Resources, Conservation & Recycling 140 (2019) 65–71

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Modeling home composting behavior toward sustainable municipal organic T

waste management at the source in developing countries
⁎
Le Thi Thanh Loana, Yoshifumi Takahashib, Hisako Nomurac, Mitsuyasu Yabeb,
a
Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi, Viet Nam
b
Laboratory of Environmental Economics, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 819-0395, Japan
c
Attached Promotive Center for International Education and Research of Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 819-0395, Japan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Home composting (HC) has become an increasingly important consideration in the framework of sustainable
Home composting municipal organic waste (MOW) management in developing countries. We develop, for the first time, two HC
Pro-environmental behavior behavior models, which include households’ decisions to participate in a HC scheme and the level of HC par-
Pro-environmental habit ticipation. By applying Logit and Ordered logit models, a survey of 202 respondents in rural areas of Hoi An,
Reusing plastic bags
Vietnam, indicates that households’ decisions to get involved in a HC scheme and the level of HC participation
Reducing wastefulness
are affected by motivational factors such as knowledge about HC, attitude toward it, and owning a garden. We
then explore the differences between the influencing factors for the two models. Interestingly, while partici-
pation in the HC training program influence the decision to participate in the HC scheme, the factor appears
unimportant in increasing the level of HC practice. In addition, once the HC participation decision has been
made, we find that pro-environmental behavior (such as habit of reusing plastic bags and reducing wastefulness)
could promote a higher level of HC practice. These findings could help policy makers in promoting HC behavior
to enhance a sustainable MOW management strategy at the household level.

1. Background of research
1.1. Introduction to home composting
Home composting, or backyard composting, includes biodegrada-
tion of municipal organic waste (MOW) (including food waste and
garden waste) as well as the use of compost in a private garden at
household scale (Colón et al., 2010). In terms of sustainable waste
management strategies, home composting is a productive option for
treating MOW at source, recognized for its many benefits such as re-
ducing pressure on landfills, minimizing garbage collection and trans-
portation costs (Tanaka, 1999, 2007), reducing loss of organic resources
derived from landfilling (Smith and Jasim, 2009), generating products
with intrinsic value by improving soil structure and fertility (Andersen
et al., 2012, 2011; Barrena et al., 2014; Colón et al., 2010), as well as
conducting fun experiments and enjoying an eco-friendly lifestyle
(J.D.G et al., 2013). Although home composting is not seen as a treat-
ment option for all MOW (Andersen et al., 2011), this methodology can
be considered the best waste management strategy at the household
level (Faverial and Sierra, 2014; Getahun et al., 2012). In other words,
home composting facilitates sustainable recycling for individual home
owners (Andersen et al., 2011). Many countries have been promoting
home composting; however, most of them are developed nations: the
UK (Edgerton et al., 2009), Spain (Colón et al., 2010), Sweden (Sterner
and Bartelings, 1999), Denmark (Andersen et al., 2012), Japan
(Tanaka, 2007, 1999; Ueta and Koizumi, 2001), and Germany (Ueta
and Koizumi, 2001). There is no doubt that home composting have not
become a focus in developing countries (Scheinberg and Zheng, 2010).
Hoi An, a Vietnamese city within a developing state with a popu-
lation of approximately 91,993 people, generated 68.97 tons of muni-
cipal solid waste (MSW) per day in 2012. The city’s landfill, measuring
only about 1.34 ha is poorly designed, uncontrolled, and overloaded
and will be closed in the near future. Remarkably, food waste and
garden waste account for 38% and 20%, respectively, of Hoi An’s total
MSW (Hoang et al., 2017). However, in rural areas, due to municipal
budget constraints, Hoi An authorities are able to collect only part of
the waste. Therefore, a part of MOW will be treated at the household
level, mostly through illegal burning as well as illegal dumping on the
street or other public spaces. Moreover, between August 2012 to July
2015, Hoi An adopted a MOW separation at source (MOW-SAS)

⁎
Corresponding author at: 744 Motooka Nishi-ku, Fukuoka, 819-0395, Japan.
E-mail addresses: lttloan@vnua.edu.vn (L.T.T. Loan), gibun@agr.kyushu-u.ac.jp (Y. Takahashi), hnomura@agr.kyushu-u.ac.jp (H. Nomura),
yabe@agr.kyushu-u.ac.jp (M. Yabe).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.08.016
Received 3 June 2018; Received in revised form 11 August 2018; Accepted 17 August 2018
0921-3449/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
L.T.T. Loan et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 140 (2019) 65–71

program in response to Vietnam’s National Strategy for Integrated Man- 2. Study design
agement of Solid Waste until 2025 and Vision towards 2050. This program
originally introduced MOW-SAS to the main four wards—the pilot 2.1. Survey area
areas—in the first stage (2012–2013), and it was rolled out to the rest of
the city (eight communes and one island commune) in the second stage Hoi An in Quang Nam province is located in central Vietnam. The
(2014–2015). It is worth mentioning that, in the second stage of the solid waste generated threatens this relatively small city, with organic
MOW-SAS program, Hoi An implemented a home composting program waste accounting for 58% of MSW (Hoang et al., 2017). Composting is a
in rural areas which included Cam Thanh and Cam Ha communes that great potential treatment of MOW. However, facing budget constraints,
aims to help local authority to achieve targets to divert MOW from the city is able to collect only a portion of MSW in rural areas and Hoi
landfill. The residents are guided to practice home composting by An’s local authorities have campaigned to encourage residents in rural
composted food waste and garden waste through some methods such as areas to treat MOW by themselves in order to divert it from landfills.
digging hole and burying MOW, composted MOW in a simple wire Between 2012 and 2015, Hoi An implemented a project of MOW se-
compost bins, or using plastic storage compost bins (Department of paration at source (MOW-SAS). During the first stage (2012–2013), this
Natural Resources and Environment of Hoi An city, 2015). program introduced MOW-SAS to the main four wards: Minh An, Cam
Pho, Son Phong, and Tan An, which represented the pilot areas. The rest
of the city (eight communes and one island commune) participated in
1.2. Research gaps in understanding home composting behavior
the second stage (2014–2015). During the second stage of the MOW-
SAS program, local authorities implemented a home composting pro-
Previous research has considered home composting behavior (also
gram in rural areas (Cam Thanh and Cam Ha communes) to help reduce
called home composting acceptance as well as home composting par-
the amount of disposable MOW (Department of Natural Resources and
ticipation) in order to determine what affects the behavior of composter
Environment of Hoi An city, 2015).
groups and non-composter groups. Some major factors that support
Data used in the analysis was collected through direct face-to-face
home composting acceptance were suggested: knowledge about home
interviews with self-reported questionnaires in August and September
composting (Edgerton et al., 2009), attitude toward home composting
2015 with a pre-test survey which was conducted in March 2015 for 15
(Edgerton et al., 2009; Tucker and Speirs, 2003), presence of a garden
households. We hire carefully trained enumerators who are local stu-
or yard (Bennagen et al., 2002; Sterner and Bartelings, 1999), total
dents of Hoi An city. Only one individual per household was targeted to
quantity of food waste generated (Bennagen et al., 2002), and time
complete a survey. Finally, two hundred and four respondents were
spent on home composting (Bennagen et al., 2002; Edgerton et al.,
randomly selected from the lists of households in Cam Thanh com-
2009; Sterner and Bartelings, 1999).
munes (105 persons) and Cam Ha communes (97 persons), rural areas
Moreover, the willingness of residents to participate in the com-
communities of Hoi An where the home composting scheme has been
posting program was previously measured in terms of composting be-
introduced. Among them, 2 people did not fill in the questionnaires
havior categories. Sussman et al. (2013) investigated the level of cor-
completely. Thus, the remaining 202 questionnaires were coded for
rectly putting food waste into compost bins by cafeteria patrons. There
analysis.
were several types of composters, for example, non-composters (in-
Accordingly, participants in the survey were broadly demo-
dividuals did not dispose of any of compostable waste in the compost
graphically representative of the population sampled in term of
bin); partial composters (individuals appropriately composted some,
household size (no significant difference among groups) (Table 1).
but not all, compostable waste); and ideal composters (individuals
Household size is a very important indicator for household’s demo-
perfectly composted everything they could). Using this measurement
graphic because it indicates the amount of waste generated. Normally,
was very important in order to reduce composting mistakes. However,
more people in the house will generate more waste. There is a bias in
it relied on the field experimental study which is extremely costly and
the sample towards female (74%) (higher than of 50.49% in Cam Thanh
difficulty for household survey. While, Taylor and Todd (1995), Taylor
commune and of 52% in Cam Ha commune). This bias can be explained
(1997) and Karkanias et al. (2016) recorded home composting behavior
because the targeted interviewee was the person in charge of waste
in terms of the frequency of home composting participation, such as
management in their house which is similar with previous researches
minimal, moderate, and frequent. Increasing the frequency of home
such as Tonglet et al., (2004a,b).
composting participation plays an important role in reducing unsuitable
MOW treatment at source, including burning MOW as well as illegal
dumping. Generally speaking, practicing home composting frequently 2.2. Measures
should be recommended by municipalities to avoid environmental
pollution. However, Karkanias et al. (2016) did not investigate the 2.2.1. Home composting participation and the level of home composting
factors driving frequency of home composting behavior, as well as participation
Taylor and Todd (1995) and Taylor (1997) models were not able to Home composting participation is constructed in dichotomous form,
show whether determinants of home composting acceptance difference on whether they participate in home composting scheme or not (par-
from the determinant of the home composting practice frequently. In ticipation = 1, 0 = otherwise) and the level of home composting
other words, the distinction between home composting acceptance and
the level of home composting participation is needed to answer in order Table 1
to fill the research gaps. Representative socio-demographic characteristics of samples.
Characteristics Unit Sample Cam Thanh Cam Ha Hoi An
of survey communea communea citya
1.3. Purpose and expected results of this study
Population Persons 202 7,860 7,455 93,060
To this end, we carry out an empirical study to fill research gaps in Households Households 202 1,984 1,755 22,261
understanding home composting behavior. We develop and analyze the Sample Persons 202 105 97 202
Household sizeb Persons 4.46 3.96 4.24 4.18
determinants of two models of home composting behavior that include
Female % 74.00 50.49 52.00 51.53
home composting participation decision and the frequency of home
composting participation. Understanding home composting behavior is Note: a Data of 2013 Census; b In term of household size, there are no significant
key to achieving sustainable waste management at source in rural difference among the present study’ sample and the two survey areas (Cam
households in developing countries. Thanh and Cam Ha commune) at the significance level of 1%.

66
L.T.T. Loan et al.
participation or frequency of home composting participation is in-
vestigated using 3 scales: 1 = minimal (residents practice home com-
posting rarely such as 1 time per week or less), 2 = moderate (residents
practice home composting moderately around 3 times per week),
3 = frequent (residents practice home composting more than 5 times per
week).
2.2.2. Motivational factors
2.2.2.1. Knowledge. Knowledge about home composting is investigated
using the percentage home composting knowledge scores. First, home
composting knowledge (Andersen et al., 2012, 2011; Bertoldi et al.,
2015; Edgerton et al., 2009) consists of 12 questions about definition
((1) compost is a product of decaying organic matter; (2) people can make
compost from food waste and garden waste), process ((3) the smaller the
amount of biodegradable waste, the faster the compost will be ready to use;
(4) you can avoid odors, flies or gnats by having nearby a small pail of
finished compost, peat moss, sawdust, rock dust, leaf mulch or humus; (5)
you can dig holes, bury biodegradable waste, and plant trees/ vegetables on
the land; (6) do not place the compost bin or dig holes near a well or on a
slope that drains in surface waters, such as streams or ponds; (7) compost is
ready when it is a dark, rich color, crumbles easily, and you cannot pick out
any of the original ingredients; (8) when you have finalized your compost,
you can add it to the soil at any time without fear of burying plants or
polluting water), and benefit of home composting ((9) use compost as soil
amendment by increasing organic matter in the soil; (10) compost feeds
earthworms and other microbial life in the soil; (11) compost provides
nutrients for plants, and (12) compost helps organic farming, providing safe
food), designed to solicit a True/False/Unknown response. Correct
answers were scored 1, while incorrect and unknown responses were
scored 0. The total score for each respondent ranged from 0 to 12, with
higher scores indicating more knowledge about home composting.
Finally, percentage scores are calculated by dividing the respondents’
scores with the possible maximum score (12) and multiplying them by
100.
2.2.2.2. Attitude. Attitude towards home composting is recognized
using a set of 4 questions in five-level Likert scale format
(1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Participants responded to
the following question: (1) home composting is good for the environment;
(2) home composting should be further promoted; (3) home composting is a
good activity; and (4) I have a good attitude towards home composting. The
factor score is investigated through factor analysis. Cronbach's alpha is
used to measure the internal consistency of a group’s items. In the
present study, the reliability level for attitude toward home composting
is 0.87 which indicates the measure of this variable achieved acceptable
reliability (Kline, 2011).
2.2.2.3. Presence of a garden. The presence of a garden is investigated
as a dummy variable. The residents indicated whether they have garden
or not (yes = 1, 0 = otherwise).
2.2.2.4. Compost training. Participation in compost training is
investigated as a dummy variable. The residents are characterized by
their participation in the home composting training (yes = 1,
0 = otherwise).
2.2.3. Pro-environmental behavior factor
2.2.3.1. Reusing plastic bags. Reusing plastic bags behavior is designed
at dummy form. The residents are marked depending on their habit to
reuse plastic bags or not (yes = 1, 0 = otherwise).
2.2.3.2. Reducing wastefulness. Residents answered whether they have
a habit to reduce food waste through feeding their animals or giving it
for free to neighbors or collectors (yes = 1, 0 = otherwise).
67
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 140 (2019) 65–71
2.3. Data analysis method
In analyzing determinants of participation decision (whether or not
to adopt a new technology), the Logit model is widely applied because
the dependent variable is in the form of discrete data (Train, 2009). The
probability that resident i practices home composting can be written as
follows.
Pi = exp (β′x i )/(1 + exp (β′x i )) (1)
Where: x i is a vector of variables and β is a vector of parameters.
The odds ratio, which defines the probability of practicing home
composting relative to non-practicing home composting, is given as:
[Pi/(1 − Pi )] = exp (β′x i ) (2)
Hence, the Logit model can be written as follows.
ln [Pi/(1 − Pi )] = β′x i (3)
In addition, the present study looks at the level of home composting
practice (three levels: minimal, moderate, and frequent) expressed as
ordinal data. The most well-known method for investigating an ordinal
outcome variable is an Ordinal regression model like the Ordered logit
or the Ordered probit (Greene, 2003; Long and Freess, 2001). Con-
sidering that both models yield similar outcomes, we applied the Or-
dered logit model to determinants of home composting participation
level. According to Long and Freess (2001), the Ordinal regression
model is commonly presented as a latent variable model. Defining yi* as
a latent variable ranging from −∞ to + ∞, the structural model is:
yi* = β′x i + εi (4)
Where x i is vector of exploratory variables; β is the vector of para-
meters; and εi is random error.
The measurement model for binary outcomes is expanded to divide
yi* into J ordinal categories:
yi = m if τm − 1 ≤ yi* < τm for m = 1 to J (5)
Where the cutpoints τ1 through τJ − 1 are estimated. In the present study,
possible responses of home composting participation are: 1 = minimal,
2 = moderate, and 3 = frequent. The observed response categories are
tied to the latent variable by the measurement model:
*
⎧ 1 ⇒ minimal if −∞ ≤ yi < τ1
⎪
yi = 2 ⇒ moderate if τ1 ≤ yi* < τ2
⎨
⎪ 3 ⇒ frequent if τ2 ≤ yi* < + ∞ (6)
⎩
Thus, the probability of observing each of the values of yi can be
expressed as:
Pr(yi = m x ) = Pr(τm − 1 ≤ yi* < τm x ) (7)
Substituting (4)–(7) and using some algebra leads to the standard
formula for the predicted probability in the Ordered logit model we
have:
Pr(y = m x ) = F (τm − β′x i ) − F (τm − 1 − β′x i ) (8)
Where εi is assumed with logistic distribution and F is the cumulative
distribution of εi . Note that for yi = 1, the second term on the right of
formula (8) drops out since F (− ∞ − β′x i ) = 0 and for yi = 3, the first
term in formula (8) equals F (+ ∞ − β′x i ) = 1.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistics of demographic variables
To determine whether specific sub-groups within the sample hold
significantly different views about home composting behavior, t-test,
Pearson- chi square and one-way ANOVA are used. The sample mean
for home composting participation and the level of home composting
L.T.T. Loan et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 140 (2019) 65–71

Table 2
Descritive statistics of demographic variables.
Source: Authors’ calculation.
Variable Unit All Home composting participation Level of home composting participation (n = 107)
(n = 202) (n = 202)

Yes No Sig.b Minimal Moderate Frequent Sigc

(n = 107) (n = 95) (n = 13) (n =73) (n =21)

Female dummy 0.74 0.73 0.75 0.09 0.69 0.71 0.81 0.43
(0.44) (0.44) (0.43) (0.46) (0.45) (0.39)
Age years 47.61 48.76 46.32 −1.42 *
50.62 48.56 48.29 0.18
(12.20) (11.82) (12.42) (12.80) (11.39) (12.55)
Edu years 6.74 7.32 6.09 −2.35** 7.15 7.59 6.48 0.77
(3.74) (3.64) (3.72) (3.18) (3.80) (3.19)
Household size persons 4.46 4.61 4.28 −1.53* 4.46 4.66 4.52 0.12
(1.50) (1.56) (1.40) (0.63) (1.67) (1.59)
Income millionVND a
6.23 6.59 5.68 −2.02 **
5.02 6.84 6.71 1.26
(3.41) (3.81) (2.26) (1.98) (4.01) (3.73)
Number of young children persons 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.05 0.92 1.03 0.81 0.41
(0.94) (0.98) (0.89) (0.83) (1.05) (0.79)

Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.

a
1 USD = 22,000 VND.
b
Significance difference between characteristics of composter and non-composter group in term of t value (for continuous variables: Age, Education level, Household
size, Income, and Number of young children less than 15 years old in the family); Pearson – chi square value (for dummy variables: Female).
c
Significance difference among characteristics of minimal, moderate, and frequent home composting participation groups in term of F value.
** p < 0.05.
* p < 0.1.

participation are compared by the demographic variables of female, composting.

age, education, household size, income, and number of children under
15 years old in the household (Table 2).
3.3. Determinants of home composting behavior
Accordingly, there are no difference in term of demographic vari-
ables such as female and number of young children in the family be-
Factors influencing the two models of home composting behavior
tween home composting participation decision as well as among the
are estimated using Logit regression analysis and Ordered logit model,
level of home composting participation decision groups. While, age,
respectively. The present study has investigated various demographic
education level, household size, and income can differentiate home
variables such as female, age, education, household size, income, and
composting participation group at 10% level (Age, Household size) and
number of young children under 15 years old in the family in the re-
5% level (Edu, Income); they could not differentiate significant differ-
gression models. However, demographic variables could not differ-
ence among the level of home composting participation decisions’
entiate the difference among home composting behavior groups.
groups.
Therefore, Table 5 only shows the results from investigating motiva-
tional and pro-environmental behavior factors in the two regression
3.2. Descriptive statistics of motivational and pro-environmental behavior models.
variables
3.3.1. Determinants of home composting participation
The descriptive statistics of motivational and pro-environmental
Factors influencing home composting participation are shown in the
factors including knowledge, attitude towards home composting, pre-
Logit model (Table 5). The results show that motivational factors such
sence of garden, participating in the compost training, having habit to
as knowledge (α = 0.02, p < 0.05), attitude (α = 1.60, p < 0.01),
reuse plastic bags and food waste reduction has shown in the Table 3.
presence of garden (α = 1.56, p < 0.01) and compost training
Accordingly, motivational and pro-environmental factors could differ-
(α = 1.38, p < 0.05) play important roles in driving forces behind
entiate home composting participation as well as the level of home
home composting participation decision. However, the results show
composting participation decisions’ groups.
that pro-environmental behavior such as reusing plastic bags (α = 0.15,
Among motivational factors, we investigate the relationship be-
p > 0.1) and food waste reduction (α = −0.13, p > 0.1) could not
tween the presence of garden and the household’s knowledge as well as
influence the home composting participation decision.
the relationship between the presence of garden and attitude towards
composting. Table 4 shows the comparison of mean scores by presence
of garden for home composting knowledge and attitude. In the ques- 3.3.2. Determinants of the level of home composting participation
tionnaire design, we have investigated the knowledge is composed of Factors predicting the level of home composting participation de-
three components including definition of home composting, process of cision have shown in the Ordered logit model (Table 5). The results
making compost, and perceived the benefit of home composting. Ac- show that motivational factors such as knowledge (α = 0.05,
cording the results from Table 4, there are no significant difference p < 0.01), attitude (α = 1.21, p < 0.01), and presence of a garden
between who has garden and who has not in term of knowing about (α = 1.84, p < 0.05) can positively and significantly predict the level
composting definition and process. However, who has garden could of home composting participation. While other motivational factor such
recognize better the benefit of home composting (significant difference as compost training (α = 0.88, p > 0.1) does not influence the level of
at 1% level). Moreover, the result shows the significant difference be- home composting participation. Interestingly, pro-environmental be-
tween who has garden and who has not in term of their attitude toward havior variables including reusing plastic bag (α = 0.95, p < 0.1) and
home composting (significant difference at 1% level). Household with food waste reduction (α = 0.99, p < 0.1) can influence the level of
garden is more likely to have positive attitude towards home home composting practice.

68
L.T.T. Loan et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 140 (2019) 65–71

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of motivational and pro-environmental behavior variables used in the models.
Source: Authors’ calculation.
Variable Unit All Home composting participation Level of home composting participation (n = 107)
(n = 202) (n = 202)

Yes No Sig.a Minimal Moderate Frequent Sig.b

(n = 107) (n = 95) (n = 13) (n = 73) (n = 21)

Motivational factors
Knowledge % 59.07 64.95 52.46 −4.50*** 49.36 63.01 81.35 13.37***
(20.62) (20.37) (18.69) (16.49) (19.46) (14.06)
Attitude factor score 0.00 0.50 −0.57 −10.14*** −0.15 0.54 0.77 7.89***
(0.92) (0.71) (0.78) (0.68) (0.71) (0.45)
Presence of garden dummy 0.65 0.85 0.42 40.71*** 0.69 0.84 1.00 3.29**
(0.48) (0.36) (0.49) (0.46) (0.37) (0.00)
Compost training dummy 0.24 0.36 0.11 17.34*** 0.23 0.30 0.62 4.31**
(0.43) (0.48) (0.31) (0.42) (0.46) (0.49)

Pro-environmental behavior factor

Reusing plastic bags dummy 0.59 0.65 0.52 3.98** 0.54 0.60 0.90 3.89**
(0.49) (0.48) (0.50) (0.50) (0.49) (0.29)
Food waste reduction dummy 0.53 0.52 0.54 0.04 0.23 0.55 0.62 2.77*
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.42) (0.50) (0.49)

Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.

a
Significance difference between characteristics of composter and non-composter group in term of t value (for continuous variables: Knowledge, and Attitude);
Pearson – chi square value (for dummy variables: Presence of garden, Compost training, Reusing plastic bags, and Food waste reduction).
b
Significance difference among characteristics of minimal, moderate, and frequent home composting participation groups in term of F value.
*** p < 0.01. sence of garden, Compost training, Reusing plastic b.
** p < 0.05.
* p < 0.1.

Table 4 Table 5
Comparison of mean scores by presence of garden for composting knowledge Factors influencing two models of home composting behavior.
and attitude. Source: Authors’ calculation.
Source: Authors’ calculation.
Variable Logit model Ordered logit model
Min score Max Presence of garden
score (n = 202) Coef. Std.Err. z-value Coef. Std.Err. z-value

Yes No Sig.a Motivational factors

(n = 131) (n = 71) Knowledge 0.02 0.01 1.97** 0.05 0.01 3.90***
Attitude 1.60 0.29 5.53*** 1.21 0.38 3.20***
Knowledge about 0 12 7.34 6.63 5.50 Presence of garden 1.56 0.47 3.30*** 1.84 0.80 2.32**
composting (2.50) (2.38) Compost training 1.38 0.62 2.22** 0.88 0.57 1.55
(1) Definition 0 2 1.54 1.61 0.76
Pro-environmental behavior
(0.50) (0.49)
Reusing plastic bags 0.15 0.47 0.31 0.95 0.56 1.71*
(2) Process 0 6 3.18 3.14 2.10
Food waste reduction −0.13 0.46 −0.29 0.99 0.53 1.87*
(1.62) (1.77)
Constant −5.87 1.76 −3.34*** – – –
(3)Benefit 0 4 2.62 1.89 24.09***
τ1 – – – 4.05 2.31 –
(1.15) (0.93)
τ2 – – – 9.76 2.63 –
Attitude towards 1 5 3.44 2.97 39.41***
Pseudo R2 0.48 0.34
composting (0.96) (0.79)
Log likelihood −72.34 −59.34

Figures in parentheses are standard deviations. *** p < 0.01.

a
Significance difference between characteristics of who has garden and who ** p < 0.05.
has not in term of Pearson – chi square value. * p < 0.1.
*** p < 0.01.

et al., 2004b). In the context of recycling, previous studies indicate that

4. Discussion
home composting behavior can be facilitated by TPB factors included
attitude toward home composting (Edgerton et al., 2009; Tucker and
The findings from this study indicate that determinants of home
Speirs, 2003) and knowledge about home composting (Edgerton et al.,
composting participation decision and the level of home composting
2009). Moreover, the presence of a garden or yard were found to mo-
practice should be considered separately in the framework of home
tivate home composting behavior (Bennagen et al., 2002; Sterner and
composting behavior. In the following sections, we discuss the dis-
Bartelings, 1999). The present study finds similar results by showing
tinction of the two models.
that knowledge, attitude toward home composting, and presence of
garden are extremely important in predicting home composting beha-
vior. Therefore, these factors are recognized as common significant
4.1. Common factors in predicting the two models
factors for home composting acceptance model and the level of home
composting practice model.
Literature identified key motivational factors which were relied on
Being knowledgeable about home composting and having a favor-
the development of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen,
able attitude toward it strengthens the possibility of being home com-
1991) to perform environmental behavior (Chu and Chiu, 2003;
posting participants and promoting the level of home composting
Greaves et al., 2013; Loan et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2015; Tonglet

69
L.T.T. Loan et al.
practice. With regard to knowledge, our finding is consistent with the
lesson from the home composting program used in the Greek munici-
pality, suggesting that building up knowledge should be the very first
step among other actions in order to assure active participation of re-
sidents in home composting schemes (Karkanias et al., 2016). As sug-
gested by Edgerton et al. (2009), knowledge about home composting
could be enhanced using information fact sheets or leaflets. Moreover,
the finding from this study have shown that household with garden is
more likely to perceive correctly the benefits of home composting as
well as they are more likely to have positive attitude towards home
composting. Therefore, the presence of garden is not only influence
households’ decisions to engage in home composting, but also make
them more likely to practice composting frequently. In other words,
household without garden could not recognize the composting benefits.
Therefore, it would be a challenge if local authority in Hoi An city plan
to expand the home composting program to the urban areas where
gardens or backyards are limited. For this purpose, an example can be
found in the urban areas of Surabaya, Indonesia where it successfully
manages MOW using a community composting system (Kurniawan
et al., 2013). The lessons learned from the city of Surabaya is that they
highlight the benefits of home composting not only for personal
composter benefit but also for promoting a cleaner neighborhood by
giving compost for community to plant a variety of tree surrounding the
city. It could be applied for residents in Hoi An city, especially for those
without garden where they could share their compost or MOW to
neighbor or community for greening activities, beautifying local sur-
rounding areas.
4.2. The distinctions between the two models
The study’s framework is emphasized by the distinctions between
the two models which have been investigated through the significance
of each factor in different models such as participating in home com-
posting training program, reusing plastic bags, and reducing food
waste.
4.2.1. Training could predict home composting acceptance but not the level
of home composting practice
Initially, home composting training is found to be necessary in the
first model, to initial take up of composting. However, they could not
predict the second model of home composting behavior. Our finding is
consistent with research regarding what determines the adoption of
new technology models and the intensity of that adoption has shown
that training can play a vital catalytic role in differentiating adopter
groups from non-adopter groups. However, interestingly, this factor is
not an important predictor of the intensity of adoption. Examples can
be found in research of organic farming adoption in Thailand (Thapa
and Rattanasuteerakul, 2011), integrated pest management (IPM)
adoption in Bangladesh (Kabir and Rainis, 2014), and adoption of rice
intensification systems (SRI) in Timor Leste (Noltze et al., 2012). Ac-
cordingly, training only contributed to farmers’ initial encounter with
the program, while other factors such as resource availability may in-
fluence adoption intensity. Enhancing home composting training pro-
gram is needed. Regarding home composting training, it is plausible
that training should not only be theoretical but also practical (Kabir and
Rainis, 2014). Residents may have many difficulties while composting
and they might need advice. In Fukuoka, Japan, for example, residents
can learn about home composting through the free field classes. Parents
and children are involved in compost making lessons using kitchen
waste, applying compost to the soil, growing vegetables, etc., helping
resources circulate (Fukuoka city, 2016). If some residents could not
attend field classes, local authorities can organize farm visits and offer
advice during composting.
70
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 140 (2019) 65–71
4.2.2. Pro-environmental behavior is not important for home composting
acceptance but is important in increasing the level of home composting
practice
Furthermore, the habit to reuse plastic bags and habit to reduce
wastefulness, considered pro-environmental behavior, are found to
predict the second model of home composting behavior. In other words,
once the home composting participation decision has been made,
people who usually reuse plastic bags or reduce wastefulness will be
more likely to practice home composting more frequently. As this study
has previously shown, literature had shed light on the crucial role of
availability of necessary resources in determining the level of home
composting participation. Pro-environmental habits may be created by
frequent environmentally friendly acts. In developing countries, such as
in Vietnam, residents have a habit for recycling newspapers, glass,
aluminum cans because of economic incentive rather than pro-en-
vironmental acts (Kawai et al., 2012). They can sell these recyclable
waste to the junk shops in order to earn money. While, other habit such
as reusing plastic bags and reducing wastefulness by feeding food waste
to the animals are considered as pro-environmental behavior (Nguyen
et al., 2015; Trinh, 2015). Thus, by investigating reuse of plastic bags
and wastefulness reduction, we have contributed new important drivers
of home composting behavior in the context of developing countries,
which are recommended to enhance these behaviors simultaneously in
the framework of home composting program.
5. Limitations
Although this study has provided useful information to fill the re-
search gap in understanding home composting behavior, there are
limitations to the approach taken. Firstly, composting behavior cate-
gories can be determined by the level of correctly putting food waste
into compost bins (Sussman et al., 2013). However, this measurement
relied on the field experimental survey which the present study was not
able to conduct because of limited time and financial support. In ad-
dition, one obvious limitation of the present study is that there are only
two indicators of pro-environmental behavior in the context of devel-
oping world included reusing plastic bags and reducing wastefulness.
While, in the UK, DEFRA (2008) investigated twelve pro-environmental
behavior, relating to four behavioral domains included domestic energy
and water use, waste behavior, transport, and eco-friendly shopping. A
useful next step would be to include a wider range of indicators for pro-
environmental behavior in the two home composting models which
could be applied to developed countries’ contexts.
6. Conclusions
The purpose of this study is to develop and estimate two models of
home composting behavior, which include home composting partici-
pation and the level of home composting participation by surveying 202
respondents in rural areas of a developing city (Hoi An, Vietnam). Using
two empirical models, results confirm the need to investigate the dis-
tinction of the two home composting behavior models.
Findings indicate that households’ decisions to become involved in
home composting schemes and the level of home composting partici-
pation are affected by motivational factors such as knowledge, attitude
toward home composting, and presence of a garden. Besides using fact
sheets or leaflets to enhance knowledge and attitude towards com-
posting, local authorities should emphasize the benefits of home com-
posting, such as home composting not only for personal composter
benefit but also for promoting a cleaner neighborhood.
Interestingly, while participating in home composting training is
statistically significant in home composting scheme engagement, the
factor appears not important in increasing the level of home composting
practice. Theoretical home composting training should become prac-
tical training activities such as field classes involving parents and
children. On the other hand, to increase the level of composting, local
L.T.T. Loan et al.
authorities should organize farm visit and give residents advice during
home composting.
In addition, once the decision to participate in home composting has
been made, we find that pro-environmental behavior (such as the habit
to reuse plastic bags and to reduce wastefulness) could promote high
levels of home composting practice. We have examined new images of
pro-environmental behavior in the context of waste management in
developing countries. We recommend introducing these pro-environ-
mental behaviors simultaneously with home composting.
Finally, the present study has highlighted some limitations which
can be useful suggestions for the future work. Firstly, home composting
behavior categories could be estimated by determining the level of
correctly putting food waste into compost bins in order to reduce
composting mistakes. In addition, wider range of indicators for pro-
environmental behavior should be investigated in the two home com-
posting behavior models in order to expand our home composting
framework into the developed world’s context.
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Dr. Premakumara Jagath Dickella Gamaralalage
from the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan,
for his valuable advice. We also express our special thanks to Ms.
Nguyen Thi Nga (PTNT53-VNUA) for her invaluable help throughout
our survey. The financial support from Kobayashi Memorial Fund 2015
and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 18KT0044 is highly appreciated.
References
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50,
179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Andersen, J.K., Boldrin, A., Christensen, T.H., Scheutz, C., 2011. Mass balances and life
cycle inventory of home composting of organic waste. Waste Manag. 31, 1934–1942.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.05.004.
Andersen, J.K., Boldrin, A., Christensen, T.H., Scheutz, C., 2012. Home composting as an
alternative treatment option for organic household waste in Denmark: an environ-
mental assessment using life cycle assessment-modelling. Waste Manag. 32, 31–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.09.014.
Barrena, R., Font, X., Gabarrell, X., Sánchez, A., 2014. Home composting versus industrial
composting: influence of composting system on compost quality with focus on
compost stability. Waste Manag. 34, 1109–1116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2014.02.008.
Bennagen, M.E.C., Georgina, N., Covar, R., 2002. Solid Waste Segregation and Recycling
in Metro Manila: Household Attitudes and Behavior.
Bertoldi, M., de Sequi, P., Lemmes, B., Papi, T., 2015. The Science of Composting (Part 1).
Springer-Sciencehttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Chu, P., Chiu, J., 2003. Factors influencing household waste recycling behavior: test of an
integrated model? J. Appl. 33, 604–626.
Colón, J., Martínez-blanco, J., Gabarrell, X., Artola, A., Sánchez, A., Rieradevall, J., Font,
X., 2010. Environmental assessment of home composting. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
54, 893–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.01.008.
DEFRA, 2008. A Framework for Pro-environmental Behaviours. Department for
Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London.
Department of Natural Resources and Environment of Hoi An city, 2015. Report on waste
management in Hoi An city.
Edgerton, E., Mckechnie, J., Dunleavy, K., 2009. Behavioral determinants of household
participation in a home composting scheme. Environ. Behav. 151–169. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013916507311900.
Faverial, J., Sierra, J., 2014. Home composting of household biodegradable wastes under
the tropical conditions of Guadeloupe (French Antilles). J. Clean. Prod. 83, 238–244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.068.
Fukuoka city, 2016. Home Composting Field Class in Fukuoka. Retrieved from http://
www.city.fukuoka.lg.jp/kankyo/jigyokeigomi/opinion.saienkouza_1.html in
September 2016.
Getahun, T., Nigusie, A., Entele, T., Van Gerven, T., Van der Bruggen, B., 2012. Effect of
turning frequencies on composting biodegradable municipal solid waste quality.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 65, 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.05.
007.
71
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 140 (2019) 65–71
Greaves, M., Zibarras, L.D., Stride, C., 2013. Using the theory of planned behavior to
explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. J. Environ. Psychol.
34, 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.02.003.
Greene, W.H., 2003. Econometric Analysis.
Hoang, M.G., Fujiwara, T., Pham Phu, S.T., 2017. Municipal waste generation and
composition in a tourist city – Hoi An, Vietnam. J. JSCE 5, 123–132. https://doi.org/
10.2208/journalofjsce.5.1_123.
J.D.G, P., Maeda, T., Nakamura, M., Gilby, S., 2013. Organic Composting – How Great!.
Kabir, M.H., Rainis, R., 2014. Adoption and intensity of integrated pest management
(IPM) vegetable farming in Bangladesh: an approach to sustainable agricultural de-
velopment. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 17, 1413–1429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-
014-9613-y.
Karkanias, C., Perkoulidis, G., Moussiopoulos, N., 2016. Sustainable management of
household biodegradable waste: lessons from home composting programmes. Waste
Biomass Valorization 7, 659–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9517-1.
Kawai, K., Osako Matsui, M.S., Dong, N.T., 2012. Identification of junk buyers con-
tribution to recycling of household waste in Hanoi, Vietnam, through a physical
composition analysis. J. Waste Manag. Res. 30 (7), 681–688. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0734242X12444895.
Kline, R., 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd edn.
Guilford, New York.
Kurniawan, T.A., De Oliveira, J. Puppim, Premakumara, D.G.J., Nagaishi, M., 2013. City-
to-city level cooperation for generating urban co-benefits: the case of technological
cooperation in the waste sector between Surabaya (Indonesia) and Kitakyushu
(Japan). J. Clean. Prod. 58, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.002.
Loan, L.T.T., Nomura, H., Takahashi, Y., Yabe, M., 2017. Psychological driving forces
behind households’ behaviors toward municipal organic waste separation at source in
Vietnam: a structural equation modeling approach. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.
19, 1052–1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-017-0587-3.
Long, J., Freess, J., 2001. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using
Stata.
Nguyen, T.T.P., Zhu, D., Le, N.P., 2015. Factors influencing waste separation intention of
residential households in a developing country: evidence from Hanoi, Vietnam.
Habit. Int. 48, 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.03.013.
Noltze, M., Schwarze, S., Qaim, M., 2012. Understanding the adoption of system tech-
nologies in smallholder agriculture: the system of rice intensification (SRI) in Timor
Leste. J. Agric. Syst. 108, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.01.003.
Scheinberg, A., Zheng, Y., 2010. No Place Like Home: Capacity Development in Master
Composting Programmes.
Smith, S.R., Jasim, S., 2009. Small-scale home composting of biodegradable household
waste: overview of key results from a 3-year research programme in West London.
Waste Manag. Res. 941–950. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X09103828.
Sterner, T., Bartelings, H., 1999. Household waste management in a Swedish munici-
pality: determinants of waste disposal, recycling and composting. Environ. Resour.
Econ. 13, 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008214417099.
Sussman, R., Greeno, M., Gifford, R., Scannell, L., 2013. The effectiveness of models and
prompts on waste diversion: a field experiment on composting by cafeteria patrons. J.
Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00978.x.
Tanaka, M., 1999. Recent trends in recycling activities and waste management in Japan.
J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-999-0006-5.
Tanaka, M., 2007. Waste management for a sustainable society. J. Mater. Cycles Waste
Manag. 9, 2–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-006-0164-7.
Taylor, S., 1997. Understanding the Determinants of Consumer Composting Behavior’. pp.
602–628.
Taylor, S., Todd, P., 1995. An integrated model of waste management behavior: a test of
household recycling and composting intention. Environ. Behav. 27, 603–630.
Thapa, G.B., Rattanasuteerakul, K., 2011. Adoption and extent of organic vegetable
farming in Mahasarakham province, Thailand. Appl. Geogr. 31, 201–209. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.04.004.
Tonglet, M., Phillips, P.S., Bates, M.P., 2004a. Determining the drivers for householder
pro-environmental behaviour: waste minimisation compared to recycling. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 42, 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.02.001.
Tonglet, M., Phillips, P.S., Read, A.D., 2004b. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to
investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from Brixworth, UK.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 41, 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2003.11.
001.
Train, K.E., 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge
University Press.
Trinh, C.M., 2015, Report on waste management in Cam Ha and Cam Pho commune, Hoi
An city.
Tucker, P., Speirs, D., 2003. Attitudes and behavioural change in household waste
management behaviours. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 46, 289–307. https://doi.org/10.
1080/0964056032000070927.
Ueta, K., Koizumi, H., 2001. Reducing household waste: Japan learns from Germany.
Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 43, 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00139150109604512.