Crafting change: developing behaviour change communication intervention package for improved household waste segregation in urban India

Abstract

Background: Household waste segregation is central to effective solid waste management and circular economy goals, yet the development processes and content specifications of segregation interventions are often poorly documented, limiting transparency, reproducibility, and contextual adaptation. Objectives: This manuscript documents how multi-method formative evidence was synthesised and translated into a Behaviour Change Communication (BCC) toolkit delivered by community volunteers to promote household waste segregation in an ongoing cluster-randomised controlled trial in urban India. Trial outcomes and independent formative study findings are not reported here. Methods: The intervention was developed over 12 months using the Behaviour Change Wheel and reported using the GUIDED checklist. Evidence was drawn from a systematic review, qualitative studies with households and service providers, crowdsourcing activities, policy and grey literature, waste composition analysis, volunteer logbooks, and stakeholder consultations. Barriers and enablers were classified using the Motivation-Opportunity-Ability-Behaviour model, while APEASE criteria guided the selection of feasible intervention components. Results: The development process produced three outputs: a behavioural specification of household-level waste segregation, a feasibility-screened set of intervention strategies, and a mapping of behavioural determinants to Behaviour Change Techniques and delivery tools. Key barriers included limited knowledge, weak motivation, and infrastructural constraints. The final BCC toolkit included household segregation bins, volunteer-delivered interpersonal communication, flipbooks and print materials, persuasive messaging with feedback and reminders, and low-cost non-monetary rewards. The toolkit was organised into 24 structured sessions and refined through field-testing, waste composition findings, volunteer feedback, and stakeholder input. Conclusion: The intervention was developed through a theory-driven, participatory, and context-sensitive process. This manuscript provides a transparent account of how formative evidence was translated into a feasible BCC package, while emphasizing that APEASE ratings should be reassessed before adaptation to other municipal or implementation contexts.