Waste Separation Behaviour of College Students under a Mandatory Policy in China: A Case Study of Zhengzhou City
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Methodology
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Sample Description
4.2. College Students’ Waste Separation Behaviour under the Mandatory Measures
4.3. Influencing Factors of College Students’ Waste Separation Behaviour
4.3.1. Demographic Factors
4.3.2. Convenience of Waste Sorting Facilities
4.3.3. Willingness to Separate Waste
4.3.4. Knowledge in Waste Separation
4.3.5. Attitude towards Waste Separation
4.3.6. Subjective Norms
4.3.7. Reward and Penalty System
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- The United Nations Environment Programme and the International Solid Waste Association (UNEP), Global Waste Management Outlook. 2015. Available online: https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/global-waste-management-outlook (accessed on 2 October 2020).
- Turcott Cervantes, D.E.; Lopez Martinez, A.; Cuartas Hernandez, M.; Lobo Garcia de Cortazar, A. Using indicators as a tool to evaluate municipal solid waste management: A critical review. Waste Manag. 2018, 80, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (MHURD). China Urban Construction Statistical Yearbook. 2019. Available online: http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/xytj/tjzljsxytjgb/jstjnj/ (accessed on 28 August 2020).
- World Bank. GDP (current US$)—China. 2020. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=CN (accessed on 14 October 2020).
- Zhang, H.; Wen, Z.-G. Residents’ household solid waste (HSW) source separation activity: A case study of Suzhou, China. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6446–6466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhou, M.-H.; Shen, S.-L.; Xu, Y.-S.; Zhou, A.-N. New policy and implementation of municipal solid waste classification in Shanghai, China. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dai, X.; Han, Y.; Zhang, X.; Hu, W.; Huang, L.; Duan, W.; Li, S.; Liu, X.; Wang, Q. Comparison between students and residents on determinants of willingness to separate waste and waste separation behaviour in Zhengzhou, China. Waste Manag. Res. 2017, 35, 949–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joseph, K. Stakeholder participation for sustainable waste management. Habitat Int. 2006, 30, 863–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, D.J.; Meyer, J.W. University expansion and the knowledge society. Theory Soc. 2007, 36, 287–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vicente-Molina, M.A.; Fernández-Sáinz, A.; Izagirre-Olaizola, J. Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: Comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waas, T.; Verbruggen, A.; Wright, T. University research for sustainable development: Definition and characteristics explored. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 629–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hungerford, H.R.; Volk, T.L. Changing learner behavior through environmental education. J. Environ. Educ. 1990, 21, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oguz, D.; Çakci, I.; Kavas, S. Environmental awareness of university students in Ankara, Turkey. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 5, 2629–2636. [Google Scholar]
- Adomßent, M. Exploring universities’ transformative potential for sustainability-bound learning in changing landscapes of knowledge communication. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 49, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lozano, R.; Lukman, R.; Lozano, F.J.; Huisingh, D.; Lambrechts, W. Declarations for sustainability in higher education: Becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Liu, J.; Wen, Z.-G.; Chen, Y.-X. College students’ municipal solid waste source separation behavior and its influential factors: A case study in Beijing, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.; Hao, M.; Chen, S.; Morse, S. Solid waste characterization and recycling potential for a university campus in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kelly, T.C.; Mason, I.G.; Leiss, M.W.; Ganesh, S. University community responses to on-campus resource recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2006, 47, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshuwaikhat, H.M.; Abubakar, I. An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1777–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adeniran, A.E.; Nubi, A.T.; Adelopo, A.O. Solid waste generation and characterization in the University of Lagos for a sustainable waste management. Waste Manag. 2017, 67, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Pang, J.; Liu, H.; Zheng, Y.; Ma, H. Influence factors of domestic waste sorting collection in Hangzhou. Environ. Sanit. Eng. 2014, 22, 7–8. [Google Scholar]
- Han, M.; Yuan, F. Research on residents’ willingness to sort waste and its influencing factors: A case study in Yangzhou, China. Mod. Bus. Trade Ind. 2018, 39, 126–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, R. Regulation and orientation of classifying domestic waste under collaborative environmental governance. J. Cent. South Univ. Soc. Sci. 2018, 24, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, B.; Yang, W.; Shen, X. A comparison study of ‘motivation-intention-behavior’ model on household solid waste sorting in China and Singapore. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 442–454. [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. Public Health 2015, 12, 9475–9491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qu, Y.; Zhu, Q. The effect of situational factors on the relationship between behavior intention and behavior for source separation of household waste. Manag. Rev. 2010, 22, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.D.; Guagnano, G.; Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97. [Google Scholar]
- Thøgersen, J. How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles? J. Consum. Policy 2005, 28, 143–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, F.; Chen, H.; Wu, M.; Li, S.; Long, R. Research on the driving mechanism of waste separation behavior: Based on qualitative analysis of Chinese urban residents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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]
- Wang, R.; Sun, C.; Cheng, J.; Qi, R. Impact of ecological civilization education in universities on the students’waste classification behavior—Evidences from 152 universities in China. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2020, 34, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saphores, J.-D.M.; Ogunseitan, O.A.; Shapiro, A.A. Willingness to engage in a pro-environmental behavior: An analysis of e-waste recycling based on a national survey of U.S. households. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 60, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Echegaray, F.; Hansstein, F.V. Assessing the intention-behavior gap in electronic waste recycling: The case of Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mousavi, S.A.; Khashij, M.; Salmani, M. Knowledge, Attitude and practices concerning municipal solid waste recycling among the people in Gilangharb, Iran. Int. Res. J. Appl. Basic Sci. 2016, 10, 135–140. [Google Scholar]
- Matsumoto, S. Waste separation at home: Are Japanese municipal curbside recycling policies efficient? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 325–334. [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] [Green Version]
- Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tonglet, M.; Phillips, P.S.; Read, A.D. Using the theory of planned behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth, UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 41, 191–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lange, F.; Brückner, C.; Kröger, B.; Beller, J.; Eggert, F. Wasting ways: Perceived distance to the recycling facilities predicts pro-environmental behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 92, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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] [Green Version]
- Lehman, P.K.; Geller, E.S. Behavior analysis and environmental protection: Accomplishments and potential for more. Behav. Soc. Issues 2004, 13, 13–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abrahamse, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C.; Rothengatter, T. A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 273–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klöckner, C.A. How powerful are moral motivations in environmental protection? In Handbook of Moral Motivation: Theories, Models, Applications; Brill Sense: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 447–472. [Google Scholar]
- Schultz, P.W.; Nolan, J.M.; Cialdini, R.B.; Goldstein, N.J.; Griskevicius, V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 2007, 18, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chan, L.; Bishop, B. A moral basis for recycling: Extending the theory of planned behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 36, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liao, C.; Li, H. Environmental education, knowledge, and high school students’ intention toward separation of solid waste on campus. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bortoleto, A.P.; Kurisu, K.H. Model development for household waste prevention behaviour. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 2195–2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sidique, S.F.; Lupi, F.; Joshi, S.V. The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saphores, J.-D.M.; Nixon, H.; Ogunseitan, O.A.; Shapiro, A.A. Household willingness to recycle electronic waste: An application to California. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38, 183–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meneses, G.D.; Palacio, A.B. Recycling behavior: A multidimensional approach. Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 837–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meng, X. Analysis on residents’ behavior of domestic solid waste source separation based on structural equation. Resour. Sci. 2019, 41, 1111–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, X.; Cao, T.; He, D.; Bai, G. Research on the status situation and influencing factors of urban residents’ waste separation cognition, attitude and behaviour. China Collect. Econ. 2018, 33, 9–10. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I.; Driver, B.L. Prediction of leisure participation from behavioral, normative, and control beliefs: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Leis. Sci. 1991, 13, 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doll, J.; Ajzen, I. Accessibility and stability of predictors in the theory of planned behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 63, 754–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berglund, C. Burning in moral, drowning in rationality? Ethical considerations in forming environmental policy. Miner. Energy Raw Mater. Rep. 2005, 20, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dahlén, L.; Lagerkvist, A. Evaluation of recycling programmes in household waste collection systems. Waste Manag. Res. 2010, 28, 577–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Question | Sources |
---|---|---|
Waste separation behaviour | Do you participate in waste separation? | Wang et al. (2020) [31] |
Conditions of doing/not doing waste separation | Under what conditions would you do/not do waste separation? | - |
Reasons for not participating in waste separation | What are the reasons why you not do waste separation? | Zhang and Wen (2014) [5]; Zhang et al. (2017) [16] |
Convenience of facilities | I would do waste separation if there is a bin around and if there are clear signs on it. | - |
There are enough bins with clear classification signs on our campus and they are easy to reach. | Zhang et al. (2017) [16]; Liao and Li (2019) [48] | |
Reward and penalty system | Without any reward and penalty measures, would you do waste separation? | Zhang et al. (2015) [25] |
If you would be penalized for not separating your garbage, would you do waste separation? | - | |
If you would be rewarded for waste separating, would you do waste separation? | - | |
Attitude | Waste separation can improve our living environment and public health. | Bortoleto et al. (2012) [49]; Zhang et al. (2015) [25] |
Universities should act as role models in waste separation. | Zhang et al. (2017) [16] | |
Waste separation helps reduce our carbon footprints and is good for the environment. | Nguyen et al. (2015) [40] | |
Willingness | I want to separate waste at source. | Zhang et al. (2017) [16] |
I will walk some distance to put waste into the right bin. | Zhang and Wen (2014) [5]; Zhang et al. (2017) [16] | |
Even if I have a very tight schedule, I would still try to find a way to do garbage sorting. | - | |
Subjective norms | If people around me do waste separation, I would do it too. | - |
I feel guilty if I do not separate my waste or if I do not do it properly. | Nguyen et al. (2015) [40]; Zhang et al. (2017) [16] | |
Knowledge in related field | Are you familiar with the waste separation standards in Zhengzhou? | Zhang et al. (2017) [16] |
Disposable income | How much do you have for living expenses in a month? | - |
Question: Do you Participate in Waste Separation? | Frequency | Percentage (%, N = 1747) |
---|---|---|
Never | 232 | 13.3 |
Sometimes | 1204 | 68.9 |
Always | 311 | 17.8 |
Demographic Factors | Categories | Waste Separation Behaviour Top Figures: Observed (expected) Counts Bottom Figures: % within Column | Total | Chi-Square Tests Figures in Brackets: Degree of Freedom | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Never | Sometimes | Always | ||||
Gender | Male | 106 (99.1) 45.7 | 499 (514.1) 41.4 | 141 (132.8) 45.3 | 746 42.7 | Pearson Chi-Square: 2.507 (2) ns Likelihood Ratio: 2.500 (2) ns Linear-by-Linear Association: 0.012 (1) ns N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
Female | 126 (132.9) 54.3 | 705 (689.9) 58.6 | 170 (178.2) 54.7 | 1001 57.3 | ||
Programme | Undergraduate | 224 (223) 96.6 | 1158 (1157.1) 96.2 | 297 (298.9) 95.5 | 1679 96.1 | Pearson Chi-Square: 0.447 (2) ns Likelihood Ratio: 0.438 (2) ns Linear-by-Linear Association: 0.424 (1) ns N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
Postgraduate | 8 (9) 3.4 | 46 (46.9) 3.8 | 14 (12.1) 4.5 | 68 3.9 | ||
Subject area | Arts | 114 (102.9) 50.9 | 552 (545.9) 46.5 | 123 (140.2) 40.3 | 789 46.0 | Pearson Chi-Square: 6.212 (2) ** Likelihood Ratio: 6.236 (2) ** Linear-by-Linear Association: 6.103 (1) ** N of Valid Cases: 1717 |
Science | 110 (121.1) 49.1 | 636 (642.1) 53.5 | 182 (164.8) 59.7 | 928 54.0 | ||
Year of study (undergraduates only) | 1st year | 75 (71.0) 33.5 | 378 (360.2) 32.7 | 77 (91.0) 26.4 | 530 31.7 | Pearson Chi-Square: 14.173 (6) ** Likelihood Ratio: 15.217 (6) ** Linear-by-Linear Association: 6.736 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1672 |
2nd year | 65 (65.9) 29.0 | 344 (336.7) 29.8 | 83 (85.1) 28.4 | 492 29.4 | ||
3rd year | 71 (62.8) 31.7 | 304 (324.3) 26.3 | 94 (81.9) 32.2 | 469 28.1 | ||
4th year | 13 (24.2) 5.8 | 130 (134.8) 11.2 | 38 (34.1) 13.0 | 181 10.8 | ||
Disposable income | Within 600 Yuan | 11 (7.2) 4.9 | 30 (36.2) 2.7 | 12 (9.6) 4.1 | 53 3.2 | Pearson Chi-Square: 9.444 (6) ns Likelihood Ratio: 9.163 (6) ns Linear-by-Linear Association: 0.331 (1) ns N of Valid Cases: 1642 |
600–1000 Yuan | 78 (84.5) 35.0 | 446 (425.4) 39.7 | 98 (112.1) 33.1 | 622 37.9 | ||
1000–2000 Yuan | 118 (119) 52.9 | 590 (599.1) 52.5 | 168 (157.9) 56.8 | 876 53.3 | ||
Above 2000 Yuan | 16 (12.4) 7.2 | 57 (62.2) 5.1 | 18 (16.4) 6.0 | 91 5.6 |
Convenience of Facilities | Waste Separation Behaviour Top figures: Observed (expected) Counts Bottom Figures: % within Column | Total | Chi-square Tests Figures in Brackets: Degree of Freedom | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Never | Sometimes | Always | |||
Statement 1: I would do waste separation if there is a bin around and if there are clear signs on it | |||||
Agree | 191 (213.1) 82.3 | 1118 (1106.1) 92.9 | 296 (285.7) 95.2 | 1605 91.9 | Pearson Chi-Square: 48.595 (4) *** Likelihood Ratio: 36.186 (4) *** Linear-by-Linear Association: 32.229 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 Note: 1 cell (11.1%) have expected count less than 5. |
Disagree | 17 (4.8) 7.3 | 16 (24.8) 1.3 | 3 (6.4) 1.0 | 36 2.1 | |
Not sure | 24 (14.1) 10.4 | 70 (73.1) 5.8 | 12 (18.9) 3.8 | 106 6.0 | |
Statement 2: There are enough bins with clear classification signs on our campus and they are easy to reach | |||||
Agree | 110 (129.6) 47.4 | 677 (672.6) 56.2 | 189 (173.7) 60.8 | 976 55.9 | Pearson Chi-Square: 11.211 (4) ** Likelihood Ratio: 10.998 (4) ** Linear-by-Linear Association: 8.830 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
Disagree | 43 (32.0) 18.5 | 159 (166.1) 13.2 | 39 (42.9) 12.5 | 241 13.8 | |
Not sure | 79 (70.4) 34.1 | 368 (365.3) 30.6 | 83 (94.4) 26.7 | 530 30.3 |
Willingness | Waste Separation Behaviour Top Figures: Observed (expected) Counts Bottom Figures: % within Column | Total | Chi-Square Tests Figures in Brackets: Degree of Freedom | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Never | Sometimes | Always | |||
Statement 1: I want to separate waste at source | |||||
Agree | 177 (200.3) 76.3 | 1041 (1039.3) 86.4 | 290 (268.5) 93.3 | 1508 86.3 | Pearson Chi-Square: 34.697 (4) *** Likelihood Ratio: 33.796 (4) *** Linear-by-Linear Association: 29.281 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
Disagree | 15 (7.0) 6.5 | 32 (36.5) 2.7 | 6 (9.4) 1.9 | 53 3.0 | |
Not sure | 40 (24.7) 17.2 | 131 (128.2) 10.9 | 15 (33.1) 4.8 | 186 10.7 | |
Statement 2: I will walk some distance to put waste into the right bin | |||||
Agree | 142 (172.1) 61.2 | 898 (893.2) 74.6 | 256 (230.7) 82.3 | 1296 74.2 | Pearson Chi-Square: 47.126 (4) *** Likelihood Ratio: 41.028 (4) *** Linear-by-Linear Association: 36.179 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
Disagree | 33 (13.9) 14.2 | 60 (72.4) 5.0 | 12 (18.7) 3.9 | 105 6.0 | |
Not sure | 57 (45.9) 24.6 | 246 (238.5) 20.4 | 43 (61.6) 13.8 | 346 19.8 | |
Statement 3: Even if I have a very tight schedule, I would still try to find a way to do garbage sorting | |||||
Agree | 115 (147.9) 49.6 | 777 (767.7) 64.5 | 222 (198.3) 71.4 | 1114 63.8 | Pearson Chi-Square: 29.320 (4) *** Likelihood Ratio: 28.675 (4) *** Linear-by-Linear Association: 22.628 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
Disagree | 27 (17.4) 11.6 | 84 (90.3) 7.0 | 20 (23.3) 6.4 | 131 7.5 | |
Not sure | 90 (66.7) 38.8 | 343 (346.0) 28.5 | 69 (89.4) 22.2 | 502 28.7 |
Knowledge in Related Field | Waste Separation Behaviour Top Figures: Observed (expected) Counts Bottom Figures: % within Column | Total | Chi-Square Tests Figures in Brackets: Degree of Freedom | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Never | Sometimes | Always | |||
Question: Are you familiar with the waste separation standards in Zhengzhou? | |||||
Familiar | 9 (12.7) 3.8 | 56 (66.2) 4.7 | 31 (17.1) 10.0 | 96 5.5 | Pearson Chi-Square: 46.691 (4) *** Likelihood Ratio: 48.322 (4) *** Linear-by-Linear Association: 38.847 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
Unfamiliar | 202 (170.8) 87.1 | 889 (886.3) 73.8 | 195 (228.9) 62.7 | 1286 73.6 | |
Not sure | 21 (48.5) 9.1 | 259 (251.6) 21.5 | 85 (65.0) 27.3 | 365 20.9 |
Attitude | Waste Separation Behaviour Top Figures: Observed (expected) Counts Bottom Figures: % within Column | Total | Chi-Square Tests Figures in Brackets: Degree of Freedom | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Never | Sometimes | Always | |||
Statement 1: Waste separation can improve our living environment and public health | |||||
Agree | 200 (215.4) 86.2 | 1126 (1117.9) 93.5 | 296 (288.7) 95.2 | 1622 92.8 | Pearson Chi-Square: 25.294 (4) *** Likelihood Ratio: 20.155 (4) *** Fisher’s Exact Test: 20.680 *** Linear-by-Linear Association: 15.049 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 Note: 2 cells (22.2%) have expected count less than 5. |
Disagree | 11 (3.7) 4.7 | 13 (19.3) 1.1 | 4 (5.0) 1.3 | 28 1.6 | |
Not sure | 21 (12.9) 9.1 | 65 (66.9) 5.4 | 11 (17.3) 3.5 | 97 5.6 | |
Statement 2: Universities should act as role models in waste separation | |||||
Agree | 188 (208.9) 81.0 | 1092 (1084.1) 90.7 | 293 (280.0) 94.2 | 1573 90.0 | Pearson Chi-Square: 41.162 (4) *** Likelihood Ratio: 35.150 (4) *** Linear-by-Linear Association: 21.802 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
Disagree | 16 (5.3) 6.9 | 17 (27.6) 1.4 | 7 (7.1) 2.3 | 40 2.3 | |
Not sure | 28 (17.8) 12.1 | 95 (92.4) 7.9 | 11 (23.9) 3.5 | 134 7.7 | |
Statement 3: Waste separation helps reduce our carbon footprints and is good for the environment | |||||
Agree | 184 (195.5) 79.3 | 1024 (1014.5) 85.1 | 264 (262.0) 84.9 | 1472 84.3 | Pearson Chi-Square: 14.830 (4) *** Likelihood Ratio: 12.801 (4) *** Linear-by-Linear Association: 4.388 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
Disagree | 29 (15.8) 12.5 | 68 (82.0) 5.6 | 22 (21.2) 7.1 | 119 6.8 | |
Not sure | 19 (20.7) 8.2 | 112 (107.5) 9.3 | 25 (27.8) 8.0 | 156 8.9 |
Subjective Norms | Waste Separation Behaviour Top Figures: Observed (expected) Counts Bottom Figures: % within Column | Total | Chi-Square Tests Figures in Brackets: Degree of Freedom | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Never | Sometimes | Always | |||
Statement 1: If people around me do waste separation, I would do it too | |||||
Agree | 194 (204.1) 83.6 | 1058 (1059.3) 87.9 | 285 (273.6) 91.7 | 1537 88.0 | Pearson Chi-Square: 16.313 (4) *** Likelihood Ratio: 15.152 (4) *** Linear-by-Linear Association: 8.522 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
Disagree | 16 (7.8) 6.9 | 33 (40.7) 2.7 | 10 (10.5) 3.2 | 59 3.4 | |
Not sure | 22 (20.1) 9.5 | 113 (104.1) 9.4 | 16 (26.9) 5.1 | 151 8.6 | |
Statement 2: I feel guilty if I do not separate my waste or if I do not do it properly | |||||
Agree | 113 (151.4) 48.7 | 775 (785.7) 64.4 | 252 (202.9) 81.0 | 1140 65.3 | Pearson Chi-Square: 75.819 (4) *** Likelihood Ratio: 73.740 (4) *** Linear-by-Linear Association: 67.995 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
Disagree | 40 (18.5) 17.2 | 87 (95.8) 7.2 | 12 (24.7) 3.9 | 139 8.0 | |
Not sure | 79 (62.1) 34.1 | 342 (322.5) 28.4 | 47 (83.3) 15.1 | 468 26.7 |
Reward and Penalty System | Waste Separation Behaviour Top Figures: Observed (expected) Counts Bottom Figures: % within Column | Total | Chi-Square Tests Figures in Brackets: Degree of Freedom | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Never | Sometimes | Always | |||
Question 1: Without any reward and penalty measures, would you do waste separation? | |||||
Yes | 149 (184.3) 64.2 | 960 (956.6) 79.7 | 279 (247.1) 89.7 | 1388 79.5 | Pearson Chi-Square: 53.056 (2) *** Likelihood Ratio: 52.197 (2) *** Linear-by-Linear Association: 51.298 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
No | 83 (47.7) 35.8 | 244 (247.4) 20.3 | 32 (63.9) 10.3 | 359 20.5 | |
Question 2: If you would be penalized for not separating your garbage, would you do waste separation? | |||||
Yes | 212 (214.3) 91.4 | 1138 (1112.3) 94.5 | 264 (287.3) 84.9 | 1614 92.4 | Pearson Chi-Square: 32.980 (2) *** Likelihood Ratio: 28.629 (2) *** Linear-by-Linear Association: 11.601 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
No | 20 (17.7) 8.6 | 66 (91.7) 5.5 | 47 (23.7) 15.1 | 133 7.6 | |
Question 3: If you would be rewarded for separating your waste, would you do waste separation? | |||||
Yes | 203 (218.9) 87.5 | 1146 (1135.8) 95.2 | 299 (293.4) 96.1 | 1648 94.3 | Pearson Chi-Square: 23.792 (2) *** Likelihood Ratio: 19.194 (2) *** Linear-by-Linear Association: 15.986 (1) *** N of Valid Cases: 1747 |
No | 29 (13.1) 12.5 | 58 (68.2) 4.8 | 12 (17.6) 3.9 | 99 5.7 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 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
Hao, M.; Zhang, D.; Morse, S. Waste Separation Behaviour of College Students under a Mandatory Policy in China: A Case Study of Zhengzhou City. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8190. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218190
Hao M, Zhang D, Morse S. Waste Separation Behaviour of College Students under a Mandatory Policy in China: A Case Study of Zhengzhou City. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(21):8190. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218190
Chicago/Turabian StyleHao, Mengge, Dongyong Zhang, and Stephen Morse. 2020. "Waste Separation Behaviour of College Students under a Mandatory Policy in China: A Case Study of Zhengzhou City" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 21: 8190. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218190