Waste Management 113 (2020) 41–50

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

From intention to behavior: Comprehending residents’ waste sorting

intention and behavior formation process
Shanyong Wang a, Jinpeng Wang a, Shu Yang b,⇑, Jun Li c, Kaile Zhou d
a
School of Public Affairs, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui Province 230026, PR China
b
College of Economics and Management, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, PR China
c
School of Economics, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, Anhui Province 230009, PR China
d
School of Management, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, Anhui Province 230009, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Waste sorting is essential to address the current predicament of waste management. Though it is impor-
Received 9 October 2019 tant, insufficient attention has been paid to explore residents’ waste sorting intention and behavior and
Revised 31 March 2020 understand its formation process. To narrow the research gap, this research built a theoretical research
Accepted 22 May 2020
model by adding personal moral norms and waste sorting knowledge into the theory of planned behavior
Available online 3 June 2020
to explicate residents’ waste sorting intention and behavior formation process. Meanwhile, given the dis-
crepancy between waste sorting intention and actual behavior, this research also explored the effect of
Keywords:
external conditions, such as incentive measures, on this discrepancy. Based on survey data from 397
Theory of planned behavior
Personal moral norms
Chinese residents, this research found that attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, per-
Waste sorting knowledge sonal moral norms and waste sorting knowledge were directly and significantly related to residents’
Waste sorting behavior waste sorting intention. Waste sorting knowledge also had an indirect influence on residents’ waste sort-
Incentive measures ing intention through attitudes and perceived behavioral control. Additionally, this research corroborated
the discrepancy between waste sorting intention and behavior, and suggested that the link between
intention and behavior was contingent on incentive measures. Incentive measures strengthened the
effect of intention on behavior. This research is useful for understanding residents’ waste sorting inten-
tion and behavior and valuable for encouraging residents to sort waste in their daily lives.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction a heavy financial burden on the municipal government (Hu et al.,

Human beings and their activities have generated a variety of
waste (Mintz et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019). It is estimated that
with the rapid development of urbanization and population
growth, the amount of waste generated globally in the next
30 years will increase from the 2 billion tons observed in 2016 to
3.5 billion tons (Lin et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019). The massive
generation of waste has caused serious adverse consequences
and brought severe challenges and threats to the sustainable social
development and human health. For example, a large amount of
land resources are occupied by waste storage and waste disposal;
underground water, soil and air are contaminated; and many flies,
mosquitoes and bacteria are breed (Li et al., 2016; Wang et al.,
2019). Meanwhile, many financial resources should be invested
to collect, transport and dispose of waste, which will also create
⇑ Corresponding author at: College of Economics and Management, China
Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, PR China.
E-mail address: yangshu@cau.edu.cn (S. Yang).
2019). Currently, waste management issues have attracted the
concerns of scholars and practitioners (Minelgaitė and Liobikienė,
2019a; Wang et al., 2018a).
Theoretically, the most effective and direct way to address the
current predicament of waste management is to reduce waste gen-
eration at the source. However, due to population growth and the
improvement of living standards, it is difficult to reduce waste
from the total amount (Minelgaitė and Liobikienė, 2019b; Wang
et al., 2019). Furthermore, in practice, though a large amount of
waste is generated, a small percentage of waste is sorted and recy-
cled (Owusu et al., 2013). For instance, Wang et al. (2019) noted
that in China, approximately three-quarters of waste has been
directly landfilled, 20% has been directly incinerated in waste
incineration stations, and the remaining 5% has been sorted and
recycled. It is generally believed that ‘‘waste is a misplaced re-
source”, and most of this waste can be recycled and reused through
waste sorting (Lim, 2011). Proper waste sorting can decrease one-
third of waste, and the recycled materials, items and components
can be reused and remanufactured to make new products (Zhang

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.031
0956-053X/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
42 S. Wang et al. / Waste Management 113 (2020) 41–50
et al., 2019). Waste disposal without sorting can lead to serious
environmental problems and the waste of resources (Heidari
et al., 2018). Waste landfilling without sorting damages the under-
ground water and soil and threatens the ecosystem balance, and
waste incineration without effective sorting causes severe air pol-
lution and threatens human health (Heidari et al., 2018; Matsuda
et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019).
Given the negative effects of disposing of waste without sorting
and the scarcity of natural resources, waste sorting has been
regarded as a viable option to address the dilemmas of waste man-
agement, and much attention has been paid by scholars around the
world (Agovino et al., 2018; Chalak et al., 2016). It is remarkable
that the household sector has long been considered as a vital
source of waste generation (Rada et al., 2013; Xu et al., 2018).
The successful implementation of waste sorting is inseparable
from the active and efficient participation of household members.
Researchers have also noted that the low level of waste sorting is
caused by the low level of household residents’ participation
(Andersson and Stage, 2018; Robinson and Read, 2005; Wang
et al., 2019). Hence, to encourage residents to sort waste in their
daily lives, it is urgent to explore residents’ waste sorting intention
and behavior, and understand its formation process.
Residents’ waste sorting behaviors are environmentally respon-
sible activities which can be seen as pro-environmental behaviors.
The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a classical social psychol-
ogy theory and has been widely adopted to explicate individuals’
pro-environmental behavior, such as energy saving behavior
(Greaves et al., 2013; Kaiser, 2006; Wang et al., 2018b; Ru et al.,
2018), low-carbon travel behavior (Yang et al., 2019; Wang et al.,
2020), green tourism behavior (Han et al., 2019; Meng and Choi,
2016), green hotel visit behavior (Teng et al., 2015), environmental
complaint behavior (Zhang et al., 2017), PM2.5 reduction behavior
(Ru et al., 2019), recycling behavior (Ramayah et al., 2012) and
waste separation behavior (Ghani et al., 2013; Zhang et al.,
2019). The TPB suggests that individuals are rational and that their
behaviors are the result of careful thinking and deliberate planning
(Liu et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2018c). There are five variables in
TPB: perceived behavioral control, attitudes, subjective norms,
behavioral intention and actual behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Han et al.,
2017; Shi et al., 2017). Attitudes refer to how an individual assesses
the specific behavior to perform (e.g., positive or negative assess-
ment). Subjective norms refer to whether an individual perceives
social pressures to perform or not to perform the specific behavior.
Perceived behavioral control refers to whether an individual feels
he or she owns skills and abilities to perform the specific behavior.
Behavioral intention refers to the subjective likelihood that an
individual will perform the specific behavior (Gao et al., 2017;
Xiao et al., 2017). According to the TPB, behavior is a function of
behavioral intention, and behavioral intention is a function of atti-
tudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control (Gao
et al., 2017).
Considering the effectiveness of TPB in explaining pro-
environmental behaviors, it is appropriate to select TPB as the the-
oretical basis of this research. However, it is worth noting that
although TPB is widely studied, it has received criticism. Critics
noted that the explanatory power of TPB is inadequate and does
not sufficiently explicate a certain environmentally responsible
behaviors (Bortoleto et al., 2012; Hu et al., 2018; Kaiser, 2006).
To improve the model’s explanatory power, scholars have sug-
gested that additional variables can be added into the model based
on the specific research context and background (Wang et al.,
2016; Li et al., 2018). Meanwhile, Ajzen (1991, page 182) also
noted that ‘‘TPB is an open theory and additional variables can
be added if they can capture a significant proportion of the vari-
ance in behavior”. It is widely believed that sorting waste correctly
is actually a challenging task. A lack of knowledge about waste
sorting can hinder residents from sorting waste properly (Wang
et al., 2019). Waste sorting knowledge should be taken into
account when exploring residents’ waste sorting behavior. Scholars
such as Ghani et al. (2013), Li et al. (2018) and Ramayah et al.
(2012) noted the role of knowledge in waste management as well.
Accordingly, to better understand waste sorting behavior, resi-
dents’ waste sorting knowledge is considered in this research.
Furthermore, scholars further questioned that the TPB overesti-
mates the effect of subjective norms and ignores the role of per-
sonal moral norms in triggering an individual’s environmentally
friendly behaviors (Bortoleto et al., 2012; Gao et al., 2017; Kaiser,
2006). In the context of pro-environmental behavior research, per-
sonal moral norms refer to an individual feeling that he or she has
moral obligations or responsibilities to perform a specific pro-
environmental behavior and that this behavior is morally right
(Han et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018; Ru et al., 2019). Personal moral
norms and subjective norms are all normative factors that can
affect an individual’s pro-environmental behavior. However, per-
sonal moral norms are distinct from subjective norms. Subjective
norms belong to the social value system, and individuals with sub-
jective norms perform specific environmentally friendly behaviors
based mainly on the external social expectations and social pres-
sures (Ajzen, 1991). By contrast, personal moral norms belong to
one’s own personal value system, and individuals with personal
moral norms perform specific environmentally friendly behaviors
based mainly on their internal moral obligations or responsibilities
(Schwartz, 1973). To some extent, personal moral norms can exert
a more important role than subjective norms in the pro-
environmental behavior research field. Personal moral norms are
indispensable when studying an individual’s environmentally
friendly behavior (Li et al., 2018; Meng and Choi, 2016). Based on
these viewpoints, personal moral norms are considered in this
research.
In addition, the extant research on waste sorting focuses mainly
on residents’ waste sorting intention and does not pay sufficient
attention to actual waste sorting behavior. In fact, there exists a
discrepancy between intention and behavior. Residents often state
that their intentions to sort waste are strong, while their actual
rate of waste sorting is rather low (Czajkowski et al., 2014;
Zhang et al., 2019). Narrowing the discrepancy between waste
sorting intention and waste sorting behavior is urgent and neces-
sary. Fortunately, the intention-behavior discordance has been dis-
cussed by prior researchers. Hage et al. (2008) suggested that the
link between intention and behavior is dependent on external con-
ditions. The specific external conditions help to convert intention
into actual behavior. Barr et al. (2013) and Zhang et al. (2019) fur-
ther noted that although the actual rate of sorting waste is limited,
it does not mean that residents’ waste sorting intention is low as
well. Specific structural constraints, such as inadequate waste sort-
ing facilities and extra expenses, impede residents from converting
intentions into actual behaviors. The above research indicated that
the intention-behavior discrepancy in waste sorting is caused lar-
gely by external constraints. The discrepancy between intention
and behavior can be alleviated by providing favorable external
conditions that can eliminate these constraints (Zhang et al., 2016).
Incentive measures can be considered as a favorable external
condition that can alleviate the intention-behavior discrepancy.
In practice, such as in China, incentive measures are also provided
by the government. It is known that due to the rapid increase in
population and the acceleration of urbanization, huge amounts of
waste are generated every day in China. The domestic waste gen-
eration in China is approximately 400 million tons each year and
is increasing at an annual rate of approximately 8% (Wang et al.,
2019). To alleviate the adverse effects of waste on the natural envi-
ronment and human health, the Chinese government is anxious to
sort waste (Wang et al., 2019). Currently, 46 cities (e.g., Shanghai,
 S. Wang et al. / Waste Management 113 (2020) 41–50
Beijing, and Guangzhou) in China are piloting waste sorting. To
eliminate the difficulties of and obstacles to waste sorting and fur-
ther trigger residents’ enthusiasm to sort waste, several incentive
measures are implemented. For example, residents who do a good
job of waste sorting can obtain a certain amount of monetary
reward or bonus points that they can later exchange for products.
Honorary titles such as ‘‘environmental protection guard” and
environmental certificates are also awarded to residents who have
made outstanding contributions in waste sorting.
However, to date, limited research has explored the effect of
incentive measures on the link between intention and behavior
on waste sorting. Therefore, to enhance the research on waste sort-
ing, incentive measures were taken into account and regarded as
external conditions in this research. At the same time, the effect
of incentive measures on narrowing the intention-behavior dis-
crepancy in waste sorting was examined as well. Overall, this
research adopted the TPB as the basic theoretical foundation and
extended it by adding two additional variables (e.g., personal moral
norms and waste sorting knowledge) to better comprehend resi-
dents’ waste sorting intention and behavior formation process.
Meanwhile, given the discrepancy between waste sorting intention
and behavior, incentive measures were also considered and added
into the research model to further examine the influence of incen-
tive measures on this discrepancy.
2. Research framework and hypotheses
2.1. Theory of planned behavior model
In the pro-environmental research field, many studies have sug-
gested that within the TPB research framework, attitudes, subjec-
tive norms and perceived behavioral control were all the positive
determinants of an individual’s pro-environmental behavioral
intention. For example, Hu et al. (2018) indicated that tourists’ atti-
tudes toward waste management, subjective norms and perceived
behavioral control are all positively associated with tourists’ inten-
tions for waste reduction and recycling. Zhang et al. (2019) also
found the positive influence of attitudes, subjective norms and per-
ceived behavioral control on residents’ intention to participate in
waste management activities and further noted that residents’
waste management intention is a direct predictor of waste man-
agement behavior. Accordingly, in this research, it is plausible to
speculate that residents are more willing to sort waste when they
realize the positive outcomes of waste sorting and hold positive
attitudes toward waste sorting, feel that most important people
wish them to sort waste and perceive that they have the skills
and abilities to sort waste. Meanwhile, residents’ actual waste sort-
ing behaviors are also more easily triggered when their waste sort-
ing intentions are strong. Thus, the following hypotheses can be
proposed:
H1: Attitudes toward waste sorting are positively related to res-
idents’ waste sorting intention.
H2: Subjective norms are positively related to residents’ waste
sorting intention.
H3: Perceived behavioral control is positively related to resi-
dents’ waste sorting intention.
H4: Waste sorting intention is positively related to residents’
waste sorting behavior.
2.2. Intention-behavior discrepancy and incentive measures
There exists a discrepancy between residents’ waste sorting
intention and waste sorting behavior. Narrowing the discordance
between waste sorting intention and waste sorting behavior and
43
guiding residents to perform actual waste sorting behavior is vital
to address the current waste management dilemma. In the current
research, incentive measures have been taken into account to
bridge the discrepancy between waste sorting intention and waste
sorting behavior.
It is acknowledged that residents need to spend certain money,
time and effort to sort waste in their daily lives, such as spending
more leisure time and effort to sort waste and spending extra
money to purchase waste sorting facilities (e.g., specific waste
bins) to sort waste. Considering the extra time, money and effort
they put in, residents may be reluctant to sort waste even though
they have strong intentions to do so. Under this circumstance,
when incentive measures are offered, the additional money, time
and effort they put in can be compensated. Thus, they are more
willing to turn waste sorting intentions into actions. That is, incen-
tive measures narrow the intention-behavior gap and promote the
intention to shift to behavior.
Furthermore, even though residents have no plans or willing-
ness to participate in waste sorting activities and sort waste in
their daily lives, they may also sort waste extemporaneously when
relevant incentive measures are provided (Zhang et al., 2019).
Indeed, it is undeniable that the original purpose of some residents
to sort waste is to obtain certain rewards. That is, incentive mea-
sures have a direct and positive influence on residents’ waste sort-
ing behavior. Additionally, waste sorting behavior can also be
regarded as a pro-social and altruistic behavior since this behavior
is beneficial to the natural environment and human health and
involves positive externalities. Pro-social and altruistic behavior
means that personal interests can be sacrificed to achieve the
well-being of others (Park and Ha, 2014). According to the theory
of welfare economics, to guide individuals to perform pro-social
and altruistic behavior continuously, intervention measures such
as incentive measures should be implemented to offset the per-
sonal interests that they sacrifice (Ostrom, 2000). Intervention
measures can trigger an individual’s enthusiasm to perform this
behavior (Ostrom, 2000). Thus, it is plausible to speculate that res-
idents’ waste sorting behavior can be nurtured when incentive
measures are provided.
On the basis of the above discussions, two hypotheses are
summarized:
H5: Incentive measures are positively related to residents’
waste sorting behavior.
H6: Incentive measures strengthen the relationship between
residents’ waste sorting intention and behavior.
2.3. Personal moral norms
Personal moral norms are often regarded as a significant vari-
able in predicting an individual’s pro-environmental behavior
(Han et al., 2018; Han et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018; Park and Ha,
2014). For example, Bamberg et al. (2007) noted that individuals
with high personal moral norms are more likely to use public
transportation since using public transportation is beneficial to
the environment. Bertoldo and Castro (2016) found that personal
moral norms are the most important antecedent of an individual’s
willingness to perform environmentally responsible actions. Gao
et al. (2017) noted that personal moral norms are vital to shape
employees’ intention to save energy in workplaces. Han et al.
(2018) suggested that personal moral norms are significantly asso-
ciated with tourists’ environmentally friendly intentions for waste
reduction and recycling. Hu et al. (2019) indicated that personal
moral norms significantly impact tourists’ willingness to partici-
pate in waste reduction activities in tourism areas. The current
research illustrated that an individual’s pro-environmental behav-
ior can be positively influenced by personal moral norms. Accord-
44 S. Wang et al. / Waste Management 113 (2020) 41–50

ingly, in this research, we can assume that residents with more

moral obligations or responsibilities to protect the natural environ-
ment may have strong intentions to perform waste sorting behav-
iors and participate in waste sorting activities. Thus, the following
is summarized:
H7: Personal moral norms are positively related to residents’
waste sorting intention.
2.4. Waste sorting knowledge
Compared with other pro-environmental behaviors, residents’
waste sorting behavior is rather complex and complicated. At pre-
sent, the widely accepted waste sorting method is based on the
waste composition and the utilization and disposal of waste (Liu
et al., 2019). Japan, a pioneer in waste sorting, has classified the
waste into four types: recyclable waste, combustible waste, non-
combustible waste and hazardous waste. Germany has also classi-
fied the waste into four types: paper waste, packaging waste,
organic waste and residual waste. In China, waste has been classi-
fied into dry waste, wet waste, hazardous waste and recyclable
waste. In fact, sorting waste correctly is far more difficult than orig-
inally believed. Wang et al. (2019) noted that the correct rate of
household waste sorting is far below 40% in China. One of the rea-
sons is that residents have little knowledge of waste sorting. Due to
a lack of waste sorting knowledge, many residents have low enthu-
siasm to participate in waste sorting activities and are unwilling to
sort waste in their daily lives (Wang et al., 2019).
In this research, residents’ waste sorting knowledge includes
knowledge about not only how to sort waste correctly but also
the positive consequences of waste sorting and the adverse conse-
quences of disposing of waste without sorting. Prior research has
examined the relationship between behavior-related knowledge
and certain behaviors. Wang et al. (2017) indicated that customers’
electric vehicles related knowledge has a significant effect on their
intentions to use EVs. Hu et al. (2018) noted that tourists’ environ-
mental knowledge directly affects their willingness to participate
in waste reduction activities in tourist areas. Li et al. (2018) sug-
gested that contractor employees are more willing to reduce con-
struction waste when they have sufficient knowledge about
construction waste. Accordingly, it can be speculated that when
residents have knowledge about how to sort waste correctly and
understand the positive outcomes of waste sorting and the adverse
consequences of disposing of waste without sorting, their inten-
tions to sort waste will be nurtured.
Furthermore, when residents have sufficient knowledge on how
to sort waste correctly, they may feel that they have sufficient
skills, abilities and capabilities to sort waste correctly, which could
reduce their perceived difficulties and improve their self-
confidences in completing waste sorting behavior (Liu et al.,
2019). That is, residents’ waste sorting knowledge is positively
associated with perceived behavioral control. In addition, when
residents have sufficient knowledge on waste sorting, they are also
more easily able to understand the value of waste sorting and the
negative effects of disposing of waste without sorting and thus to
support waste sorting activities and hold positive attitudes toward
waste sorting. The positive relationship between behavior-related
knowledge and attitudes toward certain behaviors has also been
discussed in prior research (Li et al., 2018, Liu et al., 2019).
Given the discussions above, we propose three hypotheses:
H8: Waste sorting knowledge is positively related to attitudes.
H9: Waste sorting knowledge is positively related to perceived
behavioral control.
H10: Waste sorting knowledge is positively related to residents’
waste sorting intention.
3. Data and methodology
3.1. Measurement development
The research framework (Fig. 1) contains latent variables. To
measure these latent variables, multiple measurement items were
used. To ensure the reliability and validity of each latent variable,
the items were all adapted from prior research and appropriately
modified to meet the current research context.
Specifically, the measurement items of three TPB variables: atti-
tudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control were
developed based on the works of Park and Ha (2014) and Webb
et al. (2013). Each variable was evaluated using three items.
Respondents were encouraged to evaluate these items and show
their viewpoints with a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The items of three addi-
tional variables: personal moral norms, waste sorting knowledge
and incentive measures were developed based on the studies of
Hu et al. (2019), Li et al. (2018), Wang et al. (2017) and Wang
et al. (2019), respectively. Three items were employed to evaluate
each variable, and a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree-
strongly agree) was also used for these items.
Based on the suggestions of Wang et al. (2019), to enable
respondents to better and more specifically evaluate their waste
sorting intentions, the waste to be sorted should be specific and
concrete. In this research, referring to the studies of Liu et al.
(2019) and Zhang et al. (2019), respondents were asked to judge
their intentions to sort three kinds of waste in their daily lives:
recyclable waste, hazardous waste and kitchen waste. Thus, resi-
dents’ waste sorting intention was measured by three items. A
five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much)
was used to assess these three items. According to the studies of
Onwezen et al. (2013) and Zhang et al. (2019), the frequency of
sorting waste was used to measure residents’ actual waste sorting
behavior. Three items were developed to measure waste sorting
behavior, and a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5
(always) was employed for these items.
3.2. Questionnaire design and pilot test
After the measurement items of each latent variable were
developed, a comprehensive questionnaire was designed to com-
prehend residents’ waste sorting intention and behavior. To judge
whether the questionnaire is a proper measure of the research con-
structs and items are understood by respondents, a pilot test was
performed after the questionnaire was designed. We first held a
meeting and invited 5 scholars and experts who specialize in waste
management and pro-environmental behavior research to review
the questionnaire, especially the multiple measurement items.
On the basis of their comments and suggestions, some modifica-
tions and refinements (e.g., rephrasing the items) were made.
Then, we conducted a small scale survey with only 50 participants.
According to the survey feedback, some ambiguous items and
improper statements were also revised. Finally, a formal question-
naire was formed. The final version of the measurement items for
each variable are listed in Table 1.
3.3. Sample and data collection
The questionnaire survey was conducted in Hefei, Anhui Pro-
vince, China. To address waste management problems, 46 cities
in China are piloting waste sorting. Hefei is also one of these 46
waste sorting pilot cities. The concept of waste sorting is not too
strange to most local residents, which made it easy to conduct
the questionnaire survey. Furthermore, Hefei is the provincial cap-
 S. Wang et al. / Waste Management 113 (2020) 41–50 45

Subjective Incentive
norms measures
Attitudes
H5
H2
H8 H6
H1

Waste sorting H10 Waste sorting Waste sorting

knowledge intention behavior
H4
H3
H9
H7
Perceived
behavioral
control Personal moral
norms

Fig. 1. Research framework.

ital of Anhui Province and has a population of more than 7 million

Table 1 (Wang et al., 2018b). With population growth and the improve-
Descriptions of the measurement items.
ment of residents’ living standards, a large amount of waste is gen-
Variable Measurement item Factor T- erated, which has posed great challenges to the sustainable
loading value development. Waste management issues, especially waste sorting,
Attitudes AT1: I think waste sorting is useful to 0.918*** 6.329 have aroused the concerns of governments and residents. Hence,
alleviate the environmental problems conducting the survey in Hefei to understand residents’ waste sort-
AT2: I think waste sorting is beneficial to 0.894*** 5.824
ing behavior is appropriate and necessary. Additionally, Hefei’s
promote the reuse of resources
AT3: I think waste sorting is helpful to 0.929*** 7.018 population size, economic scale, economic development level and
improve the human living environment even the status of waste management are similar to those in most
Subjective SN1: My neighbors think that I should 0.707*** 5.837 pilot cities, such as Taiyuan, Changsha, Changchun and Xi’an. Tak-
norms sort waste in my daily life
ing Hefei as the research object and conducting the survey in Hefei
SN2: My family members want me to 0.795*** 5.301
sort waste in my daily life
to understand its residents’ waste sorting behavior is
SN3: My relatives wish me to sort waste 0.987*** 8.534 representative.
in my daily life There are four main districts in Hefei, including Baohe district,
Perceived PBC1: I have the skills and abilities to 0.914*** 6.018 Shushan district, Yaohai district and Luyang district. Given that
behavioral sort waste in my daily life
waste sorting was piloted mainly in urban areas in China, our sur-
control PBC2: I feel it is easy and convenient to 0.888*** 5.312
sort waste in my daily life vey respondents were urban residents. It is known that most urban
PBC3: I have confidence that if I want to 0.922*** 7.856 residents in China live in residential communities. Therefore, to
sort waste in my daily life, I can do it ensure the representativeness of the sample and conduct the sur-
Personal PN1: I feel morally obliged to sort waste 0.897*** 5.328
vey smoothly and easily, we randomly selected 5 residential quar-
moral in my daily life
norms PN2: Sorting waste in my daily life is 0.908*** 6.109
ters in each district to conduct the survey. With the assistance of
driven by my moral rules the neighborhood committee, we randomly selected 30 house-
PN3: I think I have a moral obligation to 0.909*** 6.113 holds in each residential community to conduct a face-to-face
sort waste in my daily life household survey. Furthermore, prior research indicated that col-
Waste sorting KN1: I think I have sufficient knowledge 0.822*** 6.012
lecting data at different points in time can better reflect the rela-
knowledge about the value of sorting waste
KN2: I think I have sufficient knowledge 0.899*** 6.327 tionships among variables and alleviate the potential common
about how to correctly sort waste method bias and social desirability problems (Podsakoff et al.,
KN3: I think I have sufficient knowledge 0.893*** 6.291 2003). Thus, the current survey was conducted in two phases. In
about the negative effects of waste the first phase, we collected only demographic information, three
Incentive IM1: If I get a monetary reward, I think I 0.813*** 5.328
measures will sort waste in my daily life
TPB variables and waste sorting intention data. In the second
IM2: If I get bonus points that I can later 0.914*** 7.389 phase, we collected data on three additional variables and waste
exchange for products, I think I will sort sorting behavior.
waste in my daily life The first phase survey was conducted from April 15th to April
IM3: If I receive an honorary title such as 0.926*** 8.210
22nd, 2019. In total, 600 households participated in the survey.
‘‘environmental protection guard” or an
environmental certificate, I think I will As the face-to-face survey approach was used, 600 questionnaires
engage in waste sorting activities were received. The second phase survey was conducted from May
Waste sorting INT1: I intend to sort recyclable waste in 0.853*** 7.328 7th to May 14th, 2019. In the second phase, we continued to con-
intention the near future tact the 600 households that participated in the first phase survey
INT2: I intend to sort hazardous waste in 0.862*** 7.019
the near future
and invited them to fill out the questionnaire again. Among the
INT3: I intend to sort kitchen waste in 0.857*** 6.946 original 600 households, 87 households could not be contacted
the near future and 71 households were not willing to participate in the survey
Waste sorting BH1: How frequently do you sort 0.871*** 5.019 again. The remaining 442 households participated in the survey,
behavior recyclable waste in your daily life?
and 442 questionnaires were received. We then carefully checked
BH2: How frequently do you sort 0.897*** 5.397
hazardous waste in your daily life? the complete questionnaires. Only the questionnaires answered
BH3: How frequently do you sort kitchen 0.935*** 7.012 by the households that participated in both the first and second
waste in your daily life? phase survey were retained for analysis. In total, 442 pairs of ques-
46 S. Wang et al. / Waste Management 113 (2020) 41–50

tionnaires were obtained. Among them, 45 pairs of questionnaires 4.2. Measurement model analysis
were discarded due to several significant problems (e.g., missing
key values, abnormal values and repeated values). Finally, 397 Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to assess the mea-
pairs of questionnaires were used to conduct data analysis. Table 2 surement model. The fit indices of the measurement model are
presents the demographic information of respondents. Overall, the provided in Table 4, suggesting that the measurement model fits
respondents’ demographic characteristics are in line with the the survey data well (Hair et al., 2009).
demographic profiles of residents in Hefei. Additionally, to evalu- With the assistance of SPSS 22.0 and Smart-PLS 3.0 statistical
ate the non-response bias, a T-test was performed to check the dif- analysis software, the reliability and validity of the measures were
ferences between respondents and non-respondents in terms of examined. The reliability was tested via Cronbach’s alpha (CA) and
demographic information such as gender, age, educational level, composite reliability (CR). As shown in Table 3, the CA and CR val-
income, family size and residential location. The results revealed ues of all latent variables are greater than the recommended
no significant differences. Hence, non-response bias was not a seri- benchmark value of 0.70, showing that the reliability is good and
ous problem in this study. satisfactory (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The validity was tested
via convergent validity and discriminant validity (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988). Table 1 demonstrates that the factor loading value
4. Data analysis and results of each measurement item is larger than 0.70 and that each item is
significantly loaded to the related latent variable. Table 3 indicates
4.1. Descriptive statistics analysis that the average variance extracted (AVE) value of each latent vari-
able is greater than the criterion value of 0.50 (Anderson and
SPSS 22.0 statistical analysis software was used to conduct the Gerbing, 1988). The results proved the acceptability of convergent
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
descriptive statistics analysis. Table 3 demonstrates that the means validity. Table 3 shows that the AVE value of each variable is
of attitudes (3.452), personal moral norms (3.432), incentive mea- greater than its correlations with other variables, which also pro-
sures (3.446) and waste sorting intention (3.531) are relatively vides support for discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2009). There-
higher, the means of subjective norms (3.120) and perceived fore, the reliability and validity of the measures were all
behavioral control (3.094) are moderate, and the means of waste acceptable.
sorting knowledge (2.870) and waste sorting behavior (2.699) are
lower. It is worth noting that the mean of waste sorting intention
(3.531) is much higher than that of waste sorting behavior (2.699). 4.3. Structural model and hypothesis testing analysis
Thus, intuitively, it can be predicted that there exists a gap
between waste sorting intention and waste sorting behavior. To The fit indices of the structural model are provided in Table 4,
further test whether the gap between waste sorting intention suggesting that the structural model has an acceptable and satis-
and waste sorting behavior was statistically significant and differ- factory fit (Hair et al., 2009). To examine the overall relationships
ent from zero, a paired samples T-test was performed. The result among the variables and test the hypotheses, the partial least
suggested that the mean difference between waste sorting inten- squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique was
tion and waste sorting behavior is 0.832, with a 95% confidence adopted as it is a distribution-free method of data analysis and
interval from 0.211 to 0.335. The T-value is 9.341 (p < 0.001). has been found to be robust. Smart-PLS 3.0 statistical analysis soft-
Therefore, this research validated the discrepancy between waste ware was employed to conduct the regression analysis. The results
sorting intention and behavior and indicated that residents do of hypothesis testing are demonstrated in Fig. 2. As illustrated in
not translate their waste sorting intentions to actual waste sorting Fig. 2, waste sorting knowledge is positively and significantly
behaviors. related to waste sorting intention (p < 0.01, t = 2.91), attitudes
(p < 0.05, t = 2.11) and perceived behavioral control (p < 0.01,
t = 2.73). Meanwhile, attitudes (p < 0.05, t = 2.20) and perceived
Table 2
behavioral control (p < 0.01, t = 2.81) are positively and signifi-
Demographic information of respondents.
cantly related to waste sorting intention. Thus, H1, H3, H8, H9
Variable Category Number Percentage and H10 were supported. To further examine whether the mediat-
Gender Male 211 53.15% ing effect of attitudes and perceived behavioral control exist, we
Female 186 46.85% followed the suggestion of Hayes and Preacher (2010) to conduct
Age Under 18 9 2.27%
a mediation effect analysis. The results of the mediation effect
18–30 101 25.44%
31–45 142 35.77% analysis are presented in Table 5. Table 5 revealed that waste sort-
46–60 123 30.98% ing knowledge has a significant indirect effect on waste sorting
Over 60 22 5.54% intention through attitudes (p < 0.001, t = 7.321, CI: 0.027–0.052)
Educational Less than senior high school 54 13.60% and perceived behavioral control (p < 0.05, t = 2.191, CI: 0.051–
level Senior high school or Technical 171 43.07%
school
0.077). Hence, attitudes and perceived behavioral control mediated
Associate degree or Bachelor 121 30.48% the relationship between waste sorting knowledge and waste sort-
degree ing intention. The results further indicated that waste sorting
Master’s degree or PhD degree 51 12.85% knowledge not only impacts waste sorting intention directly but
Monthly income Under 5000RMB 69 17.38%
also impacts it indirectly via attitudes and perceived behavioral
5000–10,000 RMB 178 44.84%
10,001–15,000 RMB 105 26.44% control.
Over 15,000 RMB 45 11.34% Furthermore, subjective norms (p < 0.05, t = 2.01) and personal
Family size 2 or less 64 16.12% moral norms (p < 0.01, t = 2.68) are also positively and significantly
3 194 48.87% related to waste sorting intention, supporting H2 and H7. Waste
4–5 110 27.71%
More than 5 29 7.30%
sorting intention (p < 0.05, t = 2.17) is positively and significantly
Residential Baohe district 107 26.95% related to waste sorting behavior, as predicted. Thus, H4 was sup-
location Shushan district 97 24.43% ported. Incentive measures not only have a direct positive effect on
Yaohai district 99 24.94% waste sorting behavior (p < 0.01, t = 2.71) but also positively mod-
Luyang district 94 23.68%
erate the effect of waste sorting intention on waste sorting behav-
 S. Wang et al. / Waste Management 113 (2020) 41–50 47

Table 3
Descriptive statistics analysis and reliability and validity analysis.

Variable AT SN PBC PN KN IM INT BH

AT 0.914
SN 0.137 0.838
PBC 0.235 0.251 0.908
PN 0.342 0.331 0.224 0.904
KN 0.271 0.178 0.291 0.172 0.872
IM 0.279 0.229 0.242 0.237 0.169 0.886
INT 0.295 0.246 0.314 0.377 0.333 0.219 0.857
BH 0.147 0.283 0.223 0.132 0.247 0.301 0.322 0.901
Mean 3.452 3.120 3.094 3.432 2.870 3.446 3.531 2.699
CA 0.902 0.865 0.895 0.889 0.843 0.873 0.819 0.891
CR 0.938 0.874 0.934 0.931 0.905 0.916 0.893 0.929
AVE 0.835 0.702 0.824 0.818 0.760 0.785 0.735 0.812

Notes: (1) AT = Attitudes, SN = Subjective norms, PBC = Perceived behavioral control, PN = personal moral norms, KN = Waste sorting knowledge, IM = Incentive measures,
INT = Waste sorting intention, andpBH
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi=ffi Waste sorting behavior; CA = Cronbach’s alpha, CR = Composite reliability and AVE = Average variance extracted. (2) The diagonal
elements (bold) are the values of AVE.

Table 4
Fit indices of research model and the original TPB model.

Research model v2/df CFI NFI RFI TFI IFI RMSEA

Benchmark Value <3.00 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 <0.08
Measurement Model 2.524 0.911 0.930 0.921 0.937 0.956 0.040
Structural Model 2.644 0.924 0.919 0.910 0.928 0.944 0.059
Original TPB model v2/df CFI NFI RFI TFI IFI RMSEA
Measurement Model 2.731 0.902 0.918 0.911 0.921 0.937 0.053
Structural Model 2.873 0.913 0.909 0.908 0.911 0.929 0.066

Subjective Incentive
norms measures
Attitudes
0.189**
0.177* 0.271*
0.201* 0.091*
R2=48.20%
Waste sorting 0.365** Waste sorting Waste sorting
knowledge intention behavior
0.296*
0.256**
0.234**
0.319** R2=35.26%
Perceived
behavioral
control Personal moral
norms

Fig. 2. Hypothesis testing results.

Table 5
Mediation effect analysis. 4
Waste sorting behavior

Path Indirect LBCI UBCI 3.5

effect
3
Waste sorting knowledge ? Attitudes ? Waste 0.036*** 0.027 0.052
sorting intention 2.5
Waste sorting knowledge ? Perceived 0.060* 0.051 0.077
behavioral control ? Waste sorting intention 2

Note: (1) LBCI and UBCI = Lower bound and Upper bound of 95% confidence interval; 1.5
Low IM High IM
(2) *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.
1
Low INT High INT
ior (p < 0.05, t = 2.11). Hence, H5 and H6 were supported. To better Fig. 3. Moderating effect of incentive measures.
and further illustrate the moderating effect of incentive measures,
we followed the suggestion of Aiken and West (1991) and referred
their graphical procedure to draw the interaction plot. We assigned sorting intention on waste sorting behavior is heightened if incen-
to incentive measures the value of one standard deviation above tive measures increase.
and below the mean to plot its moderating effect. The interaction Additionally, Fig. 2 also presents the R2 value. R2 measures the
plot is drawn in Fig. 3. Fig. 3 demonstrates that the effect of waste percentage of variance explained by the statistical model and
48 S. Wang et al. / Waste Management 113 (2020) 41–50

therefore is a measure of the model’s explanatory ability (Wang
et al., 2019). As presented in Fig. 2, the R2 values of the waste sort-
ing intention model and waste sorting behavior model are 48.20%
and 35.26%, respectively.
4.4. Comparative analysis of the current research model and the
original TPB model
We also estimated the original TPB model using the same sur-
vey data to judge whether the explanatory ability of the current
research model is better than that of the original TPB model. The
fit indices of the original TPB model are presented in Table 4. Based
on Table 4, we can observe that the fit indices of the current
research model are better than that of the original TPB model.
To further examine the relationships among the variables of the
original TPB model, the partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM) technique was also adopted, and Smart-PLS
3.0 statistical analysis software was employed to conduct the
regression analysis. The results are presented in Fig. 4. Fig. 4
reveals that the effects of attitudes (p < 0.01, t = 2.77), subjective
norms (p < 0.05, t = 2.01) and perceived behavioral control
(p < 0.01, t = 2.69) on waste sorting intention and the effect of
waste sorting intention on waste sorting behavior (p < 0.01,
t = 2.83) are positive and significant. The R2 values of the waste
sorting intention model and waste sorting behavior model are
39.37% and 33.23%, respectively. Comparing the current research
model with the original TPB model, it can be found that after add-
ing personal moral norms, waste sorting knowledge and incentive
measures, the current research model improves the power to
explain waste sorting intention (from 39.37% to 48.20%) and waste
sorting behavior (from 33.23% to 35.26%). Overall, the explanatory
ability of the current research model is better than that of the orig-
inal TPB model, and the current model can better comprehend res-
idents’ waste sorting intention and waste sorting behavior
formation process.
5. Conclusions, implications and research limitations
5.1. Conclusions and implications
This research explored residents’ waste sorting intention and
waste sorting behavior. The results indicated that if residents have
positive attitudes toward waste sorting, feel strong subjective
norms and perceive lower difficulties in sorting waste, then they
are more inclined to participate in waste sorting activities and sort
waste in their daily lives. The research results are consistent with
findings in other pro-environmental behavior research (Gao
et al., 2017; Greaves et al., 2013; Kaiser, 2006; Liu et al., 2019;
Oreg and Katz-Gerro, 2006).
Furthermore, this research also considered the influence of per-
sonal moral norms and waste sorting knowledge on residents’
waste sorting intention. Personal moral norms have a significant
and positive effect on waste sorting intention, suggesting that
whether or not residents are willing to sort waste depends on their
personal moral norms. Residents with more moral obligations and
responsibilities are more willing to sort waste. This finding is in
line with previous studies (Mintz et al., 2019; Owusu et al.,
2013). Meanwhile, as normative factors, the influence of personal
moral norms on waste sorting intention is greater than subjective
norms, which means that although subjective norms affect resi-
dents’ waste sorting intention, their effect is weaker than that
exerted by personal moral norms. A possible explanation for this
result is that for pro-environmental behaviors that are visible to
friends and other important persons, the effect of subjective norms
is evident and dominant, while for pro-environmental behaviors
that are invisible to friends and other important persons, the effect
of personal moral norms is evident and dominant (Wang et al.,
2018b). In this research, household waste sorting behavior is
almost invisible to friends and neighbors. Thus, residents’ intention
to engage in waste sorting activities originates mainly from moral
obligations and responsibilities and depends on personal moral
norms.
Waste sorting knowledge was positively and significantly asso-
ciated with attitudes and perceived behavioral control. Meanwhile,
waste sorting knowledge was also positively and significantly
associated with residents’ waste sorting intention. Indeed, in prac-
tice, one of the reasons why residents are reluctant to sort waste is
that they have little knowledge about waste sorting and do not
know how to sort waste correctly. Waste sorting knowledge is
important to encourage residents to sort waste in their daily lives.
Similar to prior research, this research also reveals the importance
of behavior-related knowledge in pro-environmental behavior
research (Hu et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017).
Meanwhile, this research not only indicated that waste sorting
intention was positively and significantly associated with waste
sorting behavior but also found a discrepancy between residents’
waste sorting intention and actual waste sorting behavior. This
finding is consistent with extant research (Inglezakis and
Moustakas, 2015; Matsuda et al., 2018; Owusu et al., 2013). To nar-
row the intention-behavior discrepancy, this research examined
the role of incentive measures. The results show that incentive
measures positively moderate the relationship between waste
sorting intention and waste sorting behavior and promote the
transformation from intention to behavior. This may be due to
the fact that waste sorting is a challenging task, and extra time,

Attitudes
0.214**
R2=39.37% R2=33.23%

Subjective 0.290* Waste sorting Waste sorting

norms intention behavior
0.354**

Perceived 0.301**
behavioral
control

Fig. 4. Results of TPB model.

 S. Wang et al. / Waste Management 113 (2020) 41–50
effort and money should be paid to sort waste. Given these obsta-
cles and disadvantages, residents are reluctant to convert inten-
tions into behaviors. Incentive measures can offset these
obstacles and disadvantages and further promote intentions to
shift to behaviors. Additionally, this research suggested that after
adding personal moral norms, waste sorting knowledge and incen-
tive measures into the original TPB model, the explanatory ability
of the current research model is better than that of the original TPB
model. In fact, this research has extended the TPB model and vali-
dated its usefulness to explore residents’ waste sorting intention
and waste sorting behavior formation process. This research also
enriched the study on waste sorting and contributed to the grow-
ing literature about the importance of personal moral norms in
pro-environmental behavior research.
This research contains several implications for governmental
and pro-environmental agencies. First, given that residents’ waste
sorting knowledge is low and its significant effect on waste sorting,
governmental and pro-environmental agencies should take mea-
sures to improve residents’ waste sorting knowledge. For example,
waste sorting manuals and guidelines should be developed and
freely distributed to residents. These manuals and guidelines can
help residents identify the types of waste correctly and understand
how to sort waste. Waste sorting training courses, programs and
contests can be held by residential communities to improve resi-
dents’ waste sorting knowledge. Various communication channels
such as television, newspapers, radio, magazines and internet can
also be adopted to propagandize waste sorting knowledge and
let residents understand the values of waste sorting and the nega-
tive effects of disposing of waste without sorting. With sufficient
knowledge of waste sorting and a better understanding of the neg-
ative effects of waste generation and the positive outcomes of
waste sorting, residents will enhance their perceived control of
waste sorting behavior and are more likely to show positive atti-
tudes toward waste sorting, which in turn triggers their intentions
to sort waste. To further enhance the role of perceived behavioral
control, waste sorting infrastructures can also be constructed and
provided by government agencies.
Second, given the importance of normative factors, measures
should be taken to improve subjective norms and personal moral
norms. To improve subjective norms, an atmosphere of all people
participating in waste sorting should be created. For example,
public welfare activities on waste sorting can be organized, public
figures and celebrities can be invited to shoot public service
advertisements and promotional videos on waste sorting, and
individuals who make contributions to waste sorting can be
elected as model representatives to promote waste sorting activ-
ities. To improve and arouse residents’ personal moral norms,
messages and information such as ‘‘For our future generations,
we have moral obligations and responsibilities to sort waste”
and ‘‘Waste sorting is an important moral behavior for protecting
our only planet” can be disseminated to residents. This informa-
tion and message can be placed in the public forums, corridors
of residential communities and even on trash cans. Finally, con-
sidering the positive effect of incentive measures on waste sorting
behavior and its role in alleviating the discrepancy between
waste sorting intention and waste sorting behavior, incentive
measures should be provided, and the form of incentive measures
can be diversified.
5.2. Research limitations
This research is effective for comprehending residents’ waste
sorting intention and behavior and its formation process. However,
it is undeniable that there are several limitations in this research.
First, the data were collected only in Hefei. Although Hefei is a pilot
city for waste sorting and shares some common characteristics
49
with other cities (Wang et al., 2018b), residents’ environmental
awareness and waste sorting level may be different from those of
other cities. Hence, caution should be taken when generalizing
the current research results to other research contexts. In the fol-
lowing research, survey data should be collected from more cities.
Second, the respondents of this research were urban residents. To
enrich the research results and further improve the generalizability
of the results, respondents from rural areas should also be
included. Third, two-phase data collection approach was employed
in this research. Although this may not be a major methodological
problem, it may sensitize respondents toward waste sorting.
Hence, future research should consider the convenience of collect-
ing intentions and waste sorting frequency at the same time, or
even use observation to register actual waste sorting behavior.
Finally, limited variables have been added into the TPB model to
explore residents’ waste sorting intention and behavior. Other vari-
ables, such as risk perception, emotion, motivation and perceived
value, are not considered. Future research can take these variables
into account to extend the current research.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (Grant number 71974177, 71904189 and
71804174) and the USTC Research Funds of the Double First-
Class Initiative (Grant number YD2160002002).
References
Agovino, M., Garofalo, A., Mariani, A., 2018. Institutional quality effects on separate
waste collection: some evidence from Italian provinces. J. Environ. Plann.
Manage. 61 (9), 1487–1510.
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
50 (2), 179–211.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411.
Andersson, C., Stage, J., 2018. Direct and indirect effects of waste management
policies on household waste behavior: The case of Sweden. Waste Manage. 76,
19–27.
Bamberg, S., Hunecke, M., Blöbaum, A., 2007. Social context, personal norms and the
use of public transportation: Two field studies. J. Environ. Psychol. 27 (3), 190–
203.
Barr, S., Guilbert, S., Metcalfe, A., Riley, M., Robinson, G.M., Tudor, T.L., 2013. Beyond
recycling: An integrated approach for understanding municipal waste
management. Appl. Geogr. 39, 67–77.
Bertoldo, R., Castro, P., 2016. The outer influence inside us: Exploring the relation
between social and personal norms. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 112, 45–53.
Bortoleto, A.P., Kurisu, K.H., Hanaki, K., 2012. Model development for household
waste prevention behavior. Waste Manage. 32 (12), 2195–2207.
Chalak, A., Abou-Daher, C., Chaaban, J., Abiad, M.G., 2016. The global economic and
regulatory determinants of household food waste generation: A cross-country
analysis. Waste Manage. 48, 418–422.
Czajkowski, M., Ka˛dziela, T., Hanley, N., 2014. We want to sort! Assessing
households’ preferences for sorting waste. Resource Energy Econ. 36 (1), 290–
306.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Gao, L., Wang, S., Li, J., Li, H., 2017. Application of the extended theory of planned
behavior to understand individual’s energy saving behavior in workplaces.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 107–113.
Ghani, W.A.W.A.K., Rusli, I.F., Biak, D.R.A., Idris, A., 2013. An application of the
theory of planned behavior to study the influencing factors of participation in
source separation of food waste. Waste Manage. 33 (5), 1276–1281.
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.
50 S. Wang et al. / Waste Management 113 (2020) 41–50
Hage, O., Sandberg, K., Söderholm, P., Berglund, C., 2008. Household plastic waste
collection in Swedish municipalities: A spatial-econometric approach. In:
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Annual
Conference: Gothenburg, pp. 25–28.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., 2009. Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice
Hall, New York, NY.
Han, H., Hwang, J., Lee, M.J., Kim, J., 2019. Word-of-mouth, buying, and sacrifice
intentions for eco-cruises: Exploring the function of norm activation and value-
attitude-behavior. Tourism Manage. 70, 430–443.
Han, L., Wang, S., Zhao, D., Li, J., 2017. The intention to adopt electric vehicles:
Driven by functional and non-functional values. Transport. Res. Part A: Policy
Pract. 103 (C), 185–197.
Han, H., Yu, J., Kim, H.C., Kim, W., 2018. Impact of social/personal norms and
willingness to sacrifice on young vacationers’ pro-environmental intentions for
waste reduction and recycling. J. Sustain. Tourism 26 (12), 2117–2133.
Hayes, A.F., Preacher, K.J., 2010. Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple
mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivar. Behav.
Res. 45 (4), 627–660.
Heidari, A., Kolahi, M., Behravesh, N., Ghorbanyon, M., Ehsanmansh, F.,
Hashemolhosini, N., Zanganeh, F., 2018. Youth and sustainable waste
management: a SEM approach and extended theory of planned behavior. J.
Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 20 (4), 2041–2053.
Hu, H., Zhang, J., Chu, G., Yang, J., Yu, P., 2018. Factors influencing tourists’ litter
management behavior in mountainous tourism areas in China. Waste Manage.
79, 273–286.
Hu, H., Zhang, J., Wang, C., Yu, P., Chu, G., 2019. What influences tourists’ intention
to participate in the Zero Litter Initiative in mountainous tourism areas: A case
study of Huangshan National Park, China. Sci. Total Environ. 657, 1127–1137.
Inglezakis, V.J., Moustakas, K., 2015. Household hazardous waste management: A
review. J. Environ. Manage. 150, 310–321.
Kaiser, F.G., 2006. A moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: Norms and
anticipated feelings of regret in conservationism. Personality Individ. Differ. 41
(1), 71–81.
Li, Y., Liu, Y., Gong, X., Nie, Z., Cui, S., Wang, Z., Chen, W., 2016. Environmental
impact analysis of blast furnace slag applied to ordinary Portland cement
production. J. Cleaner Prod. 120, 221–230.
Li, J., Zuo, J., Cai, H., Zillante, G., 2018. Construction waste reduction behavior of
contractor employees: An extended theory of planned behavior model
approach. J. Cleaner Prod. 172, 1399–1408.
Lim, M., 2011. Full cost accounting in solid waste management: the gap in the
literature on newly industrialized countries. J. Appl. Manage. Account. Res. 9 (1),
21.
Lin, S., Wang, S., Marinova, D., Zhao, D., Hong, J., 2017. Impacts of urbanization and
real economic development on CO2 emissions in non-high income countries:
Empirical research based on the extended STIRPAT model. J. Cleaner Prod. 166,
952–966.
Liu, X., Wang, Z., Li, W., Li, G., Zhang, Y., 2019. Mechanisms of public education
influencing waste classification willingness of urban residents. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 149, 381–390.
Matsuda, T., Hirai, Y., Asari, M., Yano, J., Miura, T., Ii, R., Sakai, S.I., 2018. Monitoring
environmental burden reduction from household waste prevention. Waste
Manage. 71, 2–9.
Meng, B., Choi, K., 2016. Extending the theory of planned behavior: Testing the
effects of authentic perception and environmental concerns on the slow-tourist
decision-making process. Current Issues Tourism 19 (6), 528–544.
Minelgaitė, A., Liobikienė, G., 2019a. Waste problem in European Union and its
influence on waste management behaviors. Sci. Total Environ. 667, 86–93.
Minelgaitė, A., Liobikienė, G., 2019b. The problem of not waste sorting behavior,
comparison of waste sorters and non-sorters in European Union: Cross-cultural
analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 672, 174–182.
Mintz, K.K., Henn, L., Park, J., Kurman, J., 2019. What predicts household waste
management behaviors? Culture and type of behavior as moderators. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 145, 11–18.
Onwezen, M.C., Antonides, G., Bartels, J., 2013. The Norm Activation Model: An
exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental
behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 39, 141–153.
Oreg, S., Katz-Gerro, T., 2006. Predicting pro-environmental behavior cross-
nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm
theory. Environ. Behavior 38 (4), 462–483.
Ostrom, E., 2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J. Econ.
Perspect. 14 (3), 137–158.
Owusu, V., Adjei-Addo, E., Sundberg, C., 2013. Do economic incentives affect
attitudes to solid waste source separation? Evidence from Ghana. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 78, 115–123.
Park, J., Ha, S., 2014. Understanding consumer recycling behavior: Combining the
theory of planned behavior and the norm activation model. Family Consumer
Sci. Res. J. 42 (3), 278–291.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879.
Rada, E.C., Ragazzi, M., Fedrizzi, P., 2013. Web-GIS oriented systems viability for
municipal solid waste selective collection optimization in developed and
transient economies. Waste Manage. 33 (4), 785–792.
Ramayah, T., Lee, J.W.C., Lim, S., 2012. Sustaining the environment through
recycling: An empirical study. J. Environ. Manage. 102, 141–147.
Robinson, G.M., Read, A.D., 2005. Recycling behavior in a London Borough: Results
from large-scale household surveys. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 45 (1), 70–83.
Ru, X., Wang, S., Yan, S., 2018. Exploring the effects of normative factors and
perceived behavioral control on individual’s energy-saving intention: An
empirical study in eastern China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 134, 91–99.
Ru, X., Qin, H., Wang, S., 2019. Young people’s behavior intentions towards reducing
PM2.5 in China: Extending the theory of planned behavior. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 141, 99–108.
Schwartz, S.H., 1973. Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique,
proposal and empirical test. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 9 (4), 349–364.
Shi, H., Wang, S., Zhao, D., 2017. Exploring urban resident’s vehicular PM2.5
reduction behavior intention: An application of the extended theory of planned
behavior. J. Cleaner Prod. 147, 603–613.
Teng, Y.M., Wu, K.S., Liu, H.H., 2015. Integrating altruism and the theory of planned
behavior to predict patronage intention of a green hotel. J. Hospital. Tourism
Res. 39 (3), 299–315.
Wang, S., Fan, J., Zhao, D., Yang, S., Fu, Y., 2016. Predicting consumers’ intention to
adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of
planned behavior model. Transportation 43 (1), 123–143.
Wang, S., Li, J., Zhao, D., 2017. The impact of policy measures on consumer intention
to adopt electric vehicles: Evidence from China. Transport. Res. Part A: Policy
Pract. 105 (C), 14–26.
Wang, Z., Dong, X., Yin, J., 2018a. Antecedents of urban residents’ separate collection
intentions for household solid waste and their willingness to pay: Evidence
from China. J. Cleaner Prod. 173, 256–264.
Wang, S., Lin, S., Li, J., 2018b. Exploring the effects of non-cognitive and emotional
factors on household electricity saving behavior. Energy Policy 115, 171–180.
Wang, J., Wang, S., Wang, Y., Li, J., Zhao, D., 2018c. Extending the theory of planned
behavior to understand consumers’ intentions to visit green hotels in the
Chinese context. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manage. 30 (8), 2810–2825.
Wang, S., Wang, J., Zhao, S., Yang, S., 2019. Information publicity and resident’s
waste separation behavior: An empirical study based on the norm activation
model. Waste Manage. 87, 33–42.
Wang, Y., Wang, S., Wang, J., Wei, J., Wang, C., 2020. An empirical study of
consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: Using an extended
technology acceptance model. Transportation 47 (1), 397–415.
Webb, D., Soutar, G.N., Mazzarol, T., Saldaris, P., 2013. Self-determination theory
and consumer behavioral change: Evidence from a household energy-saving
behavior study. J. Environ. Psychol. 35, 59–66.
Xiao, L., Zhang, G., Zhu, Y., Lin, T., 2017. Promoting public participation in household
waste management: A survey based method and case study in Xiamen city,
China. J. Cleaner Prod. 144, 313–322.
Xu, L., Zhang, X., Ling, M., 2018. Pro-environmental spillover under environmental
appeals and monetary incentives: evidence from an intervention study on
household waste separation. J. Environ. Psychol. 60, 27–33.
Yang, S., Cheng, P., Li, J., Wang, S., 2019. Which group should policies target? Effects
of incentive policies and product cognitions for electric vehicle adoption among
Chinese consumers. Energy Policy 135, 111009.
Zhang, X., Geng, G., Sun, P., 2017. Determinants and implications of citizens’
environmental complaint in China: Integrating theory of planned behavior and
norm activation model. J. Cleaner Prod. 166, 148–156.
Zhang, B., Lai, K.H., Wang, B., Wang, Z., 2019. From intention to action: How do
personal attitudes, facilities accessibility, and government stimulus matter for
household waste sorting?. J. Environ. Manage. 233, 447–458.
Zhang, S., Zhang, M., Yu, X., Ren, H., 2016. What keeps Chinese from recycling:
Accessibility of recycling facilities and the behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
109, 176–186.