Exploring the Effect of Family Life and Neighbourhood on the Willingness of Household Waste Sorting
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods and Materials
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.2. Regression Results for Respondents’ Waste Sorting Willingness
3.3. Regression Results for Willingness Regarding Deposition of Household Waste to a Fixed Collection Point
4. Discussion
4.1. Family Lifestyle and Neighbourhood Affect the Family’s Willingness to Sort Waste
4.2. Policy Suggestion and Research Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Grazhdani, D. Assessing the variables affecting on the rate of solid waste generation and recycling: An empirical analysis in prespa park. Waste Manag. 2016, 48, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iyamu, H.; Anda, M.; Ho, G. A review of municipal solid waste management in the bric and high-income countries: A thematic framework for low-income countries. Habitat Int. 2020, 95, 102097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okuda, I.; Thomson, V.E. Regionalization of municipal solid waste management in Japan: Balancing the proximity principle with economic efficiency. Environ. Manag. 2007, 40, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanskanen, J.-H.; Kaila, J. Comparison of methods used in the collection of source-separated household waste. Waste Manag. Res. 2001, 19, 486–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, R.; Sutanto, M. The practice and challenges of solid waste management in singapore. Waste Manag. 2002, 22, 557–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernstad, A.; la Cour Jansen, J.; Aspegren, H. Life cycle assessment of a household solid waste source separation programme: A swedish case study. Waste Manag. Res. 2011, 29, 1027–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dahlén, L.; Vukicevic, S.; Meijer, J.-E.; Lagerkvist, A. Comparison of different collection systems for sorted household waste in sweden. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 1298–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelles, M.; Gruenes, J.; Morscheck, G. Waste management in germany–development to a sustainable circular economy. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 35, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zen, I.S.; Noor, Z.Z.; Yusuf, R.O. The profiles of household solid waste recyclers and non-recyclers in kuala lumpur, malaysia. Habitat Int. 2014, 42, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charuvichaipong, C.; Sajor, E. Promoting waste separation for recycling and local governance in thailand. Habitat Int. 2006, 30, 579–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, R.E.; Farahbakhsh, K. Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in developing countries. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 988–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zurbrügg, C.; Drescher, S.; Patel, A.; Sharatchandra, H. Decentralised composting of urban waste–an overview of community and private initiatives in indian cities. Waste Manag. 2004, 24, 655–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.T.P.; Zhu, D.; Le, N.P. Factors influencing waste separation intention of residential households in a developing country: Evidence from hanoi, vietnam. Habitat Int. 2015, 48, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Amato, D.; Droste, N.; Allen, B.; Kettunen, M.; Lähtinen, K.; Korhonen, J.; Leskinen, P.; Matthies, B.D.; Toppinen, A. Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 716–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadik-Zada, E.R. Natural resources, technological progress, and economic modernization. Rev. Dev. Econ. 2021, 25, 381–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radtke, J. A closer look inside collaborative action: Civic engagement and participation in community energy initiatives. People Place Policy 2014, 8, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhuang, Y.; Wu, S.-W.; Wang, Y.-L.; Wu, W.-X.; Chen, Y.-X. Source separation of household waste: A case study in china. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 2022–2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.Q.; Tan, S.K.; Gersberg, R.M. Municipal solid waste management in china: Status, problems and challenges. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 1623–1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tai, J.; Zhang, W.; Che, Y.; Feng, D. Municipal solid waste source-separated collection in china: A comparative analysis. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1673–1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padilla, A.J.; Trujillo, J.C. Waste disposal and households’ heterogeneity. Identifying factors shaping attitudes towards source-separated recycling in bogotá, colombia. Waste Manag. 2018, 74, 16–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massarutto, A.; Marangon, F.; Troiano, S.; Favot, M. Moral duty, warm glow or self-interest? A choice experiment study on motivations for domestic garbage sorting in italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 916–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nutbeam, D.; Aaro, L.; Wold, B. The lifestyle concept and health education with young people: Results from a who international survey. J. Inst. Health Educ. 1991, 29, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vereecken, C.A.; Maes, L.; De Bacquer, D. The influence of parental occupation and the pupils’ educational level on lifestyle behaviors among adolescents in belgium. J. Adolesc. Health 2004, 34, 330–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, S.-S.; Poon, C.-S. A comparison of waste-reduction practices and new environmental paradigm of rural and urban chinese citizens. J. Environ. Manag. 2001, 62, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zeng, C.; Niu, D.; Zhao, Y. A comprehensive overview of rural solid waste management in china. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2015, 9, 949–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shenggen, F.; Zhang, X. Infrastructure and regional economic development in rural china. China Econ. Rev. 2004, 15, 203–214. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, X. Is environment ‘a city thing’in china? Rural–urban differences in environmental attitudes. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 38, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, F. Residential relocation under market-oriented redevelopment: The process and outcomes in urban china. Geoforum 2004, 35, 453–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Wu, F. Tenure-based residential segregation in post-reform chinese cities: A case study of shanghai. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2008, 33, 404–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjorklund, E. The danwei: Socio-spatial characteristics of work units in china’s urban society. Econ. Geogr. 1986, 62, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mean Value/Proportion | |
---|---|
Neighbourhood types (%) | |
Rural neighbourhood | 59.84 |
Urban neighbourhood | 40.16 |
Household waste sorting willingness (%) | |
Willing | 83.04 |
Unwilling | 16.96 |
Willingness to deposit household waste at a fixed collection point (%) | |
Willing | 94.59 |
Unwilling | 5.41 |
Number of family members living together (1–18) | 4.14 (SD = 2.10) |
Average number of family meals per month (0–90) | 19.42 (SD = 27.86) |
Average monthly household electricity consumption (100 KWH) | 1.37 (SD = 1.29) |
Average monthly household food expenditure (1000 yuan) | 14.42 (SD = 23.83) |
Household cleanliness (1–10) | 6.26 (SD = 1.76) |
Household crowding (1–10) | 6.27 (SD = 1.77) |
Neighbourhood property management (%) | |
Have | 21.35 |
Do not have | 78.65 |
The level of air pollution (1–4) | 3.13 (SD = 0.85) |
The level of water pollution (1–4) | 3.21 (SD = 0.79) |
The level of noise pollution (1–4) | 3.20 (SD = 0.85) |
The level of soil pollution (1–4) | 3.39 (SD = 0.69) |
Rural Residents | Urban Residents | Chi-Square | p Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Household waste sorting willingness (%) | 277.97 | 0.000 | ||
Willing | 78.39 (N = 1568) | 89.98 (N = 4382) | ||
Unwilling | 21.61 (N = 5688) | 488 (N = 10.02) | ||
Willingness to deposit household waste at a fixed collection point (%) | 228.17 | 0.000 | ||
Willing | 92.05 (N = 6679) | 98.38 (N = 4791) | ||
Unwilling | 7.95 (N = 577) | 1.62 (N = 79) |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
Urban neighbourhoods (ref: rural neighbourhoods) | 1.814 *** | [1.577, 2.086] | ||||
Number of family members living together | 0.983 | [0.961, 1.006] | 0.988 | [0.963, 1.014] | 0.961 | [0.913, 1.010] |
Average number of family meals per month | 1.002 *** | [1.001, 1.004] | 1.002 | [0.999, 1.004] | 1.005 *** | [1.001, 1.008] |
Average monthly household electricity consumption | 0.996 | [0.956, 1.039] | 1.003 | [0.952, 1.057] | 0.976 | [0.911, 1.046] |
Average monthly household food expenditure | 1.005 ** | [1.001, 1.009] | 1.005 * | [0.999, 1.010] | 1.006 * | [0.999, 1.012] |
Household cleanliness | 1.118 *** | [1.077, 1.162] | 1.145 *** | [1.096, 1.197] | 1.041 | [0.967, 1.122] |
Household crowding | 1.082 *** | [1.042, 1.123] | 1.060 *** | [1.014, 1.108] | 1.141 *** | [1.061, 1.227] |
Neighbourhood property management (ref: have) | 0.779 *** | [0.652, 0.930] | 0.610 * | [0.369, 1.007] | 0.806 ** | [0.662, 0.983] |
The level of air pollution | 0.891 *** | [0.819, 0.968] | 0.838 *** | [0.758, 0.927] | 1.013 | [0.873, 1.175] |
The level of water pollution | 1.024 | [0.945, 1.109] | 1.007 | [0.918, 1.104] | 1.127 | [0.957, 1.327] |
The level of noise pollution | 0.948 | [0.876, 1.026] | 0.922 | [0.834, 1.020] | 0.970 | [0.852, 1.105] |
The level of soil pollution | 1.063 | [0.968, 1.168] | 1.134 ** | [1.015, 1.268] | 0.926 | [0.777, 1.103] |
Number of samples | 12126 | 7256 | 4870 | |||
Log likelihood | −5260.662 | −3699.207 | −1550.743 | |||
χ2 | 517.623 | 175.740 | 69.214 |
Model 4: Willingness to Sort Waste | Model 5: Willingness to Place Waste at Designated Locations | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
Classification of urban neighbourhood (ref: commodity housing) | ||||
Old residential neighbourhood | 0.492 *** | [0.371, 0.652] | 0.217 *** | [0.099, 0.478] |
Unit neighbourhood | 0.688 ** | [0.511, 0.926] | 0.253 *** | [0.114, 0.560] |
Security housing | 0.942 | [0.462, 1.920] | 0.745 | [0.093, 5.965] |
Residential neighbourhood changed from a rural neighbourhood | 0.593 *** | [0.417, 0.842] | 0.338 ** | [0.132, 0.870] |
Urban shanty town | 0.671 | [0.367, 1.226] | 0.232 ** | [0.060, 0.891] |
Other | 0.402 *** | [0.271, 0.597] | 0.422 | [0.124, 1.437] |
Number of family members living together | 0.974 | [0.925, 1.026] | 0.970 | [0.859, 1.095] |
Average number of family meals per month | 1.004 ** | [1.001, 1.008] | 1.003 | [0.995, 1.012] |
Average monthly household electricity consumption | 0.975 | [0.910, 1.045] | 0.925 | [0.793, 1.079] |
Average monthly household food expenditure | 1.005 | [0.999, 1.012] | 0.999 | [0.991, 1.006] |
Household cleanliness | 1.021 | [0.947, 1.100] | 1.242 ** | [1.029, 1.498] |
Household crowding | 1.132 *** | [1.052, 1.218] | 1.003 | [0.834, 1.207] |
Neighbourhood property management (ref: have) | 0.968 | [0.786, 1.191] | 1.624 ** | [1.004, 2.627] |
The level of air pollution | 1.010 | [0.870, 1.172] | 0.803 | [0.557, 1.156] |
The level of water pollution | 1.104 | [0.937, 1.301] | 1.610 ** | [1.120, 2.315] |
The level of noise pollution | 0.978 | [0.858, 1.114] | 0.871 | [0.631, 1.202] |
The level of soil pollution | 0.931 | [0.782, 1.109] | 1.184 | [0.799, 1.756] |
Number of samples | 4870 | 4870 | ||
Log likelihood | −1534.096 | −379.190 | ||
χ2 | 102.509 | 49.513 |
Model 6 | Model 7 | Model 8 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
Urban neighbourhoods (ref: rural neighbourhoods) | 3.553 *** | [2.632, 4.795] | ||||
Number of family members living together | 0.995 | [0.959, 1.032] | 0.996 | [0.958, 1.035] | 0.964 | [0.856, 1.085] |
Average number of family meals per month | 1.005 *** | [1.001, 1.008] | 1.005 ** | [1.001, 1.008] | 1.004 | [0.996, 1.013] |
Average monthly household electricity consumption | 1.086 * | [0.998, 1.182] | 1.122 ** | [1.016, 1.239] | 0.941 | [0.805, 1.099] |
Average monthly household food expenditure | 1.004 | [0.997, 1.012] | 1.007 | [0.997, 1.017] | 1.000 | [0.991, 1.008] |
Household cleanliness | 1.183 *** | [1.111, 1.258] | 1.166 *** | [1.091, 1.246] | 1.275 ** | [1.059, 1.536] |
Household crowding | 1.055 * | [0.992, 1.122] | 1.058 * | [0.990, 1.131] | 1.029 | [0.858, 1.234] |
Neighbourhood property management (ref: have) | 0.933 | [0.637, 1.368] | 0.436 | [0.160, 1.190] | 1.262 | [0.791, 2.014] |
The level of air pollution | 0.679 *** | [0.583, 0.791] | 0.645 *** | [0.544, 0.766] | 0.841 | [0.587, 1.206] |
The level of water pollution | 1.037 | [0.909, 1.183] | 0.994 | [0.862, 1.148] | 1.615 *** | [1.130, 2.310] |
The level of noise pollution | 0.924 | [0.801, 1.066] | 0.930 | [0.790, 1.095] | 0.866 | [0.628, 1.192] |
The level of soil pollution | 1.214 ** | [1.036, 1.423] | 1.221 ** | [1.026, 1.453] | 1.180 | [0.797, 1.747] |
Number of samples | 12126 | 7256 | 4870 | |||
Log likelihood | −2336.612 | −1933.485 | −389.600 | |||
χ2 | 429.664 | 161.509 | 28.693 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhao, L.; Chen, H. Exploring the Effect of Family Life and Neighbourhood on the Willingness of Household Waste Sorting. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413653
Zhao L, Chen H. Exploring the Effect of Family Life and Neighbourhood on the Willingness of Household Waste Sorting. Sustainability. 2021; 13(24):13653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413653
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Liyuan, and Hongsheng Chen. 2021. "Exploring the Effect of Family Life and Neighbourhood on the Willingness of Household Waste Sorting" Sustainability 13, no. 24: 13653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413653