IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i21p8831-d434018.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Affects Chinese Households’ Behavior in Sorting Solid Waste? A Case Study from Shanghai, Shenyang, and Chengdu

Author

Listed:
  • Yanmin He

    (Faculty of Economics, Otemon Gakuin University, Osaka 567-8502, Japan)

  • Hideki Kitagawa

    (Faculty of Policy Science, Ryukoku University, Kyoto 612-8577, Japan)

  • YeeKeong Choy

    (Faculty of Economics, Keio University, Tokyo 108-8345, Japan)

  • Xin Kou

    (School of Management, Shenyang Jianzhu University, Shenyang 110015, China)

  • Peii Tsai

    (GCI, Yokohama City University, Yokohama 236-0027, Japan)

Abstract

The main aim of this study was to examine residents’ environmental behavior in sorting solid household waste, and to identify the integrative factors that contribute to their waste-separation cooperation and other related pro-environmental behaviors. This was achieved based on a questionnaire survey in Shenyang, Chengdu, and Shanghai. Methodologically, we applied a discrete choice model to examine whether individuals’ garbage sorting behaviors differ based on their characteristics, social attributes, residential circumstances, and environmental awareness, and whether these factors are correlated with individuals’ receptiveness to a refuse charge system, or to policies requiring garbage sorting. We further examined whether individuals’ garbage sorting behavior, their receptiveness to fee-based waste collection, and their receptiveness to policies requiring garbage sorting differ across areas. In this particular survey, we introduced a 16 item scale of pro-environmental behavior and a nine item scale of altruism to ascertain the ways in which internal motivational factors affect people’s environmentally conscious voluntary behavior. Overall, the present work is expected to contribute to an important understanding of the motivational forces and incentives behind human pro-environmental behavior and action. It also brings relevance to the analysis of moral solidarity in relation to the household waste disposal problems currently confronting us today.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanmin He & Hideki Kitagawa & YeeKeong Choy & Xin Kou & Peii Tsai, 2020. "What Affects Chinese Households’ Behavior in Sorting Solid Waste? A Case Study from Shanghai, Shenyang, and Chengdu," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:8831-:d:434018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/8831/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/8831/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Biel, Anders & Thogersen, John, 2007. "Activation of social norms in social dilemmas: A review of the evidence and reflections on the implications for environmental behaviour," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 93-112, January.
    2. George L. Van Houtven & Glenn E. Morris, 1999. "Household Behavior under Alternative Pay-as-You-Throw Systems for Solid Waste Disposal," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(4), pages 515-537.
    3. REBECCA Judge & ANTHONY Becker, 1993. "Motivating Recycling: A Marginal Cost Analysis," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 11(3), pages 58-68, July.
    4. Hao Wang & Chengxu Jiang, 2020. "Local Nuances of Authoritarian Environmentalism: A Legislative Study on Household Solid Waste Sorting in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Ida Ferrara, 2008. "Waste Generation and Recycling," OECD Journal: General Papers, OECD Publishing, vol. 2008(2), pages 19-58.
    6. Amy W. Ando & Anne Y. Gosselin, 2005. "Recycling in Multifamily Dwellings: Does Convenience Matter?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 43(2), pages 426-438, April.
    7. Qing Yang & Yanxia Zhu & Xingxing Liu & Lingmei Fu & Qianqian Guo, 2019. "Bayesian-Based NIMBY Crisis Transformation Path Discovery for Municipal Solid Waste Incineration in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, April.
    8. Choy, Yee Keong, 2018. "Cost-benefit Analysis, Values, Wellbeing and Ethics: An Indigenous Worldview Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 1-9.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Enrique Manzur & Sergio Olavarrieta, 2021. "The 9-SRA Scale: A Simplified 9-Items Version of the SRA Scale to Assess Altruism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Fang Liu & Zhi Liu, 2022. "Quantitative Evaluation of Waste Separation Management Policies in the Yangtze River Delta Based on the PMC Index Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-24, March.
    3. Meiting Liu & Aki Koivula, 2021. "Silver Spoon and Green Lifestyle: A National Study of the Association between Childhood Subjective Socioeconomic Status and Adulthood Pro-Environmental Behavior in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-14, July.
    4. Monika Kulisz & Justyna Kujawska, 2020. "Prediction of Municipal Waste Generation in Poland Using Neural Network Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Yihan Zhao & Rong Chen & Mitsuyasu Yabe & Buxin Han & Pingping Liu, 2021. "I Am Better Than Others: Waste Management Policies and Self-Enhancement Bias," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-19, November.
    6. Pei Lin Yu & Norafida Ab Ghafar & Mastura Adam & Hong Ching Goh, 2022. "Understanding the Human Dimensions of Recycling and Source Separation Practices at the Household Level: An Evidence in Perak, Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-25, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ida Ferrara & Paul Missios, 2012. "A Cross-Country Study of Household Waste Prevention and Recycling: Assessing the Effectiveness of Policy Instruments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 710-744.
    2. Marie Briguglio, 2016. "Household Cooperation In Waste Management: Initial Conditions And Intervention," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 497-525, July.
    3. Ferrara, Ida & Missios, Paul, 2011. "A Cross-Country Study of Household Waste Prevention and Recycling: Assessing the Effective of Policy Instruments," MPRA Paper 70811, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Abbott, Andrew & Nandeibam, Shasikanta & O'Shea, Lucy, 2011. "Explaining the variation in household recycling rates across the UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2214-2223, September.
    5. Schoot Uiterkamp, Bob Jan & Azadi, Hossein & Ho, Peter, 2011. "Sustainable recycling model: A comparative analysis between India and Tanzania," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 344-355.
    6. Takehiro Usui & Kenji Takeuchi, 2014. "Evaluating Unit-Based Pricing of Residential Solid Waste: A Panel Data Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(2), pages 245-271, June.
    7. Paul Missios & Ida Ferrara, 2011. "A Cross-Country Study of Waste Prevention and Recycling," Working Papers 028, Ryerson University, Department of Economics.
    8. Maria Andersson & Ola Eriksson & Chris Von Borgstede, 2012. "The Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Source Separation in the Work and Home Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-17, June.
    9. Maarten A. Allers & Corine Hoeben, 2010. "Effects of Unit-Based Garbage Pricing: A Differences-in-Differences Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 405-428, March.
    10. Marie-Laure Cabon-Dhersin & Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2013. "Wording and gender effects in a Game of Chicken. An explorative experimental study," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00796708, HAL.
    11. Jenkins, Robin R. & Martinez, Salvador A. & Palmer, Karen & Podolsky, Michael J., 2003. "The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 294-318, March.
    12. Corey Angst, 2009. "Protect My Privacy or Support the Common-Good? Ethical Questions About Electronic Health Information Exchanges," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 169-178, November.
    13. Lars E. Olsson & Jana Huck & Margareta Friman, 2018. "Intention for Car Use Reduction: Applying a Stage-Based Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-14, January.
    14. Caserta, Maurizio & Distefano, Rosaria & Ferrante, Livio, 2022. "The Good of Rules: An experimental study on prosocial behavior," EconStor Preprints 266393, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    15. Hua Zhang & Zong-Guo Wen, 2014. "Residents’ Household Solid Waste (HSW) Source Separation Activity: A Case Study of Suzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-21, September.
    16. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/6d7es28iae9pjoil7092hs41h3 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Matthew Chao & Geoffrey Fisher, 2022. "Self-Interested Giving: The Relationship Between Conditional Gifts, Charitable Donations, and Donor Self-Interestedness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4537-4567, June.
    18. Bamberg, Sebastian & Fujii, Satoshi & Friman, Margareta & Gärling, Tommy, 2011. "Behaviour theory and soft transport policy measures," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 228-235, January.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1267-1289 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Doremus, Jacqueline, 2019. "Unintended impacts from forest certification: Evidence from indigenous Aka households in Congo," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    21. Gionata Castaldi & Grazia Cecere & Mariangela Zoli, 2021. "“Smoke on the beach”: on the use of economic vs behavioral policies to reduce environmental pollution by cigarette littering," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(3), pages 1025-1048, October.
    22. Helén Williams & Fredrik Wikström & Katarina Wetter-Edman & Per Kristensson, 2018. "Decisions on Recycling or Waste: How Packaging Functions Affect the Fate of Used Packaging in Selected Swedish Households," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:8831-:d:434018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.