Understanding Household Waste Separation Behaviour: Testing the Roles of Moral, Past Experience, and Perceived Policy Effectiveness within the Theory of Planned Behaviour
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
1.2. Other Possible Influential Factors on Pro-Environmental Intention and Behaviour
2. Methods
2.1. Conceptual Framework and Research Hypothesis
2.2. Survey Area
2.3. Questionnaire Design
2.3.1. Independent Variables
2.3.2. Dependent Variables
2.3.3. Moderating Variables
2.4. Data Analysis Method
3. Sampling and Data Analysis
3.1. Descriptive Statistic
3.2. The Measurement Model
3.2.1. Construct Reliability and Validity
3.2.2. Discriminant Validity
3.3. The Structural Model
4. Discussion
4.1. Spearman’s Rho Correlation
4.2. Gender
4.3. Age
4.4. Income
4.5. Perceived Policy Effectiveness (PPE)
4.6. From Demographic Factors to Waste Separation Behaviour
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Survey Questions
Attitude
Gender; Age; Family income; Highest Education Level; Occupation Perceived Policy Effectiveness
|
Appendix B. Description of Each Machine Learning Model and the Original Prediction Results
Appendix B.1. Decision Trees Model
Predicted | 0 | 1 | Error | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Actual | ||||
0 | 0.00 | 0.24 | 1.00 | |
1 | 0.04 | 0.71 | 0.06 |
Appendix B.2. Adaptive Boosting Model
Predicted | 0 | 1 | Error | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Actual | ||||
0 | 0.00 | 0.24 | 1.00 | |
1 | 0.06 | 0.69 | 0.08 |
Appendix B.3. Random Forests Model
Predicted | 0 | 1 | Error | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Actual | ||||
0 | 0.03 | 0.21 | 0.87 | |
1 | 0.06 | 0.69 | 0.08 |
Appendix B.4. Linear Regression Model
Predicted | 0 | 1 | Error | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Actual | ||||
0 | 0.02 | 0.22 | 0.91 | |
1 | 0.01 | 0.74 | 0.01 |
Appendix B.5. Support Vector Machine (SVM) Model
Predicted | 0 | 1 | Error | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Actual | ||||
0 | 0.00 | 0.24 | 1 | |
1 | 0.00 | 0.76 | 0 |
Appendix B.6. Neural Network Model
Predicted | 0 | 1 | Error | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Actual | ||||
0 | 0.04 | 0.20 | 0.83 | |
1 | 0.06 | 0.69 | 0.08 |
References
- Pakpour, A.H.; Zeidi, I.M.; Emamjomeh, M.M.; Asefzadeh, S.; Pearson, H. Household waste behaviours among a community sample in Iran: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 980–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amir, M.; Karim, M.; Mourad, B.B.; Amar, T. Design and development of a low cost technique for sorting household wastes using eddy current separation process. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2016, 73, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nijhof, G.H. Aluminium separation out of household waste using the eddy current technique and re-use of the metal fraction. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1994, 10, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grazhdani, D. Assessing the variables affecting on the rate of solid waste generation and recycling: An empirical analysis in Prespa Park. Waste Manag. 2016, 48, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kirakozian, A. The determinants of household recycling: Social influence, public policies and environmental preferences. Appl. Econ. 2016, 48, 1481–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sidique, S.F.; Joshi, S.V.; Lupi, F. Factors influencing the rate of recycling: An analysis of minnesota counties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 242–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinan, T.M. Economic efficiency aspects of alternative policies for reducing waste disposal. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1993, 25, 242–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nzeadibe, T.C.; Anyadike, R.N.C. Social Participation in city governance and urban livelihoods: Constraints to the informal recycling economy in Aba, Nigeria. City Cult. Soc. 2012, 3, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheinberg, A.; Spies, S.; Simpson, M.H.; Mol, A.P.J. Assessing urban recycling in low- and middle-income countries: Building on modernised mixtures. Habitat Int. 2011, 35, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sternberg, C.A. From ‘Cartoneros’ to ‘Recolectores Urbanos’. The changing rhetoric and urban waste management policies in Neoliberal Buenos Aires. Geoforum 2013, 48, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babaei, A.A.; Alavi, N.; Goudarzi, G.; Teymouri, P.; Ahmadi, K.; Rafiee, M. Household recycling knowledge, attitudes and practices towards solid waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 102, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, P.Y.; Chiu, J.-F. Factors influencing household waste recycling behavior: Test of an integrated mode. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 33, 604–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioral intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoyos, D.; Mariel, P.; Fernandez-Macho, J. The influence of cultural identity on the wtp to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 2372–2381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pakpour, A.H.; Sniehotta, F.F. Perceived behavioural control and coping planning predict dental brushing behaviour among Iranian adolescents. J Clin. Periodontol. 2012, 39, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pakpour, A.H.; Zeidi, I.M.; Chatzisarantis, N.; Molsted, S.; Harrison, A.P.; Plotnikoff, R.C. Effects of action planning and coping planning within the theory of planned behaviour: A physical activity study of patients undergoing. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2011, 12, 609–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, P.W. The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feldman, J.M.; Lynch, J.G. Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 1988, 73, 421–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Yu, A. Key determinants of willingness to support policy measures on recycling: A case study in Hong Kong. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tonglet, M.; Phillips, P.S.; Bates, M.P. Determining the drivers for householder pro-environmental behaviour: Waste minimisation compared to recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 42, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K. Mass communication and pro-environmental behaviour: Waste recycling in Hong Kong. J. Environ. Manag. 1998, 52, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schutte, N.S.; Malouff, J.M.; Bobik, C.; Coston, T.D.; Greeson, C.; Jedlicka, C.; Rhodes, E.; Wendorf, G. Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 141, 523–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned Behavior1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 665–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sniehotta, F.F.; Scholz, U.; Schwarzer, R. Bridging the intention–behaviour gap: Planning, self-efficacy, and action control in the adoption and maintenance of physical exercise. Psychol. Health 2005, 20, 143–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stefan, V.; van Herpen, E.; Tudoran, A.A.; Lähteenmäki, L. Avoiding food waste by Romanian consumers: The importance of planning and shopping routines. Food Qual. Preference 2013, 28, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mondéjar-Jiménez, J.A.; Ferrari, G.; Secondi, L.; Principato, L. From the table to waste: An exploratory study on behaviour towards food waste of Spanish and Italian youths. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 138, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quested, T.E.; Marsh, E.; Stunell, D.; Parry, A.D. Spaghetti soup: the complex world of food waste behaviours. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 79, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.; Huang, G.; Yin, X.; Gong, Q. Residents’ waste separation behaviors at the source: Using SEM with the theory of planned behavior in Guangzhou, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2015, 12, 9475–9491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barr, S.; Gilg, A.W. A conceptual framework for understanding and analyzing attitudes towards environmental behaviour. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B 2007, 89, 361–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thøgersen, J.; Noblet, C. Does green consumerism increase the acceptance of wind power? Energy Policy 2012, 51, 854–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.N.; Lobo, A.; Nguyen, H.L.; Phan, T.T.H.; Cao, T.K. Determinants influencing conservation behaviour: Perceptions of Vietnamese consumers. J. Consum. Behav. 2016, 15, 560–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Z.; Chen, X.; Luo, J. Determining socio psychological drivers for rural household recycling behavior in developing countries: A case study from Wugan, Hunan, China. Environ. Behav. 2011, 43, 848–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, Y.; Nomura, H.; Takahashi, Y.; Yabe, M. Model of Chinese household kitchen waste separation behavior: A case study in Beijing city. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samdahl, D.M.; Robertson, R. Social determinants of environmental concern: Specification and test of the Model. Environ. Behav. 1989, 21, 57–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botetzagias, I.; Dima, A.F.; Malesios, C. Extending the theory of planned behavior in the context of recycling: The role of moral norms and of demographic predictors. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 95, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Yu, A. The moderating effect of perceived policy effectiveness on recycling intention. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 37, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Yu, A. The role of perceived effectiveness of policy measures in predicting recycling behaviour in Hong Kong. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 83, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karim Ghani, W.A.W.A.; Rusli, I.F.; Biak, D.R.A.; Idris, A. An application of the theory of planned behaviour to study the influencing factors of participation in source separation of food waste. Waste manag. 2013, 33, 1276–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nigbur, D.; Lyons, E.; Uzzell, D. Attitudes, norms, identity and environmental behaviour: Using an expanded theory of planned behaviour to predict participation in a kerbside recycling programme. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 49, 259–284. [Google Scholar]
- Valle, P.O.; Reis, E.; Menezes, J.; Rebelo, E. Behavioral determinants of household recycling participation: The Portuguese case. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 505–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaw, P.J. Nearest neighbour effects in kerbside household waste recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2008, 52, 775–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentler, P.M.; Speckart, G. Models of attitude-behavior relations. Psychol. Rev. 1979, 86, 452–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredricks, A.J.; Dossett, D.L. Attitude-behavior relations: A comparison of the Fishbein-Ajzen and the Bentler-Speckart Models. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 45, 501–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrus, G.; Passafaro, P.; Bonnes, M. Emotions, habits and rational choices in ecological behaviours: The case of recycling and use of public transportation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guagnano, G.A.; Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. Influences on attitude-behavior relationships. Environ. Behav. 1995, 27, 699–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez, O.; Guzmán, M.; Hans, J.; Mosler, A.; Tamas, R.; Tobias, T. Deriving interventions on the basis of factors influencing behavioral iintentions for waste recycling, Composting, and Reuse in Cuba. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 522–544. [Google Scholar]
- Pinsonneault, A.; Kraemer, K. Survey research methodology in management information systems: An assessment. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 1993, 10, 75–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kidder, L.H.; Fine, M. Qualitative and quantitative methods: when stories converge. New Direct. Evaluat. 1987, 1987, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Average Salary in Major Chinese Cities Is $900 and Growing. 2016. Available online: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2016-01/21/content_23183484.htm (accessed on 21 January 2017).
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, D.T.; Fiske, D.W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 1959, 56, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bem, D.J. Self-perception theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1972, 6, 1–62. [Google Scholar]
- Madden, T.J.; Ellen, P.S.; Ajzen, I. A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 18, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boldero, J. The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: The role of attitudes, intentions, and situational factors. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 25, 440–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbott, A.; Nandeibam, S.; O’Shea, L. Recycling: Social norms and warm-glow Revisited. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 90, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyborg, K.; Howarth, R.B.; Brekke, K.A. Green consumers and public policy: On socially contingent moral motivation. Resour. Energy Econ. 2006, 28, 351–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez, M.; López-Mosquera, N.; Lera-López, F. Improving pro-environmental behaviours in Spain. The role of attitudes and socio-demographic and political factors. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2016, 18, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Asensio, O.I.; Delmas, M.A. Nonprice incentives and energy conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 510–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Akil, A.M.; Foziah, J.; Ho, C.S. The effects of socio-economic influences on households recycling behaviour in Iskandar Malaysia. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 202, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czajkowski, M.; Hanley, N.; Nyborg, K. Social norms, morals and self-interest as determinants of pro-environment behaviours: The case of household recycling. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2017, 66, 647–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unler, A.; Murat, A. A discrete particle swarm optimization method for feature selection in binary classification problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 206, 528–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmeda, S.A.; Ali, M. Partnerships for solid waste management in developing countries: Linking theories to realities. Habitat Int. 2004, 28, 467–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baud, I.; Grafakos, S.; Hordijk, M.; Post, J. Quality of life and alliances in solid waste management: Contributions to urban sustainable development. Cities 2001, 18, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mbiba, B. Urban solid waste characteristics and household appetite for separation at source in Eastern and Southern Africa. Habitat Int. 2014, 43, 152–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nzeadibe, T.C. Solid waste reforms and informal recycling in Enugu urban area, Nigeria. Habitat Int. 2009, 33, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parrot, L.; Sotamenou, J.; Dia, B.K. Municipal solid waste management in Africa: Strategies and livelihoods in Yaoundé, Cameroon. Waste manag. 2009, 29, 986–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nguyen, T.T.P.; Zhu, D.; Le, N.P. Factors influencing waste separation intention of residential households in a developing country: Evidence from Hanoi, Vietnam. Habitat Int. 2015, 48, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quinlan, J.R. Induction of decision trees. Mach. Learn. 1986, 1, 81–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adomavicius, G.; Tuzhilin, A. Using data mining methods to build customer profiles. Computer 2001, 34, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Yao, X. Ensemble learning via negative correlation. Neural Netw. 1999, 12, 1399–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assaad, M.; Boné, R.; Cardot, H. A new boosting algorithm for improved time-series forecasting with recurrent neural networks. Inf. Fusion 2008, 9, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, R.; Zong, C.; Li, S. Ensemble of feature sets and classification algorithms for sentiment classification. Inf. Sci. 2011, 181, 1138–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, C.; Wang, Y.; Nguyen, H.N. Random forest classifier combined with feature selection for breast cancer diagnosis and prognostic. J. Biomed. Sci. Eng. 2013, 6, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Demographics | Number of People | % of The Total Samples |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 297 | 47.3 |
Female | 331 | 52.7 |
Age | ||
<20 | 2 | 0.3 |
20–30 | 165 | 26.3 |
31–40 | 244 | 38.9 |
41–50 | 99 | 15.8 |
51–60 | 62 | 9.9 |
>60 | 56 | 8.9 |
Education level | ||
No education | 4 | 0.6 |
Primary school | 26 | 4.1 |
Junior high school | 93 | 14.8 |
High school | 143 | 22.8 |
Junior college | 144 | 22.9 |
Undergraduate | 201 | 32.0 |
Graduate and above | 17 | 2.7 |
Occupation | ||
Government organizations, undertaking employment, army | 104 | 16.6 |
Company business | 287 | 45.7 |
Social group | 26 | 4.1 |
Self-employed | 73 | 11.6 |
Retirement | 72 | 11.5 |
Others | 66 | 10.5 |
Monthly household income after tax (CNY a) | ||
<5000 | 77 | 12.3 |
5000–10,000 | 208 | 33.1 |
10,001–15,000 | 167 | 26.6 |
15,001–20,000 | 94 | 15.0 |
20,001–25,000 | 43 | 6.8 |
>25,000 | 39 | 6.2 |
Attitude | Subjective Norm | Perceived Behavioural Control | Perceived Moral Obligation | Past Behaviour | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | 4.41 | 4.30 | 3.84 | 4.26 | 3.23 |
Standard Error | 0.023 | 0.023 | 0.022 | 0.025 | 0.036 |
Coefficient of Variation | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
Median | 4.5 | 4.18 | 3.92 | 4.33 | 3.5 |
Mode | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
Standard Deviation | 0.58 | 0.53 | 0.63 | 0.57 | 0.90 |
Skewness | −1.053 | −0.292 | −0.480 | −0.562 | −0.293 |
Minimum | 1 | 2.55 | 1.83 | 2.33 | 1 |
Maximum | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4.5 |
Count | 628 | 628 | 628 | 628 | 628 |
Constructs | Indicators | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s Alpha | AVE | CR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude (AT) | AT1 | 0.856 | 0.930 | 0.743 | 0.945 |
AT2 | 0.897 | ||||
AT3 | 0.877 | ||||
AT4 | 0.782 | ||||
AT5 | 0.876 | ||||
AT6 | 0.878 | ||||
Subjective norm (SB) | SB1a | 0.813 | 0.949 | 0.662 | 0.955 |
SB1b | 0.840 | ||||
SB2a | 0.811 | ||||
SB2b | 0.849 | ||||
SB3a | 0.768 | ||||
SB3b | 0.863 | ||||
SB4a | 0.756 | ||||
SB4b | 0.839 | ||||
SB5a | 0.805 | ||||
SB5b | 0.838 | ||||
SB6b | 0.755 | ||||
Perceived behavioural control (PBC) | PBC1a | 0.714 | 0.927 | 0.555 | 0.937 |
PBC1b | 0.761 | ||||
PBC2a | 0.691 | ||||
PBC2b | 0.754 | ||||
PBC3a | 0.689 | ||||
PBC3b | 0.693 | ||||
PBC4a | 0.797 | ||||
PBC4b | 0.744 | ||||
PBC5a | 0.793 | ||||
PBC5b | 0.755 | ||||
PBC6a | 0.735 | ||||
PBC6b | 0.799 | ||||
Perceived moral obligation (PMO) | PMO1 | 0.933 | 0.770 | 0.692 | 0.866 |
PMO2 | 0.928 | ||||
PMO3 | 0.585 | ||||
Past behaviour (PRB) | PRB1 | 0.933 | 0.858 | 0.876 | 0.934 |
PRB2 | 0.939 | ||||
Intention (AP) | AP1 | 0.923 | 0.832 | 0.856 | 0.922 |
AP2 | 0.928 | ||||
Behaviour (WR) | WR1 | 0.807 | 0.966 | 0.786 | 0.971 |
WR2 | 0.864 | ||||
WR3 | 0.850 | ||||
WR4 | 0.931 | ||||
WR5 | 0.936 | ||||
WR6 | 0.894 | ||||
WR7 | 0.923 | ||||
WR8 | 0.877 | ||||
WR9 | 0.889 |
Construct | Attitude | Behaviour | PBC | Intention | PMO | PRB | SB |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude | 0.862 | ||||||
Behaviour | 0.376 | 0.887 | |||||
PBC | 0.495 | 0.620 | 0.745 | ||||
Intention | 0.274 | 0.480 | 0.485 | 0.925 | |||
PMO | 0.807 | 0.439 | 0.563 | 0.369 | 0.832 | ||
PRB | 0.257 | 0.498 | 0.543 | 0.666 | 0.318 | 0.936 | |
SB | 0.778 | 0.460 | 0.628 | 0.405 | 0.778 | 0.346 | 0.813 |
Path/Hypothesis | Path Coefficients (β) | Result of Hypothesis Test | |
---|---|---|---|
Perceived moral obligations → Attitude | H1 | 0.807 *** | Accept |
Attitude → Intention | H2 | −0.086 | Reject |
Subjective norm → Intention | H3 | 0.226 *** | Accept |
Perceived behavioural control → Intention | H4 | 0.078 | Reject |
Perceived behavioural control → Behaviour | H5 | 0.473 *** | Accept |
Past behaviour → Intention | H6 | 0.567 *** | Accept |
Past behaviour → Behaviour | H7 | 0.135 ** | Accept |
Intention → Behaviour | H8 | 0.161 *** | Accept |
Spearman’s Rho | Attitude | SB a | PBC a | PMO a | PRB a | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | CC a | 0.062 | 0.088 * | 0.053 | 0.072 | −0.055 |
Sig. b | 0.119 | 0.028 | 0.187 | 0.070 | 0.166 | |
Age | CC | 0.010 | 0.054 | 0.165 ** | 0.038 | 0.148 ** |
Sig. | 0.796 | 0.177 | 0.000 | 0.346 | 0.000 | |
Income | CC | 0.157 ** | 0.124 ** | 0.069 | 0.150 ** | 0.032 |
Sig. | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.083 | 0.000 | 0.423 | |
PPE a | CC | 0.564 ** | 0.665 * | 0.650 ** | 0.620 ** | 0.381 ** |
Sig. | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Path/Hypothesis | Path Coefficients (β) | Significance | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Male | Female | |||
PMO → Attitude | H1 | 0.785 *** | 0.834 *** | Both |
Attitude → Intention | H2 | −0.137 | −0.051 | Both |
Subjective norm → Intention | H3 | 0.209 * | 0.226 ** | Both |
PBC → Intention | H4 | 0.166 * | 0.016 | Males |
PBC → Behaviour | H5 | 0.491 *** | 0.448 *** | Both |
Past behaviour → Intention | H6 | 0.552 *** | 0.588 *** | Both |
Past behaviour → Behaviour | H7 | 0.178 ** | 0.124 | Males |
Intention → Behaviour | H8 | 0.146* | 0.154 * | Both |
Path/Hypothesis | Path Coefficients (β) | Significance | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Young | Middle | Senior | |||
PMO → Attitude | H1 | 0.817 *** | 0.796 *** | 0.844 *** | All |
Attitude → Intention | H2 | −0.046 | −0.066 | −0.213 | All |
Subjective norm → Intention | H3 | 0.196 | 0.228 ** | 0.260 | Middle |
PBC → Intention | H4 | 0.194 * | 0.007 | 0.178 | Young |
PBC → Behaviour | H5 | 0.318 ** | 0.489 *** | 0.541 *** | All |
Past behaviour → Intention | H6 | 0.555 *** | 0.603 *** | 0.477 *** | All |
Past behaviour → Behaviour | H7 | 0.093 | 0.130 * | 0.133 | Middle |
Intention → Behaviour | H8 | 0.303** | 0.133* | 0.155 | Young and middle |
Path/Hypothesis | Path Coefficients (β) | Significance | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low Income | Middle Income | High Income | |||
PMO → Attitude | H1 | 0.783 *** | 0.810 *** | 0.828 *** | All |
Attitude → Intention | H2 | 0.027 | −0.194 ** | 0.133 | Middle income |
Subjective norm → Intention | H3 | 0.092 | 0.304 *** | 0.143 | Middle income |
PBC → Intention | H4 | 0.175 | 0.057 | 0.026 | All |
PBC → Behaviour | H5 | 0.491 *** | 0.492 *** | 0.447 ** | All |
Past behaviour → Intention | H6 | 0.585 *** | 0.563 *** | 0.595 *** | All |
Past behaviour → Behaviour | H7 | 0.016 | 0.174 ** | 0.119 | Middle income |
Intention → Behaviour | H8 | 0.363 *** | 0.163 ** | 0.065 | Low and middle income |
Path/Hypothesis | Path Coefficients (β) | Significance | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Low PPE | High PPE | |||
PMO → Attitude | H1 | 0.791 *** | 0.790 *** | Both |
Attitude → Intention | H2 | −0.108 | −0.088 | Both |
Subjective norm → Intention | H3 | 0.162 | 0.199 *** | High PPE |
PBC → Intention | H4 | 0.283 * | 0.020 | Low PPE |
PBC → Behaviour | H5 | −0.176 | 0.478 *** | High PPE |
Past behaviour → Intention | H6 | 0.507 *** | 0.573 *** | Both |
Past behaviour → Behaviour | H7 | −0.076 | 0.152 ** | High PPE |
Intention → Behaviour | H8 | 0.635 *** | 0.128 ** | Both |
Model | Accuracy of All Responses | Accuracy of Category “Behave” | Accuracy of Category “Not Behave” |
---|---|---|---|
Decision Tree | 71% | 94% | 0% |
Ada Boost | 69% | 92% | 0% |
Random Forest | 72% | 92% | 13% |
Support Vector Machine | 75% | 100% | 0% |
Linear | 76% | 99% | 9% |
Neural Net | 73% | 92% | 17% |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xu, L.; Ling, M.; Lu, Y.; Shen, M. Understanding Household Waste Separation Behaviour: Testing the Roles of Moral, Past Experience, and Perceived Policy Effectiveness within the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Sustainability 2017, 9, 625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040625
Xu L, Ling M, Lu Y, Shen M. Understanding Household Waste Separation Behaviour: Testing the Roles of Moral, Past Experience, and Perceived Policy Effectiveness within the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Sustainability. 2017; 9(4):625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040625
Chicago/Turabian StyleXu, Lin, Maoliang Ling, Yujie Lu, and Meng Shen. 2017. "Understanding Household Waste Separation Behaviour: Testing the Roles of Moral, Past Experience, and Perceived Policy Effectiveness within the Theory of Planned Behaviour" Sustainability 9, no. 4: 625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040625