Household waste prevention behavior and its effect on the implementation of construction waste prevention

Household Waste Prevention Behavior and Its Effect On TheImplementation Of Construction Waste Prevention Nguyen Van Phuong Do Thi Sa Huynh Trinh Vu Anh Thi Huynh Chau Trung Hieu Internat

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

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 itssocioeconomic 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 wasteposes one of the biggest threat to the environment and as well as to the sustainabledevelopment of the country

Although benefits from urbanization progress essentially promote the economy and societyflourish, it is the manufacturing and daily activities that lead to environmental degradation andunsustainability in the long term According to Vietnam National Environment report in 2011, theaverage 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 achievementsare increased to the need of standard living improvement, causing environmental protection, as well

as attentive healthcare, are considerably required Domestic waste is steadily expanded anddiversified 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 theenvironment Successfully coping with this problem by minimization strategies can save tremendousfinancial support for disposal activities, increase revenue from reusing and recycling materials aswell as diminish

392

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

Our structural model is built upon three main theoretical models relevant to how individualsare 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 ofthree components: behavioral intention, attitudes, and subjective norms The theory proposesthat a person’s attitude towards a specific behavior and the person’s subjective norms have adecisive impact on shaping the person’s behavioral intentions TRA has been certified to beapplicable in a variety of social and behavioral sciences (e.g (Goldenhar & Connell, 1992),(Park, Levine, & Sharkey, 1998)); however, criticisms have been raised on the exclusiveinfluence of individual’s volitional control on behavior Consequently, the theory of plannedbehavior 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 indirectlyfrom intentions, demonstrating how external environment and individual’s perceived controlmay affect the ability to perform an act In addition, the theory of (Schwartz, 1977) claims thatenvironmental behavior is dependent on the relationships between personal norms, socialnorms, 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 positiveoutcomes of preventing an act and personally responsible for the consequences

According to the waste prevention study of Tucker & Douglas (2007), it attributes wasteprevention behavior (WPB) to several classified groups of causes: attitudinal factors, contextualfactors, personal capabilities, and habits and routines The force of individual’s moral concern,social beliefs, rights and responsibilities towards environmental issues underlie minimizationand reuse behaviors (Barr, Gilg, & Ford, 2001) Tucker & Douglas (2007) proposes that sense ofresponsibility at a personal level is strongly associated with WPB due to the more emotionalfacets (embarrassment and guilt) being triggered than simply being one’s duty and thatattitudes can poorly predict the behavior In addition, complying with the consideration ofsevere health problem with population growth and fast urbanization, delivering appropriatewaste management is recognized as the most challenge in many communities These problemshave become more serious in developing countries, where garbage collection still relies onlabor-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 countriesand emerging economies, a little research has conducted in Vietnam Following the call for furtherresearch on WPB (Tonglet, Phillips, & Read 2004) to clarify determinants that are of greatimportance in the longitudinal process of household waste minimization, the overall objective of thepresent study was to examine and comprehend which factors enforce households participation inwaste prevention behavior Furthermore, the emphasis of our research on WPB and its influencerswould contribute to addressing significant factors that stimulate individuals to change theirbehaviors 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 wasteprevention behavior, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control are most essential predictors

of responses Since these predictors constrain the designers' waste minimization behavior, there isthe possibility that TPB could explain designers' waste minimization behavior When both of theattitude and subjective norm towards a

393

behavior as well as the perceived behavioral control of performing the behavior are morefavorable, it appears a stronger intention to perform the behavior Successful practices of theTPB were recorded in such a wide range of environmental behavior as household wasterecycling 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 onceapplied 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 constructionwaste; however, they were reluctant to do so Nevertheless, according to Chen (2008) study ofChinese contractors’ viewpoints on construction waste minimization, both site supervisors andworkers were recorded to be negative towards the process of minimizing waste To ourknowledge, there has been no explanation of the designers' behavior towards constructionwaste minimization based on the TPB According to Li, Tam, Zuo, & Zhu (2015), attitudetowards 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 theaddition of personal-norm concept to study behavior regarding moral beliefs Personal normsare specified by (Icek Ajzen, 1991) as individuals’ model perspective of what is right or wrongwhen 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, adoptedindividually on a personal level to become personal norms (which can be called internalization).Previous researches reckon personal norms as a significant predictor of environmentalbehaviors in such cases as recycling (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Thøgersen, 1996), consumerpurchase 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 personalnorms and waste minimization behavior also applies in the context of transportation Higherlevels of personal norms reported minimizing environmental impact comply with higherchances 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 issuggested by Hopper & Nielsen (1991) that individuals only behave in accordance with theirpersonal norms if they are fully aware of their actions’ consequences According to Schwartz'smodel (1977), when individuals hold a positive perception of the consequences of theirbehaviors, those who are morally obliged to perform a particular behavior are more inclined toplay 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 constructionwaste minimization First, there is a passive viewpoint among several professional designerstowards waste minimization by design According to (Poon, Shui, Lam, Fok, & Kou, 2004), it appearsthat waste minimization

394

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 operationsduring which construction waste was mostly produced and barely generated during the designstages Second, the waste reduction was notably hindered by the absence of clients and designcompanies (N Osmani et al., 2006) Finally, it is an inadequacy of experience and trainingresulting 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, towhich approaches education on construction waste management and reduction (N Osmani etal., 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 explanationand prediction of designers’ waste minimization behavior, for which a hypothetically adaptivemodel 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 inindividuals’ surrounding environment on their behaviors According to Ajzen (1985), how anindividual 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 hisbehavior will perceive social pressure to commit the act Conversely, an individual who thinksthat the proper people disapprove his response will be put under the social pressure of notperforming the behavior Possible sources of these social pressure come from internal referentssuch as family members and external referents such as neighbors, peers, the community, orsociety at large That families, neighbors, or peers take initiatives in waste prevention assetting 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 outwidely 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 ordifficult for an individual to perform a particular behavior Greater control over the behavior isrecorded when more opportunities and fewer challenges are available during the performance

of the behavior Knowledge and ability may not act as predictors of individuals’ actualbehaviors, which is stated by (Davies, Foxall, & Pallister, 2002) However, knowledge andability may affect how individuals perceive the behavior and the consequences it has on theenvironment Hence, PBC may not have a direct influence on PB but an indirect influencethrough 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 aredistinct dimensions of waste management

395

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 andnon-disposable products The measurement of behavior intention is excluded from this studyfor two reasons First, regarding recycling behavior, (Davies et al., 2002) specifies thatintention is regarded as individuals’ support for prevention behavior, not an initiative toperform an act Hence, behavior intention is not considered a factor that influences thebehavior performance Second, that only future intentions are assessed but not any pastintentions are the true motives for the reported behavior in the questionnaire makes behaviorintentions 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 oragainst 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 scalefrom ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree.’

3.2 Perceived behavioral control (PBC)

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

396

behavior, and a direct measure of PBC, which is representative of both perceived control andperceived difficulty, is demonstrated (Cheung et al., 1999) Five items were selected formeasuring 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 Thecomposite approach proposed by (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and the global measure methodbuild 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 afive-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 personalbeliefs, right or wrong acts are crucially an establishment of moral or behavior prediction It is aprocess of internalization of social and moral norms that form personal norms resulting in thedependence of social norms and frequencies of behaviors Therefore, when it comes toaccordance between individuals’ actions and their personal norms, they experience a strongsense of pride Conversely, when it comes to the violation of personal norms, they experienceguilty 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 preventionbehavior of all respondents participating in this research, self-report is an applicable andappropriate 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 Measurem Sources

Variables ent items

ATT1 Environmental problems can affect my

family’shealthAttitud

e ATT2 Reducing and recycling waste save space inthe

r

ATT4 Reducing

and

recycling waste reduce my

ATT5 Reducing and recycling waste establish a

betterenvironment in the futureDesigner’s AB1 Implementin

g

wasteminimization

by designattitud

by design

Glass, J.,waste benefits the environmental

minimizati

by design

design benefits the establishment of an

(AB) friendly enterprise image

environment-PBC1 I know how to recycle and reuse domestic

397