IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i17p6093-d402234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived Value Influencing the Household Waste Sorting Behaviors in Rural China

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Ma

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, No. 3 Taicheng Road, Yangling 712100, China
    School of Economics and Management, Xi’an Shiyou University, No. 18 Dianzi Road, Xi’an 710065, China)

  • Mansoor Ahmed Koondhar

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, No. 3 Taicheng Road, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Shengke Liu

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, No. 3 Taicheng Road, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Huiling Wang

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, No. 3 Taicheng Road, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Rong Kong

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, No. 3 Taicheng Road, Yangling 712100, China)

Abstract

Waste sorting is the cardinal measurement to solve the problem of low efficiency of rural environmental governance and to alleviate environmental pollution by reduction, recycling, and harmlessness in rural areas. However, non-excludable and non-rival features of public goods easily cause a wide free-rider problem, which results in a low frequency of participation in the waste sorting of rural people. Based on the theory of the utility maximization of the rational economic man, this paper investigates survey data of 688 farm households in three cities and three counties of Shaanxi Province to explore the effect of the perceived value on the household waste classification behavior based on cost-benefit analysis. The results show that perceived benefit and perceived cost are important perceived value factors affecting farmers’ participation in waste sorting. Specifically, the spiritual benefit of the perceived benefit has a significantly positive impact on classification behavior, while the time cost, physical cost, and material cost of the perceived cost have a negative impact on waste classification behavior. Further study of the heterogeneity of income impact shows that time cost only has a significant impact on the high-income group of farmers’ classification behavior, while spiritual benefit and learning cost only affect the low-income group of farmers’ waste classification behavior. Material cost has different influence directions on high- and low-income groups. In view of the aforementioned findings, this study highlights corresponding policy implications from the perspective of perceived benefit and perceived cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying Ma & Mansoor Ahmed Koondhar & Shengke Liu & Huiling Wang & Rong Kong, 2020. "Perceived Value Influencing the Household Waste Sorting Behaviors in Rural China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-18, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:17:p:6093-:d:402234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/17/6093/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/17/6093/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chuanhui Liao & Dingtao Zhao & Shuang Zhang & Lanfang Chen, 2018. "Determinants and the Moderating Effect of Perceived Policy Effectiveness on Residents’ Separation Intention for Rural Household Solid Waste," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, April.
    2. W. Kip Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2011. "Promoting Recycling: Private Values, Social Norms, and Economic Incentives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 65-70, May.
    3. Dongliang Zhang & Guangqing Huang & Xiaoling Yin & Qinghua Gong, 2015. "Residents’ Waste Separation Behaviors at the Source: Using SEM with the Theory of Planned Behavior in Guangzhou, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Towhid Babazadeh & Haidar Nadrian & Mohammed Mosaferi & Hamid Allahverdipour, 2020. "Challenges in household solid waste separation plan (HSWSP) at source: a qualitative study in Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 915-930, February.
    5. Ankinée Kirakozian, 2016. "One Without The Other? Behavioural And Incentive Policies For Household Waste Management," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 526-551, July.
    6. Lee, Misuk & Choi, Hyunhong & Koo, Yoonmo, 2017. "Inconvenience cost of waste disposal behavior in South Korea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 58-65.
    7. Mingyue Li & Jingjing Wang & Kai Chen & Lianbei Wu, 2020. "Willingness and Behaviors of Farmers’ Green Disposal of Pesticide Packaging Waste in Henan, China: A Perceived Value Formation Mechanism Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-18, May.
    8. Pieters, R. & Verhallen, T.M.M., 1986. "Participation in source separation projects : design characteristics and perceived costs and benefits," Other publications TiSEM e3953e6c-ea93-4d7a-b960-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    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. Aiqin Wang & Xuyang Chen & Xu Wang & Jia Wei & Liying Song, 2022. "Determinants of Satisfaction with Solid Waste Management Services: A Central–Local Comparison in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-22, April.
    2. Wentao Si & Chen Jiang & Lin Meng, 2022. "Leaving the Homestead: Examining the Role of Relative Deprivation, Social Trust, and Urban Integration among Rural Farmers in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-28, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Wenyan Wu & Lu Li & Hanxin Chen & Minyue Xu & Yalin Yuan, 2022. "Farmers’ Preference for Participating in Rural Solid Waste Management: A Case Study from Shaanxi Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-14, November.
    5. Shiyao Zhou & Chen Qing & Shili Guo & Xin Deng & Jiahao Song & Dingde Xu, 2022. "Why “Say One Thing and Do Another” a Study on the Contradiction between Farmers’ Intention and Behavior of Garbage Classification," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-15, August.
    6. Aiqin Wang & Sijia Dang & Wenying Luo & Kangyuan Ji, 2021. "Cultural Consumption and Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Waste Separation Management in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-19, December.

    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. Nik Masdek Nik Rozana & Wong Kelly Kai Seng & Mohd Nawi Nolila & Sharifuddin Juwaidah & Wong Wang Li, 2023. "Antecedents of sustainable food waste management behaviour: Empirical evidence from urban households in Malaysia," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 18(1), pages 53-77, March.
    2. Chuanhui Liao & Hui Li, 2019. "Environmental Education, Knowledge, and High School Students’ Intention toward Separation of Solid Waste on Campus," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-15, May.
    3. Junpeng Li & Puneet Vatsa & Wanglin Ma, 2023. "Small Acts With Big Impacts: Does Garbage Classification Improve Subjective Well-Being in Rural China?," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(3), pages 1337-1363, June.
    4. Agnès Festré & Pierre Garrouste & Ankinée Kirakozian & Mira Toumi, 2017. "The Pen Might Be Mightier than the Sword: How Third-party Advice or Sanction Impacts on Pro-environmental Behavior," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-15, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France, revised Aug 2017.
    5. Bucciol, Alessandro & Montinari, Natalia & Piovesan, Marco, 2019. "It Wasn't Me! Visibility and Free Riding in Waste Disposal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 394-401.
    6. Lichi Zhang & Yanyan Jiang & Junmin Wu, 2022. "Evolutionary Game Analysis of Government and Residents’ Participation in Waste Separation Based on Cumulative Prospect Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-16, November.
    7. Schnellenbach, Jan, 2012. "Nudges and norms: On the political economy of soft paternalism," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 266-277.
    8. Nketiah, Emmanuel & Song, Huaming & Cai, Xiang & Adjei, Mavis & Adu-Gyamfi, Gibbson & Obuobi, Bright, 2022. "Citizens’ intention to invest in municipal solid waste to energy projects in Ghana: The impact of direct and indirect effects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 254(PC).
    9. Farel, Romain & Yannou, Bernard & Ghaffari, Asma & Leroy, Yann, 2013. "A cost and benefit analysis of future end-of-life vehicle glazing recycling in France: A systematic approach," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 54-65.
    10. Alessandro Concari & Gerjo Kok & Pim Martens, 2020. "A Systematic Literature Review of Concepts and Factors Related to Pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Waste Management Through an Interdisciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-50, May.
    11. Anthony Amoah & Thomas Addoah, 2021. "Does environmental knowledge drive pro-environmental behaviour in developing countries? Evidence from households in Ghana," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2719-2738, February.
    12. R. Brau & M. G. Nieddu & S. Balia, 2021. "Depowering Risk: Vehicle Power Restriction and Teen Driver Accidents in Italy," Working Paper CRENoS 202101, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    13. Qianchun Dai & Kequn Cheng, 2022. "What Drives the Adoption of Agricultural Green Production Technologies? An Extension of TAM in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, November.
    14. Cecere, Grazia & Mancinelli, Susanna & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2014. "Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 163-176.
    15. repec:rdg:wpaper:em-dp2012-03 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Tobias Erhardt, 2019. "Garbage In and Garbage Out? On Waste Havens in Switzerland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 251-282, May.
    17. Tang, Yanyan & Zhang, Qi & Li, Yaoming & Li, Hailong & Pan, Xunzhang & Mclellan, Benjamin, 2019. "The social-economic-environmental impacts of recycling retired EV batteries under reward-penalty mechanism," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 251(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Guy Meunier & Ingmar Schumacher, 2020. "The importance of considering optimal government policy when social norms matter for the private provision of public goods," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(3), pages 630-655, June.
    19. Woo, JongRoul & Moon, Sungho & Choi, Hyunhong, 2022. "Economic value and acceptability of advanced solar power systems for multi-unit residential buildings: The case of South Korea," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    20. Viscusi, W. Kip & Huber, Joel & Bell, Jason, 2023. "Changes in household recycling behavior: Evidence from panel data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    21. Jingjing Wang & Mingyue Li & Sinan Li & Kai Chen, 2022. "Understanding Consumers’ Food Waste Reduction Behavior—A Study Based on Extended Norm Activation Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-15, April.

    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:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:17:p:6093-:d:402234. 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.