| Literature DB >> 36190629 |
Ruijing Zheng1, Mengqi Qiu1, Yaping Wang1, Deyang Zhang1, Zeping Wang1, Yu Cheng2.
Abstract
With the acceleration of urbanization, domestic waste has become one of the most inevitable factors threatening the environment and human health. Waste classification is of great significance and value for improving urban environmental quality and promoting human well-being. Based on the theory of planned behavior, we added external and socio-economic factors to systematically examine how they affect residents' waste classification behavior (WCB). We collected 661 valid data through a questionnaire survey conducted in Jinan, a pilot city for waste classification in China. Key driving factors were identified by combining binary logistic regression and the principal component analysis. The results showed that the elderly, women, and people with higher education are more likely to participate in waste classification. Attitude, collaborative governance, and institutional pressure positively affect WCB, while subjective norm and infrastructure have a negative effect. Knowledge mastery and degree of publicity are positively and significantly related to WCB, but other perceived behavioral control sub-variables negatively affect WCB. Based on the results and status of waste classification in Jinan, we propose the multi-agent linkage governance pattern from various dimensions to explore a powerful guiding incentive that can enhance WCB and provide a reference for waste management policymakers.Entities:
Keywords: Binary logistic regression; Incentive pattern; Principal component analysis; Theory of planned behavior; Waste classification behavior
Year: 2022 PMID: 36190629 PMCID: PMC9527377 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-23363-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Fig. 1Conceptual hypothesis model for studying waste classification behavior
Socio-demographic profile of the respondents
| Variables | Demographics | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 319 | 48.27 |
| Female | 342 | 51.73 | |
| Age | Under 18 | 190 | 28.76 |
| 18–30 | 243 | 36.70 | |
| 31–45 | 84 | 12.77 | |
| 46–60 | 73 | 11.06 | |
| 61 or above | 71 | 10.71 | |
| Monthly income (RMB) | Under 1500 | 118 | 17.86 |
| 1500–3000 | 136 | 20.60 | |
| 3000–5000 | 195 | 29.47 | |
| 5000–8000 | 160 | 24.22 | |
| 80,000 or above | 52 | 7.85 | |
| Education level | Junior high school or below | 130 | 19.65 |
| Senior high school | 156 | 23.61 | |
| Graduate | 282 | 42.69 | |
| Postgraduate or above | 93 | 14.05 |
Reliability and validity tests
| Survey method | Cronbach’s α | KMO | Bartlett’s test of sphericity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approx. chi-square | Sig | ||||
| Online | 0.872 | 0.887 | 7749.456 | 351 | 0.000 |
| Offline | 0.869 | 0.844 | 2318.020 | 351 | 0.000 |
| Overall | 0.867 | 0.892 | 9881.706 | 351 | 0.000 |
Rotated component matrix of principal components
| Variables | Symbols | Principal components | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| Reward and punishment system | 0.195 | − 0.051 | 0.052 | − 0.105 | |
| Credit system | 0.285 | − 0.154 | 0.055 | − 0.107 | |
| Pay-as-you-throw policy | 0.272 | − 0.139 | 0.050 | − 0.117 | |
| Laws | 0.305 | − 0.181 | 0.049 | − 0.106 | |
| End-of-pipe treatment | 0.117 | − 0.005 | − 0.111 | 0.148 | |
| Transportation | 0.096 | 0.019 | − 0.092 | 0.127 | |
| Classification label | 0.081 | 0.009 | − 0.083 | 0.184 | |
| Attitude of others | − 0.207 | 0.332 | 0.016 | 0.034 | |
| Public pressure | − 0.133 | 0.282 | 0.067 | − 0.098 | |
| Personal costs | − 0.085 | 0.216 | 0.060 | − 0.046 | |
| Difficulty in separating waste | − 0.026 | 0.157 | − 0.043 | 0.040 | |
| Peer effects | − 0.044 | 0.186 | − 0.017 | 0.005 | |
| Disposal distance | − 0.023 | 0.170 | − 0.014 | 0.003 | |
| Renewable resource recycling points | 0.006 | 0.130 | − 0.025 | 0.056 | |
| Supervision effort | 0.046 | 0.078 | 0.055 | − 0.004 | |
| Classification awareness | − 0.053 | 0.048 | 0.305 | 0.073 | |
| Knowledge mastery | 0.003 | 0.023 | 0.445 | − 0.153 | |
| Degree of publicity | 0.050 | − 0.017 | 0.445 | − 0.173 | |
| Self-efficacy | − 0.047 | 0.003 | − 0.125 | 0.558 | |
| Environmental responsibility | − 0.037 | − 0.005 | − 0.003 | 0.464 | |
Results of binary logistic regression
| Variables | B | S.F | Wald | Sig | Exp (B) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | − 0.80 | 0.41 | 3.88 | 2.00 | 0.04** | 2.23 |
| Age | 0.84 | 0.28 | 9.12 | 4.00 | 0.00*** | 2.32 |
| Monthly income | 0.15 | 0.18 | 0.69 | 5.00 | 0.41 | 1.16 |
| Education level | 1.40 | 0.48 | 8.44 | 4.00 | 0.00*** | 4.12 |
| First principal component | 0.13 | 0.04 | 8.93 | 1.00 | 0.00*** | 0.88 |
| Second principal component | -0.27 | 0.07 | 14.92 | 1.00 | 0.00*** | 0.76 |
| Third principal component | 1.28 | 0.11 | 124.42 | 1.00 | 0.00*** | 3.59 |
| Forth principal component | 0.17 | 0.10 | 3.25 | 1.00 | 0.07* | 1.19 |
| 16.16 | 1.73 | 0.001 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.50 |
***, **, and * denote significance levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively
Binary logistic regression coefficient
| Variable type | Sub-variable | Coefficient ( |
|---|---|---|
| Basic personal information | Gender | − 0.800 |
| Age | 0.840 | |
| Monthly income | 0.150 | |
| Education level | 1.400 | |
| Attitude | Classification awareness | 0.383 |
| Self-efficacy | 0.072 | |
| Environmental responsibility | 0.072 | |
| Subjective norm | Attitude of others | − 0.090 |
| Public pressure | − 0.025 | |
| Peer effects | − 0.077 | |
| Perceived behavioral control | Personal costs | − 0.001 |
| Knowledge mastery | 0.538 | |
| Degree of publicity | 0.543 | |
| Difficulty in separating waste | − 0.094 | |
| Collaborative governance | Supervision effort | 0.055 |
| Infrastructure | Classification label | − 0.089 |
| Disposal distance | − 0.023 | |
| Renewable resource recycling points | − 0.057 | |
| Transportation | − 0.089 | |
| End-of-pipe treatment | − 0.100 | |
| Institutional pressure | Reward and punishment system | 0.087 |
| Credit system | 0.131 | |
| Pay-as-you-throw policy | 0.117 | |
| Laws | 0.134 |
Fig. 2Mechanism of residents’ waste classification behavior
Fig. 3Relationships between driving factors and residents’ WCB
Fig. 4The multi-agent linkage governance pattern