Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Behavioural Patterns of Plastic Use by Indigenes of Ho: Influ-Ence of Awareness Levels, Attitudinal Change and Legislative Frameworks

Altmetrics

Downloads

148

Views

60

Comments

0

Submitted:

19 May 2023

Posted:

22 May 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Most research findings in Ghana and all over the globe lay much emphasis on the technical knowledge of plastics; especially giving preference to the biodegradable over the synthetic/Single-Use plastics. Questionnaires were administered to about 200 respondents in the Ho Municipality out of which 163 responses were filled and returned. Results showed that of all the variables tested only Legislative Framework has a meaningful impact on the behaviour of Ho indigenes. Awareness level: (Synthetic Plastics and Biodegradable Plastics) as well as Attitudinal Change do not influence people’s behaviour when using plastics. Findings from this study are further discussed and recommendations were proffered to instil eco-friendly behaviour among people.
Keywords: 
Subject: Social Sciences  -   Sociology

1. Introduction

Recently, the use of plastics form an integral part of our everyday lives globally (Alam et al., 2018). Due to the daily consumption of plastics, there is excessive plastic production with more than 350 million tons every year (Liang et al., 2021; Plastic Europe, 2020). Globally, 335 million metric tons of plastics are generated as reported in 2016 (Plastic Europe, 2017). Plastics produced globally shot up to 348 million tons in 2017 and 359 million in 2018. The whole of Europe produced 18.5% while China produced 29.4% with the African continent producing 7.1% in 2017 (Plastic Europe, 2018 & Plastic Europe, 2019). Due to incessant release of plastic waste biodiversity is negatively impacted thus affecting ecosystem services (Adane & Muleta, 2011).
Because plastics play a pivotal role in economic development there will be huge numbers of plastic waste pollution in Macao due to an increase in population growth, advancement in the tourism industry and many more. As a result of this phenomenon much is expected from environmental management and recycling experts (Liang et al., 2021; Song et al., 2016). Most researchers across the globe carry out research mainly focused on the legislative frameworks regulating the consumption and production of plastics, but with little study on the awareness levels of indigenes regarding the types of plastics as well as understanding their perceptions towards the consumption of plastics (Adam et al., 2021). In the developed countries, many people now perceive the use of plastics as on a slippery slope which will have more devastating consequences on the environment years to come. Unfortunately, Africa and Asia are yet to achieve this feat (Dikgang et al., 2012; Zen et al., 2013). Africa is yet to be at par with Europe because majority in Africans do not understand efficient waste management practices and lack the skills. In Asia; taking China and India as examples may be facing plastic waste pollution due to an overwhelming increase in population growth coupled with their strong desires to be economically sufficient with little consideration to the impact of their businesses on the environment.
The perceptions, behaviour and attitude of people towards the use and handling of plastics is the reason for the indiscriminate littering of plastic waste in our environment especially in drainage ways, roads, farms and many more (Afroz et al., 2010; Sarbassov et al., 2019).
Previous studies confirmed that environmental knowledge has a significant impact on an eco-friendly attitude and it enables people to become environmentally responsible. There is therefore a strong positive correlation between environmental awareness and the behaviours of people concerning the use of plastics (Brundtland, 1987).
Legislations on the use of plastic bags in the form of levies can make a positive impact in society by ensuring sustainable management of plastics since it (levy) makes them become environmentally conscious (Vassanadumrongdee, 2020).
The findings of this study will contribute to the general literature on the perceptions people have concerning plastics’ use. To the best of our knowledge there was no study conducted in the Ho Municipality to test the awareness levels of indigenes on plastics’ use. The results can guide policy makers adopt and implement the most appropriate measures in regulating human behaviour on the use of plastics in the Ho Municipality.

1.1. Conceptualization and Hypotheses Development

A review of literature on the factors that influence people’s choices on the use of plastics provided information on understanding people’s behaviour towards plastics, and argues that there is little work done in this regard (Adam et al., 2021). The hypothesis for each latent variable is further explained in the following subsections.

1.1.1. Awareness Level: Synthetic Plastics (Responses)

The availability of plastics play a critical role in the world’s industrial revolution, synthetic plastics are made from fossils (World Economic Forum, 2016; Gu et al., 2017). The use of plastics is inevitable and this has caused a surge in their demand. To make matters worse for environmentalists, this demand is likely to double in the next two (2) decades to come (World Economic Forum, 2016; Gu et al., 2017). A lot more people patronize synthetic plastics many years back (though made from petrochemicals) due to their low cost of production making them affordable for businesses, durability and strength, provision of insulation, and their resistance to chemicals and corrosion (Filho et al., 2021).
Study conducted by Adam et al., 2021 found out three (3) behavioural patterns people displayed in the use of synthetic plastics. These behavioural patterns are categorized into: (i) Complete avoidance of synthetic plastics (ii) Potential avoiders of synthetic plastics and (iii) Patrons of synthetic plastics. Based on the above literature, we hypothesize that:
H1: 
Awareness levels of Ho indigenes on what synthetic plastics have an effect on their Behavioural Patterns

1.1.2. Awareness Level: Biodegradable Plastics (Responses)

One of the underlying factors underpinning plastic pollution in our environment is that people do not show interest in environmental issues. One reason for this is because people are already addicted to the use of conventional plastics where they are disposed off after usage (UN Environment, 2018). This statement is consistent with the findings of Mestec (2018), who also agreed that a large chunk of plastics that we use are destined for landfills and water bodies each year due to their inability to be recycled and recovered (Gourmelon, 2015). Understanding environmental issues is also another reason why many people do not patronize biodegradable plastics. Most consumers do not have expert knowledge when it comes to environmental sustainability although they may be highly educated. Many consumers have general knowledge of the environment, but not on critical Environmental issues (Ahmad et al., 2010). This is because issues on Environmental Sustainability is a specialist niche which requires adequate training and continual reading.
When it happens this way people will begin to appreciate the value nature presents to us and this will reflect in the daily handling of plastics by people. Based on the above available information, we propose the following hypothesis:
H2: 
Awareness levels of people of what biodegradable plastics are will reflect in their daily handling of plastics.

1.1.3. Attitudinal Change (Responses)

Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary defines Attitude as a ‘‘feeling or way of thinking that affects a person’s behaviour.’’
Transition to a circular economy in the plastic economy has seen the support of practitioners and academics. In as much as it inures to the benefit of society and meets all the pillars of sustainability, engaging indigenes in communities is fraught with several challenges (Kolade et al., 2022). These challenges include; institutional, infrastructural and socio-cultural factors despite the enthusiasm, expertise and commitment of change makers (Kolade et al., 2022).
Circular plastic economy has a great potential for the creation of jobs and enhancement of skills which the African continent needs to address youth unemployment (Berg et al., 2018).
Based on the above submissions, we hypothesize that:
H3: 
Attitudinal Change (preconceived mentality) of indigenes has an effect on the behaviors of people.

1.1.4. Legislative Framework (Responses)

One thing peculiar to regulatory frameworks is that sanctions are applied to people who refuse to comply with them (Scott, 2014). Government agencies, companies, international organizations and other relevant stakeholders are responsible for the implementation of these laws. Researches conducted in the past have it that legislative instruments are the most powerful tools in forcing firms to implement environmental practices and most importantly making them become environmentally conscious (Oliver, 1997). Based on the findings of Chen et al., 2019 regulations on good environmental practices are the most influential drivers that cause managers of firms to adopt sustainable practices.
In Ghana, it is evident that we tend to comply with laws when sanctions are meted out to culprits, and when we become aware that laws exist. To support the above statement; all landlords have toilet facilities for their tenants which was not the case previously. This is because of the putting into force the Local Government Act (Act 462). Based on the above literature, we hypothesize that:
H4: 
Legislative framework affects the way people manage plastic wastes (and waste in general)

2. Methodology

2.1. Measurement of Constructs

A structured questionnaire was adopted in this study to collect data from consumers of plastics such as traders and storekeepers to test the developed hypotheses. The items for the constructs were adapted from previous studies. This is to make sure that there is content validity among the constructs and measured on five-point Likert scales ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (see supplementary Materials). Items for legal framework and awareness level (synthetic) were adapted from Adam et al., 2021. The items for attitudinal change and effects on behavioural patterns were adapted from Ezcurra & Bisogno, 2022 and Shen et al., 2020 respectively. The items for biodegradable plastics were adapted from Moshood et al., 2022.

2.2. Sample Size Determination

The sample size was determined using Krejcie and Morgan (1970) formula. It was calculated referencing Krejcie and Morgan Table of Sample Size Determination. Using a table value of chi-square for 10 confidence level of 95%, margin of error of 5%, a population size of 290, population proportion of 50% the sample size of 163 was obtained; where:
n= sample size
N= the total population size
e = margin of error
p = population proportion
X2 = Chi- square

2.3. Sample and Data Collection

Data were collected from commercial areas such as markets, and around tertiary institutions in the Ho Municipality using questionnaires. The target population consisted of only Ho residents and all respondents were 18 years and above. A simple random sampling was employed to collect data (Adichwal et al., 2022).
The respondents included traders, University Students, Senior High Students and business people. The percentage of male respondents were higher than the female respondents because the male respondents showed willingness to participate in the study and demonstrated keen interest in environmental issues. Most of the females we approached with the questionnaire survey were either unreceptive or unconcerned. Google forms were distributed on social media platforms (specifically WhatsApp) and complemented with survey questionnaires (Ahsan et al., 2020). English was the medium of communication so that majority of respondents could understand which was mixed with the local language (Ewe).
The questionnaire was adopted from research articles specific to the various themes (as elaborated above under Section 2.1: Measurement of Constructs. Participants were first informed about the purpose of carrying out this questionnaire before we administered the survey questionnaire.

2.4. Data Analysis

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was employed in this study for generating data on the demographics. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using Partial Least Squares (PLS) was the software used in testing the research model (Ringle et al., 2015). Partial Least Squares (PLS) was chosen because of its suitability in identifying key variables and this meets the objective of this study (Ali et al., 2019)
Out of a total of 163 respondents who partook in the study, 86.5% were males whereas 13.5% were females. Majority of the respondents (98.2%) were within the age range of 18-39 years. Also, 86.5% of the respondents had tertiary qualifications whiles 4.3% and 6.7% has Technical/ Vocational and secondary education respectively. Then again, 49.1% of the respondents are comfortable using plastic bags whiles 39.9% are not. However, 11% are indecisive. These outcomes are exhibited in Table 1 above.
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents.
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents.
Demographics Frequency Percent
Sex:
Male 141 86.5
Female 72 13.5
Age:
18-24 93 57.0
25-29 41 25.2
30-39 26 16.0
40-49
50-Above		 3
0		 1.8
0
Occupation:
Farmers 20 12.3
Artisans 7 4.3
Trader 11 6.7
Civil/Public servant 27 16.6
Unemployed 98 60.1
Location:
Urban Ho 97 59.5
Sub-Urban Ho 22 13.5
Rural Ho 44 27.0
Literacy Level:
Basic/Primary Education 0 0
Secondary Education 11 6.7
Tertiary Education 141 86.5
Technical/Vocational 7 4.3
No Formal Education 4 2.5
Are you comfortable using a plastic bag?
Yes 80 49.1
No 65 39.9
Can’t Tell 18 11.0
Total 163 100.0
Source: Survey Data, 2022.
Table 2. Adapted instruments and Cronbach’s Alpha.
Table 2. Adapted instruments and Cronbach’s Alpha.
Items Factor Loadings CA Source
Synthetic Plastic
Synthetic plastics do not break down in the environment; but stay for many years. 0.838 Adam et al., 2021.
Yuan & Cummins, 2022. Shen et al., 2020.
Synthetic plastics are harmful to the environment 0.818 0.793
Synthetic plastics are harmful to human health 0.685
Synthetic plastics are dangerous to aquatic life 0.689
Synthetic plastics contribute immensely to
greenhouse gas emissions		 0.602
Attitudinal Change
Perceived high cost of production makes people not to patronize biodegradable plastics 0.730
Traders & consumers doubts gradable plastics make them 0.700 0.827 Ezcurra & Bisogno, 2022. Shen et al., 2020
Indigenes have limited alternatives to biodegradable plastic in the market unlike synthetics 0.821
Less attention given to environmental Issues by social media as well as-online media. 0.884
Biodegradable Plastics
Biodegradable plastics decay upon their release into the environment 0.886
Biodegradable plastics pose less danger to the environment 0.850 0.855 Moshood et al., 2022
Biodegradable plastics pose less danger to human health 0.797
Subsidies should be put on biodegradable plastics in the form of tax waivers 0.793
Legal Framework
There is no effort made to educate indigenes on sanitation laws. 0.831 0.700 Adam et al., 2021
There is lack of adequate legislation for enforcement 0.720
There is lack of enforcement for the already existing laws. 0.780
Effect on Behavioural Patterns
Having adequate knowledge about synthetic plastics affect Behavioural Patterns 0.810
Having adequate knowledge about biodegradable plastics affect Behavioural patterns 0.874 0.901 Shen et al., 2020
Bucknall, 2020
Having pre-conceived notion about plastics influences the daily handling of plastic 0.844
Awareness about the legislative frameworks of plastics influences daily handling of plastics 0.830
0.870

3. Results: Measurement model assessment

The model’s reliability and validity are reported in Table 3. The findings reveal that all the measures have satisfactory level of internal consistency. Thus, both indices of Cronbach alpha (CA) values ranging from (0.700 to 0.901) and Composite Reliability (CR) values ranging from (0.821 to 0.926) exceeded the recommended thresholds of 0.7 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Nunnally, 1978). Regarding convergent validity, all the outer loadings are between 0.602 and 0.886, and the indices of Average Variance Extractor (AVE) values ranges from (0.536 to 0.716), exceeding the acceptable threshold of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The evidence suggests the measures have an acceptable degree of convergent validity (Hair et al., 2014).
Preprints 74175 g001
Figure 1. Measurement Model. Source: Estimate from SmartPLS
Figure 1. Measurement Model. Source: Estimate from SmartPLS
Preprints 74175 g001

3.1. Discriminant Validity

The study employed cross loading, Fornell-Larcker (1981) criterion, and Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) approach (Henseler et al., 2015) to determine the discriminant validity of the scale used for the study.
As depicted in Table 4, all figures on the diagonals are greater than the figures below them indicating that discriminant validity is attained. According to Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle and Mena (2012), discriminant validity using the Fornell-Larcker criterion at the construct level can be achieved if the square-root of the AVE is greater than the highest correlation between the latent variable and the other constructs.
Results presented in Table 5 show the outer loadings of each indicator been greater on its respective latent variable than its cross-loadings on any other latent variables. This also confirms the attainment of discriminant validity.
Further, the HTMT values ranging from (0.070 to 0.815), is below the threshold value of 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015) or 0.90 (Hair et al., 2013) as indicated in Table 6 provides evidence of discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015).

3.2. Hypothesis Testing

From the results shown in Table 7, it indicates that, the path coefficients and the p-values showed that out of the four (4) hypotheses tested, only one (1) path relationship (LF->EBP) was significant (i.e., H3). Specifically, AC insignificantly predicted EBP (β = 0.088; t = 0.573; p = 0.567) indicating a one-unit decrease in AC will decrease the expected value of EBP by 0.0.088 thereby rejecting H1. Also, BP and SP did not significantly predict EBP as indicated in the Table 7 above because their p-values are greater than 0.05. Therefore, hypothesis (H1, H2, H4) are rejected whilst Hypothesis (H3) is supported respectively.
The Table 8 above shows the predictive relevance (Q2) and predictive power (R2) of the dependent variable. From the Table 8, it indicates that, the structural model has acceptable level of predictive relevance (Q2>0.043) and predictive power (R2>0.077) (Hair et al., 2019; Usakli & Kucukergin, 2018). Specifically, the R2 value of 0. 077 indicates that the model explains 7.7% of variation in EBP. Also, Q2 of the model was 0.043 which is > 0.0, establishing the fact that the PLS structural model has predictive relevance.

3.3. Ethical Considerations/Research Ethics

Research ethics was strictly adhered to respondents. The purpose of the study was communicated to the respondents.

4. Discussion and Implications

It is an undeniable fact that the environment has reached its threshold and can no longer contain the ever-increasing plastic waste accumulation which has dire impact on the environment (Derraik, 2002). Due to the numerous benefits plastics provide us which include their affordability, portability, and easy way of production. However, we are not yet in the position to effectively manage the amount of plastic waste we churn out. This can only be achieved through a change of mind and behaviour in the way we manufacture, use and manage plastics (Giacovelli, 2018). Nonetheless, in our present study, attitudinal change has no effect on the behaviour of people which is not consistent with the findings of (Clearsky, 2021 and Trubetskaya et al., 2022) who argued that in order to have a greener plastic economy, there must be a systematic mental shift in making people accept eco-friendly packaging materials.
Based on the results, legislative framework has a positive effect on the behaviour of Ho indigenes and this is in agreement with the findings of (Addaney & Oppong 2015) who found out that effective implementation of legal frameworks will help manage solid waste more efficiently and sustainably. Furthermore, our result is consistent with the findings of Lissah et al., 2021 which also states that strict implementation of regulations will help minimize urban solid waste in Ghana as a whole. This suggests the crucial impacts legislative frameworks have on sanitation in Ghana. Effective implementation of the legislative instruments particularly in the Municipalities will automatically have a positive impact on the behaviour of indigenes in the Ho Municipality.
According to our result, being aware of the different types of plastics and their environmental impact has no effect on the behaviour of Ho indigenes which is not consistent with the findings of Adam et al., 2021. Our findings suggest that some indigenes have adequate knowledge of the types of plastics and their impact on the environment but are not environmentally conscious rather the introduction of plastic bag levies (as done in England) will force them to become environmentally responsible.
Our findings provided us with information that even though majority are willing to change their behaviours to live more sustainably, they still need financial and logistics support especially the producers. They argued that having brilliant ideas alone will not make them produce eco-friendly plastics and promote green living like recycling.
Understanding how the awareness levels, legislative framework and attitudinal change influence the behaviour of Ho indigenes towards the use of plastics will help local policymakers (Districts, Municipal) review policies and strategies in ways that will enable Ho to maintain its enviable status of being the oxygen city in Ghana even as population increases.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Plastic consumption plays a major role in the economic lives of people and this accounts for the increase in plastic bottles churned out everyday (Nielsen et al., 2019). Even though there are calls for the reduction of plastic waste by stakeholders and government institutions. There is very little empirical study on understanding people’s behaviour towards the handling of plastics. It is in this regard that this study sought to understand the behaviour of Ho indigenes on the consumption of plastics.
In conclusion, the level of awareness of the types of plastics (whether synthetic/biodegradable) has no meaningful impact on how people handle plastics which is not in agreement with (Adam et al., 2021 and Shen et al., 2020). In this present study, efforts made by stakeholders to make people have a positive mental attitude has no effect on how people use plastics which is also not in line with (Clearsky, 2021). The results showed clearly that people can only change their behaviours as a result of implementing legislations regulating the consumption and production of plastics. Member states commit themselves to achieving their global environmental goals between now and 2030 through effective implementation of regulatory measures (Directive EU, 2019). This study implies that policy frameworks and regulatory measures aimed at minimizing the plastic waste menace should be developed to protect the environment (Bezerra et al., 2021; Clayton et al., 2020; Diggle & Walker, 2020) and by this many would shun away from disposing off plastics indiscriminately.

6. Limitations and Future Studies

Although the objectives of our study were addressed, there is one limitation that should be considered and can be a starting point for future studies in other regions of Ghana. This is because the study was limited to Ho and therefore further studies are needed to measure these variables in other parts of Ghana.

References

  1. Adam, I. , Walker, T.R., Clayton, C.A., Bezerra, J.C. (2021). Attitudinal and behavioural segments on single-use plastics in Ghana: Implications for reducing marine plastic pollution. Environmental Challenges 4: 100185. [CrossRef]
  2. Adane, L. , Muleta, D. (2011). Survey on the usage of Plastic Bags, Their Disposal and Adverse Impacts on Environment: A Case Study in Jimma City, Southwestern Ethiopia. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Sci. 3:234-248.
  3. Addaney, M. , & Oppong, R.A. (2015). Critical issues of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Ghana. JENRM 2(1): 30-36.
  4. Adichwal, N.K. , Ahmadini, A.A.H., Raghav, Y.S., Singh, R. & Ali, I. (2021). Estimation of general parameters using auxiliary information in simple random sampling without replacement. Journal of King Saud University-Science 34: 101754. [CrossRef]
  5. Afroz, R.; Hanaki, K.; Tuddin, R.; Ayup, K. (2010). A survey of recycling behaviour in households in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Waste Manag. Res. 28, 552–560. [CrossRef]
  6. Ahmad, S.N.B. , Juhdi, N., Awadz, A.S. (2010). Examination of Environmental Knowledge and Perceived Pro-Environmental Behaviour Among Students of University Tun Abdul Razak, Malaysia. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Thought 1(1):328-342.
  7. Ahsan, M.U. , Nasir, M., & Abbas, J. (2020). Examining the Causes of Plastic Bags Usages & Public Perception about its Effects on the Natural Environment. International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences. [CrossRef]
  8. Alam, O. , Billah, M., Yajie, D. (2018). Characteristics of Plastic Bags and Their Potential Environmental Hazards. Resourc. Conser. Recycl. 132: 121-129. [CrossRef]
  9. Ali, M.H. , Zailani, S., Iranmanesh, M., & Foroughi, B. (2019). Impacts of Environmental Factors on Waste, Energy & Resource Management and Sustainable Performance. Sustainability J. Retrieved: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332631700.
  10. Bagozzi, R. P. , & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science. 16(1): 74-94.
  11. Berg, A. , Antikainen, R., Hartikainen, E., Kauppi, S., Kautto, P., Lazarevic, D., Piesik, S., Saikku, L. (2018) Circular Economy for Sustainable Development. Finnish Environment Institute.
  12. Brundtland, G.H. (1987). Our Common Future; World, Commission on Environment and Development: Brussels, Belgium.
  13. Bucknall, D.G. (2020). Plastic as a material system in a circular economy. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A378:20190268. Retrieved. [CrossRef]
  14. Clayton, C.A. , Walker, T.R., Bezerra, J.C., Adam, I., (2020). Policy responses to reduce single-use plastic marine pollution in the Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 111833. [CrossRef]
  15. Clearsky, H.W. (2021). Significantly Reduce Plastic Use. Retrieved: www.sustainabilityforlife,com.
  16. Derraik, J.G.B. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris. Mar Pollut Bull. 44(9):842-852. [CrossRef]
  17. Diggle, A. , Walker, T.R., (2020). Implementation of harmonized extended producer Re- sponsibility strategies to incentivize recovery of single-use plastic packaging waste in Canada. Waste Manage. 110, 20–23.
  18. Dikgang, J. , Leiman, A., Visser, M. (2012). Analysis of the plastic-bag levy in South Africa. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 66:59–65. [CrossRef]
  19. Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (Text with EEA relevance), Official Journal of the European Union, pp. 1–19.
  20. 20. Environmental impact of municipal solid waste management using Life Cycle Assessment: The effect of anaerobic digestion, materials recovery and secondary fuels production. Renew. Energy. 124, 180-188.
  21. Ezcurra, M.V. , Bisogno, M. (2022). Are plastic taxes environmental/fiscal measures? A legal analysis of the Italian and Spanish cases under the circular economy strategy. Green Deals in the Making. Retrieved. [CrossRef]
  22. Filho,W. L., Salvia, A. L., Bonoli, A., Saari, U.A., Voronova, V., Kloga, M., Kumbhar, S.J., Olszewski, K., Quevedo, D. M., Barbir, J. (2021). An assessment of attitudes towards plastics and bioplastics in Europe. Science of the Total Environment. 755:142732. [CrossRef]
  23. Fornell, C. , & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics.
  24. Giacovelli, C. (2018). Single-use plastics: a roadmap for sustainability. United Nations Environment Program. Retrieved: https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/single-use-plastics-roadmap-sustainability. Retrieved , September 14, 2022.
  25. Gourmelon, G. (2015). Global plastic production rises, recycling lags. New Worldwatch Institute analysis explores trends in global plastic consumption and recycling Recuperado de http://www.worldwatch.org.
  26. Gu, F. , Guo, J., Zhang, W., Summers, P.A., Hall, P. (2017). From waste plastics to industrial raw materials: a life cycle assessment of mechanical plastic recycling practice based on a real-world case study. Sci. Total Environment. 601-602, 1192-1207. [CrossRef]
  27. Hair Jr, J. F. , Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European business review.
  28. Hair, J. F. , Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review, 31(1): 2-24. [CrossRef]
  29. Hair, J. F. , Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the academy of marketing science. 40(3): 414-433. [CrossRef]
  30. Heidbreder, L.M. , Bablok, I., Drews, S., Menzel, C. (2019). Tackling the plastic problem: A review on perceptions, behaviours and interventions. Science of the Total Environment. Retrieved. [CrossRef]
  31. Henseler, J. , Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43(1), 115-135. [CrossRef]
  32. Kolade, O. , Odumuyiwa, V., Abolfathi, S., Schröder, P., Wakunuma, K., Akanmu, I., Whitehead, T., Tijani, B., Oyinlola, M. (2022). Technology acceptance and readiness of stakeholders for transitioning to a circular economy in Africa. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183:121954. [CrossRef]
  33. Liang, Y. , Tan, Q., Song, Q., Li, J. (2021). An analysis of the Plastic Waste Trade & Management in Asia. Waste Manag. 119:242-253. [CrossRef]
  34. Liang, Y.; Song, Q.; Liu, G.; Li, J. (2021). Uncovering Residents and Restaurants’ Attitude and Willingness toward Effective Food Waste Management: A Case Study of Macau. Waste Manag. 130, 107–116. [CrossRef]
  35. Lissah, S.Y. , Ayanore, M.A., Krugu, J.K., Aberese-Ako, M., Ruiter, R.A.C. (2021). Managing urban solid waste in Ghana: Perspectives and experiences of Municipal waste company managers and supervisors in an urban municipality. PLOS ONE. Retrieved. [CrossRef]
  36. Mestecc (2018). Malaysia’s Roadmap towards Zero Single Use Plastics 2018-2030. Retrieved from: https://www.metecc.gov.my/web/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Malaysia-Road-map-Towards-Zero-Single-Use-Plastics-2018-2030 Accessed September 12, 2022.
  37. Nielsen, T.D.; Holmberg, K.; Stripple, J. (2019). Need a Bag? A Review of Public Policies on Plastic Carrier Bags—Where, How and to What Effect? Waste Manag. 87, 428–440.
  38. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  39. Oliver, C. (1997) Sustainable competitive advantage. Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strateg. Manag. J. 18:697-713.
  40. Plastic Europe (2020). Plastics-The Facts 2020: An analysis of European Plastic Production, Demand and Waste Data; Plastic Europe: Brussels, Belgium. Available online: https://plasticeurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2020. Accessed September 22, 2022.
  41. PlasticsEurope. Plastics—The Facts 2017; PlasticsEurope Deutschland e. V. and Messe Düsseldorf: Brussels, Belgium.
  42. PlasticsEurope. Plastics—The Facts 2018; PlasticsEurope Deutschland e. V. and Messe Düsseldorf: Brussels, Belgium.
  43. PlasticsEurope. Plastics—The Facts 2019; PlasticsEurope Deutschland e. V. and Messe Düsseldorf: Brussels, Belgium.
  44. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.-M. (2015) SmartPLS 3; SmartPLS GmbH: Boenningstedt, UK.
  45. Sarbassov, Y.; Sagalova, T.; Tursunov, O.; Venetis, C.; Xenarios, S.; Inglezakis, V. (2019) Survey on household solid waste sorting at source in developing economies: A case study of Nur-Sultan City in Kazakhstan. Sustainability. 11, 6496. [CrossRef]
  46. Scott, W.R. (2014) Institutions and Organizations. 4th ed; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
  47. Shen, M. , Huang, W., Chen, M., Song, B., Zeng, G., Zhang, Y. (2020). Micro Plastic crisis: Un-ignorable contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production. 254:120138. [CrossRef]
  48. Song, Q.; Wang, Z.; Li, J. (2016). Exploring Residents’ Attitudes and Willingness to Pay for Solid Waste Management in Macau. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.23, 16456–16462. [CrossRef]
  49. Trubetskaya, A. , Scholten, P.B.V., Corredig, M. (2022). Changes towards more sustainable food packaging legislation and practices. A survey of policy makers and stakeholders in Europe. Food Packaging & Shelf Life. 32:100856. [CrossRef]
  50. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Plastic Bag Bans can Help Reduce Toxic Fumes. Available online: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/plastic-bag-bans-can-help-reduce-toxicfumes. Accessed on September 22, 2022.
  51. Usakli, A. , & Kucukergin, K. G. (2018). Using partial least squares structural equation modeling in hospitality and tourism: Do researchers follow practical guidelines? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
  52. Vassanadumrongdee, S.; Hoontrakool, D.; Marks, D. (2020). Perception and Behavioral Changes of Thai Youths Towards the Plastic Bag Charging Program. Appl. Environ. Res. 42, 27–45.
  53. World Economic Forum, 2016. World Economic Forum Annual Meeting. Retrieved from: https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2016.
  54. Yuan, Z. , Cummins, R.N.E. (2022). Human health concerns regarding microplastics in the aquatic environment-From marine to food systems. Science of the Total Environment. 823:153730. [CrossRef]
  55. Zen, I.S. , Ahamad, R., Omar, W. (2013). No plastic bag campaign day in Malaysia and the policy implication. Environ. Dev. Sustainability 15:1259–1269. [CrossRef]
Table 3. Factor Loadings, VIF, Validity and Reliability of Latent Construct.
Table 3. Factor Loadings, VIF, Validity and Reliability of Latent Construct.
Items Loadings t-Values p-Values VIF CA Rho_A CR AVE
AC2 0.730 2.554 0.011 1.742 0.827 0.810 0.866 0.620
AC3 0.700 2.252 0.024 2.080
AC5 0.821 3.243 0.001 1.577
AC6 0.884 3.487 0.000 1.812
BP1 0.886 4.224 0.000 2.252 0.855 0.889 0.900 0.692
BP2 0.850 3.416 0.001 2.351
BP3 0.797 3.248 0.001 2.094
BP4 0.793 3.486 0.000 1.560
EBP1 0.810 14.676 0.000 1.989 0.901 0.912 0.926 0.716
EBP2 0.874 20.177 0.000 2.941
EBP3 0.844 15.823 0.000 2.968
EBP4 0.830 11.450 0.000 2.104
EBP5 0.870 20.636 0.000 2.986
LF1 0.831 7.702 0.000 1.386 0.700 0.701 0.821 0.606
LF2 0.720 4.613 0.000 1.309
LF3 0.780 6.294 0.000 1.282
SP1 0.838 3.410 0.001 2.366 0.793 0.826 0.850 0.536
SP2 0.818 3.462 0.001 2.083
SP3 0.685 2.668 0.008 1.889
SP4 0.689 3.041 0.002 1.698
SP6 0.602 2.663 0.008 1.944
CA-Cronbach alpha, CR-Composite Reliability, AVE- Average Variance Extractor, VIF-Variance Inflation Factor.
Table 4. Discriminant validity by Fornell Lacker criterion.
Table 4. Discriminant validity by Fornell Lacker criterion.
AC BP EBP LF SP
AC 0.787
BP 0.576 0.832
EBP 0.119 0.114 0.846
LF -0.007 -0.083 -0.229 0.778
SP 0.439 0.606 0.156 -0.052 0.732
Table 5. Discriminant Validity by cross loading.
Table 5. Discriminant Validity by cross loading.
AC BP_ EBP LF SP
AC2 0.730 0.496 0.062 -0.018 0.476
AC3 0.700 0.564 -0.001 0.010 0.486
AC5 0.821 0.526 0.094 -0.058 0.352
AC6 0.884 0.431 0.120 0.042 0.317
BP1 0.426 0.886 0.118 -0.071 0.544
BP2 0.571 0.850 0.081 -0.015 0.485
BP3 0.541 0.797 0.061 -0.029 0.433
BP4 0.441 0.793 0.102 -0.136 0.527
EBP1 0.115 0.152 0.810 -0.192 0.186
EBP2 0.134 0.106 0.874 -0.169 0.108
EBP3 0.135 0.136 0.844 -0.173 -0.011
EBP4 -0.007 -0.001 0.830 -0.253 0.154
EBP5 0.154 0.114 0.870 -0.158 0.162
LF1 0.012 -0.051 -0.202 0.831 -0.005
LF2 -0.043 -0.059 -0.139 0.720 -0.070
LF3 0.004 -0.086 -0.185 0.780 -0.058
SP1 0.274 0.360 0.143 -0.058 0.838
SP2 0.241 0.343 0.136 -0.081 0.818
SP3 0.350 0.568 0.051 -0.008 0.685
SP4 0.427 0.512 0.121 -0.044 0.689
SP6 0.455 0.726 0.063 0.078 0.602
Table 6. Discriminant validity by Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT).
Table 6. Discriminant validity by Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT).
AC BP_ EBP LF SP
AC
BP_ 0.757
EBP 0.143 0.137
LF 0.070 0.101 0.281
SP 0.661 0.815 0.168 0.105
Table 7. Path Relationship.
Table 7. Path Relationship.
Hypothesis Path VIF Β SE T-Statistics P-Values Decision
H1 AC -> EBP 0.076 0.088 0.133 0.573 0.567 Rejected
H2 BP_ -> EBP -0.024 0.009 0.115 0.207 0.836 Rejected
H3 LF -> EBP -0.224 -0.234 0.067 3.317 0.001 Supported
H4 SP -> EBP 0.125 0.131 0.133 0.936 0.349 Rejected
Table 8. Results showing predictive relevance and predictive power.
Table 8. Results showing predictive relevance and predictive power.
Latent Q2 R2 AJ. R2
EBP 0.043 0.077 0.053
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated