| Literature DB >> 35627703 |
Tingting Liu1, Zichen Zheng1, Zhichao Wen2, Shangyun Wu1, Yaru Liu3, Jing Cao1, Zhixiong Weng1.
Abstract
Achieving carbon neutrality has become a major national strategy for sustainability, and the recycling of recyclable resources is an important direction toward doing so. Due to the huge amounts of recyclable resources generated every year and the low recycling rate, a new Internet recycling model with great potential to increase the recycling rate has developed rapidly in China. However, low participation from residents hinders the sustainable development of Internet recycling. Through this study, we aim to uncover potential avenues for improving Internet recycling behavior. The factors influencing Internet recycling from the perspective of new technologies have scarcely been investigated. Therefore, this study used the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology theoretical framework to explore the factors influencing residents' intentions and behavior toward Internet recycling. A questionnaire survey was conducted with 500 residents of Beijing, China, and empirical analysis was conducted using the structural equation model. The results indicated that social influence and performance expectancy significantly influence residents' intentions to participate in Internet recycling, whereas effort expectancy and perceived risk do not. Facilitating conditions and behavioral intentions were identified as influential factors for use behavior. Relevant recommendations for promoting residents' Internet recycling behavior were proposed.Entities:
Keywords: UTAUT; behavioral intention; internet recycling; recyclable resource; recycling behavior
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35627703 PMCID: PMC9141912 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19106166
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Theoretical framework.
The questionnaire structure with measurement indicators.
| Constructs | Indicator Code | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| Effort | EE1 | I think it is easy to learn to use Internet platforms for recycling. |
| EE2 | I think Internet recycling is an easy thing to do. | |
| EE3 | I know exactly how to recycle using the Internet platform. | |
| Performance | PE1 | Using the Internet recycling platform has saved time and improved efficiency for me. |
| PE2 | The Internet recycling platform provides me with timely and valuable recycling information. | |
| PE3 | The Internet recycling platform has helped me a lot in my life. | |
| PE4 | The Internet recycling platform provides me with personalized recycling services. | |
| Social | SI1 | I will try the Internet recycling platform if my family, friends, or colleagues recommend it. |
| SI2 | Mass media promotion would motivate me to try to use the Internet recycling platform. | |
| SI3 | Support from related policies would lead me to use Internet recycling platform. | |
| SI4 | Many people around me are using the Internet recycling platform. | |
| Perceived | PR1 | I am worried that Internet recycling will disclose my personal privacy information, location information, consumption information, etc. |
| PR2 | I am concerned about unreasonable charges or fraudulent spending when using Internet recycling methods. | |
| PR3 | I am worried that learning Internet recycling will waste more of my time. | |
| Facilitating | FC1 | I have the resources needed to use the Internet recycling platform. |
| FC2 | I have the knowledge needed to use the Internet recycling platform. | |
| FC3 | Internet recycling is compatible with my previous recycling methods. | |
| FC4 | If I have trouble using the Internet recycling platform, I can get help and guidance from someone (or a team). | |
| Behavioral | BI1 | I am willing to keep learning about the use of new Internet recycling platforms. |
| BI2 | I would like to recommend Internet recycling to my family, friends, and colleagues. | |
| Use behavior | UB1 | I often use the Internet platform to recycle waste. |
| UB2 | I will continue to use the Internet recycling platform. | |
| UB3 | I recommend Internet recycling to my family, friends, and colleagues. |
Sample distribution of the permanent resident population in Beijing.
| Administrative Regions | Permanent Population (10,000) | Percent (%) | Sample Size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 2189.0 | 100% | 500 |
| 1. Capital functional core area | 181.5 | 8% | 41 |
| Dongcheng District | 70.9 | 3% | 16 |
| Xicheng District | 110.6 | 5% | 25 |
| 2. Urban function expansion area | 917.0 | 42% | 209 |
| Chaoyang District | 345.1 | 16% | 79 |
| Fengtai District | 201.9 | 9% | 46 |
| Shijingshan District | 56.8 | 3% | 13 |
| Haidian District | 313.2 | 14% | 72 |
| 3. New urban development area | 874.0 | 40% | 200 |
| Fangshan District | 131.3 | 6% | 30 |
| Tongzhou District | 184.0 | 8% | 42 |
| Shunyi District | 132.4 | 6% | 30 |
| Changping District | 226.9 | 10% | 52 |
| Daxing District | 199.4 | 9% | 46 |
| 4. Ecological conservation | 216.5 | 10% | 49 |
| Mentougou District | 39.3 | 2% | 9 |
| Huairou District | 44.1 | 2% | 10 |
| Pinggu District | 45.7 | 2% | 10 |
| Miyun County | 52.8 | 2% | 12 |
| Yanqing County | 34.6 | 2% | 8 |
Data resource: Beijing Statistical Yearbook 2020, http://nj.tjj.beijing.gov.cn/nj/main/2021-tjnj/zk/indexch.htm (accessed on 11 February 2021).
Main features of the respondents in Beijing (n = 500).
| Characteristic | Group | Frequency | Percentage | S.E. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 240 | 48% | 0.500 |
| Female | 260 | 52% | ||
| Age | <18 | 15 | 3% | 0.469 |
| 19–34 | 170 | 34% | ||
| 35–49 | 145 | 29% | ||
| 50–64 | 120 | 24% | ||
| >65 | 50 | 10% | ||
| Education | Junior high school and below | 10 | 2% | 0.563 |
| High school | 60 | 12% | ||
| Bachelor’s degree | 380 | 76% | ||
| Master’s degree | 45 | 9% | ||
| PhD | 5 | 1% |
Reliability and validity of the measurement model.
| Constructs | Indicator Code | Loadings | Cronbach’s Alpha | C.R. | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effort | EE1 | 0.600 | 0.802 | 0.825 | 0.620 |
| EE2 | 0.955 | ||||
| EE3 | 0.767 | ||||
| Performance | PE1 | 0.735 | 0.805 | 0.811 | 0.519 |
| PE2 | 0.759 | ||||
| PE3 | 0.719 | ||||
| PE4 | 0.664 | ||||
| Social | SI1 | 0.848 | 0.803 | 0.817 | 0.529 |
| SI2 | 0.695 | ||||
| SI3 | 0.671 | ||||
| SI4 | 0.682 | ||||
| Perceived | PR1 | 0.730 | 0.763 | 0.770 | 0.530 |
| PR2 | 0.812 | ||||
| PR3 | 0.630 | ||||
| Facilitating | FC1 | 0.753 | 0.804 | 0.807 | 0.511 |
| FC2 | 0.747 | ||||
| FC3 | 0.674 | ||||
| FC4 | 0.682 | ||||
| Behavioral | BI1 | 0.676 | 0.703 | 0.697 | 0.537 |
| BI2 | 0.785 | ||||
| Use behavior | UB1 | 0.665 | 0.761 | 0.771 | 0.531 |
| UB2 | 0.795 | ||||
| UB3 | 0.720 |
Criteria and results of the fit index.
| Fit Index | Reference Value | Model Value | Hypothesized |
|---|---|---|---|
| CMIN/DF | <3 (Perfect) [ | 1.891 | Yes |
| GFI | >0.9 [ | 0.916 | Yes |
| IFI | >0.9 [ | 0.946 | Yes |
| CFI | >0.95 (Perfect) | 0.945 | Yes |
| RMSEA | <0.05 (Perfect) | 0.050 | Yes |
| PNFI | >0.5 [ | 0.736 | Yes |
Hypothesis testing.
| Hypothesis | Path | S.E. | C.R. |
| Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | BI | <--- | EE | 0.054 | −0.392 | 0.695 | Not supported |
| H2 | BI | <--- | PE | 0.071 | 6.785 | 0.000 *** | Supported |
| H3 | BI | <--- | SI | 0.047 | 3.19 | 0.01 ** | Supported |
| H4 | BI | <--- | PR | 0.025 | −1.752 | 0.08 | Not supported |
| H5 | UB | <--- | BI | 0.056 | 3.504 | 0.000 *** | Supported |
| H6 | UB | <--- | FC | 0.124 | 9.317 | 0.000 *** | Supported |
Notes: *** indicates p < 0.001, ** indicates p < 0.01.
Figure 2The simulation path diagram of the structural equation model.