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. Qiao Liu & Qianhui Xu & Xin Shen & Bowei Chen & Sonia Sadeghian Esfahani, 2022. "The Mechanism of Household Waste Sorting Behaviour—A Study of Jiaxing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-12, February.
    3. 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).
    4. Brekke, Kjell Arne & Kipperberg, Gorm & Nyborg, Karine, 2009. "Reluctant Recyclers: Social Interaction in Responsibility Ascription," Memorandum 16/2007, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    5. 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.
    6. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus & Thomas Kinnaman & Dale W. Jorgenson & Mun S. Ho & Kevin J. Stiroh, 2008. "Comments: Elbert Dijkgraaf and Raymond Gradus, Thomas Kinnaman; and a Correction," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(2), pages 243-244, Spring.
    7. 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.
    8. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Dutch Municipal Recycling Policies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-155/VI, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. 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.
    10. Lihini Silva & Rebecca L. C. Taylor, 2024. "If You Build It, Will They Compost? The Effects of Municipal Composting Services on Household Waste Disposal and Landfill Emissions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(3), pages 761-789, March.
    11. Renyan Mu & Nigatu Mengesha Fentaw & Lu Zhang, 2022. "The Impacts of Value-Added Tax Audit on Tax Revenue Performance: The Mediating Role of Electronics Tax System, Evidence from the Amhara Region, Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-22, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Olle Hage & Krister Sandberg & Patrik Söderholm & Christer Berglund, 2018. "The regional heterogeneity of household recycling: a spatial-econometric analysis of Swedish plastic packing waste," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 245-267, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Kjell Arne Brekke & Gorm Kipperberg & Karine Nyborg, 2010. "Social Interaction in Responsibility Ascription: The Case of Household Recycling," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 766-784.
    16. Houévoh Amandine R. Gnonlonfin, 2016. "An evaluation of French municipal solid waste pricing system," Working Papers 2016.18, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    17. Ek, Claes & Söderberg, Magnus, 2021. "Norm-based feedback on household waste: Large-scale field experiments in two Swedish municipalities," Working Papers in Economics 804, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    18. repec:sss:wpaper:201403 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. 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.
    20. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2021. "Are Bottle Banks Sufficiently Effective for Increasing Glass Recycling Rates?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-11, August.
    21. Yokoo, Hide-Fumi & Kawai, Kosuke & Higuchi, Yuki, 2018. "Informal recycling and social preferences: Evidence from household survey data in Vietnam," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 109-124.

    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.