Quality appraisal of household recycling influences research found evidence was mostly insufficient for drawing conclusions.

IF 7.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL Waste management Pub Date : 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1016/j.wasman.2024.12.004
Jennifer Macklin, Liam Smith, Jim Curtis
{"title":"Quality appraisal of household recycling influences research found evidence was mostly insufficient for drawing conclusions.","authors":"Jennifer Macklin, Liam Smith, Jim Curtis","doi":"10.1016/j.wasman.2024.12.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research on recycling behaviour and its influences is critical to supporting public policy efforts to mitigate the negative effects of waste. However, recent reviews have raised concerns about the quality of recycling research. Despite this, no previous reviews have conducted quality appraisals. This is partly because validated appraisal tools have typically been developed for intervention reviews in the health/medicine fields, creating difficulties applying to behaviour influence reviews in environmental fields. This update of a previous systematic review aims to fill this gap. We developed and piloted a novel quality appraisal framework tailored to interdisciplinary reviews of influences on recycling behaviours. Application of the novel framework to 118 recycling papers highlighted a lack of strongly-rated evidence, particularly for causal claims and operationalisation of behaviour. Specifically, over 80% of papers contained insufficient causal evidence, while 90% contained insufficient or cautious evidence of influence on actual behaviour. Only four papers (1%) produced strong evidence across both measures, allowing compelling confidence in their conclusions. Lack of quality evidence undermines the ability of remaining papers (and the body of literature as a whole) to draw strong conclusions about what factors have causal influence on actual recycling behaviour. This has implications for how well the field can guide interventions to improve recycling outcomes. To strengthen future research, this review identifies feasible instances of better practice to increase quality of evidence. Implementing such recommendations could increase the field's confidence in what influences household recycling. The quality appraisal framework may also be of interest for other pro-environmental behaviours.</p>","PeriodicalId":23969,"journal":{"name":"Waste management","volume":"194 ","pages":"318-341"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Waste management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2024.12.004","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research on recycling behaviour and its influences is critical to supporting public policy efforts to mitigate the negative effects of waste. However, recent reviews have raised concerns about the quality of recycling research. Despite this, no previous reviews have conducted quality appraisals. This is partly because validated appraisal tools have typically been developed for intervention reviews in the health/medicine fields, creating difficulties applying to behaviour influence reviews in environmental fields. This update of a previous systematic review aims to fill this gap. We developed and piloted a novel quality appraisal framework tailored to interdisciplinary reviews of influences on recycling behaviours. Application of the novel framework to 118 recycling papers highlighted a lack of strongly-rated evidence, particularly for causal claims and operationalisation of behaviour. Specifically, over 80% of papers contained insufficient causal evidence, while 90% contained insufficient or cautious evidence of influence on actual behaviour. Only four papers (1%) produced strong evidence across both measures, allowing compelling confidence in their conclusions. Lack of quality evidence undermines the ability of remaining papers (and the body of literature as a whole) to draw strong conclusions about what factors have causal influence on actual recycling behaviour. This has implications for how well the field can guide interventions to improve recycling outcomes. To strengthen future research, this review identifies feasible instances of better practice to increase quality of evidence. Implementing such recommendations could increase the field's confidence in what influences household recycling. The quality appraisal framework may also be of interest for other pro-environmental behaviours.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Waste management
Waste management 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
492
审稿时长
39 days
期刊介绍: Waste Management is devoted to the presentation and discussion of information on solid wastes,it covers the entire lifecycle of solid. wastes. Scope: Addresses solid wastes in both industrialized and economically developing countries Covers various types of solid wastes, including: Municipal (e.g., residential, institutional, commercial, light industrial) Agricultural Special (e.g., C and D, healthcare, household hazardous wastes, sewage sludge)
期刊最新文献
An inventory analysis of waste tyre generation and management in South Africa. Prototype of AI-powered assistance system for digitalisation of manual waste sorting. Utilization of municipal solid waste incineration fly ash with different pretreatments with gold tailings and coal fly ash for environmentally friendly geopolymers. Household waste-specific ambient air shows greater inhalable antimicrobial resistance risks in densely populated communities. Quality appraisal of household recycling influences research found evidence was mostly insufficient for drawing conclusions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1