Does gender matter?

Attitude towards
waste charging policy and
pro-environmental behaviours
Tai Ming Wut, Peggy Ng, Hing-Ki, Mike Kan and Chiu, Samuel Fong

Abstract Tai Ming Wut, Peggy Ng,

Purpose – A waste charging policy had been implemented in major Asian cities like Taipei and Seoul Hing-ki and Mike Kan are all
years ago. Hong Kong is not yet to charge household rubbish, which is one of the major municipal solid based at the College of
waste sources. Landfill places will be exhausted in a year or two in the city. The purpose of this study is to Professional and
investigate the effectiveness of waste charging policies by exploring relationships among social norms, Continuing Education, The
lifestyles, attitudes towards waste charging policy and pro-environmental behaviour.
Hong Kong Polytechnic
Design/methodology/approach – Purposeful sampling was used in this study to recruit university
University, Kowloon, Hong
students to take part in the survey. Purposeful sampling helps to make a ‘‘highly credible sample’’ (Gall
Kong. Chiu, Samuel Fong is
et al., 2006, p.185). This study distributed questionnaires to respondents aged over 18 years. Among
them, there were 404 valid questionnaires (35.6% male; 64.4% female) that were returned with a based at Shanghai
response rate of 53.9%. University of Finance and
Findings – It is found that attitude towards waste charging policies affects pro-environmental behaviour Economics, Shanghai,
through lifestyles and social norms. Female respondents’ pro-environmental behaviours are affected by China.
their lifestyles and social norms. But male respondents’ lifestyle is affected by their attitude towards
policy. Attitude towards charging policy does not have an impact on young people’s pro-environmental
behaviours.
Originality/value – Social acceptance towards any environmental policy is a must for its final outcome. It
is because attitude towards any environmental policy is a starting point to affect pro-environmental
behaviours. Female respondents are more engaged in pro-environmental behaviour compared to male.
Almost all big cities encourage the re-use, re-cycle and reduce of waste. Before designing and
implementing relevant policy, stakeholder participation is important. The new environmental policy
usually has stricter measures, such as heavier charge on municipal waste. Policymakers are advised to
obtain solid arguments and data support to convince stakeholders.
Keywords Pro-environmental behaviour, Municipal solid waste,
Attitude towards waste charging policy, The theory of reasoned action, Waste charging policy
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In recent decades, increasing attention has been paid to environmental protection issues.
People have started to pursue healthy and high-quality “green lifestyles”, and what is often
referred to as “green consumption” (Su et al., 2019) has also become a collective ideal. In
the face of serious greenhouse effects, water pollution, air pollution, ozone layer destruction
and biological extinction, environmental protection has become a pressing issue (Lee,
2014).
Received 20 March 2020
For more than three decades of reform and opening up, apart from economic development, Revised 16 June 2020
Accepted 22 June 2020
improvement of living standards, rapid urbanization and industrialization, China has also
This research was partially
experienced environmental crises such as polluted water sources, severe air pollution, supported by College of
sandstorms and poisonous smog (Ito and Zhang, 2020). Among these crises, waste Continuing Education (CPCE).

DOI 10.1108/SRJ-03-2020-0102 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j
 caused by population growth and increased consumption is a significant problem. As a
special administrative region of China, the Hong Kong Government has actively
implemented a range of environmental protection policies. For example, in handling air
pollution, it has already implemented a number of measures to control air pollutants emitted
by vehicles, power plants, industrial and commercial procedures. Vehicle emission
reduction measures introduced in recent years have also significantly reduced the number
of polluting vehicles. A policy requiring drivers to switch off idling vehicles has also helped
improve air quality and gained widespread support from the public (Environmental
Protection Department, HKSAR, 2020).
Meanwhile, the government is also devoted to improving water quality. In addition to
controlling wastewater discharge, laying sewage canals and targeting the root causes of
pollution, the neighbouring mainland Chinese province of Guangdong and Hong Kong are
working together in a concerted effort to improve water quality management in the Pearl
River Delta region and to reduce water pollution. The Hong Kong Government has also
implemented a range of measures to reduce waste and energy usage. These include a
Waste Reduction Action Plan, a Household Waste Source Classification Scheme and the
Energy Efficiency (Labelling of Products) Ordinance. Such measures aim to increase public
awareness of environmental protection and improve the quality of life (Environmental
Protection Department, HKSAR, 2020).
However, Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated places in the world. More than
seven million people live in an area of 1,104 square kilometers, 40% of which is designated
as country parks where development is prohibited (Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation
Department HK, 2020). The remaining 60% of land is used for residential, commercial,
industrial, transportation and waste disposal purposes. Because of population growth and
economic development, the amount of waste produced in Hong Kong has continued to
increase. In 2018, the quantity of municipal solid waste (MSW) reached 4.17 million tons.
Almost 60% of this (2.45 million tons) was domestic waste, while the rest was commercial,
industrial and construction waste (Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR, 2018).
MSW is discarded as landfill and will cause Hong Kong’s three strategic landfill facilities to
fill up in the coming years. The government is planning to build an incineration plant that
can handle 3,000 tons of solid waste per day, while an organic resource recovery centre
under construction is expected to process 500 tons of food waste daily. Yet Hong Kong still
needs to dispose of more than 5,000 tons of waste in landfills every day. The capacity of
these facilities simply cannot cope indefinitely with the current volume of refuse
(Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR, 2013).
According to the Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR (2018), the recycling rate of
household waste is only about 22%, while for industrial and commercial waste, the rate is
39%. These figures show that Hong Kong people still have a lot to improve in increasing the
rate of domestic waste recycling. Moreover, increasing recycling seems a more
fundamental strategy to reduce waste than building more and larger waste disposal
facilities. One way to do this is to require the public to sort their waste for recycling.
People are increasingly aware of how to use natural resources sustainably to ensure that the
next generation can enjoy their environment as they do now. Yet there is a dilemma. On the
one hand, cooperative individuals sort their household waste, which can benefit the society
as a whole. On the other hand, some people are unwilling to cooperate, or are unaware of
the need to cooperate, and continue to reject waste sorting, thus undermining the
contributions of others. Although waste sorting is regarded as a moral act (Massarutto et al.,
2019), if all people maximize their own self-interest, then it will create a problem of collective
choice. Governments must introduce policies to encourage or promote this kind of social
behaviour because people are entangled between “we” (beneficial to the society) and
“myself” (maximizing personal interest).

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

The Environment Protection Department of the Hong Kong Government released a solid
waste charging public consultation document in January 2012 to consult the public for three
months. This mainly referred to Asian cities that have introduced waste levies, such as
Taipei, Seoul, Tokyo and Singapore. To increase enthusiasm for waste sorting, the Hong
Kong Government is going to introduce a waste levy. According to neoclassical
assumptions, external incentives affect behaviours (Fu and Lu, 2020). People will not sort
waste for no reason because this time-consuming activity involves time, cost and effort. If
economic incentives are introduced, then the response will be different: with charging,
waste sorting is not a cost. Instead, people can save money by sorting. On the other hand,
economic incentives also lead to the social value of “doing the right thing based on
morality”, which can logically attribute “why to classify garbage” to the moral behaviour of
the society (Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR, 2012).
Waste is the result of modern consumer lifestyles (Närvänen et al., 2019). How to promote
consumer recycling through policies or other incentives, thus reducing the production of
waste, is a major challenge facing contemporary governments. Lifestyle is a concept
originating from psychology and sociology (Halim and Dinaroe, 2019). It involves several
aspects of people’s daily behaviour and their feelings, attitudes and opinions. From time to
time, scholars have explored consumer behaviour and psychological characteristics
through lifestyle, mainly because the information provided by traditional demographic
variables is relatively limited, making it impossible to understand the full picture of
consumers. Lifestyle is also considered a synonym for personal behaviour patterns or
coherence in personal behaviours (Spaargaren and Vliet, 2000).
Increasing consumption has led to more domestic waste, and extra attention has, thus,
been paid to designing and implementing related environmental policies and systems.
Personal consumption is considered to produce a large amount of waste, so in recent
decades, waste sorting and recycling have begun to attract attention in a number of
countries.
There are two major issues in waste management. The first issue is the negative
externalities caused when waste is produced and processed. When deciding how much
and what to consume, individuals do not consider the amount of waste generated. As the
external social costs of manufacturing waste such as air pollution and water pollution are
ignored by individuals, more waste is probably generated and might be processed. The
second issue is the financial support for many waste collection services (Rajesh, 2019).
Such services, whether public or private, are typically funded through general taxes or fixed
fees. Therefore, the cost of waste disposal could not be fully reflected in the fees paid by
individual users. Even if such fixed fees were to include the personal and external costs of
generating and disposing of waste, individuals would still bear zero cost for producing
additional waste. Without paying for the marginal social costs, they may have an incentive to
produce such additional waste.
Many countries are actively seeking to reduce and handle waste more efficiently. In
particular, many governments are paying increasing attention to waste disposal financing
schemes. One option is to charge for waste collection services on a per unit basis to induce
people to produce less waste by consuming more environmentally friendly products and
participating in recycling activities. In addition to quantity-based charges, which represent
market incentives, the Hong Kong Government has also turned its attention to recycling
schemes or polluter-pays schemes as a means of disposing of waste other than in landfills.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the association among five variables: attitudes
towards waste charging policies, social norms, lifestyle, gender differences and pro-
environmental behaviours, using the theory of reasoned action (TRA). It begins with a
review of the literature on the TRA, attitudes towards waste charging policies, social norms,
lifestyle, pro-environmental behaviour and gender differences. The methodology section

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

 then describes the research design, data and measurement analysis. It concludes with a
discussion, conclusions and suggestions for further research.

2. Literature review
2.1 Theory of reasoned action
In this study, the TRA provides a sound conceptual justification for investigating the
relationship between subjective norms and behaviour. The TRA is a well-organized and
robust model in explaining behaviour within human action. Ajzen and Fishbein pioneered
and developed the TRA (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). According to
Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), the TRA accounts for two main predictors of behavioural
intention: attitude towards the behaviour and subjective norms. The theory posits that
behavioural intention which ultimately leads to actual behaviour includes both individuals’
attitudes towards the behaviour as well as the perceived subjective norms of peers, family
or referent others. The TRA is a parsimonious model which has been widely applied in
various disciplines to understand individual attitudes and attitudinal links with intention and
behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).

2.2 Attitude towards charging policy

According to Ajzen (1991), attitude influences behaviour through its impact on intentions.
When an individual believes that adopting pro-environmental behaviours produces positive
outcomes, their attitude towards these behaviours will be favourable. The relationship
between attitude and actions is significant when examining pro-environmental behaviours.
For example, Beck et al. (2013) empirically found that environmental attitudes towards
policy implementation are a strong predictor of environmentally responsible behaviours. A
study conducted by Nikitas et al. (2011) indicated that older people’s attitudes to a road
charging policy were more likely to be influenced by social norms. Thus, understanding
attitudes towards regulation and policy may inform attempts to enhance pro-environmental
behaviours.

2.2.1 Regulation and policy. Currently, about 85% of Hong Kong’s MSW is collected by the
Food and Environmental Hygiene Department or its contractors and transferred to landfills
for disposal free-of-charge to waste producers. Nearly 3,700 tons of waste is collected from
residential areas every day (Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR, 2020). The
public only needs to dispose of waste into a designated rubbish bin or in a refuse room in a
residential building, from where it will be collected by the property management and sent
for recycling. The Policy Framework for the Management of Municipal Solid Waste
(2005–2014) introduced by the Hong Kong Government in December 2005 states that there
are three major sources of waste:

1. Households: This includes residential and all types of homes. Waste collected from
residential buildings, public rubbish bins, streets, local waters and country parks is also
included in domestic waste.
2. Commercial: This includes shops, restaurants, hotels, offices, private housing estates
and markets. Most of this waste is collected by private refuse collectors. Commercial
waste is sometimes mixed with domestic waste and collected by the government as a
form of public service.
3. Industrial: This covers all waste from industrial activities but excludes waste from
construction and chemical activities. Industrial waste is generally collected by private
contractors, and some companies transport waste directly to landfills for disposal
(Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR, 2005).

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

The abuse of plastic shopping bags (PSBs) is a major and obvious environmental problem
in Hong Kong (Fok and Cheung, 2015). Landfill statistics in 2011 showed that nearly 20% of
MSW disposed in landfills each year consisted of plastics, and more than two PSBs per
person per day were discarded, significantly more than needed for daily living. To curb the
abuse of PSBs, in 2009, the Hong Kong Government launched in phases an Environmental
Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags on 50% of PSBs used in retail. The first phase
covered chain stores, large supermarkets, convenience stores, personal beauty stores and
stores selling health products. It then conducted a two-month public consultation on the
proposed solution from May to July 2007 to collect opinions from the public and other
relevant parties. The results showed wide public support for the proposed scheme
(Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR, 2013).
To reduce waste from the disposal of construction and demolition waste, the Hong Kong
Government introduced the polluter-pays principle in 2005, thereby charging the polluter for
generating waste. This scheme encouraged waste reduction as well as the reuse and
recycling of waste material, thus slowing down the depletion of limited landfill capacity in
Hong Kong (Hao et al., 2008). As a result of this policy, total waste was reduced by 65% in
2006 (Hao et al., 2008). The result indicates that charging for waste collection was more
effective than had previously been thought in reducing the volume of waste (Kitchen et al.,
2019). It seems that the policy of charging for waste collection might affect lifestyle, norms
and pro-environmental behaviours.

2.3 Social norms

The word “norm” comes from the Latin “norma”, which originally meant “rule”. Later, it was
used by philosophers and behavioural scientists to study human behaviour as a standard of
conduct, so that the concept of a social norm is more or less fixed (Lee, 2014).
Nevertheless, there are still divergent views regarding the definition of social norms. In a
broad sense, social norms generally refer to standards of conduct, rules and regulations,
customs, laws, ethics and values that the entire society, various social groups and their
members should have.
In a narrow sense, social norms refer to behaviour rules and standards established within a
particular social group to ensure the achievement of collective goals and consistency of
group activities. Social norms are very important influencing factors for environmental
behaviours (Wang et al., 2019). They refer to the social pressure that individuals feel about
whether to follow a certain behaviour. Even when individual attitudes and social norms are
in conflict, individuals often seek social support for their behaviours. It has been reported
that social support groups that affect individuals are usually divided into internal (e.g.
family) and external (e.g. friends) or primary groups (e.g. friends and relatives) and
secondary groups (e.g. neighbours). An individual’s recycling behaviours can be
influenced by groups or other individuals who they consider important (Lee, 2014).
Social support is associated with an individual’s environmental behaviour. The more the
social support, the more general recognition of the current situation in the society will
determine individual behaviour (Lalot et al., 2019). Ting and Cheng (2017) pointed out that
many environmental protection activities, such as recycling and waste sorting, are affected
by social pressure from family, friends or neighbours. When there is social pressure, it can
create positive norms that help improve the recycling rate (Park, 2018).
To sum up, the pressure of social norms imposes a traction effect on personal
environmental behaviours. Positive social pressure may be conducive to positive
environmental behaviours, while negative social pressure may prevent such behaviours
from occurring. Even if an individual originally shows a positive attitude towards certain
behaviours, this may disappear, thus showing the strong intangible power of social norms.

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

 2.4 Lifestyle
Lifestyle is a systematic concept, which is formed by characteristics of a society or a group.
These characteristics are enough to show the difference between a particular society or
group and others, and they are specifically manifested in a dynamic lifestyle (Goldman
et al., 2019). Different lifestyle patterns are, thus, based on various factors such as cultures,
values, resources, beliefs and laws. As a result, from a marketing perspective, an
individual’s purchasing patterns and consumption behaviours exactly reflect the lifestyles of
the social groups to which they belong (Lawson and Todd, 2002). Lifestyle is the mode of
living that is identified by how individuals spend their time and resources. It reflects the
activities that individuals engage in, things of interest and their opinions on various issues. It
is a comprehensive conceptual framework that explains personal value performance under
the comprehensive influence of personality traits (Blackwell et al., 2006).
A study conducted by Larson et al. (2015) examined lifestyle behaviours on an individual’s
pro-environmentalism. It found that common lifestyle behaviours such as turning off lights,
riding a bicycle whenever possible, taking shorter showers and picking up trash are
predictors of pro-environmental behaviour. Miao and Wei (2013) compared pro-
environmental behaviours between household and hotel settings incorporating the
dimension of private lifestyle. Their results showed that pro-environmental behaviour is most
pervasive in private lifestyles in household settings. In short, a person’s lifestyle is a
manifestation of their activities, interests and opinions. Lifestyle describes the situation of an
individual and the surrounding environment (Kotler and Armstrong, 2017).
Lifestyle refers to the mode in which certain groups or individuals interact with their
environment. This model is influenced by personal activities, interests and opinions and is
expressed in the use of time and money. The so-called specific group system refers to the
same group of people who share the same culture, faith, law, values, etc. (Lawson and
Todd, 2002).

2.5 Pro-environmental behaviour

If people act in a more pro-environmental way, then the environment tends to be more
sustainable. Pro-environmental behaviour is behaviour that “consciously seeks to minimize
the negative impact of one’s action on the natural and built world” (Kollmuss and Agyeman,
2002, p.240). According to Zareie and Navimipour (2016), pro-environmental behaviour is
always linked to attitudes as well as parental and peer influences. Larson et al. (2015)
emphasized that lifestyle is one potential pro-environmental behaviour domain. In this
present study, the dimensions of attitudes towards policy and regulation, social norms and
lifestyle were tested as predictors of pro-environmental behaviour in the Hong Kong
context.

2.6 Gender differences

Studies have shown that gender factors affect resource recycling behaviours (Hand, 2019;
Lopez-Bonilla et al., 2020). More females than males participate in the pro-environmental
pez-Bonilla et al., 2020). Several studies
activities of resource recycling or waste sorting (Lo
targeting elementary school students in China found that girls outperformed boys in terms
of environmental behaviours. Dietz et al. (1998) found that women were more likely than
men to be involved in green consumption activities. Similarly, Abdullah et al. (2019) found
that women were more willing to recycle resources such as glass and plastic. Although
other studies have indicated no significant correlation between gender and resource
recycling, the influence of gender on waste recycling behaviours is worth exploring.
Figure 1 illustrates our research framework.
Thus, the following research questions are proposed:

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

 Figure 1 Research framework

RQ1. What is the association between attitude towards waste charging policy and
lifestyle?
RQ2. What is the association between attitude towards waste charging policy and
norms?
RQ3. What is the association between social norms and pro-environmental behaviours?
RQ4. What is the association between lifestyle and pro-environmental behaviours?
RQ5. What is the association between attitude towards waste charging policy and pro-
environmental behaviours?
RQ6. Does gender matter in the above five research questions?
The corresponding hypotheses are as follows:
H1. Attitude towards waste charging policy is positively related to lifestyle.
H2. Attitude towards waste charging policy is positively related to social norms.
H3. Social norms are positively related to lifestyle.
H4. Lifestyle is positively related to pro-environmental behaviour.
H5. Attitude towards waste charging policy is positively related to pro-environmental
behaviour.

3. Methodology
Purposeful sampling was used to recruit respondents to take part in the survey. Purposeful
sampling helps to make a “highly credible sample” (Gall et al., 2006, p.185). In all, 404 valid
questionnaires (35.6% male, 64.4% female) were returned, a response rate of 53.9%.
Before respondents completed the questionnaire, the researcher explained the research
purpose and precautions taken. To encourage respondents to feel free to give honest
answers, the researcher also emphasized that the questionnaire data was for academic
research use only, would not be used for other purposes and was anonymous.
This questionnaire consisted of four parts (Table 1). Details are as follows:

1. Evaluation of quantity-based waste sorting policy specifically analysed respondents’

views on the quantity-based waste charging policy (six questions).

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

 Table 1 Questionnaire items
Construct Items Sources

Attitude towards Based on the fairness principle of ‘user pays’, I agree that Modified from Yang (2002) “Comparison of
charging policy waste handling costs should be borne by waste producers Economic and Regulatory Resource Recycling
After implementing quantity-based waste charging, my Policies"
recycling volume will increase
After implementing quantity-based waste charging, I will
reduce the frequency of waste disposal
After implementing quantity-based charging, I will be more
willing to sort my waste
Overall, I agree with the implementation of quantity-based
waste charging
Regarding the quantity-based waste charging policy, I think
the government care about my opinions.
Social norms My family encourage me to engage in waste sorting Modified from Tonglet et al. (2004) “Determining
My classmates or friends encourage me to engage in waste the drivers for householder pro-environmental
sorting behaviour: waste minimization compared to
My neighbours encourage me to engage in waste sorting recycling”
Government campaigns encourage me to engage in waste
sorting
Environmental organizations’ campaigns encourage me to
engage in waste sorting.
Lifestyle During holidays, I often engage in activities such as Modified from Lam et al. (2008) “Research on
shopping, watching movies, seeing exhibitions, etc the Impact of Consumer’s Green Cognition and
I have regular meetings with many friends, engaged in Lifestyle on Green Consumption Behavior"
chatting, sports, etc
I pay attention to my appearance
Pro-environmental No matter at home or outside, I pay attention to waste sorting Modified from Lam (2010) “Trash Reduction
behaviour or resource recycling when throwing away rubbish Behavior and Its Related Factors of Junior High
I sort rubbish such as paper, plastic bottles and aluminium School Students in Taipei County”
cans before throwing them into the respective recycling bins
No matter at home or in school, I try my best to finish the food
on my plate; if there is leftover food, I put it in a container for
leftovers

2. Social norms included measurement related to primary groups including family, friends
and neighbours and the impact of government and organizations on respondents’
willingness to engage in waste sorting (five questions).

3. Lifestyle included the mode of living that is identified by how people spend their time
and resources (three questions).

4. Basic demographic information included gender, age, number of family members,

average family income, parents’ occupation and education level and type of family
housing.

All measurements were measured using five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 3 =
neutral and 5 = strongly agree). Five- or seven-point scales produce the same accuracy of
measurement (Dawes, 2008).
Respondents’ ages ranged from 18 to 60 years. Almost half of respondents’ families
consisted of three people (including the respondent). Four-member families accounted
for a further 26% of respondents. Of all the respondents, 36% reported an annual
household income of between US$13,000 and US$38,000. In all, 60% reported that
their parents had a secondary school education. Respondents’ father’s occupations
were technician, worker, civil servant and professionals. Respondents’ mother’s
occupations were worker, housewife, civil servant, technician and professionals. In all,

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

50% of families lived in public housing, 43% lived in private apartments and around 4%
lived in houses.
To avoid common method bias, a cover page was attached to each questionnaire urging
respondents to answer questions honestly and promising that all data would be treated
confidentially. The wording of each question was modified so that respondents would not
find it easy to trace the logic of the questionnaire (Spector and Brannick, 1995).

4. Data analysis and findings

The conceptual model in this study was examined using partial least square structural
equation modelling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS 3.0 statistical software. According to Hair
et al. (2016), PLS-SEM requires less stringent assumptions about normality, which is more
suitable for model development in an exploratory study and for analysing small sample
sizes. As recommended by Hair et al. (2016), the minimum sample size of the study should
be equal to or larger than “10 times the largest number of structural paths directed at a
particular construct in the structural model” (p.20). In this study, the largest number of
structured paths used to examine lifestyle was three; thus, the minimum required sample
size was 30. Using PLS-SEM is, thus, appropriate with a sample size of 404.

4.1 Measurement model

Validity and reliability of the measurement items were evaluated in the measurement model.
Reliability, internal consistency, discriminant validity and convergent validity were assessed
using the following guidelines by Hair et al. (2019):
䊏 The indicator loadings were examined in reflective measurement model assessment.
Loadings above 0.708 are recommended, as they can explain more than 50% of the
variance of the indicator and provide acceptable item reliability.
䊏 The measurement model possessed adequate internal consistency as the composite
reliability and Cronbach’s alpha of all constructs exceeded 0.70. Composite reliability
values of between 0.70 and 0.90 are classified as satisfactory to good.
䊏 Convergent validity of each construct was measured to explain the variance of its items.
Hair et al. (2019) recommend a threshold level for average variance extracted (AVE) of
0.50 or higher to explain at least 50% of the variances of its items. The AVE of each
construct was higher than 0.50, ranging from 0.726 to 0.778, thus demonstrating
convergent validity.
䊏 Discriminant validity was assessed using Fornell–Larcker’s criterion. Fornell–Larcker’s
criterion is fulfilled if the square root of the AVE of each construct is greater than the
construct’s highest correlation with any other construct.

Table 2 shows the measurement model assessment, while Table 3 shows the discriminant
validity of each construct. The three indicators loadings of attitude towards charging policy
were less than 0.708 and were dropped. Square roots of AVE of all the constructs are
greater than the construct’s largest correlation with other constructs. Fornell–Larcker’s
criterion is met. All constructs were demonstrated to be reliable and valid. We, therefore,
proceeded to assess the structural model (Tables 2 and 3).

4.2 Structural model

The R-squares of all dependent variables were greater than the threshold value of 0.2,
suggesting that the model has considerable power (R-square of lifestyle was 0.336; R-
square of social norms was 0.428; and R-square of pro-environmental behaviour was 0.426)
(Figure 2).

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

 Table 2 Measurement model assessment
Construct Item Loading Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability AVE

Attitude towards PR_1 0.814 0.835 0.900 0.751

charging policy PR_4 0.861
PR_5 0.921
Norms NORM_1 0.858 0.905 0.930 0.726
NORM_2 0.901
NORM_3 0.874
NORM_4 0.818
NORM_5 0.806

Lifestyle LIF_1 0.849 0.859 0.913 0.778

LIF_2 0.910
LIF_3 0.886
Pro-environmental PRO_1 0.875 0.836 0.901 0.753
behaviours PRO_2 0.861
PRO_3 0.867

Table 3 Assessing discriminant validity

Construct Mean SD Attitude Behaviour Lifestyle Social norms

Attitude 4.00 1.11 0.866

Behaviour 3.94 1.12 0.589 0.868
Lifestyle 3.68 1.10 0.481 0.530 0.882
Social norms 4.00 1.09 0.655 0.643 0.560 0.852
Note: Numbers in italics indicate that the square root of the AVE of each construct is greater than the
construct’s highest correlation with any other construct

Figure 2 Partial least square model

The hypothesized model explained 42.6% of the variance in pro-environmental behaviour.

All f-square effect sizes of predictor constructs ranged from 0.035 to 0.749. These could be
interpreted as small-to-large effects on dependent variables. Q-square was used to assess
predictive relevance. All three Q-square values ranged from 0.237 to 0.301, indicating that
the model had medium predictive relevance. The SRMR value is a measure of estimated

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

model fit. This value was 0.069, which is less than 0.08 as suggested by Hu and Bentler
(1998).
Path coefficients and t-statistics were evaluated by conducting a bootstrap analysis (with
5,000 subsamples and 404 cases). The analysis showed that all the proposed relationships
were significant. Table 4 shows the results of hypothesis testing. H1 indicates a positive
relationship between attitude towards charging policy and lifestyle ( b = 0.201, t = 2.546,
p < 0.05). However, in H2, policy and regulation have a very strong positive effect on social
norms ( b = 0.655, t = 15.303, p < 0.001). In H3, social norms have a strong association
with lifestyle ( b = 0.428, t = 6.092, p < 0.001). In H4, lifestyle shows a very strong
relationship with pro-environmental behaviour ( b = 0.321, t = 4.124, p < 0.001). In H5,
attitude towards charging policy has a direct impact on pro-environmental behaviour ( b =
0.434, t = 5.865, p < 0.001).

4.3 Multi-group analysis

Some gender differences were observed among the results of the hypotheses. In the
sample, 144 respondents (35.6%) were male and 260 respondents (64.4%) were female. It
was found that attitude towards charging policy among females ( b = 0.288, t = 3.169, p <
0.01) was strongly associated with lifestyle. No similar findings were observed for male
respondents.
Regarding H2 to H5, no difference was observed between male and female respondents
(Table 5).
Age differences were observed among the results of hypotheses. In the sample, 307
respondents (76%) were young people and 97 (24%) were older people. It was found that
the attitude towards charging policy of young people ( b = 0.166, t = 2.121, p < 0.05) was
strongly associated with lifestyle. No similar findings were observed for older respondents.
Regarding H5, it was found that the attitude towards charging policy of older respondents

Table 4 Results of hypothesis testing

Hypothesis Item Path coefficient t-value p-value Result

H1 Attitude ! Lifestyle 0.201 2.546 0.011 Supported

H2 Attitude ! Social Norms 0.655 15.303 0.000 Supported

H3 Social Norms ! Lifestyle 0.428 6.092 0.000 Supported

H4 Lifestyle ! Pro-environmental 0.321 4.124 0.000 Supported
Behaviour

H5 Attitude ! Pro-environmental 0.434 5.865 0.000 Supported
Behaviour
Notes: Bootstrap samples = 5,000; n = 404 cases;  p < 0.05;  p < 0.001

Table 5 Multi-group analysis (gender)

Male Female
Hypothesis Beta t-value p-value Beta t-value p-value

H1 0.078 0.688 0.492 0.288 3.169 0.002
 
H2 0.722 13.740 0.000 0.588 9.967 0.000
 
H3 0.568 6.041 0.000 0.324 3.561 0.000
 
H4 0.299 2.541 0.011 0.341 3.670 0.000
 
H5 0.567 5.263 0.000 0.280 3.008 0.003
Notes:  p < 0.05;  p < 0.01;  p < 0.001

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

 ( b = 0.568, t = 5.514, p < 0.001) was strongly associated with pro-environmental
behaviour. No similar results were observed among younger respondents (Table 6).

5. Discussion
Attitudes towards waste charging policies are associated with lifestyle and social norms (H1
and H2). More importantly, attitudes towards waste charging policies and regulation affect
lifestyles through social norms. It is sensible, as social norms are intangible. Through social
norms, people form their lifestyles, which are partly represented by their consumption
behaviours. Thus, lifestyles are more observable (Cosmas, 1982). It is not surprising that
lifestyles are associated with pro-environmental behaviours (H4) like consumption
behaviours. As Hong Kong is the most densely populated city in China, reducing household
energy consumption is significant so as to protect the environment. Cheung et al. (2017)
explained that saving energy such as household energy consumption reduction is a part of
people’s lifestyle and people have fun when they can make effort to help environmental
protection. The government would launch different initiatives (e.g. financial rewards,
discounts and penalties) to change household energy consumption behaviour to motivate
people and their neighbours to perform pro-environmental behaviour. Jackson (2005) also
emphasized that social norms can be a powerful driving force in encouraging pro-
environmental behaviour. Therefore, the government would collaborate with electricity
companies to organize programmes to promote energy-saving behaviour. For instance, a
programme about monthly household energy usage comparison among neighbours in the
community should be initiated so that people in the community feel motivated by their
norms to execute pro-environmental behaviour.
It should be noted that there is also a direct association between attitude towards charging
policies and regulation and pro-environmental behaviours. Their linkage is also through
social norms and lifestyle.
The pro-environmental behaviours of females are affected by attitudes to charging policies
via social norms and lifestyles. For male respondents, no association between attitude
towards charging policy and lifestyle was observed. Females were more likely to engage in
pro-environmental behaviours than males, a result previously found by Abdullah et al.
(2019). This might be because of some having household experience and being aware of
the benefits to the society of disposing of solid waste correctly. From the age perspective,
young people’s pro-environmental behaviours were affected by social norms and lifestyles.
It seems that attitude towards charging policy does not have an impact on young people’s
pro-environmental behaviours. Young people are more easily affected by their peers and
their parents. In contrast, older people’s pro-environmental behaviours were affected by
their attitude towards charging policy as well as social norms via lifestyle. They seem to be
more independent.

Table 6 Multi-group analysis (age)

Young Old
Hypothesis Beta t-value p-value Beta t-value p-value

H1 0.166 2.121 0.034 0.102 0.860 0.390
 
H2 0.417 7.485 0.000 0.711 10.812 0.000
 
H3 0.143 2.051 0.041 0.537 4.472 0.000
 
H4 0.314 4.935 0.000 0.243 2.096 0.037

H5 0.047 0.691 0.490 0.568 5.514 0.000
Notes:  p < 0.05;  p < 0.001

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

6. Practical implications
The study has a number of practical implications. First, to persuade someone to
change their environmental behaviour, a social norm first needs to be formed,
especially for young people. That is to say, it cannot be done within a short period of
time. This implies that young people must first be educated and that the Environmental
Protection Department would consider using young people’s key opinion leaders to
promote pro-environmental behaviour. Second, pro-environmental behaviours might be
encouraged by a positive change of attitude towards environmental charging policy.
Government bodies such as the Environmental Protection Department would organize
campaigns to promote pro-environmental behaviours and convey the message of
“polluter may pay” if people do not act in a pro-environmental way. Such campaigns
might convince people to engage in pro-environmental behaviours, especially those
who do not fully understand what pro-environmental behaviour is or how to implement
it. Third, consultation is an essential step, as it gathers opinions from various
stakeholders. By gathering input from stakeholders, a waste charging policy is more
likely to be accepted by the society.

7. Conclusion and further research areas

Social acceptance towards any environmental policy is a must for its final outcome because
attitude towards any environmental policy is a starting point to affect pro-environmental
behaviours. By applying the TRA, our analysis has shown a significant relationship among
attitudes towards waste charging policy, social norms, lifestyle and pro-environmental
behaviours. This study has, thus, confirmed a modified version of the TRA model and found
that female respondents engage in pro-environmental behaviours more than males. Almost
all big cities encourage the reuse, recycling and reduction of waste. Before designing and
implementing relevant policies, stakeholder participation is important. New environmental
policies usually impose stricter measures such as heavier charges for MSW. Policymakers
are advised to obtain solid arguments and data support to convince stakeholders to
engage in pro-environmental behaviours.
Further research should use random sampling instead of purposeful sampling. This study is
a cross-sectional study. A longitudinal research method with experiments could be used to
measure behavioural change, for example, using different charging scenarios to detect
changes in pro-environmental behaviours.

References
Abdullah, R.A., Sadq, Z.M., Othman, B. and Faeq, D.T. (2019), “Recycling efficiency and waste
minimization through students’ behaviour on the university of leicester campus”, International Journal of
Psychosocial Rehabilitation, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 671-688.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department HK (2020), Hong Kong Ecomap, Friends of the
Country Parks and Cosmos Book. Hong Kong.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice Hall.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Beck, M.J., Rose, J.M. and Hensher, D.A. (2013), “Environmental attitudes and emissions charging: an
example of policy implications for vehicle choice”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
Vol. 50, pp. 171-182.
Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W. and Engel, J.F. (2006), Consumer Behavior, 10th ed., Dyrden Press
New York, NY.

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

 Cheung, L.T., Chow, A.S., Fok, L., Yu, K.M. and Chou, K.L. (2017), “The effect of self-determined
motivation on household energy consumption behaviour in a metropolitan area in Southern China”,
Energy Efficiency, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 549-561.
Cosmas, S.C. (1982), “Lifestyles and consumption patterns”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8
No. 4, pp. 453-455.
Dawes, J. (2008), “Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An
experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 50
No. 1, pp. 61-104.
Dietz, T., Stern, P.C. and Guagnano, G.A. (1998), “Social structural and social psychological bases of
environmental concern”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 450-471.
Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR (2005), “A policy framework for the management of
municipal solid waste (2005-2014)”, available at: www.epd.gov.hk/epd/msw/ (accessed 1 February
2020).
Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR (2012), “Strengthening waste reduction: is waste charging
an option?”, available at: www.Epd.gov.hk/epd/English.html (accessed 1 February 2020).

Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR (2013), “Hong Kong blueprint for sustainable use of
resources”, available at: www.epd.gov.hk/epd/psb_charging/en/introduction/index.html (accessed 1
February 2020).

Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR (2018), “Monitoring of solid waste in Hong Kong”,
available at: www.Epd.gov.hk/epd/English.html (accessed 1 February 2020).
Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR (2020), available at: www.Epd.gov.hk/epd/English.html
(accessed 1 February 2020).
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior, Addison-Wesley. Reading, MA.
Fok, L. and Cheung, P.K. (2015), “Hong Kong at the pearl river estuary: a hotspot of microplastic
pollution”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 99 No. 1-2, pp. 112-118.

Fu, J. and Lu, X. (2020), “Enhancing sustainable development through regulatory means and market-
oriented incentives for waste management in the GBA”, Sustainable Energy and Green Finance for a
Low-Carbon Economy, Springer, Cham, pp. 271-285.

Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R. and Gall, J.P. (2006), Educational Research: An Introduction, 8th edition. Longman
Publishing London.
Goldman, D., Pe’er, S. and Yavetz, B. (2019), “Sociocultural anchors for incorporating sustainability in
youth movements: comparison among secular, religious, and ultraorthodox movements”, The Journal of
Environmental Education, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 1-17.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage publications New York, NY.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Halim, H. and Dinaroe, D. (2019), “The influence of money attitude, lifestyle, and personal values on
purchase decision of exclusive gadgets in Aceh”, Asian Journal of Entrepreneurship and Family
Business, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 13-29.
Hand, C. (2019), “Biology and being green: the effect of prenatal testosterone exposure on pro-
environmental consumption behaviour”, Journal of Business Research, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.034
Hao, J.L., Hills, M.J. and Tam, V.W. (2008), “The effectiveness of Hong Kong’s construction waste
disposal charging scheme”, Waste Management & Research, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 553-558.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, p. 424.

Ito, K. and Zhang, S. (2020), “Willingness to pay for clean air: evidence from air purifier markets in China”,
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 128 No. 5.
Jackson, T. (2005), “Motivating sustainable consumption”, Sustainable Development Research Network,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 30-40.

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

Kitchen, H., McMillan, M. and Shah, A. (2019), “Charges and user fees”, Local Public Finance and
Economics, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 363-403.
Kollmuss, A. and Agyeman, J. (2002), “Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are
the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 239-260.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2017), Principles of Marketing, 17th ed., Prentice-Hall, NJ.

Lalot, F., Quiamzade, A., Falomir-Pichastor, J.M. and Gollwitzer, P.M. (2019), “When does self-identity
predict intention to act green? A self-completion account relying on past behaviour and majority-minority
support for pro-environmental values”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 79-92.
Lam, Y. (2010), “Trash reduction behavior and its related factors of junior high school students in Taipei
county”, Master thesis, National Taiwan Teacher’s University.
Lam, M., Tsang, M. and Lee, K. (2008), “Research on the impact of consumer’s green cognition and
lifestyle on green consumption behavior”, Proceedings on 9th Management Academic Conference.
Larson, L.R., Stedman, R.C., Cooper, C.B. and Decker, D.J. (2015), “Understanding the multi-
dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 43,
pp. 112-124.
Lawson, R. and Todd, S. (2002), “Consumer lifestyles: a social stratification perspective”, Marketing
Theory, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 295-307.
Lee, K. (2014), “Predictors of sustainable consumption among young educated consumers in Hong
Kong”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 217-238.
 pez-Bonilla, J.M., Reyes-Rodrı́guez, M.D.C. and Lo
Lo pez-Bonilla, L.M. (2020), “Interactions and
relationships between personal factors in Pro-Environmental golf tourist behaviour: a gender analysis”,
Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 332.

Massarutto, A., Marangon, F., Troiano, S. and Favot, M. (2019), “Moral duty, warm glow or self-interest? A
choice experiment study on motivations for domestic garbage sorting in Italy”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 208, pp. 916-923.
Miao, L. and Wei, W. (2013), “Consumers’ pro-environmental behavior and the underlying motivations: a
comparison between household and hotel settings”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 32, pp. 102-112.

Närvänen, E. Mattila, M. and Mesiranta, N. (2019), “Consumer-citizens as leaders of change: case food
waste”, Leading change in a complex world: Transdisciplinary perspectives.
Nikitas, A., Avineri, E. and Parkhurst, G. (2011), “Older people’s attitudes to road charging: are they
distinctive and what are the implications for policy?”, Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 87-108.
Park, S. (2018), “Factors influencing the recycling rate under the volume-based waste fee system in
South Korea”, Waste Management, Vol. 74, pp. 43-51.
Rajesh, P. (2019), “Solid waste management-sustainability towards a better future, role of CSR – a
review”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 762-777.

Spaargaren, G. and Vliet, B.V. (2000), “Lifestyles, consumption and the environment: the
ecological modernization of domestic consumption”, in Mol A.P.J. and Sonnenfeld, D.A. (Eds),
Ecological Modernization around the World: Perspectives and Critical Debates, Frank Cass:
London, 50-76.
Spector, P. and Brannick, M. (1995), “The nature of effects of methods variance in organizational
research”, International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 249-274.

Su, C.H.J., Tsai, C.H.K., Chen, M.H. and Lv, W.Q. (2019), “US sustainable food market generation z
consumer segments”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 13, p. 3607.

Ting, D.H. and Cheng, C.F.C. (2017), “Developing pro-environmental behaviour: ecotourism
fieldtrip and experiences”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 7,
pp. 1212-1229.
Tonglet, M., Phillips, P.S. and Bates, M.P. (2004), “Determining the drivers for householder pro-
environmental behaviour: waste minimization compared to recycling”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 27-48.

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j

 Wang, Y., Chen, M. and Lee, J. (2019), “Adolescents’ social norms across family, peer and school
settings: linking social norm profiles to adolescent risky health behaviors”, Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 935-948.
Yang, H.C. (2002), “Comparison of economic and regulatory resource recycling policies”, Master thesis,
National Chun Sun University.

Zareie, B. and Navimipour, N.J. (2016), “The impact of electronic environmental knowledge on the
environmental behaviors of people”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 1-8.

Further reading
Morris, G.E. and Holthausen, D.M. (1994), “The economics of household solid waste generation and
disposal”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 215-234.

Nestor, D.V. and Podolsky, M.J. (1996), “The demand for solid waste disposal: comment”, Land
Economics, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 129-131.
Strathman, J.G., Rufolo, A.M. and Mildner, G.C.S. (1995), “The demand for solid waste disposal”, Land
Economics, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 57-64.

Corresponding author
Tai Ming Wut can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j