4.2 Article

THE DETERMINANTS OF WASTE-SORTING INTENTION AND BEHAVIOR AMONG CHINESE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY IN BEIJING

期刊

SINGAPORE ECONOMIC REVIEW
卷 65, 期 3, 页码 627-652

出版社

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0217590817410077

关键词

Waste sorting; China; undergraduate students; moral norms; subjective norms

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71761137001, 71403015, 71521002]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [9162013]
  3. key research program of the Beijing Social Science Foundation [17JDYJA009]
  4. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFA0602801, 2016YFA0602603]
  5. Joint Development Program of Beijing Municipal Commission of Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In China, waste sorting has been tested in eight pilot cities for more than a decade. However, these pilot programs have shown little success. Given that waste sorting is a prerequisite for waste recycling, more attention and financial resources must be provided. Considering that among the entire population undergraduate students might be the most active and willing to engage in recycling, in this paper, the waste-sorting intention and behavior of undergraduate students in Beijing are investigated in depth. By adopting a model that comprehensively incorporates the expanded Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the Attitude-Behavior-Condition (A-B-C) theory, a questionnaire survey with data from 536 undergraduate students at eight universities in Beijing is analyzed by employing logistic and probit models. The estimation results indicate that the most important factors that affect students' waste-sorting intention and behavior include the attitudes of the surrounding people, a moral sense when failing to sort waste, and knowledge based on the students' subjective judgments. In comparison, situational factors have less impact on the dependent variables; however, some demographic factors may influence intention or actual behavior significantly.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据