| Literature DB >> 36249570 |
Kaihan Cai1, Wenlei Zeng2, Qingbin Song2, Yangyang Liang1, Shaohong Peng3, Jiaqi Hu4, Jinhui Li5.
Abstract
With the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), the generation of a large amount of medical waste brought a rude shock to the existing solid waste management system. Since masks constitute the most common household medical waste under the COVID-19 pandemic, their effective collection and treatment can significantly reduce the potential risks for secondary transmission, and this concern has attracted worldwide attention. Taking Macau City as a case study, this research tried to identify factors that can influence residents' behavioral intentions toward the source separation of COVID-19 waste masks. The extended theory of planned behavior (TPB) model is used to examine the influence factors of the source separation behaviors of 510 respondents. The results show that the main factors that positively affected respondents' behavioral intentions toward waste-mask source separation are: cognitive attitude, convenience, and perceived behavioral control, and among these, cognitive attitude has the highest influence. Subjective norm is also proved to be the weak factor to improving behavioral intention. Policy advocacy, and demographic variables have no significant effect on behavioral intention. The results of this study can help decision makers and managers formulate effective strategies to increase residents' participation in the source separation of waste masks. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10163-022-01513-7. © Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2022, Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; Macau; Source separation; Theory of planned behavior (TPB); Waste masks
Year: 2022 PMID: 36249570 PMCID: PMC9540058 DOI: 10.1007/s10163-022-01513-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Mater Cycles Waste Manag ISSN: 1438-4957 Impact factor: 3.579
Fig. 1Extended TPB model framework for waste-mask source separation
Fig. 2Structure of our survey on waste masks
Descriptive statistical information for respondents (N = 510)
| Basic information | Group | Identifier | Population | Proportion (%) | Sample average | Macau | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | ||||||
| Age | < 18 | 15 | 34 | 6.67 | 36.31 | 13.34 | 40.27 |
| 18–30 | 25 | 164 | 32.16 | ||||
| 31–40 | 35 | 132 | 25.88 | ||||
| 41–50 | 45 | 100 | 19.61 | ||||
| 51–60 | 55 | 41 | 8.04 | ||||
| > 60 | 65 | 39 | 7.65 | ||||
| Gender | Male | 0 | 253 | 49.61 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.41 |
| Female | 1 | 257 | 50.39 | ||||
| Education | Primary school | 1 | 72 | 14.12 | 3.70 | 1.54 | 4.3 |
| Junior middle school | 2 | 56 | 10.98 | ||||
| Senior high school | 3 | 57 | 11.18 | ||||
| University | 4 | 136 | 26.67 | ||||
| Master | 5 | 146 | 28.63 | ||||
| Doctor | 6 | 43 | 8.43 | ||||
| Occupation | Medical staff | 1 | 63 | 12.35 | 0.12 | 0.33 | 0.008 |
| Ordinary residents | 0 | 447 | 87.65 | ||||
| Income | < 10,000 | 5000 | 74 | 14.51 | 25,372.55 | 12,725.70 | 20,000 |
| 10,000–20,000 | 15,000 | 101 | 19.80 | ||||
| 20,000–30,000 | 25,000 | 147 | 28.82 | ||||
| 30,000–40,000 | 35,000 | 108 | 21.18 | ||||
| > 40,000 | 45,000 | 80 | 15.69 | ||||
| Family size | 1 | 1 | 168 | 32.94 | 2.37 | 1.11 | 3.42 |
| 2 | 2 | 73 | 14.31 | ||||
| 3–4 | 3 | 182 | 35.69 | ||||
| > 5 | 4 | 87 | 17.06 | ||||
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
| Constructs | Indicator size | Cronbach’s alpha | Total Cronbach’s alpha | KMO | Bartlett | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive attitude | 4 | 0.805 | 0.877 | 0.858 | 4234.086 | 153 | 0.000 |
| Subjective norms | 2 | 0.877 | |||||
| Perceived behavioral control | 2 | 0.886 | |||||
| Convenience | 3 | 0.685 | |||||
| Policy advocacy | 3 | 0.705 | |||||
| Behavioral intention | 4 | 0.917 |
Reliability testing and convergent validity
| Constructs | Indicators | Initial analysis | Final analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | AVE | CR | Estimate | AVE | CR | |||
| Subjective norms | SN2 | 0.000*** | 0.898 | 0.7808 | 0.8769 | 0.901 | 0.7817 | 0.8775 |
| SN1 | 0.000*** | 0.869 | 0.867 | |||||
| Convenience | DC3 | 0.000*** | 0.658 | 0.4316 | 0.6915 | 0.669 | 0.4976 | 0.6639 |
| DC2 | 0.000*** | 0.75 | 0.74 | |||||
| DC1 | 0.000*** | 0.547 | – | |||||
| Perceived behavioral control | PBC2 | 0.000*** | 0.879 | 0.7958 | 0.8863 | 0.881 | 0.7958 | 0.8863 |
| PBC1 | 0.000*** | 0.905 | 0.903 | |||||
| Cognitive attitude | AT4 | 0.000*** | 0.671 | 0.5094 | 0.8056 | 0.673 | 0.5093 | 0.8056 |
| AT3 | 0.000*** | 0.723 | 0.722 | |||||
| AT2 | 0.000*** | 0.758 | 0.757 | |||||
| AT1 | 0.000*** | 0.7 | 0.7 | |||||
| Behavioral intention | BT4 | 0.000*** | 0.844 | 0.7376 | 0.9183 | 0.846 | 0.738 | 0.9184 |
| BT3 | 0.000*** | 0.882 | 0.882 | |||||
| BT2 | 0.000*** | 0.825 | 0.827 | |||||
| BT1 | 0.000*** | 0.883 | 0.88 | |||||
| Policy advocacy | PA3 | 0.000*** | 0.662 | 0.4437 | 0.7052 | – | – | – |
| PA2 | 0.000*** | 0.652 | ||||||
| PA1 | 0.000*** | 0.684 | ||||||
***P < 0.01
Correlations of discriminant validity
| Constructs | Cognitive attitude | Behavioral intention | Subjective norms | Perceived behavioral control | Convenience |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive attitude | (0.714) | ||||
| Behavioral intention | 0.503*** | (0.859) | |||
| Subjective norms | 0.167** | 0.519*** | (0.884) | ||
| Perceived behavioral control | 0.341*** | 0.696*** | 0.449*** | (0.892) | |
| Convenience | 0.241*** | 0.504*** | 0.373*** | 0.349*** | (0.705) |
**P < 0.05, ***P < 0.01
Evaluation results of the correction SEM model
| Project | Indicator | Criterion | Result (initial) | Judgment | Result (revised) | Judgment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute adaptation statistics | P | > 0.05 | 0 | No | 0.233 | Yes |
| RMR | < 0.5 | 0.112 | No | 0.050 | Yes | |
| AGFI | > 0.90 | 0.903 | Yes | 0.961 | Yes | |
| GFI | > 0.90 | 0.927 | Yes | 0.972 | Yes | |
| RMSEA | < 0.08 | 0.065 | Yes | 0.013 | Yes | |
| Value-added adaptation statistics | NFI | > 0.90 | 0.891 | No | 0.964 | Yes |
| NNFI | > 0.90 | 0.869 | No | 0.956 | Yes | |
| CFI | > 0.90 | 0.923 | Yes | 0.997 | Yes | |
| IFI | > 0.90 | 0.923 | Yes | 0.997 | Yes | |
| Simple adaptation statistics | PGFI | > 0.50 | 0.693 | Yes | 0.710 | Yes |
| PNFI | > 0.50 | 0.74 | Yes | 0.788 | Yes | |
| PCFI | > 0.50 | 0.766 | Yes | 0.814 | Yes | |
| CMIN/Df | < 3.00 | 3.129 | No | 1.09 | Yes |
Fig. 3Structural equation model of waste-mask source separation intention (SN subjective norms, PBC perceived behavioral control, CO convenience, CA: cognitive attitude, BI behavioral intention). A initial model; B revised model
Path result analysis of the structural equation model
| No. | Hypothesis | Standardized path coefficient | S.E. | C.R. value | Result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Cognitive attitude → behavioral intention | 0.659 | 0.091 | 7.270 | *** | √ |
| H2 | Subjective norms → behavioral intention | 0.133 | 0.043 | 3.074 | ** | √ |
| H3 | Perceived behavioral control → behavioral intention | 0.191 | 0.044 | 4.346 | *** | √ |
| H4 | Convenience → behavioral intention | 0.409 | 0.092 | 4.424 | *** | √ |
| H5 | Policy advocacy → behavioral intention | – | – | – | – | × |
| H6 | Demographic variables → behavioral intention | |||||
| Education → behavioral intention | 0.019 | 0.030 | 0.634 | 0.526 | × | |
| Occupation → behavioral intention | 0.355 | 0.141 | 2.519 | 0.012 | × | |
| Income → behavioral intention | 0.029 | 0.036 | 0.783 | 0.434 | × | |
| Gender → behavioral intention | 0.096 | 0.092 | − 1.047 | 0.295 | × | |
| Age → behavioral intention | – | – | – | – | × | |
**P<0.05, ***P< 0.01