Household Waste Prevention Behavior and Its Effect On The Implementation Of Construction Waste Prevention

Results of the proposed model present that attitude towards prevention and perceived behavioral control are two main predictors of prevention behavior, with the influence of attitude tow

Household Waste Prevention Behavior and Its Effect On The

Implementation Of Construction Waste Prevention

Nguyen Van Phuong

Do Thi Sa Huynh Trinh Vu Anh Thi Huynh Chau Trung Hieu

International University, Vietnam National University – HCMC, Vietnam

Abstract

Rapid urbanization not only offers advantageous socio-economic opportunities but simultaneously poses threads to the sustainable development with one of the major obstacles – household waste In order to overcome the problem, this paper aims to investigate determinants of behavior on waste prevention and help decision-makers figure out more efficient approaches to implement household waste prevention The research utilizes Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB) to develop a conceptual model and uses a structural equation model to test hypotheses with a survey of 593 respondents from households in Tay Ninh province, Vietnam Results of the proposed model present that attitude towards prevention and perceived behavioral control are two main predictors of prevention behavior, with the influence of attitude towards respondents’ prevention

is marginally greater than that of perceived behavioral control Meanwhile, designers’ attitude and subjective norms are empirically evidenced to have little impacts

Keywords: waste prevention, household behavior, designers’ attitude

1 Introduction

Vietnam has been thriving in the industrialized revolution leading to the development of its socioeconomic status In addition to the flourishing economy stimulated by the globalization, consequently, residents’ living standard is remarkably enhanced Pollution is, accordingly, considered an alarmingly severe problem at the same time, especially, the domestic waste poses one of the biggest threat to the environment and as well as to the sustainable development of the country

Although benefits from urbanization progress essentially promote the economy and society flourish, it is the manufacturing and daily activities that lead to environmental degradation and unsustainability in the long term According to Vietnam National Environment report in 2011, the average solid waste in an urban area was 2-3 times higher compared to that in a country area Notably, in Tay Ninh city – the heart of Tay Ninh province, significant socioeconomic achievements are increased to the need of standard living improvement, causing environmental protection, as well as attentive healthcare, are considerably required Domestic waste

is steadily expanded and diversified A survey demonstrated that about 60% of the household waste is under standardized disposal, while the remaining is disposed of by burning, burying or direct discharge into the environment Successfully coping with this problem by minimization strategies can save tremendous financial support for disposal activities, increase revenue from reusing and recycling materials as well as diminish

resources for the manufacturing process Therefore, this research is conducted to figure out efficient and sustainable strategies to resolve this long-term problem

Our structural model is built upon three main theoretical models relevant to how individuals are motivated

to act in compliance with waste management policies Developed by (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977) and (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), the theory of reasoned action (TRA) consists of three components: behavioral intention, attitudes, and subjective norms The theory proposes that a person’s attitude towards a specific behavior and the person’s subjective norms have a decisive impact on shaping the person’s behavioral intentions TRA has been certified to be applicable in a variety of social and behavioral sciences (e.g (Goldenhar & Connell, 1992), (Park, Levine, & Sharkey, 1998)); however, criticisms have been raised on the exclusive influence of individual’s volitional control on behavior Consequently, the theory of planned behavior is suggested by Ajzen (1985) with the introduction of a new determinant of behavior – perceived behavioral control (PBC) PBC predicts a particular behavior directly and indirectly from intentions, demonstrating how external environment and individual’s perceived control may affect the ability to perform an act In addition, the theory

of (Schwartz, 1977) claims that environmental behavior is dependent on the relationships between personal norms, social norms, awareness of consequences and denial of responsibility In this theoretical model, personal and social norms form a behavior only when individuals are aware of the positive outcomes of preventing an act and personally responsible for the consequences

According to the waste prevention study of Tucker & Douglas (2007), it attributes waste prevention behavior (WPB) to several classified groups of causes: attitudinal factors, contextual factors, personal capabilities, and habits and routines The force of individual’s moral concern, social beliefs, rights and responsibilities towards environmental issues underlie minimization and reuse behaviors (Barr, Gilg, & Ford, 2001) Tucker & Douglas (2007) proposes that sense of responsibility at a personal level is strongly associated with WPB due to the more emotional facets (embarrassment and guilt) being triggered than simply being one’s duty and that attitudes can poorly predict the behavior In addition, complying with the consideration of severe health problem with population growth and fast urbanization, delivering appropriate waste management is recognized as the most challenge in many communities These problems have become more serious in developing countries, where garbage collection still relies on labor-intensive operations and not enough waste treatment equipment and technologies

Specifically, prior studies have explored some main aspects of environmental cases For instance, Dunlap

& Van Liere (1978) investigated in yard burning And other scholars concentrated on recycling (Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995; Hopper & Nielsen, 1991) and waste prevention (Bortoleto et al., 2012) Indeed, most previous studies in this field have usually implemented in developed countries and emerging economies, a little research has conducted in Vietnam Following the call for further research on WPB (Tonglet, Phillips, & Read 2004) to clarify determinants that are of great importance in the longitudinal process of household waste minimization, the overall objective of the present study was to examine and comprehend which factors enforce households participation in waste prevention behavior Furthermore, the emphasis of our research on WPB and its influencers would contribute to addressing significant factors that stimulate individuals to change their behaviors for environmental benefits and introduce waste management policies to achieve

2 Literature Review

2.1 The theory of planned behavior (TPB)

According to (Ajzen, 1991), the theory of planned behavior implies that attitude towards waste prevention behavior, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control are most essential predictors of responses Since these predictors constrain the designers' waste minimization behavior, there is the possibility that TPB could explain designers' waste minimization behavior When both of the attitude and subjective norm towards a

behavior as well as the perceived behavioral control of performing the behavior are more favorable, it appears

a stronger intention to perform the behavior Successful practices of the TPB were recorded in such a wide range of environmental behavior as household waste recycling behavior and waste prevention behavior (e.g., (Bortoleto, Kurisu, & Hanaki, 2012); (Ramayah, Lee, & Lim, 2012); (Steg & Vlek, 2009); (Tonglet et al., 2004) The TPB was once applied by (Teo & Loosemore, 2001) to explain how operators (e.g., site supervisors, labors) perform reckless behavior under the influence of attitudinal forces in the construction industry The outcome was that operators held no negative feelings about minimizing construction waste; however, they were reluctant to do so Nevertheless, according to Chen (2008) study of Chinese contractors’ viewpoints on construction waste minimization, both site supervisors and workers were recorded to be negative towards the process of minimizing waste To our knowledge, there has been no explanation of the designers' behavior towards construction waste minimization based on the TPB According to Li, Tam, Zuo, & Zhu (2015), attitude towards waste prevention behavior and perceived behavioral control have a significant effect on designers’ behavior

2.2 Attitudes toward waste prevention behavior (ATT) and Personal norms (PN)

The TPB (Icek Ajzen & Timko, 1986), in previous researches, has been expanded with the addition of personal-norm concept to study behavior regarding moral beliefs Personal norms are specified by (Icek Ajzen, 1991) as individuals’ model perspective of what is right or wrong when performing a particular behavior Personal norms, according to (Heberlein & Black, 1981) and (Schwartz & Howard, 1980), refers to a strong internalization process of moral attitudes These attitudes are generated from mutually shared norms in society; then, adopted individually on a personal level to become personal norms (which can be called internalization) Previous researches reckon personal norms as a significant predictor of environmental behaviors in such cases as recycling (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Thøgersen, 1996), consumer purchase behaviors

of less environmental harmful products/packaging (Thøgersen, Haugaard, & Olesen, 2010), and organic food/wine (Aertsens, Verbeke, Mondelaers, & Van Huylenbroeck, 2009; Zhou, Thøgersen, Ruan, & Huang, 2013) This critical relationship between personal norms and waste minimization behavior also applies in the context of transportation Higher levels of personal norms reported minimizing environmental impact comply with higher chances of intentions to adopt more environmental-friendly alternatives for transportation such

as public transport (Jansson, Marell, & Nordlund, 2010; Ozaki & Sevastyanova, 2011) Hence, we hypothesize the positive relationship between personal norms and prevention behavior

In addition, when it comes to the connection between personal norms and behavior, it is suggested by Hopper & Nielsen (1991) that individuals only behave in accordance with their personal norms if they are fully aware of their actions’ consequences According to Schwartz's model (1977), when individuals hold a positive perception of the consequences of their behaviors, those who are morally obliged to perform a particular behavior are more inclined to play that behavior This applies to previous environmental cases, for example, yard burning (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978); recycling (Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995; Hopper & Nielsen, 1991) and waste prevention (Bortoleto et al., 2012)

Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1: Attitudes toward waste prevention behavior has a direct and positive impact on personal norms H2: Attitudes toward waste prevention behavior has a direct and positive impact on prevention behavior H10: Personal norms has a direct and positive impact on prevention behavior

2.3 Designer’s attitude and behavior toward waste minimization by design (AB)

There have been conductions in previous studies from designers’ perception of construction waste minimization First, there is a passive viewpoint among several professional designers towards waste minimization by design According to (Poon, Shui, Lam, Fok, & Kou, 2004), it appears that waste minimization

was not mainly considered an emphasis task during a design process Osmani, Vitale, Borg, & Etienne-Manneville (2006) demonstrated that architects assumed that it is site operations during which construction waste was mostly produced and barely generated during the design stages Second, the waste reduction was notably hindered by the absence of clients and design companies (N Osmani et al., 2006) Finally, it is an inadequacy of experience and training resulting in obstruction of designers’ initiatives in waste minimization (Bossink, Brouwers, & Kessel, 1996; Ekanayake & Ofori, 2004) A self-study is adopted by a majority of designers, to which approaches education on construction waste management and reduction (N Osmani et al., 2006); Hao & Kang, 2010) However, the effect of designers’ waste minimization behavior by these factors and of which had a more dominant effect was not revealed The explanation and prediction of designers’ waste minimization behavior, for which a hypothetically adaptive model is required to be improved with enormous efforts

Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H3: AB has a direct and positive impact on ATT

H4: AB has a direct and positive effect on prevention behavior

H5: AB has a direct and positive impact on subjective norms

2.4 Subjective norms (SN) and Perceived behavioral control (PBC)

Subjective norms are suggested to be the social pressure of the relevant people in individuals’ surrounding environment on their behaviors According to Ajzen (1985), how an individual weights the importance of others’ opinions on the matter may affect their behaviors An individual who believes that the relevant people whose views are significant to approve his behavior will perceive social pressure to commit the act Conversely, an individual who thinks that the proper people disapprove his response will be put under the social pressure of not performing the behavior Possible sources of these social pressure come from internal referents such as family members and external referents such as neighbors, peers, the community, or society

at large That families, neighbors, or peers take initiatives in waste prevention as setting behavioral role models can act as motives for an individual to follow Everett & Peirce (1993) suggest that behavioral role models must

be set from which norms can be spread out widely within the community Otherwise, there is no one pioneering in catalyze the norm

According to Ajzen (1985), perceived behavioral control refers to whether it is easy or difficult for an individual to perform a particular behavior Greater control over the behavior is recorded when more opportunities and fewer challenges are available during the performance of the behavior Knowledge and ability may not act as predictors of individuals’ actual behaviors, which is stated by (Davies, Foxall, & Pallister, 2002) However, knowledge and ability may affect how individuals perceive the behavior and the consequences it has on the environment Hence, PBC may not have a direct influence on PB but an indirect influence through SN

Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H6: PBC has a direct and positive impact on designers’ attitudes toward waste minimization by design H7: PBC has a direct and positive impact on attitudes toward prevention behavior

H8: PBC has a direct and positive impact on prevention behavior

H9: PBC has a direct and positive impact on subjective norms

H11: SN has a direct and positive impact on prevention behavior

2.5 Prevention behavior (PB)

Prevention behavior refers to actions which can be done before the disposal of a substance, a material or a product into the environment, consisting of strict avoidance, source reduction, and product reuse Tonglet et al., (2004) suggests that recycling and waste prevention are distinct dimensions of waste management

behavior Waste prevention activities can be performed under these following measures: (i) reuse, (ii) point of purchase decisions, (iii) unnecessary purchases reduction, (iv) long-life and non-disposable products The measurement of behavior intention is excluded from this study for two reasons First, regarding recycling behavior, (Davies et al., 2002) specifies that intention is regarded as individuals’ support for prevention behavior, not an initiative to perform an act Hence, behavior intention is not considered a factor that influences the behavior performance Second, that only future intentions are assessed but not any past intentions are the true motives for the reported behavior in the questionnaire makes behavior intentions measurement inappropriate for the study

Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H12: Prevention behavior has a direct and positive impact on implementing waste prevention

Figure 1 illustrates the research model

Figure 1 Research Model

3 Measurement

3.1 Attitude towards waste prevention behavior (ATT)

In general terms, individuals’ attitude toward a specific act is a determinant of favored or against behavior

in a particular manner It's measurement based on the using of individuals’ beliefs regarding the outcomes of the behavior from an evaluation of its outcomes (Boldero, 1995; Cheung, Chan, & Wong, 1999) Five items measured the variable ATT via five-point scale from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree.’

3.2 Perceived behavioral control (PBC)

There is not a generally favored method of measuring PBC However, an essential correlation between the product of control beliefs by the perceived power, which includes situations that would facilitate or inhibit the

behavior, and a direct measure of PBC, which is representative of both perceived control and perceived difficulty, is demonstrated (Cheung et al., 1999) Five items were selected for measuring this variable which was reported on a five-point scale from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree.’

3.3 Subjective norms (SN)

Subjective norms are considered as a global measure based on direct approach The composite approach proposed by (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and the global measure method build a correlation which is high and statistically significant (Cheung et al., 1999) The research is a combination of both internal referents (family members) and external referents (individuals or groups outside the family) of social pressure in a single construct Each item was rated on a five-point scale ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree.’

3.4 Personal norms (PN)

Personal norms reflect individuals’ belief about how they should act Based on personal beliefs, right or wrong acts are crucially an establishment of moral or behavior prediction It is a process of internalization of social and moral norms that form personal norms resulting in the dependence of social norms and frequencies

of behaviors Therefore, when it comes to accordance between individuals’ actions and their personal norms, they experience a strong sense of pride Conversely, when it comes to the violation of personal norms, they experience guilty feelings The variable was measured using a five-point scale from 1 (‘Strongly disagree’) to

5 (‘Strongly agree’)

3.5 Prevention behavior (PB)

Since it is impossible to make individual observations and assessments of prevention behavior of all respondents participating in this research, self-report is an applicable and appropriate proxy to measure this variable The total of eight items adopted from (Gamba & Oskamp, 1994) were taken as measures by five-point scale, ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree.’

Table 1

Latent

Variables

Measurem ent items Sources

Attitude

toward

waste

prevention

behavior

(ATT)

ATT1 Environmental problems can affect my family’s

health

Boldero, 1995;

Cheung, Chan, & Wong,

1999

ATT2 Reducing and recycling waste save space in the landfill ATT3 Reducing and recycling waste save energy ATT4 Reducing and recycling waste reduce my

family's cost ATT5 Reducing and recycling waste establish a better

environment in the future Designer’s

attitude

toward

waste

minimizati

design

(AB)

AB1 Implementing waste minimization by design helps to minimize household's waste

Poon, C S., & Jaillon, L (2002); Osmani, M., Glass, J.,

& Price, A D (2008); Tonglet, M., Phillips, P S., & Read, A D (2004)

AB2 Implementing waste minimization by design benefits the environmental protection

AB3 Implementing waste minimization by design benefits the establishment of an

environment-friendly enterprise image PBC1 I know how to recycle and reuse domestic waste (Cheung et al., 1999)

Perceived

behavioura

l control

(PBC)

Davies, J., Foxall, G R., & Pallister, J (2002)

PBC3 I control all of recycled and reused products PBC4 I can classify daily domestic waste

PBC5 I have enough space for recyclable and reusable domestic waste

Prevention

Behavior

(PB)

PB1 I buy things that are produced with as little

packaging as possible

Gamba, R J., & Oskamp, S (1994)

PB2 I use my own bag when going shopping, rather

than one provided by the shop PB3 I look for packaging that can be easily reused or recycled PB4 I buy products that can be reused rather than disposable items PB5 I wash and reuse dishcloths rather than using paper towels PB6 I donate old items to charity or to other possible users PB7 I reuse containers

PB8 I am economical

Personal

Norms

(PN)

PN1 Recycling domestic waste is vital

Davies et al (2002)

PN2 I feel it is my responsibility to recycle any

possible waste PN3 Domestic waste needs collecting on regular basis PN4 Reducing and recycling waste do not concern me

Subjective

Norms

(SN)

SN1 Most people who are important to me have impacts on my environmental awareness

Ajzen, I (1985) Cheung et al (1999) Bortoleto et al (2012)

SN2 Most people I know have impacts on my environmental awareness SN3 Most people I know are environmentally friendly Implement

ing

constructio

n waste

minimizati

design (IS)

IS1 Construction process of waste minimization by design is strictly supervised

Bortoleto et al (2012) Osmani et al (2008)

IS2 Upgrading and completing waste minimization constructional system is essential IS3 Waste minimiazation factories reaches their highest productivity or not IS4 Enterprises give households guidance on classifying hazadous waste

4 Research Methodology

4.1 Questionaire design

To investigate the attitude and behavior towards waste prevention of local households, a questionnaire was designed with 3 main parts: (1) background of the survey, including a basic introduction and purpose of

the survey; (2) characteristics of recipients, including gender, age, family members, and education level; (3) 9 questions relating to hypothetical model

4.2 Data collection

The survey was conducted in Tay Ninh City, Vietnam with all of the recipients are local households There are in total 750 questionnaires were randomly distributed and immediately taken back after the survey completed, in which 593 cases are valid

4.3 Data analysis

The hypothetical model is tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) with the software SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 20.0 The measurement of variables in the equation system is illustrated about observed variables and unmeasured latent variables whose correlations are also specified by SEM SEM is a two-phase model-building process consisting of two distinct but interrelated models (a measurement model and a structural model)

The measurement model is to evaluate reliability and validity of latent variables Reliability which represents for the consistency among measurement items is measured by Cronbach’s α whose range is from 0

to 1 The higher values of the Cronbach’s α, the higher reliability measurement items illustrate In general, if a coefficient α scores higher than 0.7, it is evaluated to be highly reliable (Tonglet et al., 2004) However, it is acceptable for a coefficient α to be higher than 0.6 in exploratory research, recommended by Fornell & Larcker (1981) Validity represents to what extent one observed variable is measured in association with the latent variable Validity is assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham (1998) suggested that factor loading coefficients of observed variables reach a minimum requirement

of 0.5 to be stated valid and significant In addition, model fit evaluation is one indispensable stage in the process to assess the goodness-of-fit of the measurement model Model fit demonstrates the normalized chi-square (X2/df), root mean chi-square error of approximation (RMSEA), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), incremental index of fit (IFI), comparative fit index (CFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI) and parsimonious comparative fit index (PCFI)

The structural model is assessed using the technique called maximum likelihood estimate in SEM This estimation measures the overall fitness indices of the model, based on the same indices as measurement model above The estimated standardized path coefficients are the standardized regression weight, demonstrating the degree of correlation between two variables The statistically significant path coefficients strengthen their hypothetical interrelation Squared multiple correlation coefficient regarding the variance of a variable explained by other variables is also taken into consideration

5 Results

5.1 Demographic characteristics

There are 593 valid questionnaires collected According to Bortoleto et al (2012), SEM analysis is sensitive

to the sample size, which should not be too small To examine more than 10 variables, the recommendation cases are at least 100 (Loehlin, 1998) Therefore, the collected questionnaires are sufficient to be tested by SEM

Table 2 Sample profile

Samples n = 593

Age

The sample profile is illustrated in Table 2 By gender, the proportion of male is dominant, at 61.9% A majority of respondents is at the age ranging from 20 – 60 which is approximately 3/4 of the total In the survey, there are two kinds of household position: frontage and alley, which are at a nearly equal rate (50.6% and 49.2% respectively) Finally, it appears that more than a half of the waste reuse amount is under 30% is higher than the sum of other scales

5.2 The measurement model

Table 3 consists of the factor loadings and level of Cronbach’s alpha All of the factor loadings are above the recommended level (>0.5) The reliability is clearly evidenced as all of the Cronbach’s alpha levels exceed the required standard (>0.5), most of which are > 0.8 showing high reliability The model fit indices (X2/df = 3.043; p = 0.000; RMSEA = 0.065; GFI = 0.895; IFI = 0.919; CFI = 0.918; AGFI = 0.870; PGFI = 0.725; PNFI = 0.769) indicate the acceptable validity of measurement model

Table 3 The reliability and validity of the latent variables in the measurement model

PB

0.889

PBC

0.881

ATT

0.826

PN

0.788

IC

0.740

SN

0.859

AB

0.799

5.3 Structural model

Values of model fit indices are all acceptable As demonstrated in Table 4, X2/df is 3.501, the RMSEA (0.065)

is above 0.05 and less than 0.08, indicating an acceptable fit index; GFI (0.875) is less than the required level of 0.90 but very close to that; AGFI (0.850); PGFI (0.728) and PNFI (0.771) separately exceed the recommended requirements IFI and CFI share equal scores at a high level (0.897) and are nearly adequate for the required indices of 0.9

Table 4 Fit indices of the model

Indices value