IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i22p15481-d979842.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Study on the Factors Influencing the Intention and Behavior Deviation of Rural Residents in Waste Separation—Based on LOGIT-ISM-MICMAC Combination Model

Author

Listed:
  • Xue-Yuan Li

    (School of Public Management, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China)

  • Sen-Wei Huang

    (School of Public Management, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China)

  • Qian Lin

    (School of Foreign Languages, Huaqiao University, Quanzhou 362000, China)

  • Qiu-Jia Lu

    (School of Economics and Management, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China)

  • Ya-Shan Zhang

    (School of Public Management, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China)

Abstract

Accurate identification of the influencing factors and the mechanisms of the willingness-behavior paradox in rural residents in waste separation is conducive to stimulating rural residents to participate in rural environmental governance, which is important for solving the willingness-behavior paradox problem. By using CLES data, we analyzed the factors influencing rural residents’ willingness to separate garbage and behavioral paradoxes using the combined LOGIT-ISM-MICMAC model. The results of the study showed that (1) the regression results showed that eight factors, including publicity means, reward and punishment means, policy effect perception, villagers’ environmental protection behavior perception, gender, age, socio-economic status, and ecological livability status, affect the paradox of villagers’ willingness to separate garbage and behavior; (2) the results of the ISM model show that there are four main transmission paths, and the commonality lies in the common transmission paths of “policy publicity effect factor, villagers’ perception of environmental protection behavior, village ecological habitability, and deviation of willingness and behavior”; (3) the results of MICMAC model show that we should focus on strengthening the ecological habitat of villages, ensuring the effectiveness of policy promotion, and encouraging villagers’ environmental protection behavior to reduce the deviation of rural residents’ behavior and intention.

Suggested Citation

  • Xue-Yuan Li & Sen-Wei Huang & Qian Lin & Qiu-Jia Lu & Ya-Shan Zhang, 2022. "A Study on the Factors Influencing the Intention and Behavior Deviation of Rural Residents in Waste Separation—Based on LOGIT-ISM-MICMAC Combination Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:15481-:d:979842
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/15481/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/15481/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gorm Kipperberg, 2007. "A Comparison of Household Recycling Behaviors in Norway and the United States," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(2), pages 215-235, February.
    2. Liyuan Zhao & Hongsheng Chen, 2021. "Exploring the Effect of Family Life and Neighbourhood on the Willingness of Household Waste Sorting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Xin Shen & Bowei Chen & Markus Leibrecht & Huanzheng Du, 2022. "The Moderating Effect of Perceived Policy Effectiveness in Residents’ Waste Classification Intentions: A Study of Bengbu, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-12, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Xuxi Wang & Jing Tan, 2022. "The Perception and Attitude of Farmers toward Domestic Waste Classifications: A Case Study on Wusheng County, Sichuan Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Fontecha, John E. & Nikolaev, Alexander & Walteros, Jose L. & Zhu, Zhenduo, 2022. "Scientists wanted? A literature review on incentive programs that promote pro-environmental consumer behavior: Energy, waste, and water," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    3. Brekke, Kjell Arne & Kipperberg, Gorm & Nyborg, Karine, 2009. "Reluctant Recyclers: Social Interaction in Responsibility Ascription," Memorandum 16/2007, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    4. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Kądziela, Tadeusz & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "We want to sort! Assessing households’ preferences for sorting waste," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 290-306.
    5. Zhaoyun Yin & Jing Ma, 2022. "Rational Choice or Altruism Factor: Determinants of Residents’ Behavior toward Household Waste Separation in Xi’an, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-12, September.
    6. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Dutch Municipal Recycling Policies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-155/VI, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Gorm Kipperberg & Douglas Larson, 2012. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Community Recycling Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(4), pages 577-604, December.
    8. Bueno, Matheus & Valente, Marica, 2019. "The effects of pricing waste generation: A synthetic control approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 274-285.
    9. Pollans, Lily Baum & Krones, Jonathan S. & Ben-Joseph, Eran, 2017. "Patterns in municipal food scrap programming in mid-sized U.S. cities," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 308-314.
    10. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2021. "Are Bottle Banks Sufficiently Effective for Increasing Glass Recycling Rates?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-11, August.
    11. Aldieri, Luigi & Kotsemir, Maxim & Vinci, Concetto Paolo, 2017. "Jacobian spillovers in environmental technological proximity: the role of Mahalanobis index on European patents within the Triad," MPRA Paper 77274, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nicholas & Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Social norms, morals and self-interest as determinants of pro-environment behaviour," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2014-06, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    13. Katarzyna Zagórska, 2016. "Impact of local and national social norm information on respondents’ choices regarding waste sorting at household level," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 44.
    14. Damiano Fiorillo, 2013. "Household waste recycling: national survey evidence from Italy," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(8), pages 1125-1151, October.
    15. Kristyna Rybova, 2019. "Do Sociodemographic Characteristics in Waste Management Matter? Case Study of Recyclable Generation in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-15, April.
    16. Elkhan Richard Sadik-Zada & Andrea Gatto, 2023. "Grow First, Clean Up Later ? Dropping Old Paradigms and Opening Up New Horizons of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-6, February.
    17. D'Amato, Alessio & Mancinelli, Susanna & Zoli, Mariangela, 2016. "Complementarity vs substitutability in waste management behaviors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 84-94.
    18. De Jaeger, Simon & Rogge, Nicky, 2014. "Cost-efficiency in packaging waste management: The case of Belgium," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 106-115.
    19. Klöckner, Christian Andreas & Oppedal, Inger Olin, 2011. "General vs. domain specific recycling behaviour—Applying a multilevel comprehensive action determination model to recycling in Norwegian student homes," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 463-471.
    20. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2017. "An EU Recycling Target: What Does the Dutch Evidence Tell Us?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 501-526, November.

    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:14:y:2022:i:22:p:15481-:d:979842. 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.