Societal Involvement in Household Waste Sorting Behavior in the Context of the Circular Economy: A Case Study of Poland

In this study, almost 90% of respondents declared that they sort waste. This result is comparable (96%) with results obtained by Ober and Karwot [42] in their research on the Polish population. More than 10% of respondents do not sort waste, and this result is similar to the one obtained by Voća and Ribić [43] in a survey conducted among the inhabitants of Zagreb (Croatia) (10.7%). Although previous research conducted by Czajkowski et al. [44] indicates that economic reasons are the most important factor determining the separation of waste by respondents (70%); in this survey, the economic factor was the least important factor motivating respondents to sort waste. The difference between the results obtained in these studies and those obtained by Czajkowski et al. [44] may have occurred due to the fact that our research was conducted 10 years later. Undoubtedly, the ecological awareness of residents has increased over this period. At the same time, in the research conducted by Ober and Karwot [42] on the pro-ecological behavior of Poles, the three most important motivational factors in pro-ecological behavior were care for their own and their family’s health (80%), care for the natural environment (61%), and financial factor (65%). Research conducted in 2014 on a group of Swedish and Bulgarian students showed that 86% of Swedish students and 56% of Bulgarian students stated that they sorted waste in their households [45]. In research conducted by Wang et al. [46] among residents of ten cities in China, only 15.1% of respondents indicated that they sort their waste. The main way to dispose of household solid waste was to throw it into the mixed waste bin (68.1%). However, there are cities in China where the participation of residents in the waste segregation system is higher. In survey research conducted by Xiao et al. [41] on a group of residents of Xiamen city in China, 53.3% of them indicated that they always sorted waste, while 37.9% did so occasionally and 8.6% never sorted recyclables. This is probably the result of the short practice of waste sorting (the first government regulations on the classification and management of municipal waste in China were implemented on 1 April 2010) as well as the lack of a uniform waste segregation system into fractions. On the other hand, in eight cities in China, including Xiamen, pilot projects for the segregation of municipal waste have been operating since 2000 [41,47], while in Bangkok (Thailand), 66% of the respondents stipulated that they had sorted waste for recycling regularly. The respondents indicated economic reasons as the essential factor for sorting waste (43.6%), while environmental benefits were the reason for 40.6%. However, the main obstacles to waste sorting, as in our research, were a lack of sorting bins at home (21.9%), a lack of storage space (20.4%), and no time to sort waste/no interest in sorting waste (19.5%) [26].

Even though almost 90% of respondents indicated that they segregate waste, they do not separate it into all necessary fractions. The research results are similar to those obtained by Zarębska and Zarębski [48] in Poland. These studies were conducted in 2015–2016 and showed that 75% of respondents segregated waste, but 30% of them segregated only some fractions. As we mentioned earlier, in Poland, the basic segregation of municipal waste is based on five fractions: glass, plastic and metal, paper, bio-waste, and mixed waste. Moreover, in accordance with legal regulations, waste such as batteries and accumulators, medicines, chemicals, and unnecessary electronic equipment are also segregated. The respondents indicated that they most often segregate glass, plastic, and metal as well as paper. These are waste fractions that pose few problems during collection; containers for these fractions should be in every garbage shed and most often, they are large in volume. The least frequently separated waste fraction was bio-waste. This may be due to the fact that bio-waste containers require more frequent emptying and may be a source of unpleasant odors in homes, which may discourage citizens from separating this waste fraction. This result is interesting because, according to data from the Central Statistical Office, the largest share in the stream of municipal waste collected separately in 2021 was bio-waste (33.9%), followed by glass (14.4%), paper (10.1%), and plastic and metals (9.8%) [31]. The differences may result from the fact that the bio-waste fraction includes not only food leftovers or vegetable and fruit waste (including peelings) but also mown grass, leaves, and branches of trees and shrubs. Most of the respondents who took part in the study live in apartment blocks and therefore do not generate waste from gardens. In addition, bio-waste constituting municipal waste includes plant parts from the maintenance of green areas, municipal/city parks, and cemeteries.

Similar results regarding segregation into individual fractions were obtained by Pucherová et al. [49] and Voća and Ribić [43] in their research. The three most frequently segregated fractions by residents of Nitra city in the Slovak Republic were plastics (89.8%), paper (87.4%), and glass (80.1%), the same as for residents of Zagreb in Croatia (packaging—77.9%, paper—77.4%, and glass—74.1%) [43,49]. Among Lithuanian citizens, 5–6% of respondents admitted that they never sort waste, while two-thirds stated that they sort wastepaper, plastic, and glass always or often [50]. In the Slovak Republic, Croatia, Lithuania, and Germany, responses are collected by fraction. This division is similar to the basic fractions in Poland: paper, plastics, and metals (packaging), glass, bio-waste, mixing (residual) municipal waste, and other (including the hazardous waste fraction such as batteries and accumulators, electrical waste, and expired medicine) [43,49,50,51,52,53]. This is due to the fact that each of these countries belongs to the EU and was obliged to introduce selective waste collection systems based on the provisions of the previously mentioned Directive 2008/98/EC [37].

In the case of people who indicated that they did not segregate waste (10.4%), the main reason was a lack of publicly available containers for selective waste collection (21%) or their too-small volume (which often causes them to overflow) (22%), as well as a lack of conditions for sorting waste at home (21%). In previous studies conducted by Czajkowski et al. [44], Polish respondents indicated that the main reason for not sorting waste is a lack of faith in the sense of separating waste at home (38%), the process being too time-consuming (23%), it taking up too much space (20%), or that it is too expensive (19%). At the same time, 98% of respondents stated that segregating waste is important. This means that 8% of respondents are aware of how necessary it is to sort items and yet they do not do it.

The analysis of the results obtained in the survey showed that almost 60% of respondents had a high level of knowledge regarding waste sorting. In research conducted by Czajkowski et al. [44], over 80% of Polish respondents stated that they knew how to segregate waste. However, of those surveyed in China, only 9.2% indicated that they had a good level of knowledge in the field of waste sorting, and 71.7% said that they had only heard about household solid waste recycling [29]. These results are similar to those obtained by Babaei et al. [54]. In this survey, among Abadan residents (Iran), only 10.3% indicated that they had knowledge about source separation and recycling, and one of the main reasons as to why they did not participate in the waste sorting process was a lack of awareness about recycling programs (89.7%). In Poland, ecological education includes society as a whole and takes place as part of education programs at various stages of education in kindergarten and school. Pro-ecological school education takes place as part of various subjects. Research conducted by Mróz et al. [55] regarding teachers’ inclusion in ecological issues in schools showed that only 50.85% of lower school teachers declared that they regularly include this issue in the educational program. In the case of high schools, this result was even lower and amounted to 41.61%. At the same time, studies have shown that ecology issues are more often raised by teachers working in village schools than those working in town and city schools. However, a survey among Polish school students implemented as part of the program ‘School students in the face of climate change’ (part of the Visegrad Project) showed that only 13.85% of respondents are satisfied with the quality of ecological education at school, and as many as 59.01% are not satisfied with it. In addition, 62.5% of school students stated that climate change problems are not discussed during lessons. At the same time, respondents pointed out that ecological education should take a practical form, e.g., joint actions, such as cleaning the planet, outside classes, and Oxford debates and not just take the form of lectures. School students also emphasized the need to educate their parents and entire families [56]. The problem of a lack of ecological education also applies to higher education. Both in the study programs educating teachers and educating those in other professions, there is a lack of pro-ecological subjects (except for the fields of strictly environmental or ecological studies). For example, in the case of education of pharmacists in the education standard, there is no program content regarding both the impact of the wrong way to deal with expired/unnecessary drugs on the environment as well as the obligation to inform patients about the right ways of dealing with unnecessary drugs. The problem with the lack or too little ecological education in the Polish education system is primarily due to the fact that this system is mainly directed toward the transfer of knowledge or professional skills and not shaping attitudes. Therefore, it would be important to introduce a subject on the broadly understood ecology at various levels of education. On the other hand, Korsunova et al. [57], who investigated knowledge and awareness about circular economy amongst Finnish young adults, indicate that even educated students from ecologically progressive countries still do not observe the whole picture of many relations and dependence between the whole system of interconnections in the circular economy. This happens despite the fact that Finland is one of the pioneers in moving towards the direction pointed by the European Union and there are more financial resources channeled into ecology school education. Thus, this must be a sign to put more work and energy into this subject in all European Union countries and more.

Bio-waste waste such as vegetable and fruit waste should be properly disposed of in a bio-waste waste container. It is not only important which container this type of waste should be thrown into but also how it is thrown away. The most desirable method is to dispose of all bio-waste waste in bulk or in a compostable bag. One of the desirable options is also throwing bio-waste waste into your own composter, but this option is feasible and preferred by people living in single-family houses. Approximately 24.4% of respondents indicated that they throw bio-waste into a mixed waste container. These results are much more advanced compared to the results obtained by Xiao et al. [41] in China. Among Xiamen city residents, as many as 73.5% of respondents disposed of food waste with other garbage, despite the fact that there has been a pilot waste segregation program in place since 2000. This program includes the segregation of waste into recyclable ones (such as paper, glass, metal, plastics, and texts); bio-waste; harmful waste (including batteries and accumulators, electronic products, and expired drugs); and others [47].

In the survey conducted by Pucherová et al. [49] among residents of the city of Nitra (Slovak Republic), respondents indicated that they most often throw bio-waste from the garden and household into mixed waste containers (33.5%). A similar number of respondents (31.4%) segregate bio-waste and 19% compost it. Among the inhabitants of Zagreb (Croatia), only 23.6% of respondents segregate organic waste, and the main reasons why respondents do not segregate this fraction are a lack of space for another bin and odors coming from separate waste collection [43]. Research conducted in Germany showed that the major disposal routes of food waste by residents were throwing it into organic waste bins (34%) and mixed waste bins (33%). Moreover, 14% of respondents indicated that they throw food waste into the sewage system and 9% compost it [51].

In the case of expired/unused pharmaceuticals, 83% of respondents declared that they returned them to a pharmacy or an appropriate collection point, and this value is higher than the values presented by Rogowska et al. [58] for Poland (about 30%). In accordance with the provisions of the 2012 Act on expired/unused waste, pharmaceuticals are treated as hazardous waste. As mentioned earlier, the commune is obliged to collect municipal waste, including expired/unused medicine. However, Poland lacks regulations including the collection of expired/unused pharmaceuticals from residents into the system, even though research both in Poland and worldwide indicates that pharmacies should dispose of expired/unused pharmaceuticals [58]. Pharmacies participate in this system on a voluntary basis, and the local government does not have any legal tools to obligatorily include them in this system [59].

In other surveys conducted by Lorek and Lorek [60] in Poland, respondents indicated that over half of them (53%) take broken electrical and electronic equipment to be repaired (or repair it themselves) and reused. Approximately 43% of respondents indicated that they donate unused household appliances to a specialized collection point, while 29% of respondents sell them and 25% give them to others for free. The contribution of used electronics was also one of the most common methods of e-waste disposal by respondents (40.8%) in the study conducted by Arain et al. [61] at one of the US universities.

The respondents indicated that their main source of information on waste sorting is the Internet, primarily social media. Also, in the case of research conducted by Pucherová et al. [49] among the residents of the city of Nitra (Slovak Republic), they indicated that among the information campaigns on proper sorting and prevention of waste initiated by the city, respondents responded best to online campaigns (81.2%). Awareness campaigns were also one of the main motivations for recycling by Spanish respondents. Stakeholders also indicated that actions aimed at improving the level of recycling should include, in addition to increasing the number of street containers and placing them all together, increasing the number of campaigns raising awareness of the need to separate waste and encouraging recycling [22]. However, the case study in Brazil conducted by Conke [62] showed that one of the main barriers to recycling is a lack of knowledge about waste recycling programs. In Poland, as in other EU countries, social campaigns are carried out aimed at the general population regarding waste sorting. They are implemented both by authorities at the national and regional levels and by environmental organizations. At the national level, the information and educational campaign ‘Five for sorting’ has been implemented since 2019 by the Ministry of Climate and Environment on the proper method of segregating waste. The campaign, which started in 2019, is addressed to both local governments and all citizens. The campaign is also supported by an educational program for children [63]. The ‘Our Garbage’ and ‘Don’t litter your conscience’ campaigns were implemented early on. Municipal authorities carry out information campaigns primarily due to the obligation arising by law.

In the years 2017–2019, the Supreme Audit Office (NIK), which is the supreme state audit body, audited the effectiveness of actions taken by the government and local government bodies to reduce the generation and management of plastic waste and implement the circular economy in this area. Moreover, as part of the inspection, the educational activities of the inspected entities were analyzed. NIK positively assessed the educational and information activities carried out by the audited entities regarding proper waste management. It was estimated that in 11 out of 15 inspected communes (73.3%), positive effects of educational activities were found. On the other hand, it was identified that 7 out of 15 communes did not incur any costs of educational and information activities focusing on waste management issues, which clearly indicated that educational activities had to take place, for example, during school classes or in the form of volunteering. However, it was emphasized that most of these activities were aimed at segregating waste, not preventing its formation [64]. At the same time, in research on the awareness and ecological behavior of Polish residents (conducted as part of a multi-year research program of the Ministry of Climate and Environment), the respondents indicated that 15% of them assessed the activities of the ministry, which are aimed at improving waste management in Poland, as definitely negative (15%), and over a third (34%) rated them rather negatively. Residents indicate that the three basic actions that the ministry should take to improve the effectiveness of waste management are educational activities and the promotion of proper waste management (15%), control of the waste management system (14%), and reducing the costs of waste management and introducing subsidies (8%) [65].

Moreover, it should be noted that education alone without the use of additional tools may not achieve the intended goal. Research conducted by Saladié and Santos-Lacueva [66] indicates that awareness campaigns will never be sufficient to accomplish the goals set in municipal waste management programs, and only the use of educational activities in combination with other tools will have an impact on improving the rates of separate waste collection.