Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

Behavioral aspects of solid waste management: A

systematic review

Sumana Jagadeshi Raghu & Lewlyn L.R. Rodrigues

To cite this article: Sumana Jagadeshi Raghu & Lewlyn L.R. Rodrigues (2020): Behavioral
aspects of solid waste management: A systematic review, Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association, DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2020.1823524

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2020.1823524

Published online: 29 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 55

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2020.1823524

REVIEW PAPER

Behavioral aspects of solid waste management: A systematic review

Sumana Jagadeshi Raghu and Lewlyn L.R. Rodrigues
Humanities and Management Department, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India

ABSTRACT PAPER HISTORY

Over the past three decades, research on the established linkages between solid waste manage­ Received August 5, 2019
ment and psychological models has progressed rapidly. This informs statutory bodies that wish to Revised September 2, 2020
design an effective solid waste management system. To further address this crucial task, this paper Accepted September 2, 2020
examined the existing literature on behavioral approaches applied to the study of solid waste.
Through a systematic literature review approach, we identified, analyzed, and synthesized available
literature across various geographical regions. Based on an analysis of 80 articles, we found that
high-income countries (61%) are overrepresented in the existing literature, in which the USA (44%)
has contributed the most. Most articles targeted recycling behavior (59%) by applying individual
behavior theories (90%), in which the theory of planned behavior was widely tested (46%). In
addition, 65% of the articles conducted model testing and 51% conducted empirical studies,
revealing a dearth of evaluation studies in the literature. Cluster analyses revealed that psycholo­
gical factors, comprising 34 variables, were extensively used, allowing future researchers to explore
relevant variables from inter-disciplinary domains by adopting a pragmatic paradigm approach. In
summary, this review identified four research gaps, recommended paths for future research, and
concluded by highlighting the need of investigating social elements to tackle solid waste issues.
Implications: The systematic review presented in this paper is an original contribution to the
aforementioned body of knowledge. It makes the case for more researchers, teachers, and students
to undertake behavioral projects, thus creating awareness among citizens to participate in waste
management activities. The research gaps identified here also highlight the scope for future studies
in under-explored areas and in the implementation of pro-environmental models to build a clean
and green environment. Furthermore, the findings facilitate the formulation of pro-environmental
laws, regulations, and policies in developing countries, where there is a higher need for strict
environmental regulations focused on sustainability.

Introduction
Technological advancement, economic growth, and urbani­
zation have resulted in an exponential increase in waste
quantities, creating significant health and safety hazards
globally. The change in patterns of industrialization and
consumer-based lifestyles have led to a dramatic increase in
the quality and quantity of solid waste (SW), affecting our
environment substantially. Several studies have highlighted
that SW is mainly an urban affair (Oabaldiston anf Schott
2012: Sharholy et al. 2008; Stancu, Haugaard, and Liisa 2016;
Swaim et al. 2014): as the process of global urbanization
continues unabated, the combination of increasing living
standards, insufficient infrastructure, and a lack of adequate
sanitation facilities has overburdened the SW disposal sys­
tem, causing a series of environmental ramifications. The
World Health Organization reported that, in 1900, the world
had 220 million urban residents who produced fewer than
300,000 tons of SW per day (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata
2012); and, in 2000, 2.9 billion people lived in cities (49% of
the world’s population) and generated 3 million tons of SW
per day. The World Bank estimated that, by 2025, the
amount of SW generated globally would increase from
1.3 billion tons to 2.2 billion tons per year. In addition, the
waste produced by metropolitan cities in developing regions
is extremely high, with Asia alone generating 790 million
tons of waste (Pappu, Saxena, and Asolekar 2007) – four
times the amount of SW it generated in 1997. These alarming
statistics have prompted scientists from several countries to
research effective SW management (SWM) strategies to
achieve a sustainable ecosystem.
Most studies conducted in this field have focused on
aspects of waste generation (Alwaeli 2015), waste disposal
(Arıkan, Şimşit-Kalender, and Vayvay 2017), waste compo­
sition (Karak, Bhagat, and Bhattacharyya 2012), waste man­
agement (Kamaruddin et al. 2017), efficiency of
municipalities (Guerrero, Maas, and Hogland 2013), tech­
nology (Urena et al. 2012), environmental sustainability
(Menikpura et al. 2013), socio-economic conditions

CONTACT Sumana Jagadeshi Raghu sumana.jagadeshi@gmail.com Humanities and Management Department, Manipal Institute of Technology,
Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karkala Road, Manipal – 571604, Udupi, Karnataka, India.
© 2020 A&WMA
2 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES
(Gordon-Wilson and Modi 2015), legal and policy implica­
tions (Moh and Manaf 2014), and stakeholders’ role (Soltani
et al. 2015). These studies discussed mitigation of garbage
issues and provided solutions to SW problems using a top-
down approach in situations in which the waste had already
been generated. However, waste is not produced in a vacuum
(Hargreaves 2011); it is generated owing to human needs and
desires in diverse scenarios (Stern 2000). The chain of waste
generation, consumption, and disposal is under the volitional
control of an individual who makes a conscious decision
about waste production or waste reduction. Therefore, it is
appropriate to adopt a root-cause analysis approach of envir­
onmental psychology and examine the interconnected nat­
ure of waste behaviors and their antecedents to reach a zero-
waste goal. Exploring SWM behavior (SWMB) is imperative
at this stage of globalization because the physical and social
factors of competitive trade between countries have created
great environmental risks.
Many studies have discussed the SWMB models that estab­
lish linkages between SWM and psychological models.
Although most of these studies offer similar assessments of
SW issues, all studies have reported different findings. Further,
several studies have adopted diverse theories, research frame­
works, tools, and techniques to test the antecedents of SWMB.
Some studies have even utilized concepts from fields other than
psychology, such as consumer culture (Izagirre-Olaizola,
Fernández-Sainz, and Vicente-Molina 2015), agriculture
(Wang et al. 2018), biomass (Miafodzyeva and Brandt 2013),
and economics and finance (Cecere, Mancinelli, and Mazzanti
2014). These attempts to comprehend SWMB concepts,
research methodology, and theories have led to theoretical
fragmentation and methodological inconsistencies. Moreover,
most studies appear one-dimensional in nature, which is pro­
blematic since SWM is a multi-faceted issue affecting various
levels of environment and society. The behavior that facilitates
or impedes effective SWM among individuals requires a deeper
understanding. In this context, it is vital to understand existing
research on the theoretical frameworks that have contributed to
addressing waste issues.
Therefore, this paper presents a systematic literature review
(SLR) to answer specific behavioral questions within the
domain of SWM. SLRs differ from other types of reviews by
adopting a replicable, logical, and transparent process. The focus
is on minimizing bias through an exhaustive method to identify
extant published and unpublished research and then critically
analyze and synthesize the literature to arrive at relevant proce­
dures, decisions, and conclusions (Cook, Mulrow, and Brian
Haynes 1997). Since progressive research depends upon past
studies as well as on attempts to explore the strengths and
weaknesses of experimental methods adopted in them, an
SLR acts as a guide to the current knowledge within the domain
of interest. Thus, we present this paper to identify and review
studies that have contributed to mitigating SWM problems by
adding to the body of knowledge within environmental
protection.
Background
The most persisting avenue of research in SWM has explored
the influence of cognitive, sociological, and psychological vari­
ables on environmental behavior. Several studies have exam­
ined the determinants of SWMB: waste separation (Ghani et al.
2013; Pakpour et al. 2014), recycling (Arı and Yılmaz 2016;
Mahmud, Diyana, and Osman 2010), waste minimization
(Radwan, Jones, and Minoli 2012), composting (Tih and
Zainol 2012), waste prevention (Bortoleto, Kurisu, and
Hanaki 2012; Stefan et al. 2008), social influences on the indi­
vidual (Comber and Thieme 2013; Jones et al. 2010; Young et al.
2017), food separation (Mondéjar-Jiménez et al. 2016), and
socio-economic characteristics of the environmental movement
(Afroz et al., 2011; Swami et al. 2011). Traditionally, behavioral
scientists have focused on theoretical frameworks and related
methodologies to explore the antecedents of environmental
behavior, which is considered an integrated and inter-
disciplinary facet of environmental psychology (Vining and
Ebreo 2002). Thus, there are clear advantages to applying
psychological theories to pro-environmental behaviors.
According to Darley and Gilbert (1985), environmental
psychology is characterized by “mid-range theories” that aim
to provide solutions for a wide range of socio-economic and
environmental problems. Thus, there has been an increasing
focus on interventions that investigate the parameters of beha­
vior and its change. The Medical Research Council (2000)
mentions three phases of developing and evaluating complex
interventions: (i) the theory phase (collection of evidence, for­
mation of theory, and conceptual model development), (ii) the
modeling phase (hypothesis formation and testing of target
behavior through different research techniques), and (iii) the
experimental phase (conducting trials and experiments and
obtaining results). The theory phase is important because it
provides a framework to understand the causal determinants of
behavior (Eastman and Marzillier 1984; Schwartz 1968). It
provides a mechanism that can be tested and evaluated to
accomplish research objectives. Moreover, theory-based evalua­
tions and analysis aid in understanding what works and how
a situation could be improved by strengthening theory, across
various ethnic backgrounds, diverse geographic regions, and
different socio-economic conditions. Theory also provides
a consolidated outline of the hypothesized causal processes of
a particular behavior. Hence, theory-based studies are useful in
understanding behavioral parameters by adopting an explicit
causal pathway (Michie and Abraham 2004) and enabling the
researcher to avoid implicit causal assumptions that may lack
scientific evidence and evaluation.
In the context of SWM, there is an association
between past behaviors and the status of the

environment (Sommer 2011). Without a theoretical
basis, even an extensive literature review of behavioral
interventions may not provide adequate guidance
(Marteau et al. 2006) on how to frame a research design
intervention for this global problem. Therefore, rather
than reviewing SWMB literature, we examined social
science theories relevant to this topic. We presented
research constructs from these theories and studies
that stand as examples of how they were applied to
SWMB. We then investigated additional relevant
approaches that could be used to study the behavioral
aspects of SWM.
Theories of behavior and behavior change
The importance of understanding theories and their advantages
has been highlighted by earlier researchers who suggested the
adoption of combined behavior change techniques within inter­
ventions to allow synergistic effects and enhance their effective­
ness (1999; Davis et al. 2015; Mitchell and Biglan 1971).
However, choosing a relevant theory can be challenging for
researchers given the many theories within behavioral psychol­
ogy and their similar or overlapping constructs (Michie and
Abraham 2004). In addition, there is a lack of guidance in
choosing an appropriate theory for a particular purpose, such
as intervening the behavioral patterns of SWM.
Earlier studies have highlighted that theories may be applied
to environmental and behavior change interventions, which
generally emphasized individual and inter-personal relation­
ships within society and the environment. Moreover, these
theories often concluded that interventions are more effective
when variables are targeted at different levels (Davis et al. 2014),
such as individuals, communities, specific groups, and societies.
They also stressed the benefits of considering a wide range of
theories for reviewing a specific discipline, before the selection of
a particular theory (Marx and Cronan-Hillix 1987). Thus, to
improve the selection and application of theory, we need to
consider those theories that may be beneficial in tackling specific
questions within a particular discipline. In addition, by compre­
hending various theories, we can assess what theories may have
potential applicability regarding environmental behavior and
public health.
SWMB is an environmental sustainability issue that affects
the quality of citizens’ surroundings, health, social well-being,
economic status, and lifestyle. It is also a dynamic discipline
encompassing cutting-edge technologies, techniques, methods,
and processes. Considering all these factors, we undertook an
elaborate review of theories within behavioral sciences, sociol­
ogy, psychology, technology, and anthropology. We categorized
theories as individual behavior theories, social behavior theories,
and technology behavior theories. The scoping review exercise
fundamentally aimed to address the following question: “What
theories exist across the disciplines of behavioral sciences,
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 3
sociology, psychology, technology, and anthropology that
could be used as predictive tools to examine SWMB among
citizens?” Thus, we examined the efficiency of those frame­
works that promote environmental sustainability via behavioral
changes.
Individual behavior theories
This category presents a set of theories that aid in under­
standing the nature and causes of individual WM beha­
vior (IWMB) issues. It focused on human behavior and
changes influenced by the social context.
Health belief model (HBM)
The HBM was originally developed during the 1950s as
a cognitive framework to explain beliefs and threats regarding
individual well-being and the effectiveness and outcomes of
particular behaviors (Rosenstock 1974). It is an intervention
model that has been applied in the behavioral analysis of pro-
environment, resource conservation, and WM. Earlier research
revealed similarities between behavior toward maintaining
good health and behavior toward natural resource conservation,
which suggests they may be related (Janz and Becker 1984).
Both constitute volitional behavior performed to prevent nega­
tive states, poor health, and environmental degradation. Thus,
psychologists have used the HBM to predict patterns of IWMB.
Lindsay and Strathman (1997) applied the HBM to study
citizens’ recycling behavioral patterns. Their results were con­
sistent with HBM – as perceived threats, probability of negative
consequences, and self-efficacy were positively related to recy­
cling behavior.
Although the HBM provides a useful framework for beha­
vioral findings in the literature, the relationships between cog­
nitive factors are not well explained. Jackson and Waters (2005)
argue that the model is inadequate to explain human behavior
owing to its insufficient attention to social norms and habitual
factors. Moreover, Lindsay and Strathman (1997) stressed the
importance of including variables such as social norms, which
may prove useful in understanding SWMB.
Learning theory (LT)
In behavioral psychology, LT describes how individuals
absorb, process, and retain knowledge, as well as the
actions they exhibit during learning. According to LT,
individual behavior is a learning process influenced by
reward (such as lottery tickets, prizes, money, incentives,
and coupons) or punishment (e.g., penalties or fines;
Geller 1989). Thus, LT postulates that individuals behave
pro-environmentally when they are exposed to environ­
mental stimuli that serve as facilitators of target behaviors.
Behaviorists argue that external factors have a significant
influence on individual behavior (Diamond and Loewy
1991; Katzev and Johnson 1987; Katzev and Pardini
4 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES
1988). In that context, Needleman and Scott Geller (1992)
found that a recycling rewards program could prompt
changes in individual behavior. Similarly, Wang and
Katzev (1990) reported a significant improvement in
paper recycling when incentives were introduced.
The approach of LT in establishing extrinsic motiva­
tion as the sole criterion for behavioral modification has
drawn some criticism. Although extrinsic motivation is
helpful for short-term behavioral goals, it is not a viable
option for long-term behavioral goals (Schultz, Oskamp,
and Mainieri 1995). This is because rewards are tempor­
ary and become obsolete as time goes by. Participants
may lose interest after the termination of incentives, thus
undoing any changes in behavior. In addition, not every­
one would be attracted to an SWM reward program, and
exploring a person’s environmental behavior from the
standpoint of materialism may not be a feasible solution
since SWMB is altruistic by nature. Thus, other ways of
comprehending intrinsic motivational factors according
to eco-friendly morals, values, attitudes, beliefs, and
intentions should be emphasized by LT behaviorists.
Motivation crowding theory (MCT)
MCT, postulated in opposition to LT, posits that external
incentives may affect the strength of an individual’s internal
motivation for pro-social behavior (Frey and Jegen 2001). MCT
is viewed by psychologists as relevant because external reward
schemes and policy interactions may make certain policies less
effective (crowd out) and others more effective (crowding in).
Thus, MCT highlights that a person of high intrinsic motivation
who does not expect external rewards will behave pro-
environmentally. To evaluate this theory, Cecere, Mancinelli,
and Mazzanti (2014) conducted a study of 27 European coun­
tries to explore the association between the role of motivation
and waste prevention. They reported that individual intrinsic
motivation led to waste reduction. Comparative collaborative
research from 10 European countries, Australia, Canada, and
Korea, which examined the role of policy incentives and norms
in recycling behavior, reported that monetary incentives had
a negative impact on motivating individual pro-environmental
behavior (Halvorsen 2012).
Environmental instruments play a major role in
encouraging safe and eco-friendly waste disposal pat­
terns among citizens. Deci and Ryan (1985) found that
external rewards hinder behavioral performance, redu­
cing intrinsic motivation. In the case of SWM, higher
subsidies, tax punishments, and an incompatible gar­
bage fee system may reduce individual intrinsic motiva­
tion, leading to crowding-out effects. In addition,
crowding out is more evident when a monetary element
is introduced (Bowles 2008; Thøgersen and Folke 2003)
since citizens may indulge in SWM activities to derive
pleasure and satisfaction. Hence, the negative effect of an
external intervention may affect the norms of an indivi­
dual; thus, the hypothesis of MCT is questionable.
Additional studies that evaluate and establish the useful­
ness of MCT in the context of SWM are required.
Norm activation theory (NAT)
NAT, derived from LT, describes the process and significance of
examining altruistic behavior in the context of environmental
protection. It endorses the idea that social norms are developed
owing to the interactions of individuals within society and that
personal norms develop from their moral obligations, guilt, and
pride. According to Schwartz (1977), norms are activated when
two conditions are met: when people believe that their negative
actions have hazardous repercussions on the environment
(awareness of consequences), and when they are personally
responsible for the ecological crisis (ascribed responsibility).
NAT is a widely accepted model in environmental psychology,
which emphasizes that the activation of personal norms takes
place when individuals feel that their quality of life, health, and
community well-being are threatened. Matthies, Selge, and
Klöckner (2012) used the NAT model to explore the role of
parental behavior and investigate the development of recycling
and reuse habits among children. They concluded that envir­
onmental knowledge and awareness played a major role in
establishing personal norms among children. Behavioral strate­
gists have expressed the practical desire to expand SWM parti­
cipation among residents and have argued that people
sometimes act because their personal norms override social
norms. In that context, Hopper and McCarl Nielsen (1991)
explored the transformation process of norms; they argued that
personal norms have a positive association with recycling beha­
vior when awareness of consequences was high. The authors
also reported that social norms could significantly transform
a non-recycler into a recycler if an intervention took place.
Though social norms are relevant in predicting altruistic beha­
vior at a structural level, Oreg and Katz-Gerro (2006) claim that
pro-environmental behavior results from a set of beliefs that are
under threat and that actions resulting from those beliefs relieve
threat and reinstate personal values.
Although NAT is a well-recognized model, research­
ers have criticized it as a non-predictor of behavior since
people do not always report their norms (Darley and
Latane 1970). Further, the functions of pride and guilt,
and their association with NAT, are not well under­
stood. For instance, a non-working individual who
always separates kitchen waste does not necessarily sepa­
rate it owing to pride or guilt; he/she may separate
kitchen waste to make better use of organic waste. In
this case, personal norms are activated purely owing to
economic factors. Similarly, a pro-environmental trave­
ler may be forced to dispose of waste on the roadside
owing to the non-provision of trash bins. Thus, norms
may not always be useful in assessing behavior.

Self-determination theory (SDT)
SDT explains two main types of human motivation:
intrinsic and extrinsic. SDT sources these motivations
within a broad description of their roles in the field of
cognitive psychology and proposes that the mind med­
iates individual behavior (Ryan and Deci 2000).
Skinner and Chi (2012) examined student motivation and
engagement in garden-based school programs, revealing that
autonomy, competence, and intrinsic motivation had
a significant role in garden learning methods. SDT, unlike LT,
posits that intrinsic motivation is a potential predictor of human
behavior. However, intrinsic motivation represents the internal
characteristics of a person and is subjected to external stimuli. In
the case of SWM, the core concepts of SDT – autonomy,
competence, and relatedness – are not sufficient to predict the
role of motivation (Thøgersen and Folke 2003). For instance,
a person walking on the road might see a poster of a child with
a skin disease owing to unhealthy waste disposal methods, and
this may motivate them to separate waste. Hence, other external
elements such as community groups; opportunities; conveni­
ence factors; provision of WM maps; WM hoardings; and
internal potential elements such as environmental knowledge,
feel-good factors, heritage, tradition, and culture may play a vital
role in defining motivation. As existent literature lacks empirical
examination, more cross-cultural studies are needed to reiterate
the concepts of SDT.
Self-efficacy theory (SET)
SET posits that actions are determined primarily by individual
judgments and expectations of outcomes, and the opportunity
to successfully master a skill or cope with a given situation to
produce positive results in attaining a goal. According to
Bandura and Schunk (1981), people process and weigh various
sources of information regarding their ability to manage their
behavior. Thus, SET conceptualizes that individuals are capable
of self-regulation and of being active participants in environ­
mental protection. Although researchers have not tested this
theory, the concept of self-efficacy is incorporated in household
WM such as garbage reduction (Taylor and Todd 1995), waste
prevention (Karbalaei et al. 2013), composting (Taylor and
Todd 1997), WM participation (Åberg et al. 1996), and recy­
cling (Chu and Chiu 2003; De Young 1986; Seacat and
Northrup 2010; Thøgersen, 2003). Furthermore, Geller (1995)
proposed an altruistic behavior framework – the “actively caring
model” – and included self-efficacy as an important part of
environmental empowerment among the public.
Although Bandura (1977) claims SET is a unifying theory, it
has drawn criticisms for being unclear about the differential
concepts of self-efficacy. Some researchers claim the conceptual
framework is unclear, as the association between self-efficacy
and outcome expectations is problematic (Eastman and
Marzillier 1984; Teasdale 1978). This is because the outcome
expectation varies across tasks and situations for each person.
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 5
Some researchers noted that individuals with high self-efficacy
can become over-confident and may set themselves up for
failure in a particular task (Teresa and Ormron 2008).
Furthermore, in a complex problem like SWM, potential out­
comes are far more complex. For example, if a person who
believes that recycling helps improve environmental quality
cannot find a way to do so because office authorities have not
provided recycling bins, he/she may dispose of all items in the
common bin. Hence, high individual self-efficacy may not
guarantee positive outcomes.
Self-regulation theory (SRT)
SRT primarily focuses on controlling the ability of an individual
to exhibit a behavior through self-evaluation, motivation, and
modification of emotions and perceptions of those behaviors.
According to SRT, individuals who resist mundane tasks will
create ways to make their tasks more interesting and positive.
To date, only two studies have applied this theory to SWM.
Werner and Makela (1998) applied this model to the study of
recycling behavior and found that, although residents found
SWM to be an uninteresting task, they continued recycling for
personal and societal benefit by adopting creative ways of
engagement. Zimmerman (1989) conducted a quantitative
study and concluded that individuals should find a way to
organize themselves to support recycling behavior.
Although SRT offers a powerful psychological tool for
controlling and altering behaviors, it has a major limita­
tion of operationalization, since it comprises a set of
functions, decision processes, constant monitoring, and
cognitive approaches that are debated among research­
ers. Higgins (1996) asserted that consecutive self-
regulation processes deplete further regulation, making
individuals act unfavorably in certain situations. In addi­
tion, certain behaviors cannot be controlled as they are
beyond conscious control, stemming from irresistible
impulses. For example, some people indicate they
spend too much time and money on clothes and perso­
nal items simply because they cannot resist shopping.
Thus, there is debate concerning the extent that self-
regulation can be established as a main factor of SWM.
Theory of reasoned action (TRA)
TRA posits that behavioral performance can be best
predicted from an individual’s intention or willingness
(e.g., “I intend to separate waste before disposal”),
which is the most immediate and significant predictor
of that behavior (Ajzen 1985, 1991). According to TRA,
intention is determined by two independent compo­
nents: (1) attitude and (2) subjective norms (SNs).
Environmental psychologists have studied the relation­
ship between attitude, intention, and SNs regarding
waste behaviors. Goldenhar and Connell (1993) con­
ducted a test on the TRA model and emphasized that
6 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES
TRA is a rational decision-making model since socially
relevant recycling behaviors are under individuals’ voli­
tional control. Similarly, Jones (1989) studied the deter­
minants of recycling behavior and concluded that
intention is the immediate antecedent of behavior
since the individual considers the implications of
actions before engaging in recycling activities. In addi­
tion, support for SNs has been seen as relatively weak
by some researchers (Ajzen 1991; Taylor and Todd
1997; Terry and Hogg 1996). Thøgersen (1994) inte­
grated some variables with the TRA model and con­
cluded that ability and opportunity significantly
influence intention. However, a positive attitude had
a significant influence on waste separation behavior, in
comparison with intention Thøgersen (1994). TRA has
been extensively studied and has received support from
various researchers (Ajzen 1991, 2005).
While applying TRA to predict behavior, it has been argued
that intention cannot be the immediate determinant as there is
a gap between measured intention-behavior and actual inten­
tion-behavior. While explaining variance in behavior, several
meta-analyses question the predictability power of this model,
since TRA can only predict behavior 19–38% of the time
(Sutton 1998). Further, Couraeya and Edward (1993) addressed
the unpredictability of Likert-type scale results while imple­
menting this model for repeated behaviors. Behaviors such as
recycling, reusing, and waste composting are monotonous and
simply cannot be exhibited at the will of an individual. Skills,
resources, suitable planning, and convenience can directly influ­
ence a person’s will. In such contexts, intention may act as
a mediating factor, while other parameters may directly influ­
ence behavior. These barriers specifically apply to contexts
where poor infrastructures, shortage of government funds,
and lack of resources exist. Hence, lack of exploring more
parameters could be one of the reasons for the less predictable
nature of TRA.
Theory of planned behavior (TPB)
TPB is a continuation of the TRA model, intended to improve
its predictive power with the addition of a new determinant
factor: perceived behavioral control (PBC). Similar to TRA,
TPB hypothesizes that behavioral intention is the immediate
antecedent of behavior. Researchers have highlighted that the
type of individual behavior (Davis et al. 2006; Sheeran 2002)
governs the degree of intention-behavior stability; therefore, for
an intention to be translated into action, some degree of beha­
vioral control (or control factors like knowledge, awareness, and
resources) is a pre-requisite. This control is integrated as PBC by
Ajzen (1991). TPB establishes PBC as a second determinant and
posits that PBC produces mediating effects on behavior. Ajzen
(2005) suggests that the addition of more variables to TPB may
increase its predictive power of behavioral antecedents. The
transition from goal intention to implementation intention is
cognitive in nature; hence, behavioral intention is guided by
control beliefs such as the perceived difficulty of performing
a behavior and the perceived power of one’s research constructs
to complete a task (e.g., “waste separation is easy for me;” Ajzen
2005). Zhang et al. (2012) conducted a study at a public uni­
versity of Hong Kong and found that attitude, SNs, and PBC
were significantly associated with intention. Those findings
were consistent with Cheung, Chan, and Wong (1999), who
revealed that variables such as awareness of consequences and
convenience factors play an important role in intention.
Ramayah, Wai Chow Lee, and Mohamad (2010) examined
recycling behavior among students and found that attitude and
social norms were positively associated with behavior. In addi­
tion, to understand the significance of environmental awareness
on attitude, Chu and Chiu (2003) conducted a test on TPB to
understand the behavioral determinants of recycling. They
found that SWMB was influenced positively by intention;
however, SNs, PBC, and attitude were weakly associated with
behavior. Those findings were inconsistent with those of Taylor
and Todd (1995), in which attitude was the strongest determi­
nant factor of intention.
According to TPB, the more favorable the attitude, SNs, and
PBC, the stronger is the relationship between intention and
behavior. However, this thesis has varied significantly across
several studies. Moreover, considering the role of each variable
across different population groups and behaviors, the combina­
tion of all three components does not necessarily predict inten­
tion-behavior, as only one or two variables may be required;
thus, their relative importance remains unclear. Sutton (1998)
conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of TRA
and TPB and concluded that both models do not always predict
behavior owing to nine possible reasons. Researchers argued
that TPB applies to logical behavior and does not address group
behaviors (Bagozzi, Dholakia, and Mookerjee 2006) such as
recycling rallies, SWM debates and community gatherings, and
their influence on the individual. Manstead (1999) argued that
TPB has overlooked moral concerns. Similarly, Harland, Staats,
and Wilke (1999) reported that the inclusion of moral norms
increased the variance proportion of intention from 1% to 10%.
However, evidence shows that moral norms are not predictive
variables since they are represented within the attitudes of an
individual (Kaiser et al., 2005). Although questions and chal­
lenges have led to improvements in the model, the predictive
power of this model is of limited scope since it ignores emo­
tional components, such as environmental threats, sustainability
fear, and recycling satisfaction that set the tone for cognitive
reactions.
Value belief norm (VBN) theory
VBN theory, an integrated model of Schwartz’s NAT
model, establishes a link between individual values,
beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. VBN theory assumes

that environmental values guide actions in developing
beliefs and play a key role in attitude formation (Stern
2000). In the process of behavior formation, a person’s
beliefs act as a mediator between attitude and values
(Daneshvary, Daneshvary, and Keith Schwer 1998),
leading toward behavior. Therefore, someone who
values the reuse of items above their desire to buy new
things may not compromise on environmental values,
since they accept the information that reusing methods
reduce stress on the environment and they support the
belief that unnecessary waste disposal is environmen­
tally harmful. Finally, according to VBN theory, value
orientation contributes to moral norms; thus, indivi­
duals who possess environmentally conscious beliefs
and an awareness of the consequences of pollution,
and feel responsible in this process, behave in an eco-
friendly manner for the benefit of themselves and others.
The key concept of VBN theory is the relationship between
values and behavior. Researchers have conducted studies on
SWM by focusing on waste separation (Daneshvary,
Daneshvary, and Keith Schwer 1998; Izagirre-Olaizola,
Fernández-Sainz, and Vicente-Molina 2015) and waste mini­
mization behavior (Xu et al. 2017). A study conducted in
Sweden by Nordlund and Garvill (2002), which explored envir­
onmental behavior among householders, reported that personal
norms mediated general values and environmental values. The
same study concluded that personal norms are activated by
public awareness, since awareness triggers guilt, self-respect, and
self-accomplishment, thus allowing the public to develop pro-
environmental values. To understand the waste generation
patterns among American students, McCarty and Shrum
(1994) hypothesized that attitude and beliefs mediate values
and recycling behaviors. They found that beliefs about recycling
were non-significantly associated with recycling behavior; how­
ever, inconvenience had a significant impact on recycling
behavior.
Typically, just like TPB, a major limitation associated with
VBN theory is that it performs poorly for repeated behaviors.
This is because behaviors which demand repetition – influenced
by intention – become weaker and weaker (Klöckner &
Oppedal 2011), whereas the influence of habit – which tends
to occur subconsciously – can affect individuals’ behavioral
patterns (Stern 2000; Verplanken and Aarts 1999). Additional
empirical studies should explore causal variables and their
interaction effects, which may have explanatory powers to
predict SWMB among citizens.
Social behavior theories
Social scientists argue that there is a link between society and
IWMB; thus, social influence (Twigger-Ross, Bonaiuto, and
Breakwell 2003) has a major role in SWMB. As such, SWMB
is a complex and challenging socio-environmental issue that
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 7
demands a multitude of cognitive approaches. This section
discusses related theories in sociology.
Rational choice theory (RCT)
In RCT, mere imitational influence from other individuals is
not a social action – it is a rational choice of a person through
careful and logical consideration of their own acts (Cockerham,
Abel, and Günther 1993). Roth and Weber (1976) believe that
every action has meaning, and that action without thinking
cannot be considered a social action. They endorse the view that
rational action is the key concept of RCT and identify three
distinguishable factors to explain actions: (1) long-standing
traditions, which influence a person’s judgment when they
perform a task (e.g., handing down baby clothes between family
members); (2) the emotional state of an individual, which can
be characterized by love, hatred, sympathy, or compassion (e.g.,
compassionate feelings toward other beings cultivate eco-
friendly waste disposal habits); and (3) personal values and
actions rationally influencing SWMB (e.g., the belief that
waste reduction is a moral obligation to conserve natural
resources). In the context of SWM, where individual actions
play a vital role, RCT explains the interconnection between
emotions and rationality of an individual within society.
Theorists argue that RCT ignores the wider social struc­
ture by providing importance to subjective cases (Boudon
and Viale 2000). Since subjective cases yield bias and ima­
ginary results, the applicability of this theory in a larger
context has been subject to debate. However, since waste is
generated by individuals, and their behavior counts toward
ecological preservation, environmental psychologists do
not consider the subjective focus of RCT as a limitation
(Yau 2010). RCT assumes that every action is rational in
nature; however, we argue against this. For instance, some
individuals feel relaxed when they undertake waste com­
posting, others when stitching reused, and some may attend
community meetings as a pastime. Hence, not all actions
stem from logical thinking. Furthermore, this theory fails to
explain the role of social norms that motivate some indivi­
duals to act in an altruistic way.
Social cognitive theory (SCT)
SCT is a learning-based theory that states that continuous
social learning complements real-life experience and that
people learn and behave by observing others in society
(Bandura 1977). Conceptualizing that social interactions
can influence a person’s thoughts, feelings, goals, and beha­
viors. Social scientists have argued that behavioral change of
a person is possible when a person can be both an agent for
change and a responder for change (Phipps et al. 2013).
Haldeman and Turner (2009) conducted a study to inves­
tigate the effectiveness of a social marketing program within
a community to increase the recycling rate. They applied
a mixed-methods approach by distributing recycling
8 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES
containers to householders; data were collected through
focus-group interviews and telephone surveys. They
revealed a 24% increase in the weight of recyclable materials
and concluded that face-to-face contact and distribution of
recycling containers had a positive impact on recycling
rates. Moreover, their results highlighted that observational
learning impacts public recycling behavior. Another study
by Lin and Hsu (2015) in Taiwan found that self-concepts,
personal outcome expectations, and social sanction were
significantly associated with the transition into eco-friendly
waste disposal.
SCT states that humans learn and make decisions based
on rational thought and there is no room for emotions
(Nabi et al. 2008; Rhee and Waldman 2002). According to
this theory, although a learning process may motivate
individuals to recycle, antisocial behaviors (e.g., littering
in public places, throwing stones on environmental
hoardings, and damaging public bins and municipal
offices) are the result of emotional responses determined
by evolution (Rhee and Waldman 2002). Thus, mere
observation and learning cannot explain a particular beha­
vior (Labuhn, Zimmerman, and Hasselhorn 2010; Pinker
2010). Thus, pro-environmental behavior is a complex
interactive process with social, motivational, behavioral,
and emotional components. To learn a new behavior, an
individual’s self-interest, awareness, and knowledge
become vital to self-control. What we can learn from this
theory is that observation and learning processes are more
than the psychological functioning of knowledge and skill.
Social practice theory (SPT)
SPT is one of the most popular sociological and anthro­
pological theories (Holland and Lave 2009). According to
SPT, practice is a routinized type of behavior that is the
culmination of several physical and mental activities
(Reckwitz 2002). Thus, SPT is an umbrella approach
under which various theories are pursued and in which
practice itself (rather than individuals within social struc­
tures) becomes the core unit of analysis. In this view, SWM
activities are not perceived as the result of psychological
factors; rather, they are owing to social practices embedded
within individuals’ behaviors (Warde 2005). SPT thus
diverts attention from individuals’ rational choice of
“doing” various social practices to “choices” of individuals,
emphasizing why certain practices are produced/repro­
duced, prevented, or cultivated. Therefore, SPT recognizes
the role of social practices in accomplishing tasks (Shove
2010). According to Reckwitz (2002), SPT provides
a plethora of new routes for exploring sustainable behaviors
related to social order and human action. SPT has been
applied to general environmental behavioral studies, such
as climate change, sustainability, and energy conservation;
however, the association between SPT and SWM remains
unexplored. Nonetheless, research into the interaction
between social practices and material contexts (emphasized
by SPT) has allowed psychologists to explore the role of
individual psychological elements in specific social
practices.
SWM is often considered an uninteresting routine that
demands lifetime discipline, which leads some to see SWM
as an irritating and boring affair. For a habitual practice to
develop in an individual, certain internal parameters and
external infrastructures are required to stimulate and
strengthen safe disposal practices. Furthermore, most prac­
tices become habits because of personal experience; e.g.,
when an individual makes a habit of disposing of dry and
wet waste separately after having dengue fever, or a parent
reusing cotton clothes as diapers if their baby has developed
rashes in the past. SPT focuses on social structure but fails to
describe the origin of social practices and their antecedents
within individuals. Hence, in future research, a holistic
approach might be useful to identify the antecedents of
the social practices of an individual.
Technology behavior theories
Our time is characterized by scientific innovation and
technological advancement. Staying updated with the
latest technological advances and keeping a positive atti­
tude toward SWM are essential to improve our environ­
ment. According to Tomlinson (2012), citizens should
adopt new technologies to attain environmental sustain­
ability. Regarding waste reduction, information technol­
ogies will be a useful tool in the future.
Diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory
DOI theory is a widely accepted model that describes how,
why, and at what rate new technologies spread within
a social system. The focus of DOI theory is to explore the
communication process of spreading information and the
time it takes individuals to adopt new technologies, char­
acterizing innovation as a mediating factor of behavior.
Rogers (2002) defines innovation as an idea or practice
that is perceived and adopted as new by individuals through
several stages. The principal method of innovation diffu­
sion is communication. Few researchers have acknowl­
edged the role of technology in WM and applied this
model to test the diffusion of SWM policies and programs
among citizens. Chen and Chang (2010) researched the
effect of DOI theory on recycling methods. They found
that environmental policy and diffusion effects had
a significant impact on SWM, which led to the accelerating
process of recycling among Taiwanese people.
DOI theory may have applicability in places with
adequate infrastructure to promote and adopt new tech­
nologies. However, societies deprived of basic needs

cannot access new technologies. Furthermore, many of
the elements of DOI theory are more suitable for
Western nations and less relevant to developing coun­
tries. These economic and socio-cultural differences
between societies act as a barrier to apply this model
globally. DOI theory is more of a business model and
hence utilized more in management, technology, and
economic innovation (Salhofer et al., 2008). However,
specific behaviors such as waste separation depend on
psychological factors, resources, and social systems,
which are not addressed by DOI theory. Furthermore,
when government bodies initiate innovations and pro­
grams, diffusion of external elements may not be uni­
form owing to physical and social factors that may
influence the flow of innovation among citizens. Since
social norms and the rate of acceptance within society
determine innovation, the application of this model in
developing countries cannot be generalized.
Technology acceptance model (TAM)
TAM, derived from TRA, is one of the most widely accepted
models in predicting user adoption of information systems.
Davis (1989) and Venkatesh and Davis (2000) considered
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use to be the two
primary determinants which determine technology adoption
and actual system use.
SWM is a dynamic field that seeks transformation
through technology, tools, and techniques in improving
recycling rates, automated waste collection, composting
methods, and landfill modernization. The success of
these technologies depends on individuals who accept
or reject them. SWMB studies that apply this model are
lacking. In the context of SWM, this model is not
applicable to all ages and groups (e.g., elderly people
in rural areas may not understand how to use new
technologies). Furthermore, some might argue that
technology worsens the relationship between humans
and the environment. Thus, TAM application among
the general population requires further research.
Research method
We conducted an SLR to map out critical areas where
further scientific research is required. Since an SLR is
a synthesis of past research to address specific questions,
it helps researchers summarize ample evidence by
explaining differences among studies, which is a critical
objective in framing and establishing theories (Bower and
Gilbody 2005). The questions subjected to methodical
and scientific analysis in SLRs can pave the way for
further research by investigating the consistency and gen­
eralization of evidence within the field of SWM. It is also
advantageous in building hypotheses that can be
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 9
subjected to empirical investigations. Therefore, the find­
ings obtained from these research aid practical applica­
tions where future researchers can conduct more studies
to explore why some individuals participate in SWM
activities and some do not.
The following steps were undertaken during our sys­
tematic research process:
Defining research questions (RQs)
To obtain an overview of current research on the ante­
cedents of SWMB, we formulated the following
four RQs:
RQ1: What current theories contribute to the predic­
tion of SWMB?
We included behavioral theories from several fields
that could aid in investigating SWMB.
RQ2: What theory pertaining to SWMB is the most
examined in the literature?
This question was defined to investigate the most
examined theory in exploring SWMB.
RQ3: What are the focal research themes used in
SWMB studies concerning research type and
contribution?
This question explored the themes adopted in SWM
theories to identify possible research gaps.
RQ4: What variables that influence SWMB were iden­
tified by earlier researchers?
This question explored current knowledge of SWMB
aspects that might lead to the formation of a hypothesis.
Identifying keywords and search strategy
A literature search was conducted to identify the behavioral
determinants of SWM. We applied a simple search string –
“solid waste management behavior AND theories.” We iden­
tified 10 electronic databases with SWMB-specific publica­
tions, which included peer-reviewed journals. Our search
included articles published between January 1, 1968 and
May 30, 2020 from the following sources: American
Psychological Association (APA), Association of Consumer
Research, Clocks, EBSCO Host, Emerald Insight, Google
Scholar, JSTOR, Open Access Research Database, SAGE,
SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia, University of Massachusetts Press, University of
Wisconsin Press, and Wiley Online. Databases that did not
allow the search items along with Boolean operators or
databases that denied access to full articles were not included.
Although we did not limit the publication period to a ­
specified year/date, it eventually turned into January 1968
to May 2018. The selected, “Words, deeds, and the percep­
tion of consequences and responsibility in action situations”
from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
10 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES
(Schwartz 1968) was the first article selected from APA.
Similarly, the last paper, “Food waste behavior at the house­
hold level: A conceptual framework” was from the Journal of
Waste Management (Abdelradi 2018).
The search was conducted using standard filters and sensi­
tivity analysis. We accounted for diversified theories and their
complex bodies of evidence in volume and breadth. The search
was restricted to titles and abstracts to retrieve content relevant
to this research. Because our research focused on SWMB and
related theories, we conducted a separate search for each theory
related to SWM in all databases to retrieve the maximum
number of published articles. Thus, the search strategy included
three sets of search items: (1) list of theories (e.g., behavior
change theories), (2) theories and their relevance in under­
standing behavior change in general (e.g., NAT), and (3) dis­
cipline-specific terms combined with the name of a theory (e.g.,
SWM and SPT). We identified 10 theories related to individual
behavioral theories, three theories related to social behavioral
theories, and two theories related to technology behavioral
theories.
We used a wide variety of search strings for each data­
base. This is because each database is different and using
a single search string did not provide the desired results.
Hence, multiple searches were conducted with different
combinations of words and search strings. A list of search
strings and how these search items were combined is shown
in Table 1. In addition, potentially relevant behavior change
theories were searched through web searches and key infor­
mation was obtained from web-based resources such as the
National Institute of Health, USA, and Government Social
Research Unit, UK.
Selection and quality assessment
Search strings were used consecutively for selected theories.
In the first stage, 1,666 articles were retrieved. We screened
for relevant studies by title. If the title was deemed relevant,
we analyzed the abstract; at this stage, 1,229 studies were
excluded (including conferences, workshops, books, editorial
reviews, dissertations, and book reviews). Thus, articles were
narrowed to 418 relevant studies, which were further
reduced to 300. We excluded those 118 studies after checking
for repetition and similarity among multiple databases. In
the next step, inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to
each study by examining their introductions, literature
reviews, results, and conclusions. Consequently, 165 studies
were removed, and we identified 135 studies related to
SWMB aspects. These studies were subjected to quality
assessment, and 55 did not meet our specific criteria. Thus,
the sample was reduced to 80 studies (Figure 1). Discarded
articles at each stage were meticulously assessed and
recorded to uphold research quality and for documentation.
After completion of the selection process, articles were placed
into one of four categories:
(1) Descriptive articles: Those that contained the ori­
ginal description of a theory or extension of that
theory written by authors who conceived said
theory originally (primary theory sources).
(2) Intervention articles: Those that stated in their
methods that they used a particular theory to
improve SWM and measured behavior as an
outcome.
(3) Evaluative articles: Those in which a theory was
tested empirically and longitudinally.
(4) Review articles: Those that systematically reviewed
a theory by adopting a clear methodology, describ­
ing search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria,
quality assessment criteria, data extraction, data
synthesis, and results.
Inclusion criteria for theories
Theories were incorporated if they (i) met the definition of
theory and behavior; (ii) considered behavior as an outcome
(e.g., TPB); (iii) referred to individual behavior as the focal point
of a social structure (e.g., SCT); (iv) possessed a distinguished
framework that explained how systems (e.g., health, environ­
ment, and society) relate to each other in the prediction of
behavioral outcomes (e.g., HBM); (v) presented applicability
in changing behavior; and (vi) referred to implementation
values in SWM research, policy, and practice.
Inclusion criteria for articles
Articles were included if they (i) provided clear research
constructs of SWMB, using the aforementioned theories;
(ii) incorporated theories and methods for the evaluation of
behavior change interventions and measured behavior as
an outcome; (iii) tested a theory through empirical methods
by providing a clear description of sampling, instrument
development, data collection, data analysis, and reported
the results of their studies; (iv) addressed theory compar­
isons to explore behavioral outcomes regarding research
constructs; (v) addressed studies through the philosophical
aspects of SWMB; (vi) evaluated hypothetical models by
providing linkages to core models and adding variables to
the core model; (vii) tested a theory by focusing on SWMB
in the context of waste separation, composting, reduce,
reuse, and recycling; (viii) were related to theory and
SWMB strategies, practice, and policy; and (ix) criticized
or proposed solutions and presented new models or the­
ories to develop contemporary behavioral outcome models.

Table 1. Search strings and Boolean operators.
Concept
Solid waste management behavior
Behavioral change theories in behavioral sciences, psychology, Solid Waste Management Behavior AND Theories
sociology, anthropology and technology
3Rs behavioral intervention and behavioral change theories
Exclusion criteria for theories
Theories were excluded if (i) their application did not
provide a clear benefit to research behavioral change
regarding SWM, (ii) they focused on group behaviors in
which individual behavior was not referred within units/
corporations (e.g., organizational behavior, and
Figure 1. Selection process – flow chart of review.
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 11
Boolean
Key words and strings operator
Solid Waste Management AND Behavior AND
[Theory OR Theories OR Model OR Models OR System OR Systems OR
Concept OR Concepts]
AND
[Theory OR Theories OR Model OR Models OR System OR Systems OR
Concept OR Concepts]
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle AND behavioral change theories [Theory OR Theories AND
OR Model OR Models OR System OR Systems OR Concept OR Concepts]
contingency theory), or (iii) they focused on cognition but
were not behavior-specific (e.g., social comparison theory).
Exclusion criteria for articles
Articles were excluded if they (i) mentioned WM beha­
vior in titles and abstracts but focused on other forms of
12 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES
waste (e.g., bio-waste, hazardous waste, and animal
waste); (ii) discussed general environmental issues
(e.g., global warming, climate change, and energy con­
servation) along with SWMB; (iii) addressed environ­
mental degradation issues where the primary focus was
other than SWM; (iv) lacked focus in linking the selected
theories and SWMB; (v) tested theoretical models as
part of comparison studies where pure cognition was
the core determinant (e.g., attitude–intention) rather
than actual behavior (e.g., attitude–intention-behavior)
; (vi) proposed program development, cost-effectiveness,
and policy incorporation models without any solid evi­
dence of behavioral theories; (vii) fell into the following
categories: full books, handbooks, dissertations, confer­
ence posters, presentations, technical reports, proposal
reports, keynotes, tutorial course works, workshop sum­
maries, non-peer-reviewed journal publications, non-
English publications, and editorial commentaries; or
(viii) were repeated articles from different sources.
Quality assessment
A challenging component in SLRs is the selection of
high-quality papers for study (Davis et al. 2015;
Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart 2003). Although there
are no standard definitions for choosing a high-quality
paper, researchers express that high-quality papers
include context-based research (Verhagen et al., 1998;
Whiting et al. 2003), appropriate research design to
minimize bias, theory applicability, relevant RQs, visibi­
lity in peer-reviewed journals and key sources, accurate
definitions of key terms, and innovation to the body of
knowledge (Oxman 1994; Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart
2003). Since this study was an evidence-based systematic
review, only the definitions of quality in connection to
this research were considered. Apart from adopting
a rigorous process of scrutinizing the articles by reading
selected studies back and forth several times,
a significant part of this process was the consideration
of inclusion criteria from peer-reviewed journals. In
addition, we reviewed key literature that emphasized
the synthesis of scientific and philosophical aspects of
theories, which are reproducible for experimentations
and contribute to understanding the determinants of
SWMB and behavior change.
Data extraction
Data extraction was undertaken based on the results of
previous steps. Since data extraction also aids in data
synthesis, we divided this section into three distinct
parts: (i) general characteristics of included studies, (ii)
classification scheme, and (iii) identification of variables.
General characteristics
This segment presents the analysis that answers RQ1 and
RQ2. The extracted data contained features such as (i)
country where the research was conducted, (ii) database,
(iii) journal that published the study, (iv) article type
(descriptive, intervention, evaluative, review, etc.), (v)
source type (primary or secondary), (vi) theory used
(HBM, MCT, TPB, etc.), (vii) research techniques (quali­
tative, quantitative, or mixed-methods), (viii) sampling
type (probability and non-probability), (ix) sampling
frame (householders, students, university graduates,
employees, parents, and public), (x) measurement of
behavior (self-report, objective, or both), (xi) target beha­
vior (waste separation, composting, reduce, reuse, and
recycle), and (xii) target behavior specification (food,
plastic, paper, composting, garden activity, etc.). We also
recorded the primary information about selected studies
such as author name, study title, and year of the study. We
specifically chose this approach to present specific and
clear results to overcome the ambiguity of research in this
field. The detailed analysis of data extraction will be pre­
sented in the following sections.
Classification scheme
We classified the included studies according to three
perspectives: research contribution, research focus, and
research type. Each item will be discussed in the following
sections.
Contribution type
We identified theories related to SWMB from the fields of
psychology, anthropology, sociology, and technology; we
categorized the selected articles (including descriptive,
intervention, evaluative, and review articles) into three
disciplines: (i) individual behavior theories, (ii) social
behavior theories, and (iii) technology behavior theories.
Research focus
Based on topic orientation and problems addressed in
the selected studies, we developed four categories of
research focus areas to answer RQ3:
(1) Model development: This category included stu­
dies that attempted to develop a model to describe
the research constructs of a particular theory.
(2) Model testing: These studies made attempts to
test theoretical models to explore the antecedents
of SWMB.
(3) Model advancement: These studies contributed to
introducing new concepts, propose theoretical fra­
meworks, or report contemporary developments.

(4) Model comparison: These studies compared two
or more models by testing them empirically.
Research type
Based on the analysis and the type of included studies,
we identified seven types of research (Table 2).
Identification of variables using cluster analysis
This section provides insights on influential factors that
were developed by earlier researchers to investigate the
parameters of SWMB. Thus, we performed cluster analysis
in multiple steps. First, during data extraction, each article
was meticulously studied, and variables identified by earlier
authors were captured in Microsoft Excel. Following this, to
identify distinguishing concepts and code the texts, we
formed single-linkage clusters. Based on the broad spec­
trum of constructs and operational definitions of concept
codes, four clusters were developed (Table 3). Once the
clusters were formed, each code was scrutinized thoroughly
and placed in their relative cluster after careful examination.
This exercise was crucial because the organization and
consolidation of variables not only illustrates the perception
of previous theoretical underpinnings and their research
constructs, but also aids in mapping the intellectual terri­
tory and the gaps that require further exploration. Thus, we
deemed it appropriate to capture separately each measured
variable that forms the knowledge stock to build hypotheses
for future SWMB studies.
Results and discussion
General characteristics
Based on database publication trends, most articles were
published by Elsevier (n = 39; 40%). Furthermore, the num­
ber of studies published in Scopus-indexed journals was
higher (n = 56; 78%), in comparison with ISI Web of Science-
indexed journals (n = 27; 22%; Figure 2). Regarding the
distribution of SWMB articles, there was a peak in field-
related research and publications between 2010 and 2014,
with seven studies (n = 7; 9%) published in 2014 alone
(Figure 3). Eventually, the trend appeared to follow
a normal distribution during this period, which indicates
the growing interest among researchers to conduct more
studies in developing countries, owing to the increase in
population and consumerism. Results indicated that devel­
oped countries researched this field mostly from 1990 to
2005.
Regarding the distribution of country classification,
World Bank classifies all countries based on their gross
domestic product – a monetary measure of goods produced
annually (https://www.worldbank.org). Considering this,
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 13
we classified the selected studies as high-, middle-, and low-
income countries. Results revealed that most SWMB stu­
dies were conducted in high-income countries (n = 66,
83%), in which the USA was the highest contributor
(n = 29; 44%; Figure 4) as compared to other countries.
Theory identification and frequency of use
Fifteen theories were identified to potentially predict the
determinants of SWMB (RQ1), including 10 theories in the
category of individual behavior theories, three in the social
behavior theories category, and two in the technology
behavior theories category (Table 4). Concerning the fre­
quency of use of behavioral theories, TPB was the most
frequently used (n = 29; 46%; Figure 5; RQ2). Moreover, out
of 63 evaluation and intervention articles, four articles
addressed comparative analysis, in which TRA and TPB
were most common (n = 2; 50%), followed by NAT and
VBN theory (n = 1, 25%), and TRA and TPB (n = 1, 25%;
Figure 6). A description of selected theories has been dis­
cussed in previous sections and a list of lead authors, date of
publication of papers that originally describes the theory,
and the number of articles that used said theory is provided
in Table 4.
Research design
Most evaluation and intervention studies used quantitative
techniques (n = 45; 72%), followed by qualitative methods
(n = 14; 22%) and mixed-methods (n = 4; 6%; Figure 7). Of
these, 32 studies used exploratory factor analysis, 39 selected
probability sampling, and 49 used self-report measures.
Regarding the target population, householders were
Table 2. Research type and description.
Research type Description
1. Analytical Involves critical thinking and evaluation to find out facts
and answers about a given subject. Answers obtained
from such analysis would be useful in developing
new phenomenon.
2. Comparative Item-by-item comparison of two or more comparable
analysis alternatives, sets of data, theories, systems, or the like
study, thus providing convergence and divergence
between researches about same topic.
3. Conceptual Makes use of theoretical frameworks and philosophical
discussions that propose a hypothesis.
4. Empirical Testing a theoretical model or framework using
evidence by means of direct or indirect observation
or experience, thus gaining knowledge about
a particular topic.
5. View-point Involves author’s interpretation of a situation,
phenomenon, model, etc.
6. Evaluation Investigates the practical implementation of solution by
aiming at objective and goal of a study topic by using
a set of research methods.
7. Literature Summarizing of previous scholarly materials about
review a specific topic through step-by-step process of
analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing to explain
and understand the current state of the topic.
14 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES

Table 3. Cluster type.

Cluster type Cluster name Description
Cluster 1 Psychological factors Involves with mental phenomenon that influences an individual to consciously or unconsciously involve in SWM
activities and actions.
Cluster 2 Situational factors Comprises of external infrastructure that drives an individual to exhibit SWMB.
Cluster 3 Community factors Accounts to the combination of social, economic, cultural, and political processes identified by individuals, like-
minded people and communities to achieve sustainable SWM system.
Cluster 4 Demographic factors A group of personal characteristics of an individual to study a set of population about SWMB.

considered as the highest sampling frame, with representa­
tion in 32 studies (mentioned as residents in few studies) that
included retirees, homemakers, teenagers, and work-from-
home officials aged ≥18 years (Figure 8). Researchers may
have focused on this particular sampling frame because this
category often includes people from different groups, which
minimizes bias and provides generalizable results. A detailed
summary of the research design characteristics of the articles
selected for this study is provided in Table 5.
Target behavior
Data extraction yielded nine target behavior categories. Of
these, recycling of all items (e.g., plastic, glass, paper, and
metal) among householders has been amply studied,
accounting for 59% (n = 37) of all studies. A primary reason
for researchers to examine this specific behavior could be
that recycling is a key activity to convert waste into useful
material. With the increase in consumerism and urbaniza­
tion, people produce considerable waste; however, they can
participate in SWM programs and related activities through
source separation. Understanding residents’ perception of
recycling allows statutory policymakers to take productive
actions in policy framing and market provisions, which
could be the chief reason behind the vast amount of studies
on these recycling behaviors. A high-level summary and
a chart detailing the target behavior category (Figure 9) and
specification (Figure 10) for each category is provided in
Table 6.
Classification scheme
The classification scheme of the literature reviewed in
this research makes it imperative to focus on their con­
tribution type, research focus, and research type in con­
nection to SWMB. A detailed account of this is
explained in the following paragraphs.
Model development
This section discusses studies that developed theoretic
models based on particular phenomena; we identified 10
studies that fit this criterion (Table 7). These studies are
exploratory in attempting to link research constructs.
Bandura (1977) proposed an integrative model and
hypothesized that personal efficacy (their degree of per­
sistence) determines an individual’s behavior.
Furthermore, Bandura (1991) calls for cultivating prox­
imal sub-goals to attain a target behavior. For example, if
composting is the target behavior, separation, and col­
lection of kitchen biodegradable waste could be a sub-
goal. Cognitive theorists are more interested in estab­
lishing the determining factors of the target behavior.

Figure 2. Journal-wise publication trend.


Figure 3. Distribution of publications by years.
Figure 4. Distribution of studies by country-wise income grouping.
For example, Rosenstock, Strecher, and Becker (1988)
incorporated self-efficacy into the HBM and concluded
that a target behavior can be achieved when an indivi­
dual possesses outcome expectations and efficacy expec­
tations, both of which are required to perform
a behavior. However, according to Deci and Ryan
(1980) model, the performance of a specific behavior
depends on information received externally, from the
environment, and internally, from within the individual.
Thus, these authors argued that motive plays a pivotal
role in deciding a person’s behavior.
Model testing
We identified 53 studies in the model-testing category of
research contribution. Of these, 39 studies were empirical,
and we categorized 14 papers as evaluation research
(Table 8). Zhang et al. (2015) tested TPB by ascertaining
the antecedents of waste separation behavior among resi­
dents of China. They found that SNs, situational factors,
and PBC were positively associated with intention. They
also found that moral obligations had a positive influence
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 15
on attitude and concluded that TPB is a powerful model
to predict waste behaviors. In a collaborative study that
compared waste sorting behavior between Lithuanian and
Swedish people, Miliute-Plepiene et al. (2016) reported
that Sweden was a “matured recycler” because their waste
collection system was accessible. Similarly, Joung and
Park-Poaps (2013) examined the factors that motivate
various clothing disposal behaviors by using the TRA
model; they found that charity concerns motivate an
individual to undertake recycling activities. They also
concluded that donation behaviors and situational factors
motivate disposal behaviors. Hargreaves (2011) con­
ducted a qualitative study in the UK using semi-
structured interviews and observation. They reported
a 29% reduction in waste through the application of social
practices and material infrastructure and concluded that
these strategies can convert a waste-filled society into
a resourceful one. Similarly, Akman and Mishra (2015)
explored employees’ behavior toward green information
technology by testing TAM and concluded that perceived
ease of use and perceived usefulness play a critical role in
16 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES

Table 4. Theories identified along with first author, date of primary theory source, and the number of articles identified for the
individual, social, and technology behavior theory review.
Classification of theory Name of the theory First author theorist (date) Articles included in the review
1. Individual behavior theory 1. Health belief model Rosenstock (1966) 3
2. Learning theory Skinner (1954) 1
3. Motivation crowding theory Frey and Jegen (2001) 1
4. Norm activation theory Schwartz (1977) 11
5. Self-determination theory Deci and Ryan (1980) 6
6. Self-efficacy theory Bandura (1977) 5
7. Self-regulation theory Kanfer and Karoly (1970) 3
8. Theory of reasoned action Ajzen & Fishbein (1975) 6
9. Theory of planned behavior Ajzen (1985) 32
10. Value belief norm theory Stern (1999) 4
2. Social behavior theory 1. Rational choice theory Weber (1958) 1
2. Social cognitive theory Bandura (1986) 2
3. Social practice theory Bourdieu (1977) 1
3.Technology behavior theory 1. Diffusion of innovation theory Rogers (1983) 2
2. Technology acceptance model Davis (1989) 2

Figure 5. Frequency of use of theories.

employees’ workplace attitudes. It is thus evident from
previous literature that each study has reported different
results that exhibit variance. The dynamics of said studies
also explain the nature of certain waste behaviors that
vary across a range of target populations at different
scenarios that are likely to change over time. These results
need to be verified in other contexts – an aim of the
current review.
Model advancement
We included 13 studies in the model advancement cate­
gory of SWMB. Of these, two studies were analytical, six
were conceptual, one was a viewpoint, and four were
literature reviews (Table 9). None of these studies were
comparative. Studies that proposed new concepts or
added new variables to the basic models but did not
test said models were placed in this category. Ajzen
(1991) analyzed the status of TPB and argued that
a model should contain all important variables to obtain
non-error variance results for target behavior. Hence, he
proposed the addition of past behavior as the best pre­
dictor of the future behavior of an individual. Bandura
(1991) proposed an advanced model of SCT and empha­
sized that human behavior cannot be solely regulated by
external factors. He theorized that human behavior
operates at three sub-functions at internal levels: self-
monitoring, judgment, and self-reaction. He also
emphasized self-observation to set achievable goals
through self-evaluation process among individuals.
This study is significant because it provides insight into
how self-regulation evolves in the context of cognitive
behavior.
Model comparison
Although researchers have compared various theoreti­
cal models and integrated two or more frameworks
(Kaiser 2005; Oreg and Katz-Gerro 2006), scant studies
have compared two or more basic models (intra-model
comparison) or made comparisons within a single
model (inter-model comparison) to predict SWMB.

Figure 6. Frequency of comparative studies.
Figure 7. Distribution of studies based on research methods.
Figure 8. Distribution of studies based on target population.
We found only four such studies: one was
a comparative analysis, one was empirical, one was
an evaluation, and one was a literature review
(Table 10). We identified no studies addressing social
and technology behavior theories. Terry, Hogg, and
White (1999) conducted an inter-model comparison
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 17
of TPB to explore the role of self-identity in one model,
and to explore the role of self-identity and social iden­
tity within the attitude–intention relationship in
another model. TPB was used in both models and self-
identity appeared as the main predictor of intention.
This research was significant as the study revealed the
18 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES

Table 5. Research design characteristics of studies included in the systematic review.

Research design characteristics for evaluative and intervention articles Number of articles reporting in the
(n=63) Specification review
1. Research methods 1. Quantitative 45
2. Qualitative 14
3. Mixed Methods 4
2. Factor analysis 1. Exploratory factor analysis 32
2. Confirmatory factor analysis 18
3. Not mentioned 13
3. Sampling techniques 1. Probability sampling 39
2. Nonprobability sampling 18
3. Not mentioned 6
4. Method of measurement 1. Self-report 49
2. Objective 8
3. Both 6
5. Target population 1. Householders aged >18 yrs 32
2. General public 11
3. University students >18 yrs 10
4. University faculties & nonteaching 3
staffs
5. Office workers 2
6. School students aged b/n 10– 12 yrs 2
7. School students aged b/n 14 −16 yrs 2
8. Parents who use diapers 1

Figure 9. Distribution of studies based on target behavior.

relationship between self-identity and behavior, indir­
ectly through intention. Thøgersen et al. (1996) under­
took a review by comparing TRA and VBN theory and
concluded that Schwartz’s model of altruistic behavior
offers realistic results in targeting recycling behavior.
The analysis of the contribution type of each study
revealed that individual behavior theories were
widely used to determine the antecedents of SWMB
(n = 72; 90%). In the distribution of research focus,
researchers targeted model testing in maximum arti­
cles (n = 53; 66%). The main reason for the predilec­
tion toward model testing and empirical research
may be to bring waste behavioral changes among
citizens through evaluations and interventions using
multiple approaches. Moreover, SWMB is entangled
within the layers of antecedents that influence its
behavioral outcome. The difficulty of its measurabil­
ity has kindled interest among researchers to add and
assess more variables. Although few researchers have
conducted comparative analyses using different pos­
tulations, model testing is the main method to
explore the cognitive and altruistic facets of SWMB.
In distribution of research type, empirical studies
were the most common (n = 41; 51%). This evi­
denced a dearth in evaluation studies (Figure 11).
Based on the classification scheme discussed above,
we developed a manual research focus map to avail for
an overall view of seven research types and four research
contribution types (Figure 12). This map was primarily
developed to gain insight into the nature of studies in the
field to date and to identify unexplored research areas
that need to be researched in the future.
 JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 19

Figure 10. Distribution of studies based on target behavior specification.

Table 6. Target behavior category, target behavior specification, and number of articles included in the review.
Target behavior category Target behavior specification Number of articles reporting in the review
1. Recycling (N = 38; 58%) 1. All items (glass, paper, aluminum cans, clothes, etc.) 26
2. Paper 5
3. Clothes 3
4. Glass 3
5. Cardboard 1
2. Source separation (N = 7; 11%) 1. All items 4
2. Food 2
3. Clothes 1
3. Reduce, reuse & recycle (N = 4; 7%) 1. All items 3
2. Clothes 1
4. Composting (N = 3; 6%) 1. All items (kitchen wastes, garden wastes, etc.) 3
5. Reduce & recycle (N = 3; 5%) 1. All items 3
2. Paper 1
6. Reduce (N = 3; 4%) 1. Food 2
2. Diaper 1
7. Reuse & recycle (N = 2, 3%) 1. All items 2
8. Waste minimization (N = 1; 2%) 1. All items 1
9. Reuse (N = 1; 2%) 1. All items 1

Table 7. Contribution and research types presented in 10 papers on model development.

Contribution type
Research type Individual behavioral theories Social behavioral theories Technology behavioral theories
Analytical Higgins (1996), Bandura (1977), Miafodzyeva and Brandt (2013), Bandura (1986) - -
Conceptual Rosenstock (1974) - Chau (1996)
Empirical Skinner and Chi (2012) - -
View-point Rosenstock, Strecher, and Becker (1988); Deci and Ryan (1980); Stern (1999) - -

Identification of variables using cluster analysis
The central part of this systematic process was to summarize
the variables utilized from diverse disciplines that may aid in
theoretical and methodological SWMB predictions. Thus,
we identified 52 variables: 34 belonged to cluster 1 (psycho­
logical factors), eight to cluster 2 (situational factors), five to
cluster 3 (community factors), and five to cluster 4
(demographic factors; RQ4; Figure 13). In addition, attitude
was measured most often (n = 43) for cluster 1, opportunities
were measured most often (n = 5) for cluster 2, each com­
munity variable was measured (n = 1 each) for cluster 3, and
age was measured most often (n = 41) for cluster 4 (RQ4).
The rationale behind applying psychological factors in most
of the studies could be that waste production is closely
20 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES

Table 8. Contribution and research types presented in 53 papers on model testing.

Contribution type
Research Social behavioral Technology beha­
type Individual behavioral theories theories vioral theories
Empirical Vining and Ebreo (1992), Huffman et al. (2014), Bagozzi and Dabholkar (1994), Miliute-Plepiene Best et al. (2011), Feiock and West
et al. (2016), Cecere, Mancinelli, and Mazzanti (2014), Green-Demers, Pelletier, and Sophie Hargreaves (2011) (1993)
(1997), Kelly et al. (2006), Bortoleto, Kurisu, and Hanaki (2012), Cheung, Chan, and Wong (1999),
Chu and Chiu (2003), Jekria and Daud (2016), Joung and Park-Poaps (2013), Knussen et al.
(2004), Chan (1998), Mahmud, Diyana, and Osman (2010), Oztekin et al. (2017), Pakpour et al.
(2014), Ramayah, Wai Chow Lee, and Mohamad (2010), Ramayah, Wai Chow Lee, and Lim
(2012), Rise et al. (2003), Tonglet, Phillips, and Read (2004), Wan et al. (2012), Xu et al. (2017),
Zhang et al. (2015), McCarty and Shrum (1994), Lindsay and Strathman (1997), Klöckner &
Oppedal (2011), Lee, De Young, and Marans (1995), Gould et al. (2016), Thøgersen, & Ölander
(2003), Izagirre-Olaizola, Fernández-Sainz, and Vicente-Molina (2015), Barr (2004); Mannetti,
Pierro, and Livi (2004), Schultz et al. (1995), Wang and Katzev (1990), Abdelradi (2018), Jimenez
et al. (2016)
Evaluation Davis et al. (2006), Brekke, Kipperberg, and Nyborg (2010), Hopper and McCarl Nielsen (1991), Akman and Mishra
Matthies, Selge, and Klöckner (2012), Åberg et al. (1996), Goldenhar and Connell (1993), Jones (2015)
(1989), Tonglet, Phillips, and Read (2004), Schultz (1999), Vining and Ebreo (2002), Blamey
(1998), Rowe (2015)

Table 9. Contribution and research types presented in 13 papers on model advancement.

Research type Contribution type
Social behavioral Technology behavioral
Individual behavioral theories theories theories
Analytical Ajzen (1991, 2000) - -
Conceptual Ryan and Deci (2000), Ajzen (2001), Stern (2000) Bandura (1991, 1999) Rogers (2002)
View-point Bandura (1999) - -
Literature Zimmerman (1989), Werner and Makela (1998), Schultz, Oskamp, and Mainieri (1995), - –
review Bandura (1989)

Table 10. Contribution and research types presented in four papers on model comparison.
Research Type Contribution type
Individual behavioral theories Social behavioral theories Technology behavioral theories
Comparative analysis Terry, Hogg, and White (1999) - -
Empirical Daneshvary, Daneshvary, and Keith Schwer (1998) - -
Evaluation Taylor and Todd (1997) - -
Literature review Thogersen (1996) - -

associated with an individual’s psychological functioning, Study implications

since it involves the constant conflict of environmental con­
struction and environmental destruction traits in a person.
Moreover, unless individuals develop a strong affinity for
environmental causes, achieving the eradication of landfills is
highly unlikely (Lauren et al. 2016). According to some
scholars, waste handling demands a high-level of selflessness
and commitment to overcome barriers. Although extrinsic
motivation such as recycling markets, community education,
and incentives may favor SWM actions, most studies high­
lighted that those activities may not translate into long-
established behaviors since SWM is purely altruistic. Table
11 presents the identified variables for each cluster.
Though each study offers its own scholarship, con­
sidering the space restriction, we present a summarized
analysis that highlights salient features that contributed
to SWM research and solutions in the past few years
(Table 12).
This endeavor to explore the principles of core the­
oretical constructs and the applicability and limita­
tions of the frameworks revealed an array of 15
theories potentially relevant to mitigating SWM
issues. This study sheds light on the methods of
evaluating the complex and diverse issues of SWM
from both theoretical and practical perspectives.
First, from a theoretical angle, the findings imply
that the constructs of social and technological the­
ories are under-explored. Since behavioral tendencies
develop in a social context, utilization of social ele­
ments is key in assessing individual behavior. Second,
the existing works on theoretical frameworks for
SWMB issues have produced a large pool of publica­
tions from different geographical regions of the
world – covering a range of research methods,
research design, conceptualization of models, dataset
 JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 21

Figure 11. Distribution of studies based on classification scheme.

formats, application of theories, and addition of extra social, ecological, and political processes to derive ben­
variables to the core constructs, and so on. Although efits at three important levels: individual, social, and
the researchers have a common objective; i.e., to community (e.g., recycling activity is influenced by
increase the predictive validity and measurability of self-efficacy at the individual-level; social support
proposed SWMB models, this study revealed that from family, friends, and colleagues at the society
such attempts have led to saturation in which com­ level; and interactions with likeminded people at the
mon variables are frequently used within the frame of community level).
attitude–intention linkages. As it is possible to chal­ Table 13 shows possible reasons for our results; we
lenge the reasons for pro-social and pro- present research gaps in the literature and possible
environmental behavioral adoption, expansion of reg­ directions for future research.
ular intention–based linkages may elucidate value-
action, social practice-action, and other links promot­
ing SWMB that may be formed owing to different Study limitations
contexts including community, situational, and socio-
The current findings have to be viewed in light of some
demographic.
limitations. First, theories selected in this research were
From a practical perspective, first, this study may
based on cognitive frameworks that focused on explor­
aid practitioners in developing more SWM models by
ing internal and external factors of an individual in the
incorporating multiple theories to increase the predic­
social and environmental context, within which waste
tive validity and measurability of SWMB models. Some
problems occur (Baud et al. 2001; Monavari et al. 2012;
theories such as TPB have a strong evidence base;
Sembiring and Nitivattananon 2010). They are therefore
however, simply conducting research based on “pre­
subject to biases and may have influenced our analysis.
viously used” or “recently used” theories in familiarity
Some past studies utilized theories other than psycholo­
and feasibility is insufficient. Instead, it is necessary to
gical theories to evaluate multiple waste recycling pro­
consider integrated frameworks (e.g., traditional values
grams. For instance, governance theory emphasizes
of RCT may be a relevant variable for VBN theory
a recycling mechanism design such as operationalization
because individuals inculcate their beliefs from family
of collection centers via interactions between govern­
values and traditions) to enhance the predictive powers
ment, market, and society and promotes environmen­
of SWMB models. Therefore, this study has high­
tally friendly public behaviors (Xu et al. 2017). Similarly,
lighted the need to incorporate multi-level modeling
institutional theory focuses on political processes such as
within the scope of environmental protection. Second,
administration, incentives, schemes, norms, and rou­
this study revealed the need to develop more holistic
tines, and their role in repetitive behaviors of an indivi­
models within the hierarchical levels of individual,
dual within society (Rothenberg 2007). These theories
22 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES

Figure 12. Research focus map.

Note: adenotes social behavior theories that was identified in our review
b
denotes technology behavior theories that was identified in our review

Figure 13. Schematic representation of identified variables for each cluster.

are based on organization and institution roles and are limited to individual-level psychological factors, we did
suitable for macro-level analysis. Since our study was not consider them. However, future researchers could
 JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 23

Table 11. Number of variables cited in the review.

Cluster type Cluster name Variables from review articles that is added to the cluster No of instances cited in the review articles
Cluster 1 Psychological factors (1) Attitude 43
(2) Intention 34
(3) Perceived behavioral control 28
(4) Subjective norms 24
(5) Social norms 18
(6) Environmental knowledge 13
(7) Moral norms 12
(8) Beliefs 11
(9) Consequences 11
(10) Environmental concern 11
(11) Awareness 8
(12) Motivation 8
(13) Values 5
(14) Habits 5
(15) Past experience 5
(16) Will 5
(17) Self-identity 5
(18) Responsibility 5
(19) Descriptive norms 4
(20) Group norms 3
(21) Self-efficacy 3
(22) Environmental need 3
(23) Commitment 2
(24) Environmental education 2
(25) Self-regulation 1
(26) Competence 1
(27) Interest in garden engagement 1
(28) Cleanliness 1
(29) Fun and enjoyment 1
(30) Excitement 1
(31) Sense of accomplishment 1
(32) Relatedness 1
(33) Legal norms 1
(34) Sense of belonging 1
Cluster 2 Situational factors (1) Opportunities 5
(2) Convenience 4
(3) Recycling bins 4
(4) Market facilitators 2
(5) Financial cost 1
(6) Market incentive 1
(7) Government incentive 1
(8) Government facilitators 1
Cluster 3 Community factors (1) Community groups 1
(2) Community concern 1
(3) Community support 1
(4) Community need 1
(5) Community communication 1
Cluster 4 Demographic factors (1) Age 41
(2) Gender 39
(3) Marital status 32
(4) Education 30
(5) Occupation 22

consider these frameworks to evaluate the role of possi­
ble parameters that could promote sustainable waste
behaviors among individuals.
Further, our research was limited to theoretical models
from behavioral sciences, psychology, anthropology, sociol­
ogy, and technology domains. Thus, contribution type may
have produced a bias. Some past studies utilized theories
from management science and ecological economics dis­
ciplines to comprehend green behaviors (Gordon-Wilson
and Modi 2015), sustainability behaviors (Chen and Chang
2000), and conservation behaviors (Rosa, Profice, and
Collado 2018). Some models (e.g., social ecological theory)
were utilized to comprehend the political processes and its
inter-relationships at multi-levels, such as administrative
bodies, units (industries, organization, companies, office
set-ups, etc.), community groups (non-governmental orga­
nizations, religious groups, voluntary groups, etc.), and
societal and individual (Golden et al. 2015). Although
these models may be useful in assessing individual waste
behavior, we did not consider them for our research
because our research primarily focused on studying the
psychological aspects of individuals at household waste
management levels. Hence, this study was restricted to
those domains that promote IWMB in the view of
 24

Table 12. Summarized analysis and salient features of few studies selected for this review.
Author (year) Focus Purpose Research methodology Key findings Review remarks
Vining and Predicting To investigate environmental Quantitative study conducted during Schwartz’s model was tested and it was found that This study pioneered the research which
Ebreo recycling concern, recycling attitude, 1986, 1987, & 1988 at USA, Ontology environmental concern among residents undertook an intervention study of voluntary
(1992) behavior and recycling behavior paradigm, used NAT, random sampling increased over a period of 3years and recyclers curbside recycling. Though the study claims to
under curbside recycling of 500, 1000, & 1500 for 3 years, used exhibited stronger pro-environmental attitudes be successful by increasing recycling behavior
programs questionnaires of residents, the study adopted longitudinal
assessment for 3 years. During these years, the
attitude and behavior of residents would have
changed. Government would have
J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES

implemented SWM programs and hence other

mediating factors may have played in
predicting behavior. It would have been fair if
qualitative methods were also included to
explore other predicting factors.
Bagozzi and Goals on To test TRA model and to Quantitative analysis at USA, used TRA, Fifteen key goals of a recycler were discovered The study has discussed 15 goals that can play
Dabholkar recycling explore the antecedents of random telephone dialing, 133 significant role in recycling behavior. However,
(1994) decision recycling behavior respondents, used questionnaires it is not clear how these goals are linked to TRA
behavior and which of them can play mediating, central
and causal roles in its hierarchy. Though the
study elaborately highlights the importance of
goals, its practical implications lack
explanations on goal setting.
Lee, De Home and office To examine recycle behavior at Quantitative and qualitative study using Significant relationship was found between home This research conducted in USA emphasized on
Young, and recycling home and office settings NAT model, informal interviews and site and office recycling behaviors. It was concluded paper recycling since the frequency of use of
Marans behavior and investigate relationship visits to develop questionnaires at that those who actively participate at household papers at office is high, which makes this
1995 between them Taiwan recycling are likely to recycle due to research unique and logical. However, the study
organizational and individual commitment of was conducted at metropolitan city and the
recycling behavior results cannot be generalized. Also, the study
chose 32 organizations of which 15
organizations were following recycling
programs. A bias is noticed and considering
sampling from general offices which are not
environmentally related would be feasible.
Cheung, Paper recycling To explore wastepaper Quantitative analysis at Hong Kong using PBC had no significant link with intention, however This was the first study conducted at Hong Kong
Chan, and recycling behavior among TPB, 137 respondents, used openended environmental knowledge had positive link to investigate wastepaper recycling behavior.
Wong college students and close-ended questions toward behavior in comparison with past Though the study included various possible
(1999) behavior. variables to TPB framework, the study cannot
be generalized as target population was
specific. Also, students who studied were all
Chinese and heterogeneity of selected
population is questionable.
(Continued)
Table 12. (Continued).
Author (year) Focus Purpose Research methodology Key findings Review remarks
Thogersen Recycling and To explore recycling activities Quantitative analysis at Netherlands, used Pay-by-weight scheme resulted in use more Although the study is considered as a path
(2003) composting and home composting SDT, pragmatic paradigm, control recyclables materials and garden composting and breaking in European market-based
behavior under pay-by-weight group study structure, used less wastes to dustbin. instruments in the sense of large sample, field
scheme questionnaires setting and expert consultation to choose
municipalities, the study cannot be generalized
as it accounts for only 5 municipalities. Also, the
study discussed external motivation in terms of
monetary incentives, and it did not consider
internal motivation which is a key factor in
SWM. More studies with larger samples need to
be replicated from different municipalities to
gain an overview of success of market-based
instruments.
Tonglet, Pro - To examine the role of waste Mixed methods analysis at UK, used TPB, Concluded that waste minimization may contain This study is considered unique and mature as the
Phillips, environmental minimization behavior in pragmatic paradigm, collected data a social element in those who engage in pro- recycling behavior was not self-reporting, rather
and Read behavior comparison to recycling from observation in stage 1, conducted environmental behavior, as a correlation was observed independently. It highlighted that
(2004) interviews in stage 2, collected observed between moral and social elements of recycling and waste minimization are two
questionnaires in stage 3. extended TPB model. different dimensions and hence reduce, reuse,
and recycle methods of SWM has to be targeted
separately. However, the study was conducted
at Brixworth, UK with small population where
females have responded more as compared to
males. Since the model did not measure beliefs,
intentions and attitude specifically factors
predicting behavior is not clear.
Brekke, Household glass To understand the role of Quantitative study at Norway, used NAT, Strong relationship between social interaction and This research was a continuation work of previous
Kipperberg, recycling ascription responsibility 1104 respondents from Norwegian glass recycling behavior was found out. It was project conducted by Brekke and Nyborg, 2007.
and Nyborg within social interactions householders, ontology paradigm concluded that duty-based motivation of a person The study revealed an important link between
2010 which is decent self- image of an individual within social and individual behavior by introducing
social structure is vital in recycling activity duty-based motivation concept. The study
incorporated parsimonious approach, i.e.,
factors predicting behavior are those which are
simplest and almost correct for most situations.
This method of fitting assumptions from
evidence cannot hold good since behavioral
study is multilayered and explanation of
cognitive process demands empirical
explanation. Furthermore, the survey comprised
very few questions related to recycling behavior
and was included in life style behaviors of
citizens. Hence, a bias is noted in data
collection.
(Continued)
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
25
 26

Table 12. (Continued).

Author (year) Focus Purpose Research methodology Key findings Review remarks
Best and Household waste To examine the role of Field study analysis of pre-post recycling Relationship between recycling and environmental This study was the first to test RCT in Germany in
Kneip 2011 recycling incentives and opportunity implementation with control and concern in the first wave was medium. Recycling the context of SWM. The study was considered
structures on attitude and experimental groups, survey research rates increased from 76.5% to 80.5% during 2006 to be salient as it experimented its hypothesis
recycling behavior from 3 districts of Germany using RCT, to 2007. and found the interaction effect of attitude and
1882 respondents, behavior, Apart from this, the research
undertook studies at 3 waves within an
intermission of 3 months. That way the period
of testing was short without much of external
influence on individual’s behavior. However, the
study had limitations that single hypothesis was
derived from 3 theories and hence the test is
J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES

valued as incomplete.
Ghani et al., Food waste To explore the influencing Quantitative study at Malaysia, used TPB, Determinant of food separation behavior was found Though the research dealt with relevant and
2013 separation factors of waste separation 204 academic and non-academic staffs to be intention and the relationship between interesting topic, it was unclear of selecting
behavior behavior from selected departments using intention and behavior was significant samples about specific faculty departments.
questionnaires This sample bias is questionable. Though the
study mentions stratified random sampling, the
reason for choosing this is also is not justified.
Also, the discussion and practical implications
about the relationship between various
components of TPB and its added variables are
insufficient.
Pakpour et al. Waste separation To find the factors influencing Quantitative study at 2 waves with 1-year Along with core constructs of TPB, moral obligation, Although the study had positive points such as
2014 behavior waste separation behavior intermission at Iran, used TPB, 1782 past behavior, and self-identity predicted waste a large sample, community-based unit in
residents, self-reported questionnaires separation behavior. After 1 year along with developing country and elaborate description
above predictors, sociodemographic factors also about action planning, the study lacked
played significant and explained 47% variance. explanation about the motivation to choose 2
wave studies in 1-year intermission. Though the
study mentions to measure past behavior, it is
unclear that whether the same questionnaire
was used both times. Also, self-reported
questionnaire cannot be replaced for actual
behavior and there was scope for adding
qualitative techniques for 1 year. The study took
place at an urban area and hence the results
cannot be generalized.
Huffman et al. Investigation of To predict recycling attitudes Mixed methods approach of two phases at Self-reported behavior over estimated observed The research was the first lab-based study to
2014 self-report and recycling behavior USA, used SDT, 118 students behavior with variance of 8%. Interaction effect compare self-reported and observed behavior
versus considering effect of social predicted that social influence had positive in the context of SWM. Although it studied
observed influence and relationship with self-reported behavior but not a rare topic by revealing useful insights, the
behavior anthropocentrism on an with observed recycling behavior. study cannot be generalized due to artificial
individual setting of experiment. Also, sample size was less
with undistributed gender who were selected
from one department, which counts as bias.
(Continued)
Table 12. (Continued).
Author (year) Focus Purpose Research methodology Key findings Review remarks
Izagirre- Recycling To examine crosscountry Quantitative analysis at Spain and US, The level of motivation was found similar in each This study was first to incorporate environmental
Olaizola, behavior comparative analysis of compared NAT & VBN, 1237 group, but the attitude toward environment was knowledge into VBN to explore SWM behavior.
Fernández- recycling behavior respondents of which 640 from Spain considered more favorable amongst Spanish The study considered sample from two
Sainz, and and 597 from USA, used questionnaires students. However, recycling behavior of Spanish countries but did not mention the mode of
Vicente- students was 75% as compared to USA students sampling. Also, age group of students not
Molina who possessed only 33.5%. specified which can have greater impact on
2015 research. The sample is homogeneous in nature
and structural differences such as SWM
programs, awareness campaigns, and provision
of recycling bins between two countries are
different and hence this parameter has to be
accounted. Thus, the results obtained cannot
hold good for general population.
Oztekin et al. Recycling To predict recycling behavior Quantitative study at Turkey, used TPB, Attitude, PBC, and SN were positively influenced by Though the study is exclusive in understanding
2017 behavior on the basis of gender 863 respondents (included students belief for both genders. PBC played significant gender perspective by developing separate
perspective and teaching and non-teaching staffs), role to predict female intentions. Also, past models for males and females, the study lacked
questionnaires posted on university behavior was found to influence intention for in logical explanation to collect data from
websites both genders and study concluded that TPB university community. It is also unclear why
framework was satisfactory in explaining SWMB of responses were collected through websites by
an individual self-reported questionnaire for 1 year. Chances
of anyone who visits website page may fill the
questionnaire and therefore authenticity of
response is questionable. The study was
undertaken in two universities where recycling
facilities were already available and hence the
results cannot be generalized.
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
27
28 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES
Table 13. Research gaps and future directions.
No Deficiencies
RG1 ● The earlier behavior models include composite structures Evaluation void ● Acknowledging the role of social psychology in explaining the
with complex relationships between various identified fac­
tors. To some extent, they are limited to operational
mechanisms and their testing abilities stand questionable.
● Several models have been postulated, but review indicates
a dearth in assessment of validity and merits of frameworks,
particularly in terms of the interdependencies at dimensional
levels.
● Misses empirical evidences.
RG2 ● It is realized that society is encountering serious threats due Knowledge void ● Rigor of models need to be strengthened by stressing on
to SW disposal issues, particularly in developing countries.
Recent period has witnessed public consciousness and gov­
ernment participation, but results are still in evolving stage.
● Many countries have adopted innovative strategies & modern
technologies to achieve zero waste to landfills. Not many
studies have been conducted to provide a holistic solution.
● Eco-friendly methods of SWM are the need of the hour and
identifying the underlying factors of behavior from anthro­
pological lens is quintessential.
RG3 ● Lack of encompassing SWMB framework to highlight the Theory
Government initiatives, social hygiene, public health, and
conservation issue is evident.
● Theoretical inconsistencies exist
● Earlier researchers have not shown interests in cognitive
theories such as LT, SPT, etc.
● Absence of theory application in the context of social and
technology perspectives.
● Lack of integrated model testing by applying theory/theories
RG4 ● Many quantitative studies, some qualitative studies and very Methodological ● Performing sequential explanatory and sequential exploratory
few mixed methods studies, implying the lack of relative
neglect of mixed methods approach.
● Most of the studies share similar views in terms of environ­
mental issues, but no studies have reported similar results
even when similar constructs were tested in quantitative
studies.
● Lack of utilization of two or more research techniques to
tackle SWM issue which requires multi-dimensional approach.
addressing social, environmental, and public health issues
caused by domestically produced waste. However, future
studies could consider relevant domains and integrate them
to assess citizens’ SWMB.
Third, our manual method of cluster development,
used to identify key psychological variables present in
past studies, may have generated some biases. Although
the procedure was advantageous in analyzing a vast
amount of data and present our review article in
a comprehensive and holistic way, errors in coding, ana­
lyzing citation data, or overlapping variables were possi­
ble (Belotto 2018). Further studies could employ thematic
analyses using software programs such as NVivo to deter­
mine whether this problem can be rectified.
Finally, irrespective of our extensive efforts to
retrieve data, the literature search may have failed to
capture all potential articles for this research. The uti­
lized search strings and keywords may have resulted in
the omission of other relevant data. Future researchers
may consider different approaches such as
Identified
research gap Future directions
behavioral patterns of WM among residents.
● Utilizing the elements from inter-disciplinary areas such as
socio-psychology, community psychology, developmental
psychology, etc.
● Introducing new concepts/variables to core research con­
structs of a particular theory framed by primary authors.
● Subjecting to more empirical investigations by combining
different techniques.
performance implications by adopting alternative methods
to measure SWMB.
● New concept – refuse of SWM strategies needs special atten­
tion which has not been measured till now.
● Focusing on combination factors such as political processes &
psychological factors, anthropological & technology factors,
social sciences & management, etc.
● Exploring collective behaviors of urbanization such as money-
power, attitude-behavior, caste-class, and individual–com­
munity relationships is imperative owing to consumerism
culture.
● Applying multilevel analysis such as individual – social –
application community; culture – tradition, heritage - culture – tradition,
void etc.
● Focus on model advancement and model comparison.
● Addressing public awareness and communication issues
through principal method of innovation diffusion.
● Developing a holistic model to examine the SWM motives
between individuals, communities, and NGOs using
a combination of individual/social/technology behavioral
theories.
void methods to benefit the advantages of both qualitative and
quantitative methods.
● Methodological process by incorporating triangulation
approach of qualitative methodology that provides rich data.
● Utilization of tools and techniques of qualitative and
quantitative.
● Conducting intervention studies.
● Extending general waste studies to specific wastes such as
clothing, kitchen wastes, plastic, kitchen vessels, etc.
brainstorming and downloading sample articles
(Pittaway and Cope 2007). Some researchers in health
psychology have conducted SLRs by forming an advi­
sory group consisting of a panel of experts from var­
ious fields (Davis et al. 2015). This method of utilizing
expert consultation in web searching, hand searching
of data from various journals, forward and backward
searching of reference lists, discussing scope, metho­
dology, and conducting a review with minimal biases
should be employed in research on waste management
as well. Overall, any methodology has weaknesses
(Pittaway et al. 2009); but the strength of our study
lies in its transparency, repeatability, testability, and
that it is open to scrutiny.
Conclusion
Recognizing the importance of handling waste at its
point of origin and understanding the lack of guidance
on actions required to achieve zero-waste landfills, we

selected a broad set of theories from ecological, health,
and societal perspectives. To obtain useful insights into
the behavioral aspects of SWM, we defined various RQs,
identified gaps in existing literature, and systematically
provided the path for future researchers. Our review
highlights that previous studies have not covered all
elements of the complexity of reducing waste. In addi­
tion, the results suggest that there is a need to examine
social and technology behavioral theories that can
improve our current understanding of SWMBs. We
believe our paper provides useful insight into the status
of existing SWM literature, which is vital because waste
is expected to increase exponentially in the coming
years.
This paper makes a methodological contribution by
presenting descriptive, frequency, and cluster analyses of
existing literature to generate knowledge in the field of
SWMB. Our approach corroborates that the combina­
tion of structured and specific approaches to biblio­
metric techniques can contribute promising results,
particularly when there are vast data. Thus, the recom­
mendations presented here should spur the materializa­
tion of more studies that can assist executives at
administrative levels to build a sustainable SWM system.
This review makes a theoretical contribution by stres­
sing that SWMB is not restricted to barriers related to
attitudes and intentions, since behavior is entangled
within social structures. It highlights that SWMB is
a combination of the mental processes of an individual
and the societal-related social processes. Only consistent
social practice can transform a nation; thus, environ­
mental and social aspects are inseparable. We insist on
exploring social elements to obtain a broader picture of
SWMB.
Our study touched upon SW issues, such as environ­
mental awareness, threats to adequate SWMB, and
SWM solutions. It highlighted the need for waste reduc­
tion and treating waste as a renewable source of energy.
Since this concept is still in its infancy, especially in
developing countries, it is imperative to acknowledge
the benefits of handling waste in an eco-friendly man­
ner. These benefits include resource conservation, clea­
ner environments, preparation against adverse urban
conditions, free access to emergency services, an
increase in eco-tourism revenue, environmental restora­
tion, lessening of epidemiological diseases, and improve­
ment in the quality of life and food supply. Thus, this
study calls for researchers in developing countries to
recognize that the field of psychology has much to con­
tribute to mitigating environmental problems.
This research primarily selected theories within the
scope of environmental, social, and health issues to
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 29
answer context-specific RQs. Irrespective of our exten­
sive efforts, our literature search may have insuffi­
ciently recorded all relevant papers owing to the large
volume of articles and research limitations.
Nevertheless, this systematic review is an original con­
tribution to the body of knowledge on the aforemen­
tioned research constructs. The constructs, limitations,
and gaps discussed in this review allow researchers,
teachers, and students to undertake more studies and
implement pro-environmental models to create
a cleaner environment. Furthermore, this article may
facilitate the formulation of pro-SWM laws, regula­
tions, and policies in developing countries – where
there is an urgent need for strict environmental reg­
ulations with a focus on sustainability.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the China Section of the Air & Waste
Management Association for the generous scholarship they
received to cover the cost of page charges and make the
publication of this paper possible.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
About the authors
Sumana Jagadeshi Raghu is a research scholar from the
Humanities and Management Department at Manipal
Institute of Technology – an institution of Manipal Academy
of Higher Education – Manipal, 576104 India. Email: sumana.
jagadeshi@gmail.com.
Lewlyn L.R. Rodrigues is a professor from the Humanities
and Management Department at Manipal Institute of
Technology – an institution of Manipal Academy of Higher
Education—Manipal, 576104 India. Email: l.rodrigues@mani­
pal.edu.
References
Åberg, H., S. Dahlman, H. Shanahan, and S. Roger. 1996.
Towards sound environmental behaviour: Exploring
household participation in waste management. J. Consum.
Policy 19 (1):45–67. doi:10.1007/BF00411470.
Abdelradi, F. 2018. Food waste behaviour at the household
level: A conceptual framework. Was. Manag. 71:485–493.
Afroz, R., R. Tudin, K. Hanaki, and M. M. Masud. 2011. Selected
socio-economic factors affecting the willingness to minimise
solid waste in Dhaka city, Bangladesh. J. Environ. Plan.
Manage. 54 (6):711–31. doi:10.1080/09640568.2010.527472.
Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned
behavior. In Action control, ed. J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann,
11–39. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
30 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav.
Hum. Decis. Process 50 (2):179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90020-T.
Ajzen, I. 2005. Attitudes, personality, and behavior. McGraw-
Hill Education (UK).
Ajzen I. & M. Fishbein. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and
Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ajzen, I. 2000. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus
of control, and the theory of planned behavior 1. J. Applied
Soc. Psych. 32 (4):665–683.
Ajzen, I. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of
Psyc. 52 (1):27–58.
Akman, I., and A. Mishra. 2015. Sector diversity in green
information technology practices: Technology acceptance
model perspective. Comput. Human Behav. 49:477–86.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.009.
Alwaeli, M. O. H. A. M. E. D. 2015. An overview of municipal
solid waste management in Poland. The current situation,
problems and challenges. Environ. Protect. Eng. 41 (4).
doi:10.37190/epe150414.
Arı, E., and V. Yılmaz. 2016. A proposed structural model for
housewives’ recycling behavior: A case study from Turkey.
Ecol. Econ. 129:132–42. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.002.
Arena, U. 2012. Process and technological aspects of munici­
pal solid waste gasification. A review. Waste Manage. 32
(4):625–39. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.09.025.
Arıkan, E., Z. T. Şimşit-Kalender, and Ö. Vayvay. 2017. Solid
waste disposal methodology selection using multi-criteria
decision making methods and an application in Turkey.
J. Clean. Prod. 142:403–12. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.054.
Bagozzi, R. P., and P. A. Dabholkar. 1994. Consumer recycling
goals and their effect on decisions to recycle: A means-end
chain analysis. Psychol. Market. 11 (4):313–40. doi:10.1002/
mar.4220110403.
Bagozzi, R. P., U. M. Dholakia, and A. Mookerjee. 2006.
Individual and group bases of social influence in online
environments. Media Psychol. 8 (2):95–126. doi:10.1207/
s1532785xmep0802_3.
Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84 (2):191. doi:10.1037/
0033-295X.84.2.191.
Bandura, A. 1991. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 50 (2):248–87.
doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L.
Bandura, A., and D. H. Schunk. 1981. Cultivating competence,
self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal
self-motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 41 (3):586. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.41.3.586.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 23–28.
Bandura, A. 1999. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspec­
tive. Asian J Soc Psyc . 2(1):21–41.
Bandura, A. 1989. Regulation of cognitive processes through
perceived self-efficacy. Devellop Psyc. 25, (5):729.
Barr, S. 2004. Are we all environmentalists now? Rhetoric and
reality in environmental action. Geoforum 35 (2):231–49.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.08.009.
Baud, I. S. A., S. Grafakos, M. Hordijk, and J. Post. 2001. Quality
of life and alliances in solid waste management: Contributions
to urban sustainable development. Cities 18 (1):3–12.
doi:10.1016/S0264-2751(00)00049-4.
Belotto, M. J. 2018. Data analysis methods for qualitative
research: Managing the challenges of coding, interrater relia­
bility, and thematic analysis. Qual. Rep. 23 (11):2622–33.
Best, H., and T. Kneip. 2011. The impact of attitudes and
behavioral costs on environmental behavior: A natural
experiment on household waste recycling. Soc. Sci. Res. 40
(3):917–30. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.12.001.
Best, H., and T. Kneip. 2011. The impact of attitudes and
behavioral costs on environmental behavior: A natural
experiment on household waste recycling. Social Science
Research 40 (3) :917–930.
Blamey, R. 1998. The activation of environmental norms:
Extending Schwartz’s model. Environ. Behav. 30 (5):676–708.
doi:10.1177/001391659803000505.
Bortoleto, A. P., K. H. Kurisu, and K. Hanaki. 2012. Model
development for household waste prevention behaviour.
Waste Manage. 32 (12):2195–207. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.
2012.05.037.
Boudon, R., and R. Viale. 2000. Reasons, cognition and
society. Mind. Soc. 1 (1):41. doi:10.1007/BF02512228.
Bourdieu, P. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Vol. 16.
Cambridge university press.
Bower, P., and S. Gilbody. 2005. Stepped care in psychological
therapies: access, effectiveness and efficiency: Narrative lit­
erature review. Brit. J Psych. 186 (1):11–17.
Bowles, S. 2008. Policies designed for self-interested citizens
may undermine” the moral sentiments”: Evidence from
economic experiments. Science 320 (5883):1605–09.
doi:10.1126/science.1152110.
Brekke, K. A., G. Kipperberg, and K. Nyborg. 2010. Social inter­
action in responsibility ascription: The case of household
recycling. Land Econ. 86 (4):766–84. doi:10.3368/le.86.4.766.
Cecere, G., S. Mancinelli, and M. Mazzanti. 2014. Waste pre­
vention and social preferences: The role of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations. Ecol. Econ. 107:163–76. doi:10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2014.07.007.
Chaiken, S., and Y. Trope, eds. 1999. Dual-process theories in
social psychology. Guilford Publishers, A unit of Guilford
Publications.
Chan, K. 1998. Mass communication and pro-environmental
behaviour: Waste recycling in Hong Kong. J. Environ.
Manage. 52 (4):317–25. doi:10.1006/jema.1998.0189.
Chau, P. Y. K. 1996. An empirical assessment of a modified
technology acceptance model. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 13
(2):185–204. doi:10.1080/07421222.1996.11518128.
Chen, H.-W., and N.-B. Chang. 2000. Prediction analysis of
solid waste generation based on grey fuzzy dynamic
modeling. Res. Conserv. Recy. 29 (1–2):1–18. doi:10.1016/
S0921-3449(99)00052-X.
Chen, Y.-T., and D.-S. Chang. 2010. Diffusion effect and learn­
ing effect: An examination on MSW recycling. J. Clean. Prod.
18 (5):496–503. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.013.
Cheung, S. F., D. K.-S. Chan, and Z. S.-Y. Wong. 1999.
Reexamining the theory of planned behavior in understand­
ing wastepaper recycling. Environ. Behav. 31 (5):587–612.
Chu, P., and J. Chiu. 2003. Factors influencing household
waste recycling behavior: Test of an integrated model 1.
J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33 (3):604–26. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2003.tb01915.x.
Cockerham, W. C., T. Abel, and L. Günther. 1993. Max
Weber, formal rationality, and health lifestyles. Sociol. Q.
34 (3):413–25. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00119.x.

Comber, R., and A. Thieme. 2013. Designing beyond habit:
Opening space for improved recycling and food waste
behaviors through processes of persuasion, social influence
and aversive affect. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 17 (6):1197–210.
doi:10.1007/s00779-012-0587-1.
Cook, D. J., C. D. Mulrow, and R. Brian Haynes. 1997.
Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical
decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine 126 (5):376–380. d.
Couraeya, K. S., and M. Edward. 1993. Predicting physical
activity from intention: Conceptual and methodological
issues. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 15 (1):50–62. doi:10.1123/
jsep.15.1.50.
Daneshvary, N., R. Daneshvary, and R. Keith Schwer. 1998.
Solid-waste recycling behavior and support for curbside tex­
tile recycling. Environ. Behav. 30 (2):144–61. doi:10.1177/
0013916598302002.
Darley, J. M., and B. Latane. 1970. Norms and normative
behavior: Field studies of social interdependence. Altruism
Help. Behav. 83–102.
Darley, J. M., and D. T. Gilbert. 1985. Social psychological
aspects of environmental psychology. Handbook Soc.
Psychol. 2:949–92.
Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13
(3):319–40. doi:10.2307/249008.
Davis, G., P. S. Phillips, A. D. Read, and Y. Iida. 2006.
Demonstrating the need for the development of internal
research capacity: Understanding recycling participation
using the Theory of Planned Behaviour in West
Oxfordshire, UK. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 46 (2):115–27.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.07.001.
Davis, R., R. Campbell, Z. Hildon, L. Hobbs, and S. Michie.
2015. Theories of behaviour and behaviour change
across the social and behavioural sciences: A scoping
review. Health Psychol. Rev. 9 (3):323–44. doi:10.1080/
17437199.2014.941722.
De Young, R. 1986. Some psychological aspects of recycling:
The structure of conservation-satisfactions. Environ. Behav.
18 (4):435–49. doi:10.1177/0013916586184001.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 1985. The general causality
orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. J. Res.
Pers. 19 (2):109–34. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 1980. Self-determination theory:
When mind mediates behavior. JMind and Behavior:33–43.
Diamond, W. D., and B. Z. Loewy. 1991. Effects of probabil­
istic rewards on recycling attitudes and behavior 1. J. Appl.
Soc. Psychol. 21 (19):1590–607. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.1991.tb00489.x.
Eastman, C., and J. S. Marzillier. 1984. Theoretical and meth­
odological difficulties in Bandura’s self-efficacy theory.
Cognit. Ther. Res. 8 (3):213–29. doi:10.1007/BF01172994.
Feiock, R. C., and J. P. West. 1993. Testing competing expla­
nations for policy adoption: Municipal solid waste recycling
programs. Polit. Res. Q. 46 (2):399–419. doi:10.1177/
106591299304600211.
Frey, B. S., and R. Jegen. 2001. Motivation crowding theory.
J. Econ. Surv. 15 (5):589–611. doi:10.1111/1467-
6419.00150.
Geller, E. S. 1989. Applied behavior analysis and social market­
ing: An integration for environmental preservation. J. Soc.
Issue 45 (1):17–36. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1989.tb01531.x.
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 31
Geller, E. S. 1995. Actively caring for the environment: An
integration of behaviorism and humanism. Environ. Behav.
27 (2):184–95. doi:10.1177/0013916595272004.
Ghani, W. A. W. A. K., I. Farizan Rusli, D. R. Awang Biak, and
A. Idris. 2013. An application of the theory of planned
behaviour to study the influencing factors of participation
in source separation of food waste. Wast. Manage. 33
(5):1276–1281.
Golden, S. D., K. R. McLeroy, L. W. Green, J. A. L. Earp, and
L. D. Lieberman. 2015. Upending the social ecological model
to guide health promotion efforts toward policy and environ­
mental change, 8S–14S. SAGE.
Goldenhar, L. M., and C. M. Connell. 1993. Understanding
and predicting recycling behavior: An application of the
theory of reasoned action. J. Environ. Syst. 22 (1):91–91.
Gordon-Wilson, S., and P. Modi. 2015. Personality and older
consumers’ green behaviour in the UK. Futures 71:1–10.
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2015.05.002.
Gould, R. K., N. M. Ardoin, M. Biggar, A. E. Cravens, and
D. Wojcik. 2016. Environmental behavior’s dirty secret: The
prevalence of waste management in discussions of environ­
mental concern and action. Environ. Manage. 58 (2):268–82.
doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0710-6.
Graham-Rowe, E., D. C. Jessop, and P. Sparks. 2015.
Predicting household food waste reduction using an
extended theory of planned behaviour. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 101 (2015): 194–202.
Green-Demers, I., L. G. Pelletier, and M. Sophie. 1997. The
impact of behavioural difficulty on the saliency of the asso­
ciation between self-determined motivation and environ­
mental behaviours. Can. J. Behav. Sci./Revue Canadienne
Des Sciences Du Comportement 29 (3):157. doi:10.1037/
0008-400X.29.3.157.
Guerrero, L. A., G. Maas, and W. Hogland. 2013. Solid
waste management challenges for cities in developing
countries. Waste Manage. 33 (1):220–32. doi:10.1016/j.
wasman.2012.09.008.
Haldeman, T., and J. W. Turner. 2009. Implementing a
community-based social marketing program to increase
recycling. Soc. Mar. Q. 15 (3):114–27. doi:10.1080/
15245000903154618.
Halvorsen, B. 2012. Effects of norms and policy incentives on
household recycling: An international comparison. Resour.
Conserv. Recy. 67:18–26. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.06.008.
Hargreaves, T. 2011. Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying
social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour
change. J. Consum. Cult. 11 (1):79–99. doi:10.1177/
1469540510390500.
Harland, P., H. Staats, and H. A. M. Wilke. 1999. Explaining
proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms
and the Theory of Planned Behavior 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.
29 (12):2505–28. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00123.x.
Higgins, E. T. 1996. The” self digest”: Self-knowledge serving
self-regulatory functions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71 (6):1062.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1062.
Holland, D., and J. Lave. 2009. Social practice theory and the
historical production of persons. Japan: Kansai University
Repository.
Hoornweg, D., and P. Bhada-Tata. 2012. What a waste:
A global review of solid waste management, Vol. 15.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
32 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES
Hopper, J. R., and J. McCarl Nielsen. 1991. Recycling as
altruistic behavior: Normative and behavioral strategies to
expand participation in a community recycling program.
Environ. Behav. 23 (2):195–220. Accessed August 1, 2020.
https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/arti
cles/906519
Huffman, A. H., B. R. Van Der Werff, J. B. Henning, and
K. Watrous-Rodriguez. 2014. When do recycling attitudes
predict recycling? An investigation of self-reported versus
observed behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 38:262–70.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.03.006.
Izagirre-Olaizola, J., A. Fernández-Sainz, and M. A. Vicente-
Molina. 2015. Internal determinants of recycling beha­
viour by university students: A cross-country comparative
analysis. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 39 (1):25–34. doi:10.1111/
ijcs.12147.
Jackson, N., and E. Waters. 2005. Criteria for the systematic
review of health promotion and public health interventions.
Health Promot. Int. 20 (4):367–74. doi:10.1093/heapro/
dai022.
Janz, N. K., and M. H. Becker. 1984. The health belief model:
A decade later. Health Educ. Q. 11 (1):1–47.
Jekria, N., and S. Daud. 2016. Environmental concern and
recycling behaviour. Procedia Econ. Finance 35:667–73.
doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00082-4.
Jones, N., K. Evangelinos, C. P. Halvadakis, T. Iosifides, and
C. M. Sophoulis. 2010. Social factors influencing perceptions
and willingness to pay for a market-based policy aiming on
solid waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 54 (9):533–40.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.10.010.
Jones, R. E. 1989. Understanding paper recycling in an
institutionally supportive setting: An application of the
theory of reasoned action. J. Environ. Syst. 19
(4):307–21. doi:10.2190/8KX2-9XQM-RP38-CLPP.
Joung, H., and H. Park-Poaps. 2013. Factors motivating and
influencing clothing disposal behaviours. Int. J. Consum.
Stud. 37 (1):105–111.? 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.
01048.x.
Kaiser, F. G., G. Hübner, and F. X. Bogner. 2005. Contrasting
the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm
model in explaining conservation behavior 1. J. Appl. Soc.
Psychol. 35 (10):2150–70. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.
tb02213.x.
Kamaruddin, M. A., M. S. Yusoff, L. M. Rui, A. M. Isa,
M. H. Zawawi, and R. Alrozi. 2017. An overview of muni­
cipal solid waste management and landfill leachate treat­
ment: Malaysia and Asian perspectives. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 24 (35):26988–7020. doi:10.1007/s11356-017-0303-9.
Kanfer, F. H., and P. Karoly. 1970. Self-regulation and its clinical
application: Some additional conceptualizations. Socialization:
Development of character and conscience 428–437
Karak, T., R. M. Bhagat, and P. Bhattacharyya. 2012.
Municipal solid waste generation, composition, and man­
agement: The world scenario. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 42 (15):1509–630.
Karbalaei, S., M. Abbas Abdollahi, A. S. Nor, and Z. Ismail.
2013. Locus of control, problem-solving skills appraisal as
predictors of waste prevention behaviors. Rom. J. Appl.
Psychol. 15 (2):51–58.
Katzev, R., and A. Pardini. 1988. The comparative effective­
ness of token reinforcers and personal commitment in
promoting recycling. J. Environ. Syst. 17:93–113.
Katzev, R. D., and T. R. Johnson. 1987. Promoting energy
conservation: An analysis of behavioral research. Gland,
Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
Kelly, T. C., I. G. Mason, M. W. Leiss, and S. Ganesh. 2006.
University community responses to on-campus resource
recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 47 (1):42–55. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2005.10.002.
Klöckner, C. A., and I. O. Oppedal. 2011. General vs. domain
specific recycling behaviour— Applying a multilevel com­
prehensive action determination model to recycling in
Norwegian student homes. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 55
(4):463–71. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.009.
Knussen, C., F. Yule, J. MacKenzie, and M. Wells. 2004. An
analysis of intentions to recycle household waste: The roles
of past behaviour, perceived habit, and perceived lack of
facilities. J. Environ. Psychol. 24 (2):237–46. doi:10.1016/j.
jenvp.2003.12.001.
Labuhn, A. S., B. J. Zimmerman, and M. Hasselhorn. 2010.
Enhancing students’ self-regulation and mathematics per­
formance: The influence of feedback and self-evaluative
standards. Metacogn. Learn. 5 (2):173–94. doi:10.1007/
s11409-010-9056-2.
Lauren, N., K. S. Fielding, L. Smith, and W. R. Louis. 2016.
You did, so you can and you will: Self-efficacy as a mediator
of spillover from easy to more difficult pro-environmental
behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 48:191–99. doi:10.1016/j.
jenvp.2016.10.004.
Lee, Y.-J., R. De Young, and R. W. Marans. 1995. Factors
influencing individual recycling behavior in office settings:
A study of office workers in Taiwan. Environ. Behav. 27
(3):380–403. doi:10.1177/0013916595273006.
Lin, H., and M. Hsu. 2015. Using social cognitive theory to
investigate green consumer behavior. Bus. Strategy Environ.
24 (5):326–43. doi:10.1002/bse.1820.
Lindsay, J. J., and A. Strathman. 1997. Predictors of recycling
behavior: An application of a modified health belief model
1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27 (20):1799–823. doi:10.1111/
j.1559-1816.1997.tb01626.x.
Mahmud, S., N. Diyana, and K. Osman. 2010. The determi­
nants of recycling intention behavior among the Malaysian
school students: An application of theory of planned
behaviour. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 9:119–24. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2010.12.123.
Mannetti, L., A. Pierro, and S. Livi. 2004. Recycling: Planned
and self-expressive behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 24
(2):227–36. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.01.002.
Manstead, A. S. R. 1999. The role of moral norm in the
attitude-behaviour relationship. In Attitudes, behaviour
and social context: The role of norms and group membership,
D. J. Terry and M. A. Hogg ed. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Marteau, T., P. Dieppe, R. Foy, A.-L. Kinmonth, and
N. Schneiderman. 2006. Behavioural medicine: Changing
our behaviour. BMJ, 332:437–38.
Marx, M. H., and W. A. Cronan-Hillix. 1987. McGraw-Hill
series in psychology. In Systems and theories in psychology,
4th ed., 461. New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
Matthies, E., S. Selge, and C. A. Klöckner. 2012. The role of
parental behaviour for the development of behaviour spe­
cific environmental norms – The example of recycling and
re-use behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 32 (3):277–84.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.04.003.

McCarty, J. A., and L. J. Shrum. 1994. The recycling of solid
wastes: Personal values, value orientations, and attitudes
about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior. J. Bus.
Res. 30 (1):53–62. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(94)90068-X.
McDevitt, T. M., and J. E. Ormrod. 2008. Fostering conceptual
change about child development in prospective teachers
and other college students. Child Development Perspectives
2 (2): 85–91.
Medical Research Council. 2000. Accessed March 28, 2019.
https://mrc.ukri.org/successes/evaluating-research-outcomes/
methodology-for-evaluation/
Menikpura, S. N. M., S. H. Gheewala, S. Bonnet, and
C. Chiemchaisri. 2013. Evaluation of the effect of recy­
cling on sustainability of municipal solid waste manage­
ment in Thailand. Waste Biomass Valorization 4
(2):237–57. doi:10.1007/s12649-012-9119-5.
Miafodzyeva, S., and N. Brandt. 2013. Recycling behaviour
among householders: Synthesizing determinants via a
meta-analysis. Waste Biomass Valorization 4 (2):221–35.
doi:10.1007/s12649-012-9144-4.
Michie, S., and C. Abraham. 2004. Interventions to change health
behaviours: Evidence-based or evidence-inspired ? Psychol.
Health 19 (1):29–49. doi:10.1080/0887044031000141199.
Miliute-Plepiene, J., O. Hage, A. Plepys, and A. Reipas. 2016.
What motivates households recycling behaviour in recy­
cling schemes of different maturity? Lessons from
Lithuania and Sweden. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 113:40–52.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.05.008.
Mitchell, T. R., and A. Biglan. 1971. Instrumentality theories:
Current uses in psychology. Psychol. Bull. 76 (6):432.
doi:10.1037/h0031831.
Moh, Y. C., and L. A. Manaf. 2014. Overview of household
solid waste recycling policy status and challenges in
Malaysia. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 82:50–61. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2013.11.004.
Monavari, S. M., G. A. Omrani, A. Karbassi, and F. F. Raof.
2012. The effects of socioeconomic parameters on house­
hold solid-waste generation and composition in developing
countries (a case study: Ahvaz, Iran). Environ. Monit.
Assess. 184 (4):1841–46. doi:10.1007/s10661-011-2082-y.
Mondéjar-Jiménez, J.-A., G. Ferrari, L. Secondi, and L. Principato.
2016. From the table to waste: An exploratory study on beha­
viour towards food waste of Spanish and Italian youths.
J. Clean. Prod. 138:8–18. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.018.
Mondéjar-Jiménez, J., G. Ferrari, L. Secondi, and L.
Principato. 2016. From the table to waste: An exploratory
study on behaviour towards food waste of Spanish and
Italian youths. J Cleaner Production 138:8–18.
Nabi, R. L., and S. Clark. 2008. Exploring the limits of social
cognitive theory: Why negatively reinforced behaviors on
TV may be modeled anyway.JComm. 58 (3): 407–427.
Needleman, L. D., and E. Scott Geller. 1992. Comparing inter­
ventions to motivate work-site collection of home-generated
recyclables. Am. J. Community Psychol. 20 (6):775–85.
doi:10.1007/BF01312607.
Nordlund, A. M., and J. Garvill. 2002. Value structures behind
proenvironmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 34 (6):740–56.
doi:10.1177/001391602237244.
Oreg, S., and T. Katz-Gerro. 2006. Predicting proenvironmen­
tal behavior cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned
behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environ. Behav. 38
(4):462–83. doi:10.1177/0013916505286012.
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 33
Osbaldiston, R., and J. P. Schott. 2012. Environmental sustain­
ability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenviron­
mental behavior experiments. Environ. Behav. 44
(2):257–99. doi:10.1177/0013916511402673.
Oxman, A. D. 1994. Systematic reviews: Checklists for review
articles. BMJ 309 (6955):648–51. doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6955.
648.
Oztekin, C., G. Teksöz, S. Pamuk, E. Sahin, and D. S. Kilic. 2017.
Gender perspective on the factors predicting recycling beha­
vior: Implications from the theory of planned behavior. Waste
Manage. 62:290–302. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.036.
Pakpour, A. H., I. M. Zeidi, M. M. Emamjomeh, S. Asefzadeh,
and H. Pearson. 2014. Household waste behaviours among
a community sample in Iran: An application of the theory
of planned behaviour. Waste Manage. 34 (6):980–86.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.028.
Pappu, A., M. Saxena, and S. R. Asolekar. 2007. Solid wastes
generation in India and their recycling potential in building
materials. Build. Environ. 42 (6):2311–20. doi:10.1016/j.
buildenv.2006.04.015.
Phipps, M., L. K. Ozanne, M. G. Luchs, S. Subrahmanyan,
S. Kapitan, J. R. Catlin, R. Gau, R. W. Naylor, R. L. Rose,
B. Simpson, et al. 2013. Understanding the inherent com­
plexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive
framework. J. Bus. Res. 66 (8):1227–34. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2012.08.016.
Pinker, S. 2010. The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelli­
gence, sociality, and language. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107
(Supplement 2):8993–99. doi:10.1073/pnas.0914630107.
Pittaway, L., and J. Cope. 2007. Entrepreneurship education:
A systematic review of the evidence. Int. Small Bus. J. 25
(5):479–510. doi:10.1177/0266242607080656.
Pittaway, L., P. Hannon, A. Gibb, and J. Thompson. 2009.
Assessment practice in enterprise education. Inter.
J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 15 (1):71–93. doi:10.1108/
13552550910934468.
Radwan, H. R. I., E. Jones, and D. Minoli. 2012. Solid waste
management in small hotels: A comparison of green and
non-green small hotels in Wales. J. Sustain. Tour. 20
(4):533–50. doi:10.1080/09669582.2011.621539.
Ramayah, T., J. Wai Chow Lee, and O. Mohamad. 2010. Green
product purchase intention: Some insights from
a developing country. Res. Conserv. Recy. 54 (12):1419–27.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.06.007.
Ramayah, T., J. Wai Chow Lee, and S. Lim. 2012. Sustaining the
environment through recycling: An empirical study. J. Environ.
Manage. 102:141–47. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.025.
Reckwitz, A. 2002. Toward a theory of social practices:
A development in culturalist theorizing. Eur. J. Soc.
Theory 5 (2):243–63. doi:10.1177/13684310222225432.
Rhee, S. H., and I. D. Waldman. 2002. Genetic and environ­
mental influences on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of
twin and adoption studies. Psychol. Bull. 128 (3):490.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.3.490.
Rise, J., M. Thompson, and B. Verplanken. 2003. Measuring
implementation intentions in the context of the theory of
planned behavior. Scandinavian J Psyc. 44 (2): 87–95.
Rogers, E. M. 2002. Diffusion of preventive innovations.
Addict. Behav. 27 (6):989–93. doi:10.1016/S0306-4603(02)
00300-3.
Rogers, E. M. 1983. The Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed. New
York, NY: The Free Press. [Google Scholar]
34 J.R. SUMANA AND L.L. R. RODRIGUES
Rosa, C. D., C. C. Profice, and S. Collado. 2018. Nature
experiences and adults’ self-reported pro-environmental
behaviors: The role of connectedness to nature and
childhood nature experiences. Front. Psychol. 9:1055.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01055.
Rosenstock, I. M. 1996. Why People use health services. The
Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 44:94–124.doi:10.2307/
3348967
Rosenstock, I. M. 1974. The health belief model and preventive
health behavior. Health Educ. Monogr. 2 (4):354–86.
doi:10.1177/109019817400200405.
Rosenstock, I. M., V. J. Strecher, and M. H. Becker. 1988.
Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health
Educ. Q. 15 (2):175–83. doi:10.1177/109019818801500203.
Roth, G., and M. Weber. 1976. History and sociology in the
work of Max Weber. Br. J. Sociol. 27 (3):306–18.
doi:10.2307/589618.
Rothenberg, S. 2007. Environmental managers as institu­
tional entrepreneurs: The influence of institutional and
technical pressures on waste management. J Busin Res.
60 (7):749–757.
Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motiva­
tions: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ.
Psychol. 25 (1):54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Salhofer, S., G. Obersteiner, F. Schneider, and S. Lebersorger.
2008. Potentials for the prevention of municipal solid
waste. Waste Manage. 28 (2):245–59. doi:10.1016/j.
wasman.2007.02.026.
Schultz, P. W., S. Oskamp, and T. Mainieri. 1995. Who
recycles and when? A review of personal and situational
factors. J. Environ. Psychol. 15 (2):105–21. doi:10.1016/
0272-4944(95)90019-5.
Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing Behavior With Normative
Feedback Interventions: A Field Experiment on Curbside
Recycling. Basic and Appl. Soc. Psyc. 21 (1):25–36.
doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2101_3
Schwartz, S. H. 1968. Words, deeds and the perception of
consequences and responsibility in action situations.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 10 (3):232. doi:10.1037/h0026569.
Schwartz, S. H. 1977. Normative influences on altruism. In
Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 10, ed. L.
Berkowitz, 221–79. Academic Press.
Seacat, J. D., and D. Northrup. 2010. An information–motiva­
tion–behavioral skills assessment of curbside recycling
behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (4):393–401. doi:10.1016/
j.jenvp.2010.02.002.
Sembiring, E., and V. Nitivattananon. 2010. Sustainable solid
waste management toward an inclusive society: Integration
of the informal sector. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 54
(11):802–09. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.12.010.
Sharholy, M., K. Ahmad, G. Mahmood, and R. C. Trivedi.
2008. Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities –
A review. Waste Manage. 28 (2):459–67. doi:10.1016/j.
wasman.2007.02.008.
Sheeran, P. 2002. Intention—behavior relations: A conceptual
and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 12 (1):1–36.
doi:10.1080/14792772143000003.
Shove, E. 2010. Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and
theories of social change. Environ. Plan A 42 (6):1273–85.
doi:10.1068/a42282.
Skinner, B. F. 1954. The science of learning and the art of
teaching. Cambridge, MA: 99:113.
Skinner, E. A., and U. Chi. 2012. The Learning-Gardens
Educational Assessment Group (2012). Intrinsic motivation
and engagement as “active ingredients” in garden-based
education: Examining models and measures derived from
self-determination theory. J. Environ. Educ. 43 (1):16–36.
doi:10.1080/00958964.2011.596856.
Soltani, A., K. Hewage, B. Reza, and R. Sadiq. 2015. Multiple
stakeholders in multi-criteria decision-making in the con­
text of municipal solid waste management: A review.
Waste Manage. 35:318–28. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.20
14.09.010.
Sommer, L. 2011. The theory of planned behaviour and the
impact of past behaviour. Inter. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 10
(1):91–110.
Stancu, V., P. Haugaard, and L. Liisa. 2016. Determinants of
consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste.
Appetite 96:7–17. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.025.
Stern, P. C. 1999. Information, incentives, and proenviron­
mental consumer behavior. J. Consum. Policy 22 (4):461–78.
doi:10.1023/A:1006211709570.
Stern, P. C. 2000. New environmental theories: Toward
a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.
J. Soc. Issue 56 (3):407–24. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
Sutton, S. 1998. Predicting and explaining intentions and
behavior: How well are we doing? J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28
(15):1317–38. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01679.x.
Sutton, S. 1998. Predicting and explaining intentions and
behavior: How well are we doing?. J Applied Soc. Psycho.
28 (15):1317–1338.
Swaim, J. A., M. J. Maloni, S. A. Napshin, and A. B. Henley.
2014. Influences on student intention and behavior toward
environmental sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 124 (3):465–84.
Swami, V., T. Chamorro-Premuzic, R. Snelgar, and
A. Furnham. 2011. Personality, individual differences, and
demographic antecedents of self-reported household waste
management behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 31 (1):21–26.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.08.001.
Taylor, S., and P. Todd. 1995. Understanding household gar­
bage reduction behavior: A test of an integrated model.
J. Public Policy Market. 14 (2):192–204. doi:10.1177/
074391569501400202.
Taylor, S., and P. Todd. 1997. Understanding the determinants of
consumer composting behavior 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27
(7):602–28. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00651.x.
Teasdale, J. D. 1978. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioural change? Adv. Behav. Res. Ther. 1 (4):211–15.
doi:10.1016/0146-6402(78)90009-7.
Terry, D. J., M. A. Hogg, and K. M. White. 1999. The theory of
planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group
norms. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 38 (3):225–44. doi:10.1348/
014466699164149.
Terry, D. J., and M.A. Hogg. 1996. Group norms and the
attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identifica­
tion. Personality Soc. Pycho.Bulle. 22 (8):776–793.
Thøgersen, J. 1994. A model of recycling behaviour, with evi­
dence from Danish source separation programmes. Int.
J. Res. Market. 11 (2):145–63. doi:10.1016/0167-8116(94)
90025-6.

Thøgersen, J., and Ö. Folke. 2003. Spillover of
environment-friendly consumer behaviour. J. Environ.
Psychol. 23 (3):225–36. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00018-5.
Thøgersen, J., & F. Ölander. 2003. Spillover of environment-
friendly consumer behaviour. J Envir. Psyc. 23 (3):225–236.
doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00018-5
Thøgersen, J. 1996. Recycling and morality: A critical review of
the literature. Envir. Behav. 28 (4):536–558.
Tih, S., and Z. Zainol. 2012. Minimizing waste and encoura­
ging green practices. J. Ekonomi Malaysia 46 (1):157–64.
Tomlinson, B. 2012. Greening through IT: Information tech­
nology for environmental sustainability. MIT Press.
Tomlinson, B. 2012. Greening through IT: Information tech­
nology for environmental sustainability. MIT Press.
Tonglet, M., P. S. Phillips, and A. D. Read. 2004. Using the
Theory of Planned Behaviour to investigate the determi­
nants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth,
UK. Res. Conserv. Recy. 41 (3):191–214. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2003.11.001.
Tranfield, D., D. Denyer, and P. Smart. 2003. Towards
a methodology for developing evidence-informed manage­
ment knowledge by means of systematic review. Br.
J. Manage. 14 (3):207–22. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Twigger-Ross, C., M. Bonaiuto, and G. Breakwell. 2003.
Identity theories and environmental psychology. New York:
Routledge.
Ureña, C., J. M. Azañón, J. M. Caro, C. Irigaray, F. Corpas, A.
Ramírez, F. Rivas, L. M. Salazar, and I. Mochón. 2012. Use
of Biomass Ash as a stabilization agent for expansive marly
soils (SE Spain). EGU General Assembly 2012.
Venkatesh, V., and F. D. Davis. 2000. A theoretical extension of the
technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies.
Manage. Sci. 46 (2):186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Verhagen, A. P., H. C. de Vet, R. A. de Bie, A. G. Kessels, M. Boers,
L. M. Bouter, and P. G. Knipschild. 1998. The Delphi list:
A criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical
trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi
consensus. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 51 (12):1235–41. doi:10.1016/
S0895-4356(98)00131-0.
Verplanken, B., and H. Aarts. 1999. Habit, attitude, and
planned behaviour: is habit an empty construct or an inter­
esting case of goal-directed automaticity?.“ European Rev.
Soc. Psyc. 10, (1):101–134.
Vining, J., and A. Ebreo. 1992. Predicting recycling behavior
from global and specific environmental attitudes and
changes in recycling opportunities 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.
22 (20):1580–607. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01758.x.
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 35
Vining, J., and A. Ebreo. 2002. Emerging theoretical and
methodological perspectives on conservation behavior.
Handbook Environ. Psychol. 2:541–58.
Wang, F., Z. Cheng, A. Reisner, and Y. Liu. 2018. Compliance
with household solid waste management in rural villages in
developing countries. J. Clean. Prod. 202:293–98. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.08.135.
Wang, T. H., and R. D. Katzev. 1990. Group commitment and
resource conservation: Two field experiments on promoting
recycling 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 20 (4):265–75. doi:10.1111/
j.1559-1816.1990.tb00411.x.
Warde, A. 2005. Consumption and theories of practice.
J. Consum. Cult. 5 (2):131–53. doi:10.1177/1469540505053090.
Weber, M. 1958. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism. 191.
Werner, C. M., and E. Makela. 1998. Motivations and beha­
viors that support recycling. J. Environ. Psychol. 18
(4):373–86. doi:10.1006/jevp.1998.0114.
Whiting, P., A. W. S. Rutjes, J. B. Reitsma, P. M. M. Bossuyt,
and J. Kleijnen. 2003. The development of QUADAS: A tool
for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy
included in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 3
(1):25. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25.
Xu, L., M. Ling, L. Yujie, and M. Shen. 2017. External influ­
ences on forming residents’ waste separation behaviour:
Evidence from households in Hangzhou, China. Habitat.
Int. 63:21–33. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.03.009.
Yau, Y. 2010. Domestic waste recycling, collective action and
economic incentive: The case in Hong Kong. Waste Manage.
30 (12):2440–47. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.009.
Young, W., S. V. Russell, C. A. Robinson, and R. Barkemeyer.
2017. Can social media be a tool for reducing consumers’
food waste? A behaviour change experiment by a UK retai­
ler. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 117:195–203. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2016.10.016.
Zhang, D., G. Huang, X. Yin, and Q. Gong. 2015. Residents’
waste separation behaviors at the source: Using SEM with the
theory of planned behavior in Guangzhou, China. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12 (8):9475–91. doi:10.3390/
ijerph120809475.
Zhang, X., C. Wan, R. Cheung, and G. Qiping Shen. 2012.
Recycling attitude and behaviour in university campus: a
case study in Hong Kong. Facilities.
Zimmerman, B. J. 1989. A social cognitive view of
self-regulated academic learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 81
(3):329. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329.