Content uploaded by Eli Typhina
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eli Typhina on Aug 05, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
APA citation:
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
Managing Dog Waste: Campaign Insights from the Health Belief Model
Eli Typhina
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Changmin Yan
Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 1
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
Abstract
Aiming to help municipalities develop effective education and outreach campaigns to
reduce stormwater pollutants, such as pet waste, this study applied the Health Belief Model to
identify perceptions of dog waste and corresponding collection behaviors from dog owners living
in a small U.S. city. Results of 455 online survey responses strongly support the Health Belief
Model, a well-established health communication theory, and provide evidence for helping
municipalities develop dog waste reduction campaigns. These findings guide dog waste
behavior change campaign strategies discussed at the end of the paper, and point to Health Belief
Model’s potential application to other environmental issues.
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 1
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
Over 7,000 municipalities across the nation are required to create educational campaigns
to reduce storm water pollutants (Herbert, 2011). A large source of bacteria and nutrient
pollution in U.S. waterways is dog waste (Schueler, 1999). Some of the educational campaigns
created for the reduction of pet waste have used social science theories, but most have not (U.S.
E.P.A., 2007, 2010; Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2008). Typically,
educational campaigns offer a list of stormwater facts that ignore audience perceptions and
beliefs (Galvin, 2005).
To address the lack of theory guided campaigns, the authors used the Health Belief
Model (HBM) to test if this health theory could also be effective in perception and belief
identification for environmental issues. Since HBM’s conception in the late 1950s as a model to
explain people’s unwillingness to adopt preventative health behaviors (Rosenstock, 1974), the
HBM has been widely used in health communication to explain and predict health behaviors by
identifying the attitudes and beliefs individuals hold about those behaviors (Kim, Park, Yoo, &
Shen, 2010). A meta-analysis has demonstrated that the HBM is most effective in predicting
low-risk health behaviors with significant health consequences such as infectious disease
inoculations and compliance with medical regimes (Janz & Becker, 1984).
Similarly, dog waste can be perceived as a low-risk behavior that can have significant
problems for the environment. In the case of Pullman Washington, the city examined in this
study, the South Fork Palouse River Watershed was designated as impaired by excess fecal
coliform bacteria (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2011), and it is believed by city
staff that a substantial amount of fecal coliform in the river originates from dog waste left on the
ground by residents (Buchert, 2012). While the city does have an animal sanitation code and
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 2
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
fine of up to $500 requiring dog owners to dispose of their pet’s waste, its lack of enforcement
has deterred few residents (Buchert, 2012). Alternatively, city staff prefer to use education
guided by social science theories over punitive measures as a means to encourage dog waste
collection (Buchert, 2012).
This study aims to identify how effective HBM could be at identifying perceptions of the
environmental issue of pet waste by looking for correlations among the perceptions of threat,
benefits, barriers, and cues to action concerning dog waste collection through survey responses.
The goal is to explore how the HBM constructs influence pet waste-management behaviors and
the HBM’s potential to assist in the interpretation of other environmental perceptions and
associated behaviors.
Determinants of Behavior
Previous dog waste surveys identified determinants of dog waste collection behavior to
include demographic variables, modes of communication, and perceived benefits and barriers;
these were used to develop the scales used in this study. Three studies (Hillsborough County
Florida, 2009; Snohomish County Public Works, 2005; Swann, 1999), found between 60% to
80% of dog owners claim to always pick-up their pet’s waste on walks. Respondents also
indicated the best ways to communicate about dog waste pick-up behaviors was through
television, radio, newspaper, and word of mouth. The top motivations for picking up dog waste
included the perceived benefits of not stepping in dog waste; aesthetic appeal of public areas
without dog waste; conforming to social/moral norms (i.e. it is courteous); avoiding the smell;
health reasons (i.e. effects of bacteria); and creating a pollution free environment (Alachua
County Water, 2009; HCF, 2009; Swann, 1999). The top barriers to picking up dog waste
included belief that it is natural (i.e. it’s a fertilizer); not located in area where others will
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 3
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
encounter it (i.e. it’s in the woods); don’t have the resources (i.e. bags or bins); embarrassment or
discomfort of carrying the waste; smells bad and/or is gross (HCF, 2009; Swann, 1999).
The Health Belief Model
As discussed above, there are a handful of surveys documenting the motivational
characteristics of dog owners, but none of these compare characteristics within an empirical
framework like the HBM. The HBM provides scholars and practitioners with an understanding
of how people’s beliefs relate to their behavioral decision making processes. The HBM does not
provide a strategy for change, rather it provides a way to identify what messages, media, and
messengers will best deliver knowledge to reduce a threat (Andreasen, 1995; Rosenstock &
Kirscht, 1974). The model states that people’s behaviors are influenced by their perceptions of
the value of an outcome (i.e. the value of not stepping in dog waste) and the expectation that
performing a specific behavior will result in the desired outcome (i.e. avoiding the unpleasant
experience of stepping in dog waste) (Becker & Maiman, 1975; Rosenstock, 1974). One’s
expectations can change according to his or her perceived, “susceptibility to, and the severity of,
an illness, and of the likelihood of being able to reduce that threat through personal action”
(Strecher & Rosenstock, 1997, p. 113).
The HBM has successful explained why people did not participate in low cost,
convenient health programs that could prevent life threatening diseases (Rosenstock, 1974).
Similarly, dog waste collection is a cheap and easy, low-risk behavior that significantly impacts
water quality. It seems therefore, the HBM is an appropriate theoretical model to investigate the
proposed issue of dog waste management. Although the HBM uses similar determinants to
behavior as other theories, such as Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) and the Theory of Reasoned
Action (TRA), the perception component is unique to the HBM. According to literature on these
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 4
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
theories, the HBM operationalizes perception-related behavioral determinants by identifying the
perceived benefits and barriers, while the SCT emphasizes a modeling process (Bandura, 1997)
and the TRA focuses on increasing the strength of a person’s beliefs to perform a desired
behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Thus, the theoretical descriptions of the HBM not only
explain it as proposing variables that are not part of the SCT and the TRA, but it also opens up
the possibility of changing behaviors through perception-related variables, a persuasion process
that takes less time than the modeling process suggested by the SCT and adds an additional layer
of perception-driven influence the TRA lacks.
HBM Components Examined
The four strongest predictors of behavioral change in the HBM (Figure 1), perceived
threat, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and cues to action(Carpenter, 2010); were chosen
as predictors of dog-waste pick-up behaviors. .
Figure 1. Health Belief Model components and linkages from Janz, Champion, and Strecher
(2002).
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 5
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
Figure 2. A model of the predicted relationships, plus signs indicate positive correlations with
current pick-up behavior on the street, trail, and in the yard, while the minus sign indicates a
negative correlation with current collection behavior.
H1: Threat
H4: Cue to Action
Messenger
H3: Barrier
H2: Benefit
Dog Waste
Collection
Street and Trail
H5: Cue to Action
Reminder
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 6
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
Figure 2 shows the causal direction among the predictors and their relationships with the
outcome variable, dog-waste pick-up behaviors. The following is a set of descriptions for the
selected predictors and their associated research questions
Perceived Threat. The negative consequences thought could occur to one’s self or to
other people or the environment of pet waste is not collected.
Perceived Benefits. The benefits perceived could occur to one’s self or to other people
or things pet waste is collected.
Perceived Barriers. The barriers perceived preventing pet waste collection.
Cues to Action. The message, messenger, and media perceived most effective at cueing
an individual to the action of pet waste collection.
Drawing from the above definitions, what is most representative construct of pet waste
collection for:
RQ1: The perceived threat?
RQ2: The perceived benefits?
RQ3: The perceived barriers?
RQ4: The perceived messenger?
RQ5: The perceived cues to action?
The authors propose modifying the HBM to predict dog waste collection behaviors with
the following hypothesis (see Figure 2 for predicted relationships). Hypotheses are divided into
two categories based on locations where pet waste is most often left according to Pullman city
staff, street (A), which includes downtown and residential sidewalks, and trail (B), which
includes paved greenway trails.
The most representative…
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 7
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
H1: threat will positively correlate with current pick-up behavior on (A) and (B).
H2: benefits will positively correlate with current pick-up behavior on (A) and (B).
H3: barriers will negatively correlate with current pick-up behavior on (A) and (B).
H4: respondent cue to action messenger will positively correlate with current pick-up
behavior on (A) and (B).
H5: respondent cue to action reminder will positively correlate with current pick-up
behavior on (A) and (B).
METHODS
The study took place in the city of Pullman Washington; with a population of 29,800
(City of Pullman Washington, 2011), which includes 19,000 university students (Washington
State University, 2011). The survey and survey awareness campaign ran for 18 days (January
26, 2012 to February 12, 2012). The awareness campaign consisted of posters in local pet stores,
utility bill mailers to 4,600 customers, and several local newspaper articles.
A total of 455 respondents completed the survey via Survey Monkey; with access
through QR code on posters or web link. IP address checks on survey responses prevented
multiple survey responses and comments on dog ownership allowed for the elimination of non-
dog owners from the data set. Respondents who owned dogs claimed to pick up their dog’s
waste most of the time: 95% when walking city streets and 85% when walking trails. The
gender of respondents included about 65% female and 34% male (n=298 and 155 respectively,
with 2 non-responses). Most respondents came from the age group of 36-55 year olds,
representing 38% (n=175), 30% of respondent were 23-35 year olds (n=136), 27% were 56- and
older (n=121), and the smallest group of respondents, 5%, were 17 to 22 years old (n=23). About
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 8
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
50% of the respondents were affiliated with the university through the role of student, faculty or
staff (n=229); while 49% were not affiliated with the university (n=226).
Survey Design
The survey contained 18 questions, some open ended with the majority close ended.
Based on Janz, Champion, and Strecher (2002), survey measure creation occurred by: First
defining the four chosen HBM predictors as they pertained to dog waste. Second, creating item
measures specific to the identified dog-waste pick-up behaviors on street and on trails and
defined constructs based on previous pet waste surveys (Tables 1-5). To ensure scale validity,
city staff, university communication faculty with dogs, residents with dogs, and city officials
provided expert judgment as to the relevance and representativeness of the items (Champion,
1984).
RESULTS
Research Questions: The Most Representative Construct Items
The authors ran a Chi-Square analysis to determine the most representative indicator of
respondent perceptions. Analysis revealed the most representative:
Threat for RQ1 was failing to be courteous to others (62.6%), Chi-square (8) = 1402.71,
p < .0001) (Table 1).
Benefit for RQ2 was not to step in it (34.2%), Chi-square (7) = 295.07, p < .0001 (Table
2).
Barrier for RQ3 was lack of resources (bags and bin availability) (56%), Chi-square (7)
= 597.15, p < .0001 (Table 3).
Messenger for RQ 4 was a police officer (32.2%), Chi-square (8) = 402.59, p < .0001
(Table 4).
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 9
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
Cue to action for RQ5 were portable bag dispenser (20.8%), bag availability (35.8%), and
reminder signs around town (18.2%), all with Chi-square (8) = 500.48, p < .0001 (Table
5).
Based on the Chi-square results for the research questions, the data were recoded to
reflect the presence (coded as 1) or non-presence (coded as 0) of the most representative
construct item for each HBM construct in order to transform the frequency data into categorical
variables so that correlation tests can be performed to test the hypothesized relationships.
Table 1
Measures of Perceived Threat
Measure
Observed Percent
No response
5.8%
Streams become polluted
2.4%
Dogs become sick
2.6%
People downstream are harmed
0.6%
Failure of being courteous to others
62.6%
Fine
7.8%
Other
13.8%
Don’t Know
1.2%
Table 2
Measures of Perceived Benefit
Benefit
Observed Percent
No response
11%
No smelly dog waste
5.4%
No stream pollution
3.2%
Not stepping in waste
34.2%
No sick dogs
14.2%
No unsightly dog waste
14%
Don’t know
2%
Other
16%
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 10
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
Table 3
Measures of Perceived Barrier
Barriers
Observed Percent
No response
20.6%
Busy
1%
Lack of Resources: No bag or bin available
56%
The waste is gross
1%
The waste is not a big deal
3.8%
Don’t know
2%
Other
15.6%
Table 4
Measures of Perceived Effective Messenger
Effective Messenger
Observed Percent
No response
8.8%
Someone they live with
9.8%
Friends and family they don’t live with
7%
Supervisor
0.2%
Mayor
3.8%
Officer
32.2%
Don’t know
20.8%
Other
17.4%
Table 5
Measures of Perceived Effective Reminder
Effective Reminder
Observed Percent
No Response
8.6%
Sign in house
0.6%
Portable bag dispenser
20.8%
Newspaper
1.4%
Signs around town
18.2%
Facebook
4%
Convenient bags
35.8%
Don’t know
6.6%
Other
7.6%
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 11
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
The Hypotheses: the HBM-Specified Relationships
Due to all variables being dichotomous, the authors conducted a correlation analysis
using Phi coefficient as an indicator of inter-item correlations of representative items from the
survey. This was used to test the hypotheses’ HBM predicted relationships (Table 6 and Figure
3).
Table 6
P and Phi Values for Most Representative Perception and Collection Behavior
Collection Behavior
Street
Trail
Component
Most Representative Perception
Phi
p
Phi
p
Threat
Failure to be Courteous
.20
.001***
.19
.001***
Benefit
Not step in dog waste
.11
.06
.12
.03*
Barrier
No bag available
.11
.06
.08
.24
Lack of resources
.12
.03*
.05
.56
Cue to
Action
Officer delivers message
.05
.49
.03
.81
Portable bag dispenser reminder
.64
.64
.14
.01**
Having bags available reminder
.13
.02*
.05
.52
Signs around town reminder
.04
.71
.12
.02*
Note. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 12
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
Figure 3. A model of the most representative perception for each HBM component and their
correlations with current pick-up behavior on the street and trail. Plus and minus signs indicate
correlations, while the dotted box indicates lack of significance to behavior; p values included (*
p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001). These results point to the need for practitioners to use message
tailoring strategies that vary for each location.
H1: Threat
Failing to be
courteous to others
H4: Cue to Action
Messenger
Police officer
H5: Cue to Action
Reminder
Portable bag dispensers
H2: Benefit
Not stepping
in dog waste
H3: Barrier
Lack of resources
Dog Waste
Collection
Trail
H5: Cue to Action
Reminder
Signs
H5: Cue to Action
Reminder
Bag availability
Dog Waste
Collection
Street
p < .03*
Phi = .12
p < .03*
Phi = .12
p < .01**
Phi = .14
p < .02*
Phi = .13
p < .02*
Phi = .12
p < .001***
Phi = .20
p < .001***
Phi = .19
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 13
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
Results support H1A and H1B such that the most representative perceived threat and
failure to be courteous had a significant positive correlation with reported waste collection
behavior on the street and trail, both Phi = 0.19, p > .0001.
Results did not support H2A, the most representative perceived benefit, not stepping in
dog waste, did not significantly correlate with street collection behavior Phi = 0.11, p = .06.
However, H2B was supported, results showed a significant positive correlation with trail
collection behavior, Phi = 0.12, p < .05.
Results support H3A, the barriers of a lack of resources (no bags and no bins) had a
significant negative correlation with street collection behavior Phi = 0.12, p < .05. However,
H3B was not supported, lack of bags and bins did not correlate with trail collection behavior Phi
= 0.05, p = .56.
H4A and H4B were not supported by results, the most representative messenger, officer,
did not have a positive significant correlation for collection behaviors with street, Phi = 0.05, p =
.49, or trail, Phi = 0.03, p = .81.
Results did not supported H5A, reminder of portable bag dispenser with street collection
behavior, Phi = 0.04, p = .64, or signs around town, Phi = 0.04, p = .71, but they did support the
reminder of bag availability, Phi = 0.13, p < .05. Results supported H5B, reminder of portable
bag dispenser was significantly and positively correlated with trail collection behavior, Phi =
0.14, p < .01, and with signs as a reminder, Phi = 0.12, p < .05, but results did not correlate with
the reminder of bag availability, Phi = 0.05, p = .52.
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 14
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
Discussion
Pet Waste Collection Behaviors
Compared to the 60%-80% pick-up rate from previous pet waste management studies,
more respondents in the current sample claimed to pick up their dog’s waste on the street (85%)
and trail (95%). However, qualitative data from the survey’s open-ended comments included
many respondents’ descriptions of incidents in which they left waste on the street or trail when
no pick-up resources were available; behavior consistent with city staff’s observations (Buchert,
2012). A plausible explanation for the contradicting self-report data is the potential presence of
social desirability bias among the participants. Feeling pressured to comply with the social norm
of dog waste collection, participants may have overestimating their pick-up rate (Abraham &
Sheeran, 1996). Therefore, the following discussion will examine how to encourage pet owners
to pick up their pet’s waste all the time, not just most of the time.
Overall, this exploratory study found that survey respondents identified failing to be
courteous to others as the most representative perceived threat to not collecting their dog’s waste.
Both previous surveys (ACW, 2009; HCF, 2009; Swann, 1999) and the current study identified
not stepping in one’s dog waste as the top perceived benefits of the collection behavior.
Additionally, the most representative barrier to dog waste collection identified in this study, not
having bags available, was one of the most commonly identified barriers in previous surveys
(HCF, 2009; Swann, 1999). Respondents indicated in the survey a police officer as the most
effective messenger of a dog waste collection message, but open-ended responses contradicted
with this finding. Respondents reported in their comments the only messengers they needed
were collection resources, not someone telling them to collect their waste, and that other people
who did not collect their dog’s waste needed to be penalized by a police officer. These
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 15
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
contradictory findings indicate the results of this question might not be indicative of the target
population, instead the results show what the target population thought would be an effective
messenger for other people; future research should examine these inconsistencies. Contrary to
other surveys (ACW, 2009; HCF, 2009; Swann, 1999), this survey did not reveal traditional
media (i.e. television, radio, newspaper, etc.) as the best cue to dog waste collection. Instead,
respondents perceived the best way to communicate to them to pick up their dog’s waste was
through the reminders of a portable bag dispenser, bag availability, and signs around town.
Mapping the Results onto the HBM
These exploratory results make an important contribution to understanding
communication concerning dog waste collection behavior and behavior causing stormwater
pollution. The authors extended previous work on dog waste communication by adapting the
HBM and applying empirical research methods. The following explains the perceptions
identified that influence the variability in dog waste collection behavior of city residents.
Threat, Benefit, & Barrier. The perceived threat of failing to be courteous to others
significantly and positively correlated with street and trail dog waste collection behavior, likely
because these are both locations where other people will be walking, observing, and judging the
behaviors of dog owners. It appears the model successfully operationalized this correlation in
alignment with the HBM theory, the more one perceives a threat the more likely they will
perform a behavior to reduce the threat.
The perceived benefit of not stepping in dog waste significantly and positively correlated
with trail collection behavior likely because respondents can’t see dog waste as well on the trail,
hence they are more likely to accidently step in it. This supports the HBM prediction that if
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 16
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
one’s perceived benefit of performing a behavior is strong, they will be likely to perform the
behavior.
The lack of bags and bins showed a significant and negative correlated with street
collection behavior, but not trail collection behavior, likely due to social norms. While the
expectation is that people are supposed to take bags with them while walking their dogs, the
observed negative correlation seems to suggest otherwise, as well as the self-reported data in the
open-ended portion of the survey. The perceived threat of not being courteous is most salient on
a city street where many people can observe pet owners’ behaviors, making it a salient location
for the perceived barrier of lacking bags and bins. On the other hand, this barrier did not show a
negative correlation along the trail likely because pet owner behaviors are less likely to be
observed along a trail, thus reducing the power of the social norm of not being courteous. It
appears the model successfully operationalized this correlation in alignment with the HBM
theory, the more one perceives a threat the more likely they will identify barriers to reduce the
threat and the less one perceives a threat, the less likely they will evaluate the barriers to
performing a behavior to reduce the threat.
Cue to Action. The perceived best messenger, a police officer, did not significantly
correlate with dog waste collection behavior; likely because this question did not measure the
construct accurately as previously discussed.
The three reminders significantly and positively correlated with collection behavior in
specific locations. The correlation of the portable bag dispenser on the trail and the bag
availability while walking the street likely occurred due to the trail and street being places less
likely for a person to have access to bags (as compared to their home). The correlation for
portable dispenser on the trail is likely due to the distances people walk as compared to shorter
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 17
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
distances people walk on the street, which would be more conducive to stationary bag
dispensers. The correlation of the sign to the trail likely occurred as the sign provides a reminder
to social norms, a reminder that did not significantly correlate with streets, likely because the
presence of people provide the reminder of the social norm to be courteous. These results follow
the operationalization of the HBM, that cues to action can positively influence a person to
perform a desired behavior.
Practical Implications
Using self-reported data from a survey, this study provides an exploratory case of
applying the HBM to understand dog waste management-related perceptions and behaviors.
Though it is important for scholars and practitioners to test the actual behavioral outcomes of our
recommendations, several key insights can be offered for developing effective pet waste
reduction campaigns.
The results of this study suggest the creation of a pet waste reduction campaign with two
tailored messages and prompts, one for streets and one for trails. The street campaign should
start with the placement of stationary bag dispensers accompanied by bins, and possibly a small
sign calling residents to be courteous to their neighbors by collecting their pet’s waste. The trail
campaign should have both large signs on the trail and portable bag dispensers for pet owners.
These objects should contain messages reminding pet owners of the benefit to collecting their
pet’s waste - not stepping in it, along with the need to extend this courtesy to their neighbors.
Ultimately, the results point to the need to tailor messages depending on the location, include
calls to the appropriate social norms, and simply provide the resources needed to collect and
dispose of pet’s waste; thereby saving on expensive television, radio, and print ads that don’t
prompt behavior.
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 18
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
These strategies have a high potential for working well in other cities as the gender, age,
perceived benefits and barriers in this study paralleled those documented in other U.S. pet waste
surveys (ACW, 2009; HCF, 2009; Bartlett, 2005; SCPW, 2005; Swann, 1999). Practitioners can
also use these findings to improve their message design by using the HBM to create surveys that
measure the public’s perceptions of dog waste, collection behaviors, and cues to action.
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 19
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
REFERENCES
Abraham, C., & Sheeran, P. (1996). The Health Belief Model. In M. Conner & P. Norman
(Eds.), Predicting health behavior: research and practice with social cognition models
(pp. 28-80). Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Alachua County Water. (2009). Alachua County Scoop the Poop Campaign Final Report.
Retrieved from: http://www.alachuacounty.us/depts/epd/documents/
waterresources/final%20pet%20waste%20report.pdf
Andreasen, A. R. (1995). Marketing social change : changing behavior to promote health, social
development, and the environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bartlett, Chrystal. (2005). Stormwater Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviors: A 2005 Survey of
North Carolina Residents. Retrieved from: http://www.ncstormwater.org/pdfs/
stormwater_survey_12506.pdf
Becker, M. H. & Maiman, L. A. (1975). Sociobehavioral determinants of compliance with health
and medical care recommendations. Medical Care.13, 10-24. doi:10.1097/00005650-
197501000-00002
Buchert, R. (May 16, 2012). Director of Stormwater Services, City of Pullman, personal
communication.
Carpenter, C. J. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of health belief model variables in
predicting behavior. Health communication, 25(8), 661-669.
doi:10.1080/10410236.2010.521906
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 20
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
Champion, V. L. (1984). Instrument development for health belief model constructs. ANS.
Advances in nursing science, 6(3), 73-85.
City of Pullman Washington (1987). Title 9, Animals. City Code. Retrieved from:
http://www.pullmanusa.net/pullmanusa/pusacitycode.html#anchor21518680
City of Pullman Washington. (2011). City of Pullman Statistics. Retrieved from:
http://www.pullman-wa.gov/departments/public-works/facts-a- statistics
Galvin, D. (2005). Proceedings of the 4th National Conference Nonpoint Source and Stormwater
Pollution Education Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chicago, Illinois.
Retrieved from: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/2006_11_21_NPS_2005_nps_
outreach_proceedings-2.pdf
Herbert, R. (June 27, 2011). Director of U.S. Municipal Stormwater Permits, U.S. EPA Water
Permits Division, personal communication.
Hillsborough County Florida. (2009). Hillsborough County Pet Waste Research. Retrieved from:
http://www.hillsborough.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/ documents/HC-pet-waste-study-
final-report.pdf
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: a decade later. Health Education
Quarterly, 11(1), 1-47. doi:10.1177/109019818401100101
Janz, N. K., Champion, V. L., & Strecher, V. J. (2002). The Health Belief Model. In K. Glanz, B.
K. Rimer, & F. M. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education : theory,
research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kim, J. N., Park, S. C., Yoo, S. W., & Shen, H. (2010). Mapping health communication
scholarship: breadth, depth, and agenda of published research in Health Communication.
Health communication, 25(6-7), 6-7. doi:10.1080/10410236.2010.507160
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 21
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the Health Belief Model. In Becker, M. H. (ed.),
The Health Belief Model and Personal Health Behavior. Charles B. Slack, Thorofare, NJ,
pp. 27-60.
Rosenstock, I. M., & Kirscht, J. P. (1974). The Health Belief Model and Personal Health
Behavior. Health Education Monographs: 2, 470-473.
Schueler, T.R. (1999). Microbes in urban watersheds: Concentrations, sources, and pathways.
Watershed Protection Techniques, 3(1):554-565. Retrieved from:
http://www.myxyz.org/phmurphy/dog/Article17Microbes.pdf
Snohomish County Public Works. (2005). Snohomish County Surface Water Management Pet
Waste Survey. Retrieved from:
http://www.mypugetsound.net/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=att_download&link_i
d=128&cf_id=24
Southwest Florida Water Management District. (2008). Reducing Pet Waste. Retrieved from:
http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/download/view/social_research/15/
PetWasteFinalReport2007[1].pdf
Strecher, V. J., & Rosenstock, I. M. (1997). The health belief model. In A. Baum, S. Newman, J.
Weinman, R. West, & C. McManus (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health
and Medicine (113-116). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swann, Chris. (1999). A Survey of Resident Nutrient Behavior in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. Retrieved from: http://www.myxyz.org/phmurphy/dog/
DogWasteSurveyChesapeakeBay2.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Nonpoint Source Outreach Toolbox. Retrieved
from: http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/toolbox/links.htm
MANAGING DOG WASTE: CAMPAIGN INSIGHTS FROM 22
THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL
Typhina, E. & Changmin, Y. (2014). Managing dog waste: Campaign insights from the health
belief model. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(2),
doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.944247
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Getting In Step: A Guide for Conducting
Watershed Outreach Campaigns. Retrieved from:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/getnstep.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology. (2011). South Fork Palouse River Watershed fecal
coliform bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load. Water Quality Implementation Plan.
Retrieved from: www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/1110074.html
Washington State University. (2011). Campus locations and enrollment. Quick Facts. Retrieved
from: http://about.wsu.edu/about/facts.aspx
