Assessing the Community Perception in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, of Proper Waste Disposal: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

Abstract

This study explores the factors affecting proper garbage disposal in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Philippines, where approximately 49 tons of solid garbage are produced each day. This research was conducted using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to evaluate the variables affecting proper waste disposal in the community. The concept of this study follows the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which refers to the idea that human beings act rationally depending on their behavioral aspects. A total of 300 respondents from the community of San Jose were acquired through an online questionnaire. The findings revealed that environmental knowledge significantly influences environmental concerns while it affects personal values and environmental attitudes. Intention was affected by personal attitudes and convenience, which also had an impact on waste management behavior. The result of the study could aid government institutions and households in incorporating effective solid waste management practices within the community. It is crucial to implement proper waste disposal procedures, as inadequate municipal waste management can lead to detrimental impacts on the environment, human health, and urban living standards. The study highlights the importance of community participation in developing effective strategies and improving waste management behavior in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.

1. Introduction

Solid waste (SW) comprises wasted sludge, rubbish, refuse, and other solid items. It also comprises garbage from mining, agriculture, electronics, industry, municipalities, and home and commercial operations [1]. Solid waste management (SWM) is crucial in environmental issues or matters that have direct consequences for the environment, especially in air, water, soil, and public health. The global growth in trash generation complicates proper waste management activities [2].

Solid waste management (SWM) is critical in mitigating the effects of expanding urbanization on municipal and rural areas [3]. According to [4], it has become a serious environmental concern in emerging countries due to economic growth and increased consumerism, resulting in increased SW emissions. Most cities in low- and middle-income nations have been underperforming and could be performing better with adverse sustainability effects in urban growth and development.

The [5] report analyzing waste generation and recycling in countries within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that only 17 of the 38 countries incinerate more waste than in landfills. South Korea (400 kg of waste per person), Denmark (845 kg of waste per person), and Germany (630 kg of waste per person) are among the top countries that incinerate more waste.

Solid waste management is a significant issue in the Philippines, with trash production increasing steadily. According to the 2018 Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) report, the Philippines exhibited a daily generation of approximately 35,580 tons of garbage, corresponding to an annual output of about 14.66 million tons in 2014. Subsequent data from 2018 reveals an escalation to 16.6 million tons, positioning the Philippines as the third-largest annual solid waste generator among Southeast Asian countries [6].

According to [7], approximately 2.75 tons per day of solid waste is produced by businesses in the commercial sector produce around 2.75 tons of solid waste daily, with 0–60% biodegradable and recyclable, 19–20% recyclable, and 14–25% residual waste. On the other hand, the service sector produces a daily total of 70 kg of solid waste, containing 41% recyclable materials, 35% biodegradable matter, 23% residual waste, and a small amount of particular waste. Polyethylene (PET) bottles, assorted papers, tin cans, used magazines, and plastic cups are the most common recyclable materials, while diapers and napkins comprise most of the residual waste.

This study aims to determine the demographics of respondents to analyze factors affecting improper waste disposal in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. It will evaluate community perception regarding waste disposal and recommend solutions to prevent environmental effects and health risks associated with improper waste disposal. This study follows the Theory of Planned Behavior’s (TPB) concepts and variables to assess individual perceptions regarding the waste disposal system along the community area. The results will help society and the government improve waste disposal practices in the community.

Research studies that have already been conducted have primarily concentrated on solid waste disposal techniques currently in use and are still endorsed as worthy of further study. As per [8], there is a need for new waste management approaches to maximize resource recovery and prevent environmental damage. This study uses Structural Equation Modeling to analyze factors that influence community perception of waste disposal and determine the demographics of respondents. The suggested questionnaire design techniques and proposed improvements to solid waste management may be helpful to researchers and decision-makers.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Theoretical Framework and Variables

Figure 1 shows the theoretical framework for assessing the community’s perception of proper waste disposal. The researchers utilized the studies of [9], which incorporate the Theory of Planned Behavior (TBP), and [10], which states that policies and the role of the government are essential for proper waste disposal. Thus, these variables are Environmental Knowledge (EK), Environmental Concern (EC), Role of Government (RG), Policy and Regulation (PG), Personal Values (PV), Social Norms (SN), Environmental Attitudes (EA), Convenience (C), Intentions (I), and Waste Management Behavior (WMB) have been investigated in the current study. These factors were hypothesized to assess community perception in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.

2.2. Relationship between Variables

This section will discuss the study hypothesis and the relationship between variables.

H1. 

There is a significant relationship between Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Concern.

Individuals with greater environmental awareness were more likely to participate in pro-environmental actions, indicating a solid commitment to environmental protection and the value of education and understanding in altering people’s attitudes toward the environment and desire to act to protect it [11]. Environmental knowledge would indirectly increase pro-environmental behavior through environmental concern. Because interconnections are a central concept of environmental knowledge [12], acquiring environmental knowledge increases understanding of environmental issues, causes, and consequences, leading to a more excellent perception of nature and the human–nature relationship from an ecological perspective.

H2. 

There is a significant relationship between Environmental Knowledge and the Role of Government.

The municipal government implements the central government’s environmental regulatory standards, significantly impacting the country’s overall environmental regulation effectiveness. If the local government fails to enforce environmental legislation, it can lead to continued environmental degradation and events. Good environmental governance requires a high public awareness of environmental hazards, a realistic challenge to address. The local government must handle environmental regulations during implementation [13].

H3. 

There is a significant relationship between Environmental Knowledge and Policy and Regulation.

The experience of social movement organizations with regulatory institutions creates analysis, critique, and reform ideas. After that, movement organizations may re-enter the political process to put environmental proposals into policy. Thus, environmental knowledge engagement with policy-making institutions is a source of lived experience that informs reform proposals [14].

H4. 

There is a significant relationship between Environmental Concern and Personal Values.

Private forest owners prioritize environmental benefits when managing forests. Understanding the reasons behind this can aid in creating policies that support environmental forestry. Personality traits and personal values heavily influence NIPF forest owners’ environmental concerns. This knowledge can assist in planning customized treatments that support environmental factors in forest management [15].

H5. 

There is a significant relationship between Environmental Concerns and Social Norm.

According to [16], social norms affect the community and may influence the people or every individual in the community or its environment. Suppose the community or the environment has prioritized and focused on sustainability and environmental issues. In that case, the community will foster this behavior and may correlate with each other and engage in a sustainable environment.

H6. 

There is a significant relationship between Environmental Concern and Environmental Attitudes.

Heads of households with pro-environmental attitudes and anticipated health benefits from energy efficiency retrofits are more likely to foresee financial benefits and fewer disruptions. Environmental concerns also increase the chance of planning for numerous retrofit types. However, lack of knowledge is a significant obstacle for some economic groups. This study emphasizes the importance of understanding energy performance retrofit benefits and hidden costs [17].

H7. 

There is a significant relationship between the Role of Government into the Personal Values of individual citizens regarding Environmental Concerns.

Environmental concerns are a significant factor influencing citizens’ adoption of e-government services. Individuals with green lifestyles are motivated to adopt eco-friendly options. They may be more likely to use e-government services due to their environmentally conscious features, such as reduced paper usage. Such citizens are suggested to emphasize perceived usefulness, attitude, and trust more when considering e-government services than those with lower environmental concerns [18].

H8. 

There is a significant relationship between the Role of the Government and the Social Norms of the people.

According to [19], governments can influence social norms by manipulating factors influencing behavior, such as adjusting choice architecture. This can be carried out through advertising campaigns and public information dissemination. However, personal and social norms can still prevail, as seen in the example of littering in a park. Governments must ensure accountability, fairness, and transparency when establishing norms while still upholding the ideals of representative democracy.

H9. 

There is a significant relationship between the Role of Government in Environmental Attitudes and the behaviors of citizens.

Studies show that government quality positively affects public support for environmental measures and pro-environmental behaviors such as recycling. Research indicates that low corruption levels in governments are associated with higher levels of public support for environmental policy frameworks. However, few studies have examined the relationship between the quality of government and individuals’ daily pro-environmental behavior, as per findings of [20]. The importance of government institutions in encouraging pro-environmental measures and overcoming hurdles to collective action is also stressed by [21]. Their findings imply that bettering governmental performance can increase citizen engagement, which might increase environmental and climate initiatives.

H10. 

There is a significant relationship between the Policy and Regulation and Personal Values.

Encouraging employee compliance with workplace regulations and corporate standards is essential. Corporate policies can influence personal values, including ethical and environmental considerations. In contrast, government policies can align with or challenge these values, such as social justice, environmental sustainability, public health, and safety. Numerous theoretical studies in risk research have identified the critical elements of trust [22]. In other words, they have investigated the types of evaluations that either strengthen or weaken trust in risk regulatory or other institutions.

H11. 

There is a significant relationship between Policy and Regulation and Social Norms.

This embodies societal pressure, as well as rules and regulations. Wang et al.’s [23] study suggests that government regulations, formal organizations, and social pressure play crucial roles in promoting e-waste recycling in countries such as China and Vietnam. These factors help to encourage people to participate in recycling programs and increase their recycling intentions.

H12. 

There is a significant relationship between Policy and Regulation and Environmental Attitudes.

Regional and municipal authorities do play a significant part in environmental policies. For instance, many countries delegate the responsibility of setting energy efficiency benchmarks for construction and controlling land utilization to local governments rather than the central governing body. Due to these various factors, the decentralization process could impact individuals’ environmental attitudes and formulation of environmental policy strategies [24].

H13. 

There is a significant relationship between Personal Values and Convenience.

Contextual factors like convenience can impact the connection between individual norms and recycling behavior. Previous research has shown that rational and altruistic beliefs and attitudes influence individual waste management behavior. Understanding the environment might indirectly affect waste management by influencing environmental care, personal standards, and the perception of one’s ability to act. Additionally, the perception of behavioral control acted as an intermediary in the link between personal norms and waste management behavior [9].

H14. 

There is a significant relationship between Personal Values and Intentions.

Millennials in India have less inclination to purchase green personal care goods due to lifestyle and personality factors. It indicates that consumer qualities connected to sustainability and lifestyle have a slight but positive influence on purchasing intentions. The study makes the minor but significant claim that personal values and lifestyle qualities influence Indian customers’ desire to purchase or intentions of environmentally friendly products [25].

H15. 

There is a significant relationship between Social Norms and Convenience.

Social norms have a significant impact on human behavior, including recycling. People are more likely to recycle to gain social approval, but convenience is crucial in determining whether they will continue to recycle. Studies have shown that making recycling more convenient can increase the likelihood of continued engagement in recycling behavior, reinforcing social norms that support recycling [26].

H16. 

There is a significant relationship between Social Norms and Intentions.

Social norms can influence an individual’s intentions, but other factors, such as individual values, attitudes, and beliefs, can mediate this relationship. Social norms are unwritten expectations that govern behavior and can be enforced through social sanctions. The pressure to conform to social norms can influence intentions, but individuals may only sometimes think of the norms affecting their behavior. The relationship between social norms and intentions is a complex topic extensively studied in social psychology [27].

H17. 

There is a significant relationship between Environmental Attitudes and Convenience.

Environmental attitudes are characterized by [28] as psychological inclinations impacted by a person’s assessment of the natural world. The intention of a consumer to behave in the future is defined by [29] as behavioral intention. The convenience motive appears to favorably influence behavior, according to studies by [30].

H18. 

There is a significant relationship between Environmental Attitudes and Intentions.

Research shows that individuals with strong environmental attitudes are likelier to engage in environmentally friendly behaviors and support sustainability initiatives. This positive correlation between environmental attitudes and intention is complex and influenced by social norms, personal beliefs, and resource access [31].

H19. 

There is a significant relationship between Convenience and Intention.

Given that garbage cans are commonly prioritized in waste management research, their ease is frequently proposed as a reason for littering in specific locations [32]. Previous research has examined the factors influencing households’ intentions to sort waste. The view of infrastructure, facilities, and resources as convenient can boost the desire to engage in waste separation activities [33]. Studies have yet to look at how perceptions of the convenience of infrastructure affect home trash separation intentions estimates.

H20. 

There is a significant relationship between Convenience and Waste Management Behavior.

Previous research on waste recycling did not consider the impact of social interactions and perceived convenience on sorting behavior. A recent study found that the intensity of information did not affect residents’ waste sorting choices, but the proportion of those who separated waste decreased as perceived convenience decreased. Negative information was ineffective in the context of low perceived convenience [34].

H21. 

There is a significant relationship between Intentions and Waste Management Behavior.

In order to implement household waste separation (HWS), people must be conscious of, confident in, and in control of their abilities and capabilities. Perceived intentions have been shown in numerous studies to considerably increase a person’s ability to control their conduct [33]. It has been asserted that a person’s belief in their capacity to exercise self-control over a specific habit encourages engagement in that action and significantly impacts intentions [35].

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

This study utilized a descriptive correlational research design in which the researcher will send online questionnaires via link survey using Messenger and the researcher’s social media accounts. The validity and reliability of the data in question are known to be enhanced by an increase in sample size [10]. The sample size of the research study was determined using Slovin’s formula. Slovin’s formula allows researchers to accurately sample populations to the desired extent, ensuring a reasonable level of accuracy in results by determining the required sample size [36]. Upon calculations, 300 respondents were acquired as participants required to answer the 60-item questionnaire.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the respondents (N = 300).

Demographics	Category	N	%
Gender	Male	175	58.3%
	Female	125	41.7%
Age	18–29 years old	269	89.7%
	30–39 years old	24	8%
	40–39 years old	7	2.3%
Educational Background	High School Graduate	13	4.3%
	Senior High School Graduate	136	45.3%
	Technical/Vocational Graduate	18	6%
	Baccalaureate/College Graduate	58	19.3%
	Post-Baccalaureate Graduate	18	6%
	No Grade Completed	2	0.7%
	Special Education (undergraduate)	49	16.3%
	Special Education (graduate)	5	1.7%
Barangay	Ansiray	1	0.3%
	Bagong Sikat	25	8.3%
	Bangkal	2	0.7%
	Barangay 1	9	3%
	Barangay 2	9	3%
	Barangay 3	12	4%
	Barangay 4	10	3.3%
	Barangay 5	11	3.7%
	Barangay 6	9	3%
	Barangay 7	9	3%
	Barangay 8	17	5.7%
	Batasan	1	0.3%
	Bayotbot	9	3%
	Bubog	12	4%
	Buri	2	0.7%
	Camburay	6	2%
	Caminawit	21	7%
	Catayungan	1	0.3%
	Central	6	2%
	Iling Proper	1	0.3%
	La Curva	8	2.7%
	Labangan Iling	1	0.3%
	Labangan Poblacion	23	7.7%
	Mabini	10	3.3%
	Magbay	7	2.3%
	Mapaya	4	1.3%
	Monte Claro	5	1.7%
	Murtha	8	2.7%
	Naibuan	1	0.3%
	Pag-asa	28	9.3%
	Pawican	1	0.3%
	San Agustin	3	1%
	San Isidro	2	0.7%
	San Roque	26	8.7%
Monthly Income	Less than PHP 15,000	199	66.3%
	PHP 15,001–30,000	79	26.3%
	PHP 30,001–45,000	17	5.7%
	PHP 45,001–60,000	3	1%
	PHP 60,001–75,000	2	0.7%

shows the demographic profile of 300 respondents in San Jose municipality. Most respondents were aged 18–29, male (58.3%), and senior high school graduates (45.3%). The majority had a monthly income of less than PHP 15,000 (66.3%) and came from Pag-asa, San Roque, Bagong Sikat, Labangan Poblacion, Caminawit, and Barangay 8.

3.2. Questionnaires

This study’s questionnaire incorporated ideas from various studies focusing on the components of the Theory of Planned Behavior. The Theory of Planned Behavior remains valuable for social and behavioral research, as shown in various studies. These studies demonstrate that the theory is still evolving and being explored, with researchers investigating factors such as perceived behavioral control and other factors that affect human behavior [37]. The questionnaire was divided into three parts: the first part was the introduction, where the researcher gave insights to the respondents about the study; the second part was the demographics of the respondents; and, lastly, the questionnaire itself, where the ten latent variables were included namely: (1) Environmental Knowledge, (2) Environmental Concern, (3) Role of Government, (4) Policy and Regulation, (5) Personal Values, (6) Social Norms, (7) Environmental Attitudes, (8) Convenience, (9) Intention, (10) Waste Management Behavior. With a Likert Scale of 1–5, 5 is the highest remarks and 1 is the lowest remarks. The set of questions was used to assess and evaluate the perceptions of the selected San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, residents regarding proper waste disposal in the community (

Table 2. The construct and measurement items.

Construct	Items	Measures	Supporting Measures
Environmental Knowledge	EK1	How often do you separate your biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste	[38]
	EK2	How often do you reuse or recycle your waste materials	[38]
	EK3	How aware are you of the negative impacts of improper waste disposal on the environment	[39]
	EK4	How often do you participate in community programs or activities related to waste management and environmental protection	[38]
	EK5	How confident are you in your ability to properly dispose of hazardous waste materials	[39]
	EK6	How often do you educate yourself about waste management and environmental protection through various media platforms	[39]
Environmental Concerns	EC1	To what extent do you believe that improper waste disposal could harm the environment?	[40]
	EC2	How concerned are you about the health risks associated with improper waste disposal	[41]
	EC3	How much do you agree that individuals have a responsibility to properly dispose of their waste	[42]
	EC4	To what extent do you think businesses in your community should be held responsible for their waste disposal practices	[43]
	EC5	How concerned are you about the waste disposal practices in your community	[42]
	EC6	How much do you agree that waste disposal practices in your community need to be improved for the sake of future generations	[42]
Role of Government	RG1	To what extent do you agree that the government is responsible for ensuring proper waste disposal in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro	[44]
	RG2	How satisfied are you with the current waste disposal facilities and services provided by the government in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro	[45]
	RG3	To what extent do you think the government is doing enough to promote waste segregation and recycling in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro	[46]
	RG4	How often do you participate in government-led programs or activities related to waste disposal in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro	[47]
	RG5	To what extent do you think the government is prioritizing waste disposal in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, compared to other issues	[48]
	RG6	How confident are you in reporting illegal waste dumping activities to the government in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro	[49]
Policy and Regulation	PG1	The waste disposal policies and regulations in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, are prioritized and given enough attention by the local government	[50]
	PG2	The waste disposal policies and regulations in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, are fair and just for all individuals and establishments.	[51]
	PG3	The penalties imposed on individuals or establishments found violating waste disposal policies and regulations are enough to deter them from continuing their actions.	[52]
	PG4	The waste disposal facilities in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, are accessible and sufficient in accommodating the waste disposal needs of the community.	[53]
	PG5	The waste disposal regulations in San Jose Occidental, Mindoro, are well implemented by the local government.	[54]
	PG6	The waste disposal policies in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, are effective in keeping the environment clean.	[55]
Personal Values	PV1	To what extent do you prioritize proper waste segregation in your household	[56]
	PV2	How important is it for you to reduce the amount of waste you generate	[57]
	PV3	How much effort do you put into reducing, reusing, and recycling items in your daily life	[58]
	PV4	How likely are you to recommend proper waste management practices to your friends and family	[59]
	PV5	How confident are you in your ability to properly dispose of hazardous waste materials like batteries and electronics	[60]
	PV6	To what extent do you believe that waste management is a shared responsibility among individuals, government, and businesses	[61]
Social Norms	SN1	How often do you see others in your community properly disposing of their waste	[62]
	SN2	How often do you see litter on the streets or in public areas in your community	[62]
	SN3	How likely are you to report someone who is improperly disposing of waste to the local authorities	[63]
	SN4	How important do you think it is for the community to work together in keeping the environment clean and healthy	[63]
	SN5	How often do you participate in community clean-up drives	[63]
	SN6	How often do you encourage others to properly dispose of their waste	[62]
Environmental Attitudes	EA1	To what extent do you agree that protecting the environment is important for the well-being of future generations	[64]
	EA2	To what extent do you agree that individuals have a responsibility to protect the environment	[65]
	EA3	“I am willing to change my lifestyle to reduce my environmental impact.”	[65]
	EA4	“I am willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products.”	[66]
	EA5	“I feel a sense of responsibility to protect the environment.”	[67]
	EA6	“I believe that economic development should not come at the expense of the environment.”	[67]
Convenience	C1	How convenient is it for you to dispose of your household waste	[39]
	C2	How often do you encounter full waste disposal bins in your community	[39]
	C3	How convenient is it for you to separate your recyclable waste from non-recyclable waste	[39]
	C4	How satisfied are you with the cleanliness of your community in terms of waste disposal	[39]
	C5	How convenient is the waste collection service in your area	[68]
	C6	How often is the waste collection service available in your area	[69]
Intentions	I1	“I am willing to compost my organic waste.”	[70]
	I2	“I would be willing to participate in community clean-up drives and waste collection programs.”	[70]
	I3	“I am willing to pay for proper waste disposal services.”	[71]
	I4	“I am willing to reduce my consumption of single-use plastics.”	[71]
	I5	“I am willing to reuse and repurpose items instead of throwing them away.”	[70]
	I6	“I am willing to adopt sustainable waste management practices.”	[71]
Waste Management Behaviors	WMB1	I try to buy products with minimal packaging.	[72]
	WMB2	I donate or sell items that are still in good condition instead of throwing them away.	[72]
	WMB3	I try to repair or reuse items instead of buying new ones.	[73]
	WMB4	I support businesses that prioritize sustainability in their operations	[42]
	WMB5	I am willing to volunteer for waste management campaigns.	[73]
	WMB6	I am willing to attend waste management seminars or workshops.	[71]

).

3.3. Statistical Analysis: Structural Equation Modeling

In San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, the researchers used the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach to investigate various factors influencing how locals perceive effective garbage disposal. A related study claims that policy instruments have substantial direct and indirect effects on families’ intentions to segregate. The empirical analysis supports this claim using a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) methodology [74]. When the government implements targeted policies to encourage waste separation, it can boost people’s motivation to participate. This is due to both an inherent desire to do the right thing as well as external pressures to meet expectations. This intervention can ultimately increase individuals’ internal drive to recycle and reduce waste.

Data are collected from San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, to create a data set for analysis. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS AMOS software version 22 to ensure its quality and reliability. Hypothesis testing is conducted to identify significant associations between variables, and the SEM model is assessed for its goodness of fit. It helps identify factors influencing proper trash disposal practices and offers insights on sustainable waste management methods, leading to policy recommendations for San Jose, Occidental Mindoro (Figure 2).

In evaluating models, there are several fit indices to consider. The most commonly used ones include CMIN/DF, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), AGFI, GFI, and Root Mean Square Error (RMSEA).

Table 3. Model fit values.

Fit Indices	Acceptable Range	Reference
Minimum Discrepancy (CMIN/DF)	<3.00	Norberg et al., 2007 [75]; Li et al., 2013 [76]
Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI)	Approach 1	Algi & Abdul Rahman, 2014 [77]
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)	>0.70	Norberg et al., 2007 [75]; Chen et al., 2012 [78]
Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA)	≤0.08	Doloi et al., 2012 [79]
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI)	Approach 1	Algi & Abdul Rahman, 2014 [77]
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI)	>0.08	Jafari F et al., 2021 [80]
Incremental Fit Index (IFI)	>0.08	Lee et al., 2015 [81]

was created listing the Good Fit Values and Acceptable Fit Values of these fit indices. AGFI and GFI are based on residuals, and their values increase with larger sample sizes. AGFI ranges from 0 to 1, with values greater than 0.80 indicating a good fit. Similarly, GFI ranges from 0 to 1, with values above 0.80 considered acceptable. For RMSEA, a value of 0.08 or less suggests a good fit while a value between 0.05 and 0.08 indicates an adequate fit.

4. Results and Discussion

The current study examines the variables affecting proper waste disposal in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. It evaluates the factors affecting San Jose, Occidental Mindoro’s waste disposal optimization, guiding local government in developing effective strategies and community participation. In this study, SEM was utilized by the researchers to analyze the correlation between Environmental Knowledge (EK), Environmental Concern (EC), Environmental Attitudes (EA), Personal Values (PV), Convenience (CO), Intentions (IN), Waste Management Behavior (WMB), Role of Government (RG), Policy and Regulation (PG), and Social Norms (SN). A total of 300 data samples were acquired through an online questionnaire (

Table 4. Summary and results.

	Hypothesis	p-Value	Interpretation
H1	There is a significant relationship between Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Concern	0.007	Significant
H2	There is a significant relationship between Environmental Knowledge and the Role of Government	0.006	Significant
H3	There is a significant relationship between Environmental Knowledge and Policy and Regulation	0.002	Significant
H4	There is a significant relationship between Environmental Concern and Personal Values	0.001	Significant
H5	There is a significant relationship between Environmental Concern and Social Norms	0.139	Not Significant
H6	There is a significant relationship between Environmental Concern and Environmental Attitudes	0.014	Significant
H7	There is a significant relationship between the Role of Government and Personal Values	0.658	Not Significant
H8	There is a significant relationship between the Role of Government and Social Norms	0.328	Not Significant
H9	There is a significant relationship between the Role of Environmental Attitudes	0.771	Not Significant
H10	There is a significant relationship between Policy and Regulation and Personal Values	0.448	Not Significant
H11	There is a significant relationship between Policy and Regulation and Social Norms	0.190	Not Significant
H12	There is a significant relationship between Policy and Regulation and Environmental Attitudes	0.381	Not Significant
H13	There is a significant relationship between Personal Values and Convenience	0.722	Not Significant
H14	There is a significant relationship between Personal Values and Intentions	0.003	Significant
H15	There is a significant relationship between Social Norms and Convenience	0.003	Significant
H16	There is a significant relationship between Social Norms and Intentions	0.260	Not Significant
H17	There is a significant relationship between Environmental Attitudes and Convenience	0.008	Significant
H18	There is a significant relationship between Environmental Attitudes and Intentions	0.062	Not Significant
H19	There is a significant relationship between Convenience and Intentions	0.004	Significant
H20	There is a significant relationship between Convenience and Waste Management Behavior	0.223	Not Significant
H21	There is a significant relationship between Intentions and Waste Management Behavior	0.001	Significant

).

According to the results of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), shown in Figure 3, Environmental Knowledge (EK) has a significant and positive effect on EC (β: 0.724, p = 0.014). The study conducted by [82] examines how disclosing environmental knowledge can impact public concern for the environment. It operates through two channels: risk perception and understanding environmental pollution. Investigating these mechanisms can help us understand how public environmental concerns and risk perception are affected, and the findings have policy implications for combating pollution. Additionally, SEM also reveals that Environmental Concern directly affects Personal Values (PV) (β: 0.877, p = 0.011). Personal values and personality traits can help explain environmental concerns to minimize waste disposal and create a healthy environment. Understanding how trash affects the environment and people can improve everyone’s position in an economy or an environment that promotes environmental considerations in garbage disposal [15].

The results also show the direct effect of Environmental Concern (EC) on Environmental Attitudes (EA) (β: 0.913, p = 0.009). In addition to helping with global issues, such as the waste disposal problem, understanding environmental attitudes is essential for addressing many applied environmental concerns. Measuring environmental attitudes effectively can support community protection and the development of a sustainable community for all residents.

This study found that there is a significant correlation between Personal Values (PV) and Intentions (IN) (β: 0.630, p = 0.015). Personal values significantly affect people’s willingness to manage community solid waste. Intention is crucial in adopting solid waste management practices and encourages municipal door-to-door collection services, thus improving service utilization. The Structural Equation Model (SEM) also revealed that Environmental Attitudes (EA) have a direct impact on Convenience (CO) (β: 0.787, p = 0.006). To encourage proper waste disposal and sorting in households, engagement elements should be designed to address convenience-related factors that affect waste-sorting engagement. Previous studies have not identified specific factors that can motivate households to engage in better waste-sorting practices [83].

Regarding Convenience (CO), they have had a positive effect on Intentions (IN) (β: 0.358, p = 0.004). To improve household waste separation, it is essential to establish a set of characteristics for waste separation before addressing the convenience of community waste management. Addressing households’ lack of waste separation intentions is necessary to increase convenience in municipal solid waste management systems. Additionally, the SEM analysis revealed that Intentions (IN) were significantly related to Waste Management Behavior (WMB) (β: 0.857, p = 0.014). Households’ intention to separate solid waste was positively linked to improved waste management practices, leading to better municipal solid waste treatment. Attitude and perceived benefits significantly impact citizens’ intentions to separate household solid waste. Enabling conditions also influence household waste separation intentions and behaviors [84].

The interpretation of the hypothesis revealed that the rule of government connecting personal values (0.658) and environmental attitudes (0.771) is not directly significant because the correlation p-values are greater than 0.05. The lack of progress in policy and program sets raises concerns, and various factors, like harmful techniques and government roles, contribute to the complexity [85]. Also, the role of government is not significantly related to social norms (0.328) since the p-values are greater than 0.05. It is not the role of the government, but social norms that can affect people’s intention to dispose of waste in public open spaces. Our communities, friends, and family all impact how we manage our waste [86]. The results also show that the policy and regulations connecting personal values (0.448), social norms (0.190), and environmental attitudes (0.381) are not significantly related since the correlation p-values are greater than 0.05. Assessing household solid waste management requires considering factors such as family size, income, education, location, recycling habits, and municipal waste management, which are influenced by socioeconomic status and housing characteristics. However, policies and regulations related to environmental attitudes, social norms, and personal values do not directly impact these factors [87]. The environmental concerns about social norms (0.139) and environmental attitudes to intentions (0.062) are not significantly related because the p-value correlation is greater than 0.05. Research shows that a person’s behavior toward waste management is affected by logical and charitable attitudes and beliefs, such as personal norms and environmental concerns. Personal norms seek to preserve the natural world and indirectly influence waste management through environmental concern, perceived behavioral control, and environmental knowledge. As a result, personal norms greatly influence pro-environmental behavior [9].

Table 5. Descriptive statistics.

Variable	Item	Mean	StD	Factor Loading
				Initial	Final
Environmental Knowledge	EK1	3.7367	0.9364	0.553	0.592
	EK2	3.5433	0.9546	0.619	-
	EK3	4.1033	0.9742	0.531	0.837
	EK4	3.4833	0.9413	0.637	0.504
	EK5	3.8733	0.8831	0.617	0.661
	EK6	3.6633	0.8941	0.737	0.734
Environmental Concern	EC1	4.1933	0.9048	0.770	0.740
	EC2	4.1533	0.8239	0.817	0.772
	EC3	4.1600	0.8387	0.800	0.780
	EC4	4.0833	0.8902	0.761	0.730
	EC5	4.100	0.8675	0.798	0.743
	EC6	4.2233	0.8097	0.773	0.728
Role of Government	RG1	4.0867	0.8804	0.518	-
	RG2	3.5900	0.9081	0.725	-
	RG3	3.6500	0.8622	0.726	-
	RG4	3.5100	0.9865	0.672	-
	RG5	3.7467	0.8514	0.709	-
	RG6	3.6767	0.9174	0.742	-
Policy and Regulation	PG1	3.6600	0.9205	0.811	-
	PG2	3.7467	0.8235	0.700	-
	PG3	3.7300	0.8906	0.729	-
	PG4	3.7100	0.8416	0.698	-
	PG5	3.7367	0.8424	0.743	-
	PG6	3.8467	0.8977	0.733	-
Personal Values	PV1	3.9000	0.7780	0.686	0.689
	PV2	4.1800	0.7765	0.664	0.731
	PV3	3.9667	0.7795	0.662	0.618
	PV4	3.9433	0.8014	0.777	0.723
	PV5	3.9267	0.7637	0.699	0.658
	PV6	3.9933	0.8300	0.732	0.772
Social Norms	SN1	3.6067	0.8609	0.610	-
	SN2	3.8833	0.9377	0.510	-
	SN3	3.6367	0.8759	0.727	-
	SN4	4.1300	0.8537	0.464	-
	SN5	3.6067	0.8570	0.656	-
	SN6	3.8900	0.8682	0.666	-
Environmental Attitudes	EA1	4.0967	0.9000	0.783	0.776
	EA2	4.1200	0.8878	0.780	0.746
	EA3	4.0667	0.7944	0.754	0.700
	EA4	4.0767	0.7956	0.624	0.597
	EA5	4.1033	0.8174	0.796	0.753
	EA6	4.1600	0.8545	0.764	0.703
Convenience	CO1	4.0033	0.9199	0.740	0.833
	CO2	3.8533	0.8491	0.611	0.667
	CO3	3.9300	0.8469	0.710	0.764
	CO4	3.8000	0.9253	0.685	0.583
	CO5	3.8500	0.8775	0.705	0.569
	CO6	3.7100	0.9392	0.688	0.576
Intentions	IN1	3.9800	0.8053	0.795	0.775
	IN2	3.9733	0.8296	0.710	0.675
	IN3	3.8900	0.7874	0.677	0.636
	IN4	4.0767	0.7206	0.660	0.623
	IN5	4.0833	0.7472	0.686	0.672
	IN6	4.1167	0.7822	0.719	0.735
Waste Management Behavior	WMB1	3.8800	0.8803	0.782	0.821
	WMB2	3.9267	0.8816	0.707	0.688
	WMB3	4.0000	0.7802	0.682	0.652
	WMB4	4.0600	0.7382	0.657	0.676
	WMB5	3.9967	0.7383	0.678	0.647
	WMB6	4.0767	0.7568	0.659	0.620

presents the capabilities or the significance of the latent variables to one another. Among the ten latent variables, most of the variables showed significance to one another with factor loading not ranging lower than 0.5, namely Environmental Concern (EC), Personal Values (PV), Environmental Attitudes (EA), Convenience (C), Intentions (I), Waste Management Behavior (WMB), and, when it comes to Environmental Knowledge (EK), among the six items, one was cut off due to its insignificance with a final factor loading of below 0.5, and also the variable Role of the Government (RG), Policy and Regulations (PG), and Social Norms (SN) were cut off. Therefore, it ascertains that these three variables do not influence the waste management system in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. A factor loading of more than 0.5 shows excellent correlation among variables, and using this statistical tool, it is assessed whether given measures are relevant to the study [88].

Table 6. Construct validity model.

Factors	Number of Items	Cronbach’s α
Environmental Knowledge	5	0.779
Environmental Concern	6	0.909
Personal Values	6	0.849
Environmental Attitudes	6	0.882
Convenience	6	0.848
Intentions	6	0.861
Waste Management Behavior	6	0.851
Total		0.854

shows the reliability of the scales, i.e., Cronbach’s alpha, ranging from 0.779 to 0.909, of which ranges are in acceptable line according to the study in [89]. A high Cronbach’s alpha value (usually above 0.7) indicates that survey questions are reliable and measure the same construct. In contrast, a low score indicates that the questions are not consistent and may measure different constructs. In waste disposal research, a high Cronbach’s alpha value indicates effective measurement of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward waste management practices, providing insights into factors influencing waste disposal and informing policy development.

Table 7. Model fit.

Goodness-of-Fit Measures of SEM	Parameter Estimates	Minimum Cut-Off	Interpretation
Minimum Discrepancy (CMIN/DF)	2.227	<3.0	Acceptable
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)	0.878	>0.8	Acceptable
Incremental Fit Index (IFI)	0.879	>0.8	Acceptable
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI)	0.864	>0.8	Acceptable
Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI)	0.788	>0.8	Acceptable
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI)	0.751	>0.8	Acceptable
Root Mean Square Error (RMSEA)	0.064	<0.08	Acceptable

shows that the seven parameters, namely Minimum Discrepancy (CMIN/DF), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit index (AGFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) are all in fit according to Table 3.

The model fit is critical and can be gauged using parameters such as CMIN/DF, CFI, IFI, GFI, AGFI, TLI, and RMSE. A good fit ensures the model is not overfitting or underfitting and leads to accurate results. CMIN/DF measures the difference between the observed and predicted data, while CFI and IFI compare the model to the baseline and null models. GFI and AGFI measure how well the model fits the data, with AGFI accounting for the number of parameters. TLI is similar to CFI, but with a penalty for the number of parameters, and RMSE measures the difference between predicted and actual values. A good fit indicates a reliable model that can make accurate predictions and serve as a strong base for creating an effective waste management system.

Table 8. Direct, indirect, and total effects.

No.	Variable	Direct Effects	p-Value	Indirect Effects	p-Value	Total Effects	p-Value
1	EK–EC	0.724	0.014	-	-	0.724	0.014
2	EK–PV	-	-	0.613	0.014	0.613	0.014
3	EK–EA	-	-	0.832	0.012	0.832	0.012
4	EK–CO	-	-	0.718	0.007	0.718	0.007
5	EK–IN	-	-	0.654	0.021	0.654	0.021
6	EK–WM	-	-	0.650	0.020	0.650	0.020
7	EC–PV	0.877	0.011	-	-	0.877	0.011
8	EC–EA	0.913	0.009	-	-	0.913	0.009
9	EC–CO	-	-	0.820	0.008	0.820	0.008
10	EC–IN	-	-	0.747	0.009	0.747	0.009
11	EC–WM	-	-	0.743	0.007	0.743	0.007
12	PV–EA	-	-	-	-	-	-
13	PV–CO	-	-	-	-	-	-
14	PV–IN	0.630	0.015	-	-	0.630	0.015
15	PV–WMB	-	-	0.723	0.019	0.723	0.019
16	EA–CO	0.787	0.006	-	-	0.787	0.006
17	EA–IN	-	-	0.250	0.002	0.250	0.002
18	EA–WMB	-	-	0.248	0.005	0.248	0.005
19	CO–IN	0.358	0.004	-	-	0.358	0.004
20	CO–WMB	-	-	0.288	0.004	0.288	0.004
21	IN–WMB	0.857	0.014	-	-	0.857	0.014

shows the causal relationship of one variable to another. It indicates here whether the variables have a direct or indirect effect. Direct effects occur when a variable impacts the outcome variable while keeping others constant. Indirect effects happen when the variable influences the outcome variable through one or more intermediate variables. Total effects combine direct and indirect effects and provide a comprehensive understanding of the overall relationship between the variables. It indicates that all variables have a significant total effect, with a p-value less than 0.05. It implies that direct effects are statistically significant, and the intermediate correlates with the study.

5. Conclusions

Waste disposal sites are essential components of waste management strategies worldwide. Proper management is critical to preserving the environment and communities. As waste volume increases, disposal plan closures must consider socioeconomic factors to minimize negative impacts on nearby communities [90]. This study aimed to assess the perception of the San Jose, Occidental Mindoro community. This study can potentially direct San Jose toward appropriate waste disposal, and it may also direct the authorities to take proactive measures that promote community waste disposal.

Based on the results of the SEM, environmental knowledge directly affects environmental concerns. Also, the findings showed a significant relation between environmental concern, personal values, and environmental attitude. Meanwhile, personal values directly affect intentions and reveal the significant relationship between environmental attitudes and convenience. Regarding convenience, it also has a direct impact on intentions, while intentions have a direct effect on waste management behavior. On the other hand, the interpretation of the hypothesis revealed that the role of government in connecting personal values, social norms, and environmental attitudes have an insignificant relationship to each other. Also, the policies and regulations connecting to personal values, social norms, and environmental attitudes showed an insignificant relationship. Additionally, it reveals the indirect effect of environmental concern connecting to social norms and environmental attitudes to intentions. The researcher tends to examine the relation between the variable Role of Government and policy and regulation, even if they are insignificant to one another.

Even though the government should play a significant role in influencing the community’s perception of garbage disposal, the result showed that the government and its policies and regulations do not affect the community’s perception and behavior about proper waste disposal and segregation. Therefore, the Local Government Unit (LGU) of San Jose is recommended to have a municipal ordinance and reward programs for community initiation in compliance with national environmental regulations. The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (Republic Act 9003) [91], which mandates the nation for adequate and proper waste segregation, disposal, and recycling, strongly supports the national research and development programs initiated by the local community and government. Reward programs such as recycling programs and garbage exchange for prizes in Bacolod City, Philippines, are also good initiatives for the local community to begin segregating their waste correctly [92].

Drawing on the findings of this study, it is highlighted that the age group of 18–29 years old was the majority of the respondents, making them a good target for the Local Government of San Jose to promote waste management. This study suggests that the Local Government of San Jose could focus their waste management campaigns on younger adults, who are more likely to engage with and adopt sustainable behaviors. It could include targeted social media campaigns, community events, and educational programs to raise awareness about proper waste disposal methods. By targeting this age group, the government can encourage a culture of sustainability and environmental responsibility, resulting in far-reaching positive impacts on the entire community. Additionally, the study emphasizes the need for ongoing research and data collection to improve waste management strategies and ensure their continuous effectiveness.

Consequently, all waste disposal site closure procedures should sufficiently address the environmental, socioeconomic, and political aspects to ensure sustainability, just as important as ecological remediation and conservation are strategies for reducing adverse socioeconomic effects. In particular, any WDS closure activities and progression should include reducing the effects on the livelihoods of the informal stakeholders, as these livelihoods may be sustainably planned for, potentially eliminating the adverse effects. This study provides the community’s perception of waste disposal, gains knowledge of the potential impacts of waste disposal on the livelihoods of local communities, and examines strategies for sustaining livelihoods. This study can potentially guide authorities in San Jose to implement practical actions to promote sustainability for every livelihood in the community.

6. Limitation and Future Works

This study focuses on waste management in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. Among the 39 barangays, the researchers should have contacted the 5 barangays to gather information. Due to its limitations, the researchers only gathered a total number of 300 participants; regarding Structural Equation Modeling, the more participants the model had, the better it would be structured. With a total number of 300 participants, the result leads to the insignificance of some latent variables. Moreover, the age group can be generalized by obtaining a survey from an equally distributed age group to represent the result better. It could be improved by gathering several participants, more than 300. A more significant number of samples will make the results more reliable and accurate.

The current study signifies the Theory of Planned Behavior as an accurate guideline for studying participants’ perceptions and manners. This study will contribute to future research considering other factors that affect the community’s waste management behavior. Future research could be conducted to gather larger samples and investigate critical drivers in a particular area and group.