985608

review-article2020
WMR0010.1177/0734242X20985608Waste Management & ResearchSewak et al.

Review Article

Waste Management & Research

Influencing household-level waste-sorting

1­–18
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
and composting behaviour: What works? sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X20985608
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X20985608

A systematic review (1995–2020) of waste journals.sagepub.com/home/wmr

management interventions

Aarti Sewak , Jeawon Kim, Sharyn Rundle-Thiele

and Sameer Deshpande

Abstract
Decentralized waste sorting and composting can divert almost two-thirds of household waste from landfill. However, national rates
of composting and recycling remain low in many parts of the globe. This review critically evaluates the design and efficacy of
behaviour-change interventions to influence households to sort and compost organic waste. The systematic literature search yielded
3595 titles and abstracts which were reviewed and resulted in 14 unique interventions. The social marketing benchmark criteria
are utilized to critically examine the design of these interventions. Synthesized results indicate a need for customized interventions
that are co-designed with users and tailored to address their specific needs and challenges. Interventions with four or more social
marketing elements produced positive behavioural outcomes, albeit with varying impact. This review highlights gaps in the design of
waste management interventions and provides suggestions for future practices.

Keywords
Systematic review, waste management interventions, household composting, behaviour change, social marketing

Received 4th September 2020, accepted 8th December 2020 by Associate Editor Rodrigo Navia.

Introduction According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the estimated

Globally, around 2.01 billion metric tonnes (Mts) of municipal
solid waste (MSW) are generated annually, out of which 40%
ends up in landfill (Kaza et al., 2018). Organic materials consti-
tute a larger portion of MSW in developing countries (Nsimbe
et al., 2018). The highest percentage of organic waste composi-
tion can be found within the East Asia Pacific region (i.e. 62%),
closely followed by the Middle East and North Africa countries
at 61% (Boonrod et al., 2015). The disposal of biowaste is a con-
cern for landfill because anaerobic decomposition of organic
matter is linked to land pollution and greenhouse gas emissions
(Palijon et al., 2017; Smith and Jasim, 2009). Moisture content in
food waste makes incineration difficult (Li et al., 2017) and much
of methane and leachates are generated from food waste that is
disposed of in landfills (Palijon et al. 2017). The 2012 World
Bank report estimates that around 46% of MSW generated glob-
ally comprises food waste (Li et al., 2017), most of which can be
composted.
A reduction in the amount of waste that goes to landfill not
only benefits the environment, it also benefits societies economi-
cally. Waste management systems have evolved over time to
remove waste from households with differences in waste man-
agement practices evident across jurisdictional boundaries.
costs of disposing of putrescible waste to landfill ranges between
AU$45 and AU$105 per Mt of waste in urban areas and between
AU$42 and AU$102 per Mt in rural areas depending on the level
of management controls and prevailing climate (BDA Group,
2009). Waste processing is an economic job generator and
resource recovery leads to three times as many people employed
when compared to simply sending waste to landfill. Clean Up
Australia estimates that Australians produce 540 kg of household
waste per person per year (Clean Up Australia, 2020). Therefore,
reductions in waste by diverting food scraps from household bins
to composting alternatives can deliver cost savings equating to
AU$22 per person each year, as well as employment and envi-
ronmental benefits.
Home composting is known to be an effective way of reduc-
ing waste quantities at source to promote resource recovery
(Mbuligwe et al., 2002). For example, urban homeowners with
Department of Marketing, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia
Corresponding author:
Aarti Sewak, Department of Marketing, Griffith University, 170
Kessels Road, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia.
Email: a.sewak@griffith.edu.au
2 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
garden space can potentially divert around 20% of biodegradable
household waste from landfill (Smith and Jasim, 2009).
According to Sequeira and Chandrashekar (2015) who exam-
ined solid waste generation in Mangaluru city, eco-friendly tech-
nologies such as vermicomposting could divert around 45–54
tonnes of household waste out of the 205 metric tonnes of the
daily per capita waste generated in India. In a separate study,
Mbuligwe et al. (2002) in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania, found
that household-level composting had the potential to reduce
between 38% and 55% of solid waste. However, home compost-
ing is dependent on voluntary input from householders (Williams
and Kelly, 2003).
Social marketing promotes voluntary behaviour change
through user-centric interventions that are designed using sys-
tems level thinking and formative research (Saunders et al., 2015;
Truong et al., 2019). To date, only a few scholars have attempted
to critically and systematically evaluate the design of waste-man-
agement interventions such as recycling (Jesson, 2009; Varotto
and Spagnolli, 2017) and food waste reduction (Kim et al., 2019).
While there is growing interest in application of social marketing
principles for environmental protection (Hinsley et al., 2015;
Jones et al., 2019; Metcalf et al., 2018; Veríssimo, 2019), limited
knowledge is available to guide the design of efficient compost-
ing interventions. Considering evaluative studies can offer cru-
cial insights for future practices (Ashton and Manchanda, 2018).
Rigorous reviews and systematic analysis of waste-management
interventions are needed to identify best-practices to inform pro-
gramme design, implementation, and evaluation (Purcell and
Magette, 2011).
Therefore, this study conducted a systematic literature review
of composting interventions targeting households reported in the
peer-reviewed literature. The key research questions posed by
this current review are:
RQ1 – Which social marketing criteria are evident in waste
management interventions?
RQ2 – Which stakeholders are included in programme
design?
RQ3 – What are the gaps in waste-management intervention
design?
Assessment tool: Social marketing
benchmark criteria
A growing body of research indicates the futility of influencing
conservation outcomes through traditional awareness-raising
mechanisms (Green et al., 2019; Jesson, 2009). Several scholars
believe that sustainable environmental behaviour requires more
than just knowledge and attitudinal shifts focusing effort on
overcoming physical and perceived barriers that impede the
desired behaviour (Basil et al., 2019; Kemper and Ballantine,
2019; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; Parkinson et al., 2016; Pearson
and Perera, 2018). Unlike information-intensive strategies,
social marketing adopts a systematic and pragmatic approach to
programme design by careful selection of the activity to be
promoted, identification of all possible barriers and benefits
associated with that activity through formative research, and
pilot-testing strategies before community-level scaleup
(Lefebvre, 2012; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; McKenzie-Mohr and
Schultz, 2014).
Six distinguishing characteristics of social marketing pro-
grammes were proposed by Andreasen (2002) and later modified
by French and Blair-Stevens (2006) delivering eight core social
marketing benchmark criteria (SMBC). Programmes can be clas-
sified as social marketing if they integrate eight key elements into
programme design. Behaviour change focuses attention on
behaviour ensuring that intervention effort extends beyond mere
awareness raising while consumer-orientation ensures that the
needs and wants of people targeted for change are considered
prior to programme design resulting in clear insights that are used
to guide strategy for programme design. A comprehensive com-
petitor analysis to identify characteristics of other programmes
that have successfully increased household composting is under-
taken and behaviour change theories are used to inform and
guide programme design, and test and measure behavioural out-
comes. Segmentation is used to classify heterogeneous markets
into homogeneous groups to assist programme implementation
by maximizing programme appeal for many different types of
people as possible. A marketing focus ensures that a beneficial
value-offering is delivered through the exchange process and
programmes deliver a full marketing mix (product, price, place,
and promotion). Consideration of key social marketing bench-
marks is important, given that behavioural change is more likely
when more of the social marketing benchmarks are used (Carins
and Rundle-Thiele, 2014; Kim et al., 2020a; Xia et al., 2016). A
recent evidence review identified that effect sizes were larger for
food waste programmes which had three key social marketing
benchmarks, namely theory, marketing mix and behaviour (Kim
et al., 2019), noting that more evidence is needed to draw defini-
tive conclusions.
Furthermore, partnership/stakeholders are an essential ele-
ment for consideration acknowledging systems approaches to
behaviour change. In line with recent reviews (Hurley et al.,
2019), the extent of stakeholder involvement is considered.
External stakeholders can consist of clients (e.g., individuals tar-
geted by the intervention), funding agencies (e.g., governmental
and quasi-governmental organizations), or private funders (e.g.,
individual donors, community members, etc.) (Dahl et al., 2015).
Prior systematic review of alcohol-prevention interventions indi-
cate that stakeholder input significantly enhances programme
design by offering new ideas, perspectives and information
(Hurley et al., 2019), and earlier reviews identify that stakeholder
involvement in programme design, delivery and evaluation are
rare (Buyucek et al., 2016). Mid-stream agents also play a pivotal
role in the co-creation and delivery of customer-oriented services
or products (Dietrich et al., 2016; Wood, 2016, 2019). Therefore,
apart from investigating core SMBC elements, this current
review will assess consideration of stakeholders and their role
during different stages of programme design (Hurley et al., 2019;
McHugh et al., 2018).
Sewak et al. 3
Methods
Data sources and search method
Following preferred reporting of items in systematic reviews and
meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Liberati et al., 2009), this
research sought to include empirical studies that had been peer-
reviewed, in the English language, and published between 1995
and January 2020 within eight electronic databases: EBSCO;
Emerald; OVID; ProQuest; SAGE; Scopus; Springer; and Web
of Science. Key-terms used for database search included: “com-
post*” AND “household* OR home* OR backyard OR residen-
tial OR domestic” AND “behavio* change OR social marketing
OR intervention* OR campaign* OR program* OR scheme* OR
experiment* OR random controlled trials OR study OR studies
OR assessment OR evaluation”.
Eligibility criteria and study screening
After removing duplicates in Endnote, individual records were
screened and excluded using the following criteria: (a) non-English;
(b) non-journal articles (including books, book chapters, conference
proceedings, reviews and notes); (c) not related to composting behav-
iour (e.g., veterinary sciences, toxicology, agriculture, engineering,
and public occupational health); (d) focused on other types of waste
(e.g., sewage and wastewater, electronic waste, hazardous or chemi-
cal waste, farm or animal waste); (e) focused on energy and emis-
sions (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, leachates, organic dust, and
biogas production); and (f) focused on technical aspects of compost-
ing (e.g., techniques and equipment, temperature control, soil condi-
tions, quality assessment, and chemical composition of compost).
Shortlisted records were transferred to Covidence (online sys-
tematic review management tool) enabling parallel assessment by
two independent reviewers. Covidence reduces selection bias
through use of a blinded voting feature integrated into its multiphase
citation review process (Kellermeyer et al., 2018). During first-level
screening of abstracts, the exclusion criteria are used to filter irrele-
vant articles. In our case, studies that were considered non-empirical
(e.g., formative and conceptual papers, and systematic and meta-
analytical reviews) and non-behavioural (such as feasibility studies,
lifecycle analysis, material-flow analysis, environmental impact
assessment, economic impact studies, and mathematical modelling
and simulation studies) were removed. An intercoder reliability of
80% was noted and discrepancies were resolved through discus-
sions. Full-length articles were then assessed to identify empirical
studies that matched the inclusion criteria of household-level inter-
ventions with measurable behavioural outcomes. Articles that did
not match this criterion were excluded. Discrepancies were resolved
through mutual discussions and with the help of a third reviewer.
Quality appraisal
The methodological quality of 14 studies was assessed by a team
of four independent reviewers. Each article underwent parallel
assessment by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal
Tool (Hong et al., 2018). An inter-reliability score calculated
using Cohen’s kappa (0.7) revealed substantial agreement
between reviewers. Four research designs were noted in the
existing pool of studies: (a) quasi-experiments (Bernstad, 2014;
Bernstad et al., 2012, 2013; Geislar, 2017; Gillan et al., 2004;
McKay and Buck, 2004; Woodard et al., 2001); (b) mixed-
method research (Aberg et al., 1996; Bench et al., 2005; Karkanias
et al., 2016; Li et al., 2017); (c) a cross-sectional quantitative
study (Boonrod et al., 2015; Manomaivibool et al., 2018); and (d)
a randomized controlled trial (DiGiacomo et al., 2018).
Search outcomes
Out of 3595 articles retrieved from the database search, 14 final
records met the eligibility criteria (Figure 1). The final records
were assessed using the social marketing benchmark criteria by a
team of four coders. An inter-reliability test using Cohen’s kappa
(0.67) indicated substantial agreement and any discrepancies
between coders were resolved through discussions.
Results
Study characteristics
Studies in this review were geographically diverse, spanning
from the Oceania Pacific region, East Asia, European continent,
to North America. The majority of studies (n = 12) originated
from developed nations such as Canada (DiGiacomo et al., 2018;
McKay and Buck, 2004), the People’s Republic of China (Li
et al., 2017), Greece (Karkanias et al., 2016), New Zealand
(Gillan et al., 2004), Sweden (Aberg et al., 1996; Bernstad, 2014;
Bernstad et al., 2012, 2013), United Kingdom (Bench et al.,
2005; Woodard et al., 2001), and the United States (Geislar,
2017). Only two studies were conducted in a developing context,
namely Thailand (Boonrod et al., 2015; Manomaivibool et al.,
2018). Sample sizes ranged from less than 100 people in three
studies (Aberg et al., 1996; Gillan et al., 2004; McKay and Buck,
2004), to around 200–2171 participants (n = 11). Similarly, vari-
ation in intervention length was noted, ranging from 2–5 months
(n = 5), one year (n = 4), to more than two years (n = 5). None
of the interventions were self-classified as social marketing.
Behavioural objectives and programme
strategies
According to French and Blair-Stevens (2006), social marketing
interventions are designed to influence specific behaviours that
can be measured. The intention is to go beyond influencing
awareness or attitudes and beliefs (Kubacki et al., 2015), to creat-
ing conditions that facilitate and maintain long-term behaviour
change. Programme planners need to investigate current rates of
behaviour (baseline), underlying determinants of behaviour, and
factors that could influence or promote change (David and
Rundle-Thiele, 2019). The behavioural benchmark criterion
requires that social marketing interventions formulate specific
and measurable behavioural goals and conduct rigorous behav-
iour change analysis (Kubacki et al., 2015).
All studies in our review targeted waste management behaviour
in the form of source-separation (n = 7), backyard composting
4 Waste Management & Research 00(0)

Records idenfied through database

Idenficaon search
(n = 3595)

Duplicates removed n = 993

Records screened Records excluded aer tle screening (n = 2230)

(n = 2602) 1. Non-English Arcles (n = 73)
2. Non-Journal Arcles (n = 30)
3. Not related to composng (n = 1392)
4. Other types of waste (e.g. sewage, wastewater, hospital,
Screening

and chemical waste) (n = 298)

5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Leachate, Organic Dust, and
Biogas producon (n = 222)
6. Methods of Composng (e.g. anaerobic, vermicomposng,
and windrow) (n = 215)

Records exported to Covidence

for two-coder screening
(n = 372)

7 duplicates removed

365 records screened for

eligibility
Eligibility

315 records excluded aer abstract screening

50 full-texts assessed for

eligibility

39 records excluded aer full-text screening:

- Non household-level (11)
- Non-intervenon study (15)
- Non-quanfiable outcomes (13)

Backward/forward search (n = 3)
Included

14 final records

Figure 1.  Preferred reporting of items in systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) flowchart.

(n = 6), and composting and recycling (n = 1). A variety of pro-
gramme strategies were used to induce targeted behaviour change
(Table 1):
a. Structural modifications (e.g., property-close collection
system, kerbside organics cart or green-wheelie bin,
and altering location of compost bins) (Bernstad, 2014;
Bernstad et al., 2012; DiGiacomo et al., 2018; Geislar,
2017; Gillan et al., 2004; Woodard et al., 2001).
b. Provision of subsidized or free products (e.g., food
digesters and compost bins) (Aberg et al., 1996;
Bench et al., 2005; Boonrod et al., 2015; Manomai-
vibool et al., 2018; McKay and Buck, 2004).
c. Information-only approaches (door-stepping and
awareness-raising) (Bernstad, 2014; Bernstad et al.,
2013; Karkanias et al., 2016).
d. Incentivized recycling schemes (Boonrod et al.,
2015; Li et al., 2017).
e. Norms communication (Geislar, 2017).
To monitor behavioural changes, more than half of the studies
(n = 9) used researcher-administered methods such as field
Table 1.  Intervention strategies, measures, and behavioural outcomes.
Type of behaviour Study/location
Source-separation Bernstad et al. (2012) (Sweden)
Bernstad et al. (2013) (Sweden)
Bernstad (2014) (Sweden)
Boonrod et al. (2015) (Thailand)
Geislar (2017) (United States)
Woodard et al. (2001) (United Kingdom)
Li et al. (2017) (People’s Republic of China)
Home/backyard Bench et al. (2005) (United Kingdom)
composting
Gillan et al. (2004) (New Zealand)
Karkanias et al. (2016) (Greece)
McKay et al. (2004) (Canada)
Manomaivibool et al. (2018) (Thailand)
Aberg et al. (1996) (Sweden)
Composting and DiGiacomo et al. (2018) (Canada)
recycling
Type of intervention
Property-close collection system
Door-stepping
Information brochure (I1) versus
waste sorting equipment (I2)
Four different mechanisms
Kerbside organics cart (I1) versus
norms communication (I2)
Green wheelie bin for compostable
materials
Property-close collection system and
incentivised recycling scheme
Green-cone food digesters
Compost bin and behavioural
commitment
Awareness campaign
Inexpensive animal-proof digester
Home composters (Sa-Wians)
Home composters
Alter location of compost bins at
residential apartment and student
residences
Measures
Waste audit and quantification
Waste audit and quantification
Waste audit and quantification
Waste audit and quantification
Survey (postal)
Waste audit and survey
Field observations and Interviews
Waste quantification and survey
(postal)
Waste quantification and survey
Interviews
Waste audit
Interviews and observations
Interviews and observations
Waste quantification
Behavioural outcomes
34% of total waste diverted to material recycling
Sewak et al.
No significant difference in source-separated
behaviour between treatment and control group
Intervention 1 (Amount of food waste increased
by 12% but this increase was statistically
insignificant, that is p>0.01). Intervention 2
(Amount of food waste increased by 49% in the
first two weighing rounds and 44% in the last
round; p<0.01)
Organic waste-separation efficiency rates varied
across interventions: I1 = 19%, I2 = 36%, I3 =
51%, I4 = 58%
Structural Intervention (Cohen’s d = 0.95); Social
Intervention (Cohen’s d = 0.22)
Reduction in total waste from 18.1 to 8.2 kg/
household/week
An average of 0.62 kg/household/week of food
waste diverted
An average of 2.7 kg/household/week of waste
diversion was reported by 48 households during
study period. 60% of respondents observed a
waste reduction of 25–50% (p<0.05).
29% decrease in weight of kerbside waste in
experimental group compared to 12% decrease
in control group
Almost 50% of participants were found to be
frequent bin users (i.e., 5-days use per week)
After 4 weeks, treatment group was generating
52% less waste than control group
96.7% of participants separated one type of
recyclable and 48% separated four types of
recyclables
Average volume of green waste in residual
waste decreased from 9.3 (baseline) to 7.5 kg/
household/week (post-intervention)
In residential apartments, an average of 27 kg/
unit/year of compost was diverted. Within student
residences, an average of 14 kg/person/year of
compost was diverted.
5
6 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
observations, waste audits and quantification (Bench et al., 2005;
Bernstad, 2014; Bernstad et al., 2012, 2013; Boonrod et al., 2015;
DiGiacomo et al., 2018; Gillan et al., 2004; McKay and Buck,
2004; Woodard et al., 2001). Meanwhile five studies used self-
reported methods, such as surveys and interviews (Aberg et al.,
1996; Geislar, 2017; Karkanias et al., 2016; Li et al., 2017;
Manomaivibool et al., 2018). Behavioural metrics comprised
source-separation ratio, waste generation rate, recovery rate, purity
level, and participation rate. Out of 14 interventions, two cam-
paigns reported non-significant behavioural outcomes (Bernstad,
2014; Bernstad et al., 2013). For instance, Bernstad et al. (2013)
reported that door-stepping to disseminate information about food
waste recycling to residents in multi-family dwelling did not
impact their source-separation ratio over time. In fact, researchers
observed a decrease in source-separation ratios of food waste
among the treatment group. On the other hand, the door-stepping
campaign implemented by Karkanias et al. (2016) produced posi-
tive behavioural outcomes, hence, suggesting the need for further
research into the effectiveness of this strategy. In another quasi-
experimental study, Bernstad (2014) found that written informa-
tion about food waste recycling produced insignificant behavioural
outcomes (p > 0.01) when compared to waste-sorting equipment
(p < 0.01). Households that received waste-sorting equipment
diverted 49% of food waste compared to 12% diversion rates
among participants who received an information brochure. The
remaining interventions produced positive behavioural outcomes
in terms of waste diversion and participation rates through struc-
tural modifications such as installing in-house waste-sorting equip-
ment (Bernstad et al., 2012), provision of green bins (Geislar,
2017; Li et al., 2017; Woodard et al., 2001), altering the location
of communal bins (DiGiacomo et al., 2018), providing free or
subsidized compost bins (Aberg et al., 1996; Bench et al., 2005;
Gillan et al., 2004; Manomaivibool et al., 2018; McKay and
Buck, 2004), incentivized recycling schemes (Boonrod et al.,
2015; Li et al., 2017), and through behavioural commitment
(Gillan et al., 2004) (Table 1).
Audience segmentation
Segmentation enables practitioners to customize interventions
for specific audiences rather than offer a “one size fits all” solu-
tion (French and Blair-Stevens, 2006). Dividing a heterogeneous
population into smaller and manageable groups enables practi-
tioners to understand audience characteristics and needs (Dibb,
2017; Kitunen et al., 2019) and to tailor market activities and
resources accordingly to maximize return on investment (Kubacki
et al., 2015; Lee, 2017). Segmentation is evident when popula-
tions are split according to single variables such as demographic,
geographical, psychographical and behavioural (Dietrich, 2017;
French, 2017; Kubacki et al., 2015; Phillipson et al., 2016). More
complex segmentation analysis involves differentiating groups
using multiple variables and data-driven techniques such as two-
step cluster analysis, latent gold analysis, k-means, hierarchical
clustering, p-median clustering, or bi-clustering-based market
segmentation methods (Dietrich, 2017; Jones et al., 2019;
Tkaczynski and Rundle-Thiele, 2013, 2019; Tkaczynski et al.,
2016). An intervention is said to fully conform to the benchmark
criterion of segmentation if there is evidence of complex analysis
to suggest that marketing activities are customized to suit unique
target groups (segments) (Kubacki et al., 2015). Targeting, a
decision to split a population on single variables, is evident when
the programme is developed to meet the separate needs of differ-
ent groups (e.g., multi-unit dwellings).
Not a single intervention in our review conducted advanced
multivariate segmentation analysis (Table 2) and evidence of
identification of groups sharing similar characteristics was not
clearly reported in the majority of studies. Some evidence of tar-
geted approaches was reported. Targeting involves decisions
about which and how many of the identified segments to target
(Dibb, 2017). The most common method of targeting was based
on dwelling type (n = 11). For instance, five studies targeted
multi-family dwellings (apartments), while six studies focused
on single-dwelling, detached homes. Only one study segmented
the audience based on socio-economic status, that is, high-income
versus low-income households (Gillan et al., 2004). Apart from
Woodard et al. (2001) and DiGiacomo et al. (2018), none of the
studies segregated audiences based on age. DiGiacomo et al.
(2018) targeted student residences while Woodard et al. (2001)
conducted interventions at retirement homes as well as private
residences. Socio-demographic information about the study sam-
ple (e.g., ethnicity, nationality, socio-economic status, gender,
age, and housing composition) was provided by Bernstad et al.
(2012, 2013), Bernstad (2014), and Bench et al. (2005), but none
of these studies tailored their interventions based on socio-demo-
graphic characteristics reported.
Consumer orientation
Target audiences are the cornerstone of social marketing pro-
grammes and a consumer-oriented approach ensures active
involvement of consumers at the outset of programme design
(Dooley et al., 2012; French and Blair-Stevens, 2006; Kreps,
1996). Multiple data sources and research methods can be used to
collect consumer intelligence (French and Blair-Stevens, 2006),
but social marketing scholars emphasize the need to go beyond
interviews and focus groups to understand how people live, work
and play (Dietrich et al., 2016; French and Blair-Stevens, 2006;
Kim et al., 2019; Kubacki et al., 2015). Participatory approaches,
such as co-design can be applied to design a value-offering to
facilitate the desired behaviour change (French and Blair-
Stevens, 2006; Kim et al., 2019).
Only two studies were pre-tested in the early stages of pro-
gramme design. For instance, McKay and Buck (2004) pre-tested
food digesters with residents to determine product feasibility for
long-term use. The authors adopted the “plan–act–observe–
reflect” method to collect consumer feedback and refine the
product. Food-digesters were pre-tested prior to distribution to
project households. Similarly, the study by Manomaivibool et al.
Sewak et al. 7

Table 2.  Analysis of segmentation variables.

Study Segmentation variables

Demographic Geographical Psychological Behavioural

Bernstad et al. (2012)
Bernstad et al. (2013)
Bernstad (2014)
Boonrod et al. (2015)
Geislar (2017)
Woodard et al. (2001)
Li et al. (2017)
Bench et al. (2005)
Gillan et al. (2004)
Karkanias et al. (2016)
McKay et al. (2004)
Manomaivibool et al. (2018)
Aberg et al. (1996)
DiGiacomo et al. (2018)
Rental apartment Urban  
High-density dwelling Urban  
Rental apartment Urban  
 Urban  
Single-family home Urban  
Private houses and retirement homes Rural  
High-density dwelling (apartments) Urban  
Detached and semi-detached houses Urban  
Socio-economic status, property ownership Urban  
 Urban  
Single-dwelling homes Rural  
 Rural  
Semi-detached houses Peri-urban  
Multi-family dwelling, student residences Urban  

(2018) pilot-tested the efficacy of homemade Sa-wians (com-
posters) in 18 villages before rolling out the intervention to the
wider subdistrict. The authors conducted field observations,
stakeholder interviews and consumer surveys to investigate
determinants of source-separation behaviour. The researchers
found that sa-wians (home composters) were more suitable to
households (i.e., hassle-free way to get rid of waste) than alterna-
tive composting methods such as vermiculture, liquid compost
and biogas production. No evidence of co-designed preferred
approaches (Dietrich et al., 2016, 2017b; Domegan et al., 2013;
Trischler et al., 2019) was reported in studies located within this
review.
waste left on the ground and associated leakages, and flies being
attracted to the bins. Furthermore, non-participants in the study by
Li et al. (2017) cited inconvenience (long-distance to waste-station
and inconvenient manning times) as the biggest challenge for
them. McKay and Buck (2004) identified two physical barriers,
such as animal attacks and snowy weather, that affected the use of
backyard food digesters. These authors found that food digesters
were susceptible to bear attacks, hence, technical modifications
(such as a tight-fitting lid) were necessary to prevent spillage.
Space restrictions for storing waste-sorting equipment were identi-
fied as a barrier by Bernstad (2014). This insight was gained from
prior studies conducted by the author and served as impetus for the
design of a new behavioural intervention.

Insights
Formative research results in actionable insights (see Rundle-
Thiele et al. (2019b) who summarize a detailed formative research
study including an evidence review, surveys, expert interviews
and co-design). Practitioners need to actively seek information
regarding what motivates the target audience, who and what influ-
ences observed behaviours, and what perceived and physical bar-
riers are evident. Insights, derived from either primary or
secondary sources, should reveal people’s feelings, motivations,
needs or desires, and experiences associated with desired behav-
iour (Kolodko et al., 2016; Kubacki and Rundle-Thiele, 2017;
Lee, 2017; The National Social Marketing Centre, 2011). Creative
and diverse methods of data gathering will increase depth of
understanding and facilitate the development and implementation
of behaviour change approaches (Dibb, 2017).
Our assessment indicates that four studies acquired new action-
able insights as part of the pre-planning process. Karkanias et al.
(2016) identified technical and procedural difficulties associated
with the use of compost bins (e.g., problems with shredding, and
maintaining aeration and moisture) through participant interviews.
Sanitation problems were noted by Li et al. (2017) as the major
issue concerning multi-family dwelling residents. Households
were concerned about a foul smell emerging from waste bins,
Competition
Barriers to behaviour change can be minimized by identifying and
addressing external factors that compete for the audience’s time and
attention (French and Blair-Stevens, 2006). This can be in the form
of direct competition (such as concurrent campaigns and marketing
activities by other organizations) (Kim et al., 2019) or indirect fac-
tors (such as alternative behaviours) (Xia et al., 2016). An interven-
tion is said to fulfil this benchmark if at least one competitive variable
has been analysed and reported (Kubacki et al., 2015). No interven-
tion publication reported competition in our review.
Exchange
This criterion requires that practitioners conduct a thorough anal-
ysis of the benefits and costs (perceived and real) associated with
the proposed behaviour (French and Blair-Stevens, 2006).
Insights gained from the participatory research approach (such as
co-design and pre-testing) can help practitioners design a value-
package that customers find attractive and useful. This review
considers exchange as a process whereby consumers make pay-
ments through tangible (e.g., money) or intangible (e.g., time)
items in order to acquire something of value (Kim et al., 2019,
8 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
2020b; Kubacki et al., 2015). Exchange can be a single or recur-
ring transaction to enable consumers to adopt and maintain
desired behaviour (Kubacki et al., 2015).
Five studies identified in this review explicitly mentioned a
value-offering for households. For instance, Gillan et al. (2004)
offered a resource-pack comprising composting bin and kitchen-
scrap bin at a 55% subsidized rate (i.e., NZ$21.50). Participants in
the study by Aberg et al. (1996) could purchase additional com-
posters at a low cost, although the price was not explicitly stated.
Similarly, householders in the study by Bench et al. (2005) had the
option of purchasing green-cone digesters from supermarkets
(actual price is not mentioned). In the study by Boonrod et al.
(2015), participants could receive US$7 for every tonne of organic
waste deposited at recycle shops. On the other hand, Li et al. (2017)
offered green points as incentives to households that separated
their organic waste. These green points could then be exchanged
for valuable items such as eggs, dishwashing detergent, or services
such as sharpening knives or repairing insect screens for windows.
Eggs were the most preferred item observed by the authors. One
egg was worth three green points, and households were allowed a
maximum of 10 eggs per month (Li et al., 2017).
Marketing method
Under this benchmark criterion, French and Blair-Stevens (2006)
recommend that practitioners integrate all marketing mix ele-
ments within their interventions, while also ensuring that meth-
ods and approaches are economically feasible and practically
sustainable. Previous systematic reviews, such as Kim et al.
(2019) and Kubacki et al. (2015), assessed interventions based on
whether they offered attractive benefit packages (products), min-
imized costs (price), made exchange convenient and easy (place),
and utilized media that was preferred by the target audience (pro-
motion). Though all elements are essential, Kubacki et al. (2015)
suggests that an intervention will fulfil this criterion if a mini-
mum of two marketing mix elements are reported.
(A)  Product/services
Product comprises the value-package (tangible or intangible)
that the target audience acquires during the exchange process
(Fujihira et al., 2015; Kubacki et al., 2015; Lee, 2017). This
review adopts the product-classification system suggested by Xia
et al. (2016) that comprises:
(a) Core product – core benefit(s) derived from performing
desired behaviour.
(b) Actual product – tangible good or intangible service that
facilitates desired behaviour.
(c) Augmented product – supplementary goods and services that
enable the target audience to consume actual product and
engage in desired behaviour.
Eleven interventions assessed in this review provided the target
audience with some form of tangible item or customized services
to facilitate waste separation and composting behaviour (Table 3).
Actual products ranged from backyard composters and small
bins (Aberg et al., 1996; Boonrod et al., 2015; Geislar, 2017;
Gillan et al., 2004; Manomaivibool et al., 2018), communal com-
post bins (Boonrod et al., 2015; DiGiacomo et al., 2018), green-
cone digesters (Bench et al., 2005), customized animal-proof
digesters (McKay and Buck, 2004), to custom-designed kitchen
equipment to collect food waste (Bernstad, 2014). Kerbside
green-waste collection services were introduced by Woodard
et al. (2001) and Bernstad et al. (2012). Augmented products con-
sisted of small-size scrap bins that stored organic matter before it
is transferred to backyard composters or to green wheelie bins.
Core benefits of decentralized composting were highlighted and
communicated to households in some studies. This included eco-
nomic benefits of composting (e.g., reduction in the purchase of
garbage bags) (Gillan et al., 2004), environmental benefits (e.g.,
waste diversion from landfill, creation of biogas and fertilizer)
(Bernstad, 2014; Gillan et al., 2004), and personal benefits (e.g.,
useful end-product in the form of home compost and increased
access to a waste-sorting facility) (Bernstad et al., 2012; Gillan
et al., 2004; Manomaivibool et al., 2018).
(B)  Price
The original 4Ps proposed by McCarthy (1994) consider price
as the economic cost of obtaining a product or service (Lahtinen,
2018). Using the utilitarian perspective, our review indicates that
only four studies conducted a cost–benefit analysis (Table 4).
Gillan et al. (2004), for instance, offered a 55% subsidy for com-
posting bin and kitchen scrap bin. Households could purchase the
resource-pack for NZ$21.50 (retail value was NZ$47.90). Aberg
et al. (1996) initially provided composters free-of-charge, but
households also had the option of purchasing additional com-
posters at a low cost (price not mentioned). Participants in the
study by Bench et al. (2005) could acquire green-cone digesters
from supermarkets, although the exact price is not disclosed. In
the case of Manomaivibool et al. (2018), sa-wians (home com-
posters) were self-constructed by households at a minimum cost
(estimates were not mentioned).
It is worth noting that several studies freely distributed
items and provided free waste-collection services. For
instance, Geislar (2017) and Karkanias et al. (2016) did not
charge money for organics carts, kitchen pails, or compost
bins. Similarly, McKay and Buck (2004) provided households
with animal-proof digesters free-of-charge. Households in the
study by Bernstad et al. (2013) and Bernstad (2014) did not
have to pay for the special kitchen equipment used for organic
waste. Finally, free waste collection services were provided by
DiGiacomo et al. (2018), Bernstad et al. (2012) and Woodard
et al. (2001).
(C)  Place
This benchmark requires that practitioners identify and select
the most convenient location where exchange can occur (Kubacki
et al., 2015). The target audience must be able to easily access the
products and services needed to adopt or maintain desired
Sewak et al. 9
Table 3.  Analysis of products and services.
Study Type of product/services
Actual product/services
Gillan et al. (2004) Gardenwise composters (210 litres)
Geislar (2017) 64-gallon organics cart
Bench et al. (2005) Green-cone digesters
McKay et al. (2004) Inexpensive animal-proof digester
Aberg et al. (1996) Backyard composter (type of
composter distributed to
households was dependent on
household size)
Manomaivibool et al. Sa-wians (home composters) were
(2018) selected due to their ability to
accommodate continuous flow of
organic waste.
DiGiacomo et al. (2018) Compost bins fitted at student
residence and apartment building
Bernstad et al. (2012) Property-close waste-sorting
services (households could dispose
of bulky waste in a mobile-sorting
facility, free of charge once a month)
Woodard et al. (2001) Green wheelie bin for compostable
materials
Bernstad (2014) Metal hanger and a vessel covered
with paper bags to collect food waste
Boonrod et al. (2015) Organic waste collector tanks and
small bins
behaviour (Xia et al., 2016). In the original 4Ps, McCarthy (1994)
elaborates that place can include either physical or virtual outlets
that facilitate direct exchange (Lahtinen, 2018).
In our assessment, the targeted behaviour involved onsite
waste-separation and composting. Therefore, it was noted that all
interventions directly interacted with the audience at the residen-
tial area. To increase convenience, property-close green-waste
collection services were provided to households in three studies
(Bernstad et al., 2012; DiGiacomo et al., 2018; Woodard et al.,
2001) and one study focused on student residences (DiGiacomo
et al., 2018). Composting resources (e.g., compost bins and
Augmented product/services Core benefits
Kitchen scrap bin (8 litres) •• Reduces the number
with twist off lid of rubbish bags that
households have to
purchase (one bag costs 50
NZ cents)
•• Generates compost that
can be used in backyard
gardens
•• Longevity of the landfill
(i.e., reduction in
household waste destined
for the landfill)
2-gallon kitchen pail with  
locking lid
Kitchen caddy  
 
 
• Hassle free way to get rid
of organic waste
  • Organic compost as end-
product
 
Increased convenience for
households (previously,
tenants used to travel
approximately 10 km to
dispose of household waste,
waste electric and electronic
equipment, and bulky waste
at the municipal waste-
recycling centre)
 
Environmental benefits
of organic recycling (how
food waste will be turned
into biogas and used as a
substitution to fossil energy)
 
kitchen pails, food digesters, organics carts) and education mate-
rials (e.g., information brochures or leaflets) were delivered
directly to the resident’s home by project worker(s) in 10 studies
(Aberg et al., 1996; Bernstad, 2014; Bernstad et al., 2013;
Boonrod et al., 2015; DiGiacomo et al., 2018; Geislar, 2017;
Gillan et al., 2004; Karkanias et al., 2016; McKay and Buck,
2004; Woodard et al., 2001). Households also had the option of
purchasing composting bins from supermarkets (Bench et al.,
2005) or acquiring it from the Council Office (Geislar, 2017), and
these are considered to be strong examples of application of
place. In the study by Manomaivibool et al. (2018), sa-wians
Table 4.  Summarized intervention assessment results.
10

Authors /country Social marketing elements

Intervention(s) Targeted Behaviour Audience Consumer Insight Competition Exchange Marketing mix Theory Stakeholders
behaviour change segmentation orientation
objective Product/
service Price Place Promotion

Aberg et al. (1996) Home Home ✓ ✓    ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

(Sweden) Composters composting
Bernstad et al. (2013) Door-stepping Source- ✓ ✓       ✓ ✓  ✓
(Sweden) campaign separation
Bernstad (2014) I1: Information Source- ✓ ✓  ✓   ✓  ✓ ✓  ✓
(Sweden) brochure separation
I2: Waste-sorting
equipment
Bernstad et al. (2012) Property-close Source- ✓ ✓     ✓  ✓   ✓
(Sweden) collection system separation
Bench et al. (2005) (United Green cone food Backyard ✓ ✓    ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓
Kingdom) digesters composting
Boonrod et al. (2015) I1: Organic waste Source- ✓     ✓ ✓  ✓ ✓  
(Thailand) collector tanks separation
I2: Education,
small bins, and
flag of honour
I3: Economic
incentive for
depositing organic
waste
DiGiacomo et al. (2018) I1: Alter location Composting ✓ ✓     ✓  ✓   
(Canada) of compost bins and recycling
at multi-family
dwelling
I2: Alter location
of compost bins at
university student
residences
Geislar (2017) (United Curbside organics Source- ✓ ✓     ✓  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
States) cart and Norms separation
Communication (organic
recycling)
Gillan et al. (2004) (New Compost bin Backyard ✓ ✓    ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓
Zealand) and Behavioural Composting
Commitment
Karkanias et al. (2016) Door-to-door Home ✓   ✓     ✓ ✓  
(Greece) awareness composting
campaign
Li et al. (2017) (People’s Incentivized Source- ✓ ✓  ✓  ✓   ✓ ✓  ✓
Republic of China) recycling separation
scheme
Waste Management & Research 00(0)

(Continued)
Table 4. (Continued)

Authors /country Social marketing elements

Sewak et al.

Intervention(s) Targeted Behaviour Audience Consumer Insight Competition Exchange Marketing mix Theory Stakeholders
behaviour change segmentation orientation
objective Product/
service Price Place Promotion

Manomaivibool et al. Home Source- ✓  ✓    ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓

(2018) (Thailand) composter separation
(Sa-Wians)
McKay et al. Inexpensive Backyard ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   ✓  ✓   ✓
(2004) (Canada) Animal-proof composting
digester
Woodard et al. (2001) Green wheelie Source ✓ ✓     ✓  ✓ ✓  ✓
(United Kingdom) bin separation
11
12 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Direct Markeng (n = 7)
Media Type
Communicaons Mix
[e.g. door stepping,
public meeng]
Public Relaons (n = 2)
[e.g. publicity, contest]
Sales Promoon (n = 3)
[e.g. instore promoon,
green points, flag-of-
honour]
Adversing (n = 0)
Figure 2.  Analysis of promotional strategies.
(home-composters) were self-created and installed by house-
holds within their backyards.
(D)  Promotion
This criterion considers the communication tools and tech-
niques marketers can use to promote desired behaviour (Lahtinen,
2018). Nickels et al. (1997) suggest that an integrated marketing
communications mix can be utilized by social marketers which
include strategies such as advertising, direct marketing, sales
promotion, public relations, personal selling, and word-of-mouth
communication (Lahtinen, 2018). Interventions can use diverse
promotional tools to raise awareness, enforce messages, or to
promote social marketing activities (Kubacki et al., 2015).
In our review, 11 studies utilized some form of promotional
strategy (Figure 2). Additional details of the fusion of communica-
tion mix, media type, and brand positioning by each intervention
are provided in the Supplementary Online Material (Table S1).
The most common communication approach included public
meetings (n = 4) and door-stepping (n = 3). Incentives (such as
green points) and rewards (such as flag-of-honour) were offered
by Li et al. (2017) and Boonrod et al. (2015), respectively. Only
one study (Geislar, 2017) used mass media (i.e., radio) to inform
the target audience about its campaign. Print media was com-
monly used, exemplified in the form of leaflets, brochures, pam-
phlets, information materials (e.g., composting guidebook), and
newspaper articles. Only three studies utilized technology. For
example, in the study by Manomaivibool et al. (2018), partici-
pants were encouraged to upload pictures of their sa-wians
(homemade composters) on a social media group. A video
explaining a waste-management scheme was used during public
meetings in the study by (Woodard et al., 2001) and also exhib-
ited, alongside information materials, at council offices and
libraries in the area. Finally, in the study by Gillan et al. (2004),
study participants were provided with the Council’s Rot-Line
number to seek advice or technical support. In terms of brand
positioning, two studies used a brand-name for their campaign –
“CROWN scheme” by Woodard et al. (2001) and “Around
Print Media (n = 9) Campaign or Product
Brand Posioning
[e.g. pamplets/leaflets, Name (n = 3)
posters, brochure, [e.g CROWN scheme,
composng guidebook] 'Around Again',
Gardenwise Composter]
Social and Digital Media
(n = 3) [e.g. social media,
video, Council's Rotline
Number]
Mass Media (n = 1)
Again” campaign by Bernstad (2014). Only one study mentioned
a branded product in their campaign (Gillan et al., 2004).
Theory
Interventions can use behaviour change theory to inform and
guide the methods mix (French and Blair-Stevens, 2006). Theory
offers insights into the mechanisms of action (mediators) and
moderators of change, as well as reveal the a priori assumptions
about human behaviour and what influences it (Davis et al.,
2015). Theories can guide intervention design and in return, the-
ory-based interventions provide empirical tests of its efficacy
(West et al., 2019). Additionally, theory can be used to examine
or evaluate social programmes (Kim et al., 2019). Only two stud-
ies in this review utilized theory. Social norms theory, which con-
siders human behaviour to be a constant interaction between
social context and psychological state, was tested in the study by
Geislar (2017). Aberg et al. (1996) adopted the theory of repeated
behaviour that categorizes behaviour into at least two stages –
initiation and persistence – and postulates that the determinants
of initiation and persistence are different.
Partnerships (stakeholder involvement)
This review expands on the original SMBC by considering the role
and contributions made by stakeholders during programme design,
implementation and/or evaluation. Consultation and partnership
with local authorities, council leaders, and community organiza-
tions are beneficial during the programme development stage
(Sharp et al., 2010). Partners can also add value by increasing target
audience participation (Xia et al., 2016). Several studies in our
review worked with local authorities and councils (see Table 5) to
implement or evaluate the programme (n = 10). In some cases (n =
3), the waste interventions were conceived and implemented by the
Council (Li et al., 2017; Manomaivibool et al., 2018; Woodard
et al., 2001), whilst in four studies, the Council provided bins and
information materials (Bernstad, 2014; Bernstad et al., 2012, 2013;
Gillan et al., 2004). Council provided project funding in the study
Sewak et al. 13

Table 5.  Analysis of partner contributions.

Study Name of partner(s) Partner contributions

Gillan et al. (2004) Dunedin City Council
Woodard et al. (2001) Wealden District Council
Li et al. (2017) Nanjing Municipal Government
McKay et al (2004) Seguin Township Council
Manomaivibool et al. (2018) Chiang Rai Provincial Administrative
Organization (CR PAO)
Aberg et al. (1996) Municipality of Goteborg, Chalmers
University of Technology, Goteborg
University
Bernstad et al. (2013) Municipality (name unknown)
Bernstad et al. (2012) Municipality (name unknown)
Bernstad (2014) Municipality (name unknown)
Bench et al. (2005) West Sussex County Council
Geislar (2017) Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD)
Provision of bins and information materials
CROWN scheme was set up by the Council
Council Office (through the Community
Committee) launched the ‘Nanjing Green
Account Scheme” which rewards residents
with electronic points based on their
waste sorting behaviour. A public–private
partnership was formed between City
wards and Company A at approximately
20RMB($2) per household per year. Company
A conducted publicity of the scheme, waste
collection and sorting operations, and
transportation to processing sites
Seguin Township Council approved the
project and its budget. The Waste Diversion
Organization provided 75% of the funding
for pilot project which will invested in
labour, administration, materials, and
transportation. The Township of Seguin
provided the rest of the funding which was
used for materials administration and
equipment
CR PAO sponsored and promoted the CRZW
scheme. After pilot testing in 18 villages,
the scheme was mainstreamed to other
villages in the subdistrict. A memorandum of
understanding was signed between CR-PAO
and village-head and mayor of municipality
of sub-district administrative organizations
to share the responsibilities of the CRZW
scheme and use the village as a learning
centre for respective districts
Planning, implementation and testing of
home composters were carried out by
the Municipality of Goteborg, Chalmers
University of Technology, and Goteborg
University. Multiparty cooperation enabled
the real-life testing of new waste-
management technology and identify local
methods of treating compostable waste
Information officers employed by the
municipality interacted with households and
informed them about environmental benefits
of food waste recycling and how food waste
will be treated after collection
Municipality collected and transported all
waste fractions in study area
Papers bags for food waste separation were
distributed by the municipality. Additional
bags could be collected from recycling
building at any time
Council promoted the green-cone waste
digesters in supermarkets
Field experiment was conducted in
partnership with the CMSD

CRZW: Chiang Rai Zero Waste.

by McKay and Buck (2004), and in three studies (Bench et al., Discussion
2005; Li et al., 2017; Manomaivibool et al., 2018), the Council
sponsored and promoted the programme and/or products (e.g., Behavioural interventions using non-coercive mechanisms to
green cone waste digesters, sa-Wians, and green account scheme). induce desired behaviour are less stigmatizing (Stern, 2020).
14 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Voluntary approaches to influence source-separation, compost-
ing and recycling behaviour were identified in this review.
Programme strategies ranged from provision of free or subsi-
dized composting bins or food-waste digesters, norms communi-
cation, structural modifications, incentivized recycling schemes,
to awareness-raising. The most statistically significant behav-
ioural impact was observed among interventions that modified
the built environment by introducing inhouse waste-sorting
equipment (Bernstad, 2014), a property-close collection system
(Bernstad et al., 2012; Li et al., 2017), or kerbside green-waste
collection services (Geislar, 2017; Woodard et al., 2001). This
finding is in alignment with reports from a meta-analytical study
of 70 recycling interventions that identified social modelling and
environmental alterations as the most effective techniques
(Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). Additionally, interventions that
provided composting bins or food digesters recorded positive
source-separation behaviour (Aberg et al., 1996; Bench et al.,
2005; Manomaivibool et al., 2018; McKay and Buck, 2004).
Social interventions such as behavioural commitment (Gillan
et al., 2004) and norms communication (Geislar, 2017) also gen-
erated positive behavioural impact; however, the impact size was
smaller when compared to structural interventions.
Careful analysis of programme design reveals an average use
of three out of eight (with 0.25 points allocated to the 4Ps) social
marketing elements, skewed mainly towards behaviour change
and utilization of marketing mix elements (product, place, and
promotion). None of the interventions fully addressed the SMBC
criteria, which is concerning given that behaviour change is more
likely when more social marketing elements are used (Carins and
Rundle-Thiele, 2014; Kim et al., 2019; Xia et al., 2016).
Interventions that incorporated marketing mix elements such as
place (convenience) and products/services, along with insights,
theory, and exchange were found to positively influence source-
separation behaviour. For example, Bernstad (2014) used insights
from previous studies to empirically test a custom-fitted waste-
separation equipment that proved to be more effective than an
awareness-raising campaign. Similarly, McKay and Buck (2004)
used formative research to pilot-test and modify food-waste
digesters before widescale dissemination. Product modifications
through pre-testing proved beneficial as programme results
showed that the treatment group was generating 52% less waste
than the control group. Similarly, Li et al. (2017) used insights
from field observations and participant interviews to modify a
property-close collection system and incentivized recycling
scheme. An average of 0.62 kg/household/week waste diversion
rate was observed by Li et al. (2017). Findings from this review
are in line with earlier studies that indicate that programmes
infused with a higher number of social marketing elements are
more likely to deliver behaviour change (Carins and Rundle-
Thiele, 2014; Kim et al., 2019; Kubacki et al., 2015; Xia et al.,
2016).
The application of a user-centric approach was assessed using
three benchmarks – consumer orientation, segmentation and
insight. The absence of co-design and pre-testing among 12
interventions implies the prevalence of a traditional expert-driven
approach. Audience-oriented approaches incorporate a bottom-
up philosophy so that programmes are customized for the audi-
ence (Dietrich et al., 2016). There is a paucity of information in
the published literature regarding consumer perspectives of recy-
cling (Jesson, 2009). This aspect of inquiry is important because
householder needs may vary from one locality to another (Purcell
and Magette, 2011) and there is evidence to suggest that blanket
approaches are less effective (Panaretou et al., 2017). The pre-
planning stage also requires the acquisition of consumer intelli-
gence (insights) from multiple sources. Actionable insights can
originate from primary research (e.g., participatory research
design) or acquired through formative research (Kubacki et al.,
2015; Rundle-Thiele, 2009). Few interventions conducted in-
depth audience analysis through primary (n = 2) and formative
research (n = 4). In the absence of consumer-oriented research,
practitioners run the risk of forfeiting realistic insights into fac-
tors that motivate, prevent (barriers), or are superior to competing
alternatives. Very few interventions (n = 4) identified factors that
directly or indirectly affected desired behaviour (i.e., competitor
analysis). Without such insights, it would be difficult to create
consumer-oriented exchange offerings that motivate and sustain
source-separation and composting behaviour.
Behaviour-change theories were rare in the interventions we
reviewed. Only two theories emerged from our review: theory of
repeated behaviour (Aberg et al., 1996); and social norms theory
(Geislar, 2017). This poses as an opportunity for waste practi-
tioners to use socio-ecological theories to explain why certain
phenomenon occur (Kim et al., 2019) and to test mediators and
moderators of behaviour change (Davis et al., 2015). Behavioural
outcomes are more likely to be achieved when interventions
focus on the causal determinants of both behaviour and behav-
iour change (David and Rundle-Thiele, 2019). For instance, the
theory of reasoned action is commonly used to test constructs
such as attitudes, subjective norms and behavioural intention;
however, it is criticized for focusing on individual-level factors
(Bortoleto et al., 2012). Holistic models such as motivation–
opportunity–ability–behaviour have been used recently to explain
the impact of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors on behaviour (Li
et al., 2019; Parkinson et al., 2016; Zhu, 2016). Given that the-
ory-driven campaigns can deliver positive behaviour outcomes
(Kim et al., 2020a; Schuster et al., 2016), future designers of
composting interventions may consider utilizing and testing the
efficacy of behavioural theories.
Another notable gap is the limited use of the segmentation
process outlined in Dietrich et al. (2017a). While some evidence
of targeting based on a single variable was evident (Boonrod
et al., 2015), the adoption of data-driven segmentation profiling,
such as two-step cluster analysis (Arli et al., 2017; Dietrich,
2017; Gomez et al., 2018; Gray and Bean, 2011; Kim et al., 2019;
Poortinga and Darnton, 2016; Tkaczynski et al., 2016; Yeh et al.,
2017) to identify homogeneous groups in a heterogeneous popu-
lation was not reported in interventions identified in this review.
Interventions in our review predominantly targeted groups based
Sewak et al. 15
on a selected characteristic, such as housing type or location,
which overlooks differences that exist in the population. The
Waste and Resources Action Program recommends that local
authorities focus on specific audiences and hard to reach groups
(Jesson, 2009). Subgroups can be identified through analysis of
past behaviour (e.g., the use of recycling facilities, access to
recycling containers or drop-off sites, and respondent’s willing-
ness to give time to recycling), or insight into perceived personal
and social benefits (e.g., reasons for recycling, what motivates
them, and what would motivate them to recycle more) (Jesson,
2009).
Furthermore, the design of products/services may require
greater input from the target audience. In our review, only two
out of eight interventions used participatory-action-research and
pre-tested with the target audience (Manomaivibool et al., 2018;
McKay and Buck, 2004). The exchange theory suggests an
inquiry into potential rewards and benefits derived from desired
action and the associated barriers and personal costs (Jesson,
2009). This is possible through participatory research that pro-
vides realistic insights into user needs and preferences. Results
from this review indicate the lack of consumer-oriented approach
and acquisition of first-hand consumer insights to fully under-
stand the barriers associated with desired behaviour. Social mar-
keting scholars acknowledge that a vacuum exists within the
consumer-oriented co-design and co-production literature and
practice (Dietrich et al., 2016). Practitioners can collaborate with
the target audience and stakeholders to co-create (co-design and
co-produce) an ideal marketing mix (product, price, place or dis-
tribution channels, and communication mix) that will facilitate or
increase the uptake of desired behaviour (Chammas et al., 2020;
Christie and Waller, 2019; Dietrich et al., 2017b; Domegan et al.,
2013; Kim et al., 2020b; Trischler et al., 2019).
Traditional communication media were more prevalent within
the waste-management literature analysed in this review. The
most popular communication strategies included public meet-
ings, seminars, and door-stepping. Printed materials such as leaf-
lets, brochures, and newspaper articles were also identified as the
preferred type of media. Social and mass media were rarely
selected as a communication channel and none of the interven-
tions reported use of advertising. This finding is consistent with
an earlier systematic review by Jesson (2009) that recycling mar-
keting is predominantly knowledge and awareness based. There
is much scope for waste-management practitioners to explore
and apply contemporary communication methods that are inter-
active and engaging, and more importantly, co-designed with the
target audience. There is a need for better targeted and personal-
ized campaigns that address specific barriers and household
dynamics (Jesson, 2009) and communicate messages that reso-
nate closely with the audiences’ lives (Shawky et al., 2019).
Limitations and future research
A major limitation of the current review is the exclusion of non-
peer-reviewed studies (for example, corporate or technical
reports, media articles, social blogs, and Internet articles) that
would, otherwise, provide a robust overview of the different
types of waste-management interventions. Future researchers can
utilize SMBC to assess interventions reported within the grey lit-
erature. Findings from such informal, yet systematic, assess-
ments would benefit both social marketing and waste management
literature and practice. Secondly, this study did not consider com-
munity-level composting interventions (for instance, neighbour-
hood schemes or school composting programmes) as it adds a
layer of complexity to programme analysis given the diversity in
the target audience, sample size, and programme dynamics.
Additionally, this study did not conduct an upstream-level analy-
sis of waste-management policies and the role of high-level
authorities. Furthermore, this review overlooks the monitoring
and evaluation aspect of programme design. This is currently a
limitation of the SMBC framework, as acknowledged by Xia
et al. (2016), which can be expanded by future scholars. Finally,
this review found heterogeneity in behavioural metrics. This
indicates a lack of consistency in outcome evaluation methods to
report behaviour change. The importance of using measurable
behaviour outcome and reporting these measures has been raised
by previous studies (Kim et al., 2019; Rundle-Thiele et al.,
2019a). Given that meta-analysis can provide an in-depth under-
standing of what strategy is better in changing behaviour, our
review suggests that future studies apply at least one behavioural
outcome across interventions (e.g., weight of waste composted
per week).
Conclusion
Social and behavioural scientists acknowledge that householder
behaviour is multi-faceted and conversion of problematic behav-
iours (e.g., burning or dumping waste) into pro-environmental
actions (e.g., committed recycling) requires creative and sus-
tained efforts from change agents or key influencers. Campaigning
may trigger participation but more advanced strategies are
required to transform behavioural intentions into habits. Our sys-
tematic review indicates an underrepresentation of six bench-
marks within waste management interventions: behavioural
theory; consumer-orientation; insights; competitive analysis;
price/cost analysis; and exchange. Addressing these inter-linked
benchmarks are crucial during the pre-planning stage. Formative
research, in particular, helps to generate insights from users,
experts, and stakeholders before programmes and solutions can
be customized for the target segment. Stakeholder consultation
provides unique insights into operations and feasibility, and
endorsement opportunities. Participatory approaches, which are
considered useful methods in understanding user needs and per-
spectives, were absent in 86% of interventions. Finally, we noted
low adoption of digital marketing platforms, such as social and
mass media, in this review. This presents a significant opportu-
nity for future waste-management research and practice.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the feedback received from Doug
McKenzie-Mohr during the writeup of this manuscript.
16 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Aarti Sewak https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7905-9598
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Aberg H, Dahlman S, Shanahan H, et al. (1996) Towards sound environmen-
tal behaviour: Exploring household participation in waste management.
Journal of Consumer Policy 19: 45–67.
Andreasen AR (2002) Marketing social marketing in the social change mar-
ketplace. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 21: 3–13.
Arli D, Dietrich T, Tkaczynski A, et al. (2017) Indonesian healthy liv-
ing intentions: Segmentation study insights. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 22: e1574.
Ashton W and Manchanda R (2018) Using previous social marketing efforts
to assess a new program. Journal of Social Marketing 8: 202–219.
Basil D, Basil M, Lavack A, et al. (2019) Toward developing an environmen-
tal efficacy construct. Journal of Social Marketing 10: 1–17.
BDA Group (2009) The Full Cost of Landfill Disposal in Australia. Canberra:
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Available at:
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2e935b70-a32c-
48ca-a0ee-2aa1a19286f5/files/landfill-cost.pdf (accessed 1 July 2020).
Bench ML, Woodard R, Harder MK, et al. (2005) Waste minimisation: Home
digestion trials of biodegradable waste. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 45: 84–94.
Bernstad A (2014) Household food waste separation behavior and the impor-
tance of convenience. Waste Management 34: 1317–1323.
Bernstad A, Jansen JL and Aspegren H (2012) Local strategies for efficient
management of solid household waste – The full-scale Augustenborg
experiment. Waste Management & Research 30: 200–212.
Bernstad A, la Cour Jansen J and Aspegren A (2013) Door-stepping as a strat-
egy for improved food waste recycling behaviour – Evaluation of a full-
scale experiment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 73: 94–103.
Boonrod K, Towprayoon S, Bonnet S, et al. (2015) Enhancing organic waste
separation at the source behavior: A case study of the application of moti-
vation mechanisms in communities in Thailand. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 95: 77–90.
Bortoleto AP, Kurisu KH and Hanaki K (2012) Model development for
household waste prevention behaviour. Waste Management 32: 2195–
2207.
Buyucek N, Kubacki K, Rundle-Thiele S, et al. (2016) A systematic review of
stakeholder involvement in social marketing interventions. Australasian
Marketing Journal 24: 8–19.
Carins JE and Rundle-Thiele SR (2014) Eating for the better: A social mar-
keting review (2000–2012). Public Health Nutrition 17: 1628–1639.
Chammas G, Kayed S, Al Shami A, et al. (2020) Transdisciplinary inter-
ventions for environmental sustainability. Waste Management 107:
159–171.
Christie B and Waller V (2019) Community learnings through residential
composting in apartment buildings. Journal of Environmental Education
50: 97–112.
Clean Up Australia (2020) Clean Up Our Waste: It’s Time for Action. Available at:
https://www.cleanup.org.au/clean-up-our-waste#:~:text=Australians%20
produce%20540kg%20of%20household,single%20person%2C%20
every%20single%20week (accessed 1 July 2020).
Dahl S, Eagle L and Low D (2015) Integrated marketing communications and
social marketing. Journal of Social Marketing 5: 226–240.
David P and Rundle-Thiele S (2019) Rethinking behaviour change: A
dynamic approach in social marketing. Journal of Social Marketing 9:
252–268.
Davis R, Campbell R, Hildon Z, et al. (2015) Theories of behaviour and
behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: A scoping
review. Health Psychology Review 9: 323–344.
Dibb S (2017) Changing times for social marketing segmentation. In:
Dietrich T, Rundle-Thiele S and Kubacki K (eds) Segmentation in Social
Marketing: Process, Methods and Application. Singapore: Springer.
Dietrich T (2017) Segmentation in social marketing: Five steps to success. In:
Dietrich T, Rundle-Thiele S and Kubacki K (eds) Segmentation in Social
Marketing: Process, Methods and Application. Singapore: Springer,
77–92.
Dietrich T, Rundle-Thiele S and Kubacki K (eds) (2017a) Segmentation
in Social Marketing: Process, Methods and Application. Singapore:
Springer.
Dietrich T, Rundle-Thiele S, Schuster L, et al. (2016) Co-designing social
marketing programs. Journal of Social Marketing 6: 41–61.
Dietrich T, Trischler J, Schuster L, et al. (2017b) Co-designing services
with vulnerable consumers. Journal of Service Theory and Practice 27:
663–688.
DiGiacomo A, Wu DWL, Lenkic P, et al. (2018) Convenience improves
composting and recycling rates in high-density residential buildings.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61: 309–331.
Domegan C, Collins K, Stead M, et al. (2013) Value co-creation in social
marketing: Functional or fanciful? Journal of Social Marketing 3: 239–
256.
Dooley JA, Jones SC and Iverson D (2012) Web 2.0: An assessment of social
marketing principles. Journal of Social Marketing 2: 207–221.
French J (2017) The importance of segmentation in social marketing strat-
egy. In: Dietrich T, Rundle-Thiele S and Kubacki K (eds) Segmentation
in Social Marketing: Process, Methods and Application. Singapore:
Springer, 25–40.
French J and Blair-Stevens C (2006) National Social Marketing Benchmark
Criteria. Available at: https://www.thensmc.com/sites/default/files/
benchmark-criteria-090910.pdf (accessed 26 June 2019).
Fujihira H, Kubacki K, Ronto R, et al. (2015) Social marketing physical
activity interventions among adults 60 years and older: A systematic
review. Social Marketing Quarterly 21: 214–229.
Geislar S (2017) The new norms of food waste at the curb: Evidence-based
policy tools to address benefits and barriers. Waste Management 68:
571–580.
Gillan DA, Leland Jr, LS, Davies AM, et al. (2004) Reducing curbside waste
volumes by promoting household composting. Journal of Environmental
Systems 30: 317–332.
Gomez A, Loar R and England Kramer A (2018) The impact of market seg-
mentation and social marketing on uptake of preventive programmes: The
example of voluntary medical male circumcision. A literature review.
Gates Open Research 2: 68.
Gray D and Bean B (2011) Can social marketing segmentation initiatives be
used to increase household electricity conservation? Journal of Nonprofit
& Public Sector Marketing 23: 269–305.
Green KM, Crawford BA, Williamson KA, et al. (2019) A meta-analysis of
social marketing campaigns to improve global conservation outcomes.
Social Marketing Quarterly 25: 69–87.
Hinsley A, Verissimo D and Roberts DL (2015) Heterogeneity in consumer
preferences for orchids in international trade and the potential for the
use of market research methods to study demand for wildlife. Biological
Conservation 190: 80–86.
Hong QN, Pluye P, Fabregues S, et al. (2018) Mixed Methods Appraisal
Tool (MMAT). Available at: http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.
pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/127916259/MMAT_2018_criteria-man-
ual_2018-08-01_ENG.pdf (accessed 19 August 2019).
Hurley E, Dietrich T and Rundle-Thiele S (2019) A systematic review of
parent based programs to prevent or reduce alcohol consumption in ado-
lescents. BMC Public Health 19: 1451.
Jesson J (2009) Household waste recycling behavior: A market segmentation
model. Social Marketing Quarterly 15: 25–38.
Jones S, Keane A, St John F, et al. (2019) Audience segmentation to improve
targeting of conservation interventions for hunters. Conservation Biology
33: 895–905.
Sewak et al. 17
Karkanias C, Perkoulidis G and Moussiopoulos N (2016) Sustainable man-
agement of household biodegradable waste: Lessons from home com-
posting programmes. Waste and Biomass Valorization 7: 659–665.
Kaza S, Yao L, Bhada-Tata P, et al. (2018) What a waste 2.0: A global snap-
shot of solid waste management to 2050. In: Urban Development Series.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Kellermeyer L, Harnke B and Knight S (2018) Covidence and Rayyan.
Journal of the Medical Library Association 106: 580–583.
Kemper J and Ballantine P (2019) Targeting the structural environment at
multiple social levels for systemic change. Journal of Social Marketing
10: 38–53.
Kim J, Rundle-Thiele S and Knox K (2019) Systematic literature review
of best practice in food waste reduction programs. Journal of Social
Marketing 9: 447–466.
Kim J, Rundle-Thiele S, Knox K, et al. (2020a) Outcome evaluation of an
empirical study: Food waste social marketing pilot. Social Marketing
Quarterly 26: 1524500420918690.
Kim J, Rundle-Thiele S, Knox K, et al. (2020b) Consumer perspectives
on household food waste reduction campaigns. Journal of Cleaner
Production 243: 118608.
Kitunen A, Rundle-Thiele S, Kadir M, et al. (2019) Learning what our target
audiences think and do: Extending segmentation to all four bases. BMC
Public Health 19: 382.
Kolodko J, Read D and Taj U (2016) Using Behavioral Insights to Reduce
Littering in the UK. Warwick Business School, Paper for Clean Up Britain.
Available at: http://www.nudgeathon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/
CLUB-REPORT.pdf (accessed 14 June 2020).
Kreps GL (1996) Promoting a consumer orientation to health care and health
promotion. Journal of Health Psychology 1: 41–48.
Kubacki K and Rundle-Thiele S (2017) Formative Research in Social
Marketing: Innovative Methods to Gain Consumer Insights. Singapore:
Springer
Kubacki K, Rundle-Thiele S, Lahtinen V, et al. (2015) A systematic review
assessing the extent of social marketing principle use in interventions tar-
geting children (2000–2014). Young Consumers 16: 141–158.
Lahtinen V (2018) Assessing the effectiveness of the marketing mix in social
marketing. PhD Thesis, Griffith University, Australia.
Lee N (2017) How and why segmentation improves ROI. In: In: Dietrich T,
Rundle-Thiele S and Kubacki K (eds) Segmentation in Social Marketing:
Process, Methods and Application. Singapore: Springer, 61–74.
Lefebvre RC (2012) Transformative social marketing: Co-creating the social
marketing discipline and brand. Journal of Social Marketing 2: 118–129.
Li CJ, Huang YY and Harder MK (2017) Incentives for food waste diversion:
Exploration of a long term successful Chinese city residential scheme.
Journal of Cleaner Production 156: 491–499.
Li Q, Zeng F, Mei H, et al. (2019) Roles of motivation, opportunity, ability,
and trust in the willingness of farmers to adopt green fertilization tech-
niques. Sustainability 11: 6902.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. (2009) The PRISMA statement for
reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate
healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339: b2700.
Manomaivibool P, Srivichai M, Unroj P, et al. (2018) Chiang Rai zero waste:
Participatory action research to promote source separation in rural areas.
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136: 142–152.
Mbuligwe SE, Kassenga GR, Kaseva ME, et al. (2002) Potential and con-
straints of composting domestic solid waste in developing countries:
Findings from a pilot study in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Resources,
Conservation & Recycling 36: 45–59.
McCarthy EJ (1994) Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach. 1st
Australasian edition Canadian: Irwin.
McHugh P, Domegan C and Duane S (2018) Protocols for stakeholder par-
ticipation in social marketing systems. Social Marketing Quarterly 24:
164–193.
McKay RB and Buck K (2004) Removing maximum kitchen organics from
the waste stream: A case study. Journal of Environmental Systems 30:
159–175.
McKenzie-Mohr D (2000) Fostering sustainable behavior through commu-
nity-based social marketing. American Psychologist 55: 531–537.
McKenzie-Mohr D and Schultz PW (2014) Choosing effective behavior
change tools. Social Marketing Quarterly 20: 35–46.
Metcalf AL, Angle JW, Phelan CN, et al. (2018) More “bank” for the buck:
Microtargeting and normative appeals to increase social marketing effi-
ciency. Social Marketing Quarterly 25: 26–39.
Nickels WG, Wood MB and Walters RG (1997) Marketing: Relationships,
Quality, Value. 6th edition New York: Worth Publishers.
Nsimbe P, Mendoza H, Wafula ST, et al. (2018) Factors associated with com-
posting of solid waste at household level in Masaka municipality, Central
Uganda. Journal of Environmental & Public Health 2018: 1–7.
Palijon A, Hara Y, Murakami A, et al. (2017) Biowaste reuse through
composting: The response of Barangay Holy Spirit in Quezon City,
Philippines, to solid-waste management. In Yokohari M, Murakami A,
Hara Y, et al. (eds) Sustainable Landscape Planning in Selected Urban
Regions. Tokyo: Springer, pp. 227–236.
Panaretou V, Malamis D, Papadaskalopoulou C, et al. (2017) Implementation
and evaluation of an integrated management scheme for MSW in selected
communities in Tinos Island, Greece. Waste and Biomass Valorization
8: 1597–1616.
Parkinson J, Schuster L and Russell-Bennett R (2016) Insights into the
complexity of behaviours: The MOAB framework. Journal of Social
Marketing 6: 412–427.
Pearson D and Perera A (2018) Reducing food waste: A practitioner guide
identifying requirements for an Integrated social marketing communica-
tion campaign. Social Marketing Quarterly 24: 45–57.
Phillipson L, Gordon R, Telenta J, et al. (2016) A review of current practices
to increase Chlamydia screening in the community: A consumer-centred
social marketing perspective. Health Expectations 19: 5–25.
Poortinga W and Darnton A (2016) Segmenting for sustainability: The devel-
opment of a sustainability segmentation model from a Welsh sample.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 45: 221–232.
Purcell M and Magette WL (2011) Targeted intervention strategies to opti-
mise diversion of BMW in the Dublin, Ireland region. Waste Management
31: 2180–2189.
Rundle-Thiele S (2009) Bridging the gap between claimed and actual behav-
iour: The role of observational research. Qualitative Market Research 12:
295–306.
Rundle-Thiele S, David P, Willmott T, et al. (2019a) Social marketing theory
development goals: An agenda to drive change. Journal of Marketing
Management 35: 160–181.
Rundle-Thiele S, Pang B, Knox K, et al. (2019b) Generating new directions
for reducing dog and koala interactions: A social marketing formative
research study. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 26:
173–187.
Saunders S, Barrington D and Sridharan S (2015) Redefining social market-
ing: Beyond behavioural change. Journal of Social Marketing 5: 160–
168.
Schuster L, Kubacki K and Rundle-Thiele S (2016) Community-based social
marketing: Effects on social norms. Journal of Social Marketing 6: 193–
210.
Sequeira V and Chandrashekar JS (2015) Solid waste management in
Mangaluru City – A case study. International Journal of Innovation and
Applied Studies 10: 420–427.
Sharp V, Giorgi S and Wilson DC (2010) Delivery and impact of house-
hold waste prevention intervention campaigns (at the local level). Waste
Management & Research 28: 256–268.
Shawky S, Kubacki K, Dietrich T, et al. (2019) Using social media to create
engagement: A social marketing review. Journal of Social Marketing 9:
204–224.
Smith SR and Jasim S (2009) Small-scale home composting of biodegradable
household waste: Overview of key results from a 3-year research pro-
gramme in West London. Waste Management & Research 27: 941–950.
Stern PC (2020) A reexamination on how behavioral interventions can pro-
mote household action to limit climate change. Nature Communications
11: 918.
The National Social Marketing Centre (2011) Big Pocket Guide to Using
Social Marketing for Behaviour Change. Available at: https://www.
thensmc.com/sites/default/files/Big_pocket_guide_2011.pdf (accessed
20 May 2020).
Tkaczynski A and Rundle-Thiele S (2013) Understanding what really moti-
vates attendance: A music festival segmentation study. Journal of Travel
& Tourism Marketing 30: 610–623.
18 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Tkaczynski A and Rundle-Thiele S (2019) Is destination marketing missing
the mark? A Fraser Coast segmentation analysis. Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management 12: 12–14.
Tkaczynski A, Rundle-Thiele SR and Prebensen NK (2016) To segment or
not? That is the question. Journal of Vacation Marketing 24: 16–28.
Trischler J, Dietrich T and Rundle-Thiele S (2019) Co-design: From expert-
to user-driven ideas in public service design. Public Management Review
21: 1595–1619.
Truong VD, Saunders SG and Dong XD (2019) Systems social marketing: A
critical appraisal. Journal of Social Marketing 9: 180–203.
Varotto A and Spagnolli A (2017) Psychological strategies to promote
household recycling: A systematic review with meta-analysis of vali-
dated field interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 51:
168–188.
Veríssimo D (2019) The past, present, and future of using social marketing to
conserve biodiversity. Social Marketing Quarterly 25: 3–8.
West R, Godinho CA, Bohlen LC, et al. (2019) Development of a formal
system for representing behaviour-change theories Nature Human
Behaviour 3: 526–536.
Williams ID and Kelly J (2003) Green waste collection and the public’s
recycling behaviour in the Borough of Wyre, England. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 38: 139–159.
Wood M (2016) Midstream social marketing and the co-creation of public
services. Journal of Social Marketing 6: 277–293.
Wood M (2019) Resilience research and social marketing: The route to sus-
tainable behaviour change. Journal of Social Marketing 9: 77–93.
Woodard R, Harder MK, Bench M, et al. (2001) Evaluating the perfor-
mance of a fortnightly collection of household waste separated into
compostables, recyclates and refuse in the south of England. Resources
Conservation and Recycling 31: 265–284.
Xia Y, Deshpande S and Bonates T (2016) Effectiveness of social marketing
interventions to promote physical activity. Journal of Physical Activity
and Health 13: 1263–1274.
Yeh MA, Jewell RD and Thomas VL (2017) The stigma of mental ill-
ness: Using segmentation for social change. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing 36: 97–116.
Zhu B (2016) Consumer’s motivation, opportunities and abilities for sustainable
consumption: A case in China. Sustainability Management Forum 24: 337–352.