Vol.:(0123456789) Urban Forum (2024) 35:25–46 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-023-09497-9 1 3 ORIGINAL PAPER Thinking Households—How Resident Conceptualisations of Waste, Reclaimers and Separation at Source Shape Recycling Practices Grace Kadyamadare1  · Melanie Samson2 Accepted: 29 May 2023 / Published online: 16 June 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Municipalities across the globe are implementing separation at source programmes to reduce waste sent to landfills. Yet typically, significant numbers of households do not participate. This article contributes to debates on reasons for low S@S participa- tion rates through comparative analysis of participation in Johannesburg’s first S@S programme by residents in the low-income, predominantly black suburb of Newlands and the high-income, predominantly white area of Franklin Roosevelt Park. The article argues that how residents conceptualised waste, S@S and reclaimers (waste pickers) influenced whether they separated their recyclables and what they did with them. Class (which is articulated with race) played an important role, as while some residents in each area revalued recyclables via routes other than the official Pikitup programme, those in Franklin Roosevelt Park tended to separate for reclaimers, while residents in Newlands were more likely to sell their recyclables to augment their incomes or reuse them to reduce the need for new purchases. These separation prac- tices and the quantities diverted from landfill were invisible to Pikitup, which only recognised separation of materials for its pilot. The findings highlight the necessity of expanding conceptualisations of S@S to include these additional routes to revalu- ation if we are to develop S@S programmes that are contextually appropriate and capture accurate data on waste diversion from landfills. In addition, interventions to transform residents’ conceptualisation of waste so that it excludes recyclables and other items that retain value could facilitate greater participation in this expanded form of separation at source. Keywords Waste · Separation at source · Recycling · Reclaimers · Waste pickers · Waste theory · Waste picker integration * Melanie Samson melanies@uj.ac.za 1 School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa 2 Department of Sociology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s12132-023-09497-9&domain=pdf http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8943-7609 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8693-6795 26 G. Kadyamadare, M. Samson 1 3 Introduction Management of urban solid waste is one of the major environmental issues fac- ing developing countries, including South Africa. Increasing urbanisation has resulted in higher consumption of products, leading to larger quantities of waste being generated (Makwara & Magudu, 2013; Mmereki et al., 2016; Tved- ten & Candiracci, 2018). Not only is waste a key issue to all as everyone pro- duces waste, but there is increasing recognition that its environmental and social impacts demand a shift to more sustainable waste management practices (Greg- son & Crang, 2010; Oteng-Ababio, 2014: Volschenck et al., 2021). The selective collection of recyclable materials through ‘separation at source’ (S@S) programmes is upheld as a primary way to divert domestic waste from land- fills that are rapidly reaching full capacity (Moh, 2017; Zeng et  al., 2016) and to enhance the quality of recyclables collected for re-insertion into the recycling value chain (Chen et al., 2017). However, the success of S@S hinges on the participation of residential households, and numerous studies establish that participation rates are notoriously low in most developing countries (cf Mbiba, 2014; Miezah et al., 2015; Padilla & Trujillo, 2018; Schoeman & Rampedi, 2022b; Strydom & Godfrey, 2016). This leaves many S@S programmes far from achieving their goals. In the past 15 years, the South African government has made several interven- tions to promote S@S. The 2008 South African National Environmental Manage- ment: Waste Act mandated municipalities to implement S@S programmes that facil- itate the diversion of municipal solid waste from landfills (Republic of South Africa, 2008). Following this, the 2011 National Waste Management Strategy (NWMS) (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2011) required all municipalities to imple- ment S@S by 2016. However, by 2015, only 10.8% of urban households and 3% of rural households were separating waste. Johannesburg fared only slightly better, with a rate of 16.2% (StatsSA, 2018, p. 31–32). The 2020 NWMS (Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, 2020) acknowledges the failure to meet the 2011 targets, noting the high number of municipalities that have not implemented S@S, as well as low levels of household participation in existing programmes. The 2020 NWMS once again includes commitments to promote better uptake of S@S across the country. However, although the 2020 NWMS includes targets for recy- cling rates (70% of paper, 60% of plastic, 90% of glass, and 90% of metals recy- cled by 2025), it does not include binding targets for the implementation of S@S by municipalities (Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, 2020). This article contributes to debates on why households do not participate in official S@S programmes through critical social analysis of resident participation in the first S@S pilot initiated by the city of Johannesburg’s Pikitup waste man- agement utility. The pilot commenced in 2009 in suburbs serviced by Pikitup’s Watervaal depot. The article is based on a qualitative comparative case study that was conducted between November 2016 and June 2017 in two suburbs that were part of the pilot project: the low-income, predominantly black area of Newlands and the high-income, predominantly white area of Franklin Roosevelt Park (FRP). 27 1 3 Thinking Households—How Resident Conceptualisations of Waste,… Newlands is an integrated low-income neighbourhood that is 1.98 km2 in size. According to the most recent census information, in 2011 (2 years after the start of the pilot project), Newlands had a population of about 11,295 people comprising approximately 3384 households. This population was 71% black (39% African and 32% coloured) and 24% white, with others making up the remaining 3% (StatsSA, 2011). On the other hand, FRP is a relatively high-income suburb, which boasts of large family homes with lovely gardens and few complexes. It covers an area of 1.58 km2, and in 2011 had 3467 residents living in 1289 households (StatsSA, 2011). Of this population, 59% were white, 21% were Indian, 5% were coloured, and 2% were from other population groups (StatsSA, 2011). Although the geographical size of both suburbs is relatively the same, Newlands had double the number of households of FRP and there were significant differences in the racial and class composition of the two suburbs. Seven years after the initiation of the Pikitup S@S pilot project, Pikitup reported a project participation rate of 18.38% (Pikitup, 2016). While this was higher than the national resident participation rates reported above, it fell far below expectations. Based on comparative analysis of the wasting and S@S practices in Newlands and FRP, this article argues that how residents conceptualised waste, S@S, and reclaim- ers influenced whether they separated their recyclables and what they did with them. Class (which is tightly articulated with race in South Africa) played an important role, as while some residents in each area revalued recyclables via routes other than the official Pikitup programme, those in FRP tended to separate for reclaimers (waste pickers), while residents in Newlands were more likely to sell their recyclables to augment their incomes or reuse them to reduce the need for new purchases. These residents’ separation practices and the quantities of recyclables they separated were invisible to Pikitup, which only gathered data on participation in its project. Based on these findings, we argue that to achieve maximum extraction of recyclables from the waste stream and accurately record diversion from landfills, municipalities should redefine S@S to include S@S practices that extend beyond separation for official municipal programmes, and there should be a focus on transforming how residents conceptualise waste so that this excludes recyclables and other items that retain value. This article is divided into ten short sections. This introduction  is followed by  the “Methodology” and “Literature Review” sections. The “Pikitup Waterval Depot S@S Pilot Programme” section provides an overview of the pilot project run by the Watervaal Depot, as well as Pikitup’s assessment of the project’s success. The section on “Pikitup’s Conceptualisation of Reclaimers” critically assesses Pikitup’s conceptualisation of reclaimers and their relationship to S@S. The following section presents  Standard Explanations of Non-Participation in Pikitup’s S@S Programme”. The “Conceptualisa- tions of Waste and Non-Separation of Recyclables”, “Conceptualisations of Waste and Participation in Pikitup S@S Programme”, and “Multiple Conceptualisations of S@S” sections explore how residents’ conceptualisations of waste, S@S, and reclaimers shape their separation practices. In the “Conclusion” section, we reprise the key arguments and present recommendations to strengthen municipal policy and practice related to S@S, as well as suggestions for future research. 28 G. Kadyamadare, M. Samson 1 3 Methodology This study followed the qualitative exploratory case study approach (Leedy & Orm- rod, 2013) employed in similar studies by Matter et  al. (2013) and Babaei et  al. (2015). It also included documentary analysis of official reports, journals and legal documents relating to municipal solid waste management in South Africa and the City of Johannesburg. Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of the Witwatersrand Human (non-medical) Research Ethics Committee before fieldwork was conducted. Co-author A conducted the research fieldwork between November 2016 and June 2017 with occasional assistance from a translator. Forty semi-struc- tured interviews were conducted with residential households (twenty in each sub- urb), three with key municipal officials associated with S@S and recycling and ten with reclaimers working in the study areas. In addition, one focus group was con- ducted with residents in each suburb. Non-participant observations were undertaken to determine the residents’ wasting practices and relationships between residents and reclaimers. Following Braun and Clarke (2006), data was analysed using Thematic Content Analysis (TCA). Literature Review Conceptualisations of Waste and Wasting Practices The conceptualisation of waste is a key factor influencing how residents understand and dispose of their waste (Gregson & Crang, 2010; Kalina et  al. 2020; Moore, 2012; Oteng-Ababio, 2014). Waste is sometimes referred to as junk, trash or filth, and is seen as unpleasant, unwanted and bothersome. Drawing on Mary Douglas’ famed argument that ‘dirt’ is ‘matter out of place’ (Douglas, 1966, 35) and ‘is essen- tially disorder’ (Douglas, 1966, 35, 2), many waste theorists conceptualise waste as something that threatens socio-spatial norms and the ‘world class’ status of cit- ies (Dias, 2016; Gregson & Crang, 2010; Moore, 2012). When waste is viewed in these negative ways, societies shy away from it, endeavour to dispose of it quickly and stigmatise people who work with it. However, waste can also be framed as pos- sessing value and as a secondary resource. Within this positive conceptualisation of waste, reclaimers are increasingly recognised as playing a key role in realising the incipient value in wasted commodities (cf Fahmi & Sutton, 2006; Hayami et al., 2006; Millington & Lawhon, 2019; Nzeadibe & Mbah, 2015; O’Brien, 1999; Pon- grácz & Pohjola, 2004; Wilson et al., 2006; Whitson, 2011). While it may seem that these ways of conceptualising waste are binary oppo- sites, already in 1979, Thompson introduced the idea that waste must be seen as a dynamic as opposed to static concept and explored how an object moves through different ways of being valued as their contexts and owners change (Thompson, 1979). Thompson also argued that it is inadequate to think of rubbish as having either no value or negative value, as the rubbish phase is a critical part of the pro- cess through which value is created and destroyed. In recent years, this relational 29 1 3 Thinking Households—How Resident Conceptualisations of Waste,… conceptualisation of waste has gained prominence, with increasing attention to the indeterminacy of waste, how ways of ‘knowing waste’ are important in accessing the value in waste and how different ways of knowing waste are central to contes- tations around it (Alexander & Sanchez, 2019; Butt, 2020; Parizeau & Lepawsky, 2015). Separation at Source The process of S@S refers to the ‘separation of MSW [municipal solid waste] into several categories at the generation source according to the different characteristics of each material before further treatment’ (Chen et al., 2017: 183). The objectives of S@S are to promote the practice of the 3R principles (reduce, reuse, and recycle), increase diversion of waste from landfills and improve the quality of recyclables by reducing contamination by organic waste (Babaei et  al., 2015; Sheau-Ting et  al., 2016). S@S requires the placement of different used materials in separate bags/bins, which are then collected separately through a selective collection process. In developed countries, source segregation and recycling have been positively embraced by residential households (Abd’Razack et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2012). However, as noted above, South Africa has poor participation rates in S@S (du Toit et  al., 2017). Although Strydom and Godfrey (2016) highlight that between 2010 and 2015, the recycling rate almost doubled (rising from 4 to 7.2%) and there was an increase in the willingness of households in South Africa to participate in S@S, they note that this would not necessarily translate into action if S@S and selective collection programmes were offered to these households. South African and international literature explores the relevance of demographic characteristics to recycling behaviour. These include income, employment status, age, race, gender, education, presence of school-age children, household size, type of residential dwelling and length of time living in a dwelling (Okonta & Mohlalifi, 2020; Omotayo et al., 2020; Schoeman & Rampedi, 2022a, 2022b; Strydom, 2018; Volschenk et al., 2021). It is important to note that even within South Africa, the findings are not unanimous. This is not surprising, given the range of factors that can affect recycling behaviour. To date, South African literature on residents and S@S has not engaged more recent international literature that interrogates the power relations underpinning S@S, how successful S@S is predicated on the forging of new subjects and subjectivities, and how this is bound up with cultural constructions of waste and articulations of gender, caste, class and race (Cornea et al., 2017; Luthra, 2021). Instead, following more standard approaches in international scholarship on residents and S@S, research on South Africa is largely empirical, policy-oriented, and (implicitly or explicitly) grounded in psychological theories such as Theory of Planned Behaviour and, more recently, Theory of Intentional Behaviour (Issock et al., 2020; Omotayo et al., 2020). As such, research on residents and S@S in South Africa is preoccupied primar- ily with identifying factors that either inhibit or encourage resident participation in S@S and drawing on these to develop proposals for policies that could improve 30 G. Kadyamadare, M. Samson 1 3 participation rates by changing residents’ behaviours. Key factors identified include knowledge of the importance of recycling, knowledge of what to recycle, conveni- ence, personal norms, economic interests, time constraints and availability of house- hold storage space. Key proposals include providing households with recycling bins or bags, establishing more buy-back centres in more convenient locations, devel- oping economic incentives and disincentives to promote separation, creating pro- grammes tailored for the specific demographic composition (particularly income- level) in different parts of the city, improving communication from local authorities, providing information and education on what to recycle and the importance of recycling; making recycling programmes more user-friendly; and establishing more communal/public receptacles in convenient locations (Issock et al., 2020; Millington et  al., 2022; Okonta & Mohlalifi, 2020; Omotayo et  al., 2020; Polasi & Oelofse, 2022; Schoeman & Rampedi, 2022a, 2022b; Strydom, 2018; Strydom & Godfrey, 2016; Volschenk et al., 2021). Looking at the extent of resident participation in S@S, Strydom and Godfrey (2016) find that it is easier to successfully encourage households that already recycle to increase the types and quantities of recyclables separated than to get non-recy- cling households to start recycling. This has a number of implications: (1) we cannot assume that households either recycle or they do not; (2) households that already recycle need to be constantly engaged and encouraged to improve their separation practices; and (3) specific education programmes should be created for residents with different recycling practices. The South African literature includes proposals to strengthen S@S that extend beyond changing individual behaviour, including increasing funding for S@S (Roos et al., 2021), strengthening relationships between municipalities and contractors (Polasi  & Oelofse, 2022), and poverty alleviation (Omotayo et al., 2020). Residents, Reclaimers and Recycling In addition to official S@S programmes, a vibrant and active informal selective col- lection system exists in almost all major cities in developing countries (cf Beall, 1997; Godfrey et al., 2016; Guibrunet, 2019; McKay et al., 2015; Oguntoyinbo, 2012; Sch- oeman & Rampedi, 2022b; Wilson et  al., 2009). Samson (2020) refers to this sys- tem as ‘separation outside source’, as reclaimers separate and collect recyclables after they leave residents’ homes from residents’ rubbish bins, landfill sites, public waste receptacles or open spaces. Official S@S programmes run by municipalities in South Africa, as elsewhere, generally have failed to engage and integrate this well-func- tioning system, and have instead eliminated or severely reduced reclaimers’ access to recyclables, dramatically reduced their incomes, and typically not led to an increase in the overall quantity of recyclables extracted from the waste stream (cf Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, 2020; Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries & Department of Science and Innovation, 2020; Dias, 2016; Dinler, 2016; Fahmi & Sutton, 2006; Furniss, 2017; Luthra, 2021; Parra, 2020; Schenck & Blaauw, 2011, Schenck et al., 2018; Schoeman & Rampedi, 2022b; Zhang et al., 2012). 31 1 3 Thinking Households—How Resident Conceptualisations of Waste,… Reclaimers in South Africa and across the globe make significant economic and environmental contributions. For example, in 2016, Godfrey et  al. reported that reclaimers in South Africa salvaged 80–90% of used packaging and paper that was extracted from the waste stream and inserted into the recycling value chain. They calculated that this saved municipalities up to R748 million in landfill airspace (Godfrey et al., 2016). Despite this, due to reclaimers’ association with waste and frequent status as members of oppressed racialised, caste, migrant and minority reli- gious and ethnic groups, reclaimers are harassed, criminalised and dispossessed. In addition to being excluded from official S@S and recycling programmes, reclaimers are stigmatised and shunned by most residents, who engage in physical and verbal violence as they seek to prevent reclaimers from entering the suburbs where they live and salvaging materials from their waste (Beall, 1997; Coletto & Carbonai, 2023; Dias, 2016; Porras Bulla et al., 2021; Schenck et al., 2016; Uddin et al., 2020; Velis et al., 2012; Wittmer, 2021). While these hostile and negative relationships are still the norm, literature from Asia, Latin America and Africa reports some cases in which reclaimers have forged relationships of collaboration and solidarity with residents, who separate recyclables for them. Frequently, reclaimer organisations play an important role in educating residents about reclaimers and the importance of their work and fostering these posi- tive resident-reclaimer relationships (Andrianisa & Brou, 2016; Chikarmane, 2012; Foment, 2019; Gutberlet et al., 2021; Katusiimeh et al., 2013; Matter et al., 2013; Samson et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2012). Studies in South Africa and globally advocate for a policy shift from neglect and repression to the inclusion and integration of reclaimers (cf Andrianisa & Brou, 2016; Dias, 2016; Marello & Helwege, 2018; Mbah & Nzeadibe, 2016; Godfrey & Oelofse, 2008; Guibrunet, 2019; Navarrete-Hernández & Navarrete-Hernández, 2018; Velis et al., 2012, Yu et al., 2020). In recent years, some progress has been made in this regard in South Africa. In 2020, the South African government released a Waste Picker Integration Guideline for South Africa to guide municipalities and industry on how to collaborate with and integrate reclaimers (Department of Envi- ronment, Forestry and Fisheries and Department of Science and Innovation, 2020). In addition, the 2020 National Waste Management Strategy requires all metropolitan municipalities to integrate reclaimers by 2021 and all other municipalities to inte- grate reclaimers by 2024 (Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment 2020). However, as of March 2023, national government has created neither a fund- ing mechanism nor a coherent capacity building programme to support municipali- ties to develop and implement integration programmes and achieve these targets. Pikitup Waterval Depot S@S Pilot Programme The Pikitup S@S programme was first introduced in the City of Johannesburg in 2009, long before the policy shifts towards integration discussed in the previous section. It began as a pilot programme implemented in suburbs serviced by the Waterval Pikitup depot, including Newlands, Franklin Roosevelt Park, Linden, Victory Park and Brixton (Pikitup, 2011). The pilot programme was intended to 32 G. Kadyamadare, M. Samson 1 3 promote a new way of thinking and transform the waste practices of residential households and businesses in the pilot area. The pilot was started in partnership with Mondi Recycling. Pikitup did not pay Mondi for the provision of the service, and Mondi was expected to cover all operating costs from revenue generated through the sale of recyclables. The pilot was based on the assumption that 57,000 households would participate in the pro- gramme. Pikitup provided households with clear plastic bags for dry recyclables including cans, glass, plastic bottles, jars and milk and juice cartons, as well as orange ‘Ronnie bags’ (a pre-existing Mondi paper recycling initiative that was included in the pilot) to be used for separated paper such as newspapers, magazines, books and cardboard. The residents were required to place these bags outside their properties on their regular waste collection days, together with the black wheelie bin for rubbish they used prior to the start of the S@S pilot. The key message of the pilot was that residents should ‘separate their waste’ (Pikitup, 2013). Education and awareness on S@S were conducted through a door-to-door cam- paign that included the distribution of educational recycling pamphlets and informa- tion stickers to be placed on 240-L wheelie bins (Pikitup newsroom, 2011). In addi- tion, Pikitup conducted radio talk shows and exhibitions at shopping centres and malls to promote the programme. According to the 2016 Pikitup annual report, approxi- mately 38.5% of the households in the pilot areas in 2009 were reached by door-to- door educational awareness and informed about the recycling project (Pikitup, 2016). In 2011, Mondi withdrew from the S@S programme due to a lack of sufficient funds to cover its operating costs. Pikitup assumed responsibility for the pilot. Instead of contracting another company or providing the service itself, Pikitup part- nered with three community cooperatives it was already supporting to run buyback centres. Pikitup provided the cooperatives with trucks, drivers and recycling bags, and the cooperatives provided the workers who prepared the starter packs, worked on the Pikitup truck, separated the recyclables and prepared the recyclables for sale. A second phase was rolled out in 2012, with the distribution of starter packs that included clear plastic bags, orange Mondi bags and a sticker to place on the black wheelie bins indicating that they were participating in S@S (Pikitup, 2013). Pikitup failed to achieve its targets related to both resident participation in S@S and tonnes of recyclables diverted from landfills. Pikitup reports from 2010 to 2017 high- light the strong divergence of the actual participation rates from the targets (Fig. 1). In addition, Pikitup underperformed in terms of recyclables collected. The annual target for 2014/15 was pegged at a collection of 30,000 tonnes of dry recyclable material, yet only 20.808 tonnes were collected in Pikitup’s S@S programmes across the entire city (Pikitup, 2015). Pikitup’s Conceptualisation of Reclaimers Pikitup conceptualised reclaimers as enemies of S@S. For example, the Pikitup 2014/15 annual report stated that the “[t]arget for the year was not achieved due to some household separated material being taken by reclaimers and thus being lost to the Sepa- ration@ Source reporting system” (Pikitup, 2015: 43). One official elaborated: 33 1 3 Thinking Households—How Resident Conceptualisations of Waste,… Pikitup has tried to call meetings with these guys (trolley guys/reclaimers) to form cooperatives, but they are not interested. They don’t want to sell to Pikitup buyback centers. They take the contents together with the bag. Then we are not able to replace the residents’ recyclable bags because they call to complain. We are trying to communicate to them that they should leave the bags alone and take stuff from the black bins (Key official, 01/13/06/2017). This official’s critiques of reclaimers demonstrated a lack of awareness of who reclaimers are, how they work, and the problems related to the Pikitup buyback cen- tres. Literature on reclaimers in South Africa has identified numerous reasons why reclaimers do not want to form cooperatives. These include preferences to work on their own, govern their own work, and determine when and how long they will work. Reclaimers who do form cooperatives frequently do so as this is the only way to access government support and potentially be integrated into municipal programmes (God- frey et al., 2015; Sekhwela and Samson, 2020). It is also important to note that 92% of cooperatives in South Africa’s waste sector fail (Godfrey et al., 2016). In addition, reclaimers in Johannesburg do not sell to buyback centres supported by Pikitup and the City for one simple reason—they offer lower prices than other buyback centres. This is because instead of creating buyback centres that support reclaimers by giving them a higher percentage of the value of the materials they salvage and sell, Pikitup and the City’s focus is on creating jobs and business opportunities for unem- ployed non-reclaimers who have not previously worked in the waste sector. Reclaimers make rational economic decisions to sell to buyback centres that offer the highest prices and/or other benefits, even if they must walk many more kilometres to reach them. Finally, as reclaimers’ ability to feed themselves and their families depends on their ability to access and sell recyclables, they have no choice but to salvage as many recy- clables as possible before they are collected by the official S@S programme. In fact, Fig. 1 Participation rates of S@S in the CoJ since its inception 34 G. Kadyamadare, M. Samson 1 3 it was Pikitup that took the recyclables reclaimers had been collecting for years when they gave Mondi the right to collect them, and reclaimers were simply trying to con- tinue to work and earn an income as they had been doing for decades. Although some Pikitup officials recognised that reclaimers had been collecting recy- clables before the S@S programme, they did not express empathy for reclaimers or concern regarding how reclaimers could continue to sustain themselves. Instead, they took highly punitive actions against reclaimers. One official explained: The trolley guys have always been there, even before separation at source started in 2009. They come before the trucks and take the recycled stuff from the recy- cling bins and the bins sometimes. When the trucks come, there are no recycla- bles to collect. If we see them, we stop them and take half their recyclables away, just to teach them a lesson. They steal the white sacks and the stuff inside. They are affecting our operations (Key Official: 13/07/2017). Similar claims that reclaimers ‘steal’ separated materials and undermine official S@S programmes have also been made in Cape Town (Millington et al., 2022). Officials also blamed reclaimers for Mondi’s withdrawal from the S@S programme. One stated: The trolley guys are taking our recyclables and now we are collecting less. There- fore, Mondi [the recycling company working with Pikitup to collect recyclable from residents in the initial S@S roll-out programme] will not come back. They will not make a profit. While it is correct that reclaimers’ extraction of materials reduced Mondi’s income from sales, the official’s assertion that this was why Mondi would not resume collection of recyclables contradicts Mondi’s own statement that the key issue was lack of payment from Pikitup for the service and the expectation that Mondi would be able to finance the collection service solely through the sale of recyclables collected. Pikitup now pays a service fee to all private companies con- tracted to do selective collection for Pikitup’s S@S programme, although coopera- tives are still expected to provide this service for free, which is a key reason why they are unable to provide an effective service. Standard Explanations of Non‑Participation in Pikitup’s S@S Programme Separation practices and resident participation rates in the Pikitup programme differed between the two suburbs in the study. In the lower-income Newlands suburb, 11/20 residents did not separate materials and only four separated for Pikitup. By contrast, 7/20 of the higher-income FRP residents did not separate materials and 12/20 participated in the Pikitup programme. In our research, we asked questions related to standard explanations for why peo- ple do not separate recyclables and received responses that generally conform to the 35 1 3 Thinking Households—How Resident Conceptualisations of Waste,… literature. In Newlands, 7/11 residents who lived in non-separating households cited the lack of provision of recycling bags, 5/11 cited lack of environmental knowledge and awareness and 6/11 cited time constraints as reasons for not participating in the Pikitup formal S@S programme. In FRP, 2/7 of the residents from non-separating households cited the lack of incentives to reward participation, the lack of environ- mental knowledge, and absence of bins as hindrances to their participation. These reasons for non-separation generally align with the findings in a number of other studies in South Africa and elsewhere (cf Mbiba, 2014; Babaei et al., 2015, Polasi & Oelofse, 2022; Oteng-Ababio, 2014; Schoeman & Rampedi, 2022b; Volschenck et al. 2021). A key official from the Watervaal Depot and the owner of one of the buyback centres disputed the residents’ self-reported explanations. They asserted that resi- dents of low-income areas were generally not active participants of their S@S programme regardless of the provision of recycling starter packs and other inter- ventions by Pikitup. While Pikitup could not provide evidence that all households received starter packs and regular replenishment of recycling bags, officials indi- cated that they conducted follow-ups after the provision of the packs and still found that low-income area residents did not separate their recyclables for the pilot. The officials believed low-income residents simply were not willing to participate. One official explained: The residents of low-income areas like Newlands, Brixton, Claremont are just not willing to separate at all. Some of them say they have no time; oth- ers say they have no stuff to separate and others are just lazy. They don’t know much about waste problems. We give starter packs when residents ask for them or we are told there are new residents in the area. Only one person does this for the whole area. Sometimes we give [starter packs to] the people who work with the truck. Still, residents will not separate (Key official 1: 13/07/2017). The officials’ explanations of why households did not participate in their S@S programme relied on pathologising the poor. As a result, they did not provide any reasons why residents in wealthier areas such as FRP did not participate in their pro- gramme, despite the facts that participation rates are generally low across the city, and 7/20 participants from FRP came from households that did not participate in the programme. In the next sections of this article, we argue that analysing how conceptualisa- tions of waste are related to separation practices provides a deeper, non-pathologis- ing understanding of non-separation of recyclables that cuts across racialised class distinctions between the two suburbs in our study and expands current academic explanations for non-separation. Following that, we argue that Pikitup’s assump- tion that all households that separate materials do so solely for its programme leads to underestimation of both the number of households separating materials and the quantities being separated. 36 G. Kadyamadare, M. Samson 1 3 Conceptualisations of Waste and Non‑Separation of Recyclables As noted above, a greater proportion of households in Newlands (11/20) did not sepa- rate recyclables than those in FRP (7/20). However, their reasons for not separating recyclables were similar. All eleven members of non-separating households in New- lands defined waste as something that is not needed or wanted. Three residents from FRP also said waste is something that is not needed or wanted, two said waste makes the house untidy, one said waste is something that has no place in the house and one said waste is rubbish. These households placed everything ranging from paper, plastics, leftover food, appliances that no longer worked and whatever else they did not need into the 240-L black wheelie that is provided by Pikitup for waste disposal. Other types of material mentioned were banana peels, bottles, cereal boxes, eggshells and glass. One non-separator stated that ‘everything we no longer need such as paper, lefto- vers, plastics, appliances that don’t work’ is placed in the black wheelie bin (Resi- dent 3,H1, 01/11/2016). The common thread in all non-participating households’ conceptualisations of waste (except perhaps the statement that waste is rubbish) is that waste is concep- tualised solely in terms of the needs and interests of the specific household, with anything that is not useful or pleasant for that household defined as waste. This is similar to the findings of Pongrácz and Pohjola (2004), who argue that the definition of waste is related to the concept of ownership, intended usage and value. When the intended usage of the material expires, the primary owners (the residents) now con- sider it garbage. For example, when they drank juice and the container was empty, the container became garbage and was thrown away. Similarly, Beall (1997: 73) defines solid waste or garbage as ‘organic and inorganic waste materials that have lost their value in the eyes of the first owner’. Conceptualisations of Waste and Participation in Pikitup S@S Programme While overall participation rates in S@S in Johannesburg were low, key officials highlighted that the rate of participation in FRP was considered one of the best in the city. Virtually all reclaimers interviewed reported higher participation rates in the Pikitup S@S programme in affluent areas such as FRP, Victory Park, Mont- gomery Park and Emmerantia than in low-income areas. Data from the residents reflected these class-based differences, as three times as many households (12/20) in FRP participated in Pikitup’s S@S pilot compared to only 4/20 in Newlands. Despite these overall differences in participation rates between the two areas, as with residents in non-separating households, residents in participating households provided strikingly similar conceptualisations of waste. Two participating residents in Newlands and six in FRP said that waste is something that is not recyclable, 37 1 3 Thinking Households—How Resident Conceptualisations of Waste,… making statements such as, ‘waste is material that cannot be recycled, like torn clothes, bad food, stuff like that’ (Resident L2, 01/11/2016). Four participating res- idents in FRP broadened their conceptualisation of waste beyond non-recyclables to encompass any item that cannot be used again, elaborating that ‘we never throw away something others could use like old clothes’ (Resident H4, 09/11/2016). Two participating residents in each neighbourhood defined waste in similar ways to residents who did not separate recyclables, as either something that is not needed or as rubbish. However, a strong majority of 12/16 participating residents across the two neighbourhoods conceptualised waste as a non-relative ontological cate- gory, with waste being understood as something that cannot be recycled or cannot be used. Unlike the non-separating residents, they understood that even if they did not need or want an item, it should not be considered waste if other people could find it useful or desirable. This analysis makes clear that people’s recycling prac- tices are related to how they conceptualise waste. Multiple Conceptualisations of S@S As should be evident from the above discussion, the number of households that sep- arated their recyclables did not directly align with the number of households par- ticipating in Pikitup’s S@S programme. This is because some households separated for themselves and/or reclaimers. In addition, some households that separated for Pikitup also separated for reclaimers. Separating for Themselves Three residents in Newlands reported that although they did not participate in Pikitup’s programme, their households separated recyclables for their own benefit. One of these residents also separated for reclaimers, giving the reclaimers items that the household did not revalue. At least some Pikitup officials were aware of this, with one noting that as a resident could earn even ten rand by selling their recy- clables, this would be appealing to low-income residents. One Newlands resident explained, ‘It (the Pikitup separation at source programme) won’t work. We are poor. What we can recycle we sell for ourselves’ (Resident 12, L10, 03/11/2016). These Newlands residents did not only separate recyclables for sale. One com- pensated for limited ability to purchase items due to their household’s poverty by separating recyclables to reuse in their own homes stating, ‘I don’t have much income to buy many luxuries, so the little plastics I get and glasses I use for personal use’ (Resident L5, 03/11/2016)). Another said, ‘We give old clothes to charity. Old appliances we fix because hubby is a handy man, then we sell them. She added, ‘one guy’s garbage is something of value to someone [else]’. 38 G. Kadyamadare, M. Samson 1 3 Separating for Reclaimers Residents generally disagreed with Pikitup’s and the City’s negative framing of reclaimers. Only three residents in FRP believed that reclaimers disrupted/under- mined Pikitup’s S@S programme and should not be permitted to collect recyclables. One of these residents stated that: it [Pikitup’s S@S programme] is a good programme which is disrupted by waste pickers. They tear up the cream plastics and take what they want and then mix the waste and leave a big mess (H13, 16/11/2016). Three additional residents in FRP stated that reclaimers made a mess, but this did not lead them to argue that reclaimers should be prohibited from working or that reclaimers undermined Pikitup’s programme. Only one resident in Newlands said that reclaimers should not be permitted to work. Notably, this resident did not articulate any complaints about the reclaimers’ behaviour or state that they compromised the Pikitup programme. The resident sim- ply noted the concern that ‘we don’t know where they come from’ and that ‘Pikitup must do their job and collect our waste’. Three FRP residents and five Newlands residents were neutral towards reclaim- ers, and one FRP resident did not answer the question. The remaining thirteen FRP residents and fourteen Newlands residents stated that reclaimers did good/impor- tant work, or directly argued that reclaimers should continue to work. Their reasons included that reclaimers contribute to the environment, do a better job of separating than residents, are making an honest living, and need to support themselves. Eight of these FRP respondents and five of these Newlands residents believed that Pikitup should work with reclaimers. One FRP resident motivated this position stating, ‘I think they recycle more than the residents’ (Resident H14, 16/11/2016). Interest- ingly, two Newlands residents thought that Pikitup already worked with reclaimers. Two others thought that perhaps reclaimers should continue to work independently instead of with Pikitup, as they were concerned that Pikitup would underpay the reclaimers. This generally positive conceptualisation of reclaimers translated into some resi- dents separating recyclables for them. Explaining why they separated recyclables for reclaimers, one FRP resident said, ‘I think waste pickers are amazing and recycle a lot. I give them empty juice bottles which they put on their platform trolleys’ (Resi- dent H6, 14/11/2016). Residents also separated reusable items for reclaimers. One FRP resident explained: I put my old clothes on top of the bin for them. Sometimes I put leftover food too so that it doesn’t go into the bins. Waste pickers are also human (Resident H14, 16/11/2016). A resident in Newlands shared: I see the same young man every week as I go to work. He is polite and some- times I give him old appliances and clothes if I have any. I have heard others say those guys are a nuisance, but I don’t believe so (Resident L2, 03/11/2016). 39 1 3 Thinking Households—How Resident Conceptualisations of Waste,… As highlighted by the previous quote, the forging of social relationships encour- ages residents to separate for reclaimers. One Newlands resident noted that although she could not communicate with most reclaimers as they did not speak the same languages, she was able to develop a relationship with a reclaimer who spoke Afri- kaans. She felt that ‘he is a nice guy’ and saved her recyclables to give to him when he knocked at her gate. Reclaimers interviewed for this project also emphasised the importance of personal relationships with residents. One explained that ‘we are too many, so I have got my areas where people know me and give me things…clothes, many things, food and sometimes I sweep and do jobs and get paid’ (Waste Picker 5, Newlands, 26/07/2017). Although residents in FRP and Newlands who separated for reclaimers gave similar reasons for doing so, there were important differences between the two areas. Six out of 20 residents in FRP separated recyclables for reclaimers, compared to 2/20 in New- lands. As noted in the previous section, three residents in Newlands separated for them- selves, while no residents in FRP engaged in this practice. This shows that residents in the lower-income area who separated recyclables were more likely to do so for their own benefit to supplement their incomes, while residents in the higher-income area were more likely to separate for reclaimers, as they did not need the additional income. One resident in each neighbourhood separated recyclables solely for reclaimers. The second resident who separated for reclaimers in Newlands separated for their household as well as to give away. An important point to note is that five out of the twelve FRP residents who participated in the Pikitup programme also separated for reclaimers, setting aside particular items for reclaimers and at times giving recycla- bles to reclaimers if they saw the reclaimers before the recycling collection trucks arrived. This has two important implications. First, the same household can hold and act on multiple conceptualisations of S@S, and Pikitup should not assume that households that participated in its programme saw it as the only legitimate collector of used household recyclables. Second, this also meant that Pikitup was not gather- ing complete data on the quantity of recyclables extracted from the waste stream, not just because it did not record the materials separated by residents who gave all of their recyclables to reclaimers and revalued the materials themselves, but also because it did not record all materials separated by households that participated in its programme but also gave materials to reclaimers. Conclusion Increasing resident participation in S@S programmes is a global challenge. While much research has been conducted on the effects of educating residents about the importance of recycling and how to participate in S@S programmes, this article drew on debates in waste theory to focus on a more abstract level, exploring how residents’ conceptualisations of waste, reclaimers and S@S shaped their separation practices. Residents who defined waste only in terms of their own household’s needs and desires were more likely to not separate recyclables, while those who separated materials for the Pikitup progarmme tended to define waste as something that could not be used by anyone, including those outside their households. The research also 40 G. Kadyamadare, M. Samson 1 3 found that residents had a more positive conceptualisation of reclaimers and their role in S@S than Pikitup, and that they also had a broader conceptualisation of S@S that went beyond Pikitup’s programme to include separating materials for them- selves and reclaimers. The findings have several theoretical and practical implications. First is the need to transform conceptualisations of waste. In much of the literature on waste theory, a positive conceptualisation of waste is understood to mean that not all waste is val- ueless, and that value can be created out of waste. This conceptualisation implicitly underpins the call on residents to ‘separate your waste’ that is the cornerstone of Pikitup’s S@S programme, as well as other S@S programmes around the country and across the world. It is not hard to understand why it is confusing for residents to be asked to separate waste from waste. Our findings establish that most residents who separated recyclables and other materials that still retained value did so pre- cisely because they did not see these items as waste. Perhaps S@S programmes could secure greater participation rates if they explicitly educate residents that the category ‘waste’ does not include recyclables and other items that retain value, as if these items are not waste, then it could be easier for residents to see that they should not go into rubbish bins. Second is the need to expand conceptualisations of S@S. Numerous studies of reclaimers and recycling in South Africa and globally recommend ‘integrating’ reclaimers into municipal waste management systems and S@S programmes (c.f. Chikarmane, 2012; Dias, 2016; Godfrey et al., 2016; Kashyap & Visvanathan, 2014; Kasinja & Tilley, 2018; Marello & Helwege, 2018; Roos et al., 2021; Scheinberg, 2012; Schoeman & Rampedi, 2022b; Velis et al., 2012). As residents already sepa- rate for reclaimers and for their own benefit, we expand this discussion by arguing that separation for both reclaimers and own benefit must be understood as forms of S@S, and that it is essential that municipalities reconceptualise S@S to include these actually existing forms of separation. Although reclaimers’ selective collection from residents’ rubbish bins is separation outside, rather than at, source, it must also be included as a crucial component in the reconceptualisation of pathways to S@S. These new conceptualisations will enable the creation of official S@S policies and programmes that are more appropriate in cities that have reclaimers who salvage recyclables, are tailored for different socio-economic areas of these cities, and do not dispossess reclaimers. This will also ensure the capturing of more accurate data on separation rates and quantities of materials diverted from landfills. One example of this type of approach is the African Reclaimers Organisation (ARO) ‘Recycling with Reclaimers’ S@S project that the organisation conducts in partnership with resident associations in the Johannesburg neighbourhoods of Brixton and Auckland Park. In this programme, reclaimers conduct educational workshops for residents (including children in creches and schools) and participate in community events. Resident champions also encourage other residents to get to know reclaimers and separate recyclables for them. An evaluation of the programme found that some residents are more willing to separate recyclables for reclaimers as they know the people who will benefit. Data is captured on all recyclables extracted from the waste stream, including those separated by residents and those that reclaim- ers separated for residents by salvaging from residents’ rubbish bins. Analysis of this 41 1 3 Thinking Households—How Resident Conceptualisations of Waste,… data showed that if all 8000 reclaimers in Johannesburg collected the same quantity of materials per day as reclaimers in the Recycling with Reclaimers programme, it would take them 22.5 days to collect the same quantity of materials that Pikitup and all of its subcontractors collected in 2018/2019 (Samson et al., 2021). The success of Recycling with Reclaimers affirms the importance of reclaim- ers playing a leading role in developing, implementing and evaluating S@S pro- grammes. Despite this, the City and Pikitup continue to approach both S@S and reclaimer integration through a top-down charity approach in which officials and consultants develop programmes that residents and reclaimers are simply meant to accept and support. A key starting point for improved S@S and S@S participation rates would be for municipalities to partner with both residents and reclaimers to develop, implement, evaluate, and revise S@S programmes that embrace and track all forms of separation and all routes to revalue separated materials. Funding Open access funding provided by University of Johannesburg. This study was funded by the South African Department of Science and Innovation as part of the ‘Waste Research, Development and Innovation Roadmap.’ Additional funding was provided by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries & the Environment. Declarations Competing Interests The authors have no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References  Abd’Razack, N. T., Medayese, S. O., Shaibu, S. I., & Adeleye, B. M. (2017). Habits and benefits of recy- cling solid waste among households in Kaduna, North-West Nigeria. Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 297–306. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scs. 2016. 10. 004 Alexander, C., & Sanchez, A. (2019). Introduction: The values of indeterminacy. In C. Alexander & A. Sanchez (Eds.), Indeterminacy: Waste, Value, and the Imagination (pp. 1–30). New York: Berghan Books. Andrianisa, H. A., & Brou, Y. O. (2016). Role and importance of informal collectors in the municipal waste pre-collection system in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire. Habitat International, 53, 265–273. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. habit atint. 2015. 11. 036 Babaei, A. A., Alavi, N., Goudarzi, G., Teymouri, P., Ahmadi, K., & Rafiee, M. (2015). Household recy- cling knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards solid waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 102, 94–100. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2015. 06. 014 Beall, J. (1997). Thoughts on poverty from a South Asian rubbish dump: Gender, inequality and house- hold waste. IDS Bulletin, 28(3), 73–90. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1759- 5436. 1997. mp280 03006.x Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychol- ogy, 3(2), 77–101. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.10.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.11.036 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.11.036 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.014 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.1997.mp28003006.x 42 G. Kadyamadare, M. Samson 1 3 Butt, W. H. (2020). Accessing value in Lahore’s waste infrastructures Ethnos. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00141 844. 2020. 17738 95 To link to this article: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00141 844. 2020 Chen, H., Yang, Y., Jiang, W., Song, M., Wang, Y., & Xiang, T. (2017). Source separation of municipal solid waste: The effects of different separation methods and citizens’ inclination—Case study of Changsha, China. Air & Waste Management Association, 67(2), 182–195. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10962 247. 2016. 12223 17 Chikarmane, P. (2012). Integrating waste pickers into municipal solid waste management in Pune, India, WIEGO Policy Brief (Urban Policies) No 8. Retrieved March 19, 2023, from https:// www. wiego. org/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ migra ted/ publi catio ns/ files/ Chika rmane_ WIEGO_ PB8. pdf Coletto, D., & Carbonai, D. (2023). What does it mean to have a dirty and informal job? The case of waste pickers in the Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Sustainability, 15, 2337. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su150 32337 Cornea, N., Véron, R., Zimmer, A., & Zimmer, A. (2017). Clean city politics: An urban political ecology of solid waste in West Bengal, India. Environment and Planning A, 49(4), 728–744. Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries and Department of Science and Innovation. (2020). Waste picker integration guideline for South Africa: Building the recycling economy and improving livelihoods through integration of the informal sector. Pretoria: Department of Environment, For- estry and Fisheries. Department of Environmental Affairs. (2011). National Waste Management Strategy. Pretoria: Depart- ment of Environmental Affairs. Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment. (2020). The National Waste Management Strat- egy. Pretoria: Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment. Dias, S. M. (2016). Waste pickers and cities. Environment and Urbanization, 28(2), 375–390. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09562 47816 657302 Dinler, D. S. (2016). New forms of wage labour and struggle in the informal sector: The case of waste pickers in Turkey. Third World Quarterly, 37(10), 1834–1854. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01436 597. 2016. 11759 34 Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Rout- ledge & Kegan Paul. du Toit, J., Wagner, C., & Fletcher, L. (2017). Socio-spatial factors affecting household recycling in town- houses in Pretoria, South Africa. Sustainability, 9(11), 2033. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su911 2033 Fahmi, W. S., & Sutton, K. (2006). Cairo’s Zabaleen garbage recyclers: Multi-nationals’ takeover and state relocation plans. Habitat International, 30, 809–837. Foment, C. A. (2019). From populations to plebeians in the Global South: Buenos Aires’ waste pickers. Constellations, 26, 554–568. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1467- 8675. 12450 Furniss, J. (2017). What kind of problem is waste in Egypt? Social Anthropology, 25(3), 301–317. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1469- 8676. 12421 Godfrey, L., Muswema, A., Strydom, W., Mamafa, T., & Mapako, M. (2015). Evaluation of co-opera- tives as a developmental vehicle to support job creation and SME development in the waste sector. In Technical report: Case studies. Green economy research report. A Green Fund / DEA funded research project, Government Advisory Panel. Pretoria: CSIR Godfrey, L., Strydom, W., & Phukubye, R. (2016). Integrating the informal sector into the South Afri- can waste and recycling economy in the context of extended producer responsibility. CSIR Briefing Note. Retrieved on April 16, 2023, from https:// waste roadm ap. co. za/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2020/ 03/ infor mal_ sector_ 2016. pdf Godfrey, L., & Oelofse, S. H. H. (2008). Defining waste in South Africa: Moving beyond the age of “waste.” South African Journal of Science, 104(7), 242–246. Gregson, N., & Crang, M. (2010). Materiality and waste: Inorganic vitality in a networked world. Envi- ronment & Planning A, 42(5), 1026–1032. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1068/ a43176 Guibrunet, L. (2019). What is “informal” in informal waste management? Insights from the case of waste collection in the Tepito neighbourhood, Mexico City. Waste Management, 86, 13–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. wasman. 2019. 01. 021 Gutberlet, J., Sorroche, S., Martins Baeder, A., Zapata, P., & Zapata Campos, M. J. (2021). Waste pick- ers and their practices of insurgency and environmental stewardship. The Journal of Environment & Development, 30(4), 369–394. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10704 96521 10553 28 Hayami, Y., Dikshit, A. K., & Mishra, S. N. (2006). Waste pickers and collectors in Delhi: Poverty and environment in an urban informal sector. Journal of Development Studies, 42, 41–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2020.1773895 https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2020.1773895 https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2020 https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2016.1222317 https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2016.1222317 https://www.wiego.org/sites/default/files/migrated/publications/files/Chikarmane_WIEGO_PB8.pdf https://www.wiego.org/sites/default/files/migrated/publications/files/Chikarmane_WIEGO_PB8.pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032337 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032337 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247816657302 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247816657302 https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1175934 https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1175934 https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112033 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12450 https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12421 https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12421 https://wasteroadmap.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/informal_sector_2016.pdf https://wasteroadmap.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/informal_sector_2016.pdf https://doi.org/10.1068/a43176 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.021 https://doi.org/10.1177/10704965211055328 43 1 3 Thinking Households—How Resident Conceptualisations of Waste,… Issock, P. B. I., Roberts-Lombard, M., & Mpinganjira, M. (2020). Understanding household waste sepa- ration in South Africa An empirical study based on an extended theory of interpersonal behaviour. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 31(3), 530–547. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ MEQ- 08- 2019- 0181 Kalina, M., Tilley, E., & Trois, C. (2020). Saving, ignoring, ‘trashing’: Reflections on ‘seeing waste sce- narios’ from Blantyre, Malaw. Proceedings SUM2020. © 2020 CISA Publisher. All rights reserved / www. cisap ublis her. com. Accessed 20 Apr 2023. Kashyap, P. & Visvanathan, C. (2014). Formalization of informal recycling in low income countries. In A. Pariatamby, and M. Tanaka (eds) Municipal Solid Waste Management in Asia and the Pacific Islands. Environmental Science and Engineering. Springer, Singapore. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978- 981- 4451- 73-4_3 Kasinja, C., & Tilley, E. (2018). Formalization of informal waste pickers’ cooperatives in Blantyre, Malawi: A feasibility assessment. Sustainability, 10(4), 1149. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su100 41149 Katusiimeh, M. W., Burger, K., & Mol, A. P. (2013). Informal waste collection and its co-existence with the formal waste sector: The case of Kampala, Uganda. Habitat International, 38, 1–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. habit atint. 2012. 09. 002 Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical Research Planning and Design (10th ed.). New York: Pearson. Luthra, A. (2021). Housewives and maids: The labor of household recycling in urban India. Environment and Planning e: Nature and Space, 4(2), 475–498. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 25148 48620 914219 Makwara, E. C., & Magudu, S. (2013). Confronting the reckless gambling with people’s health and lives: Urban solid waste management in Zimbabwe. Sustainable Development, 2(1), 67–98. Marello, M., & Helwege, A. (2018). Solid waste management and social inclusion of wastepickers: Opportunities and challenges. Latin American Perspectives, 45(1), 108–129. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00945 82x17 726083 Matter, A., Dietschi, M., & Zurbrügg, C. (2013). Improving the informal recycling sector through seg- regation of waste in the household - The case of Dhaka Bangladesh. Habitat International, 38(1), 150–156. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. habit atint. 2012. 06. 001 Mbah, P. O., & Nzeadibe, T. C. (2016). Inclusive municipal solid waste management policy in Nigeria: Engaging the informal economy in post-2015 development agenda. Local Environment. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13549 839. 2016. 11880 62 Mbiba, B. (2014). Urban solid waste characteristics and household appetite for separation at source in Eastern and Southern Africa. Habitat International, 43, 152–162. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. habit atint. 2014. 02. 001 McKay, T. J., Mbanda, J. T., & Lawton, M. (2015). Exploring the challenges facing the solid waste sector in Douala. Cameroon. Environmental Economics, 6(3), 93–102. Miezah, K., Obiri-Danso, K., Kádár, Z., Fei-Baffoe, B., & Mensah, M. Y. (2015). Municipal solid waste characterization and quantification as a measure towards effective waste management in Ghana. Waste Management, 46, 15–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. wasman. 2015. 09. 009 Millington, N., & Lawhon, M. (2019). Geographies of waste: Conceptual vectors from the Global South. Progress in Human Geography, 43(6), 1044–1063. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03091 32518 799911 Millington, N., Stokes, K., & Lawhon, M. (2022). Whose value lies in the urban mine? Reconfiguring permissions, work, and the benefits of waste in South Africa. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 112(7), 1942–1957. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 24694 452. 2022. 20421 81 Mmereki, D., Baldwin, A., & Li, B. (2016). A comparative analysis of solid waste management in devel- oped, developing and lesser developed countries. Environmental Technology Reviews, 5(1), 120– 141. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 21622 515. 2016. 12593 57 Moh, Y. (2017). Solid waste management transformation and future challenges of source separation and recycling practice in Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 116, 1–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2016. 09. 012 Moore, S. A. (2012). Garbage matters: Concepts in new geographies of waste. Progress in Human Geog- raphy, 36(6), 780–799. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03091 32512 437077 Navarrete-Hernández, P., & Navarrete-Hernández, N. (2018). Unleashing waste-pickers’ potential: Sup- porting recycling cooperatives in Santiago de Chile. World Development, 101, 293–310. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. world dev. 2017. 08. 016 Nzeadibe, T. C., & Mbah, P. O. (2015). Beyond urban vulnerability: Interrogating the social sustainability of a livelihood in the informal economy of Nigerian cities. Review of African Political Economy, 42(144), 279–298. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03056 244. 2014. 997692 https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-08-2019-0181 https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-08-2019-0181 https://www.cisapublisher.com https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4451-73-4_3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4451-73-4_3 https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041149 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.09.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.09.002 https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620914219 https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582x17726083 https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582x17726083 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.06.001 https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016.1188062 https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016.1188062 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.02.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.02.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.009 https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518799911 https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2022.2042181 https://doi.org/10.1080/21622515.2016.1259357 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.012 https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512437077 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.016 https://doi.org/10.1080/03056244.2014.997692 44 G. Kadyamadare, M. Samson 1 3 O’Brien, M. (1999). Rubbish values: Reflections on the political economy of waste. Science as Culture, 8(3), 269–295. Oguntoyinbo, O. (2012). Informal waste management system in Nigeria and barriers to an inclusive mod- ern waste management system: A review. Public Health, 126(5), 441–447. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. puhe. 2012. 01. 030 Okonta, F. N., & Mohlalifi, M. (2020). Assessment of factors affecting source recycling among metro- politan Johannesburg residents. Waste Management, 105(15), 445–449. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. wasman. 2020. 02. 006 Omotayo, A. O., Omotoso, A. B., Daud, A. S., Ogunniyi, A. I., & Olagunju, K. O. (2020). What drives households’ payment for waste disposal and recycling behaviours? Empirical evidence from South Africa’s General Household Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1719 7188 Oteng-Ababio, M. (2014). Rethinking waste as a resource: Insights from a low-income community in Accra, Ghana. City, Territory and Architecture, 1(10). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 2195- 2701-1- 10 Padilla, A. J., & Trujillo, J. C. (2018). Waste disposal and households’ heterogeneity. Identifying Factors Shaping Attitudes towards Source-Separated Recycling in Bogotá, Colombia. Waste Management, 74, 16–33. Parizeau, K., & Lepawsky, J. (2015). Legal orderings of waste in built spaces. Law in the Built Environ- ment, 7(1), 21–38. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJLBE- 01- 2014- 0005 Parra, F. (2020). The struggle of waste pickers in Colombia: From being considered trash, to being rec- ognised as workers. Anti-Trafficking Review, 15, 122–136. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14197/ atr. 20122 0157 Pikitup. (2011). Pikitup Johannesburg (SOC) Limited 2010/2011 Integrated Report 2010/2011. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from http:// www. pikit up. co. za/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2015/ 08/ Pikit up- Johan nesbu rg- SOC- LTD- Annual- Report- 2010- 2011. pdf. Pikitup Newsroom. (2011). Separating Joburg’s Rubbish. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https:// www. joburg. org. za/ media_/ Newsr oom/ Pages/ 2013% 20art icles/ 2011% 20&% 202012% 20% 20Art icles/ 2011- 02- 28-. aspx Pikitup. (2013). Pikitup Johannesburg (SOC) Limited 2012/2013 Integrated Report 2012/2013. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https:// www. joburg. org. za/ docum ents_/ Docum ents/ Annual/ 20Rep orts/ 20122 013/ pikit up/ pongr ac20a nnual/ 20rep ort/ 202013/ 20v2. pdf Pikitup. (2016). Pikitup Johannesburg (SOC) Limited 2015/16 Integrated Report 2015/16. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from http:// www. pikit up. co. za/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2015/ 08/ Pikit up- Johan nesbu rg- SOC- LTD- Integ rated- Annual- Report- 2015- 2016. pdf Pikitup. (2015). Pikitup Johannesburg SOC Limited 2014–2015 Annual Report. Available from http:// www. pikit up. co. za/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2015/ 08/ Pikit up- Johna nnesb urg- SOC- LTD- Annual- Report- 2014- 2015. pdf Polasi, T., & Oelofse, S. (2022). Lessons learned from separation at source implementation in Newcas- tle [panel presentation]. WasteCon 2022, 18–20 October 2022, Emperor’s Palace, Gauteng. https:// resea rchsp ace. csir. co. za/ dspace/ bitst ream/ handle/ 10204/ 12610/ Oelof se_ 2022. pdf? seque nce=1 Pongrácz, E., & Pohjola, V. J. (2004). Re-defining waste, the concept of ownership and the role of waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 40(2), 141–153. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0921- 3449(03) 00057-0 Porras Bulla, J., Rendon, M., & Trenc, J. E. (2021). Policing the stigma in our waste: What we know about informal waste pickers in the global north. Local Environment, 26(10), 1299–1312. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13549 839. 2021. 19743 68 Republic of South Africa. (2008). National Environmental Management: Waste Act 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008). Pretoria: Government Printers. Roos, C., Baron, C., Cilliers, D., Alberts, R., Retief, F., & Moolman, J. (2021). Investigating waste sepa- ration at source behaviour among South African households: The case of Abaqulusi Local Munici- pality. South African Geographical Journal, 104(4), 467–483. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03736 245. 2021. 19804 27 Samson, M. (2020). Whose frontier is it anyway? Reclaimer ‘integration’ and the battle over the ‘waste- based commodity frontier’ in the city of Gold. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 35(4), 60–75. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10455 752. 2019. 17005 38 Samson, M., Kadyamadare, G., Ndlovu, L., & Kalina, M. (2022). Wasters, agnostics, enforcers, competi- tors, and community integrators’: reclaimers, S@S, and the five types of residents in Johannesburg, South Africa. World Development, 150, 105733. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. world dev. 2021. 105733 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2012.01.030 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2012.01.030 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.02.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.02.006 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197188 https://doi.org/10.1186/2195-2701-1-10 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-01-2014-0005 https://doi.org/10.14197/atr.201220157 http://www.pikitup.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Pikitup-Johannesburg-SOC-LTD-Annual-Report-2010-2011.pdf http://www.pikitup.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Pikitup-Johannesburg-SOC-LTD-Annual-Report-2010-2011.pdf https://www.joburg.org.za/media_/Newsroom/Pages/2013%20articles/2011%20&%202012%20%20Articles/2011-02-28-.aspx https://www.joburg.org.za/media_/Newsroom/Pages/2013%20articles/2011%20&%202012%20%20Articles/2011-02-28-.aspx https://www.joburg.org.za/media_/Newsroom/Pages/2013%20articles/2011%20&%202012%20%20Articles/2011-02-28-.aspx https://www.joburg.org.za/documents_/Documents/Annual/20Reports/20122013/pikitup/pongrac20annual/20report/202013/20v2.pdf https://www.joburg.org.za/documents_/Documents/Annual/20Reports/20122013/pikitup/pongrac20annual/20report/202013/20v2.pdf http://www.pikitup.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Pikitup-Johannesburg-SOC-LTD-Integrated-Annual-Report-2015-2016.pdf http://www.pikitup.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Pikitup-Johannesburg-SOC-LTD-Integrated-Annual-Report-2015-2016.pdf http://www.pikitup.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Pikitup-Johnannesburg-SOC-LTD-Annual-Report-2014-2015.pdf http://www.pikitup.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Pikitup-Johnannesburg-SOC-LTD-Annual-Report-2014-2015.pdf https://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/bitstream/handle/10204/12610/Oelofse_2022.pdf?sequence=1 https://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/bitstream/handle/10204/12610/Oelofse_2022.pdf?sequence=1 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(03)00057-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(03)00057-0 https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1974368 https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1974368 https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2021.1980427 https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2021.1980427 https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2019.1700538 https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2019.1700538 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105733 45 1 3 Thinking Households—How Resident Conceptualisations of Waste,… Samson. M., Breakey, J., Vilakazi, P., Khoali, M., Mkhatshwa, A., Schalit, R., Postman, Z., & Shogole, M. (2021). Evaluation of the recycling with reclaimers pilot project in Brixton and Auckland Park, Johannesburg. Retrieved April 3, 2023 from, https:// waste picke rinte grati on. org/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2022/ 09/ Evalu ation- of- recyc ling- with- recla imers- pilot- proje ct- July- 2021. pdf Scheinberg, A. (2012). Informal sector integration and high performance recycling: Evidence from 20 cit- ies. Manchester: Women in Informal Employment Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO). Retrieved April 14, 2023 from https:// www. wiego. org/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ publi catio ns/ files/ Schei nberg_ WIEGO_ WP23. pdf Schenck, R., & Blaauw, P. F. (2011). The work and lives of street waste pickers in Pretoria - A case study of recycling in South Africa’s urban informal economy. Urban Forum, 22(4), 411–430. Schenck, C. J., Blaauw, P. F., & Viljoen, J. M. M. (2016). The socioeconomic differences between landfill and street waste pickers in the Free State province, South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 33(4), 532–547. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03768 35X. 2016. 11790 99 Schenck, R., Blaauw, P. F., Swart, E. C., Viljoen, J. M. M., & Mudavanhu, N. (2018). The management of South Africa’s landfills and waste pickers on them: Impacting lives and livelihoods. Development Southern Africa. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03768 35X. 2018. 14838 22 Schoeman, D. C., & Rampedi, I. T. (2022). Drivers of household recycling behavior in the city of Johan- nesburg, South Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10), 6229. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1910 6229 Schoeman, D. C., & Rampedi, I. T. (2022b). Household recycling and millennials: A case study of the city of Johannesburg, South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 39(6), 813–829. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03768 35X. 2021. 19007 89 Sekhwela, M. M., & Samson, M. (2020). Contested understandings of reclaimer integration - Insights from a failed Johannesburg pilot project. Urban Forum, 31, 21–39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12132- 019- 09377-1 Sheau-Ting, L., Sin-Yee, T., & Weng-Wai, C. (2016). Preferred attributes of waste separation behavior: An empirical study. Procedia Engineering, 145, 738–745. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. proeng. 2016. 04. 094 StatsSA. (2011). Census 2011. Statistics South Africa. Retrieved July 27, 2021, from http:// www. stats sa. gov. za/? page_ id= 3839 StatsSA. (2018). GHS Series Volume IX. Environment, in-depth analysis of the General Household Sur- vey 2002–2016. Statistics South Africa. Retrieved March 19, 2023, from https:// www. stats sa. gov. za/ publi catio ns/ Report% 2003- 18- 08/ Report% 2003- 18- 082016. pdf Strydom, W. F. (2018). Barriers to household waste recycling: Empirical evidence from South Africa. Recy- cling, 3(3), 41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ recyc ling3 030041 Strydom, W. & Godfrey, L. (2016). Household waste recycling behaviour in South Africa - Has there being progress in the last 5 years? Paper presented at The 23 WasteCon Conference and Exhibition, Johannesburg, 17–21 October. Thompson, M. (1979). Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press. Tvedten, I., & Candiracci, S. (2018). Flooding our eyes with rubbish: Urban waste management in Maputo, Mozambique. Environment and Urbanization, 30(2), 631–646. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09562 47818 780090 Uddin, S. M. N., Gutberlet, J., Ramezani, A., & Nasiruddin, S. M. (2020). Experiencing the everyday of waste pickers: A sustainable livelihoods and health assessment in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Journal of International Development, 32(6), 833–853. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jid. 3479 Velis, C. A., Wilson, D. C. Rocca, O., Smith, S. R Mavropoulos, A., & Cheeseman, C. R. (2012). An analytical framework and tool (‘InteRa’) for integrating the informal recycling sector in waste and resource management systems in developing countries. Waste Management & Research, 30(9) Sup- plement, 43 – 46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07342 42X12 454934 Volschenk, L., Viljoen, K., & Schenck, C. (2021). Socio-economic factors affecting household partici- pation in curb-side recycling programmes: Evidence from Drakenstein Municipality, South Africa. African Journal of Business & Economic Research, 16(1), 143–167. Whitson, R. (2011). Negotiating place and value: Geographies of waste and scavenging in Buenos Aires. Antipode, 43(4), 1404–1433. Wilson, D. C., Velis, C., & Cheeseman, C. R. (2006). Role of the informal sector recycling in waste man- agement in developing countries. Habitat International, 30(4), 797–808. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. habit atint. 2005. 09. 005 https://wastepickerintegration.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Evaluation-of-recycling-with-reclaimers-pilot-project-July-2021.pdf https://wastepickerintegration.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Evaluation-of-recycling-with-reclaimers-pilot-project-July-2021.pdf https://www.wiego.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/Scheinberg_WIEGO_WP23.pdf https://www.wiego.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/Scheinberg_WIEGO_WP23.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2016.1179099 https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2018.1483822 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19106229 https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2021.1900789 https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2021.1900789 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-019-09377-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-019-09377-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.094 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.094 http://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=3839 http://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=3839 https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Report%2003-18-08/Report%2003-18-082016.pdf https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Report%2003-18-08/Report%2003-18-082016.pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling3030041 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247818780090 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247818780090 https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3479 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X12454934 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.005 46 G. Kadyamadare, M. Samson 1 3 Wilson, D. C., Araba, A. O., Chinwah, K., & Cheeseman, C. R. (2009). Building recycling rates through the informal sector. Waste Management, 29(2), 629–635. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. wasman. 2008. 06. 016 Wittmer, J. (2021). “We live and we do this work”: Women waste pickers’ experiences of wellbeing in Ahmedabad, India. World Development, 140, 105253. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. world dev. 2020. 105253 Yu, D., Blaauw, D., & Schenck, R. (2020). Waste pickers in informal self-employment: Over-worked and on the breadline. Development Southern Africa, 37(6), 971–996. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03768 35X. 2020. 17705 78 Zeng, C., Niu, D., Li, H., Zhou, T., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Public perceptions and economic values of source- separated collection of rural solid waste: A pilot study in China. Resources, Conservation and Recy- cling, 107, 166–173. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2015. 12. 010 Zhang, W., Che, Y., Yang, K., Ren, X., & Tai, J. (2012). Public opinion about the source separation of municipal solid waste in Shanghai, China. Waste Management and Research, 30(12), 1261–1271. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07342 42X12 462277 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105253 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105253 https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2020.1770578 https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2020.1770578 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.12.010 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X12462277 Thinking Households—How Resident Conceptualisations of Waste, Reclaimers and Separation at Source Shape Recycling Practices Abstract Introduction Methodology Literature Review Conceptualisations of Waste and Wasting Practices Separation at Source Residents, Reclaimers and Recycling Pikitup Waterval Depot S@S Pilot Programme Pikitup’s Conceptualisation of Reclaimers Standard Explanations of Non-Participation in Pikitup’s S@S Programme Conceptualisations of Waste and Non-Separation of Recyclables Conceptualisations of Waste and Participation in Pikitup S@S Programme Multiple Conceptualisations of S@S Separating for Themselves Separating for Reclaimers Conclusion References