Solid Waste Management Behavior Among The Student Community Integrating Environmental Knowledge and Situational Factors Into The TPB and VBN

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20
Solid waste management behavior among the

student community: integrating environmental
knowledge and situational factors into the
theories of planned behavior and value belief
norm
Sumana Jagadeshi Raghu & Lewlyn L. R. Rodrigues
To cite this article: Sumana Jagadeshi Raghu & Lewlyn L. R. Rodrigues (2021): Solid waste
management behavior among the student community: integrating environmental knowledge
and situational factors into the theories of planned behavior and value belief norm, Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2021.1949969
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1949969
View supplementary material
Published online: 07 Oct 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjep20
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1949969
Solid waste management behavior among the student community:

integrating environmental knowledge and situational factors into
the theories of planned behavior and value belief norm
Sumana Jagadeshi Raghu and Lewlyn L. R. Rodrigues
Humanities and Management Department, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy

of Higher Education, Manipal, India
(Received 5 December 2020; revised 9 April 2021; final version received 15 June 2021)
This research goes beyond the attitude-intention link to investigate the determinants
of solid waste management behavior among the student community. The study
proposes an extended model comprised of constructs from psychological
frameworks, the theory of planned behavior and value-belief-norm theory by
integrating environmental knowledge and situational factors as the intrinsic and
extrinsic variables. A self-administered questionnaire method with a sample of
1,105 and structural equation modeling to test the statistical significance of the
model revealed that our novel model includes a satisfactory level of prediction
power, which is superior to existing theories. Findings show that intention,
subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and attitude had a significant
positive influence on behavior. While biospheric and altruistic values showed
positive relationships with belief, moral norms and environmental knowledge was
found to be crucial in forming attitude. The results of this work could be used by
governments, policymakers and researchers to design and implement effective
waste management systems.
Keywords: Theory of planned behavior; value belief norm theory; solid waste
management behavior; environmental knowledge; situational factors; student community
1. Introduction
Solid waste management (SWM) remains a major issue for every city. Metropolitans
comprised of migrated population, technological advancement and accelerated industri-
alization are facing enormous increases in solid waste (SW) affecting the quality of
water bodies, food production, climate, local environment, infrastructure, public health
and citizen safety. In a report by the World Health Organization, in 1900 the world
had 220 million urban residents who produced fewer than 300,000 tons of rubbish per
day (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2018). According to the same report, by 2000, 2.9 bil-
lion people lived in cities and generated waste to the tune of 3 million tons per day. In
another report by the World Bank, it was postulated that by 2025, the amount of SW
generated across the globe would increase from 1.3 billion tons per year to 2.2 billion
tons per year. The same study reports that waste produced by cities in developing
nations is overwhelming, with Asia alone generating 790 million tons of waste (Pappu,
Saxena, and Asolekar 2007), four times the amount of SW that was generated in 1997.
Corresponding author. Email: rodrigusr@gmail.com
ß 2021 Newcastle University

2 S.J. Raghu and L.L.R. Rodrigues
To overcome these alarming statistics on waste production, exclusive policies and laws
are initiated in developing nations such as India. Comprehending the necessity of such
pro-environmental policies, few individuals and organizations have adopted heightened
SWM practices, and some have moved beyond mere compliance by engaging in
socially and environmentally responsible activities. However, choices made by many
that benefit the environment and self, or at least lessen the negative environmental
impacts, are undistinguished. This wide disparity of solid waste management behavior
(SWMB) which refers to a set of actions undertaken by individuals to reject accumula-
tion of items (refuse), minimize waste (reduce), use of goods that can still be used
(reuse), utilize waste into usable form (recycle) and safe waste disposal activities
(European Council 1992; Kaza et al. 2018; Pongracz and Pohjola 2004; Pongracz
2002) have drawn significant interest from scholars, researchers and policy makers
(Heidari et al. 2018; Jekria and Daud 2016; Visschers, Wickli, and Siegrist 2016).
Some of their efforts are devoted to the investigation of parameters that encourage or
stifle SWMB among individuals.
Identification of a particular set of SWMB factors that impedes the degradation of
local environments has been a territory where researchers have attempted to evaluate
the linkages between attitude and intention (Ayob et al. 2017; Momoh and Oladebeye
2010; Oztekin et al. 2017), intention and behavior (Xu et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2015),
self-efficacy and behavior (Thøgersen 2003; Gould et al. 2016), habits and behavior
(Knussen et al. 2004; Kl€ockner and Oppedal 2011) and community concern and
behavior (Tonglet, Phillips, and Bates 2004). It is also acknowledged that there has
been an ongoing debate as to whether beliefs and attitudes do necessarily result in
more SWMBs (Bertoldo et al. 2013; Steg and Vlek 2009). These kind of behavioral
studies have valid reasons for creating a sound knowledge base. However, it is noted
that mere transmission of such knowledge is not sufficient in comprehending SWMB
patterns (Gifford and Nilsson 2014; Weber and Stern 2011; Bolderdijk et al. 2013).
This is because, just having accurate information about the decision-making for an
issue can be quite inappropriate and irrelevant. Although they provide a strong base
for scientific scholarship, in the view of methodical and theoretical progression it is
argued that exploration of subjective values and beliefs that people hold toward SWM
issues is relevant and crucial rather than restriction to attitude-behaviors (Raghu and
Rodrigues 2020). Since it is possible to challenge the reasons for pro-social and pro-
environmental behaviors that strengthen those which support it by promoting waste
behaviors, it is appropriate to identify SWM values and beliefs and how these beliefs
affect behavior. This scrutiny of the inter-relationships between values and behaviors
becomes even more imperative at this stage of globalization because the physical and
social factors of competitive trade exchange between countries is expected only to
increase in coming years causing serious environmental ramifications at both local and
global level.
Many existing studies have focused on householders’ waste reduction attitude
(Zhang et al. 2015; Mondejar-Jimenez et al. 2016; Izagirre, Fernandez-Sainz, and
Vicente-Molina 2015), waste minimization intention (Bagozzi and Pratibha 1994;
Davis et al. 2006), composting behavior (Tonglet, Phillips, and Bates 2004), recycling
beliefs and norms (De Leeuw, Valois, and Seixas 2014; Steg et al. 2011), recycling
intention (Wan, Shen, and Yu 2014; Graham-Rowe, Jessop, and Sparks 2015) and gen-
eral waste behaviors (Miliute-Plepiene et al. 2016; Mahmud and Osman 2010).
However, no study has analyzed SWM values that may influence SWMB among
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 3
university students. Such studies are crucial because students are intellectual van-
guards, entrepreneurs and consumers, and hence a reference group for others (Kelly
et al. 2006). They represent a community that significantly influences a wider society
and their responses to SWM issues prior to entering into professional careers would
reflect the values and beliefs they have inculcated throughout their childhood. What
motivates young people to indulge in SWM activities is not only an essential scientific
enterprise that needs deeper understanding, but has an important concern for practical
applications in creating a sustainable system. Acknowledging the theoretical gap and
to fulfill the same by investigating students’ SWMB, this study aims (1) to develop a
robust model that expands the attitude-behavior link to gain knowledge about the ante-
cedents of SWMB that has higher explanatory power, and that can assist the change
agent in deciding which determinant can be best targeted in SWM campaigns (2) to
test the superiority of the proposed model by comparing with original frameworks for
comprehending SWMB among university students.
2. Literature review
Past SWMB research has utilized models from the domains of psychology, sociology
and anthropology, in terms of its SWMB, focusing on: the individual (i.e. in relation
to human behavior and its changes as influenced by internal and external factors;
Wang et al. 2018; Miliute-Plepiene et al. 2016; Izagirre-Olaizola, Fernandez-Sainz,
and Vicente-Molina 2015), social (i.e. in terms of its goal on broader societal changes;
Hargreaves 2011; Shove 2010; Phipps et al. 2013) and community/ethnic (i.e. in the
view of emphasizing the waste disposal habits of a community/ethnic group;
Haldemann and Turner 2009; Moely, Furco, and Reed 2008). Researchers have trad-
itionally referred to psychological and cognitive frameworks to establish the links
between past and future performance of individuals’ choice of waste handling. Since
the current research is about analyzing the determinants of individual SWMB at house-
hold level, and it aims to expand the regular kind of behavioral and situational scope
of SWM, this paper adopts the derivatives of psychological theoretical foundations,
rigorously reviewed as outlined below.
2.1. Value-belief-norm (VBN) theory

VBN framework considered as value-norm based model explains the linear link at
three levels of analysis: personal values, beliefs and moral norm (MN) that leads to
behavior (Figure 1). The theory assumes that values are guiding actions in developing
and maintaining a person’s attitude and MN is a potent contributor that carries a refer-
ence to morality (Stern 2000; Sharma and Gupta 2020; Xu et al. 2017). It propagates
that pro-environmental values have significant positive consequences and therefore
beliefs are deep rooted about those consequences to guide an action. Further, in the
process of behavior formation, attitude is formed and belief acts as a mediator between
values and attitude (Daneshvary, Daneshvary, and Schwer 1998), and MN acts as a
social amplifier in the process of influencing behavior by accepting information about
Value Belief Norm Behaviour
Figure 1. VBN theory (Stern 2000).

behavior-specific beliefs selectively (Denley et al. 2020; Stern and Dietz 1994: Stern,
Dietz, and Kalof 1993; Steg and Nordlund 2012). Thus, someone who values waste
composting above kitchen waste disposal may not compromise on environmental val-
ues, since their value orientations are in improving the status of the environment and
their commitment to attain zero-waste to landfill influences composting behaviors.
Similarly, someone who values nature above economic factors may form values for
organic products, since they accept the information and support the belief that plastic
is a dire threat to the environment, and their sense of obligation to protect the environ-
ment encourages eco-friendly behaviors. Since the theory endorses that individuals
with pro-environmental values possess a higher level of eco-friendly beliefs and behav-
iors, this theory is applicable in an SWMB context.
2.2. Theory of planned behavior (TPB)

TPB is an intention-based model and hypothesizes that behavioral intention is the key
and immediate antecedent of behavior. Intention represents the motivation of a con-
scious plan and efforts taken to perform a behavior, and as a general rule, stronger
intention leads to positive behavioral performance (Ajzen 2011). In addition, TPB con-
siders perceived behavioral control (PBC) as the second determinant and posits to pro-
duce mediating effects on behavior. The transition from goal intention to
implementation intention is cognitive in nature and hence according to Ajzen (2005),
human behavioral intention is guided by three conceptually independent factors and
interplays to form behavior (Figure 2): (1) behavioral beliefs which lead to attitude
refers to beliefs about the likely outcomes of the behavior (2) normative beliefs which
leads to subjective norms (SN) refers to beliefs of social expectations to perform/not
perform the behavior and (3) control beliefs which leads to PBC and refers to the per-
ceived facility or difficulty in performing the behavior. As a general understanding,
the more favorable attitude and SN with a high level of PBC, the stronger the relation-
ship between intention-behavior (Yuriev et al. 2020), and thus individuals are expected
to carry out their intentions with a sufficient degree of actual control over behavior
when opportunity arises. In the context of SWMB, although the degree of intention-
behavior stability may be governed by a given situation, in the intention-behavior
phase a person may develop willingness to refuse plastics and act pro-environmentally;
whereas in the volitional phase, a person may change their waste attitude due to the
environmental threat caused by plastics and plan, initiate and maintain waste reduction
Figure 2. Theory of Planned Behavior.

behaviors. Since action planning, self-efficacy and action control play a vital role in
forming SWMBs, this theory is applied in this study.
2.3. Relationship between VBN theory and TPB

The theoretical constructs of the VBN model and TPB are widely accepted and applied
frameworks to understand which individuals behave in a pro-environmental way.
While VBN theory focuses on values and norms, TPB is grounded in the decision-
making contemplation of an individual. The VBN model is an integrated framework of
Schwartz’s norm activation model (NAM) and TPB was framed to improve the pre-
dictive power of the theory of reasoned action (TRA). While the VBN model is based
on pro-social motives, TPB is established on goal directed behaviors. Further, VBN
theory stresses support behaviors and their logical relationships about the role of indi-
viduals’ intrinsic parameters, rather than direct discussion on situational factors, but
TPB emphasizes the control factors which can directly influence performance. With
these differences, the common factor in both models is belief, also referred to as eco-
logical worldview (Han 2015; Stern, Dietz, and Kalof 1993; Stern 2000) and relates to
an individual’s likely consequences for behavior that is likely to be exhibited when an
individual holds strong responsibility toward environmental issues.
The main applications of these two frameworks have been to investigate the cogni-
tive components and social responsibilities of a variety of waste behaviors such as
waste segregation (Han, Chua, and Hyun 2020; Ma, Wang, and Kong 2020), waste
minimization (Xu et al. 2017), recycling (Jekria and Daud 2016; Pakpour et al. 2014),
composting (Kim, Hall, and Kim 2020), and food waste separation (Abadi,
Mahdavian, and Fattahi 2021; Russell et al. 2017). Few scientists have compared the
parameters of these two theories (intra-model comparison) to understand the degree of
model-fit and the predictive capacity that these models can exhibit in the evaluation of
environmental behaviors (Kaiser, H€ubner, and Bogner 2005; Lopez-Mosquera and
Sanchez 2012). Although relatively successful in explaining environmental behaviors,
the general agreement of these studies are: the VBN model performs poorly for
repeated behaviors and, on the other hand, TPB has been criticized for neglecting
moral considerations. To overcome the drawbacks of these theories, researchers have
opined the common way to achieve greater sufficiency and reduce the behavior-spe-
cific variance by aggregation of composite measures (Gkargkavouzi et al. 2019;
Kiatkawsin and Han 2017; Meng et al. 2020).
2.4. Convergence of VBN theory and TPB

Socio-psychological relevant studies have demonstrated that the core constructs of the-
ories can be successfully integrated into robust models to increase the predictive valid-
ity power of pro-environmental intention and behaviors (Kaiser, H€ubner, and Bogner
2005; Thøgersen 1996). Such an approach has a long-standing tradition in behavioral
sciences research. For instance, Kiatkawsin and Han (2017) converged the VBN
framework and expectancy theory to explore pro-environmental intention among young
travelers. It was concluded that the mixed model had 12.8% higher predictive power
in assessing pro-environmental intention. Similarly, Ateş (2020) merged TPB and the
value identity norm model and found that biospheric values and environmental self-
identity had a direct influence on personal norm and environmental behavior. Han
Table 1. Definitions of the study variables.
Study variables Definition References
1. Value Refers to a desirable trans-situational De Groot et al. (2007)

goal varying in importance that
serves as a guiding principle in the
life of a person or other social
entity; and biospheric value
orientation indicates values
emphasizing the environment and
the biosphere itself.
2. Belief Refers to the propensity to take Stern (2000)
actions with pro-
environmental intent.
3. Moral norm Indicates the sense of obligation (also Stern (2000)
known as moral obligation) to
perform or refrain from a set of
specific actions.
4. Attitude Refers to the degree to which a Ajzen (1991)
person has a favorable or
unfavorable evaluation or appraisal
of the behavior in question.
5. Intention Indicates how hard people are willing Ajzen (1991)
to try, how much of an effort they
are planning to exert, in order to
perform the behavior.
6. Subjective norm Refers to the perceived social Ajzen (1991)
pressure to perform or not to
perform the behavior.
7. Perceived Is an indication of how hard people Ajzen (1991)
behavioral are willing to try, of how much of
control an effort they are planning to exert,
in order to perform the behavior.
8. Behavior Is a real action that is exhibited and Ajzen (1991)
can be observed in response to
feelings, thoughts and beliefs.
(2015) merged the VBN model and TPB, and it was concluded that the integrated
model had better explanatory power as compared with a single theory framework.
These studies prove to be unique, and they demonstrate that behavior expressions are
involved with an array of antecedents and cannot be restricted within a block of single
theory. Moreover, in complex behavior interventions such as SWMB, it is noted from
a number of field studies that while empowering consumers to change their recycling
behaviors, it is crucial to explore external and personal constraints that promote sus-
tainable waste behaviors from multiple angles (van der Werff and Steg 2016). To
obtain a superior validity and measurement ability, it becomes imperative to test caus-
ality relationships between multiple variables. Furthermore, the predictive validity and
measurability of a particular behavior can be achieved when the intervening behavior
is goal-directed (Ajzen 1991). In this view, researchers conclude that a systematic way
of examining waste behavior is possible when variables of a particular theory are sub-
jected to investigation by adding extra variables (Abdelradi 2018; Kang and Moreno
2020; Zhang et al. 2015).
Heeding the above points, this study adopted a synthesis approach to investigate the
determinants of SWMB. The study chose to converge VBN theory and TPB in particu-
lar because: first, the majority of earlier studies dealt with the examination of the atti-
tude-behavior link (Raghu and Rodrigues 2020). But, the process of SWMB is an
amalgamation of values, beliefs and norms, in which values form the fundamental basis
of environmental beliefs and environmental ethics (Latif et al. 2012). Since the degree
of values that people hold may vary according to different contexts such as culture,
tradition, ethnicity, society and community (De Groot and Steg 2007), there is a scope
to examine the SWM values-SWMB link in this current research context. Second,
SWM is a monotonous job that demands constant will and compassion to protect the
environment, and unless an individual holds strong commitment to protect the environ-
ment, sustainable SWM is unlikely to occur. In that context, rationality-based theories
alone seem to be unable to explain SWMB completely (Izagirre-Olaizola, Fernandez-
Sainz, and Vicente-Molina 2015), rather morality-based theories might be essential for
understanding the nature of SWMB. Third, the examination of value – action gap to
comprehend how, why and what an individual feels and thinks about waste problems
not only improve our present understanding of SWMB, but may aid in practical appli-
cations to strengthen those factors that promote sustainable waste behaviors. Finally, a
large number of studies concerning values in environmental research are based on
Schwartz’s VBN theory. Similarly, another set of researchers have adopted TPB to
explore the intention-behavior link. However, to our knowledge no study has combined
VBN theory and TPB to comprehend SWMB. Therefore, this study proposed an
extended model to specifically evaluate the SWM value - SWMB link among university
students. The definitions of VBN theory and TPB variables are presented in Table 1.
2.5. Hypotheses development

This section makes an attempt to link variables of theoretical postulations to study the
interdependencies between variables and to evaluate the antecedents of SWMB
as follows.
2.5.1. Relationship between SWM values and SWM beliefs

Substantial literature about values that spans across several disciplines expresses that
values are stable by nature and act by guiding actions for the development of attitudes
that lead to behaviors (Rokeach 1973). According to VBN theory, three value orienta-
tions are considered to be relevant in structuring environmental behaviors: egoistic val-
ues (where people try to maximize individual benefits), altruistic values (that reflect
the welfare of others) and biospheric values (where people show concern toward the
Earth and non-human species) (Megeirhi et al. 2020; Whitley et al. 2018). Studies
show that altruistic and biospheric values are positively related to environmental
beliefs, norms and behavior (Kiatkawsin and Han 2017), and egoistic values have been
found negatively related to beliefs, norms and behavior (Ciocirlan et al. 2020; Onel
and Mukherjee 2017; Nordlund and Garvill 2003; Stern 2000). Some studies have
illustrated that altruistic and biospheric values (self-transcendent) are related to the
egoistic value dimension (self-enhancement); because environmental behavior often
involves a conflict between individual interests and long-term collective gains
(Nordlund and Garvill 2002). Although some studies do not show a distinction between
altruistic and biospheric value orientations (Corraliza and Berenguer 2000; Han et al.
2018; Quoquab, Jaini, and Mohammad 2020; Stern and Dietz 1994), the general opinion
among researchers is: values influence environmental behavior indirectly via behavior
specific beliefs, norms and attitudes (G€arling et al. 2003; McCarty and Shrum 1994;
Nilsson, von Borgstede, and Biel 2004). Some studies about pro-social behaviors have
not supported altruistic and biospheric values and focus on MN that translates into com-
mitment when an individual possesses trait-like values about self, others, and Earth (De
Groot et al. 2007; Kl€ockner 2013: Stern and Dietz 1994). Although these studies have
created a solid base in WM literature, it is necessary to focus on distinct values because
the extreme end of the chain of causality that makes reference is specific value (Ibtissem
2010). Since values form a reference to the chain of precedents (Lanzini and Thøgersen
2014), individuals’ perceptions about ecological worldviews that may influence the deci-
sion of developing sustainable waste behaviors and their relationship within the ecosys-
tem needs crucial evaluation. Although SWMB may not necessarily assure by holding
pro-environmental values, it is possible that SWM values may influence SWM beliefs
and may precede SWMB. Hence we postulated:
H1. Altruistic value has a significant positive influence on SWM belief.
H2. Biospheric value has a significant positive influence on SWM belief.
H3. Egoistic value has a significant positive influence on SWM belief.
2.5.2. Relationship between SWM beliefs and MN

According to VBN theory, environmental threats and their consequences influence individ-
ual perception, and this in turn impacts MNs which are cognitive mechanisms of moral
denial of acceptance of ecological deterioration as an inevitable situation (Lopez and
Cuervo-Arango 2008). Since MN act as a defensive mechanism of personal responsibility
to act in favor of the environment, specific-beliefs can affect environmental behaviors dir-
ectly or indirectly, counteracting the feelings of moral obligation by redefining ecological
situations. Some studies have reported that people with strong environmental beliefs are
more likely to engage in pro-environmental activities, since environmental beliefs posi-
tively affect MNs that individuals hold (Harring and Jagers 2018; Fang et al. 2017). In a
study by Sharma et al. (2017), it was revealed that beliefs about nature had a significant
positive relationship with recycling, while beliefs about human intervention had a negative
relationship with consumer purchases. When individuals believe that the environment dete-
riorates due to human needs and desires, normative actions occur and a conscious decision
is taken to reduce toxic loads on the environment. As a sense of obligation for SWM
which benefits self and others are the key features of pro-social and pro-environmental
behaviors, often regulated by beliefs (Gadenne et al. 2011) we hypothesized:
H4. SWM beliefs have a significant positive influence on MN.
2.5.3. Relationship between MN and SWM attitude

Psychologists call for activating intrinsic factors such as sense of responsibility, since
lack of moral obligation leads to a weak environmental system (Minton and Rose
1997; Rezvani, Jansson, and Bengtsson 2017; Gkargkavouzi, Halkos, and Matsiori
2019). A study to understand waste separation behavior in Iran, Pakpour et al. (2014)
concluded that moral obligation among residents had a significant influence on atti-
tudes and behaviors. In another study by Zhang, Geng, and Sun (2017) to investigate
the determinants of environmental complaints, MN was found to be the highest and a
direct influencer of intention. These environmental studies support empirical evidence
of MN, a principal component of the VBN model and an influencing variable of TPB
that may have an effect on environmental behaviors. Since attitude is positive and
behavior is affirmative when the degree of commitment toward the wellness of the
environment and society is strong, we hypothesized:
H5. MN has significant positive influence on SWM attitude.
2.5.4. Relationship between SWM beliefs and SWM attitude

The belief – attitude link has been evaluated by few scholars and the general opinion
among researchers is: positive attitude toward a particular behavior is based upon
believing that behavior will likely lead to positively evaluated outcomes, or is unlikely
to lead to negatively evaluated outcomes (Conner and Abraham 2001; Halpenny 2010;
Parizeau, von Massow, and Martin 2015). However, it must be noted that the theoriza-
tion of the belief-behavior gap is based on individuals behaving logically and this pos-
tulation does not hold good when different people possess different beliefs, and these
beliefs are interpreted and respond to the same environmental information in an unpre-
dictable way that leads to attitude. In that vein, it is acknowledged that environmental
issues such as SWM within a broader social context cannot be overcome by merely
invoking information about citizens’ participation (De Leeuw et al. 2015; McCarty and
Shrum 2001; Joireman and Liu 2014); it rather requires an investigation to demystify
the belief-behavior gap by emphasizing subjective beliefs and other parameters that
may facilitate the development of new beliefs to promote SWM attitudes and behav-
iors. Although SWM attitude may be formed from several ways of important referents
and have indirect effects on SWMB (Han 2015; Zheng et al. 2018; Ojo, Raman, and
Downe 2019), it suffices an illustration that behavioral beliefs may have a significant
role in forming SWM attitude. Considering these points, we framed:
H6. SWM belief has a significant positive influence on SWM attitude.
2.5.5. Relationship between environmental knowledge and SWM attitude

As per psychologists, waste behaviors exhibited on the basis of knowledge will be
consistent and long standing (Kelly et al. 2006). Past studies have provided limited
insights about the role of environmental knowledge that can influence SWMB. In col-
laborative research conducted in the USA and Spain, it was revealed that environmen-
tal knowledge had a major impact on recycling behaviors among university students
(Izagirre-Olaizola, Fernandez-Sainz, and Vicente-Molina 2015). Similarly, in a study
by Barr (2004) it was noted that knowledge about policy measures to reduce waste
was found to increase waste behaviors as compared to environmental consequences
that affected individuals’ intention. This relationship between knowledge and waste
behaviors was reported to be insignificant; perhaps knowledge may have mediated
attitudes instead of intention and behavior. Since positive attitude is expressed when
one masters SWM skills (Zhang et al. 2015), and since SWMB is fundamentally a sci-
entific knowledge activity, we hypothesized:
H7. Environmental knowledge has a positive relationship with SWM attitude.
2.5.6. Relationship between situational factors and SWM attitude

Studies show non-recyclers experience inconvenience and are less likely to recycle as
compared to recyclers (Ramayah, Chow Lee, and Lim 2012). For residents, a closer
collection point means less effort and more convenience as compared to a central col-
lection point. In a study to predict food separation behavior, Ghani et al. (2013) found
that lack of opportunities, resources and skills were prime constraints in non-participa-
tion of source separation programs. Previous works have studied the influence of
“situational spillover” (i.e. adopting a behavior in one context and extending the same
behavior adoption to another context). In that line, Whitmarsh, Haggar, and Thomas
(2018) studied the role of situational factors that may predict waste behaviors at work,
home and holiday. The findings revealed that contextual factors influence recycling
behaviors positively at all places. Since the success of waste separation campaigns
depend on the feasibility of external infrastructures, we assumed:
H8. Situational factors have a positive relationship with SWM attitude.
2.5.7. Relationship between SWM attitude, PBC, SN and SWM intention

As hypothesized by TPB, the majority of past studies have revealed positive relation-
ships between attitude, PBC, SN and intention (Chan and Bishop 2013; Wang et al.
2018). In particular, in their investigations to explore recycling behaviors, Chan and
Bishop (2013) found direct associations between attitude, PBC, SN and intention.
Heidari et al. (2019) expanded the TPB model by incorporating extra variables such as
motivation, environmental awareness and moral obligation and their results showed
positive associations among TPB variables. While these studies incorporated all con-
structs of TPB, some studies considered selected variables to explore the determinants
of waste behaviors (Bhatti et al. 2019; Wong, Hsu, and Chen 2018; Razali et al.
2020). Since attitude refers to the feelings of a person engaging in SWM activities and
forms the basis for pro-environmental behaviors, Oztekin et al. (2017) studied recy-
cling behavior among university staff and intention was found to be positively influ-
enced by attitude. To comprehend the role of SN on waste behaviors, Mahmud and
Osman (2010) found SN to be a lower predictor of intention, while Wan, Cheung, and
Shen (2012) reported SN to be the strongest predictor of intention. These inconsistent
results in different settings allow us to measure the correlation of all TPB variables in
the present research and thus, we assumed:
H9. SWM attitude has a significant positive influence on SWM intention.
H10. Perceived behavioral control has a significant positive influence on SWM intention.
H11. Subjective norms have a significant positive influence on SWM intention.

2.5.8. Relationship between SWM intention and SWMB

Although TPB posits intention as the main determinant of behavior, some researchers have
not utilized this construct and it is argued that capturing intentions is difficult as they can
change over time (Carfora et al. 2017; Lizin, Van Dael, and Van Passel 2017). While
some researchers highlight that behavior is dependent on intention and ability to complete a
task (Judge, Warren-Myers, and Paladino 2019; Wan et al. 2012), some studies have
revealed that strong intention is not sufficient to predict a given behavior, since action-plan-
ning can translate good intention into an activity (Sniehotta, Scholz, and Schwarzer 2005).
However, for the present context, it is a requisite to understand whether waste behavioral
intention can necessarily transform into SWMB. This scrutiny is imperative for the present
study because students are potential consumers and their waste behaviors are dependent on
the degree of purchase intention. Therefore, we framed:
H12. SWM intention has a significant positive influence on SWMB.
2.5.9. Extended model of SWMB comprising the VBN theory and TPB
Socio-psychological theories are recognized to be open for extension and alteration with
relevant variables or with the modifications of original research constructs within the theo-
ries, if such modifications or alterations aid in capturing and improving the total variance
of targeted behaviors in a great proportion after the core causal variables established within
the theories are taken into account (Kim, Hall, and Kim 2013; Park et al. 2018). Indeed,
theories from psychology and behavioral science domains with pro-social and self-interest
motives have been expanded and deepened in a variety of contexts based on the assump-
tions that the theories can be better comprehended through alterations or modifications with
the integration of meaningful and appropriate constructs in order to obtain robust and
appropriate results; thus improving the explanatory power of a given context. Considering
these grounds, in an attempt to determine SWMB aspects and to increase the predictive
validity of SWMB variables by overcoming the weakness of one theory, this research inte-
grated the volitional and non-volitional factors of TPB into VBN theory. In line with TPB,
we assumed that students’ SWMB is directly affected by SWM intention, preceded by
SWM attitude, SN and PBC and SWM belief. Concordant with the assumption of VBN
theory, we assumed that SWM values among college students directly influence SWM
belief, and in turn positively affect MN. Under these influences, positive SWM attitudes
and SWM intention is formed and SWMB is exhibited under the influence of SN and
PBC. Based on the arguments from the literature we assumed that the values have a posi-
tive effect on beliefs, since students develop their values during their early childhood, and
these values often remain throughout their lives. Our proposed SWMB model that had all
constructs of VBN theory and TPB together with one external motivator i.e. situational fac-
tors and one internal factor i.e. environmental knowledge constituting twelve constructs is
depicted in Figure 3.
3. Methodology
3.1. Study area
The present study was conducted in Udupi district (13 200 2000 N 74 440 4200 E), a coastal
part of Karnataka state in the southern part of India. Udupi is a pilgrimage center, an
Figure 3. SWMB Research model.
adventurous spot and is recognized as the educational, medical and hospitality hub of
India. The place known for the highest literacy rate of 83% caters for diverse profes-
sional streams and is considered as the university town of India. As it constitutes an
education destination and spiritual learning center, students belonging to various ethnic
backgrounds from different states and countries reside in this district. It is estimated
that Udupi is comprised of a total population of 42,800 students belonging to 58 rural
and urban professional colleges that are affiliated to public and private universities
(District Commissioner Office 2019). According to the census of India (2011), the
population of Udupi district comprised of three towns is growing at 14.03% per year.
With the increasing population, a significant amount of waste is generated; and litter-
ing is constantly seen in public and scenic spots. As such, most Indian cities produce
an enormous amount of waste and it is estimated that the country would require
169.6 km2 in 2047 as against 20.2 km2 i.e. eight times more was required during 1999
(CPCB 2005). In order to mitigate this serious issue, under the guidance of central and
state governments, Udupi Municipal Corporation has initiated various SWM programs.
However, in view of achieving the zero-waste goal and restoration of coastal beauty,
there is a valid and crucial need to investigate the psychological determinants of resi-
dents’ participation in SWM programs.
3.2. Participants and data collection

This study adopted a quantitative method to collect data from university students.
More specifically, it employed a survey questionnaire to reach students aged 18-
25 years by using a convenience sampling method. Students of this particular age
group are regarded as the stage of exploration, ideologies, self-identity and possibilities
(Arnett 2000) and thus, there was a reason to capture some psychological factors that
form SWMBs. We approached 13 professional colleges belonging to both rural and
urban areas, and while interacting with rural students, some expressed an issue with
poor internet connectivity for the web-based form completion. Hence we utilized two
ways i.e. a pen/pencil and a web-based survey questionnaire inscribed in English. The
former method was used to collect data from 6 rural colleges and the latter method
was employed to collect data from 7 urban colleges. Both methods utilized a complete
kit of hard/soft copies of self-administered questionnaire form, confidentiality state-
ment form, a description sheet explaining the purpose of the study, objectives, theoret-
ical terms used in the survey and instructions for completing the forms. After a three
week period, rural colleges yielded 715 responses and urban institutions provided 823
responses, adding up to 1,538 responses. It was found that 433 responses were errone-
ous, incomplete, two or more answers were selected, and some respondents belonged
to a different age group. Thus, 1,105 responses were of usable questionnaires of which
495 responses constituted rural colleges and 610 responses belonged to urban colleges.
Hence, the response rate was 71.84%. As per the thumb rule (Kline 2015), for sample
size there should be 10 to 15 parameters for each item. This study has twelve con-
structs with 40 items (4015 ¼ 600). Therefore the data collected (1,105) in this study
satisfy the sample size adequacy as per the rule.
Among the survey respondents it is noted from Table 2 that the gender ratio was
higher for males (53.7%) as compared to females (46.3%) and in terms of age, the
highest responses were obtained from the age group 19 years. Further, there were more
urban respondents (55.21%) as compared to rural respondents (44.79%). While the
majority of students were from an engineering background (57.3%), the most respond-
ents were from the middle-class income group (32%). As can be observed, the demo-
graphic characteristics denote a fair representation of the selected population.
3.3. Measurement instruments

Validated measures from previous studies were adopted (Ramayah, Chow Lee, and Lim
2012; De Groot et al. 2007; Stern 2000), and these instruments were modified to suit the
present study setting. The measurement instruments from these studies have been broadly
utilized in various environmental research in the view of theory building and broadening
the concepts in a variety of contexts. An initial pool of 102 items was collected and assess-
ment of the questionnaire was conducted using mixed methods of content validity as sug-
gested by Newman, Lim, and Pineda (2013). The developed questionnaire was reviewed
by academics from five international universities and based on their feedback, minor
amendments were made to retain those items which were parsimonious, functional and rele-
vant to the current study. The final questionnaire from the pilot study led to six queries for
demographic information and 40 measures for study variables. In particular, altruistic values
(3 items), biospheric values (3 items) and egoistic values (2 items) were adopted from the
value scale of Stern (2000). These measures were rated on a 7- point Likert scale ranging
from very important (1) to not very important (7). The measures for SWM belief (3 items)
were adopted from NEP’s ecological worldview items of Dunlap et al. (2000) and the
items of MN (4 items) were adopted from the works of De Groot et al. (2007), Nordlund
and Garvill (2002) and Zhang et al. (2015). While the measurement items for SWM atti-
tude (2 items), SWM intention (4 items), PBC (4 items), SN (4 items) and SMWB (4items)
were adopted from Ajzen (1991), Wan, Cheung, and Shen (2012), Ghani et al. (2013),
Table 2: Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample.
Variables Category Frequency Percent
Gender Male 593 53.7

Female 512 46.3
Age 18 years 149 13.5
19 years 371 33.6
20 years 212 19.2
21 years 117 10.6
22 years 59 5.3
23 years 37 3.3
24 years 29 2.6
25 years 130 11.8
Family size (number 1 7 .6
of members
2 40 3.6
3 192 17.4
4 627 56.7
More than 4 232 21.0
Education Arts 41 3.7
Commerce 67 6.1
Diploma 12 1.1
Engineering 633 57.3
Allied Health Sciences 123 11.1
Management studies 16 1.4
Medical 53 4.8
Nursing 17 1.5
Sanskrit 40 3.6
Science 102 9.2
Income group Below Poverty Line 37 3.3
(<50,000/year)
Lower Class ((50,000 to 269 24.3
450,000/ year)
Lower Middle Class (450,000 to 174 15.7
600,000/year)
Middle Class (600,000 to 354 32.0
1,200,000/ year)
Upper Middle Class (1,200,000 145 13.1
to 2,400,000/ year)
Rich Class (> 2,400,000/ year) 114 10.3
Note: Income group is classified in INR.
Tonglet, Phillips, and Bates (2004), Gao et al. (2017), environmental knowledge measures
(4 items) came from Zhang et al. (2015) and situational factors (3 items) were adopted
from Ramayah, Chow Lee, and Lim (2012), These measures were assessed on a 7-point
Likert-type scale from extremely agree (1) to extremely disagree (7). The measurement
items used in this study are provided in Appendix I (Online supplementary material.).
3.4. Tools for analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using
the Partial Least Square (PLS) method version 3.0 was employed to test the hypothe-
ses set out above. The reasons for utilizing SEM-PLS over covariance – based
methods besides huge samples are: (i) its efficiency when multivariate data needs to
be tested involving multiple independent and dependent variables such as in the pre-
sent study (ii) it can specify, estimate, assess and present models in a versatile and an
intuitive path diagram to indicate hypothesized interrelationships among variables (iii)
its derivation of the best indicator of latent constructs through the process of factor
loadings, unique variances and modification indices and validating an instrument in
measurement model (iv) its usefulness in providing robust results in terms of measure-
ment invariance (MI) establishment of goodness of fit to validate the structural and
measurement model, variance inflation factor (VIF) to determine the collinearity rele-
vance and blindfolding procedures to predict the relevance of the proposed model and
(v) its statistical power with metrics for model comparisons. As suggested by Hair
et al. (1998), this study conducted a two-step procedure i.e. evaluation of the structural
model and assessment of the measurement model to analyze the collected data.
3.5. Data pooling

While integrating the samples collected from paper-based surveys and web-based sur-
veys, compatibility between constructs may vary affecting the meanings and theoretical
patterns that respondents hold (Lee 2018). For this purpose, we employed measure-
ment a invariance of composite models (MICOM) procedure from SEM-PLS version
3.0 that establishes MI by using multi-group CFA and tests whether the predefined
groups have statistical significant differences in group-specific estimates such as outer
loadings, outer weights and path coefficients. Since the results of three hierarchical
levels i.e. configural invariance, compositional invariance and the equal means of val-
ues and variances were established, the composites in both groups were almost identi-
cal, and hence the samples from both surveys were pooled in the view of generalizing
the SWMB concept.
4. Results
4.1. Measurement model
To evaluate the reflective measurement models, we examined the outer loadings, com-
posite reliability (CR), convergent validity (CV) or average variance extract (AVE)
and discriminant validity (DV). First, the measurement model was tested for CR which
is assessed in terms of Cronbach’s alpha (CA). The CA estimation of 0.6 to 0.9 for
social science research indicates that all indicators are reliable, which means that outer
loadings of each construct are equal (Hair, Joseph, Sarstedt 2019). Another measure of
CR usually considered in SEM analysis is Rho-A, in which the values of above 0.6
can be considered acceptable (Rigdon, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2010). In terms of CV,
which measures the standardized factor loadings after item reduction, the values 0.6 to
0.9 indicate a good correlation between the factors and observed variables and in terms
of DV which indicates the degree of exclusiveness of factors with each other, the
square roots of AVE for all the dimensions are greater than their respective correlation
(diagonal values) between each construct. On the whole, CA values ranging from 0.6
to 0.9 indicate a moderate to high level of acceptance, CR values of 0.6 to 0.9 confirm
satisfactory levels of acceptance, Rho – A value of above 0.6 indicates that the meas-
ures of internal consistency are satisfactory and AVE values of above 0.5 indicate that
the latent constructs measure the satisfactory levels of overall variance, as shown in
Table 3. Factor loadings.
Construct Respective items Loadings CA Rho -A CR AVE
ALT ALT1 – A world of peace 0.744 0.774 0.785 0.870 0.691

ALT2 - Social justice 0.869
ALT3 - Helping others 0.874
BIO BIO1 - Oneness with nature 0.826 0.686 0.733 0.817 0.599
BIO2 - A world of beauty 0.766
BIO3 - Protecting the environment 0.726
EGO EGO1 - Authority 0.772 0.682 0.884 0.851 0.743
EGO2 - Social power 0.943
MOR MOR1 - I separate waste out of 0.778 0.784 0.783 0.861 0.608
my responsibility to protect the
environment.
MOR2 - I feel waste separation is 0.818
a virtue.
MOR3 - I feel guilty if I did not 0.822
separate waste properly.
MOR4 - I feel I should not waste 0.695
anything if it could be
used again.
ENK ENK1 – I know that separation of 0.683 0.731 0.731 0.833 0.555
household waste reduces
landfill spaces.
ENK2 – I know that kitchen waste 0.803
can be used as compost.
ENK3 – I know that during years 0.767
to come, thousands of species
will become extinct due to
improper waste management.
ENK4 – I know the separation of 0.722
waste brings economic benefits.
SIT SIT2 – I am familiar with the 0.834 0.701 0.653 0.806 0.584
recycling facilities in my area.
SIT3 – I am familiar with the 0.620
materials accepted for recycling
in the recycling facilities in
my area.
SIT4 - There are sufficient dustbins 0.820
in my area to separate waste.
PBC PBC1 - I think I have the skill to 0.770 0.770 0.770 0.853 0.591
handle waste effectively.
PBC2 - I have complete control in 0.785
deciding whether or not to
separate waste at home.
PBC3 – It is up to me whether or 0.780
not I recycle household waste
every time I have it for disposal.
PBC4 – I have plenty of 0.739
opportunities to recycle waste
at home.
SUN SUN1 - My family thinks I should 0.725 0.745 0.745 0.840 0.569
be involved in waste
management activities.
SUN2 - My relatives think I should 0.801
participate in
composting activities.
(Continued)
Table 3. (Continued).
Construct Respective items Loadings CA Rho -A CR AVE
SUN3 - My friends encourage 0.803

waste separation activities.
SUN4 - My relatives think 0.680
recycling activities would save
the environment from further
complications.
SWF SWF1- The balance of nature is 0.676 0.860 0.676
very delicate and easily upset.
SWF2 - Humans are severely 0.892
abusing the environment by the
enormous amount of
waste production.
SWF3 – The Earth is like a 0.881 0.759 0.809
spacecraft with
limited resources.
SWA SWA3 – I feel angry if others 0.895 0.890 0.802
discard waste at public places.
SWA4 – I feel good about myself 0.896 0.753 0.753
when I recycle
SWI SWI1 - I intend to separate kitchen 0.688
waste regularly.
SWI2 - I will make an effort to get 0.633 0.809 0.516
involved in recycling activities.
SWI3 – I want to participate in 0.781 0.684 0.686
waste programs organized by
local authorities.
SWI4 – I intend to participate in 0.763
waste reduction programs.
SWB SWB1 – I have never recycled 0.734
household waste.
SWB2 – I recycle cans, newspaper, 0.708 0.680 0.681 0.806 0.509
bottles etc. at home.
SWB3 – I usually have a high 0.705
adherence level to separation and
disposal of recyclable materials.
SWB5 – I always separate dry and 0.707
wet waste.
Table 3 and Figure 4. Hence, the measurement model endorses the adequate reliability
and validity measures for each construct (Table 4).
4.2. Structural model

Before testing the proposed hypotheses, modeling comparisons were conducted. The
original VBN theory was first run, followed by the TPB model, the converged model
of VBN and TPB without additional variables and the proposed extended model of
VBN and the TPB model with situational and environmental knowledge factors.
Model fit was the first assessment that we conducted and we utilized cutoff values
suggested by Henseler (2017). As shown in Table 5, the SRMR values of the original
VBN model (0.070) and the converged model of VBN theory and TPB (0.073)
Figure 4. Measurement model of SWMB.
Table 4: Discriminant validity.
ALT BIO EGO ENK MOR PBC SIT SUN SWA SWB SWF SWI
ALT 0.831
BIO 0.631 0.774
EGO 0.435 0.633 0.862
ENK 0.378 0.414 0.303 0.745
MOR 0.324 0.362 0.296 0.445 0.780
PBC 0.134 0.182 0.168 0.204 0.357 0.769
SIT 0.215 0.172 0.152 0.130 0.151 0.033 0.764
SUN 0.046 0.129 0.071 0.254 0.289 0.356 0.056 0.754
SWA 0.342 0.323 0.212 0.645 0.363 0.114 0.122 0.215 0.896
SWB 0.236 0.295 0.209 0.495 0.503 0.341 0.078 0.525 0.371 0.713
SWF 0.707 0.589 0.381 0.330 0.292 0.120 0.169 0.057 0.301 0.222 0.822
SWI 0.285 0.316 0.234 0.465 0.622 0.327 0.083 0.553 0.393 0.712 0.264 0.719
Note: ALT- Altruistic value, BIO –Biospheric value, EGO- Egoistic value, ENK – Environmental
knowledge, MOR – Moral norm, PBC- perceived behavioral control, SIT- Situational factors, SUN-
Subjective norms, SWA- SWM attitude, SWB- SWMB, SWF- SWM belief, SWI – SWM intention.
demonstrated good model fit. While SRMR values for our proposed extended model
were almost equivalent to the cutoff values (0.081) indicating adequate model fit, the
TPB model showed poor model fit (0.093). In addition, NFI values for our framework
showed good model fit (0.916) since the values of the original VBN (0.823), TPB
(0.663) and converged models (0.663) did not satisfy the required cutoff values crite-
ria. Furthermore, as can be observed from Table 5, the RMS theta value for our model
is 0.104, which demonstrates a good model fit in comparison with other models.
Following the model fit comparisons, the next step was examination of R2 values,
the primary method to evaluate the explanatory power of the model constructs. VBN
Table 5. Modeling comparison results.
Converged VBN
& TPB model Proposed unified
without SIT and model with SIT
Model fit & R2 Original VBN OriginalTPB ENK factors and ENK factors
Fit indices with

standard
cutoff values
1. SRMR (<0.08) 0.070 0.093 0.073 0.081
2. NFI (>0.9) 0.823 0.663 0.663 0.916
3. RMS 0.170 0.194 0.141 0.104
Theta (<0.12)
R2
1. SWM Belief 0.528 - 0.534 0.534
2. MN 0.073 - 0.085 0.085
3. SWM attitude - - 0.174 0.430
4. SWM intention - 0.386 0.401 0.401
5. SWMB 0.062 0.072 0.507 0.507
explained 52.8% (R2 ¼ 0.528) for SWM belief. For MN, while the converged model
of VBN and TPB, and our proposed model explained 8.5% (R2 ¼ 0.085), VBN could
explain 7.3% (R2 ¼ 0.073). For SWM attitude, our research framework had higher
explanatory power with 43% (R2 ¼ 0.430) as compared to the converged model, which
explained 17.4% (R2 ¼ 0.174). In addition, TPB explained 38.6% for SWM intention (R2
¼0.386), while the converged model and our proposed framework explained 40.1% (R2 ¼
0.401). For SWMB, VBN had least explanatory power (R2 ¼0.062) followed by TPB (R2
¼0.072). However, our extended model explained 50.7% (R2 ¼ 0.507) indicating higher
explanatory power when compared to other models. This illustrates that, in the present
case, altruistic, biospheric and egoistic value orientations explain 53.4% of SWM belief (R2
¼ 0.534) whereas SWM belief explains 8.5% of MN (R2 ¼0.085). Similarly, MN, envir-
onmental knowledge and situational factors explain 43% of SWM attitude (R2 ¼0.430)
while PBC, SN and SWM attitude explain 40.1% of SWMI (R2 ¼ 0.401). On the whole,
all four endogenous variables explain 50.7% of SWMB (R2 ¼ 0.507). Regarding model
validity, Chin, Peterson, and Brown (2008) classified endogenous variables as substantial,
moderate or weak based on the R2 values of 0.67, 0.33 and 0.19 respectively. Accordingly,
the obtained R2 values of SWM belief, SWM attitude, SWM intention and SWMB illus-
trate moderate explanatory power, while the R2 value of MN illustrates weak explanatory
power, indicating that MN cannot be determined by SWM belief alone, rather some more
predictor constructs could explain the sense of obligation among students. Overall, model-
ing comparisons revealed that our proposed model is efficient in explaining SWMB when
compared to other models.
Subsequent to modeling comparisons, VIF values that often assess the collinearity
of indicators were observed. This assessment was employed to ensure that the struc-
tural relationships between constructs does not bias the regression results. In the pre-
sent case, VIF values were less than 3, which showcases that collinearity is not an
issue. Besides these values, we employed the predictive sample reuse technique (Q2)
as a predictive relevance criterion. Based on the blindfolding procedure, Q2 shows
how well the collected data can be reconstructed empirically with the help of the
Table 6: Hypotheses testing and structural model estimates.
Hypothesized paths O M STDEV T-values P-values Decision
H1: Biospheric values 0.250 0.253 0.037 6.748 0.000 Supported

-> SWM belief
H2: Altruistic values -> 0.557 0.556 0.027 20.423 0.000 Supported
SWM belief
H3: Egoistic values- 0.019 0.020 0.033 0.587 0.558 Not supported
>SWM belief
H4: SWM belief -> 0.292 0.295 0.029 10.058 0.000 Supported
Moral norms
H5: Moral norms 0.077 0.078 0.030 2.613 0.009 Supported
->SWM attitude
H6: SWM belief -> 0.083 0.083 0.026 3.418 0.002 Supported
SWM attitude
H7: Environmental 0.580 0.581 0.028 20.974 0.000 Supported
knowledge-
>SWM attitude
H8: Situational factors 0.021 0.025 0.024 0.867 0.386 Not supported
-> SWM attitude
H9: SWM attitude -> 0.282 0.283 0.027 10.471 0.000 Supported
SWM intention
H10: Perceived 0.137 0.138 0.031 4.448 0.000 Supported
behavioral control
->SWM intention
H11 : Subjective norms 0.443 0.444 0.027 16.654 0.000 Supported
-> SWM intention
H12: SWM intention -> 0.712 0.713 0.018 38.803 0.000 Supported
SWM behavior
model and the PLS parameters (Ali et al. 2018). According to Chin (2010), a Q2
greater than 0 means the model has predictive relevance and Q 2 less than 0 means the
model lacks predictive relevance. We obtained Q2 of 0.352, 0.024, 0.332, 0.168 and
0.315 for SWM belief, MN, SWM attitude, SWM intention and SWMB respectively,
indicating acceptable predictive relevance.
Following the predictive relevance, a bootstrapping procedure that examines the
statistical significance of the weights of sub-constructs and path co-efficients was
employed. The hypothesized relationships in the proposed model were evaluated and
the findings from the structural model is shown in Table 6. Hypotheses 1,2,3 and 4
proposed relationships among the original constructs of VBN theory and hypotheses
5,6,9,10 and 11 proposed relationships among the original constructs of TPB.
Hypotheses 7 and 8 proposed added variables to TPB constructs. Results showed that
of the twelve hypotheses, ten hypotheses were supported and two hypotheses were not
supported. The findings indicate that egoistic values did not predict SWMB, while
altruistic values and biospheric values were significant predictors of SWMB. While all
constructs of TPB and environmental knowledge were supported, situational factors
did not influence SWM attitude and predict SWMB (Figure 5).
5. Discussion
Comprehending the sufficiency of socio-psychological models of waste responsible
behaviors that have been frequently evaluated by researchers (Han 2015; Ma, Wang,
Figure 5. Structural model of SWMB.
and Kong 2020; Farr-Wharton, Foth, and Choi 2014), and their inconsistent results and
adequacy powers which are repeatedly questioned at different contexts (Han 2015;
Onwezen, Antonindes, and Bartels 2013: Wang et al. 2018), this research is the first
attempt to assess SWMB applying an integrative method to provide a holistic approach
to studying multi-determinants simultaneously. With a dearth of research assessing the
value-action gap, this study used a comprehensive theoretical framework combining
VBN theory and the TPB variables, environmental knowledge, and situational factors
to assess SWMBs among the student community. Although previous studies have used
a single theory approach (Karimi and Saghaleini 2021; Monus 2021; van der Werff
and Steg 2016) or a comparative perspective of psychological models (Kaiser, H€ubner,
and Bogner 2005; Aguilar-Luzon et al. 2012; Oreg and Katz-Gerro 2006), this study
focused beyond the attitude–behavior link and adopted a multidimensional approach to
explore SWMB; since waste issues are complex affecting several levels of the environ-
ment, society and public health of a country. In particular, our model demonstrated an
excellent fit to the data; the superiority of the proposed model in predicting the behav-
iors of students toward involvement in refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle and safe waste
disposal activities was evident; the salient role of values in determining SWMB was
apparent; the predictive relevance of the extended model was empirically identified;
and of twelve assumed relationships, ten hypotheses were supported. Furthermore, the
sample size used in this study aided us to have a significant demographic variation
that earlier studies lacked among university students.
The above results show that students’ SWMBs could be predicted through SWM
intention, SWM attitude, SN, PBC, SWM belief, MN, environmental knowledge, situ-
ational factors, biospheric values, altruistic values and egoistic values. While SWM
intention turned out to be the immediate predictor of SWMB, SWM attitudes, SN,
PBC were found to be significant in motivating students’ waste behavior. These results
are inconsistent with earlier studies which utilized TPB for assessing various SWMBs
(Aktas et al. 2018; Ghani et al. 2013; Jekria and Daud 2016). Our study shows that
TPB and its measures were appropriate for this study. The findings indicate that the
more positive a student’s involvement in SWMB, the stronger the intention to act
under his/her control (Graham-Rowe, Jessop, and Sparks 2015: Knussen et al. 2004;
Russell et al. 2017).
Findings also indicate that attitude has a positive effect on SWMB, reflecting that
students with positive waste behaviors create a positive intention in involving SWMB
and behave according to SWM intention. This result is in line with earlier studies
(Wang et al. 2021; Heidari et al. 2018) of TPB to reduce waste that is creating envir-
onmental toxins.
This study demonstrates that PBC has a positive effect on students’ willingness for
SWM intention. This is supported by previous studies (Coşkun and Ozb€ € uk 2020; Liao
and Li 2019; Wang and Mangmeechai 2021) and it indicates that PBC is accessible
through a set of control beliefs that may impede or facilitate SWMB. More import-
antly, it reflects that students are more likely to intend to enact SWMB when they feel
that the SWMB is successfully enacted.
The empirical findings show that SN has a positive effect on SWM intention which
reflects that SN is the stronger determinant of waste management intention. This find-
ing is in line with previous works (Graham-Rowe, Jessop, and Sparks 2015: Knussen
et al. 2004; Russell et al. 2017) and the study indicates that the influence of family/
friends/relatives makes students indulge in SWM activities and thus family norms and
waste behaviors are positively related.
Further, within the constructs of VBN theory, this study identified MN as a prom-
inent determinant that positively influenced attitude and SWMB. It is therefore evident
that sense of obligation and environmental responsibility reflects SWMB, and is
dependent on the degree of commitment toward environmental protection. These find-
ings are in line with previous works that confirm the crucial role of MN in extending
the linear model to effectively predict environmental behaviors (Kaiser, H€ubner, and
Bogner 2005; Kiatkawsin and Han 2017; Nguyen et al. 2015).
This study found that SWM belief influences MNs and in turn positively influences
SWM attitude and SWMB. This result is supported by Gkargkavouzi, Halkos, and
Matsiori (2019) and van der Werff and Steg (2016) which highlights that there need not
be a gap between beliefs and intentions, since belief is formed within oneself and acts
as a judgment to alleviate perceived environmental threats (Raghu and Rodrigues 2020).
Going back to the causal chains, our results highlighted that values are principal
features of SWMB. The general theoretical opinion among researchers is: SWMB is
purely altruistic (Vining and Ebreo 1990; Wan, Shen, and Yu 2014; Zhang et al.
2015), while, our study practically illustrated that SWMB is influenced by biospheric
and altruistic values. However, egoistic values did not determine SWMB. These find-
ings are in line with earlier researchers (De Groot 2008; Aguilar-Luzon et al. 2012).
The reason for the non-support of this hypothesis is young Indians do not place
wealth, authoritative power and social dominance as high as helping others, improving
environmental quality, protecting living beings and the whole ecosystem. This incon-
sistency of values was experienced by Kiatkawsin and Han (2017) and Landon,
Woosnam, and Boley (2018). The findings imply that SWMB involves an expression
of beliefs and to change beliefs one would first have to address the values that underlie
them via environmental and social reforms emphasizing waste disposal awareness.
Environmental knowledge was the strongest predictor of SWM attitude that posi-
tively influenced SWMB. This empirical evidence is supported by previous studies
(Zhang et al. 2015; Liao and Li 2019) and it demonstrates that young people believe
in waste handling knowledge dissemination such as composting, source separation and
recycling that can induce optimistic attitudes among residents. This implies that
imparting the techniques of waste reduction processes at source is vital.
What is interesting was, this study revealed that situational factors and SWM atti-
tude was negatively correlated, and the influence was significant. The result is incon-
sistent with previous works which showed less effects between situational factors and
intention. The findings illustrate that time, recycling markets and reduction infrastruc-
tures may not merely affect an individual’s viewpoint to participate in SWM programs;
rather students may believe the availability of trash bins, convenience, kerbside recy-
cling provision, regular collection, and nearby reuse markets may act as facilitators to
SWMB, since direct access plays a vital role in waste behaviors.
5.1. Theoretical contributions

This research provides empirical evidence in explaining the causal interrelationships
within the two theoretical postulations i.e. the TPB and VBN model. Satisfying the
requirements of theory extension as suggested by Ajzen (1991), two incorporated vari-
ables i.e. one intrinsic and one extrinsic, which are critical in the current study setting,
and conceptually distinct from the theoretical constructs of VBN theory and TPB were
identified that aid considerably in enhancing our understanding of SWMB among
young people. A series of structural modeling comparisons of our extended model
demonstrated superior support for the developed framework, indicating that SWMBs
are explained with an array of variables. This study, hence, shows that the addition of
relevant variables, along with successful incorporation of all constructs of a pro-social
model and self-interest model, offers a useful and effective framework to identify
SWMBs with higher explanatory power (50.7%) as compared with existing SWMB
studies. The chief advantage of our framework in terms of its comprehensiveness,
effectiveness and adequacy proves that SWMB cannot be restricted within a block of
single theory and attitude–behavior links; instead, it is necessary to focus on values
and beliefs to promote sustainable waste behavior which is the need of the hour. Thus,
our model may be useful in a wide variety of specific waste behavioral contexts such
as E-waste, clothes segregation, composting etc., besides ecological behaviors such as
green behaviors, consumer behaviors, gardening behaviors etc. Hence. this study sig-
nificantly contributes to our theoretical understanding about SWMB and adds to the
body of knowledge within the domain of SWM.
5.2. Practical implications

The above findings may have some practical implications for policy-makers and
administrative bodies who wish to promote sustainable waste behaviors to attain the
zero-waste goal. This research illustrated that SWMB formed by intention, attitude,
PBC, SN, values, beliefs and MN were significant in motivating residents’ waste
behaviors. This informs government bodies to design and implement effective and edu-
cative waste campaigns, particularly to strengthen residents’ MNs to activate attitude
via SWM programs and enhance ecological beliefs to stimulate environmental and
socially responsible consumer-based life style changes on a large scale (Gao et al.
2017). Administrative sections should encourage residents to become involved in sort-
ing dry and wet items by providing adequate information about handling waste through
door-to-door demonstrations and community groups. To promote the efficiency of
these programs, multiple interventions are necessary at colleges and public places,
since students have the potency to influence their family members, thus changing one-
time SWMBs to habitual behaviors. The findings of such studies should be communi-
cated through environmental programs which can motivate other individuals and
surrounding localities to indulge in similar pro-environmental behaviors. In addition,
compost and green behavior workshops to encourage terrace/roof gardening may be
useful for residents who live in apartments where traditional gardening with open
space is disappearing in cities. Further, to strengthen biospheric, altruistic values and
SWM beliefs, concerned authorities can develop strategic plans, such as executing cul-
tural events to showcase the scenic beauty of their localities, arrange competitions for
children, display hoardings around parks, lakes, birds, animals and heritage centers of
their districts/localities to develop the sense of affinity toward localities and the whole
ecosystem that can trigger SWM values and promote waste sustainability. Executives
could implement specific educative schemes through conferences and interactive pro-
grams to increase positive attitudes through deep community/youth leaders’ introspec-
tion regarding the values and ethical conduct that needs to be promoted and generate
environmental values and responsibilities among individuals. Municipalities may also
use flash boards at strategic places emphasizing epidemic diseases such as malaria,
cholera and asthma that may be caused due to unsafe disposal of waste in public and
private places. Community workshops to strengthen the creative methods of utilizing
household items may be arranged to spur the materialization of reuse/recycling behav-
iors among residents. Communication campaigns that can impart the knowledge of
waste threats that the country is facing, and in turn the benefits of gardening and com-
posting to tackle the waste situation may foster positive beliefs and attitude and thus
encourage citizens to participate in clean and green campaigns.
5.3. Limitations and future research direction

This research should be viewed with some limitations. First, although the present study
had an adequate sample size, the findings cannot be generalized. Future researchers
can conduct more studies with other target groups such as retirees, housewives, school
children and the general public to widen the scope of this real-life SWM issue.
Second, considering the complexity of SWM issues, we utilized SWMB as the main
concept and adopted a self-administered survey to capture relevant behaviors which
may have caused biased results. Future research may use intervention, observational
and ethnographical methods to gather data and assess actual waste behaviors. Third, it
is worth mentioning that the explanatory power of MN of our model is 8% which is
less and similar to earlier studies (Lopez-Mosquera and Sanchez 2012; Oreg and Katz-
Gerro 2006; Gkargkavouzi, Halkos, and Matsiori 2019). Since it indicates that individ-
uals’ MN is activated by a series of consecutive steps, researchers could utilize the
variables of NAM and analyze whether it could improve the variance power of MN.
Fourth, this research considered general waste as target behaviors, since individual
waste management to attain zero-waste to preserve coastal beauty has been an ongoing
campaign for two years in the selected province. However, future studies may target
specific waste behaviors such as organic, plastic, food etc., according to respective
contexts. Fifth, the proposed model with an addition of two extra variables to the com-
bined framework of TPB and VBN theory may have missed some important aspects of
SWMB. Identifying such determinants and converging them with our theoretical
framework would be a meaningful expansion of our research. Future works may also
include cross-culture and cross-country examinations to validate our model which
enable us to pronounce the causal links that we propose.
6. Conclusion
This research went beyond the attitude-behavior link and adopted a synthesis approach
to expand VBN theory and TPB by incorporating environmental knowledge and situ-
ational factors and proposed an extended framework to comprehend the behavioral
aspects of SWM that have not been explored in the extant literature. Of the proposed
theoretical model comprising ten constructs and two causal linkages, biospheric values,
altruistic values, SWM belief, MN, SWM attitude, environmental knowledge, SWM
intention, PBC and SN all had significant influence on SWMB. Further, despite the
scarce existing research studies that combine self-interest and moral-based models into
a single theoretical framework, the current study that addresses the value – action gap,
focusing on internal and external factors of SWMB, can provide useful insights and
specific meaningful implications to the real-life garbage issue and its impact on eco-
systems. In addition, this study demonstrates that waste behaviors are not restricted to
attitudes and intentions, and recommends that policy makers focus on values and
beliefs to strengthen volitional, non-volitional, cognitive and normative processes
of SWMBs.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Supplemental data
Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.
2021.1949969.
ORCID
Lewlyn L. R. Rodrigues http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6853-1313
References
Abadi, Bijan, Saeid Mahdavian, and Fardin Fattahi. 2021. “The Waste Management of Fruit and
Vegetables in Wholesale Markets: Intention and Behavior Analysis Using Path Analysis.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 279: 123802.
Abdelradi, F. 2018. “Food Waste Behaviour at the Household Level: A Conceptual
Framework.” Waste Management (New York, N.Y.) 71: 485–493. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.
2017.10.001.
Garcıa-Martınez, A. Calvo-Salguero, and J. M. Salinas. 2012.
Aguilar-Luzon, C. M., J. M. A.
“Comparative Study Between the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Value-Belief-Norm
Model Regarding the Environment, on Spanish Housewives’ Recycling Behavior.” Journal

of Applied Social Psychology 42 (11): 2797–2833.
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50 (2): 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Ajzen, I. 2005. Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. London: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Ajzen, I. 2011. “The Theory of Planned Behaviour: Reactions and Reflections.” Psychology and
Health 26 (9): 1113–1127.
Aktas, Emel, Hafize Sahin, Zeynep Topaloglu, Akunna Oledinma, Abul Kalam Samsul Huda,
Zahir Irani, Amir M. Sharif, Tamara van’t Wout, and Mehran Kamrava. 2018. “A Consumer
Behavioural Approach to Food Waste.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 31
(5): 658–673. doi:10.1108/JEIM-03-2018-0051.
Ali, F., S. M. Rasoolimanesh, M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle, and K. Ryu. 2018. “An Assessment of
the Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in Hospitality
Research.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30 (1):
514–538. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-10-2016-0568.
Arnett, J. J. 2000. “Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development from the Late Teens
through the Twenties.” American Psychologist 55 (5): 469–480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.
5.469.
Ateş, H€useyin. 2020. “Merging Theory of Planned Behavior and Value Identity Personal Norm
Model to Explain Pro-Environmental Behaviors.” Sustainable Production and Consumption
24: 169–180. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.006.
Ayob, S. F., L. Sheau-Ting, R. A. Jalil, and H. C. Chin. 2017. “Key Determinants of Waste
Separation Intention: Empirical Application of TPB.” Facilities 35 (11/12): 696–708.
Bagozzi, R. P., and P. A. Dabholkar. 1994. “Consumer Recycling Goals and their Effect on
Decisions to Recycle: A Means-End Chain Analysis.” Psychology and Marketing 11 (4):
313–40. doi:10.1002/mar.4220110403.
Barr, S. 2004. “Are we All Environmentalists Now? Rhetoric and Reality in Environmental
Action.” Geoforum 35 (2): 231–249. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.08.009.
Bertoldo, R., P. Castro, and S. Barbara. 2013. “Pro-Environmental Beliefs and Behaviors: Two
Levels of Response to Environmental Social Norms.” Revista Latinoamericana de
Psicologia 45 (3): 435–446. doi:10.14349/rlp.v45i3.1485.
Bhatti, S. H., F. Saleem, R. Zakariya, and A. Ahmad. 2019. “The Determinants of Food Waste
Behavior in Young Consumers in a Developing Country.” British Food Journal doi:10.
1108/BFJ-06-2019-0450.
Bolderdijk, J. W., M. Gorsira, K. Keizer, and L. Steg. 2013. “Values Determine the (in)
Effectiveness of Informational Interventions in Promoting Pro-Environmental Behavior.”
PloS One. 8 (12): E 83911. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083911.
Carfora, Valentina, Daniela Caso, Paul Sparks, and Mark Conner. 2017. “Moderating Effects of
Pro-Environmental Self-Identity on Pro-Environmental Intentions and Behaviour: A Multi-
Behaviour Study.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 53: 92–99. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.
2017.07.001.
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). 2005. Environmental Investigations into the Ground
and Surface Water Quality Aspects of River Noyyal and Performance Evaluation of Effluent
Treatment Systems of Tirupur, Tamil Nadu. New Delhi: CPCB.
Chan, L., and B. Bishop. 2013. “A Moral Basis for Recycling: Extending the Theory of Planned
Behaviour.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 36: 96–102. [Database] doi:10.1016/j.
jenvp.2013.07.010.
Chin, W. W. 2010. “How to Write up and Report PLS Analyses.” In Handbook of Partial Least
Squares, edited by Vincenzo Esposito Vinzi, Wynne W. Chin, J€org Henseler, and Huiwen
Wang, 655–690. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Chin, Wynne W., Robert A. Peterson, and Steven P. Brown. 2008. “Structural Equation
Modeling in Marketing: Some Practical Reminders.” Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice 16 (4): 287–298.
Ciocirlan, Cristina E., Diana Gregory-Smith, Danae Manika, and Victoria Wells. 2020. “Using
Values, Beliefs, and Norms to Predict Conserving Behaviors in Organizations.” European
Management Review 17 (2): 543–558. doi:10.1111/emre.12388.
Conner, Mark, and Charles Abraham. 2001. “Conscientiousness and the Theory of Planned
Behavior: Toward a More Complete Model of the Antecedents of Intentions and Behavior.”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (11): 1547–1561.
Corraliza, J. A., and J. Berenguer. 2000. “Environmental Values, Beliefs, and Actions: A
Situational Approach.” Environment and Behavior 32 (6): 832–848. doi:10.1177/
00139160021972829.
Coşkun, Ayşen, and Raife Meltem Yetkin Ozb€ € uk. 2020. “What Influences Consumer Food
Waste Behavior in Restaurants? An Application of the Extended Theory of Planned
Behavior.” Waste Management (New York, N.Y.) 117: 170–178. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2020.
08.011.
Daneshvary, N., R. Daneshvary, and R. Keith Schwer. 1998. “Solid-Waste Recycling Behavior
and Support for Curbside Textile Recycling.” Environment and Behaviour 30 (2):144–61.
doi:10.1177/0013916598302002.
Davis, G., P. S. Phillips, A. D. Read, and Y. Iida. 2006. “Demonstrating the Need for the
Development of Internal Research Capacity: Understanding Recycling Participation Using
the Theory of Planned Behaviour in West Oxfordshire.” UK. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 46 (2): 115–127. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.07.001.
De Groot, Judith I. M., and Linda Steg. 2007. “Value Orientations and Environmental Beliefs in
Five Countries: Validity of an Instrument to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic and Biospheric
Value Orientations.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 38 (3): 318–332. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0022022107300278
De Leeuw, A., P. Valois, and R. Seixas. 2014. “Understanding High School Students’ Attitude,
Social Norm, Perceived Control and Beliefs to Develop Educational Interventions on
Sustainable Development.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 143: 1200–1209. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.08.160.
De Leeuw, Astrid, Pierre Valois, Icek Ajzen, and Peter Schmidt. 2015. “Using the Theory of
Planned Behavior to Identify Key Beliefs Underlying Pro-Environmental Behavior in High-
School Students: Implications for Educational Interventions.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 42 (2015): 128–138.
Denley, Tara J., Kyle Maurice Woosnam, Manuel Alector Ribeiro, B. Bynum Boley, Christy
Hehir, and Jesse Abrams. 2020. “Individuals’ Intentions to Engage in Last Chance Tourism:
Applying the Value-Belief-Norm Model.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28 (11):
1860–1881. doi:10.1080/09669582.2020.1762623.
District Commissioner Office. 2019. “Udupi District, Student population Data” Accessed 25
January 2019. https://udupi.nic.in/en/dc/
Dunlap, R. E. 2008. “The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide
Use.” The Journal of Environmental Education 40 (1): 3–18. doi:10.3200/JOEE.40.1.3-18.
Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. “New Trends in
Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological
Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 425–442. doi:10.1111/
0022-4537.00176.
European Council. 1992. Council Directive 75/442/EEC modified by Directive 91/156/EEC on
Waste.
Fang, Wei-Ta, Eric Ng, Ching-Ming Wang, and Ming-Lin Hsu. 2017. “Normative Beliefs,
Attitudes, and Social Norms: People Reduce Waste as an Index of Social Relationships
When Spending Leisure Time.” Sustainability 9 (10): 1696. doi:10.3390/su9101696.
Farr-Wharton, Geremy, Marcus Foth, and Jaz Hee-Jeong Choi. 2014. “Identifying Factors That
Promote Consumer Behaviours Causing Expired Domestic Food Waste.” Journal of
Consumer Behaviour 13 (6): 393–402. doi:10.1002/cb.1488.
Gadenne, D., B. Sharma, D. Kerr, and T. Smith. 2011. “The Influence of Consumers'
Environmental Beliefs and Attitudes on Energy Saving Behaviours.” Energy Policy 39 (12):
7684–7694. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.002.
Gao, Lan, Shanyong Wang, Jun Li, and Haidong Li. 2017. “Application of the Extended Theory
of Planned Behavior to Understand Individual’s Energy Saving Behavior in Workplaces.”
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 127: 107–113.
G€arling, T., S. Fujii, A. G€arling, and C. Jakobsson. 2003. “Moderating Effects of Social Value
Orientation on Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behavior Intention.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 23 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00081-6.
Ghani, W. A. W. A. K., I. F. Rusli, D. R. A. Biak, and A. Idris. 2013. “An Application of the
Theory of Planned Behaviour to Study the Influencing Factors of Participation in Source
Separation of Food Waste.” Waste Management 33 (5): 1276–1281. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.
2012.09.019.
Gifford, R., and A. Nilsson. 2014. “Personal and Social Factors That Influence Pro-
Environmental Concern and Behaviour: A Review .” International Journal of Psychology :
Journal International de Psychologie 49 (3): 141–157. doi:10.1002/ijop.12034.
Gkargkavouzi, A., G. Halkos, and S. Matsiori. 2019. “Environmental Behavior in a Private-
Sphere Context: Integrating Theories of Planned Behavior and Value Belief Norm, Self-
Identity and Habit.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 148: 145–156. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2019.01.039.
Gould, R. K., N. M. Ardoin, M. Biggar, A. E. Cravens, and D. Wojcik. 2016. “Environmental
Behavior’s Dirty Secret: The Prevalence of Waste Management in Discussions of
Environmental Concern and Action.” Environmental Management 58 (2): 268–282. doi:10.
1007/s00267-016-0710-6.
Graham-Rowe, E., D. C. Jessop, and P. Sparks. 2015. “Predicting Household Food Waste
Reduction Using an Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour.” Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 101: 194–202. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.020.
Hair Jr, Joseph F., and Marko Sarstedt. 2019. “Factors versus Composites: Guidelines for
Choosing the Right Structural Equation Modeling Method.” Project Management Journal 50
(6): 619–624.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham. 1998. Multivariate
Data Analysis. Vol. 5, 207–219. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Haldeman, Tracey, and Jeanine Warisse Turner. 2009. “Implementing a Community-Based
Social Marketing Program to Increase Recycling.” Social Marketing Quarterly 15 (3):
114–127. doi:10.1080/15245000903154618.
Halpenny, E. A. 2010. “Pro-Environmental Behaviours and Park Visitors: The Effect of Place
Attachment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (4): 409–421. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.
2010.04.006.
Han, H. 2015. “Travelers' Pro-Environmental Behavior in a Green Lodging Context: Converging
Value-Belief-Norm Theory and the Theory of Planned Behavior.” Tourism Management 47:
164–177. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.014.
Han, H., B. L. Chua, and S. S. Hyun. 2020. “Eliciting Customers’ Waste Reduction and Water
Saving Behaviors at a Hotel.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 87: 102386.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102386.
Han, Heesup, Hossein GT. Olya, Sun-bai Cho, and Wansoo Kim. 2018. “Understanding
Museum Vacationers' Eco-Friendly Decision-Making Process: Strengthening the VBN
Framework.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 26 (6): 855–872. doi:10.1080/09669582.2017.
1377210.
Hargreaves, T. 2011. “Practice-Ing Behaviour Change: Applying Social Practice Theory to Pro-
Environmental Behaviour Change.” Journal of Consumer Culture 11 (1): 79–99. doi:10.
1177/1469540510390500.
Harring, Niklas, and Sverker C. Jagers. 2018. “Why Do People Accept Environmental Policies?
The Prospects of Higher Education and Changes in Norms, Beliefs and Policy Preferences.”
Environmental Education Research 24 (6): 791–806. doi:10.1080/13504622.2017.1343281.
Heidari, A., M. Kolahi, N. Behravesh, M. Ghorbanyon, F. Ehsanmansh, N. Hashemolhosini, and
F. Zanganeh. 2018. “Youth and Sustainable Waste Management: A SEM Approach and
Extended Theory of Planned Behavior.” Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
20 (4): 2041–2053. doi:10.1007/s10163-018-0754-1.
Henseler, J. 2017. “Partial Least Squares Path Modeling.” In Advanced Methods for Modeling
Markets, edited by Peter S. H. Leeflang, Jaap E. Wieringa, Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, Koen H.
Pauwels, 361–381. Cham: Springer.
Hoornweg, D., and P. Bhada-Tata. 2018. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. Washington DC: World Bank.
Ibtissem, M. H. 2010. “Application of Value Beliefs Norms Theory to the Energy Conservation
Behaviour.” Journal of Sustainable Development 3 (2): 129. doi:10.5539/jsd.v3n2p129.
Izagirre-Olaizola, J., A. Fernandez-Sainz, and M. A. Vicente-Molina. 2015. “Internal

Determinants of Recycling Behaviour by University Students: A Cross-Country Comparative
Analysis.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (1): 25–34. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12147.
Jekria, N., and S. Daud. 2016. “Environmental Concern and Recycling Behaviour.” Procedia
Economics and Finance 35: 667–673. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00082-4.
Joireman, J., and R. L. Liu. 2014. “Future-Oriented Women Will Pay to Reduce Global
Warming: Mediation via Political Orientation, Environmental Values, and Belief in Global
Warming.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 40: 391–400. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.
005.
Judge, Madeline, Georgia Warren-Myers, and Angela Paladino. 2019. “Using the Theory of
Planned Behaviour to Predict Intentions to Purchase Sustainable Housing.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 215: 259–267. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.029.
Kaiser, F. G., G. H€ubner, and F. X. Bogner. 2005. “Contrasting the Theory of Planned Behavior
with the Value-Belief-Norm Model in Explaining Conservation Behavior 1.” Journal of
Applied Social Psychology 35 (10): 2150–2170. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02213.x.
Kang, Jiyun, and Floritzel Moreno. 2020. “Driving Values to Actions: Predictive Modeling for
Environmentally Sustainable Product Purchases.” Sustainable Production and Consumption
23: 224–235. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.06.002.
Karimi, Saeid, and Amir Saghaleini. 2021. “Factors Influencing Ranchers’ Intentions to
Conserve Rangelands through an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior.” Global Ecology
and Conservation 26: E 01513. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01513.
Kaza, S., L. Yao, P. Bhada-Tata, and F. Van Woerden. 2018. What a Waste 2.0: A Global
Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Washington DC: World Bank Publications.
Kelly, T. C., I. G. Mason, M. W. Leiss, and S. Ganesh. 2006. “University Community
Responses to On-Campus Resource Recycling.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47
(1): 42–55. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.10.002.
Kiatkawsin, K., and H. Han. 2017. “Young Travelers' Intention to Behave Pro-Environmentally:
Merging the Value-Belief-Norm Theory and the Expectancy Theory.” Tourism Management
59: 76–88. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.06.018.
Kim, Myung Ja, Colin Michael Hall, and Dae-Kwan Kim. 2020. “Predicting Environmentally
Friendly Eating out Behavior by Value-Attitude-Behavior Theory: Does Being Vegetarian
Reduce Food Waste?” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28 (6): 797–815. doi:10.1080/
09669582.2019.1705461.
Kline, Rex B. 2015. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York:
Guilford Publications.
Kl€ockner, C. A. 2013. “A Comprehensive Model of the Psychology of Environmental
Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis.” Global Environmental Change 23 (5): 1028–1038. doi:10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014.
Kl€ockner, Christian Andreas, and Inger Olin Oppedal. 2011. “General vs. domain Specific
Recycling Behaviour: Applying a Multilevel Comprehensive Action Determination Model to
Recycling in Norwegian Student Homes.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (4):
463–471. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.009.
Knussen, Christina, Fred Yule, Julie MacKenzie, and Mark Wells. 2004. “An Analysis of
Intentions to Recycle Household Waste: The Roles of Past Behaviour, Perceived Habit, and
Perceived Lack of Facilities.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2): 237–246. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.001.
Landon, Adam C., Kyle M. Woosnam, and B. Bynum Boley. 2018. “Modeling the
Psychological Antecedents to Tourists’ Pro-Sustainable Behaviors: An Application of the
Value-Belief-Norm Model.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 26 (6): 957–972. doi:10.1080/
09669582.2017.1423320.
Latif, S. A., M. S. Omar, Y. H. Bidin, and Z. Awang. 2012. “Environmental Values as a
Predictor of Recycling Behaviour in Urban Areas: A Comparative Study.” Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences 50: 989–996. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.100.
Lee, S. T. 2018. “Testing for Measurement Invariance: Does Your Measure Mean the Same
Thing for Different Participants?” APS Observer 31 (8).
Liao, Chuanhui, and Hui Li. 2019. “Environmental Education, Knowledge, and High School
Students’ Intention toward Separation of Solid Waste on Campus.” International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 16 (9): 1659. doi:10.3390/ijerph16091659.
Lizin, Sebastien, Miet Van Dael, and Steven Van Passel. 2017. “Battery Pack Recycling:
Behaviour Change Interventions Derived from an Integrative Theory of Planned Behaviour
Study.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122: 66–82. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.
02.003.
Lopez, A. G., and M. A. Cuervo-Arango. 2008. “Relationship among Values, Beliefs, Norms
and Ecological Behaviour.” Psicothema 20 (4): 623–629.
Lopez-Mosquera, N., and M. Sanchez. 2012. “Theory of Planned Behavior and the Value-
Belief-Norm Theory Explaining Willingness to Pay for a Suburban Park.” Journal of
Environmental Management 113: 251–262. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.029.
Ma, Jing, Keith W. Hipel, Mark L. Hanson, Xiang Cai, and Yang Liu. 2018. “An Analysis of
Influencing Factors on Municipal Solid Waste Source-Separated Collection Behavior in
Guilin, China by Using the Theory of Planned Behavior.” Sustainable Cities and Society 37:
336–343.
Ma, Ying, Huiling Wang, and Rong Kong. 2020. “The Effect of Policy Instruments on Rural
Households’ Solid Waste Separation Behavior and the Mediation of Perceived Value Using
SEM.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 27 (16): 19398–19312.
doi:10.1007/s11356-020-08410-2.
Mahmud, S. N. D., and K. Osman. 2010. “The Determinants of Recycling Intention Behavior
among the Malaysian School Students: An Application of Theory of Planned Behaviour.”
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 9: 119–124. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.123.
McCarty, J. A., and L. J. Shrum. 1994. “The Recycling of Solid Wastes: Personal Values, Value
Orientations, and Attitudes about Recycling as Antecedents of Recycling Behavior.” Journal
of Business Research 30 (1): 53–62. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(94)90068-X.
McCarty, John A., and L. J. Shrum. 2001. “The Influence of Individualism, Collectivism, and
Locus of Control on Environmental Beliefs and Behavior.” Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing 20 (1): 93–104.
Megeirhi, Huda A., Kyle Maurice Woosnam, Manuel Alector Ribeiro, Haywantee Ramkissoon,
and Tara J. Denley. 2020. “Employing a Value-Belief-Norm Framework to Gauge Carthage
Residents’ Intentions to Support Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism.” Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 28 (9): 1351–1370. doi:10.1080/09669582.2020.1738444.
Meng, Bo, Bee-Lia Chua, Hyungseo Bobby Ryu, and Heesup Han. 2020. “Volunteer Tourism
(VT) Traveler Behavior: Merging Norm Activation Model and Theory of Planned
Behavior.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28 (12): 1947–1969. doi:10.1080/09669582.
2020.1778010.
Miliute-Plepiene, J., O. Hage, A. Plepys, and A. Reipas. 2016. “What Motivates Households
Recycling Behaviour in Recycling Schemes of Different Maturity? Lessons from Lithuania
and Sweden.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 113: 40–52. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.
2016.05.008.
Minton, A. P., and R. L. Rose. 1997. “The Effects of Environmental Concern on
Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Business
Research 40 (1): 37–48. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00209-3.
Moely, B. E., A. Furco, and J. Reed. 2008. “Charity and Social Change: The Impact of
Individual Preferences on Service-Learning Outcomes.” Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning 15 (1): 37–48.
Momoh, J. J., and D. H. Oladebeye. 2010. “Assessment of Awareness, Attitude and Willingness
of People to Participate in Household Solid Waste Recycling Programme in Ado-Ekiti,
Nigeria.” Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation 5 (1): 93–105.
Mondejar-Jimenez, J. A., G. Ferrari, L. Secondi, and L. Principato. 2016. “From the Table to
Waste: An Exploratory Study on Behaviour towards Food Waste of Spanish and Italian
Youths.” Journal of Cleaner Production 138: 8–18. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.018.
Monus, Ferenc. 2021. “Environmental Perceptions and Pro-Environmental Behavior: Comparing
Different Measuring Approaches.” Environmental Education Research 27 (1): 132–156. doi:
10.1080/13504622.2020.1842332.
Newman, I., J. Lim, and F. Pineda. 2013. “Content Validity Using a Mixed Methods Approach:
Its Application and Development through the Use of a Table of Specifications
Methodology.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 7 (3): 243–260. doi:10.1177/
1558689813476922.
Nguyen, Thi Thu Phuong, Dajian Zhu, and Nam Phong Le. 2015. “Factors Influencing Waste
Separation Intention of Residential Households in a Developing Country: Evidence from
Hanoi, Vietnam.” Habitat International 48: 169–176.
Nilsson, A., C. von Borgstede, and A. Biel. 2004. “Willingness to Accept Climate Change
Strategies: The Effect of Values and Norms.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (3):
267–277. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.06.002.
Nordlund, A. M., and J. Garvill. 2002. “Value Structures behind Pro-Environmental Behavior.”
Environment and Behavior 34 (6): 740–756. doi:10.1177/001391602237244.
Nordlund, A. M., and J. Garvill. 2003. “Effects of Values, Problem Awareness, and Personal
Norm on Willingness to Reduce Personal Car Use.” Journal of Environmental Psychology
23 (4): 339–347. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00037-9.
Ojo, Adedapo Oluwaseyi, Murali Raman, and Alan G. Downe. 2019. “Toward Green
Computing Practices: A Malaysian Study of Green Belief and Attitude among Information
Technology Professionals.” Journal of Cleaner Production 224: 246–255. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.03.237.
Onel, Naz, and Avinandan Mukherjee. 2017. “Why Do Consumers Recycle? A Holistic
Perspective Encompassing Moral Considerations, Affective Responses, and Self-Interest
Motives.” Psychology & Marketing 34 (10): 956–971. doi:10.1002/mar.21035.
Onwezen, Marleen C., Gerrit Antonides, and Jos Bartels. 2013. “The Norm Activation Model:
An Exploration of the Functions of Anticipated Pride and Guilt in Pro-Environmental
Behaviour.” Journal of Economic Psychology 39: 141–153.
Oreg, S., and T. Katz-Gerro. 2006. “Predicting Pro-Environmental Behavior Cross-Nationally:
Values, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and Value-Belief-Norm Theory.” Environment and
Behavior 38 (4): 462–483. doi:10.1177/0013916505286012.
Oztekin, C., G. Teks€oz, S. Pamuk, E. Sahin, and D. S. Kilic. 2017. “Gender Perspective on the
Factors Predicting Recycling Behavior: Implications from the Theory of Planned Behavior.”
Waste Management 62: 290–302. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.036.
Pakpour, A. H., I. M. Zeidi, M. M. Emamjomeh, S. Asefzadeh, and H. Pearson. 2014.
“Household Waste Behaviours among a Community Sample in Iran: An Application of the
Theory of Planned Behaviour.” Waste Management (New York, N.Y.) 34 (6): 980–986. doi:
10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.028.
Pappu, A., M. Saxena, and S. R. Asolekar. 2007. “Solid Wastes Generation in India and Their
Recycling Potential in Building Materials.” Building and Environment 42 (6): 2311–2320.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.04.015.
Parizeau, K., M. von Massow, and R. Martin. 2015. “Household-Level Dynamics of Food
Waste Production and Related Beliefs, Attitudes, and Behaviours in Guelph, Ontario.”
Waste Management (New York, N.Y.) 35: 207–217. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.019.
Park, Eunkyoung, SoJung Lee, Choong-Ki Lee, Jinok Susanna Kim, and Nam-Jo Kim. 2018.
“An Integrated Model of Travelers’ Pro-Environmental Decision-Making Process: The Role
of the New Environmental Paradigm.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 23 (10):
935–948. doi:10.1080/10941665.2018.1513051.
Phipps, Marcus, Lucie K. Ozanne, Michael G. Luchs, Saroja Subrahmanyan, Sommer Kapitan,
Jesse R. Catlin, Roland Gau., et al. 2013. “Understanding the Inherent Complexity of
Sustainable Consumption: A Social Cognitive Framework.” Journal of Business Research
66 (8): 1227–1234. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.016.
Pongracz, Eva. 2002. “Re-Defining the Concepts of Waste and Waste Management Evolving the
Theory of Waste Management.” Acta Universitatis Ouluensis. Series C, Technica 32 (2002).
http://urn.fi/urn:isbn:9514268210
Pongracz, E., and V. J. Pohjola. 2004. “Re-Defining Waste, the Concept of Ownership and the
Role of Waste Management.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2): 141–153. doi:
10.1016/S0921-3449(03)00057-0.
Quoquab, Farzana, Azila Jaini, and Jihad Mohammad. 2020. “Does It Matter Who Exhibits
More Green Purchase Behavior of Cosmetic Products in Asian Culture? A Multi-Group
Analysis Approach.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17
(14): 5258. doi:10.3390/ijerph17145258.
Raghu, Sumana Jagadeshi, and Lewlyn LR. Rodrigues. 2020. “Behavioral Aspects of Solid
Waste Management: A Systematic Review.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association (1995) 70 (12): 1268–1302. doi:10.1080/10962247.2020.1823524.
Ramayah, Thurasamy, Jason Wai Chow Lee, and Shuwen Lim. 2012. “Sustaining the
Environment through Recycling: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Environmental
Management 102: 141–147. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.025.
Razali, F., D. Daud, C. Weng-Wai, and W. R. A. Jiram. 2020. “Waste Separation at Source
Behaviour among Malaysian Households: The Theory of Planned Behaviour with Moral
Norm.” Journal of Cleaner Production 271: 122025. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122025.
Rezvani, Zeinab, Johan Jansson, and Maria Bengtsson. 2017. “‘Cause I'll Feel Good! An
Investigation into the Effects of Anticipated Emotions and Personal Moral Norms on
Consumer Pro-Environmental Behavior.” Journal of Promotion Management 23 (1):
163–183. doi:10.1080/10496491.2016.1267681.
Rigdon, E. E., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2010. “Structural Modeling of Heterogeneous
Data with Partial Least Squares.”. In Review of Marketing Research, edited by Naresh K
Malhotra, 255–296. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Rokeach, M. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
Russell, S. V., C. W. Young, K. L. Unsworth, and C. Robinson. 2017. “Bringing Habits and
Emotions into Food Waste Behaviour.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 125:
107–114. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.007.
Sharma, B., D. Gadenne, T. F. Smith, and D. Kerr. 2017. “Environmental Beliefs, Norms and
Behaviours: An Investigation of Their Relationships Using Data from Green Consumers.”
The Journal of New Business Ideas & Trends 15 (1): 1.
Sharma, Rakesh, and Anil Gupta. 2020. “Pro-Environmental Behaviour among Tourists Visiting
National Parks: Application of Value-Belief-Norm Theory in an Emerging Economy
Context.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 25 (8): 829–840. doi:10.1080/
10941665.2020.1774784.
Shove, E. 2010. “Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social Change.”
Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 42 (6): 1273–1285. doi:10.1068/a42282.
Sniehotta, F. F., U. Scholz, and R. Schwarzer. 2005. “Bridging the Intention–Behaviour Gap:
Planning, Self-Efficacy, and Action Control in the Adoption and Maintenance of Physical
Exercise.” Psychology & Health 20 (2): 143–160. doi:10.1080/08870440512331317670.
Steg, L., and A. Nordlund. 2012. “Models to Explain Environmental Behaviour.” In
Environmental Psychology: An Introduction, edited by Linda Steg, and Judith I. M. de
Groot, 185–195. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Steg, L., and C. Vlek. 2009. “Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An Integrative
Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (3): 309–317. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004.
Steg, Linda, Judith IM De Groot, Lieke Dreijerink, Wokje Abrahamse, and Frans Siero. 2011.
“General Antecedents of Personal Norms, Policy Acceptability, and Intentions: The Role of
Values, Worldviews, and Environmental Concern.” Society and Natural Resources 24 (4):
349–367.
Stern, P. C. 2000. “New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of
Environmentally Significant Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 407–424. doi:10.
1111/0022-4537.00175.
Stern, P. C., and T. Dietz. 1994. “The Value Basis of Environmental Concern.” Journal of
Social Issues 50 (3): 65–84. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x.
Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, and L. Kalof. 1993. “Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental
Concern.” Environment and Behavior 25 (5): 322–348. doi:10.1177/0013916593255002.
Thøgersen, J. 2003. “Monetary Incentives and Recycling: Behavioural and Psychological
Reactions to a Performance-Dependent Garbage Fee.” Journal of Consumer Policy 26 (2):
197–228. doi:10.1023/A:1023633320485.
Thøgersen, J. 1996 “Recycling and Morality: A Critical Review of the Literature.” Environment
and Behavior 28 (4): 536–558.
Tonglet, M., P. S. Phillips, and M. P. Bates. 2004. “Determining the Drivers for Householder
Pro-Environmental Behaviour: Waste Minimisation Compared to Recycling.” Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 42 (1): 27–48. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.02.001.
van der Werff, E., and L. Steg. 2016. “The Psychology of Participation and Interest in Smart
Energy Systems: Comparing the Value-Belief-Norm Theory and the Value-Identity-Personal
Norm Model.” Energy Research & Social Science 22: 107–114. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.
022.
Vining, Joanne, and Angela Ebreo. 1990. “What Makes a Recycler? A Comparison of Recyclers
and Non-Recyclers.” Environment and Behavior 22 (1): 55–73.
Visschers, V. H., N. Wickli, and M. Siegrist. 2016. “Sorting out Food Waste Behaviour: A
Survey on the Motivators and Barriers of Self-Reported Amounts of Food Waste in
Households.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 45: 66–78. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.
007.
Wan, C., G. Q. Shen, and A. Yu. 2014. “The Role of Perceived Effectiveness of Policy
Measures in Predicting Recycling Behaviour in Hong Kong.” Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 83: 141–151. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.009.
Wan, Calvin, Ronnie Cheung, and Geoffrey Qiping Shen. 2012. “Recycling Attitude and
Behaviour in University Campus: A Case Study in Hong Kong.” Facilities 30 (13/14):
630–646. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771211270595
Wang, Zhaohua, Dongxue Guo, Xiaomeng Wang, Bin Zhang, and Bo Wang. 2018. “How Does
Information Publicity Influence Residents’ Behaviour Intentions around e-Waste
Recycling?” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 133: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.
01.014.
Wang, Shanyong, Chuwei Ji, Haonan He, Zengtian Zhang, and Leiyong Zhang. 2021. “Tourists’
Waste Reduction Behavioral Intentions at Tourist Destinations: An Integrative Research
Framework.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 25: 540–550. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.
12.010.
Wang, Huilin, and Aweewan Mangmeechai. 2021. “Understanding the Gap between
Environmental Intention and Pro-Environmental Behavior towards the Waste Sorting and
Management Policy of China.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health 18 (2): 757. doi:10.3390/ijerph18020757.
Weber, E. U., and P. C. Stern. 2011. “Public Understanding of Climate Change in the United
States.” American Psychologist 66 (4): 315–328. doi:10.1037/a0023253.
Whitley, Cameron T., Bruno Takahashi, Adam Zwickle, John C. Besley, and Alisa P.
Lertpratchya. 2018. “Sustainability Behaviors among College Students: An Application of
the VBN Theory.” Environmental Education Research 24 (2): 245–262. doi:10.1080/
13504622.2016.1250151.
Whitmarsh, Lorraine E., Paul Haggar, and Merryn Thomas. 2018. “Waste Reduction Behaviors
at Home, at Work, and on Holiday: What Influences Behavioral Consistency across
Contexts?” Frontiers in Psychology 9: 2447. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02447.
Wong, S. L., C. C. Hsu, and H. S. Chen. 2018. “To Buy or Not to Buy? Consumer Attitudes
and Purchase Intentions for Suboptimal Food.” International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 15 (7): 1431. doi:10.3390/ijerph15071431.
Xu, Lin, Maoliang Ling, Yujie Lu, and Meng Shen. 2017. “External Influences on Forming
Residents’ Waste Separation Behaviour: Evidence from Households in Hangzhou, China.”
Habitat International 63: 21–33. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.03.009.
Yuriev, Alexander, Mehdi Dahmen, Pascal Paille, Olivier Boiral, and Laurence Guillaumie.
2020. “Pro-Environmental Behaviors through the Lens of the Theory of Planned Behavior:
A Scoping Review.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 155: 104660. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2019.104660.
Zhang, X., G. Geng, and P. Sun. 2017. “Determinants and Implications of Citizens’
Environmental Complaint in China: Integrating Theory of Planned Behavior and Norm
Activation Model.” Journal of Cleaner Production 166: 148–156. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2017.08.020.
Zhang, Dongliang, Guangqing Huang, Xiaoling Yin, and Qinghua Gong. 2015. “ Residents'
Waste Separation Behaviors at the Source: Using SEM with the Theory of Planned
Behavior in Guangzhou, China.” International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health 12 (8): 9475–9491. doi:10.3390/ijerph120809475.
Zheng, Q. J., A. X. Xu, D. Y. Kong, H. P. Deng, and Q. Q. Lin. 2018. “Correlation between
the Environmental Knowledge, Environmental Attitude, and Behavioral Intention of Tourists
for Ecotourism in China.” Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 16 (1): 51–62. doi:
10.15666/aeer/1601_051062.
View publication stats

Solid Waste Management Behavior Among The Student Community Integrating Environmental Knowledge and Situational Factors Into The TPB and VBN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solid Waste Management Behavior Among The Student Community Integrating Environmental Knowledge and Situational Factors Into The TPB and VBN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

Solid waste management behavior among the

Sumana Jagadeshi Raghu & Lewlyn L. R. Rodrigues

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1949969

View supplementary material

Published online: 07 Oct 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Solid waste management behavior among the student community:

Humanities and Management Department, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy

Corresponding author. Email: rodrigusr@gmail.com

ß 2021 Newcastle University

2.1. Value-belief-norm (VBN) theory

Value Belief Norm Behaviour

Figure 1. VBN theory (Stern 2000).

2.2. Theory of planned behavior (TPB)

Figure 2. Theory of Planned Behavior.

2.3. Relationship between VBN theory and TPB

2.4. Convergence of VBN theory and TPB

Table 1. Definitions of the study variables.

Study variables Definition References

1. Value Refers to a desirable trans-situational De Groot et al. (2007)

2.5. Hypotheses development

2.5.1. Relationship between SWM values and SWM beliefs

H1. Altruistic value has a significant positive influence on SWM belief.

H2. Biospheric value has a significant positive influence on SWM belief.

H3. Egoistic value has a significant positive influence on SWM belief.

2.5.2. Relationship between SWM beliefs and MN

H4. SWM beliefs have a significant positive influence on MN.

2.5.3. Relationship between MN and SWM attitude

H5. MN has significant positive influence on SWM attitude.

2.5.4. Relationship between SWM beliefs and SWM attitude

H6. SWM belief has a significant positive influence on SWM attitude.

2.5.5. Relationship between environmental knowledge and SWM attitude

H7. Environmental knowledge has a positive relationship with SWM attitude.

2.5.6. Relationship between situational factors and SWM attitude

H8. Situational factors have a positive relationship with SWM attitude.

2.5.7. Relationship between SWM attitude, PBC, SN and SWM intention

H9. SWM attitude has a significant positive influence on SWM intention.

H11. Subjective norms have a significant positive influence on SWM intention.

2.5.8. Relationship between SWM intention and SWMB

H12. SWM intention has a significant positive influence on SWMB.

Figure 3. SWMB Research model.

3.2. Participants and data collection

3.3. Measurement instruments

Table 2: Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample.

Variables Category Frequency Percent

Gender Male 593 53.7

Note: Income group is classified in INR.

3.4. Tools for analysis

3.5. Data pooling

Table 3. Factor loadings.

Construct Respective items Loadings CA Rho -A CR AVE

ALT ALT1 – A world of peace 0.744 0.774 0.785 0.870 0.691

SUN3 - My friends encourage 0.803

4.2. Structural model

Figure 4. Measurement model of SWMB.

Table 4: Discriminant validity.

Table 5. Modeling comparison results.

Fit indices with