| Literature DB >> 35206637 |
Qiao Liu1, Qianhui Xu1, Xin Shen1, Bowei Chen1, Sonia Sadeghian Esfahani2.
Abstract
Economic growth and rapid urbanization have resulted in various urban issues related to sustainable development in emerging economies such as China. Nowadays, two-thirds of China's cities are besieged by waste and one-fourth of the cities have no space to build landfills. China is embarking on a top-down waste sorting revolution, in which residents' awareness and behaviour of participation are fundamental to the success of garbage classification. The purpose of this paper is to understand residents' waste sorting behaviour and identify the influencing factors in China. The subjects of this study are urban and rural residents in Jiaxing, where local government has begun to encourage waste classification but has not yet legalized it. With the integration of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and value-belief-norm theory (NAM), this study represents a "motivation-intention-behaviour" theoretical model for the systemic illustration of the antecedents of household waste sorting behaviour. A total of 541 questionnaires were administered in person in households in Jiaxing, China. Structural equation modelling with partial least squares was applied to analyse empirically. The results show that attitudes (ATT), subjective norm (SN), and perceived behavioural control (PBC) have a significant positive effect on the intention of household waste sorting (WSI), and the perceived policy effectiveness (PPE) has a positive and significant effect on the attitudes and waste sorting intention. The waste sorting intention has a positive and significant effect on waste sorting behaviour (WSB). In addition, individual characteristics have a significant impact on waste sorting behaviour, where respondents of women, higher income, and middle and old age are more willing to implement waste sorting behaviours. This study theoretically contributes to the literature by improving the understanding of the determinants of household solid waste sorting behaviour. It also provides several recommendations to improve existing policies at the practitioner level. These recommendations can be valuable references for waste management in China and other emerging economies.Entities:
Keywords: China; structural equation modelling; theory of planned behaviour; value-belief-norm theory; waste sorting
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35206637 PMCID: PMC8878707 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042447
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Theoretical model for decision making on household waste sorting.
Summary of the dimension measurement method.
| Variables | Indicators | Contents | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attitude | ATT1 | The waste sorting is a hygienic and healthy behaviour. | (Shen et al. [ |
| ATT2 | The recycling of waste makes me feel responsible for environmental protection. | ||
| ATT3 | Implementing waste sorting is a very good measure. | ||
| ATT4 | For me, it’s very good to implement waste sorting regularly. | ||
| ATT5 | Implementing Waste sorting regularly makes me happy. | ||
| Subjective norms | SN1 | My families think waste sorting is effective. | (Taylor and Todd [ |
| SN2 | People who are important to me support me with waste sorting. | ||
| SN3 | I will do the same when I see people waste sorting around me. | ||
| SN4 | My important friends/family think that waste sorting is very important for environmental protection. | ||
| SN5 | My important friends/family recommended that I waste sort. | ||
| Perceived | PBC1 | I have complete control over deciding whether to sort waste. | (Ajzen and Thomas [ |
| PBC2 | I can avoid polluting the living environment through waste sorting. | ||
| PBC3 | I am willing to sort waste to protect the environment in the community. | ||
| Perceived | PPE1 | The waste sorting and recycling bins provided by the government can promote recycling. | (Wan [ |
| PPE2 | The environmental protection plan implemented by the government has effectively raised public awareness of environmental hazards. | ||
| PPE3 | The government provides clear guidelines on waste sorting. | ||
| PPE4 | The government’s propaganda helps citizens understand the importance of waste sorting. | ||
| PPE5 | Government policy encourages me to sort the waste. | ||
| PPE6 | The government policy is conducive to our waste sorting. | ||
| PPE7 | The release of the policy makes me want to implement waste sorting. | ||
| Waste | IWS1 | In the next few weeks, I plan to reduce food waste by paying more attention to the amount purchased. | (Ajzen and Thomas [ |
| IWS2 | After that, I plan to sort waste several times a week. | ||
| IWS3 | From this week on I will sort the waste. | ||
| IWS4 | I want to let my family and friends sort the trash. | ||
| IWS5 | I am willing to learn waste sorting knowledge to better classify. | ||
| Waste | WSB1 | I implemented the recycling sorting. | (Ofstad et al. [ |
| WSB2 | I implemented hazardous waste sorting. | ||
| WSB3 | I implemented the sorting of food waste. | ||
| WSB4 | I implemented the sorting of other waste. |
Factor loadings and cross loadings of the external model.
| ATT | SN | PBC | PPE | WSI | WSB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATT1 | 0.758 | 0.618 | 0.585 | 0.546 | 0.556 | 0.298 |
| ATT2 | 0.891 | 0.828 | 0.754 | 0.799 | 0.810 | 0.501 |
| ATT3 | 0.863 | 0.742 | 0.723 | 0.764 | 0.749 | 0.462 |
| ATT4 | 0.875 | 0.757 | 0.729 | 0.727 | 0.794 | 0.450 |
| ATT5 | 0.805 | 0.753 | 0.612 | 0.612 | 0.685 | 0.402 |
| SN1 | 0.604 | 0.741 | 0.474 | 0.549 | 0.560 | 0.351 |
| SN2 | 0.755 | 0.822 | 0.589 | 0.641 | 0.667 | 0.385 |
| SN3 | 0.812 | 0.805 | 0.725 | 0.736 | 0.759 | 0.463 |
| SN4 | 0.791 | 0.881 | 0.694 | 0.774 | 0.784 | 0.495 |
| SN5 | 0.580 | 0.776 | 0.528 | 0.641 | 0.705 | 0.485 |
| PBC1 | 0.385 | 0.423 | 0.599 | 0.419 | 0.447 | 0.349 |
| PBC2 | 0.725 | 0.660 | 0.889 | 0.685 | 0.696 | 0.402 |
| PBC3 | 0.807 | 0.720 | 0.914 | 0.713 | 0.757 | 0.446 |
| PPE1 | 0.615 | 0.647 | 0.643 | 0.791 | 0.666 | 0.424 |
| PPE2 | 0.801 | 0.777 | 0.741 | 0.860 | 0.768 | 0.504 |
| PPE3 | 0.637 | 0.658 | 0.597 | 0.837 | 0.706 | 0.507 |
| PPE4 | 0.708 | 0.709 | 0.640 | 0.887 | 0.754 | 0.509 |
| PPE5 | 0.679 | 0.661 | 0.572 | 0.720 | 0.619 | 0.351 |
| PPE6 | 0.697 | 0.688 | 0.631 | 0.885 | 0.736 | 0.507 |
| PPE7 | 0.722 | 0.757 | 0.640 | 0.878 | 0.782 | 0.530 |
| WSI1 | 0.687 | 0.696 | 0.604 | 0.721 | 0.820 | 0.525 |
| WSI2 | 0.623 | 0.670 | 0.643 | 0.670 | 0.831 | 0.524 |
| WSI3 | 0.719 | 0.755 | 0.664 | 0.740 | 0.859 | 0.633 |
| WSI4 | 0.799 | 0.786 | 0.742 | 0.774 | 0.895 | 0.534 |
| WSI5 | 0.825 | 0.770 | 0.714 | 0.728 | 0.825 | 0.440 |
| WSB1 | 0.493 | 0.501 | 0.461 | 0.548 | 0.608 | 0.909 |
| WSB2 | 0.389 | 0.418 | 0.387 | 0.422 | 0.464 | 0.821 |
| WSB3 | 0.453 | 0.514 | 0.425 | 0.530 | 0.588 | 0.881 |
| WSB4 | 0.402 | 0.425 | 0.398 | 0.433 | 0.471 | 0.808 |
The results of hypotheses testing.
| Hypotheses Path | Path Coefficient (β) | T | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1: ATT → WSI | 0.198 *** | 3.203 | Supported |
| H2: SN → WSI | 0.314 *** | 5.926 | Supported |
| H3: PBC → WSI | 0.162 *** | 4.115 | Supported |
| H4: WSI → WSB | 0.629 *** | 18.513 | Supported |
| H5: PPE → ATT | 0.831 *** | 45.384 | Supported |
| H6: PPE → WSI | 0.308 *** | 6.396 | Supported |
Note: *** p < 0.001.
The results of multi-group analysis (1).
| Gender | Income | Age | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Low | High | Young | Elderly | |
| H1 | 0.180 | 0.214 ** | 0.155 * | 0.349 *** | 0.154 * | 0.469 *** |
| H2 | 0.337 *** | 0.296 *** | 0.349 *** | 0.200 *** | 0.336 *** | 0.220 * |
| H3 | 0.176 ** | 0.161 ** | 0.161 *** | 0.146 * | 0.177 *** | 0.099 |
| H4 | 0.575 *** | 0.692 *** | 0.617 *** | 0.616 *** | 0.614 *** | 0.639 *** |
| H5 | 0.834 *** | 0.828 *** | 0.809 *** | 0.874 *** | 0.815 *** | 0.884 *** |
| H6 | 0.281 *** | 0.324 *** | 0.310 *** | 0.304 *** | 0.315 *** | 0.193 * |
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
The results of multi-group analysis (2).
| Education Background | Living Area | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-Higher Education | Higher Education | Urban | Rural | |
| H1 | 0.202 ** | 0.221 * | 0.180 * | 0.219 * |
| H2 | 0.312 *** | 0.322 ** | 0.318 *** | 0.340 *** |
| H3 | 0.182 *** | 0.114 | 0.163 ** | 0.158 ** |
| H4 | 0.573 *** | 0.654 *** | 0.598 *** | 0.693 *** |
| H5 | 0.796 *** | 0.878 *** | 0.826 *** | 0.842 *** |
| H6 | 0.290 *** | 0.316 *** | 0.321 *** | 0.270 *** |
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.