unlicensed household waste prevention behavior and its effect on the implementation of construction waste prevention

Household Waste Prevention Behavior and Its Effect On The Implementation Of Construction Waste Prevention Nguyen Van Phuong Do Thi Sa Huynh Trinh Vu Anh Thi Huynh Chau Trung Hieu International University, Vietnam National University – HCMC, Vietnam Abstract Rapid urbanization not only offers advantageous socio-economic opportunities but simultaneously poses threads to the sustainable development with one of the major obstacles – household waste In order to overcome the problem, this paper aims to investigate determinants of behavior on waste prevention and help decision-makers figure out more efficient approaches to implement household waste prevention The research utilizes Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB) to develop a conceptual model and uses a structural equation model to test hypotheses with a survey of 593 respondents from households in Tay Ninh province, Vietnam Results of the proposed model present that attitude towards prevention and perceived behavioral control are two main predictors of prevention behavior, with the influence of attitude towards respondents’ prevention is marginally greater than that of perceived behavioral control Meanwhile, designers’ attitude and subjective norms are empirically evidenced to have little impacts Keywords: waste prevention, household behavior, designers’ attitude Introduction Vietnam has been thriving in the industrialized revolution leading to the development of its socioeconomic status In addition to the flourishing economy stimulated by the globalization, consequently, residents’ living standard is remarkably enhanced Pollution is, accordingly, considered an alarmingly severe problem at the same time, especially, the domestic waste poses one of the biggest threat to the environment and as well as to the sustainable development of the country Although benefits from urbanization progress essentially promote the economy and society flourish, it is the manufacturing and daily activities that lead to environmental degradation and unsustainability in the long term According to Vietnam National Environment report in 2011, the average solid waste in an urban area was 2-3 times higher compared to that in a country area Notably, in Tay Ninh city – the heart of Tay Ninh province, significant socioeconomic achievements are increased to the need of standard living improvement, causing environmental protection, as well as attentive healthcare, are considerably required Domestic waste is steadily expanded and diversified A survey demonstrated that about 60% of the household waste is under standardized disposal, while the remaining is disposed of by burning, burying or direct discharge into the environment Successfully coping with this problem by minimization strategies can save tremendous financial support for disposal activities, increase revenue from reusing and recycling materials as well as diminish resources for the manufacturing process Therefore, this research is conducted to figure out efficient and sustainable strategies to resolve this long-term problem Our structural model is built upon three main theoretical models relevant to how individuals are motivated to act in compliance with waste management policies Developed by (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977) and (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), the theory of reasoned action (TRA) consists of three components: behavioral intention, attitudes, and subjective norms The theory proposes that a person’s attitude towards a specific behavior and the person’s subjective norms have a decisive impact on shaping the person’s behavioral intentions TRA has been certified to be applicable in a variety of social and behavioral sciences (e.g (Goldenhar & Connell, 1992), (Park, Levine, & Sharkey, 1998)); however, criticisms have been raised on the exclusive influence of individual’s volitional control on behavior Consequently, the theory of planned behavior is suggested by Ajzen (1985) with the introduction of a new determinant of behavior – perceived behavioral control (PBC) PBC predicts a particular behavior directly and indirectly from intentions, demonstrating how external environment and individual’s perceived control may affect the ability to perform an act In addition, the theory of (Schwartz, 1977) claims that environmental behavior is dependent on the relationships between personal norms, social norms, awareness of consequences and denial of responsibility In this theoretical model, personal and social norms form a behavior only when individuals are aware of the positive outcomes of preventing an act and personally responsible for the consequences According to the waste prevention study of Tucker & Douglas (2007), it attributes waste prevention behavior (WPB) to several classified groups of causes: attitudinal factors, contextual factors, personal capabilities, and habits and routines The force of individual’s moral concern, social beliefs, rights and responsibilities towards environmental issues underlie minimization and reuse behaviors (Barr, Gilg, & Ford, 2001) Tucker & Douglas (2007) proposes that sense of responsibility at a personal level is strongly associated with WPB due to the more emotional facets (embarrassment and guilt) being triggered than simply being one’s duty and that attitudes can poorly predict the behavior In addition, complying with the consideration of severe health problem with population growth and fast urbanization, delivering appropriate waste management is recognized as the most challenge in many communities These problems have become more serious in developing countries, where garbage collection still relies on labor-intensive operations and not enough waste treatment equipment and technologies Specifically, prior studies have explored some main aspects of environmental cases For instance, Dunlap & Van Liere (1978) investigated in yard burning And other scholars concentrated on recycling (Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995; Hopper & Nielsen, 1991) and waste prevention (Bortoleto et al., 2012) Indeed, most previous studies in this field have usually implemented in developed countries and emerging economies, a little research has conducted in Vietnam Following the call for further research on WPB (Tonglet, Phillips, & Read 2004) to clarify determinants that are of great importance in the longitudinal process of household waste minimization, the overall objective of the present study was to examine and comprehend which factors enforce households participation in waste prevention behavior Furthermore, the emphasis of our research on WPB and its influencers would contribute to addressing significant factors that stimulate individuals to change their behaviors for environmental benefits and introduce waste management policies to achieve Literature Review 2.1 The theory of planned behavior (TPB) According to (Ajzen, 1991), the theory of planned behavior implies that attitude towards waste prevention behavior, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control are most essential predictors of responses Since these predictors constrain the designers' waste minimization behavior, there is the possibility that TPB could explain designers' waste minimization behavior When both of the attitude and subjective norm towards a behavior as well as the perceived behavioral control of performing the behavior are more favorable, it appears a stronger intention to perform the behavior Successful practices of the TPB were recorded in such a wide range of environmental behavior as household waste recycling behavior and waste prevention behavior (e.g., (Bortoleto, Kurisu, & Hanaki, 2012); (Ramayah, Lee, & Lim, 2012); (Steg & Vlek, 2009); (Tonglet et al., 2004) The TPB was once applied by (Teo & Loosemore, 2001) to explain how operators (e.g., site supervisors, labors) perform reckless behavior under the influence of attitudinal forces in the construction industry The outcome was that operators held no negative feelings about minimizing construction waste; however, they were reluctant to so Nevertheless, according to Chen (2008) study of Chinese contractors’ viewpoints on construction waste minimization, both site supervisors and workers were recorded to be negative towards the process of minimizing waste To our knowledge, there has been no explanation of the designers' behavior towards construction waste minimization based on the TPB According to Li, Tam, Zuo, & Zhu (2015), attitude towards waste prevention behavior and perceived behavioral control have a significant effect on designers’ behavior 2.2 Attitudes toward waste prevention behavior (ATT) and Personal norms (PN) The TPB (Icek Ajzen & Timko, 1986), in previous researches, has been expanded with the addition of personal-norm concept to study behavior regarding moral beliefs Personal norms are specified by (Icek Ajzen, 1991) as individuals’ model perspective of what is right or wrong when performing a particular behavior Personal norms, according to (Heberlein & Black, 1981) and (Schwartz & Howard, 1980), refers to a strong internalization process of moral attitudes These attitudes are generated from mutually shared norms in society; then, adopted individually on a personal level to become personal norms (which can be called internalization) Previous researches reckon personal norms as a significant predictor of environmental behaviors in such cases as recycling (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Thøgersen, 1996), consumer purchase behaviors of less environmental harmful products/packaging (Thøgersen, Haugaard, & Olesen, 2010), and organic food/wine (Aertsens, Verbeke, Mondelaers, & Van Huylenbroeck, 2009; Zhou, Thøgersen, Ruan, & Huang, 2013) This critical relationship between personal norms and waste minimization behavior also applies in the context of transportation Higher levels of personal norms reported minimizing environmental impact comply with higher chances of intentions to adopt more environmental-friendly alternatives for transportation such as public transport (Jansson, Marell, & Nordlund, 2010; Ozaki & Sevastyanova, 2011) Hence, we hypothesize the positive relationship between personal norms and prevention behavior In addition, when it comes to the connection between personal norms and behavior, it is suggested by Hopper & Nielsen (1991) that individuals only behave in accordance with their personal norms if they are fully aware of their actions’ consequences According to Schwartz's model (1977), when individuals hold a positive perception of the consequences of their behaviors, those who are morally obliged to perform a particular behavior are more inclined to play that behavior This applies to previous environmental cases, for example, yard burning (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978); recycling (Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995; Hopper & Nielsen, 1991) and waste prevention (Bortoleto et al., 2012) Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H1: Attitudes toward waste prevention behavior has a direct and positive impact on personal norms H2: Attitudes toward waste prevention behavior has a direct and positive impact on prevention behavior H10: Personal norms has a direct and positive impact on prevention behavior 2.3 Designer’s attitude and behavior toward waste minimization by design (AB) There have been conductions in previous studies from designers’ perception of construction waste minimization First, there is a passive viewpoint among several professional designers towards waste minimization by design According to (Poon, Shui, Lam, Fok, & Kou, 2004), it appears that waste minimization was not mainly considered an emphasis task during a design process Osmani, Vitale, Borg, & EtienneManneville (2006) demonstrated that architects assumed that it is site operations during which construction waste was mostly produced and barely generated during the design stages Second, the waste reduction was notably hindered by the absence of clients and design companies (N Osmani et al., 2006) Finally, it is an inadequacy of experience and training resulting in obstruction of designers’ initiatives in waste minimization (Bossink, Brouwers, & Kessel, 1996; Ekanayake & Ofori, 2004) A self-study is adopted by a majority of designers, to which approaches education on construction waste management and reduction (N Osmani et al., 2006); Hao & Kang, 2010) However, the effect of designers’ waste minimization behavior by these factors and of which had a more dominant effect was not revealed The explanation and prediction of designers’ waste minimization behavior, for which a hypothetically adaptive model is required to be improved with enormous efforts Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H3: AB has a direct and positive impact on ATT H4: AB has a direct and positive effect on prevention behavior H5: AB has a direct and positive impact on subjective norms 2.4 Subjective norms (SN) and Perceived behavioral control (PBC) Subjective norms are suggested to be the social pressure of the relevant people in individuals’ surrounding environment on their behaviors According to Ajzen (1985), how an individual weights the importance of others’ opinions on the matter may affect their behaviors An individual who believes that the relevant people whose views are significant to approve his behavior will perceive social pressure to commit the act Conversely, an individual who thinks that the proper people disapprove his response will be put under the social pressure of not performing the behavior Possible sources of these social pressure come from internal referents such as family members and external referents such as neighbors, peers, the community, or society at large That families, neighbors, or peers take initiatives in waste prevention as setting behavioral role models can act as motives for an individual to follow Everett & Peirce (1993) suggest that behavioral role models must be set from which norms can be spread out widely within the community Otherwise, there is no one pioneering in catalyze the norm According to Ajzen (1985), perceived behavioral control refers to whether it is easy or difficult for an individual to perform a particular behavior Greater control over the behavior is recorded when more opportunities and fewer challenges are available during the performance of the behavior Knowledge and ability may not act as predictors of individuals’ actual behaviors, which is stated by (Davies, Foxall, & Pallister, 2002) However, knowledge and ability may affect how individuals perceive the behavior and the consequences it has on the environment Hence, PBC may not have a direct influence on PB but an indirect influence through SN Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H6: PBC has a direct and positive impact on designers’ attitudes toward waste minimization by design H7: PBC has a direct and positive impact on attitudes toward prevention behavior H8: PBC has a direct and positive impact on prevention behavior H9: PBC has a direct and positive impact on subjective norms H11: SN has a direct and positive impact on prevention behavior 2.5 Prevention behavior (PB) Prevention behavior refers to actions which can be done before the disposal of a substance, a material or a product into the environment, consisting of strict avoidance, source reduction, and product reuse Tonglet et al., (2004) suggests that recycling and waste prevention are distinct dimensions of waste management behavior Waste prevention activities can be performed under these following measures: (i) reuse, (ii) point of purchase decisions, (iii) unnecessary purchases reduction, (iv) long-life and non-disposable products The measurement of behavior intention is excluded from this study for two reasons First, regarding recycling behavior, (Davies et al., 2002) specifies that intention is regarded as individuals’ support for prevention behavior, not an initiative to perform an act Hence, behavior intention is not considered a factor that influences the behavior performance Second, that only future intentions are assessed but not any past intentions are the true motives for the reported behavior in the questionnaire makes behavior intentions measurement inappropriate for the study Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H12: Prevention behavior has a direct and positive impact on implementing waste prevention Figure illustrates the research model Figure Research Model Measurement 3.1 Attitude towards waste prevention behavior (ATT) In general terms, individuals’ attitude toward a specific act is a determinant of favored or against behavior in a particular manner It's measurement based on the using of individuals’ beliefs regarding the outcomes of the behavior from an evaluation of its outcomes (Boldero, 1995; Cheung, Chan, & Wong, 1999) Five items measured the variable ATT via five-point scale from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree.’ 3.2 Perceived behavioral control (PBC) There is not a generally favored method of measuring PBC However, an essential correlation between the product of control beliefs by the perceived power, which includes situations that would facilitate or inhibit the behavior, and a direct measure of PBC, which is representative of both perceived control and perceived difficulty, is demonstrated (Cheung et al., 1999) Five items were selected for measuring this variable which was reported on a five-point scale from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree.’ 3.3 Subjective norms (SN) Subjective norms are considered as a global measure based on direct approach The composite approach proposed by (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and the global measure method build a correlation which is high and statistically significant (Cheung et al., 1999) The research is a combination of both internal referents (family members) and external referents (individuals or groups outside the family) of social pressure in a single construct Each item was rated on a five-point scale ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree.’ 3.4 Personal norms (PN) Personal norms reflect individuals’ belief about how they should act Based on personal beliefs, right or wrong acts are crucially an establishment of moral or behavior prediction It is a process of internalization of social and moral norms that form personal norms resulting in the dependence of social norms and frequencies of behaviors Therefore, when it comes to accordance between individuals’ actions and their personal norms, they experience a strong sense of pride Conversely, when it comes to the violation of personal norms, they experience guilty feelings The variable was measured using a five-point scale from (‘Strongly disagree’) to (‘Strongly agree’) 3.5 Prevention behavior (PB) Since it is impossible to make individual observations and assessments of prevention behavior of all respondents participating in this research, self-report is an applicable and appropriate proxy to measure this variable The total of eight items adopted from (Gamba & Oskamp, 1994) were taken as measures by five-point scale, ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree.’ Table Latent Variables Measurem ent items ATT1 Attitude toward waste prevention behavior (ATT) ATT2 ATT3 ATT4 ATT5 Designer’s attitude toward waste minimizati on by design (AB) AB1 AB2 AB3 PBC1 Sources Environmental problems can affect my family’s health Reducing and recycling waste save space in the landfill Reducing and recycling waste save energy Reducing and recycling waste reduce my family's cost Reducing and recycling waste establish a better environment in the future Implementing waste minimization by design helps to minimize household's waste Implementing waste minimization by design benefits the environmental protection Implementing waste minimization by design benefits the establishment of an environmentfriendly enterprise image I know how to recycle and reuse domestic waste Boldero, 1995; Cheung, Chan, & Wong, 1999 Poon, C S., & Jaillon, L (2002); Osmani, M., Glass, J., & Price, A D (2008); Tonglet, M., Phillips, P S., & Read, A D (2004) (Cheung et al., 1999) PBC2 Perceived behavioura l control (PBC) PBC3 PBC4 PBC5 PB1 PB2 PB3 Prevention Behavior (PB) PB4 PB5 PB6 PB7 PB8 PN1 Personal Norms (PN) PN2 PN3 PN4 Subjective Norms (SN) SN1 SN2 SN3 Implement ing constructio n waste minimizati on by design (IS) IS1 IS2 IS3 IS4 I control my domestic waste I control all of recycled and reused products I can classify daily domestic waste I have enough space for recyclable and reusable domestic waste I buy things that are produced with as little packaging as possible I use my own bag when going shopping, rather than one provided by the shop I look for packaging that can be easily reused or recycled I buy products that can be reused rather than disposable items I wash and reuse dishcloths rather than using paper towels I donate old items to charity or to other possible users Ajzen, I (1985); Davies, J., Foxall, G R., & Pallister, J (2002) Gamba, R J., & Oskamp, S (1994) I reuse containers I am economical Recycling domestic waste is vital I feel it is my responsibility to recycle any possible waste Davies et al (2002) Domestic waste needs collecting on regular basis Reducing and recycling waste not concern me Most people who are important to me have impacts on my environmental awareness Most people I know have impacts on my environmental awareness Most people I know are environmentally friendly Construction process of waste minimization by design is strictly supervised Upgrading and completing waste minimization constructional system is essential Waste minimiazation factories reaches their highest productivity or not Enterprises give households guidance on classifying hazadous waste Ajzen, I (1985) Cheung et al (1999) Bortoleto et al (2012) Bortoleto et al Osmani et al (2008) (2012) Research Methodology 4.1 Questionaire design To investigate the attitude and behavior towards waste prevention of local households, a questionnaire was designed with main parts: (1) background of the survey, including a basic introduction and purpose of the survey; (2) characteristics of recipients, including gender, age, family members, and education level; (3) questions relating to hypothetical model 4.2 Data collection The survey was conducted in Tay Ninh City, Vietnam with all of the recipients are local households There are in total 750 questionnaires were randomly distributed and immediately taken back after the survey completed, in which 593 cases are valid 4.3 Data analysis The hypothetical model is tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) with the software SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 20.0 The measurement of variables in the equation system is illustrated about observed variables and unmeasured latent variables whose correlations are also specified by SEM SEM is a two-phase modelbuilding process consisting of two distinct but interrelated models (a measurement model and a structural model) The measurement model is to evaluate reliability and validity of latent variables Reliability which represents for the consistency among measurement items is measured by Cronbach’s α whose range is from to The higher values of the Cronbach’s α, the higher reliability measurement items illustrate In general, if a coefficient α scores higher than 0.7, it is evaluated to be highly reliable (Tonglet et al., 2004) However, it is acceptable for a coefficient α to be higher than 0.6 in exploratory research, recommended by Fornell & Larcker (1981) Validity represents to what extent one observed variable is measured in association with the latent variable Validity is assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham (1998) suggested that factor loading coefficients of observed variables reach a minimum requirement of 0.5 to be stated valid and significant In addition, model fit evaluation is one indispensable stage in the process to assess the goodness-of-fit of the measurement model Model fit demonstrates the normalized chisquare (X2/df), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), incremental index of fit (IFI), comparative fit index (CFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI) and parsimonious comparative fit index (PCFI) The structural model is assessed using the technique called maximum likelihood estimate in SEM This estimation measures the overall fitness indices of the model, based on the same indices as measurement model above The estimated standardized path coefficients are the standardized regression weight, demonstrating the degree of correlation between two variables The statistically significant path coefficients strengthen their hypothetical interrelation Squared multiple correlation coefficient regarding the variance of a variable explained by other variables is also taken into consideration Results 5.1 Demographic characteristics There are 593 valid questionnaires collected According to Bortoleto et al (2012), SEM analysis is sensitive to the sample size, which should not be too small To examine more than 10 variables, the recommendation cases are at least 100 (Loehlin, 1998) Therefore, the collected questionnaires are sufficient to be tested by SEM Table Sample profile Samples n = 593 Proportion Gender Male Female 61.9 38.1 Age < 20 20 - 40 40 - 60 > 60 10.3 38.4 36.6 14.7 Academic level Undergraduate Graduate Others 39.1 5.7 55.2 Family members 1-4 >=5 78.9 21.2 Household position Frontage Alley Waste reuse amount < 30% 30% - 60% > 60% Others 50.6 49.4 54.6 32.2 10.6 2.5 The sample profile is illustrated in Table By gender, the proportion of male is dominant, at 61.9% A majority of respondents is at the age ranging from 20 – 60 which is approximately 3/4 of the total In the survey, there are two kinds of household position: frontage and alley, which are at a nearly equal rate (50.6% and 49.2% respectively) Finally, it appears that more than a half of the waste reuse amount is under 30% is higher than the sum of other scales 5.2 The measurement model Table consists of the factor loadings and level of Cronbach’s alpha All of the factor loadings are above the recommended level (>0.5) The reliability is clearly evidenced as all of the Cronbach’s alpha levels exceed the required standard (>0.5), most of which are > 0.8 showing high reliability The model fit indices (X2/df = 3.043; p = 0.000; RMSEA = 0.065; GFI = 0.895; IFI = 0.919; CFI = 0.918; AGFI = 0.870; PGFI = 0.725; PNFI = 0.769) indicate the acceptable validity of measurement model Table The reliability and validity of the latent variables in the measurement model Variables PB PBC ATT PN IC SN AB Measurement items PB1 PB2 PB3 PB4 Factor Loadings 0.507 0.539 0.675 0.701 PB5 PB6 PB7 PB8 PBC1 PBC2 PBC3 PBC4 PBC5 ATT1 ATT2 ATT3 ATT4 ATT5 PN1 PN2 PN3 PN4 IC1 IC3 IC4 SN1 SN2 SN3 AB1 AB2 AB3 0.668 0.722 0.691 0.674 0.702 0.740 0.774 0.703 0.787 0.754 0.666 0.652 0.585 0.719 0.723 0.741 0.622 0.818 0.701 0.758 0.795 0.851 0.880 0.703 0.760 0.710 0.830 Cronbach's alpha 0.889 0.881 0.826 0.788 0.740 0.859 0.799 5.3 Structural model Values of model fit indices are all acceptable As demonstrated in Table 4, X2/df is 3.501, the RMSEA (0.065) is above 0.05 and less than 0.08, indicating an acceptable fit index; GFI (0.875) is less than the required level of 0.90 but very close to that; AGFI (0.850); PGFI (0.728) and PNFI (0.771) separately exceed the recommended requirements IFI and CFI share equal scores at a high level (0.897) and are nearly adequate for the required indices of 0.9 Table Fit indices of the model Indices value X2/df RMSEA GFI AGFI 3.501 0.065 0.875 0.850 IFI 0.897 CFI PGFI PNFI 0.897 0.728 0.771 The standardized estimation of the path coefficients and their significance levels for the structural model are visualized in Table The table illustrates that all the path coefficients, apart from the effect of AB and SN on PB, are statistically significant ATT, PBC, and PN are demonstrated to have moderate impacts on PB, with all indices meet the standard requirement This means hypothesis H1, H8 and H10 are supported Meanwhile, AB and SN bear little statistical relations to PB, indicating that hypothesis H4 and H11 are not supported In addition, the significance between PB and IC is statistically proved, supporting for hypothesis H12 The path coefficients of AB and PBC to ATT is 0.600 and 0.212 respectively The prior figure is nearly more than threefold the latter one, which means AB has a more significant influence on ATT than PBC and this path coefficient plays the most important part of all However, in the relationship with SN, AB rather than PBC, is shown to have a more significant effect (path coefficient of the former being 0.478 and the latter being 0.286) The path coefficients of PBC to AB is at 0.265 and that of ATT to PN is at 0.277, are estimated to be moderate Moreover, among all five effects of PN, ATT, SN, PBC, and AB to PB, ATT appears to be the most critical factor of prevention behavior (0.261) Finally, the statistic shows path coefficient of PB to IC as the second most significant of all coefficients at 0.590 Table Path coefficient and its significance of the structural model Hypothesis S.E C.R P Estimate Label Result H1 ATT has a positive effect on PB 0.261 0.043 6.082 *** par_24 Accepted H2 ATT has a positive effect on PN 0.277 0.034 8.050 *** par_22 Accepted H3 AB has a positive effect on ATT 0.192 0.038 5.069 *** par_33 Accepted H4 PBC has a positive effect on ATT 0.600 0.045 13.184 *** par_32 Accepted H5 AB has a positive effect on PB 0.032 0.026 1.225 0.221 par_30 Rejected H6 AB has a positive effect on SN 0.478 0.051 9.350 *** par_25 Accepted H7 PBC has a positive effect on AB 0.265 0.050 5.292 *** par_31 Accepted H8 PBC has a positive effect on PB 0.225 0.036 6.196 *** par_28 Accepted H9 PBC has a positive effect on SN 0.286 0.050 5.783 *** par_26 Accepted H10 PN has a positive effect on PB 0.197 0.037 5.301 *** par_23 Accepted H11 SN has a positive effect on PB 0.015 0.022 0.674 0.5 par_27 Rejected H12 PB has a positive effect on IC 0.590 0.071 8.294 *** par_29 Accepted Discussion and conclusion 6.1 Discussion This result reveals the strong relationship between ATT and PBC through the mediating role of PB It echoes the previous researches of Bortoleto et al (2012) and Li et al (2015), showing that a good awareness among households would probably improve waste prevention tremendously It is worth noting that ATT, PBC, PN have a direct impact on PB, aligning with the previous studies (Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987; Davies et al., 2002) which indicate the influence of ATT on PB is moderate It is also proved that other factors have a moderate effect on PB It is contradictory to Barr, Gilg, & Ford's (2001) and Tucker & Douglas's (2007) studies demonstrating the relationship between ATT and PB is insignificant, this result indicates that ATT has the greatest influence on PB It strengthens the finding of Hines et al (1987) The finding implies that the spread of mass media positively enhances the residents’ awareness of environmental issues resulting in their prevention behavior Another highlighted finding is the connection between PBC and PB While it is inconsistent with the result of (Davies et al., 2002), the result is in line with that of (Bortoleto et al., 2012) showing that PBC is a significant factor that impacts on PB In addition, to individuals who find it is in difficult in waste prevention as well as barely have a strong self-responsibility, there are higher possibilities of involvement in waste prevention It is similar to those who have high PBC that they would likely to turn the possibilities into actions As pointed out by (Davies et al., 2002), there is a direct influence of PBC to PB, which does not mediate by SN Similarly, the corresponding result is revealed in this study Also, the finding shows that the effect of PBC is more important than AB in waste prevention, which is match with the study of Wang, Li, & Tam (2014), and contrast to that of M Osmani, Glass, & Price (2008) AB and SN have the weakest influence on PB, with the former’s coefficient being 0.032 and that of the latter being 0.015 The result of no direct relationship between SN and PB is matched with the study of Bortoleto et al (2012) In other words, there is the only indirect influence of SN on PB mediating by PN Moreover, it is rejected the relationship of SN and PB by previous study Bortoleto et al (2012); Li et al (2015) On the other hand, there are some researchers support this relationship pointing out that SN is the most significant factor that impacts on PB In Ramayah et al.'s (2012) study, they assert that SN was the most important predictor of recycling behavior as collectivism was dominant in South-east Asia, which has an impact on people’s behavior However, the result shows that individuals are not influenced by others’ opinion such as family, friends or society in their prevention behavior, aligning with the finding of Schwartz (1977) According to Hines et al (1987) and Li et al (2015), AB moderately affects to PB and PB is the mediator of AB and IC However, the finding of this study indicates that AB has a very small effect on PB, echoing the result of Poon et al (2004) and M Osmani et al (2008) This implies that designers’ attitude towards waste prevention insignificantly affects the waste prevention behavior of the residents, which is determined by their attitude and awareness If there is the good management of the factors, it would probably result in better improvement in waste prevention Last but not least, our study indicates the mediator role of PB linking AB and PBC with IC Since the coefficient of AB to PB, PBC to PB, and PB to IC is significant, hence, the role of PB is essentially vital The finding was also consistent with the study of Wen, Chang, Hau, & Liu (2004) The result proves the fitness of our model based on TPB 6.2 Conclusion The paper attempts to develop a research model to investigate the household behavior on family waste prevention in Tay Ninh province, Vietnam at the most fundamental level of a household unit inwards Most previous studies have been conducted in either other countries or some big cities in Vietnam However, this study explored at a local scale with different characteristics of citizens and different patterns of performing a behavior Overall, exploring determinants of behavioral intention that leads to waste minimization actions makes a crucial contribution to the environment, society, and economy The findings demonstrate a poor relationship between designers’ attitudes towards waste minimization and social norms and behavior intention However, individuals’ attitudes towards the behavior and perceived behavioral control have been statistically supported to be determining factors in the implementing process of household waste minimization Moreover, designers’ attitudes and perceived behavioral control appear to have a relatively equal impact on prevention behavior, suggesting waste management policies to be more concentrated on these two factors Particularly, if the local government implemented incentive policies as well as promoted the spread of mass media, the households would be aware of environmental issues and change their behavior in littering garbages They are more likely to proact in waste prevention References Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K., & van Huylenbroeck, G (2009) Personal determinants of organic food consumption: A review British Food Journal https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910992961 Ajzen, I (1985) From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior In Action Control https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-697463_2 Ajzen, I (1991) The theory of planned behaviour Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211 De Young, 50(2), 509–526 Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research Psychological Bulletin https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888 Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior EnglewoodCliffs NY Prentice Hall https://doi.org/Z Ajzen, I., & Timko, C (1986) Correspondence between health attitudes and behavior Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7(4), 259–276 Barr, S., Gilg, A W., & Ford, N J (2001) A conceptual framework for understanding and analysing attitudes towards household-waste management Environment and Planning A, 33(11), 2025–2048 Boldero, J (1995) The Prediction of Household Recycling of Newspapers: The Role of Attitudes, Intentions, and Situational Factors Journal of Applied Social Psychology https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01598.x Bortoleto, A P., Kurisu, K H., & Hanaki, K (2012) Model development for household waste prevention behaviour Waste Management https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.05.037 Bossink, B A G., Brouwers, H J H., & Kessel, R A van (1996) Financial consequences of construction waste In Proceedings of International Conference CIB W98 Chen, L K (2008) A Study on Wasteful Behaviour and Conscious of Construction Waste Cheung, S F., Chan, D K S., & Wong, Z S Y (1999) Reexamining the theory of planned behavior in understanding wastepaper recycling Environment and Behavior https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972254 Davies, J., Foxall, G R., & Pallister, J (2002) Beyond the intention–behaviour mythology: an integrated model of recycling Marketing Theory, 2(1), 29–113 Dunlap, R E., & Van Liere, K D (1978) The “new environmental paradigm.” Journal of Environmental Education https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875 Ekanayake, L L., & Ofori, G (2004) Building waste assessment score: Design-based tool Building and Environment https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.01.007 Everett, J W., & Peirce, J J (1993) Curbside recycling in the USA: convenience and mandatory participation Waste Management & Research, 11(1), 49–61 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D F (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error Journal of Marketing Research, 39–50 Gamba, R J., & Oskamp, S (1994) Factors Influencing Community Residents’ Participation in Commingled Curbside Recycling Programs Environment and Behavior https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916594265001 Goldenhar, L M., & Connell, C M (1992) UNDERSTANDING AND PREDICTING RECYCLING BEHAVIOR: AN APPLICATION OF THE THEORY OF REASONED ACTION* J ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS https://doi.org/10.2190/92KU-NXLT-XC32-RHD6 Guagnano, G A., Stern, P C., & Dietz, T (1995) Influences on Attitude-Behavior Relationships: A Natural Experiment with Curbside Recycling Environment and Behavior https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595275005 Hair, J F., Black, W C., Babin, B J., Anderson, R E., & Tatham, R L (1998) Multivariate data analysis Uppersaddle River Multivariate Data Analysis (5th Ed) Upper Saddle River HAO, Y., & KANG, J (2010) Current Situation and Potentials of Construction Waste Minimisation by Design in China through a Comparative Survey between China and UK [J] Building Science, 6, Heberlein, T A., & Black, J S (1981) Cognitive consistency and environmental action Environment and Behavior https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916581136005 Hines, J M., Hungerford, H R., & Tomera, A N (1987) Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis The Journal of Environmental Education https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482 Hopper, J R., & Nielsen, J M (1991) Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and Behavioral Strategies to Expand Participation in a Community Recycling Program Environment and Behavior https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591232004 Jansson, J., Marell, A., & Nordlund, A (2010) Green consumer behavior: Determinants of curtailment and eco-innovation adoption Journal of Consumer Marketing https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761011052396 Li, J., Tam, V W Y., Zuo, J., & Zhu, J (2015) Designers’ attitude and behaviour towards construction waste minimization by design: A study in Shenzhen, China Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105, 29–35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.009 Loehlin, J C (1998) Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis, 3rd ed Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis, 3rd ed Osmani, M., Glass, J., & Price, A D F (2008) Architects’ perspectives on construction waste reduction by design Waste Management, 28(7), 1147–1158 Osmani, N., Vitale, N., Borg, J P., & Etienne-Manneville, S (2006) Scrib Controls Cdc42 Localization and Activity to Promote Cell Polarization during Astrocyte Migration Current Biology https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.10.026 Ozaki, R., & Sevastyanova, K (2011) Going hybrid: An analysis of consumer purchase motivations Energy Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.024 Park, H S., Levine, T R., & Sharkey, W F (1998) The theory of reasoned action and self‐construals: Understanding recycling in Hawai’i Communication Studies https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979809368531 Poon, C S., Shui, Z H., Lam, L., Fok, H., & Kou, S C (2004) Influence of moisture states of natural and recycled aggregates on the slump and compressive strength of concrete Cement and Concrete Research https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00186-8 Ramayah, T., Lee, J W C., & Lim, S (2012) Sustaining the environment through recycling: An empirical study Journal of Environmental Management, 102, 141–147 Schwartz, S H (1977a) Normative influences on altruism Advances in Experimental Social Psychology https://doi.org/10.1016/S00652601(08)60358-5 Schwartz, S H (1977b) Normative influences on altruism1 In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 10, pp 221–279) Elsevier Schwartz, S H., & Howard, J A (1980) Explanations of the Moderating Effect of Responsibility Denial on the Personal Norm-Behavior Relationship Social Psychology Quarterly https://doi.org/10.2307/3033965 Steg, L., & Vlek, C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda Journal of Environmental Psychology https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004 Teo, M M M., & Loosemore, M (2001) A theory of waste behaviour in the construction industry Construction Management and Economics https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190110067037 Thøgersen, J (1996) Recycling and morality: A critical review of the literature Environment and Behavior https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916596284006 Thøgersen, J., Haugaard, P., & Olesen, A (2010) Consumer responses to ecolabels European Journal of Marketing https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011079882 Tonglet, M., Phillips, P S., & Read, A D (2004) Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth, UK Resources, Conservation and Recycling https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2003.11.001 Tucker, P., & Douglas, P (2007) Understanding household waste prevention behaviour Final Report WR0112 Wang, J., Li, Z., & Tam, V W Y (2014) Critical factors in effective construction waste minimization at the design stage: A Shenzhen case study, China Resources, Conservation and Recycling https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.003 Wen, Z L., Chang, L., Hau, K.-T., & Liu, H Y (2004) Testing and application of the mediating effects Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36(5), 614– 620 Zhou, Y., Thøgersen, J., Ruan, Y., & Huang, G (2013) The moderating role of human values in planned behavior: The case of Chinese consumers’ intention to buy organic food Journal of Consumer Marketing https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-02-2013-0482 ... toward waste prevention behavior has a direct and positive impact on prevention behavior H10: Personal norms has a direct and positive impact on prevention behavior 2.3 Designer’s attitude and behavior. .. However, the effect of designers’ waste minimization behavior by these factors and of which had a more dominant effect was not revealed The explanation and prediction of designers’ waste minimization... impact on prevention behavior H9: PBC has a direct and positive impact on subjective norms H11: SN has a direct and positive impact on prevention behavior 2.5 Prevention behavior (PB) Prevention behavior