Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour regarding Waste Management in a Grammar and a Comprehensive School in England – Results from a School Questionnaire

Open access


Well-organised waste management is an essential part of sustainable development. The saving of resources and energy is everyone’s concern and environmental education is vital to guarantee a sustainable lifestyle in the long run. To find out what similarities and differences in views regarding waste management exist between grammar school pupils and comprehensive school pupils in England, questionnaires were designed and distributed in two schools in the same English city. The questionnaires aimed at quantifying and establishing students’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviour regarding waste management. The results illustrate that students from the grammar school had higher levels of knowledge, were more likely to recycle and used more sources of information regarding waste management. Waste reduction was considered important by almost all students. However, students in both schools considered composting and waste reduction as less important than recycling and thereby did not fully agree with sustainable waste management.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ball S. J. Bowe R. & Gewirtz S. (1996). School choice social class and distinction: The realization of social advantage in education. Journal of Education Policy 11 89-112.

  • Ballantyne R. Fien J. & Packer J. (2001). School environmental education programme impacts upon student and family learning: A case study analysis. Environmental Education Research 7 23-37.

  • Baud I. Grafakos S. Hordijk M. & Post H. (2001). Quality of life and alliances in solid waste management: Contributions to urban sustainable development. Cities 18 3-12.

  • Best H. & Mayerl J. (2013). Values beliefs attitudes: An empirical study on the structure of environmental concern and recycling participation. Social Science Quarterly 94 691-714.

  • Boliver V. & Swift A. (2011). Do comprehensive schools reduce social mobility? The British Journal of Sociology 62 89-110.

  • Clifford P. & Heath A. (1984). Selection does make a difference. Oxford Review of Education 10 85-97.

  • Cribb J. Jesson D. Sibieta L. Skipp A. & Vignoles A. (2013). Poor grammar: Entry into grammar schools for disadvantaged pupils in England. London: The Sutton Trust.

  • Crozier G. Reay D. James D. Jamieson F. Beedell P. Hollingworth S. & Williams K. (2008). White middle-class parents identities educational choice and the urban comprehensive school: Dilemmas ambivalence and moral ambiguity. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29 261-272.

  • Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2006). Evaluation of the household waste incentives pilot scheme (Rep. No. AEAT/ED51362/Issue 1).

  • Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2014). Statistics on waste managed by local authorities in England in 2013-2014. Retrieved January 17 2015 from

  • Edgerton E. McKechnie J. & Dunleavy K. (2009). Behavioral determinants of household participation in a home composting scheme. Environment and Behavior 41 151-169.

  • European Commission (EC). (1996). Cost-benefit analysis of the different municipal solid waste management systems: Objectives and instruments for the year 2000. Luxembourg: European Community.

  • European Commission (EC). (2011). Sustainable development in the European Union. 2011 monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

  • European Commission (EC). (2012). Guidance on the interpretation of key provisions of directive 2008/98/EC on waste. Brussels: Directorate-General Environment.

  • European Parliament and European Council. (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive). Retrieved December 12 2014 from environment/waste/framework/

  • Eurostat. (2015). Municipal waste. Retrieved January 1 2015 from

  • Farmer J. Knapp D. & Benton G. M. (2007). An elementary school environmental education field trip: Long-term effects on ecological and environmental knowledge and attitude development. The Journal of Environmental Education 38 33-42.

  • Gordon P. & Lawton D. (2003). Dictionary of British education. London: Woburn Press.

  • Gross P. M. (1977). An analysis of attitudes knowledge and perceptions of elementary school students following participation in a special environmental education program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Iowa Iowa the United States of America.

  • Hanushek E. A. & Woessmann L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal 116 C63-C76.

  • Harris R. & Rose S. (2013). Who benefits from grammar schools? A case study of Buckinghamshire England. Oxford Review of Education 39 151-171.

  • Iannelli C. (2013). The role of the school curriculum in social mobility. British Journal of Sociology of Education 34 907-928.

  • Kaciak E. & Kushner J. (2009). Determinants of residentsí recycling behaviour. International Business & Economics Research Journal 8 1-12.

  • Lima M. L. (2004). On the influence of risk perception on mental health: Living near an incinerator. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 71-84.

  • Lima M. L. (2006). Predictors of attitudes towards the construction of a waste incinerator: Two case studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36 441-466.

  • Manning A. & Pischke J. S. (2006). Comprehensive versus selective schooling in England and Wales: What do we know? London: Centre for the Economics of Education.

  • Morris J. R. Phillips P. S. & Read A. D. (1998). The UK landfill tax: An analysis of its contribution to sustainable waste management. Resources Conservation and Recycling 23 259-270.

  • Morrissey A. J. & Browne J. (2004). Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management. Waste Management 24 297-308.

  • Oakland J. (1993). A dictionary of British institutions: A studentsí guide. London: Routledge Chapman & Hall.

  • Pires A. Martinho G. & Chang N. B. (2011). Solid waste management in European countries: A review of systems analysis techniques. Journal of Environmental Management 92 1033-1050.

  • Popplewell M. Gostick J. Mills P. Cleghorn D. Marks H. Munro A. ... Moorton E. (2006). Reducing the reliance of landfill in England. London: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

  • Price J. L. (2001). The landfill directive and the challenge ahead: Demands and pressures on the UK householder. Resources Conservation and Recycling 32 333-348.

  • Read A. D. (1999). A weekly doorstep recycling collection I had no idea we could!: Overcoming the local barriers to participation. Resources Conservation and Recycling 26 217-249.

  • Read A. D. Phillips P. & Robinson G. (1997). Landfill as a future waste management option in England: The view of landfill operators. Resources Conservation and Recycling 20 183-205.

  • Schmidt J. H. Holm P. Merrild A. & Christensen P. (2007). Life cycle assessment of the waste hierarchy - a Danish case study on waste paper. Waste Management 27 1519-1530.

  • Steedman J. (2012). Longitudinal survey research into progress in secondary schools based on the national child development study. In G.Walford (Ed.) Doing sociology of education (pp. 177-206). Oxon New York: Routledge.

  • Sullivan A. Parsons S. Wiggins R. Heath A. & Green F. (2014). Social origins school type and higher education destinations. Oxford Review of Education 40 739-763.

  • Symanski S. (1996). The impact of compulsory competitive tendering on refuse collection services. Fiscal Studies 17 1-19.

  • The Sutton Trust. (2005). Rates of eligibility for free school meals at the top state schools. Retrieved January 17 2015 from

  • United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN). (2014). Incinerators in the UK. Retrieved January 20 2015 from

  • Walford G. (1994). A return to selection? Westminster Studies in Education 17 19-30.

  • Waste Watch. (2015). Recyclezone: Education resources from waste watch. Retrieved January 17 2015 from

  • Wilson D. C. (1996). Stick or carrot?: The use of policy measures to move waste management up the hierarchy. Waste Management & Research 14 385-398.

  • Zhang N. Williams I. D. Kemp S. & Smith N. F. (2011). Greening academia: Developing sustainable waste management at Higher Education Institutions. Waste Management 31 1606-1616.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 1.65

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.255
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.496

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 3621 2047 44
PDF Downloads 2203 1218 39