IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i16p6476-d397540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Household Perceptions and Practices of Recycling Tree Debris from Residential Properties

Author

Listed:
  • Mikaela L. Schmitt-Harsh

    (Department of Interdisciplinary Liberal Studies, James Madison University, Mountain Hall, 800 S. Main Street, Harrisonburg, VA 22801, USA)

  • Eric Wiseman

    (Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, Virginia Tech, 310 West Campus Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA)

Abstract

Thousands of trees are lost in urbanizing areas of Virginia each year to land development, storms, and pests. As a result, large amounts of tree debris, much of which could be suitable for high-value wood products, are flowing from Virginia’s urban forests annually. Finding cost-effective, sustainable strategies for recycling this debris, particularly into durable wood products that keep carbon stored, could benefit the local economy and the local environment throughout the state. To inform outreach and technical assistance efforts of multiple groups across the state, a survey study was conducted in the City of Harrisonburg to determine household perceptions and practices of tree debris recycling. A random sample of owner-occupied, single-family dwellings was contacted using a mixed-mode survey approach to determine why and how trees were removed from the properties in the past and how the debris was disposed of or recycled. Survey responses were received from 189 households, with survey responses pointing toward a strong community sentiment for trees and their care. Nearly all respondents agreed that wood from street trees, park trees, and other neighborhood trees should be recycled into products rather than disposed of in a landfill; however, the majority of households do not currently recycle woody debris from trees removed on these properties. The three most important factors that would facilitate future participation in tree recycling include timely removal of the wood, free curbside pick-up of the wood, and knowledge of who to contact to handle the wood. Overall, these results point to household interest and willingness to participate in wood recycling programs given appropriate information to guide their decisions and local services to facilitate transfer of wood to the municipality or commercial woodworkers. This suggests a need for greater availability of neighborhood or municipal wood recycling programs, ideally coupled with greater education and outreach about the economic and environmental benefits of recovering and utilizing wood from felled trees.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikaela L. Schmitt-Harsh & Eric Wiseman, 2020. "Household Perceptions and Practices of Recycling Tree Debris from Residential Properties," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-21, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6476-:d:397540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6476/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6476/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zia Ur Rahman Farooqi & Muhammad Sabir & Nukshab Zeeshan & Muhammad Mahroz Hussian & Khurram Naveed, 2018. "Enhancing Carbon Sequestration Using Organic Amendments and Agricultural Practices," Chapters, in: Ramesh Agarwal (ed.), Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration, IntechOpen.
    2. Berglund, Christer, 2006. "The assessment of households' recycling costs: The role of personal motives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 560-569, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yanran Liu & Tingting Tian & Xinyu Hao & Qin Zhang & Chengyan Yao & Guangfu Liu, 2021. "Promotion of Household Waste Utilization in China: Lessons Learnt from Three Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Bing Wang & Qiran Cai & Zhenming Sun, 2020. "Determinants of Willingness to Participate in Urban Incentive-Based Energy Demand-Side Response: An Empirical Micro-Data Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-18, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cecere, Grazia & Mancinelli, Susanna & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2014. "Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 163-176.
    2. Anthony Heyes & Sandeep Kapur, 2011. "Regulating altruistic agents," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 227-246, February.
    3. Sahlin, Jenny & Ekvall, Tomas & Bisaillon, Mattias & Sundberg, Johan, 2007. "Introduction of a waste incineration tax: Effects on the Swedish waste flows," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 827-846.
    4. Pfister, Naomi & Mathys, Nicole A., 2022. "Waste taxes at work: Evidence from the canton of Vaud in Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Marcinkowski, Andrzej & Kowalski, Arkadiusz Michał, 2012. "The problem of preparation the food packaging waste for recycling in Poland," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 10-16.
    6. Hage, Olle & Söderholm, Patrik & Berglund, Christer, 2009. "Norms and economic motivation in household recycling: Empirical evidence from Sweden," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 155-165.
    7. Miriam W Githongo & Collins M. Musafiri & Joseph M. Macharia & Milka N. Kiboi & Andreas Fliessbach & Anne Muriuki & Felix K. Ngetich, 2022. "Greenhouse Gas Fluxes from Selected Soil Fertility Management Practices in Humic Nitisols of Upper Eastern Kenya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, February.
    8. Matsumoto, Shigeru, 2020. "Do individuals free ride on participation in environmental policies? Personal values and waste management practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    9. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Katarzyna Zagórska & Nick Hanley, 2018. "Social Norms and Pro-Environment Behaviours: Heterogeneous Response to Signals," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2018-02, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    10. Coralie Hellwig & Greta Häggblom-Kronlöf & Kim Bolton & Kamran Rousta, 2019. "Household Waste Sorting and Engagement in Everyday Life Occupations After Migration—A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-29, August.
    11. Matsumoto, Shigeru, 2011. "Waste separation at home: Are Japanese municipal curbside recycling policies efficient?," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 325-334.
    12. Ankinée Kirakozian, 2016. "One Without The Other? Behavioural And Incentive Policies For Household Waste Management," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 526-551, July.
    13. Lory Barile, 2012. "The Impact of Governmental Signals on Environmental Morale: a 'behavioural' approach," Department of Economics Working Papers 3/12, University of Bath, Department of Economics.
    14. Prestin, Abby & Pearce, Katy E., 2010. "We care a lot: Formative research for a social marketing campaign to promote school-based recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(11), pages 1017-1026.
    15. Lee, Misuk & Choi, Hyunhong & Koo, Yoonmo, 2017. "Inconvenience cost of waste disposal behavior in South Korea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 58-65.
    16. Ek, Claes, 2018. "Prosocial behavior and policy spillovers: A multi-activity approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 356-371.
    17. Miliute-Plepiene, Jurate & Hage, Olle & Plepys, Andrius & Reipas, Algirdas, 2016. "What motivates households recycling behaviour in recycling schemes of different maturity? Lessons from Lithuania and Sweden," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 40-52.
    18. Aphale, Omkar & Thyberg, Krista L. & Tonjes, David J., 2015. "Differences in waste generation, waste composition, and source separation across three waste districts in a New York suburb," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 19-28.
    19. Hongyun Han & Zhijian Zhang & Sheng Xia, 2016. "The Crowding-Out Effects of Garbage Fees and Voluntary Source Separation Programs on Waste Reduction: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-17, July.
    20. Bohara, Alok K. & Caplan, Arthur J. & Grijalva, Therese, 2007. "The effect of experience and quantity-based pricing on the valuation of a curbside recycling program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 433-443, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6476-:d:397540. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.