Chi-square test for independence was utilised to

determine whether behaviours, opinion, general and specicknowledge were statistically related to personal attributes andbehaviours. The Chi-square test is usually used to determinewhether there is a signicant difference between expected and ob-served frequencies in one or more categories. It answers the ques-tion: Do the number of individuals that fall in each category differsignicantly from the number you would expect? (Sharp, 1979;De Feo et al., 2013; De Feo and Williams, 2013).

A Chi-square test was considered not reliable if more than 20%of the expected values was less than ve. In the cases where testswere not reliable, variables were grouped as specied in the fol-lowing in order to overcome this shortcoming.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Social characteristics of respondents

The average age of the respondents was 40.6 years. The respon-dents were 48.7% male and 51.3% female as designed with theadopted sampling procedure (Table 3). The percentage of marriedrespondents (not including people in other long term relation-ships) was 53.0% (Table 4) that is a typical value of Southern Italy(De Feo and De Gisi, 2010a,b). In terms of occupation, the followingapplies: student (24.0%); ofce worker (13.6%); housewife (12.0%);retired labourer (11.6%); worker (10.6%); professional (9.8%); tra-der (8.6%); teacher (6.4%); unemployed (2.8%). 6.6% of respondentswere living in a little villa, 20.6% in a detached house, 17.0% in asemi-detached house, and 55.4% in a condominium.

A sort of education level (EL) can be calculated by summing thevalues obtained multiplying the years of study of each educationalqualication by the corresponding percentages of respondents (DeFeo and De Gisi, 2010a,b). Since, 0.2% of the people had no educa-tion (0 years of study), 15.8% of people had a primary school level(5 years of study), 29.2% of people had a middle school level(8 years of study), 36.8% of people had a high school education(13 years of study), and nally 18.0% of people had a university de-gree (18 years of study), the EL of the total sample was 11.2 yearsof study, compared with 12.1 registered by De Feo and De Gisi(2010a) who dened and applied a procedure based on a struc-tured questionnaire survey useful in analysing the peoples

Table 4Personal attributes and behaviours per age group (the values are in percentages).

Age group Married More than 2 times a week

Local newspaper National newspap

1120 0 23.4 25.32130 21.5 52.7 65.63140 54.6 64.6 79.84150 86.4 50.0 59.65160 98.2 53.7 74.16170 64.2 51.0 57.1

>70 76.5 20.6 38.2Total 53 47.8 59.2In little more than half of the cases (55.3%), all the persons livingin a home took care of MSW (question Q3), whereas 17.2% of thoseinterviewed exclusively managed MSW. This latter percentage in-creased with age, going from only 1.3% for the youngest up to37.5% for the age group 5160, and diminishing for the other twoolder groups. 56.7% of housewives stated that only they took careof MSW, and this is not surprising because in Southern Italy prin-cipally housewives usually take care of separate collection (De Feoand De Gisi, 2010a,b). On the basis of a Chi-square test, the answers

Local TV newscasts National TV newscasts The Internet

68.8 80.5 93.582.8 98.9 97.891.9 100.0 84.867.0 93.6 54.350.0 87.0 35.2

100.0 100.0 2.0quence of mortality. Listening to national television newscastswas the principal source of news for the people of Mercato SanSeverino, followed by listening to local television newscasts, usingthe Internet, reading a national newspaper, and nally reading a lo-cal newspaper. The Internet was the most used media only for theyoungest age group. Television still plays an important role in atraditional society like that in Southern Italy, and thus it has tobe necessarily considered in terms of environmental communica-tion campaigns (De Feo et al., 2013).

3.2. Behaviour

Table 5 shows observed (absolute and percentage) and ex-pected (absolute) answers to question Q1. 86.8% of respondentscarried MSW onto the street more than twice a week. The highestvalue was registered for the age group 3140 (97.0%), whereas thelowest value was for the oldest group (52.9%) arguably due to theirlower physical efciency as well as since they generate less wastethan families, they have less need to put out their waste. Accordingto Cottrell and Graefe (1997), this value grew with the educationallevel, going from 69.6% for primary school up to 98.9% for degree.Similarly to De Feo and De Gisi (2010b), in terms of occupation, abetter pro-environmental behaviour was shown by housewives,teachers and the unemployed, all with 100%. As shown in Table5, the Chi-square test could not be directly applied to the answersto question Q1 because more than 20% of the cells had expectedfrequencies below ve for the age group (28.6%), educational level(40.0%), and occupation (40.0%). While, grouping the answers asnot every day and every day, they were statistically relatedto the age group (p = 9.35 104, with 0% of the expected valueswas less than 5), educational level (p = 0.049, with 20% of the ex-pected values was less than 5), and occupation (p = 8.19 1013,76.5 100.0 0.077.2 94.2 63.6

(How

Ex(n

1.2.2.2.1.1.0.8

0.0

1.3.4.2.

1.1.1.

0.71.1.1.2.0.30.0

12

menTable 5Observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to question Q1

Key Sub-key Never 1 day a week

Observed Expected(num.)

Observed

(num.) (%) (num.) (%)

Agea 1120 7 9.1 8.33 6.0 7.82130 7 7.6 9.96 1.0 1.13140 2 2.0 10.71 1.0 1.04150 5 5.7 9.52 1.0 1.15160 11 19.6 6.06 2.0 3.66170 7 13.2 5.74 0.0 0.0>70 15 44.1 3.68 1.0 2.9

Educationallevelb

Nothing 0 0.0 0.11 0.0 0.0

Primary 20 25.3 8.55 4.0 5.1Secondary 18 12.3 15.80 5.0 3.4High 16 8.7 19.91 2.0 1.1Degree 0 0.0 9.63 1.0 1.1

Occupationc Housewife 0 0.0 6.49 0.0 0.0Trader 1 2.3 4.65 1.0 2.3Ofceworker

4 5.9 7.36 1.0 1.5

Teacher 0 0.0 3.46 0.0 0.0Professional 5 10.2 5.30 0 0.0Worker 10 18.9 5.74 2 3.8Retired 22 37.9 6.28 1 1.7Student 12 10.1 12.88 7 5.9Unemployed 0 0.0 1.52 0 0.0Other 0 0.0 0.32 0 0.0

Total 54 10.8 54 12 2.4

a 28.6% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.b 40.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.

1374 G. De Feo /Waste Manageto question Q3 were statistically related to the age group(p = 1.62 107 0.05, with 16.7% of theexpected values was less than 5).

Table 6 shows the observed (absolute and percentage) and ex-pected (absolute) answers to the question Q7. 34.2% of those inter-viewed went to the EC at least once a week, compared with 82.7%of the age group 3140, which was the active subdivision. Accord-ing to Cottrell and Graefe (1997), the percentage of people going tothe EC (y) grew with the educational level (y = 3.0519 1.1131,where x is the years of study; r2 = 0.9797). According to Redmanand Redman (2013), teachers (50.0%) and professionals (52.1%)were the most pro-environmental occupational categories. As sta-ted above, these behaviours have to be seen in the light that the ECis almost entirely used by car owners. As shown in Table 6, the Chi-square test could not be directly applied to the answers to questionQ7 because more than 20% of the cells had expected frequenciesbelow ve for the age group (25.0%), educational level (25.0%),and occupation (37.5%). While, grouping the answers as less thanone time a week and at least one time a week, they were statis-tically related to the age group (p = 6.68 1030, with 0% of the ex-pected values was less than 5), educational level (p = 7.51 109,with 0% of the expected values was less than 5), and occupation(p = 1.25 105, with 15% of the expected values was less than 5).

Table 7 shows the observed (absolute and percentage) and ex-pected (absolute) answers to question Q8. In about 40% of thecases, the respondents stated that all the persons living with him(or her) go to the EC. Only a quarter of those interviewed wasthe only to go to the EC. In terms of age, the people having less col-laboration from their housemates were those in the group 5160

c 40.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.many times a week do you carry MSW onto the street?).

A couple of day a week Every day

pectedum.)

Observed Expected(num.)

Observed Expected(num.)

(num.) (%) (num.) (%)

85 47.0 61.0 37.81 17.0 22.1 29.0121 57.0 62.0 45.17 27.0 29.3 34.6638 53.0 53.5 48.61 43.0 43.4 37.3012 41.0 46.6 43.21 41.0 46.6 33.1535 22.0 39.3 27.49 21.0 37.5 21.1027 17.0 32.1 26.02 29.0 54.7 19.972 8.0 23.5 16.69 10.0 29.4 12.81

2 0.0 0.0 0.49 1.0 100.0 0.38

90 32.0 40.5 38.79 23.0 29.1 29.7651 75.0 51.4 71.68 48.0 32.9 55.0142 92.0 50.0 90.34 74.0 40.2 69.3214 46.0 51.7 43.70 42.0 47.2 33.53

44 12.0 20.0 29.46 48.0 80.0 22.6103 30.0 69.8 21.11 11.0 25.6 16.2064 37.0 54.4 33.39 26.0 38.2 25.62

7 12.0 37.5 15.71 20.0 62.5 12.0618 26 53.1 24.06 18 36.7 18.4627 26 49.1 26.02 15 28.3 19.9739 13 22.4 28.48 22 37.9 21.8586 77 64.7 58.43 23 19.3 44.834 10 71.4 6.87 4 28.6 5.277 2 66.7 1.47 1 33.3 1.13

245 49.1 245 188 37.7 188

t 34 (2014) 13691380(57.9%). The percentage of respondents with all their housematesgoing to the EC increased with the educational level (not consider-ing the only one person not having any title), conrming that thissocial key has a positive pro-environmental effect (Mrquez et al.,2008). The housewives were those with less collaboration fromtheir housemates (60.4%). This latter result, according to De Feoand De Gisi (2010a,b) strengthens what has been stated aboutthe particular role played by housewives in the traditional societyof Southern Italy. On the basis of a Chi-square test, the answers toquestion Q8 were statistically related to the age group(p = 2.8 1011 < 0.01, with 14.3% of the expected values was lessthan 5), educational level (p = 1.1 1010 < 0.01, with 20.0% of theexpected values was less than 5), and occupation (p = 5.5 1013 < 0.01, with 20.0% of the expected values was less than 5).

Respondents to question Q9 stated that they never go to the ECbecause they do not have time in 29.8% of the cases, because it istoo far for 41.3% of them, and because it is not convenient in23.1% of the cases. The categories that pointed out the absence oftime as the principal barrier were the age group 2130 (70%), halfof the graduates, and, surprisingly, 100% of the unemployed. Thefact that the youngest groups were those complaining about lack-ing time is not strange because it is in accordance with previousstudies (De Feo and De Gisi, 2010a,b). The graduates are probablythe busiest at work. The result of the unemployed is really surpris-ing because they, not working, should have more time; but, prob-ably, they spend their time looking for a job. The oldest age groupsas well as the retired were those indicating the distance as princi-pal barrier arguably due to their possible movement difculties(e.g., absence of cars, health conditions, etc.) (Ojedokun, 2011).The categories that considered it not convenient to go to the ECwere the age group 5160 (47.8%), graduates (40%), teachers(75.0%) and professionals (80.0%). These behaviours have to be

emenTable 6

G. De Feo /Waste Managanalysed taking into account the fact that the EC is open from07:30 to 12:30 from Monday to Saturday (enclosed), and only onMonday and Thursday from 14:30 to 17:00. The Chi-square test

Observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to the question Q7 (

Key Sub-key Never 1 time a month

Observed Expected(num.)

Observed E(

(num.) (%) (num.) (%)

Agea 1120 12 17.4 14.7 32 46.4 32130 11 12.1 19.4 55 60.4 43140 3 3.1 20.9 14 14.3 44150 16 20.0 17.1 49 61.3 35160 26 47.3 11.7 15 27.3 26170 13 26.0 10.7 35 70.0 2>70 20 66.7 6.4 10 33.3 1

Educationallevelb

Nothing 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0

Primary 33 47.8 14.7 29 42.0 3Secondary 30 21.7 29.5 74 53.6 6High 26 14.9 37.4 75 42.9 7Degree 12 13.2 19.4 32 35.2 4

Occupationc Housewife 11 20.0 11.7 23 41.8 2Trader 11 26.2 9.0 21 50.0 1Ofceworker

14 20.6 14.5 27 39.7 3

Teacher 4 12.5 6.8 12 37.5 1Professional 5 10.4 10.2 18 37.5 2Worker 12 24.0 10.7 23 46.0 2Retired 26 50.0 11.1 25 48.1 2Student 15 13.5 23.7 55 49.5 4Unemployed 3 25.0 2.6 4 33.3 5Other 0 0.0 0.6 2 66.7 1

Total 101 21.4 101 210 44.4 2

a 25.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.b 25.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.c 37.5% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.

Table 7Observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to question Q8 (Wh

Key Sub-key All

Observed Expected (num.)

(num.) (%)

Agea 1120 25 39.1 25.12130 29 35.8 31.73140 39 41.1 37.24150 36 48.0 29.45160 10 26.3 14.96170 13 35.1 14.5>70 5 45.5 4.3

Educational levelb Nothing 1 100.0 0.4Primary 19 33.9 21.9Secondary 39 35.1 43.5High 58 37.7 60.3Degree 40 50.6 30.9

Occupationc Housewife 11 22.9 18.8Trader 16 48.5 12.9Ofce worker 27 44.3 23.9Teacher 11 39.3 11.0Professional 27 61.4 17.2Worker 15 32.6 18.0Retired 9 33.3 10.6Student 36 36.4 38.8Unemployed 5 41.7 4.7Other 0 0.0 1.2

Total 157 39.2 157

a 14.3% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.b 20.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.c 20.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.t 34 (2014) 13691380 1375could not be applied to the answers to question Q9 because morethan 20% of the cells had expected frequencies below ve for theage group (60.7%), educational level (55.0%), and occupation

How many times do you go to the Environmental Centre?).

1 time a week More than 1 time a week

xpectednum.)

Observed Expected(num.)

Observed Expected(num.)

(num.) (%) (num.) (%)

0.6 18 26.1 20.7 7 10.1 2.90.4 18 19.8 27.3 7 7.7 3.83.5 80 81.6 29.4 1 1.0 4.15.5 13 16.3 24.0 2 2.5 3.44.4 11 20.0 16.5 3 5.5 2.32.2 2 4.0 15.0 0 0.0 2.13.3 0 0.0 9.0 0 0.0 1.3

.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

0.6 4 5.8 20.7 3 4.3 2.91.3 29 21.0 41.4 5 3.6 5.87.7 66 37.7 52.5 8 4.6 7.40.4 43 47.3 27.3 4 4.4 3.8

4.4 21 38.2 16.5 0 0.0 2.38.6 10 23.8 12.6 0 0.0 1.80.2 25 36.8 20.4 2 2.9 2.9

4.2 13 40.6 9.6 3 9.4 1.41.3 25 52.1 14.4 0 0.0 2.02.2 14 28.0 15.0 1 2.0 2.13.1 1 1.9 15.6 0 0.0 2.29.3 29 26.1 33.3 12 10.8 4.7.3 3 25.0 3.6 2 16.7 0.5.3 1 33.3 0.9 0 0.0 0.1

10 142 30.0 142 20 4.2 20

o goes to the Environmental Centre?).

Only me Other

Observed Expected (num.) Observed Expected (num.)

(num.) (%) (num.) (%)

0 0.0 16.4 39 60.9 22.512 14.8 20.8 40 49.4 28.530 31.6 24.4 26 27.4 33.427 36.0 19.3 12 16.0 26.422 57.9 9.8 6 15.8 13.411 29.7 9.5 13 35.1 13.01 9.1 2.8 5 45.5 3.9

0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.418 32.1 14.4 19 33.9 19.75 4.5 28.5 67 60.4 39.058 37.7 39.6 38 24.7 54.122 27.8 20.3 17 21.5 27.8

29 60.4 12.3 8 16.7 16.99 27.3 8.5 8 24.2 11.616 26.2 15.7 18 29.5 21.410 35.7 7.2 7 25.0 9.89 20.5 11.3 8 18.2 15.518 39.1 11.8 13 28.3 16.26 22.2 6.9 12 44.4 9.51 1.0 25.4 62 62.6 34.84 33.3 3.1 3 25.0 4.21 33.3 0.8 2 66.7 1.1103 25.7 103 141 35.2 141

men(85.0%). Moreover, since people not going to the EC were a minorpart (around 20%), it is a non-sense try to apply the Chi-square testto grouped variables.

On the whole, 82.1% of the respondents used the barcodes attheir home pasting them onto the collection bags (question Q11).In the EC, no barcode is needed, because a users magnetic cardis used (see Fig. 1d). Almost all the people in the age group 3140 (99%) stated that they used the barcodes; additionally the per-centage of the oldest was signicant (61%). The percentage of peo-ple using the barcodes signicantly increased with the educationallevel (not considering the only person not having any educationaltitle). Ofce workers were the best pro-environmentalist occupa-tional category (93%). On the basis of a Chi-square test, the answersto question Q11 were statistically related to the age group(p = 2.6 1015 < 0.01, 14.3% of the expected values was less than5), and educational level (p = 1.1 106 < 0.01, 20.0% of the ex-pected values was less than 5). The Chi-square test could not be ap-plied to the occupation because more than 20% of the cells hadexpected frequencies below ve (46.7%). While, grouping thesub-keys of occupation as student, housewife, retired,unemployed and other, answer to Q11 were also statisticallyrelated to this variable (p = 0.0033, with 10% of the expected valueswas less than 5).

Respondents not using the barcodes (question Q12) stated that itwas a waste of time, in 36.7% of the cases; 27.8% of them did notbelieve in saving; nally, 35.4% preferred to go to the Environmen-tal Centre. The Chi-square test could not be applied to the answersto question Q12 because more than 20% of the cells had expectedfrequencies below ve for the age group (57.1%), educational level(60.0%), and occupation (83.3%). Moreover, since people not goingto the EC were a minor part (around 16%), it is a non-sense try toapply the Chi-square test to grouped variables.

3.3. Opinion

The interviewees were quite unanimous in judging the qualityof the separate collection system (question Q4): it was evaluatedat less sufcient for 95.8% of them, and at less good for 94.0%. Thisis not surprising because the separate collection system of MercatoSan Severino is considered a sort of guide to follow by manymunicipalities in Southern Italy (De Feo et al., 2012). The evalua-tions were very uniform for the three social categories consideredin this paper, and therefore it is no sense trying to apply a Chi-square test. De Feo and De Gisi (2010a) registered that in a city15 km from Mercato San Severino only 41.3% of the residents eval-uated at less sufcient their separate collection program.

A little more than two-thirds (68.8%) stated that the separatecollection system does not have any shortcomings (question Q5),and this is consistent with the good evaluation expressed by thecitizens. About a tenth pointed out both the presence of too manycontainers at home (10.6%) and stray animals rummaging in bagsand containers (9.8%) as the main problems. In the previous studyof De Feo and De Gisi (2010b) in Mercato San Severino, all therespondents were unanimous in pointing out the breakage of thebags due to stray animals as the main problem encountered intransferring waste to the street. In this case, the citizens suggestedadopting a specic container to deliver each separate MSW compo-nent as a possible improvement. On the basis of a Chi-square test,the answers to question Q5 were only statistically related to theage group (p = 9.0 1026 < 0.01).

Table 8 shows the observed (absolute and percentage) and ex-pected (absolute) answers to question Q19. The obtained resultsare very interesting because almost two-thirds of the respondents

1376 G. De Feo /Waste Manageindicated the citizens and local authority as being mainly respon-sible for the success of the program of separate collection. The localauthority was the second driving force (22.8%) and only 13.2% ofthe respondents stated that the success of the program was princi-pally due to the citizens. These results highlight the leading role ofthe local authority (Tebbatt Adams et al., 2000), which has had agreat popularity on local and national media. As a matter of fact,also due to the ability in promoting such an effective environmen-tal program, the Mayor of Mercato San Severino has become theCouncillor for the Environment of the Campania region. The agegroups emphasising the joint role of the local authority and citi-zens the most were 2130 (73.1%) and 3140 (78.8%). The percent-age of respondents that indicated the citizens and local authorityas being mainly responsible increased with the educational level(not considering the only one person not having any academicqualication). Finally, in terms of occupation, the highest percent-age was registered for workers (80.6%). On the basis of a Chi-squaretest, the answers to question Q19 were statistically related to theage group (p = 2.9 107 < 0.01, with 4.8% of the expected valueswas less than 5), and educational level (p = 0.02 < 0.05, with20.0% of the expected values was less than 5); they were not statis-tically related to the occupation (p = 0.16 > 0.05, with 20.0% of theexpected values was less than 5).

Table 9 shows the observed (absolute and percentage) and ex-pected (absolute) answers to the question Q13. Also in this casethe obtained results are very interesting because 77% of therespondents considered the MSW fractions as materials, and onlya little more than a tenth considered them as discards. The bestpro-environmentalist age groups were 3140 (96%) and 2130(88%). Only the majority of the oldest age group considered MSWfractions as discards. At a rst glance, this result could appear a lit-tle bit strange because people over 70 in Southern Italy grew up ina rural society where only a few almost useless objects were usu-ally disposed of. Nevertheless, probably for this reason the ques-tions could be of no sense to them. In their mind, wastes arediscards, whereas materials belong to another world. The percent-age of respondents that dened MSW fractions as materials signif-icantly grew with the educational level (not considering the onlyone person not having any academic qualication), further high-lighting the positive inuence of this demographic characteristic(Cottrell and Graefe, 1997; Mrquez et al., 2008). The categoriesof teacher, ofce worker, professional, and trader were those whomainly considered MSW fractions as materials. For the teachers,this was probably due to their educational role (Redman and Red-man, 2013); for professionals and ofce workers as consequence oftheir high educational level (Cottrell and Graefe, 1997); and fortraders because they usually manage materials and know theireconomic value (Ojedokun, 2011). On the basis of a Chi-square test,the answers to question Q13 were statistically related to the agegroup (p = 3.1 1016 < 0.01, 9.5% of the expected values was lessthan 5), and educational level (p = 2.5 103 < 0.01, 20.0% of theexpected values was less than 5). The Chi-square test could notbe directly applied to the occupation because more than 20% ofthe cells had expected frequencies below ve (23.0%). While,grouping the sub-keys of occupation as student, housewife,retired, unemployed and other, answer to Q13 were also sta-tistically related to this variable (p = 2.57 105, with 10% of theexpected values was less than 5).

3.4. Knowledge

As shown in Table 2, the questionnaire contained 5 questions(Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18) concerning general knowledge aboutMSW and separate collection, and 2 questions (Q6, Q10) specicallyregarding the knowledge of the separate collection program of thecity under study.

t 34 (2014) 13691380For four general knowledge questions out of ve (Q14, Q15, Q16and Q17), the obtained results can be compared with those ob-tained by De Feo and De Gisi (2010a) and with those obtained by

(Wh

emenTable 8Observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to question Q19

G. De Feo /Waste ManagDe Feo andWilliams (2013) who reported on the current views andknowledge of students from the University of Salerno campus(around 4 km far fromMercato San Severino) about waste manage-ment operations and facilities.

municipality?).

Key Sub-key Citizens L

Observed Expected (num.) O

(num.) (%) (

Agea 1120 15 19.5 10.2 22130 3 3.2 12.3 23140 7 7.1 13.1 14150 15 17.0 11.6 25160 19 33.9 7.4 16170 1 1.9 7.0 1>70 6 17.6 4.5 7

Educational levelb Nothing 0 0.0 0.1 0Primary 15 19.0 10.4 2Secondary 27 18.5 19.3 3High 20 10.9 24.3 4Degree 4 4.4 11.9 1

Occupationc Housewife 7 11.7 7.9 1Trader 7 16.3 5.7 9Ofce worker 4 28.6 1.8 4Teacher 0 0.0 0.4 1Professional 9 13.2 9.0 1Worker 2 6.5 4.1 4Retired 2 4.1 6.5 8Student 12 22.6 7.0 9Unemployed 7 12.1 7.7 1Other 16 13.2 16.0 3

Total 66 13.2 66 1

a 4.8% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.b 20.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.c 20.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.

Table 9Observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to question Q13 (How

Key Sub-key Discards M

Observed Expected (num.) O

(num.) (%) (

Agea 1120 9 12.2 9.8 42130 9 9.8 12.2 83140 4 4.0 13.1 94150 12 14.0 11.4 65160 7 13.0 7.2 36170 8 15.4 6.9 4>70 16 48.5 4.4 1

Educational levelb Nothing 0 0.0 0.1 1Primary 17 22.4 10.1 4Secondary 24 16.8 19.0 9High 21 11.5 24.1 1Degree 3 3.4 11.7 7

Occupationc Housewife 8 13.3 8.0 4Trader 6 14.3 5.6 3Ofce worker 5 7.5 8.9 6Teacher 0 0.0 4.1 3Professional 1 2.1 6.4 4Worker 9 17.3 6.9 3Retired 20 35.7 7.4 3Student 13 11.1 15.5 8Unemployed 3 21.4 1.9 8Other 0 0.0 0.4 2

Total 65 13.3 65.0 3

a 9.5% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.b 20.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.c 23.3% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.o is the main responsible for the success of the program of separate collection in your

t 34 (2014) 13691380 137744.1% of the sample properly indicated that putrescibles is theMSW component with the highest weight percentage (questionQ14) compared with 38.6% obtained by De Feo and De Gisi(2010a) and 47.1% obtained by De Feo and Williams (2013): the

ocal authority Citizens and local authority

bserved Expected (num.) Observed Expected (num.)

num.) (%) (num.) (%)

0 26.0 17.6 42 54.5 49.32 23.7 21.2 68 73.1 59.54 14.1 22.6 78 78.8 63.42 25.0 20.1 51 58.0 56.30 17.9 12.8 27 48.2 35.89 35.8 12.1 33 62.3 33.9

20.6 7.8 21 61.8 21.8

0.0 0.2 1 100.0 0.60 25.3 18.0 44 55.7 50.61 21.2 33.3 88 60.3 93.48 26.1 42.0 116 63.0 117.85 16.7 20.5 71 78.9 57.6

1 18.3 13.7 42 70.0 38.420.9 9.8 27 62.8 27.528.6 3.2 6 42.9 9.033.3 0.7 2 66.7 1.9

6 23.5 15.5 43 63.2 43.512.9 7.1 25 80.6 19.816.3 11.2 39 79.6 31.417.0 12.1 32 60.4 33.9

7 29.3 13.2 34 58.6 37.15 28.9 27.6 70 57.9 77.414 22.8 114.0 320 64.0 320

do you dene the fractions that you separate from MSW for the separate collection?).

aterials I do not know

bserved Expected (num.) Observed Expected (num.)

num.) (%) (num.) (%)

4 59.5 56.8 21 28.4 7.41 88.0 70.6 2 2.2 9.25 96.0 76.0 0 0.0 9.96 76.7 66.0 8 9.3 8.67 68.5 41.4 10 18.5 5.41 78.8 39.9 3 5.8 5.22 36.4 25.3 5 15.2 3.3

100.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.19 64.5 58.3 10 13.2 7.69 69.2 109.7 20 14.0 14.350 82.4 139.7 11 6.0 18.27 87.5 67.5 8 9.1 8.8

7 78.3 46.0 5 8.3 65 83.3 32.2 1 2.4 4.20 89.6 51.4 2 3.0 6.70 96.8 23.8 1 3.2 3.12 87.5 36.8 5 10.4 4.86 69.2 39.9 7 13.5 5.21 55.4 43.0 5 8.9 5.65 72.6 89.8 19 16.2 11.7

57.1 10.7 3 21.4 1.466.7 2.3 1 33.3 0.3

76 76.7 376.0 49 10.0 49

citizens of Mercato San Severino, therefore, correctly answer thisquestion almost in the same proportion of university educatedpeople, and signicantly better than non-university educated peo-ple of a nearby city but with an ineffective separate collection pro-gram. 62.7% of the respondents knew the average daily productionof MSW per capita (question Q15) compared with 56.9% obtainedby De Feo and De Gisi (2010a) and 53.4% obtained by De Feo andWilliams (2013): the fact that non-university educated people an-swered better than university students (especially those of Merca-to San Severino) may be due to the fact that understanding theweight of the amount of the daily per capita MSW production re-quires a certain amount of common sense (De Feo and Williams,

to question Q10 and occupation, giving a positive response. The spe-cic question Q6 and Q10 wanted to verify if the respondents knewabout the existence of the Environmental Centre and barcodes,respectively. The obtained results are remarkable because 94.2% ofsample knew the EC, and 93.4% knew the barcodes, testifying a verygood knowledge of the separate collection program by the citizensof Mercato San Severino.

Fig. 2 shows graphical representations of the average percent-age of correct answers to both the general and specic knowledgequestions in terms of years of respondents, years of education, andoccupation.

As shown in Fig. 2a, on the average, respondents in the range

stio

14

22

19

1378 G. De Feo /Waste Management 34 (2014) 136913802013). 52.5% of the interviewees knew that compost is a kind offertilizer (question Q16) compared with 33.8% obtained by De Feoand De Gisi (2010a) and 37.6% obtained by De Feo and Williams(2013): the level of knowledge showed by the citizens of MercatoSan Severino was signicantly better than that of university stu-dents and citizens of the nearby city. This was arguably due tothe fact that the separate collection program of Mercato San Seve-rino gives their citizens the opportunity to practice home compost-ing. 47.2% of the respondents knew that RDF stands for RefuseDerived Fuel (question Q17) compared with 41.6% obtained by DeFeo and De Gisi (2010a) and 39.4% obtained by De Feo and Wil-liams (2013): the citizens of Mercato San Severino, therefore, alsofor this question answered better rather than university studentsand citizens of the nearby city. On the whole, in average termsfor all the four general common knowledge questions, 51.8% ofthe sample of Mercato San Severino correctly answered the ques-tions compared with 42.7% obtained by De Feo and De Gisi(2010a) and 44.4% obtained by De Feo and Williams (2013). Itcould be argued that the lack of understanding among universitystudents could be due to the fact that some of them live in univer-sity accommodation so they are not directly responsible for wastemanagement tasks. However, this is not possible because also thestudents living in the university accommodations are directly in-volved in the separate collection program.

Question Q18 was aimed at evaluating if people knew that theywere aware of what they pay a MSW fee for. Mercato San Severinois one of the few municipalities that adopted (since 2005) a PAYTsystem in Southern Italy. This fact was revealed by the responsesof the sample, because 61% of them correctly answered. Peoplein the range 6170 were the most informed (87%); the percentageof correct answers linearly increased with the educational level;workers were the most informed, with 94% of correct answers,and, surprisingly, teachers were the worst informed, with only33% correctly answering.

Table 10 shows the results of Chi-square tests of independenceon the general and specic knowledge questions. All the answersto the general knowledge questions were statistically related toage, educational level and occupation. In terms of specic knowl-edge, as shown in Table 10, the Chi-square test could only be applied

Table 10Results of a chi-square test of independence on the general and specic knowledge quep-value).

Key General knowledge

Q14 Q15 Q16

Age 1.17 1013 2.32 1014 1.90 10(0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%)

Educational level 1.21 1024 8.85 1017 9.77 10(20.0%) (20.0%) (20.0%)

Occupation 1.16 1019 1.19 1010 5.27 10

(10.0%) (10.0%) (10.0%)2130 and 3140 were the most well generally informed, followedby people aged 4150. All the other respondents showed a level ofgeneral knowledge less than 50%, with the youngest slightly over40%, people in the range 5170 around 40%, and the oldest under20%. This result is in accordance with De Feo and De Gisi (2010a)who analogously found that the youngest and oldest peopleshowed the lowest level of general knowledge about MSW andseparate collection. However, in this case, the level of knowledgeof the oldest group is very worrying, and therefore adopting a gen-eral environmental information program for the elderly is desir-able. As shown in Fig. 2b, the situation was signicantly better interms of specic knowledge, with the same better informed agegroups: 2130 (97.8%), 3140 (98.5%), and 4150 (98.3%).

As shown in Fig. 2c, the average percentage of correct answersto the general knowledge questions linearly grew with the yearsspent for their education: the level of general knowledge grewabout 4% for each year (r2 = 0.939). Furthermore, the specicknowledge grew with the years of education, but the data werebetter interpolated with a cubic polynomial equation (r2 = 0.997).Therefore, the higher the education level, the greater the generaland specic knowledge was. This result contradicts what wasachieved by De Feo and De Gisi (2010a) who found that in a nearbycity with a low level of separate collection, there were reduced dif-ferences of knowledge in terms of educational level. In the city ofMercato San Severino, a high educational level corresponded to ahigh level of environmental knowledge arguably because the citi-zens were educated (since 2001) by means of an effective separatecollection program even if they were in an area suffering from aserious solid waste emergency. This result highlights the impor-tance of having good examples to followmainly in areas with crim-inal organizations and ineffective politicians as testied by therepeated sentences by the European Court of Justice.

Finally, Fig. 2e and f shows the average percentage of correctanswers to the general and specic knowledge questions, respec-tively. Teachers (92%) and professionals (84%) were the most in-formed occupational categories in general terms, while theretired (40%), workers (32%) and the unemployed (27%) were theworst informed. In specic terms, all the occupational categoriesshowed a good level of knowledge: only 20% of the retired were

ns (the percentage of expected values less than ve is reported in brackets under each

Specic knowledge

Q17 Q18 Q6 Q10

2.92 1012 4.14 1017 (0.0%) (0.0%) (28.6%) (21.4%)

7.36 1026 5.22 109 5.05 106(20.0%) (20.0%) (30.0%) (20.0%)

3.88 1020 4.69 107

(10.0%) (10.0%) (55.0%) (50.0%)

emen0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Mea

n pe

rcen

tage

of c

orre

ct

answ

ers

(%)

Years

G. De Feo /Waste Managnot well informed about the presence of the Environmental Centreas well as the use of barcodes on the collecting bags. Therefore, theenvironmental information program for the elderly could also con-tain specic information about the separate collection program.

4. Conclusions

The paper reports on behaviours, opinions and knowledge ofcitizens on MSW and separate collection in a city with a high le-vel separate collection program in an area suffering from a seri-ous solid waste emergency. The main conclusions from thestudy are that:

The youngest and oldest people showed the weakest pro-envi-ronmental behaviour.

y = 3.9757 x + 11.749R = 0.9388

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20

tcerr ocfoeg at necre p

n aeM

answ

ers

(%)

Years of education

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mea

n pe

rcen

tage

of c

orre

ct

answ

ers

(%)

Occupation

(a)

(c)

(e)Fig. 2. Average percentage of correct answers: (a) general knowledge vs years of respondof education; (d) specic knowledge vs years of education; (e) general knowledge vs oc0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Mea

n pe

rcen

tage

of c

orre

ct

answ

ers

(%)

Years

t 34 (2014) 13691380 1379 The pro-environmental behaviour signicantly grew with theeducational level.

The better pro-environmental behaviour was shown by house-wives, teachers and professionals.

96% of the sample positively evaluated the quality of theseparate collection program.

69% of the sample stated that the separate collection systemdoes not have shortcomings.

About 90% of the sample stated that the success of the separatecollection program was due to either the citizens and localauthority or only the local authority.

The oldest people showed the lowest level of general knowl-edge about MSW and separate collection.

Teachers and professionals were the most informed occupa-tional categories.

y = 0.0113x3 - 0.5363x2 + 8.7784x + 49.784R = 0.9969

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5 10 15 20

t cerroc foegat necre p

naeM

answ

ers

(%)

Years of education

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mea

n pe

rcen

tage

of c

orre

ct

answ

ers

(%)

Occupation

(b)

(d)

(f)ents; (b) specic knowledge vs years of respondents; (c) general knowledge vs yearscupation; and (f) specic knowledge vs occupation.

94% of the sample demonstrated to know the rules of the sepa-rate collection program.

The level of knowledge showed by the citizens of Mercato SanSeverino was better than that of nearby university studentsand citizens.

The higher the education level, the greater the level of knowl-edge was, arguably because the citizens were educated bymeans of an effective separate collection program even if theywere in an area suffering from a serious solid waste emergency.

The city of Mercato San Severino can be considered as a goodexample to follow by other communities that are intending to de-velop their waste collection and recycling services in similar waysin an area of historic unpopularity (and not). The main lessonslearnt are the fundamental role played by the local authority interms of people involvement in environmental programs and thattrust is the key to any social program success. Another importantpolicy implication learnt from the developed case study is thatthe leading role of the local authority has to be exerted with con-tinuity in areas with historic unpopularity in order to obtain effec-tive results in the long distance.

Acknowledgements

Cottrell, S.P., Graefe, A.R., 1997. Testing a conceptual framework of responsibleenvironmental behavior. J. Environ. Educ. 29 (1), 1727.

De Feo, G., De Gisi, S., 2010a. Public opinion and awareness towards MSW andseparate collection programs: a sociological procedure for selecting areas andcitizens with a low level of knowledge. Waste Manage. 30, 958976.

De Feo, G., De Gisi, S., 2010b. Domestic separation and collection of municipal solidwaste: opinion and awareness of citizens and workers. Sustainability 2, 12971326.

De Feo, G., Williams, I.D., 2913. Siting landlls and incinerators in areas of historicunpopularity: surveying the views of the next generation. Waste Manage.,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.08.019.

De Feo, G., De Gisi, S., Galasso, M., 2012. Riuti solidi. Progettazione e gestione diimpianti di trattamento e smaltimento. Dario Flaccovio Editore, Palermo, Italy(in Italian).

De Feo, G., De Gisi, S., Williams, I.D., 2013. Public perception of odour andenvironmental pollution attributed to MSW treatment and disposal facilities: acase study. Waste Manage. 33, 974987.

Guagnano, G., Stern, P., Dietz, T., 1995. Inuences on attitude-behaviourrelationships. A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ. Behav.27, 699718.

Gunton, H., Williams, I.D., 2007. Waste Minimisation Using Behaviour ChangeTechniques: A Case Study for Students. In: Lechner, P. (Ed.), (2007) WasteMatters: Integrating Views. Proceedings of the 2nd BOKU Waste Conference,April 1619, Vienna.

Legislative Decree, 152/2006. Decreto Legislativo 3 Aprile 2006, n. 152. Norme inmateria ambientale, Gazzetta Ufciale n. 88 del 14 Aprile 2006 SupplementoOrdinario n. 96, Rome, Italy (in Italian).

Mrquez, M.Y., Ojeda, S., Hidalgo, H., 2008. Identication of behavior patterns inhousehold solid waste generation in Mexicalis city: study case. Resour.Conserv. Recycl. 52, 12991306.

Martin, M., Williams, I.D., Clark, M., 2006. Social, cultural and structural inuenceson household waste recycling: a case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 48, 357395.

1380 G. De Feo /Waste Management 34 (2014) 13691380The authorwish to tank Antonio Amabile and Isidoro Scarano fortheir precious work in submitting the questionnaires, the mayor ofMercato San Severino, Giovanni Romano, Dr. Sacha A. Berardo forhis English revision and three anonymous referees for theirprecious suggestions.

References

Alexander, C., Smaje, C., Timlett, R., Williams, I.D., 2009. Improving socialtechnologies for recycling. Proc. Instit. Civ. Eng. Waste Resour. Manage. 162,1528.

Chan, K., 1998. Mass communication and pro-environmental behaviour: wasterecycling in Hong Kong. J. Environ. Manage. 52, 317325.

Corraliza, J., Berenguer, J., 2000. Environmental values, beliefs and actions. Asituational approach. Environ. Behav. 32, 832848.

Cossu, R., Masi, S., 2013. Re-thinking incentives and penalties: economic aspects ofwaste management in Italy. Waste Manage. 33, 25412547.McKenzie-Mohr, D., 2000. Promoting sustainable behaviour: an introduction tocommunity-based social marketing. J. Soc. Issues 56, 543554.

Ojedokun, O., 2011. Attitude towards littering as a mediator of the relationshipbetween personality attributes and responsible environmental behaviour.Waste Manage. 31, 26012611.

Redman, E., Redman, A., 2013. Transforming sustainable food and waste behaviorsby realigning domains of knowledge in our education system. J. Clean. Prod.,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.016.

Sharp, V.F., 1979. Statistics for the Social Sciences, Little. Brown & Company,Toronto, Canada.

Steedman, P., 2005. Desperately Seeking Sustainability? National ConsumerCouncil, London, UK.

Tebbatt Adams, K., Phillips, P.S., Morris, J.R., 2000. A radical new development forsustainable waste management in the UK: the introduction of local authorityBest Value legislation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 30, 221244.

Sociological survey in a municipality with a high level separate collection programme in an area of historic unpopularity1 Introduction2 Materials and methods2.1 Characteristics of the study area2.2 Questionnaire2.3 Construction of the sample of people to interview2.4 Data analyses

3 Results and discussion3.1 Social characteristics of respondents3.2 Behaviour3.3 Opinion3.4 Knowledge

4 ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences