| Literature DB >> 31096698 |
Lin Shen1, Hongyun Si2, Lei Yu3, Haolun Si4.
Abstract
With the rapid growth of urban economy and population in China, the output of municipal solid waste (MSW) has dramatically increased becoming a constant threat to residents' living environment and health. The classification intention of residents plays a pivotal role in solving the problem of MSW disposal. While numerous studies have examined the classification behavior of MSW from the perspective of ordinary residents and households, few studies have attempted to understand young people's sorting intention. The novelty of this research is to explore the determinants that affect young people's intention toward municipal solid waste sorting (MSWS) by extending the predictive factors of environmental concern and personal moral obligation into the theory of planned behavior (TPB). A sample of 524 young respondents from Hebei Province in China were used to conduct a structural equation model (SEM) validation. The empirical results revealed that, according to the rankings of significance, personal moral obligation, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm had positive influences on young people's intention toward MSWS, while attitude and environmental concern did not. Furthermore, the multi-group comparison showed that, compared with the male and rural group, the intention of female and urban respondents to classify MSW was not affected by subjective norms. Some targeted managerial implications were ultimately proposed to promote young people's intention toward MSWS. This study contributes to the existing knowledge system of MSWS by revealing the classification intention of young people as a group. The findings and implications provide the government with useful insights for encouraging young people to actively participate in MSWS.Entities:
Keywords: MSW; critical factor; intention; theory of planned behavior; young people
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31096698 PMCID: PMC6572025 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16101708
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Extended theoretical model.
Figure 2Location of Hebei, China.
Survey items regarding young people’s intention toward MSWS.
| Constructs | Measuring Items | Sources | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| ATT1 | MSWS is a good idea. | [ |
| ATT2 | MSWS is beneficial. | ||
| ATT3 | MSWS is wise. | ||
| ATT4 | MSWS is meaningful. | ||
| SN | SN1 | Most people who are important to me support MSWS. | [ |
| SN2 | My family thinks that I should do MSWS. | ||
| SN3 | My friends think that I should do MSWS. | ||
| SN4 | My families and friends are doing MSWS. | ||
| PBC | PBC1 | MSWS is effortless. | [ |
| PBC2 | Whether to classify MSW is entirely up to me. | ||
| PBC3 | I have the relevant resources, time, and opportunity to perform MSWS behaviors. | ||
| PBC4 | I can do MSWS as long as I want. | ||
| EC | EC1 | I think environmental issues are related to human survival. | [ |
| EC2 | I think everyone should protect the environment. | ||
| EC3 | Human activities affect the environment all the time. | ||
| EC4 | Human beings must live in harmony with nature to survive. | ||
| EC5 | I am concerned about the state of the environment. | ||
| PMO | PMO1 | Conducting MSWS behaviors is in line with my principles of environmental protection. | [ |
| PMO2 | I believe that I have a moral obligation to conduct MSWS behaviors in daily life. | ||
| PMO3 | I believe that I have a responsibility to conduct MSWS behaviors in daily life. | ||
| PNO4 | I would feel guilty if I were not involved in MSWS behaviors in daily life. | ||
| BI | BI1 | I plan to take part in MSWS behaviors shortly. | [ |
| BI2 | I will make an effort to take part in MSWS behaviors shortly. | ||
| BI3 | I intend to isolate food waste separately when discarding. | ||
| BI4 | I intend to isolate recyclable waste separately when discarding. | ||
| BI5 | I intend to isolate dangerous waste separately when discarding. | ||
| BI6 | I am willing to participate in MSWS behaviors shortly. | ||
Demographic characteristics of the sample.
| Feature | Type | Frequency | Percentage/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 225 | 42.94 |
| Female | 299 | 57.06 | |
| Register | Urban | 351 | 66.98 |
| Rural | 173 | 33.02 | |
| Age | 15–19 | 65 | 12.41 |
| 20–25 | 301 | 57.44 | |
| 26–30 | 158 | 30.15 | |
| Education | Senior high school or below | 69 | 13.16 |
| College or Bachelor’s degree | 353 | 67.37 | |
| Master’s degree or Ph.D. | 102 | 19.47 | |
| Profession | Student | 261 | 49.81 |
| Office worker | 189 | 36.07 | |
| Other | 74 | 14.12 |
Reliability and convergence validity test results.
| Constructs | Measuring Items | Mean | S.D. | Factor loading | C.A. | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATT | ATT1 | 6.44 | 1.112 | 0.848 | 0.968 | 0.969 | 0.888 |
| ATT2 | 6.53 | 0.960 | 0.971 | ||||
| ATT3 | 6.51 | 1.021 | 0.979 | ||||
| ATT4 | 6.51 | 1.004 | 0.966 | ||||
| SN | SN1 | 4.99 | 1.308 | 0.602 | 0.882 | 0.886 | 0.665 |
| SN2 | 4.60 | 1.555 | 0.896 | ||||
| SN3 | 4.69 | 1.526 | 0.907 | ||||
| SN4 | 4.16 | 1.579 | 0.821 | ||||
| PBC | PBC1 | 5.11 | 1.414 | 0.856 | 0.826 | 0.829 | 0.556 |
| PBC2 | 4.94 | 1.594 | 0.501 | ||||
| PBC3 | 4.81 | 1.479 | 0.826 | ||||
| PBC4 | 5.48 | 1.376 | 0.747 | ||||
| EC | EC1 | 6.15 | 1.115 | 0.879 | 0.962 | 0.964 | 0.869 |
| EC2 | 6.35 | 1.033 | 0.952 | ||||
| EC3 | 6.33 | 1.067 | 0.964 | ||||
| EC4 | 6.40 | 1.014 | 0.932 | ||||
| PMO | PMO1 | 5.50 | 1.295 | 0.926 | 0.910 | 0.864 | 0.680 |
| PMO2 | 5.77 | 1.144 | 0.963 | ||||
| PMO3 | 5.77 | 1.158 | 0.966 | ||||
| BI | BI1 | 4.81 | 1.567 | 0.775 | 0.914 | 0.987 | 0.939 |
| BI2 | 5.56 | 1.276 | 0.974 | ||||
| BI3 | 5.08 | 1.480 | 0.813 | ||||
| BI4 | 5.26 | 1.450 | 0.914 | ||||
| BI5 | 5.53 | 1.417 | 0.843 |
Correlation coefficient matrix and square roots of AVEs.
| Constructs | ATT | SN | PBC | EC | PMO | BI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATT |
| |||||
| SN | 0.208 |
| ||||
| PBC | 0.333 | 0.518 |
| |||
| EC | 0.566 | 0.282 | 0.444 |
| ||
| PMO | 0.410 | 0.445 | 0.515 | 0.627 |
| |
| BI | 0.334 | 0.526 | 0.601 | 0.451 | 0.654 |
|
Note: Diagonal texts in boldface represent the square roots of AVE values.
Measurement of model fit indices.
| Fit Indices | Criteria | Before Model Correction | Model Adaptation Judgment | After Model Revision | Model Adaptation Judgment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| χ2/df | <3 | 6.056 | No | 2.029 | Yes |
| GFI | >0.9 | 0.781 | No | 0.930 | Yes |
| AGFI | >0.9 | 0.734 | No | 0.906 | Yes |
| RFI | >0.9 | 0.872 | No | 0.957 | Yes |
| NFI | >0.9 | 0.885 | No | 0.965 | Yes |
| CFI | >0.9 | 0.902 | Yes | 0.982 | Yes |
| RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.098 | No | 0.044 | Yes |
| RMR | <0.08 | 0.474 | No | 0.079 | Yes |
Figure 3Path coefficients and significance of the research model.
Hypotheses results.
| Hypothesis | Path Correlation | Standardized Path Coefficient | Lo95 | Hi95 |
| Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | ATT → BI | 0.034 | 0.951 | −0.039 | 0.102 | 0.342 | NS |
| H2 | SN → BI | 0.120 | 3.113 | 0.041 | 0.196 | 0.002 ** | Supported |
| H3 | PBC → BI | 0.347 | 7.247 | 0.257 | 0.434 | *** | Supported |
| H4 | EC → BI | 0.037 | 0.876 | −0.054 | 0.123 | 0.381 | NS |
| H5 | PMO → BI | 0.375 | 8.644 | 0.292 | 0.454 | *** | Supported |
Note: * means p < 0.05, ** means p < 0.01, and *** means p < 0.001.
Multi-group structural equation analysis results (standardized path coefficients).
| Hypothesis | Path Correlation | Gender | Registration | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male CI (Lo95, Hi95) | Female CI (Lo95, Hi95) | Urban CI (Lo95, Hi95) | Rural CI (Lo95, Hi95) | ||
| H1 | ATT → BI | 0.077 (−0.126, 0.316) | 0.016 (−0.056, 0.096) | −0.028 (−0.242, 0.151) | 0.056 (−0.022, 0.135) |
| H2 | SN → BI | 0.192 ** (0.014, 0.385) | 0.076 (−0.041, 0.194) | 0.102 (−0.063, 0.264) | 0.133 ** (0.009, 0.253) |
| H3 | PBC → BI | 0.436 *** (0.197, 0.985) | 0.326 *** (0.192, 0.458) | 0.395 *** (0.216, 0.723) | 0.325 *** (0.188, 0.466) |
| H4 | EC → BI | −0.121 (−0.396, 0.094) | 0.091 (−0.012, 0.197) | 0.077 (−0.111, 0.346) | 0.023 (−0.077, 0.126) |
| H5 | PMO → BI | 0.402 *** (0.211, 0.845) | 0.366 *** (0.242, 0.499) | 0.358 *** (0.160, 0.584) | 0.378 *** (0.242, 0.511) |