Waste Management 34 (2014) 13691380

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Sociological survey in a municipality with a high level separate

collection programme in an area of historic unpopularity
Giovanni De Feo
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Salerno, via Ponte don Melillo, 1, 84084 Fisciano, SA, Italy

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 9 October 2013
Accepted 12 February 2014
Available online 3 March 2014
Keywords:
Behaviour
Knowledge
Local authority
Opinion
Separate collection
Waste management

a b s t r a c t
Behaviours, opinions and knowledge of citizens on MSW and separate collection were investigated in the
city of Mercato San Severino (about 22,000 people), in the Campania region of Southern Italy that is an
area suffering from a serious solid waste emergency that has lasted over 17 years due to the absence
of treatment facilities. The image of heaps of rubbish in the streets of Naples and other nearby cities is
only one side of the coin. Mercato San Severino has adopted an effective kerbside collection system since
2001 and a pay-as-you-throw program during 2005, guaranteeing more than the minimum level of recycling required by the Italian legislation. Structured questionnaires were administered to a sample of 500
people in 2010. Chi-square tests of independence were applied to state whether the differences were statistically signicant (5%). About 90% of the sample stated that the success of the separate collection program was due to either the citizens and local authority or only the local authority, highlighting the
leading 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. The
higher the education level, the greater the level of knowledge was.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Diverse studies have shown that knowledge about environmental issues affects behaviour (Guagnano et al., 1995; Chan, 1998;
Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000; Steedman, 2005; Gunton and
Williams, 2007) suggesting that greater awareness and/or understanding of environmental issues leads to a greater level of action
in 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 separate
collection programs (De Feo and De Gisi, 2010a). Since separate collection is at the early stages of MSW management, it affects all the
subsequent phases (Cossu and Masi, 2013). A separate collection
program is based on several rules that the citizen has to follow. If
he (she) does not have the correct instructional information, it is
impossible to correctly participate in the program (Alexander
et al., 2009). Thus it is important to investigate the knowledge of
the citizens involved in separate collection programs. Knowing
their opinions is analogously important because from it we can

Address: Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Salerno, via

Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084 Fisciano, SA, Italy. Tel.: +39 089 964113; fax: +39 089
968738.
E-mail address: g.defeo@unisa.it
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.02.009
0956-053X/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

obtain information useful to change for the better their behaviours

by means of educational programs (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000).
Education has a vital role in waste management especially for
those areas of historic unpopularity in terms of waste emergency
(Martin et al., 2006). The Campania region of south Italy is an area
suffering from a serious solid waste emergency that has lasted over
17 years due to the absence of MSW treatment facilities as
described in details by De Feo and De Gisi (2010a,b) and De Feo
et al. (2013). However, the image of heaps of rubbish in the streets
of Naples (the capital of Campania) and other nearby cities,
impressively documented by the international press, is only one
side of the coin. In fact, the municipality of Mercato San Severino,
a city of about 22,000 people in the province of Salerno around
50 km far from Naples (under the same regional administration),
has adopted an effective kerbside collection system since 2001,
guaranteeing more than the minimum level of recycling required
by the Italian legislation. Moreover, the city of Mercato San Severino adopted a pay-as-you-throw program (PAYT) during 2005 (citizens are charged for the collection of MSW based on the amount
they throw away) and it is one of the few municipalities doing this
in Southern Italy. Thus, the municipality under study has to be considered as a needle in a haystack. It is important to point out that
the adoption of the PAYT program was strongly supported and promoted by the Mayor of Mercato San Severino whose popularity in

1370

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

Italy is strongly linked to the signicant success of the separate collection program in an area of historic unpopularity. The Mercato
San Severino waste management system has gradually become a
model to be imitated by other cities in the Region because it always
allowed both to effectively collect waste and to pay the waste fee
with a cutting-edge system.
The principal aim of this work was to investigate (by means of a
structured questionnaire) the behaviours, opinions and level of
knowledge of citizens in a municipality with a high level separate
collection programme in an area suffering from a serious solid
waste emergency exploring the inuence of personal attributes
such 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 city
of Mercato San Severino in the province of Salerno, in the Campania region of Southern Italy. The population of Mercato San Severino was 21,590 inhabitants (derived from the databases of the
Italian National Institute of Statistics, Istat) that corresponds to a
population density of 714.7 inhabitants/km2 since its area is
30.21 km2. The city has one principal centre (named Mercato
San Severino) and twenty-one geographical districts. In terms of
altitude, the maximum is 957 m above sea level (asl), the median
is 520.5 m asl, and the minimum is 84 m asl. The municipal roads
have a length of 48.8 km (corresponding to 1.61 km/km2 and
2.26 km/1000 inhabitants).
MSW is collected by means of a separate kerbside collection
system. MSW is separated in the following components: putrescibles 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-recycling
residues for RDF production (twice a week), bulk refuses and
Waste Electrical and Electronic (WEEE), used clothing and, nally,
hazardous MSW. Putrescibles and recyclables were sent out of the
Campania region due to the absence of treatment facilities, whilst
non-recycling residues were sent to an RDF production plant in the
city of Battipaglia, in the Province of Salerno.
Each MSW component is directly collected near the home of
every resident except for bulk refuse and WEEE which are collected
on 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 and
cottages). The second area is between one and 2 km from the EC.
It is low densely populated and urbanized, with the presence of
high- and low-rise buildings (especially detached houses and block
of ats). Finally, the third area is over 2 km from the Environmental
Centre. It includes the centre of the city which is more densely
populated, more urbanized, with the presence of modern highand low-rise buildings (especially blocks of ats and detached
houses). In general, due to its position, the EC is almost entirely
used by car owners.
The householder that does not separate MSW has to pay the
maximum amount corresponding to the total surface area of his
home and the number of household members. Whereas, if the
householder separates MSW and delivers the various materials
near his (or her) home, putting them in the corresponding bag with
the relative label, respecting the schedule, he (or she) receives a
discount proportional to the amount of recyclables (see Table 1,
left). In particular, the collection worker with an optical reader
scans the barcode relating to the householder/customer as well

as the particular recyclable. The householder can increase the

amount of the discount by directly delivering the recyclables to
the EC where they are weighed (see Table 1, right). For example,
citizens delivering plastics near their home obtain a discount of
0.40 /bag (if the bag is totally lled, otherwise the worker records
a volume fraction on his/her electronic device). With bags of 20 litres and a specic weight of 0.1 kg/litre, this amount corresponds
to 0.20 /kg of plastics that is 17% lesser than the discount obtained
directly delivering the plastics to the EC (0.24 /kg). Fig. 1 shows
the principal elements of the PAYT system of Mercato San Severino.
No dispute so far has been registered with the implementation of
the PAYT policy.
The recycling rate averaged less than 38% in 2001, between 50%
and 55% in the period 20022004, 5557% in the period 2005
2007, and between 62% and 64% in the period 20082010. The Italian legislation was based on a minimum level of recycling of 25% to
reach and exceed no later than March 2001, 35% no later than
March 2003, extended until to December 2006, 40% no later than
December 2007, 50% no later than December 2009 and 60% to
overtake no later than December 2011. In general, if an Italian
municipality falls short of the legislated recycling rate there is a
penalty consisting in an increase of 20% of the fee for waste disposal in landlls (Legislative Decree, 152/2006). The municipality
of Mercato San Severino has always respected the rules in terms
of the minimum percentage of separate collection.
2.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire was made up of two principal parts, as
shown in Table 2. The rst part of the questionnaire contains the
personal attributes such as age, sex, marital status, occupation as
well as educational qualication. Other personal behaviours were
investigated such as watching TV, reading newspapers, and using
the Internet. The second part contains 21 questions (Qi) related
to the following social aspects: behaviour (8 questions: Q1, Q2,
Q3, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q11, Q12), opinion (4 questions: Q4, Q5, Q13, Q19), specic knowledge of the separate collection system of the city under
study (2 questions: Q6, Q10), general knowledge on MSW management (5 questions: Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18), and nally two questions aimed at evaluating the questionnaire (Q20 and Q21).
Analogously to De Feo and De Gisi (2010a,b), the questionnaires
were administered by means of anonymous street interviews conducted by two undergraduate students of the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Salerno by means of two sides A4 in order
to get through the questions quickly and not take up too much
time. The two interviewers (showing an identity document) approached people by saying who they were and their organization
and emphasising that they were not selling anything. Moreover,
they showed people their survey, explaining that it was short
and hopefully not put them off answering questions. Finally, they
explained that the questionnaire was anonymous and what happened to their views and where the information was going.
Since the sample of people was extracted to perfectly reproduce
the population in terms of male and female percentages for each
age subdivision, at the beginning, it was quite easy to nd people
belonging to the several age subdivisions. Going toward the end
of each subdivision, it was more and more difcult to nd the correct category of people. Therefore, the interviewers administered
the questionnaire in places where it was easier to nd people of
the required age (De Feo and De Gisi, 2010a).
2.3. Construction of the sample of people to interview
As shown in Table 3, the sample was extracted in order to
reproduce the structure of the population of the city of Mercato
San Severino in terms of male and female percentages for each

1371

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

Table 1
Discount received by the householders of Mercato San Severino during 2010.
Citizens delivering recyclables near their home
Plastics
Aluminium
Tinplate
Paper
Cardboard
Wood and textile

Citizens delivering recyclables to the Environmental Centre

0.40 /bag
0.50 /bag
0.50 /bag
0.26 /bag
0.26 /bag

Plastics
Aluminium
Tinplate
Paper
Cardboard
Wood and textile

0.24 /kg
0.36 /kg
0.10 /kg
0.06 /kg
0.16 /kg
0.02 /kg

Fig. 1. Principal elements of the pay-as-you-throw program (PAYT) system of the city of Mercato San Severino: (a) barcode readers; (b) barcode readers downloaders; (c)
computerized management system; (d) reading of user card; (e) reading of MSW material code; (f) and (g) weighing of recyclables; and (h) transferring of recyclables into
specic containers.

adopted age subdivision: (1) 1120, (2) 2130, (3) 3140, (4)
4150, (5) 5160, (6) 6170, (7) over 70. Thus, inhabitants no
younger than 11 years old were considered in this study. This
number was equal to 19,082 (01/01/2010, Italian National

Institute of Statistics). A sample of 500 people (2.6% of the inhabitants not less than 11 years) was interviewed, corresponding to
a condence level of 99% (95%) and a condence interval of
5.69% (4.33%).

1372

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

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

No. Question

Personal attributes and

behaviours

Answers

Age

Sex
Marital status
What is your occupation?

you buy a local newspaper?

you buy a national newspaper?
you listen to local television

Male; female
Married; single
Student; housewife; ofce worker; worker; trader;
teacher; professional; retired; unemployed; other
Nothing; rst level (primary); second level (secondary);
third level (high); fourth level (degree); other
Small villa; detached house; semi-detached house;
condominium

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

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

you listen to national television

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

you use the Internet?

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

What is your level of education?

What type of building do you live in?
What street do you live in?
How many times a week do
How many times a week do
How many times a week do
newscasts?
How many times a week do
newscasts?
How many times a week do
Behaviour

Q1 How many times a week do you carry MSW onto the street?
Q2 How many persons are there in your home?
Q3 How many of you take care of MSW?

Opinion

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

Q4 How do you evaluate the quality of the separate collection
system?
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 animals
rummaging in bags and containers; other

Specic knowledge

Q6 Do you know that in your municipality there is an Environmental Yes; no; I do not know
Centre where you can directly carry the separate waste and this
give you a discount on the annual MSW fee?

Behaviour

Q7 If the answer to Q6 is Yes: How many times do you go to the

Environmental Centre?
Q8 If the answer to Q6 is Yes: Who goes to the Environmental
Centre?
Q9 If the answer to Q7 is Never: Why do you never go the
Environmental Centre?

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

All; only me; other

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

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

Specic knowledge
Behaviour

Yes; no; I do not know

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

Opinion

Q13 How do you dene the fractions that you separate from MSW for Discards; Materials; I do not know
the separate collection?

General knowledge

Q14 What is the MSW component with the highest weight

Paper; plastic; glass; putrescibles; metals;
percentage?
I do not know
Q15 What is the average daily production of MSW per capita in your 10 g; 100 g; 1 kg; 10 kg; 100 kg; I do not know
municipality?
A special container; a chemical compound; a fertilizer; I do not
Q16 What is compost?
know
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 program
of separate collection in your municipality?

Citizens; local authority; citizens and local authority

Questions evaluation

Q20 How were these questions?

Q21 How do you evaluate these questions?

Easy; difcult; I do not know

Useful; useless; I do not know

Table 3
Extraction of the sample of people to interview.
Age subdivision

Male

Female

Population

1120
2130
3140
4150
5160
6170
>70
Total

Sample (number)

(number)

(%)

1272
1480
1704
1623
1264
1002
969
9314

6.7
7.8
8.9
8.5
6.6
5.3
5.1
48.8

33
39
45
43
33
26
25
244

Total

Population

Sample (number)

(number)

(%)

1222
1461
1782
1592
1292
1013
1406
9768

6.4
7.7
9.3
8.3
6.8
5.3
7.4
51.2

32
38
47
42
34
27
37
256

Population

Sample (number)

(number)

(%)

2494
2941
3486
3215
2556
2015
2375
19,082

13.1
15.4
18.3
16.8
13.4
10.6
12.4
100.0

65
77
91
84
67
53
62
500

1373

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

To the best of my knowledge, this is the rst time that a so detailed subdivision of the age groups has been adopted in a sociological survey about MSW. Extending the youngest group down to
11 years (in order to involve students of secondary school) is another peculiarity of the adopted sampling procedure.
2.4. Data analyses
Frequencies of observed and expected values were analysed by
means of cross-tabulations. By examining these frequencies, relations between cross-tabulated variables were identied.
Moreover, the Chi-square test for independence was utilised to
determine whether behaviours, opinion, general and specic
knowledge were statistically related to personal attributes and
behaviours. The Chi-square test is usually used to determine
whether there is a signicant difference between expected and observed frequencies in one or more categories. It answers the question: Do the number of individuals that fall in each category differ
signicantly 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 tests
were not reliable, variables were grouped as specied in the following 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 respondents were 48.7% male and 51.3% female as designed with the
adopted sampling procedure (Table 3). The percentage of married
respondents (not including people in other long term relationships) 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 following
applies: student (24.0%); ofce worker (13.6%); housewife (12.0%);
retired labourer (11.6%); worker (10.6%); professional (9.8%); trader (8.6%); teacher (6.4%); unemployed (2.8%). 6.6% of respondents
were living in a little villa, 20.6% in a detached house, 17.0% in a
semi-detached house, and 55.4% in a condominium.
A sort of education level (EL) can be calculated by summing the
values obtained multiplying the years of study of each educational
qualication by the corresponding percentages of respondents (De
Feo and De Gisi, 2010a,b). Since, 0.2% of the people had no education (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 degree (18 years of study), the EL of the total sample was 11.2 years
of study, compared with 12.1 registered by De Feo and De Gisi
(2010a) who dened and applied a procedure based on a structured questionnaire survey useful in analysing the peoples

environmental knowledge in order to select the areas and age

groups with a low level of knowledge in a municipality in the
Campania region around 15 km from the city of Mercato San Severino, and 11.8 years by De Feo and De Gisi (2010b) who analysed
and compared the opinions and awareness of citizens and kerbside
collection workers on this subject in the city of Mercato San Severino during 2009.
Table 4 shows some personal attributes and behaviours of the
sample per age group. The percentage of married people grows
with the age up to 5160, and after decreases as a natural consequence of mortality. Listening to national television newscasts
was the principal source of news for the people of Mercato San
Severino, followed by listening to local television newscasts, using
the Internet, reading a national newspaper, and nally reading a local newspaper. The Internet was the most used media only for the
youngest age group. Television still plays an important role in a
traditional society like that in Southern Italy, and thus it has to
be necessarily considered in terms of environmental communication campaigns (De Feo et al., 2013).
3.2. Behaviour
Table 5 shows observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to question Q1. 86.8% of respondents
carried MSW onto the street more than twice a week. The highest
value was registered for the age group 3140 (97.0%), whereas the
lowest value was for the oldest group (52.9%) arguably due to their
lower physical efciency as well as since they generate less waste
than families, they have less need to put out their waste. According
to Cottrell and Graefe (1997), this value grew with the educational
level, 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, a
better pro-environmental behaviour was shown by housewives,
teachers and the unemployed, all with 100%. As shown in Table
5, the Chi-square test could not be directly applied to the answers
to question Q1 because more than 20% of the cells had expected
frequencies below ve for the age group (28.6%), educational level
(40.0%), and occupation (40.0%). While, grouping the answers as
not every day and every day, they were statistically related
to the age group (p = 9.35  10 4, with 0% of the expected values
was less than 5), educational level (p = 0.049, with 20% of the expected values was less than 5), and occupation (p = 8.19  10 13,
with 10% of the expected values was less than 5).
In little more than half of the cases (55.3%), all the persons living
in a home took care of MSW (question Q3), whereas 17.2% of those
interviewed exclusively managed MSW. This latter percentage increased with age, going from only 1.3% for the youngest up to
37.5% for the age group 5160, and diminishing for the other two
older groups. 56.7% of housewives stated that only they took care
of MSW, and this is not surprising because in Southern Italy principally housewives usually take care of separate collection (De Feo
and De Gisi, 2010a,b). On the basis of a Chi-square test, the answers

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

1120
2130
3140
4150
5160
6170
>70
Total

Married

0
21.5
54.6
86.4
98.2
64.2
76.5
53

More than 2 times a week

Local newspaper

National newspaper

Local TV newscasts

National TV newscasts

The Internet

23.4
52.7
64.6
50.0
53.7
51.0
20.6
47.8

25.3
65.6
79.8
59.6
74.1
57.1
38.2
59.2

68.8
82.8
91.9
67.0
50.0
100.0
76.5
77.2

80.5
98.9
100.0
93.6
87.0
100.0
100.0
94.2

93.5
97.8
84.8
54.3
35.2
2.0
0.0
63.6

1374

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

Table 5
Observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to question Q1 (How many times a week do you carry MSW onto the street?).
Key

Sub-key

Never

1 day a week

Observed

Expected
(num.)

Observed
(num.)

(%)

Expected
(num.)

Observed
(%)

Expected
(num.)

Observed

(num.)

(num.)

(%)

Expected
(num.)

1120
2130
3140
4150
5160
6170
>70

7
7
2
5
11
7
15

9.1
7.6
2.0
5.7
19.6
13.2
44.1

8.33
9.96
10.71
9.52
6.06
5.74
3.68

6.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
1.0

7.8
1.1
1.0
1.1
3.6
0.0
2.9

1.85
2.21
2.38
2.12
1.35
1.27
0.82

47.0
57.0
53.0
41.0
22.0
17.0
8.0

61.0
62.0
53.5
46.6
39.3
32.1
23.5

37.81
45.17
48.61
43.21
27.49
26.02
16.69

17.0
27.0
43.0
41.0
21.0
29.0
10.0

22.1
29.3
43.4
46.6
37.5
54.7
29.4

29.01
34.66
37.30
33.15
21.10
19.97
12.81

Educational
levelb

Nothing

0.0

0.11

0.0

0.0

0.02

0.0

0.0

0.49

1.0

100.0

0.38

Primary
Secondary
High
Degree

20
18
16
0

25.3
12.3
8.7
0.0

8.55
15.80
19.91
9.63

4.0
5.0
2.0
1.0

5.1
3.4
1.1
1.1

1.90
3.51
4.42
2.14

32.0
75.0
92.0
46.0

40.5
51.4
50.0
51.7

38.79
71.68
90.34
43.70

23.0
48.0
74.0
42.0

29.1
32.9
40.2
47.2

29.76
55.01
69.32
33.53

Housewife
Trader
Ofce
worker
Teacher
Professional
Worker
Retired
Student
Unemployed
Other

0
1
4

0.0
2.3
5.9

6.49
4.65
7.36

0.0
1.0
1.0

0.0
2.3
1.5

1.44
1.03
1.64

12.0
30.0
37.0

20.0
69.8
54.4

29.46
21.11
33.39

48.0
11.0
26.0

80.0
25.6
38.2

22.61
16.20
25.62

0
5
10
22
12
0
0

0.0
10.2
18.9
37.9
10.1
0.0
0.0

3.46
5.30
5.74
6.28
12.88
1.52
0.32

0.0
0
2
1
7
0
0

0.0
0.0
3.8
1.7
5.9
0.0
0.0

0.77
1.18
1.27
1.39
2.86
0.34
0.07

12.0
26
26
13
77
10
2

37.5
53.1
49.1
22.4
64.7
71.4
66.7

15.71
24.06
26.02
28.48
58.43
6.87
1.47

20.0
18
15
22
23
4
1

62.5
36.7
28.3
37.9
19.3
28.6
33.3

12.06
18.46
19.97
21.85
44.83
5.27
1.13

54

10.8

54

12

2.4

12

245

49.1

245

188

37.7

188

Total
b

(%)

Every day

Agea

Occupationc

(num.)

A couple of day a week

28.6% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.

40.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.
40.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.

to question Q3 were statistically related to the age group

(p = 1.62  10 7 <0.01, with 0% of the expected values was less
than 5), and occupation (p = 5.22  10 18 < 0.01, with 13.3% of
the expected values was less than 5); they were not statistically related to the educational level (p = 0.051 > 0.05, with 16.7% of the
expected values was less than 5).
Table 6 shows the observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to the question Q7. 34.2% of those interviewed went to the EC at least once a week, compared with 82.7%
of the age group 3140, which was the active subdivision. According to Cottrell and Graefe (1997), the percentage of people going to
the EC (y) grew with the educational level (y = 3.0519  1.1131,
where x is the years of study; r2 = 0.9797). According to Redman
and Redman (2013), teachers (50.0%) and professionals (52.1%)
were the most pro-environmental occupational categories. As stated above, these behaviours have to be seen in the light that the EC
is almost entirely used by car owners. As shown in Table 6, the Chisquare test could not be directly applied to the answers to question
Q7 because more than 20% of the cells had expected frequencies
below ve for the age group (25.0%), educational level (25.0%),
and occupation (37.5%). While, grouping the answers as less than
one time a week and at least one time a week, they were statistically related to the age group (p = 6.68  10 30, with 0% of the expected values was less than 5), educational level (p = 7.51  10 9,
with 0% of the expected values was less than 5), and occupation
(p = 1.25  10 5, with 15% of the expected values was less than 5).
Table 7 shows the observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to question Q8. In about 40% of the
cases, the respondents stated that all the persons living with him
(or her) go to the EC. Only a quarter of those interviewed was
the only to go to the EC. In terms of age, the people having less collaboration from their housemates were those in the group 5160

(57.9%). The percentage of respondents with all their housemates

going to the EC increased with the educational level (not considering the only one person not having any title), conrming that this
social key has a positive pro-environmental effect (Mrquez et al.,
2008). The housewives were those with less collaboration from
their housemates (60.4%). This latter result, according to De Feo
and De Gisi (2010a,b) strengthens what has been stated about
the particular role played by housewives in the traditional society
of Southern Italy. On the basis of a Chi-square test, the answers to
question Q8 were statistically related to the age group
(p = 2.8  10 11 < 0.01, with 14.3% of the expected values was less
than 5), educational level (p = 1.1  10 10 < 0.01, with 20.0% of the
expected values was less than 5), and occupation (p = 5.5 
10 13 < 0.01, with 20.0% of the expected values was less than 5).
Respondents to question Q9 stated that they never go to the EC
because they do not have time in 29.8% of the cases, because it is
too far for 41.3% of them, and because it is not convenient in
23.1% of the cases. The categories that pointed out the absence of
time as the principal barrier were the age group 2130 (70%), half
of the graduates, and, surprisingly, 100% of the unemployed. The
fact that the youngest groups were those complaining about lacking time is not strange because it is in accordance with previous
studies (De Feo and De Gisi, 2010a,b). The graduates are probably
the busiest at work. The result of the unemployed is really surprising because they, not working, should have more time; but, probably, they spend their time looking for a job. The oldest age groups
as well as the retired were those indicating the distance as principal 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 EC
were the age group 5160 (47.8%), graduates (40%), teachers
(75.0%) and professionals (80.0%). These behaviours have to be

1375

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

Table 6
Observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to the question Q7 (How many times do you go to the Environmental Centre?).
Key

Sub-key

Never

1 time a month

Observed

Expected
(num.)

Observed
(num.)

(%)

Expected
(num.)

Observed
(num.)

(%)

Expected
(num.)

Observed
(num.)

(%)

Expected
(num.)

1120
2130
3140
4150
5160
6170
>70

12
11
3
16
26
13
20

17.4
12.1
3.1
20.0
47.3
26.0
66.7

14.7
19.4
20.9
17.1
11.7
10.7
6.4

32
55
14
49
15
35
10

46.4
60.4
14.3
61.3
27.3
70.0
33.3

30.6
40.4
43.5
35.5
24.4
22.2
13.3

18
18
80
13
11
2
0

26.1
19.8
81.6
16.3
20.0
4.0
0.0

20.7
27.3
29.4
24.0
16.5
15.0
9.0

7
7
1
2
3
0
0

10.1
7.7
1.0
2.5
5.5
0.0
0.0

2.9
3.8
4.1
3.4
2.3
2.1
1.3

Educational
levelb

Nothing

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Primary
Secondary
High
Degree

33
30
26
12

47.8
21.7
14.9
13.2

14.7
29.5
37.4
19.4

29
74
75
32

42.0
53.6
42.9
35.2

30.6
61.3
77.7
40.4

4
29
66
43

5.8
21.0
37.7
47.3

20.7
41.4
52.5
27.3

3
5
8
4

4.3
3.6
4.6
4.4

2.9
5.8
7.4
3.8

Housewife
Trader
Ofce
worker
Teacher
Professional
Worker
Retired
Student
Unemployed
Other

11
11
14

20.0
26.2
20.6

11.7
9.0
14.5

23
21
27

41.8
50.0
39.7

24.4
18.6
30.2

21
10
25

38.2
23.8
36.8

16.5
12.6
20.4

0
0
2

0.0
0.0
2.9

2.3
1.8
2.9

4
5
12
26
15
3
0

12.5
10.4
24.0
50.0
13.5
25.0
0.0

6.8
10.2
10.7
11.1
23.7
2.6
0.6

12
18
23
25
55
4
2

37.5
37.5
46.0
48.1
49.5
33.3
66.7

14.2
21.3
22.2
23.1
49.3
5.3
1.3

13
25
14
1
29
3
1

40.6
52.1
28.0
1.9
26.1
25.0
33.3

9.6
14.4
15.0
15.6
33.3
3.6
0.9

3
0
1
0
12
2
0

9.4
0.0
2.0
0.0
10.8
16.7
0.0

1.4
2.0
2.1
2.2
4.7
0.5
0.1

101

21.4

101

210

44.4

210

142

30.0

142

20

4.2

20

Total
b

(%)

More than 1 time a week

Agea

Occupationc

(num.)

1 time a week

25.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.

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

Table 7
Observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to question Q8 (Who goes to the Environmental Centre?).
Key

Sub-key

All

Only me

Observed

b
c

(num.)

(%)

Other

Observed

Expected (num.)

(num.)

(%)

Observed

Expected (num.)

(num.)

(%)

Agea

1120
2130
3140
4150
5160
6170
>70

25
29
39
36
10
13
5

39.1
35.8
41.1
48.0
26.3
35.1
45.5

25.1
31.7
37.2
29.4
14.9
14.5
4.3

0
12
30
27
22
11
1

0.0
14.8
31.6
36.0
57.9
29.7
9.1

16.4
20.8
24.4
19.3
9.8
9.5
2.8

39
40
26
12
6
13
5

60.9
49.4
27.4
16.0
15.8
35.1
45.5

22.5
28.5
33.4
26.4
13.4
13.0
3.9

Educational levelb

Nothing
Primary
Secondary
High
Degree

1
19
39
58
40

100.0
33.9
35.1
37.7
50.6

0.4
21.9
43.5
60.3
30.9

0
18
5
58
22

0.0
32.1
4.5
37.7
27.8

0.3
14.4
28.5
39.6
20.3

0
19
67
38
17

0.0
33.9
60.4
24.7
21.5

0.4
19.7
39.0
54.1
27.8

Occupationc

Housewife
Trader
Ofce worker
Teacher
Professional
Worker
Retired
Student
Unemployed
Other

11
16
27
11
27
15
9
36
5
0
157

22.9
48.5
44.3
39.3
61.4
32.6
33.3
36.4
41.7
0.0
39.2

18.8
12.9
23.9
11.0
17.2
18.0
10.6
38.8
4.7
1.2
157

29
9
16
10
9
18
6
1
4
1
103

60.4
27.3
26.2
35.7
20.5
39.1
22.2
1.0
33.3
33.3
25.7

12.3
8.5
15.7
7.2
11.3
11.8
6.9
25.4
3.1
0.8
103

8
8
18
7
8
13
12
62
3
2
141

16.7
24.2
29.5
25.0
18.2
28.3
44.4
62.6
25.0
66.7
35.2

16.9
11.6
21.4
9.8
15.5
16.2
9.5
34.8
4.2
1.1
141

Total
a

Expected (num.)

14.3% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.

20.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.
20.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.

analysed taking into account the fact that the EC is open from
07:30 to 12:30 from Monday to Saturday (enclosed), and only on
Monday and Thursday from 14:30 to 17:00. The Chi-square test

could not be applied to the answers to question Q9 because more

than 20% of the cells had expected frequencies below ve for the
age group (60.7%), educational level (55.0%), and occupation

1376

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

(85.0%). Moreover, since people not going to the EC were a minor

part (around 20%), it is a non-sense try to apply the Chi-square test
to grouped variables.
On the whole, 82.1% of the respondents used the barcodes at
their home pasting them onto the collection bags (question Q11).
In the EC, no barcode is needed, because a users magnetic card
is used (see Fig. 1d). Almost all the people in the age group 31
40 (99%) stated that they used the barcodes; additionally the percentage of the oldest was signicant (61%). The percentage of people using the barcodes signicantly increased with the educational
level (not considering the only person not having any educational
title). Ofce workers were the best pro-environmentalist occupational category (93%). On the basis of a Chi-square test, the answers
to question Q11 were statistically related to the age group
(p = 2.6  10 15 < 0.01, 14.3% of the expected values was less than
5), and educational level (p = 1.1  10 6 < 0.01, 20.0% of the expected values was less than 5). The Chi-square test could not be applied to the occupation because more than 20% of the cells had
expected frequencies below ve (46.7%). While, grouping the
sub-keys of occupation as student, housewife, retired,
unemployed and other, answer to Q11 were also statistically
related to this variable (p = 0.0033, with 10% of the expected values
was less than 5).
Respondents not using the barcodes (question Q12) stated that it
was a waste of time, in 36.7% of the cases; 27.8% of them did not
believe in saving; nally, 35.4% preferred to go to the Environmental Centre. The Chi-square test could not be applied to the answers
to question Q12 because more than 20% of the cells had expected
frequencies below ve for the age group (57.1%), educational level
(60.0%), and occupation (83.3%). Moreover, since people not going
to the EC were a minor part (around 16%), it is a non-sense try to
apply the Chi-square test to grouped variables.
3.3. Opinion
The interviewees were quite unanimous in judging the quality
of the separate collection system (question Q4): it was evaluated
at less sufcient for 95.8% of them, and at less good for 94.0%. This
is not surprising because the separate collection system of Mercato
San Severino is considered a sort of guide to follow by many
municipalities in Southern Italy (De Feo et al., 2012). The evaluations were very uniform for the three social categories considered
in this paper, and therefore it is no sense trying to apply a Chisquare test. De Feo and De Gisi (2010a) registered that in a city
15 km from Mercato San Severino only 41.3% of the residents evaluated at less sufcient their separate collection program.
A little more than two-thirds (68.8%) stated that the separate
collection system does not have any shortcomings (question Q5),
and this is consistent with the good evaluation expressed by the
citizens. About a tenth pointed out both the presence of too many
containers at home (10.6%) and stray animals rummaging in bags
and containers (9.8%) as the main problems. In the previous study
of De Feo and De Gisi (2010b) in Mercato San Severino, all the
respondents were unanimous in pointing out the breakage of the
bags due to stray animals as the main problem encountered in
transferring waste to the street. In this case, the citizens suggested
adopting a specic container to deliver each separate MSW component as a possible improvement. On the basis of a Chi-square test,
the answers to question Q5 were only statistically related to the
age group (p = 9.0  10 26 < 0.01).
Table 8 shows the observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to question Q19. The obtained results
are very interesting because almost two-thirds of the respondents
indicated the citizens and local authority as being mainly responsible for the success of the program of separate collection. The local
authority was the second driving force (22.8%) and only 13.2% of

the respondents stated that the success of the program was principally due to the citizens. These results highlight the leading role of
the local authority (Tebbatt Adams et al., 2000), which has had a
great popularity on local and national media. As a matter of fact,
also due to the ability in promoting such an effective environmental program, the Mayor of Mercato San Severino has become the
Councillor for the Environment of the Campania region. The age
groups emphasising the joint role of the local authority and citizens the most were 2130 (73.1%) and 3140 (78.8%). The percentage of respondents that indicated the citizens and local authority
as being mainly responsible increased with the educational level
(not considering the only one person not having any academic
qualication). Finally, in terms of occupation, the highest percentage was registered for workers (80.6%). On the basis of a Chi-square
test, the answers to question Q19 were statistically related to the
age group (p = 2.9  10 7 < 0.01, with 4.8% of the expected values
was less than 5), and educational level (p = 0.02 < 0.05, with
20.0% of the expected values was less than 5); they were not statistically related to the occupation (p = 0.16 > 0.05, with 20.0% of the
expected values was less than 5).
Table 9 shows the observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to the question Q13. Also in this case
the obtained results are very interesting because 77% of the
respondents considered the MSW fractions as materials, and only
a little more than a tenth considered them as discards. The best
pro-environmentalist age groups were 3140 (96%) and 2130
(88%). Only the majority of the oldest age group considered MSW
fractions as discards. At a rst glance, this result could appear a little bit strange because people over 70 in Southern Italy grew up in
a rural society where only a few almost useless objects were usually disposed of. Nevertheless, probably for this reason the questions could be of no sense to them. In their mind, wastes are
discards, whereas materials belong to another world. The percentage of respondents that dened MSW fractions as materials significantly grew with the educational level (not considering the only
one person not having any academic qualication), further highlighting the positive inuence of this demographic characteristic
(Cottrell and Graefe, 1997; Mrquez et al., 2008). The categories
of teacher, ofce worker, professional, and trader were those who
mainly considered MSW fractions as materials. For the teachers,
this was probably due to their educational role (Redman and Redman, 2013); for professionals and ofce workers as consequence of
their high educational level (Cottrell and Graefe, 1997); and for
traders because they usually manage materials and know their
economic value (Ojedokun, 2011). On the basis of a Chi-square test,
the answers to question Q13 were statistically related to the age
group (p = 3.1  10 16 < 0.01, 9.5% of the expected values was less
than 5), and educational level (p = 2.5  10 3 < 0.01, 20.0% of the
expected values was less than 5). The Chi-square test could not
be directly applied to the occupation because more than 20% of
the 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 statistically related to this variable (p = 2.57  10 5, with 10% of the
expected 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 about
MSW and separate collection, and 2 questions (Q6, Q10) specically
regarding the knowledge of the separate collection program of the
city under study.
For four general knowledge questions out of ve (Q14, Q15, Q16
and Q17), the obtained results can be compared with those obtained by De Feo and De Gisi (2010a) and with those obtained by

1377

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

Table 8
Observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to question Q19 (Who is the main responsible for the success of the program of separate collection in your
municipality?).
Key

Sub-key

Citizens

Local authority

Observed

b
c

(num.)

(%)

Observed

Citizens and local authority

Expected (num.)

(num.)

(%)

Observed

Expected (num.)

(num.)

(%)

Agea

1120
2130
3140
4150
5160
6170
>70

15
3
7
15
19
1
6

19.5
3.2
7.1
17.0
33.9
1.9
17.6

10.2
12.3
13.1
11.6
7.4
7.0
4.5

20
22
14
22
10
19
7

26.0
23.7
14.1
25.0
17.9
35.8
20.6

17.6
21.2
22.6
20.1
12.8
12.1
7.8

42
68
78
51
27
33
21

54.5
73.1
78.8
58.0
48.2
62.3
61.8

49.3
59.5
63.4
56.3
35.8
33.9
21.8

Educational levelb

Nothing
Primary
Secondary
High
Degree

0
15
27
20
4

0.0
19.0
18.5
10.9
4.4

0.1
10.4
19.3
24.3
11.9

0
20
31
48
15

0.0
25.3
21.2
26.1
16.7

0.2
18.0
33.3
42.0
20.5

1
44
88
116
71

100.0
55.7
60.3
63.0
78.9

0.6
50.6
93.4
117.8
57.6

Occupationc

Housewife
Trader
Ofce worker
Teacher
Professional
Worker
Retired
Student
Unemployed
Other

7
7
4
0
9
2
2
12
7
16
66

11.7
16.3
28.6
0.0
13.2
6.5
4.1
22.6
12.1
13.2
13.2

7.9
5.7
1.8
0.4
9.0
4.1
6.5
7.0
7.7
16.0
66

11
9
4
1
16
4
8
9
17
35
114

18.3
20.9
28.6
33.3
23.5
12.9
16.3
17.0
29.3
28.9
22.8

13.7
9.8
3.2
0.7
15.5
7.1
11.2
12.1
13.2
27.6
114.0

42
27
6
2
43
25
39
32
34
70
320

70.0
62.8
42.9
66.7
63.2
80.6
79.6
60.4
58.6
57.9
64.0

38.4
27.5
9.0
1.9
43.5
19.8
31.4
33.9
37.1
77.4
320

Total
a

Expected (num.)

4.8% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.

20.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.
20.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.

Table 9
Observed (absolute and percentage) and expected (absolute) answers to question Q13 (How do you dene the fractions that you separate from MSW for the separate collection?).
Key

Sub-key

Discards

Materials

Observed

b
c

(num.)

(%)

I do not know

Observed

Expected (num.)

(num.)

(%)

Observed

Expected (num.)

(num.)

(%)

Agea

1120
2130
3140
4150
5160
6170
>70

9
9
4
12
7
8
16

12.2
9.8
4.0
14.0
13.0
15.4
48.5

9.8
12.2
13.1
11.4
7.2
6.9
4.4

44
81
95
66
37
41
12

59.5
88.0
96.0
76.7
68.5
78.8
36.4

56.8
70.6
76.0
66.0
41.4
39.9
25.3

21
2
0
8
10
3
5

28.4
2.2
0.0
9.3
18.5
5.8
15.2

7.4
9.2
9.9
8.6
5.4
5.2
3.3

Educational levelb

Nothing
Primary
Secondary
High
Degree

0
17
24
21
3

0.0
22.4
16.8
11.5
3.4

0.1
10.1
19.0
24.1
11.7

1
49
99
150
77

100.0
64.5
69.2
82.4
87.5

0.8
58.3
109.7
139.7
67.5

0
10
20
11
8

0.0
13.2
14.0
6.0
9.1

0.1
7.6
14.3
18.2
8.8

Occupationc

Housewife
Trader
Ofce worker
Teacher
Professional
Worker
Retired
Student
Unemployed
Other

8
6
5
0
1
9
20
13
3
0
65

13.3
14.3
7.5
0.0
2.1
17.3
35.7
11.1
21.4
0.0
13.3

8.0
5.6
8.9
4.1
6.4
6.9
7.4
15.5
1.9
0.4
65.0

47
35
60
30
42
36
31
85
8
2
376

78.3
83.3
89.6
96.8
87.5
69.2
55.4
72.6
57.1
66.7
76.7

46.0
32.2
51.4
23.8
36.8
39.9
43.0
89.8
10.7
2.3
376.0

5
1
2
1
5
7
5
19
3
1
49

8.3
2.4
3.0
3.2
10.4
13.5
8.9
16.2
21.4
33.3
10.0

6
4.2
6.7
3.1
4.8
5.2
5.6
11.7
1.4
0.3
49

Total
a

Expected (num.)

9.5% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.

20.0% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.
23.3% of the cells have expected frequencies below 5.

De Feo and Williams (2013) who reported on the current views and
knowledge of students from the University of Salerno campus
(around 4 km far from Mercato San Severino) about waste management operations and facilities.

44.1% of the sample properly indicated that putrescibles is the

MSW component with the highest weight percentage (question
Q14) compared with 38.6% obtained by De Feo and De Gisi
(2010a) and 47.1% obtained by De Feo and Williams (2013): the

1378

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

citizens of Mercato San Severino, therefore, correctly answer this

question almost in the same proportion of university educated
people, and signicantly better than non-university educated people of a nearby city but with an ineffective separate collection program. 62.7% of the respondents knew the average daily production
of MSW per capita (question Q15) compared with 56.9% obtained
by De Feo and De Gisi (2010a) and 53.4% obtained by De Feo and
Williams (2013): the fact that non-university educated people answered better than university students (especially those of Mercato San Severino) may be due to the fact that understanding the
weight of the amount of the daily per capita MSW production requires a certain amount of common sense (De Feo and Williams,
2013). 52.5% of the interviewees knew that compost is a kind of
fertilizer (question Q16) compared with 33.8% obtained by De Feo
and De Gisi (2010a) and 37.6% obtained by De Feo and Williams
(2013): the level of knowledge showed by the citizens of Mercato
San Severino was signicantly better than that of university students and citizens of the nearby city. This was arguably due to
the fact that the separate collection program of Mercato San Severino gives their citizens the opportunity to practice home composting. 47.2% of the respondents knew that RDF stands for Refuse
Derived Fuel (question Q17) compared with 41.6% obtained by De
Feo and De Gisi (2010a) and 39.4% obtained by De Feo and Williams (2013): the citizens of Mercato San Severino, therefore, also
for this question answered better rather than university students
and citizens of the nearby city. On the whole, in average terms
for all the four general common knowledge questions, 51.8% of
the sample of Mercato San Severino correctly answered the questions compared with 42.7% obtained by De Feo and De Gisi
(2010a) and 44.4% obtained by De Feo and Williams (2013). It
could be argued that the lack of understanding among university
students could be due to the fact that some of them live in university accommodation so they are not directly responsible for waste
management tasks. However, this is not possible because also the
students living in the university accommodations are directly involved in the separate collection program.
Question Q18 was aimed at evaluating if people knew that they
were aware of what they pay a MSW fee for. Mercato San Severino
is one of the few municipalities that adopted (since 2005) a PAYT
system in Southern Italy. This fact was revealed by the responses
of the sample, because 61% of them correctly answered. People
in the range 6170 were the most informed (87%); the percentage
of 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 only
33% correctly answering.
Table 10 shows the results of Chi-square tests of independence
on the general and specic knowledge questions. All the answers
to the general knowledge questions were statistically related to
age, educational level and occupation. In terms of specic knowledge, as shown in Table 10, the Chi-square test could only be applied

to question Q10 and occupation, giving a positive response. The specic question Q6 and Q10 wanted to verify if the respondents knew
about the existence of the Environmental Centre and barcodes,
respectively. The obtained results are remarkable because 94.2% of
sample knew the EC, and 93.4% knew the barcodes, testifying a very
good knowledge of the separate collection program by the citizens
of Mercato San Severino.
Fig. 2 shows graphical representations of the average percentage of correct answers to both the general and specic knowledge
questions in terms of years of respondents, years of education, and
occupation.
As shown in Fig. 2a, on the average, respondents in the range
2130 and 3140 were the most well generally informed, followed
by people aged 4150. All the other respondents showed a level of
general knowledge less than 50%, with the youngest slightly over
40%, people in the range 5170 around 40%, and the oldest under
20%. This result is in accordance with De Feo and De Gisi (2010a)
who analogously found that the youngest and oldest people
showed the lowest level of general knowledge about MSW and
separate collection. However, in this case, the level of knowledge
of the oldest group is very worrying, and therefore adopting a general environmental information program for the elderly is desirable. As shown in Fig. 2b, the situation was signicantly better in
terms of specic knowledge, with the same better informed age
groups: 2130 (97.8%), 3140 (98.5%), and 4150 (98.3%).
As shown in Fig. 2c, the average percentage of correct answers
to the general knowledge questions linearly grew with the years
spent for their education: the level of general knowledge grew
about 4% for each year (r2 = 0.939). Furthermore, the specic
knowledge grew with the years of education, but the data were
better interpolated with a cubic polynomial equation (r2 = 0.997).
Therefore, the higher the education level, the greater the general
and specic knowledge was. This result contradicts what was
achieved by De Feo and De Gisi (2010a) who found that in a nearby
city with a low level of separate collection, there were reduced differences of knowledge in terms of educational level. In the city of
Mercato San Severino, a high educational level corresponded to a
high level of environmental knowledge arguably because the citizens were educated (since 2001) by means of an effective separate
collection program even if they were in an area suffering from a
serious solid waste emergency. This result highlights the importance of having good examples to follow mainly in areas with criminal organizations and ineffective politicians as testied by the
repeated sentences by the European Court of Justice.
Finally, Fig. 2e and f shows the average percentage of correct
answers to the general and specic knowledge questions, respectively. Teachers (92%) and professionals (84%) were the most informed occupational categories in general terms, while the
retired (40%), workers (32%) and the unemployed (27%) were the
worst informed. In specic terms, all the occupational categories
showed a good level of knowledge: only 20% of the retired were

Table 10
Results of a chi-square test of independence on the general and specic knowledge questions (the percentage of expected values less than ve is reported in brackets under each
p-value).
Key

General knowledge
Q14

Specic knowledge
Q15

Q16

Q17

Q18

Q6

Q10

Age

1.17  10
(0.0%)

13

2.32  10
(0.0%)

14

1.90  10
(0.0%)

14

2.92  10
(0.0%)

12

4.14  10
(0.0%)

17

(28.6%)

(21.4%)

Educational level

1.21  10
(20.0%)

24

8.85  10
(20.0%)

17

9.77  10
(20.0%)

22

7.36  10
(20.0%)

26

5.22  10
(20.0%)

(30.0%)

5.05  10
(20.0%)

Occupation

1.16  10
(10.0%)

19

1.19  10
(10.0%)

10

5.27  10
(10.0%)

19

3.88  10
(10.0%)

20

4.69  10
(10.0%)

(55.0%)

(50.0%)

1379

100

Mean percentage of correct

answers (%)

Mean percentage of correct

answers (%)

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

90
80
70

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

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

80
70

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

(a)

(b)
100

90
80

y = 3.9757 x + 11.749
R = 0.9388

70

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

10

15

20

90
80

70
60
40
30
20
10
0

(e)

10

15

20

(d)
Mean percentage of correct
answers (%)

Occupation

Years of education

(c)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

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

R = 0.9969

50

Years of education

Mean percentage of correct

answers (%)

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

Years

Mean percentage of correct

answers (%)

Mean percentage of correct

answers (%)

90

Years

100

100

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Occupation

(f)

Fig. 2. Average percentage of correct answers: (a) general knowledge vs years of respondents; (b) specic knowledge vs years of respondents; (c) general knowledge vs years
of education; (d) specic knowledge vs years of education; (e) general knowledge vs occupation; and (f) specic knowledge vs occupation.

not well informed about the presence of the Environmental Centre

as well as the use of barcodes on the collecting bags. Therefore, the
environmental information program for the elderly could also contain specic information about the separate collection program.
4. Conclusions
The paper reports on behaviours, opinions and knowledge of
citizens on MSW and separate collection in a city with a high level separate collection program in an area suffering from a serious solid waste emergency. The main conclusions from the
study are that:
 The youngest and oldest people showed the weakest pro-environmental behaviour.

 The pro-environmental behaviour signicantly grew with the

educational level.
 The better pro-environmental behaviour was shown by housewives, teachers and professionals.
 96% of the sample positively evaluated the quality of the
separate collection program.
 69% of the sample stated that the separate collection system
does not have shortcomings.
 About 90% of the sample stated that the success of the separate
collection program was due to either the citizens and local
authority or only the local authority.
 The oldest people showed the lowest level of general knowledge about MSW and separate collection.
 Teachers and professionals were the most informed occupational categories.

1380

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

 94% of the sample demonstrated to know the rules of the separate collection program.
 The level of knowledge showed by the citizens of Mercato San
Severino was better than that of nearby university students
and citizens.
 The higher the education level, the greater the level of knowledge was, arguably because the citizens were educated by
means of an effective separate collection program even if they
were in an area suffering from a serious solid waste emergency.
The city of Mercato San Severino can be considered as a good
example to follow by other communities that are intending to develop their waste collection and recycling services in similar ways
in an area of historic unpopularity (and not). The main lessons
learnt are the fundamental role played by the local authority in
terms of people involvement in environmental programs and that
trust is the key to any social program success. Another important
policy implication learnt from the developed case study is that
the leading role of the local authority has to be exerted with continuity in areas with historic unpopularity in order to obtain effective results in the long distance.
Acknowledgements
The author wish to tank Antonio Amabile and Isidoro Scarano for
their precious work in submitting the questionnaires, the mayor of
Mercato San Severino, Giovanni Romano, Dr. Sacha A. Berardo for
his English revision and three anonymous referees for their
precious suggestions.
References
Alexander, C., Smaje, C., Timlett, R., Williams, I.D., 2009. Improving social
technologies for recycling. Proc. Instit. Civ. Eng. Waste Resour. Manage. 162,
1528.
Chan, K., 1998. Mass communication and pro-environmental behaviour: waste
recycling in Hong Kong. J. Environ. Manage. 52, 317325.
Corraliza, J., Berenguer, J., 2000. Environmental values, beliefs and actions. A
situational approach. Environ. Behav. 32, 832848.
Cossu, R., Masi, S., 2013. Re-thinking incentives and penalties: economic aspects of
waste management in Italy. Waste Manage. 33, 25412547.

Cottrell, S.P., Graefe, A.R., 1997. Testing a conceptual framework of responsible

environmental behavior. J. Environ. Educ. 29 (1), 1727.
De Feo, G., De Gisi, S., 2010a. Public opinion and awareness towards MSW and
separate collection programs: a sociological procedure for selecting areas and
citizens with a low level of knowledge. Waste Manage. 30, 958976.
De Feo, G., De Gisi, S., 2010b. Domestic separation and collection of municipal solid
waste: opinion and awareness of citizens and workers. Sustainability 2, 1297
1326.
De Feo, G., Williams, I.D., 2913. Siting landlls and incinerators in areas of historic
unpopularity: 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 di
impianti 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 and
environmental pollution attributed to MSW treatment and disposal facilities: a
case study. Waste Manage. 33, 974987.
Guagnano, G., Stern, P., Dietz, T., 1995. Inuences on attitude-behaviour
relationships. A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ. Behav.
27, 699718.
Gunton, H., Williams, I.D., 2007. Waste Minimisation Using Behaviour Change
Techniques: A Case Study for Students. In: Lechner, P. (Ed.), (2007) Waste
Matters: Integrating Views. Proceedings of the 2nd BOKU Waste Conference,
April 1619, Vienna.
Legislative Decree, 152/2006. Decreto Legislativo 3 Aprile 2006, n. 152. Norme in
materia ambientale, Gazzetta Ufciale n. 88 del 14 Aprile 2006 Supplemento
Ordinario n. 96, Rome, Italy (in Italian).
Mrquez, M.Y., Ojeda, S., Hidalgo, H., 2008. Identication of behavior patterns in
household 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 inuences
on household waste recycling: a case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 48, 357
395.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., 2000. Promoting sustainable behaviour: an introduction to
community-based social marketing. J. Soc. Issues 56, 543554.
Ojedokun, O., 2011. Attitude towards littering as a mediator of the relationship
between personality attributes and responsible environmental behaviour.
Waste Manage. 31, 26012611.
Redman, E., Redman, A., 2013. Transforming sustainable food and waste behaviors
by 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 Consumer
Council, London, UK.
Tebbatt Adams, K., Phillips, P.S., Morris, J.R., 2000. A radical new development for
sustainable waste management in the UK: the introduction of local authority
Best Value legislation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 30, 221244.