sustainability
Article
Assessing the Community Perception in San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro, of Proper Waste Disposal: A Structural Equation
Modeling Approach
Yung-Tsan Jou 1 , Klint Allen Mariñas 1,2,3, * , Charmine Sheena Saflor 1,3,4 , Don Adonis Bernabe 3 ,
Jhon Raymond Casuncad 3 , Karen Geronimo 3 , Jerson Mabbagu 3 , Felicitty Sales 3 and Kim Aaron Verceles 3
1
2
3
4
*
Citation: Jou, Y.-T.; Mariñas, K.A.;
Saflor, C.S.; Bernabe, D.A.; Casuncad,
J.R.; Geronimo, K.; Mabbagu, J.; Sales,
F.; Verceles, K.A. Assessing the
Community Perception in San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro, of Proper Waste
Disposal: A Structural Equation
Modeling Approach. Sustainability
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan 320, Taiwan;
ytjou@cycu.edu.tw (Y.-T.J.)
School of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Mapua University, Manila 1002, Philippines
Department of Industrial Engineering, Occidental Mindoro State College, San Jose 5100, Philippines
Department of Industrial Systems Engineering, De La Salle University, Manila 1004, Philippines
Correspondence: kaamarinas@mapua.edu.ph
Abstract: This study explores the factors affecting proper garbage disposal in San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro, Philippines, where approximately 49 tons of solid garbage are produced each day. This
research was conducted using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to evaluate the variables affecting
proper waste disposal in the community. The concept of this study follows the Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB), which refers to the idea that human beings act rationally depending on their behavioral aspects. A total of 300 respondents from the community of San Jose were acquired through an
online questionnaire. The findings revealed that environmental knowledge significantly influences
environmental concerns while it affects personal values and environmental attitudes. Intention was
affected by personal attitudes and convenience, which also had an impact on waste management
behavior. The result of the study could aid government institutions and households in incorporating
effective solid waste management practices within the community. It is crucial to implement proper
waste disposal procedures, as inadequate municipal waste management can lead to detrimental
impacts on the environment, human health, and urban living standards. The study highlights the
importance of community participation in developing effective strategies and improving waste
management behavior in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.
Keywords: waste management; structural equation modeling; environmental knowledge; theory of
planned behavior; waste disposal optimization
2024, 16, 1087. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su16031087
Academic Editor: Silvia Fiore
1. Introduction
Received: 19 December 2023
Solid waste (SW) comprises wasted sludge, rubbish, refuse, and other solid items.
It also comprises garbage from mining, agriculture, electronics, industry, municipalities,
and home and commercial operations [1]. Solid waste management (SWM) is crucial
in environmental issues or matters that have direct consequences for the environment,
especially in air, water, soil, and public health. The global growth in trash generation
complicates proper waste management activities [2].
Solid waste management (SWM) is critical in mitigating the effects of expanding
urbanization on municipal and rural areas [3]. According to [4], it has become a serious
environmental concern in emerging countries due to economic growth and increased consumerism, resulting in increased SW emissions. Most cities in low- and middle-income
nations have been underperforming and could be performing better with adverse sustainability effects in urban growth and development.
The [5] report analyzing waste generation and recycling in countries within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that only 17 of
Revised: 18 January 2024
Accepted: 23 January 2024
Published: 26 January 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031087
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
2 of 23
the 38 countries incinerate more waste than in landfills. South Korea (400 kg of waste per
person), Denmark (845 kg of waste per person), and Germany (630 kg of waste per person)
are among the top countries that incinerate more waste.
Solid waste management is a significant issue in the Philippines, with trash production increasing steadily. According to the 2018 Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) report, the Philippines exhibited a daily generation of approximately
35,580 tons of garbage, corresponding to an annual output of about 14.66 million tons in
2014. Subsequent data from 2018 reveals an escalation to 16.6 million tons, positioning
the Philippines as the third-largest annual solid waste generator among Southeast Asian
countries [6].
According to [7], approximately 2.75 tons per day of solid waste is produced by
businesses in the commercial sector produce around 2.75 tons of solid waste daily, with
0–60% biodegradable and recyclable, 19–20% recyclable, and 14–25% residual waste. On the
other hand, the service sector produces a daily total of 70 kg of solid waste, containing 41%
recyclable materials, 35% biodegradable matter, 23% residual waste, and a small amount of
particular waste. Polyethylene (PET) bottles, assorted papers, tin cans, used magazines,
and plastic cups are the most common recyclable materials, while diapers and napkins
comprise most of the residual waste.
This study aims to determine the demographics of respondents to analyze factors
affecting improper waste disposal in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. It will evaluate community perception regarding waste disposal and recommend solutions to prevent environmental effects and health risks associated with improper waste disposal. This study
follows the Theory of Planned Behavior’s (TPB) concepts and variables to assess individual
perceptions regarding the waste disposal system along the community area. The results
will help society and the government improve waste disposal practices in the community.
Research studies that have already been conducted have primarily concentrated on
solid waste disposal techniques currently in use and are still endorsed as worthy of further
study. As per [8], there is a need for new waste management approaches to maximize
resource recovery and prevent environmental damage. This study uses Structural Equation
Modeling to analyze factors that influence community perception of waste disposal and determine the demographics of respondents. The suggested questionnaire design techniques
and proposed improvements to solid waste management may be helpful to researchers and
decision-makers.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Theoretical Framework and Variables
Figure 1 shows the theoretical framework for assessing the community’s perception
of proper waste disposal. The researchers utilized the studies of [9], which incorporate
the Theory of Planned Behavior (TBP), and [10], which states that policies and the role
of the government are essential for proper waste disposal. Thus, these variables are
Environmental Knowledge (EK), Environmental Concern (EC), Role of Government (RG),
Policy and Regulation (PG), Personal Values (PV), Social Norms (SN), Environmental
Attitudes (EA), Convenience (C), Intentions (I), and Waste Management Behavior (WMB)
have been investigated in the current study. These factors were hypothesized to assess
community perception in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.
Sustainability
FOR PEER REVIEW
Sustainability 2024,
2024, 16,
16, x1087
3 of 23
3 of 23
Figure1.
1.Theoretical
Theoreticalframework.
framework.
Figure
2.2. Relationship between Variables
2.2. Relationship between Variables
This section will discuss the study hypothesis and the relationship between variables.
This section will discuss the study hypothesis and the relationship between variables.
H1. There is a significant relationship between Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Concern.
H1. There is a significant relationship between Environmental Knowledge and Environmental
Concern.
Individuals with greater environmental awareness were more likely to participate in
pro-environmental actions, indicating a solid commitment to environmental protection
Individuals with greater environmental awareness were more likely to participate in
and the value of education and understanding in altering people’s attitudes toward the
pro-environmental actions, indicating a solid commitment to environmental protection
environment and desire to act to protect it [11]. Environmental knowledge would indirectly
and the value of education and understanding in altering people’s attitudes toward the
increase pro-environmental behavior through environmental concern. Because interconenvironment and desire to act to protect it [11]. Environmental knowledge would indinections are a central concept of environmental knowledge [12], acquiring environmental
rectly
increase
pro-environmental
behavior
through environmental
concern.
Because inknowledge
increases
understanding
of environmental
issues, causes,
and consequences,
terconnections
are
a
central
concept
of
environmental
knowledge
[12],
acquiring
environleading to a more excellent perception of nature and the human–nature relationship
from
mental
knowledge
increases
understanding
of
environmental
issues,
causes,
and
consean ecological perspective.
quences, leading to a more excellent perception of nature and the human–nature relationship
perspective.
H2. from
There an
is aecological
significant relationship
between Environmental Knowledge and the Role of Government.
H2. There
is a significant
relationship
between Environmental
Knowledge and
the Role of GovernThe municipal
government
implements
the central government’s
environmental
regument.
latory standards, significantly impacting the country’s overall environmental regulation
effectiveness. If the local government fails to enforce environmental legislation, it can lead
The municipal
government
implementsand
the events.
central government’s
environmental
reguto continued
environmental
degradation
Good environmental
governance
latory
standards,
significantly
impacting
the
country’s
overall
environmental
regulation
efrequires a high public awareness of environmental hazards, a realistic challenge to address.
fectiveness.
If the local must
government
to enforce environmental
legislation,
it can lead[13].
to
The local government
handle fails
environmental
regulations during
implementation
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
4 of 23
H3. There is a significant relationship between Environmental Knowledge and Policy and Regulation.
The experience of social movement organizations with regulatory institutions creates
analysis, critique, and reform ideas. After that, movement organizations may re-enter
the political process to put environmental proposals into policy. Thus, environmental
knowledge engagement with policy-making institutions is a source of lived experience that
informs reform proposals [14].
H4. There is a significant relationship between Environmental Concern and Personal Values.
Private forest owners prioritize environmental benefits when managing forests. Understanding the reasons behind this can aid in creating policies that support environmental
forestry. Personality traits and personal values heavily influence NIPF forest owners’ environmental concerns. This knowledge can assist in planning customized treatments that
support environmental factors in forest management [15].
H5. There is a significant relationship between Environmental Concerns and Social Norm.
According to [16], social norms affect the community and may influence the people
or every individual in the community or its environment. Suppose the community or the
environment has prioritized and focused on sustainability and environmental issues. In
that case, the community will foster this behavior and may correlate with each other and
engage in a sustainable environment.
H6. There is a significant relationship between Environmental Concern and Environmental Attitudes.
Heads of households with pro-environmental attitudes and anticipated health benefits
from energy efficiency retrofits are more likely to foresee financial benefits and fewer
disruptions. Environmental concerns also increase the chance of planning for numerous
retrofit types. However, lack of knowledge is a significant obstacle for some economic
groups. This study emphasizes the importance of understanding energy performance
retrofit benefits and hidden costs [17].
H7. There is a significant relationship between the Role of Government into the Personal Values of
individual citizens regarding Environmental Concerns.
Environmental concerns are a significant factor influencing citizens’ adoption of egovernment services. Individuals with green lifestyles are motivated to adopt eco-friendly
options. They may be more likely to use e-government services due to their environmentally
conscious features, such as reduced paper usage. Such citizens are suggested to emphasize
perceived usefulness, attitude, and trust more when considering e-government services
than those with lower environmental concerns [18].
H8. There is a significant relationship between the Role of the Government and the Social Norms of
the people.
According to [19], governments can influence social norms by manipulating factors
influencing behavior, such as adjusting choice architecture. This can be carried out through
advertising campaigns and public information dissemination. However, personal and
social norms can still prevail, as seen in the example of littering in a park. Governments
must ensure accountability, fairness, and transparency when establishing norms while still
upholding the ideals of representative democracy.
H9. There is a significant relationship between the Role of Government in Environmental Attitudes
and the behaviors of citizens.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
5 of 23
Studies show that government quality positively affects public support for environmental measures and pro-environmental behaviors such as recycling. Research indicates
that low corruption levels in governments are associated with higher levels of public
support for environmental policy frameworks. However, few studies have examined the
relationship between the quality of government and individuals’ daily pro-environmental
behavior, as per findings of [20]. The importance of government institutions in encouraging
pro-environmental measures and overcoming hurdles to collective action is also stressed
by [21]. Their findings imply that bettering governmental performance can increase citizen
engagement, which might increase environmental and climate initiatives.
H10. There is a significant relationship between the Policy and Regulation and Personal Values.
Encouraging employee compliance with workplace regulations and corporate standards is essential. Corporate policies can influence personal values, including ethical and
environmental considerations. In contrast, government policies can align with or challenge these values, such as social justice, environmental sustainability, public health, and
safety. Numerous theoretical studies in risk research have identified the critical elements
of trust [22]. In other words, they have investigated the types of evaluations that either
strengthen or weaken trust in risk regulatory or other institutions.
H11. There is a significant relationship between Policy and Regulation and Social Norms.
This embodies societal pressure, as well as rules and regulations. Wang et al.’s [23]
study suggests that government regulations, formal organizations, and social pressure play
crucial roles in promoting e-waste recycling in countries such as China and Vietnam. These
factors help to encourage people to participate in recycling programs and increase their
recycling intentions.
H12. There is a significant relationship between Policy and Regulation and Environmental Attitudes.
Regional and municipal authorities do play a significant part in environmental policies. For instance, many countries delegate the responsibility of setting energy efficiency
benchmarks for construction and controlling land utilization to local governments rather
than the central governing body. Due to these various factors, the decentralization process
could impact individuals’ environmental attitudes and formulation of environmental policy
strategies [24].
H13. There is a significant relationship between Personal Values and Convenience.
Contextual factors like convenience can impact the connection between individual
norms and recycling behavior. Previous research has shown that rational and altruistic
beliefs and attitudes influence individual waste management behavior. Understanding the
environment might indirectly affect waste management by influencing environmental care,
personal standards, and the perception of one’s ability to act. Additionally, the perception
of behavioral control acted as an intermediary in the link between personal norms and
waste management behavior [9].
H14. There is a significant relationship between Personal Values and Intentions.
Millennials in India have less inclination to purchase green personal care goods due
to lifestyle and personality factors. It indicates that consumer qualities connected to
sustainability and lifestyle have a slight but positive influence on purchasing intentions.
The study makes the minor but significant claim that personal values and lifestyle qualities
influence Indian customers’ desire to purchase or intentions of environmentally friendly
products [25].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
6 of 23
H15. There is a significant relationship between Social Norms and Convenience.
Social norms have a significant impact on human behavior, including recycling. People
are more likely to recycle to gain social approval, but convenience is crucial in determining
whether they will continue to recycle. Studies have shown that making recycling more
convenient can increase the likelihood of continued engagement in recycling behavior,
reinforcing social norms that support recycling [26].
H16. There is a significant relationship between Social Norms and Intentions.
Social norms can influence an individual’s intentions, but other factors, such as individual values, attitudes, and beliefs, can mediate this relationship. Social norms are
unwritten expectations that govern behavior and can be enforced through social sanctions.
The pressure to conform to social norms can influence intentions, but individuals may only
sometimes think of the norms affecting their behavior. The relationship between social
norms and intentions is a complex topic extensively studied in social psychology [27].
H17. There is a significant relationship between Environmental Attitudes and Convenience.
Environmental attitudes are characterized by [28] as psychological inclinations impacted by a person’s assessment of the natural world. The intention of a consumer to
behave in the future is defined by [29] as behavioral intention. The convenience motive
appears to favorably influence behavior, according to studies by [30].
H18. There is a significant relationship between Environmental Attitudes and Intentions.
Research shows that individuals with strong environmental attitudes are likelier
to engage in environmentally friendly behaviors and support sustainability initiatives.
This positive correlation between environmental attitudes and intention is complex and
influenced by social norms, personal beliefs, and resource access [31].
H19. There is a significant relationship between Convenience and Intention.
Given that garbage cans are commonly prioritized in waste management research,
their ease is frequently proposed as a reason for littering in specific locations [32]. Previous
research has examined the factors influencing households’ intentions to sort waste. The
view of infrastructure, facilities, and resources as convenient can boost the desire to engage
in waste separation activities [33]. Studies have yet to look at how perceptions of the
convenience of infrastructure affect home trash separation intentions estimates.
H20. There is a significant relationship between Convenience and Waste Management Behavior.
Previous research on waste recycling did not consider the impact of social interactions
and perceived convenience on sorting behavior. A recent study found that the intensity of
information did not affect residents’ waste sorting choices, but the proportion of those who
separated waste decreased as perceived convenience decreased. Negative information was
ineffective in the context of low perceived convenience [34].
H21. There is a significant relationship between Intentions and Waste Management Behavior.
In order to implement household waste separation (HWS), people must be conscious
of, confident in, and in control of their abilities and capabilities. Perceived intentions have
been shown in numerous studies to considerably increase a person’s ability to control
their conduct [33]. It has been asserted that a person’s belief in their capacity to exercise
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
7 of 23
self-control over a specific habit encourages engagement in that action and significantly
impacts intentions [35].
3. Methodology
3.1. Participants
This study utilized a descriptive correlational research design in which the researcher
will send online questionnaires via link survey using Messenger and the researcher’s
social media accounts. The validity and reliability of the data in question are known to
be enhanced by an increase in sample size [10]. The sample size of the research study
was determined using Slovin’s formula. Slovin’s formula allows researchers to accurately
sample populations to the desired extent, ensuring a reasonable level of accuracy in results
by determining the required sample size [36]. Upon calculations, 300 respondents were
acquired as participants required to answer the 60-item questionnaire.
Table 1 shows the demographic profile of 300 respondents in San Jose municipality.
Most respondents were aged 18–29, male (58.3%), and senior high school graduates (45.3%).
The majority had a monthly income of less than PHP 15,000 (66.3%) and came from Pag-asa,
San Roque, Bagong Sikat, Labangan Poblacion, Caminawit, and Barangay 8.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the respondents (N = 300).
Demographics
Category
N
%
Gender
Male
Female
175
125
58.3%
41.7%
Age
18–29 years old
30–39 years old
40–39 years old
269
24
7
89.7%
8%
2.3%
Educational Background
High School Graduate
Senior High School Graduate
Technical/Vocational Graduate
Baccalaureate/College Graduate
Post-Baccalaureate Graduate
No Grade Completed
Special Education (undergraduate)
Special Education (graduate)
13
136
18
58
18
2
49
5
4.3%
45.3%
6%
19.3%
6%
0.7%
16.3%
1.7%
Barangay
Ansiray
Bagong Sikat
Bangkal
Barangay 1
Barangay 2
Barangay 3
Barangay 4
Barangay 5
Barangay 6
Barangay 7
Barangay 8
Batasan
Bayotbot
Bubog
Buri
Camburay
Caminawit
Catayungan
Central
Iling Proper
La Curva
1
25
2
9
9
12
10
11
9
9
17
1
9
12
2
6
21
1
6
1
8
0.3%
8.3%
0.7%
3%
3%
4%
3.3%
3.7%
3%
3%
5.7%
0.3%
3%
4%
0.7%
2%
7%
0.3%
2%
0.3%
2.7%
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
8 of 23
Table 1. Cont.
Demographics
Monthly Income
Category
N
%
Labangan Iling
Labangan Poblacion
Mabini
Magbay
Mapaya
Monte Claro
Murtha
Naibuan
Pag-asa
Pawican
San Agustin
San Isidro
San Roque
1
23
10
7
4
5
8
1
28
1
3
2
26
0.3%
7.7%
3.3%
2.3%
1.3%
1.7%
2.7%
0.3%
9.3%
0.3%
1%
0.7%
8.7%
Less than PHP 15,000
PHP 15,001–30,000
PHP 30,001–45,000
PHP 45,001–60,000
PHP 60,001–75,000
199
79
17
3
2
66.3%
26.3%
5.7%
1%
0.7%
3.2. Questionnaires
This study’s questionnaire incorporated ideas from various studies focusing on the
components of the Theory of Planned Behavior. The Theory of Planned Behavior remains
valuable for social and behavioral research, as shown in various studies. These studies
demonstrate that the theory is still evolving and being explored, with researchers investigating factors such as perceived behavioral control and other factors that affect human
behavior [37]. The questionnaire was divided into three parts: the first part was the introduction, where the researcher gave insights to the respondents about the study; the second
part was the demographics of the respondents; and, lastly, the questionnaire itself, where
the ten latent variables were included namely: (1) Environmental Knowledge, (2) Environmental Concern, (3) Role of Government, (4) Policy and Regulation, (5) Personal Values,
(6) Social Norms, (7) Environmental Attitudes, (8) Convenience, (9) Intention, (10) Waste
Management Behavior. With a Likert Scale of 1–5, 5 is the highest remarks and 1 is the
lowest remarks. The set of questions was used to assess and evaluate the perceptions of the
selected San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, residents regarding proper waste disposal in the
community (Table 2).
Table 2. The construct and measurement items.
Construct
Environmental
Knowledge
Items
Measures
Supporting
Measures
EK1
How often do you separate your biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste
[38]
EK2
How often do you reuse or recycle your waste materials
[38]
EK3
How aware are you of the negative impacts of improper waste disposal on
the environment
[39]
EK4
How often do you participate in community programs or activities related to
waste management and environmental protection
[38]
EK5
How confident are you in your ability to properly dispose of hazardous
waste materials
[39]
EK6
How often do you educate yourself about waste management and
environmental protection through various media platforms
[39]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
9 of 23
Table 2. Cont.
Construct
Environmental
Concerns
Role of
Government
Items
Supporting
Measures
EC1
To what extent do you believe that improper waste disposal could harm
the environment?
[40]
EC2
How concerned are you about the health risks associated with improper
waste disposal
[41]
EC3
How much do you agree that individuals have a responsibility to properly
dispose of their waste
[42]
EC4
To what extent do you think businesses in your community should be held
responsible for their waste disposal practices
[43]
EC5
How concerned are you about the waste disposal practices in your community
[42]
EC6
How much do you agree that waste disposal practices in your community
need to be improved for the sake of future generations
[42]
RG1
To what extent do you agree that the government is responsible for ensuring
proper waste disposal in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro
[44]
RG2
How satisfied are you with the current waste disposal facilities and services
provided by the government in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro
[45]
RG3
To what extent do you think the government is doing enough to promote
waste segregation and recycling in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro
[46]
RG4
How often do you participate in government-led programs or activities related
to waste disposal in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro
[47]
RG5
To what extent do you think the government is prioritizing waste disposal in
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, compared to other issues
[48]
RG6
How confident are you in reporting illegal waste dumping activities to the
government in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro
[49]
PG1
The waste disposal policies and regulations in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro,
are prioritized and given enough attention by the local government
[50]
PG2
The waste disposal policies and regulations in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro,
are fair and just for all individuals and establishments.
[51]
PG3
The penalties imposed on individuals or establishments found violating waste
disposal policies and regulations are enough to deter them from continuing
their actions.
[52]
PG4
The waste disposal facilities in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, are accessible
and sufficient in accommodating the waste disposal needs of the community.
[53]
PG5
The waste disposal regulations in San Jose Occidental, Mindoro, are well
implemented by the local government.
[54]
PG6
The waste disposal policies in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, are effective in
keeping the environment clean.
[55]
PV1
To what extent do you prioritize proper waste segregation in your household
[56]
PV2
How important is it for you to reduce the amount of waste you generate
[57]
PV3
How much effort do you put into reducing, reusing, and recycling items in
your daily life
[58]
PV4
How likely are you to recommend proper waste management practices to your
friends and family
[59]
PV5
How confident are you in your ability to properly dispose of hazardous waste
materials like batteries and electronics
[60]
PV6
To what extent do you believe that waste management is a shared
responsibility among individuals, government, and businesses
[61]
Policy and
Regulation
Personal Values
Measures
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
10 of 23
Table 2. Cont.
Construct
Social Norms
Environmental
Attitudes
Items
Measures
Supporting
Measures
SN1
How often do you see others in your community properly disposing of their
waste
[62]
SN2
How often do you see litter on the streets or in public areas in your community
[62]
SN3
How likely are you to report someone who is improperly disposing of waste to
the local authorities
[63]
SN4
How important do you think it is for the community to work together in
keeping the environment clean and healthy
[63]
SN5
How often do you participate in community clean-up drives
[63]
SN6
How often do you encourage others to properly dispose of their waste
[62]
EA1
To what extent do you agree that protecting the environment is important for
the well-being of future generations
[64]
EA2
To what extent do you agree that individuals have a responsibility to protect
the environment
[65]
EA3
“I am willing to change my lifestyle to reduce my environmental impact.”
[65]
EA4
“I am willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products.”
[66]
EA5
“I feel a sense of responsibility to protect the environment.”
[67]
EA6
“I believe that economic development should not come at the expense of the
environment.”
[67]
C1
How convenient is it for you to dispose of your household waste
[39]
C2
How often do you encounter full waste disposal bins in your community
[39]
C3
How convenient is it for you to separate your recyclable waste from
non-recyclable waste
[39]
C4
How satisfied are you with the cleanliness of your community in terms of
waste disposal
[39]
C5
How convenient is the waste collection service in your area
[68]
C6
How often is the waste collection service available in your area
[69]
I1
“I am willing to compost my organic waste.”
[70]
I2
“I would be willing to participate in community clean-up drives and waste
collection programs.”
[70]
I3
“I am willing to pay for proper waste disposal services.”
[71]
I4
“I am willing to reduce my consumption of single-use plastics.”
[71]
I5
“I am willing to reuse and repurpose items instead of throwing them away.”
[70]
I6
“I am willing to adopt sustainable waste management practices.”
[71]
WMB1
I try to buy products with minimal packaging.
[72]
WMB2
I donate or sell items that are still in good condition instead of throwing them
away.
[72]
WMB3
I try to repair or reuse items instead of buying new ones.
[73]
WMB4
I support businesses that prioritize sustainability in their operations
[42]
WMB5
I am willing to volunteer for waste management campaigns.
[73]
WMB6
I am willing to attend waste management seminars or workshops.
[71]
Convenience
Intentions
Waste
Management
Behaviors
3.3. Statistical Analysis: Structural Equation Modeling
In San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, the researchers used the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach to investigate various factors influencing how locals perceive effective
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
11 of 23
garbage disposal. A related study claims that policy instruments have substantial direct
and indirect effects on families’ intentions to segregate. The empirical analysis supports
this claim using a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) methodology [74]. When the government implements targeted policies to encourage waste separation, it can boost people’s
motivation to participate. This is due to both an inherent desire to do the right thing as
well as external pressures to meet expectations. This intervention can ultimately increase
individuals’ internal drive to recycle and reduce waste.
Data are collected from San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, to create a data set for analysis.
The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS AMOS software version 22 to ensure its quality
and reliability. Hypothesis testing is conducted to identify significant associations between
variables, and the SEM model is assessed for its goodness of fit. It helps identify factors
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
12 of
23
influencing proper trash disposal practices and offers insights on sustainable waste
management methods, leading to policy recommendations for San Jose, Occidental Mindoro
(Figure 2).
Figure2.2.Initial
InitialSEM
SEM results.
results.
Figure
4. Results and Discussion
The current study examines the variables affecting proper waste disposal in San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro. It evaluates the factors affecting San Jose, Occidental Mindoro’s
waste disposal optimization, guiding local government in developing effective strategies
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
12 of 23
In evaluating models, there are several fit indices to consider. The most commonly
used ones include CMIN/DF, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), AGFI, GFI, and Root Mean
Square Error (RMSEA). Table 3 was created listing the Good Fit Values and Acceptable Fit
Values of these fit indices. AGFI and GFI are based on residuals, and their values increase
with larger sample sizes. AGFI ranges from 0 to 1, with values greater than 0.80 indicating
a good fit. Similarly, GFI ranges from 0 to 1, with values above 0.80 considered acceptable.
For RMSEA, a value of 0.08 or less suggests a good fit while a value between 0.05 and 0.08
indicates an adequate fit.
Table 3. Model fit values.
Fit Indices
Acceptable
Range
Reference
Minimum Discrepancy (CMIN/DF)
Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI)
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI)
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI)
Incremental Fit Index (IFI)
<3.00
Approach 1
>0.70
≤0.08
Approach 1
>0.08
>0.08
Norberg et al., 2007 [75]; Li et al., 2013 [76]
Algi & Abdul Rahman, 2014 [77]
Norberg et al., 2007 [75]; Chen et al., 2012 [78]
Doloi et al., 2012 [79]
Algi & Abdul Rahman, 2014 [77]
Jafari F et al., 2021 [80]
Lee et al., 2015 [81]
4. Results and Discussion
The current study examines the variables affecting proper waste disposal in San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro. It evaluates the factors affecting San Jose, Occidental Mindoro’s waste
disposal optimization, guiding local government in developing effective strategies and
community participation. In this study, SEM was utilized by the researchers to analyze
the correlation between Environmental Knowledge (EK), Environmental Concern (EC),
Environmental Attitudes (EA), Personal Values (PV), Convenience (CO), Intentions (IN),
Waste Management Behavior (WMB), Role of Government (RG), Policy and Regulation
(PG), and Social Norms (SN). A total of 300 data samples were acquired through an online
questionnaire (Table 4).
According to the results of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), shown in Figure 3,
Environmental Knowledge (EK) has a significant and positive effect on EC (β: 0.724,
p = 0.014). The study conducted by [82] examines how disclosing environmental knowledge
can impact public concern for the environment. It operates through two channels: risk
perception and understanding environmental pollution. Investigating these mechanisms
can help us understand how public environmental concerns and risk perception are affected,
and the findings have policy implications for combating pollution. Additionally, SEM
also reveals that Environmental Concern directly affects Personal Values (PV) (β: 0.877,
p = 0.011). Personal values and personality traits can help explain environmental concerns
to minimize waste disposal and create a healthy environment. Understanding how trash
affects the environment and people can improve everyone’s position in an economy or an
environment that promotes environmental considerations in garbage disposal [15].
The results also show the direct effect of Environmental Concern (EC) on Environmental Attitudes (EA) (β: 0.913, p = 0.009). In addition to helping with global issues, such as the
waste disposal problem, understanding environmental attitudes is essential for addressing
many applied environmental concerns. Measuring environmental attitudes effectively
can support community protection and the development of a sustainable community for
all residents.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
13 of 23
Table 4. Summary and results.
Hypothesis
p-Value
Interpretation
H1
There is a significant relationship between Environmental
Knowledge and Environmental Concern
0.007
Significant
H2
There is a significant relationship between Environmental
Knowledge and the Role of Government
0.006
Significant
H3
There is a significant relationship between Environmental
Knowledge and Policy and Regulation
0.002
Significant
H4
There is a significant relationship between Environmental Concern
and Personal Values
0.001
Significant
H5
There is a significant relationship between Environmental Concern
and Social Norms
0.139
Not Significant
H6
There is a significant relationship between Environmental Concern
and Environmental Attitudes
0.014
Significant
H7
There is a significant relationship between the Role of Government
and Personal Values
0.658
Not Significant
H8
There is a significant relationship between the Role of Government
and Social Norms
0.328
Not Significant
H9
There is a significant relationship between the Role of
Environmental Attitudes
0.771
Not Significant
H10
There is a significant relationship between Policy and Regulation
and Personal Values
0.448
Not Significant
H11
There is a significant relationship between Policy and Regulation
and Social Norms
0.190
Not Significant
H12
There is a significant relationship between Policy and Regulation
and Environmental Attitudes
0.381
Not Significant
H13
There is a significant relationship between Personal Values
and Convenience
0.722
Not Significant
H14
There is a significant relationship between Personal Values
and Intentions
0.003
Significant
H15
There is a significant relationship between Social Norms
and Convenience
0.003
Significant
H16
There is a significant relationship between Social Norms
and Intentions
0.260
Not Significant
H17
There is a significant relationship between Environmental Attitudes
and Convenience
0.008
Significant
H18
There is a significant relationship between Environmental Attitudes
and Intentions
0.062
Not Significant
H19
There is a significant relationship between Convenience
and Intentions
0.004
Significant
H20
There is a significant relationship between Convenience and Waste
Management Behavior
0.223
Not Significant
H21
There is a significant relationship between Intentions and Waste
Management Behavior
0.001
Significant
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
15 of 23
world and indirectly influence waste management through environmental concern, per14 of 23
ceived behavioral control, and environmental knowledge. As a result, personal norms
greatly influence pro-environmental behavior [9].
Figure 3. Final SEM result.
This study
foundthe
that
there is a significant
correlation
between
Table
5 presents
capabilities
or the significance
of the
latentPersonal
variablesValues
to one(PV)
anand Intentions
(IN)
0.630,
p = 0.015).
values significantly
affect people’s
other.
Among the
ten(β:
latent
variables,
mostPersonal
of the variables
showed significance
to one
willingness
manage
community
solidlower
waste.
Intention
is crucial
in adopting
solid
another withtofactor
loading
not ranging
than
0.5, namely
Environmental
Concern
waste
management
practices
and
encourages
municipal
door-to-door
collection
services,
(EC), Personal Values (PV), Environmental Attitudes (EA), Convenience (C), Intentions (I),
thus improving
service
utilization.
The
Structural
(SEM) also
revealed
Waste
Management
Behavior
(WMB),
and,
when itEquation
comes to Model
Environmental
Knowledge
that Environmental
Attitudes
(EA)cut
have
direct
impact
on Convenience
(CO)
(β: 0.787,
(EK),
among the six items,
one was
off adue
to its
insignificance
with a final
factor
loadp = 0.006).
To0.5,
encourage
waste Role
disposal
and
sorting in households,
ing
of below
and alsoproper
the variable
of the
Government
(RG), Policy engagement
and Regulaelements
be designed
to address
convenience-related
factors that
tions
(PG),should
and Social
Norms (SN)
were cut
off. Therefore, it ascertains
thataffect
thesewastethree
sorting
engagement.
Previous
studies
have
not
identified
specific
factors
that
can
motivate
variables do not influence the waste management system in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.
households
to engage
in better
waste-sorting
practices
[83]. among variables, and using
A
factor loading
of more
than 0.5
shows excellent
correlation
Regarding
Convenience
(CO),
they
have
had
a
positive
effect to
onthe
Intentions
(IN)
this statistical tool, it is assessed whether given measures
are relevant
study [88].
(β: 0.358, p = 0.004). To improve household waste separation, it is essential to establish a
set of 5.characteristics
for waste separation before addressing the convenience of commuTable
Descriptive statistics.
nity waste management. Addressing households’ lack of waste separation intentions is
Factor Loading
necessary
to increase convenience
inMean
municipal solid
waste management
systems. AddiVariable
Item
StD
Initial relatedFinal
tionally, the SEM analysis revealed that Intentions (IN) were significantly
to Waste
Management Behavior (WMB)
p = 0.014).0.9364
Households’ intention
EK1 (β: 0.857,
3.7367
0.553 to separate
0.592solid
Environmental
waste was positively linked
practices,
EK2 to improved
3.5433waste management
0.9546
0.619 leading to
- better
Knowledge
municipal
solid waste EK3
treatment. Attitude
and
perceived
benefits
significantly
impact
4.1033
0.9742
0.531
0.837
citizens’ intentions to separate household solid waste. Enabling conditions also influence
household waste separation intentions and behaviors [84].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
15 of 23
The interpretation of the hypothesis revealed that the rule of government connecting personal values (0.658) and environmental attitudes (0.771) is not directly significant
because the correlation p-values are greater than 0.05. The lack of progress in policy and
program sets raises concerns, and various factors, like harmful techniques and government
roles, contribute to the complexity [85]. Also, the role of government is not significantly
related to social norms (0.328) since the p-values are greater than 0.05. It is not the role of
the government, but social norms that can affect people’s intention to dispose of waste
in public open spaces. Our communities, friends, and family all impact how we manage
our waste [86]. The results also show that the policy and regulations connecting personal
values (0.448), social norms (0.190), and environmental attitudes (0.381) are not significantly
related since the correlation p-values are greater than 0.05. Assessing household solid waste
management requires considering factors such as family size, income, education, location,
recycling habits, and municipal waste management, which are influenced by socioeconomic
status and housing characteristics. However, policies and regulations related to environmental attitudes, social norms, and personal values do not directly impact these factors [87].
The environmental concerns about social norms (0.139) and environmental attitudes to
intentions (0.062) are not significantly related because the p-value correlation is greater
than 0.05. Research shows that a person’s behavior toward waste management is affected
by logical and charitable attitudes and beliefs, such as personal norms and environmental
concerns. Personal norms seek to preserve the natural world and indirectly influence
waste management through environmental concern, perceived behavioral control, and environmental knowledge. As a result, personal norms greatly influence pro-environmental
behavior [9].
Table 5 presents the capabilities or the significance of the latent variables to one another.
Among the ten latent variables, most of the variables showed significance to one another
with factor loading not ranging lower than 0.5, namely Environmental Concern (EC),
Personal Values (PV), Environmental Attitudes (EA), Convenience (C), Intentions (I), Waste
Management Behavior (WMB), and, when it comes to Environmental Knowledge (EK),
among the six items, one was cut off due to its insignificance with a final factor loading of
below 0.5, and also the variable Role of the Government (RG), Policy and Regulations (PG),
and Social Norms (SN) were cut off. Therefore, it ascertains that these three variables do not
influence the waste management system in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. A factor loading
of more than 0.5 shows excellent correlation among variables, and using this statistical tool,
it is assessed whether given measures are relevant to the study [88].
Table 5. Descriptive statistics.
Variable
Item
Mean
StD
Environmental
Knowledge
EK1
EK2
EK3
EK4
EK5
EK6
3.7367
3.5433
4.1033
3.4833
3.8733
3.6633
Environmental
Concern
EC1
EC2
EC3
EC4
EC5
EC6
4.1933
4.1533
4.1600
4.0833
4.100
4.2233
Factor Loading
Initial
Final
0.9364
0.9546
0.9742
0.9413
0.8831
0.8941
0.553
0.619
0.531
0.637
0.617
0.737
0.592
0.837
0.504
0.661
0.734
0.9048
0.8239
0.8387
0.8902
0.8675
0.8097
0.770
0.817
0.800
0.761
0.798
0.773
0.740
0.772
0.780
0.730
0.743
0.728
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
16 of 23
Table 5. Cont.
Variable
Item
Mean
StD
Role of Government
RG1
RG2
RG3
RG4
RG5
RG6
4.0867
3.5900
3.6500
3.5100
3.7467
3.6767
Policy and Regulation
PG1
PG2
PG3
PG4
PG5
PG6
Factor Loading
Initial
Final
0.8804
0.9081
0.8622
0.9865
0.8514
0.9174
0.518
0.725
0.726
0.672
0.709
0.742
-
3.6600
3.7467
3.7300
3.7100
3.7367
3.8467
0.9205
0.8235
0.8906
0.8416
0.8424
0.8977
0.811
0.700
0.729
0.698
0.743
0.733
-
Personal Values
PV1
PV2
PV3
PV4
PV5
PV6
3.9000
4.1800
3.9667
3.9433
3.9267
3.9933
0.7780
0.7765
0.7795
0.8014
0.7637
0.8300
0.686
0.664
0.662
0.777
0.699
0.732
0.689
0.731
0.618
0.723
0.658
0.772
Social Norms
SN1
SN2
SN3
SN4
SN5
SN6
3.6067
3.8833
3.6367
4.1300
3.6067
3.8900
0.8609
0.9377
0.8759
0.8537
0.8570
0.8682
0.610
0.510
0.727
0.464
0.656
0.666
-
Environmental
Attitudes
EA1
EA2
EA3
EA4
EA5
EA6
4.0967
4.1200
4.0667
4.0767
4.1033
4.1600
0.9000
0.8878
0.7944
0.7956
0.8174
0.8545
0.783
0.780
0.754
0.624
0.796
0.764
0.776
0.746
0.700
0.597
0.753
0.703
Convenience
CO1
CO2
CO3
CO4
CO5
CO6
4.0033
3.8533
3.9300
3.8000
3.8500
3.7100
0.9199
0.8491
0.8469
0.9253
0.8775
0.9392
0.740
0.611
0.710
0.685
0.705
0.688
0.833
0.667
0.764
0.583
0.569
0.576
Intentions
IN1
IN2
IN3
IN4
IN5
IN6
3.9800
3.9733
3.8900
4.0767
4.0833
4.1167
0.8053
0.8296
0.7874
0.7206
0.7472
0.7822
0.795
0.710
0.677
0.660
0.686
0.719
0.775
0.675
0.636
0.623
0.672
0.735
Waste Management
Behavior
WMB1
WMB2
WMB3
WMB4
WMB5
WMB6
3.8800
3.9267
4.0000
4.0600
3.9967
4.0767
0.8803
0.8816
0.7802
0.7382
0.7383
0.7568
0.782
0.707
0.682
0.657
0.678
0.659
0.821
0.688
0.652
0.676
0.647
0.620
Table 6 shows the reliability of the scales, i.e., Cronbach’s alpha, ranging from 0.779
to 0.909, of which ranges are in acceptable line according to the study in [89]. A high
Cronbach’s alpha value (usually above 0.7) indicates that survey questions are reliable
and measure the same construct. In contrast, a low score indicates that the questions
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
17 of 23
are not consistent and may measure different constructs. In waste disposal research, a
high Cronbach’s alpha value indicates effective measurement of knowledge, attitudes, and
behaviors toward waste management practices, providing insights into factors influencing
waste disposal and informing policy development.
Table 6. Construct validity model.
Factors
Environmental Knowledge
Environmental Concern
Personal Values
Environmental Attitudes
Convenience
Intentions
Waste Management Behavior
Total
Number of Items
Cronbach’s α
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
0.779
0.909
0.849
0.882
0.848
0.861
0.851
0.854
Table 7 shows that the seven parameters, namely Minimum Discrepancy (CMIN/DF),
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI),
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit index (AGFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square
Error (RMSE) are all in fit according to Table 3.
Table 7. Model fit.
Goodness-of-Fit
Measures of
SEM
Parameter
Estimates
Minimum
Cut-Off
Interpretation
Minimum Discrepancy (CMIN/DF)
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Incremental Fit Index (IFI)
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI)
Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI)
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI)
Root Mean Square Error (RMSEA)
2.227
0.878
0.879
0.864
0.788
0.751
0.064
<3.0
>0.8
>0.8
>0.8
>0.8
>0.8
<0.08
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
The model fit is critical and can be gauged using parameters such as CMIN/DF,
CFI, IFI, GFI, AGFI, TLI, and RMSE. A good fit ensures the model is not overfitting or
underfitting and leads to accurate results. CMIN/DF measures the difference between the
observed and predicted data, while CFI and IFI compare the model to the baseline and null
models. GFI and AGFI measure how well the model fits the data, with AGFI accounting
for the number of parameters. TLI is similar to CFI, but with a penalty for the number of
parameters, and RMSE measures the difference between predicted and actual values. A
good fit indicates a reliable model that can make accurate predictions and serve as a strong
base for creating an effective waste management system.
Table 8 shows the causal relationship of one variable to another. It indicates here
whether the variables have a direct or indirect effect. Direct effects occur when a variable
impacts the outcome variable while keeping others constant. Indirect effects happen when
the variable influences the outcome variable through one or more intermediate variables.
Total effects combine direct and indirect effects and provide a comprehensive understanding
of the overall relationship between the variables. It indicates that all variables have a
significant total effect, with a p-value less than 0.05. It implies that direct effects are
statistically significant, and the intermediate correlates with the study.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
18 of 23
Table 8. Direct, indirect, and total effects.
No.
Variable
Direct
Effects
p-Value
Indirect
Effects
p-Value
Total Effects
p-Value
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
EK–EC
EK–PV
EK–EA
EK–CO
EK–IN
EK–WM
EC–PV
EC–EA
EC–CO
EC–IN
EC–WM
PV–EA
PV–CO
PV–IN
PV–WMB
EA–CO
EA–IN
EA–WMB
CO–IN
CO–WMB
IN–WMB
0.724
0.877
0.913
0.630
0.787
0.358
0.857
0.014
0.011
0.009
0.015
0.006
0.004
0.014
0.613
0.832
0.718
0.654
0.650
0.820
0.747
0.743
0.723
0.250
0.248
0.288
-
0.014
0.012
0.007
0.021
0.020
0.008
0.009
0.007
0.019
0.002
0.005
0.004
-
0.724
0.613
0.832
0.718
0.654
0.650
0.877
0.913
0.820
0.747
0.743
0.630
0.723
0.787
0.250
0.248
0.358
0.288
0.857
0.014
0.014
0.012
0.007
0.021
0.020
0.011
0.009
0.008
0.009
0.007
0.015
0.019
0.006
0.002
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.014
5. Conclusions
Waste disposal sites are essential components of waste management strategies worldwide. Proper management is critical to preserving the environment and communities. As
waste volume increases, disposal plan closures must consider socioeconomic factors to
minimize negative impacts on nearby communities [90]. This study aimed to assess the
perception of the San Jose, Occidental Mindoro community. This study can potentially
direct San Jose toward appropriate waste disposal, and it may also direct the authorities to
take proactive measures that promote community waste disposal.
Based on the results of the SEM, environmental knowledge directly affects environmental concerns. Also, the findings showed a significant relation between environmental
concern, personal values, and environmental attitude. Meanwhile, personal values directly
affect intentions and reveal the significant relationship between environmental attitudes
and convenience. Regarding convenience, it also has a direct impact on intentions, while
intentions have a direct effect on waste management behavior. On the other hand, the
interpretation of the hypothesis revealed that the role of government in connecting personal
values, social norms, and environmental attitudes have an insignificant relationship to each
other. Also, the policies and regulations connecting to personal values, social norms, and
environmental attitudes showed an insignificant relationship. Additionally, it reveals the
indirect effect of environmental concern connecting to social norms and environmental
attitudes to intentions. The researcher tends to examine the relation between the variable
Role of Government and policy and regulation, even if they are insignificant to one another.
Even though the government should play a significant role in influencing the community’s perception of garbage disposal, the result showed that the government and its
policies and regulations do not affect the community’s perception and behavior about
proper waste disposal and segregation. Therefore, the Local Government Unit (LGU) of
San Jose is recommended to have a municipal ordinance and reward programs for community initiation in compliance with national environmental regulations. The Ecological
Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (Republic Act 9003) [91], which mandates the nation
for adequate and proper waste segregation, disposal, and recycling, strongly supports
the national research and development programs initiated by the local community and
government. Reward programs such as recycling programs and garbage exchange for
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
19 of 23
prizes in Bacolod City, Philippines, are also good initiatives for the local community to
begin segregating their waste correctly [92].
Drawing on the findings of this study, it is highlighted that the age group of 18–29 years
old was the majority of the respondents, making them a good target for the Local Government of San Jose to promote waste management. This study suggests that the Local
Government of San Jose could focus their waste management campaigns on younger adults,
who are more likely to engage with and adopt sustainable behaviors. It could include
targeted social media campaigns, community events, and educational programs to raise
awareness about proper waste disposal methods. By targeting this age group, the government can encourage a culture of sustainability and environmental responsibility, resulting
in far-reaching positive impacts on the entire community. Additionally, the study emphasizes the need for ongoing research and data collection to improve waste management
strategies and ensure their continuous effectiveness.
Consequently, all waste disposal site closure procedures should sufficiently address
the environmental, socioeconomic, and political aspects to ensure sustainability, just as
important as ecological remediation and conservation are strategies for reducing adverse
socioeconomic effects. In particular, any WDS closure activities and progression should
include reducing the effects on the livelihoods of the informal stakeholders, as these
livelihoods may be sustainably planned for, potentially eliminating the adverse effects.
This study provides the community’s perception of waste disposal, gains knowledge
of the potential impacts of waste disposal on the livelihoods of local communities, and
examines strategies for sustaining livelihoods. This study can potentially guide authorities
in San Jose to implement practical actions to promote sustainability for every livelihood in
the community.
6. Limitation and Future Works
This study focuses on waste management in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. Among the
39 barangays, the researchers should have contacted the 5 barangays to gather information.
Due to its limitations, the researchers only gathered a total number of 300 participants;
regarding Structural Equation Modeling, the more participants the model had, the better
it would be structured. With a total number of 300 participants, the result leads to the
insignificance of some latent variables. Moreover, the age group can be generalized by
obtaining a survey from an equally distributed age group to represent the result better. It
could be improved by gathering several participants, more than 300. A more significant
number of samples will make the results more reliable and accurate.
The current study signifies the Theory of Planned Behavior as an accurate guideline
for studying participants’ perceptions and manners. This study will contribute to future
research considering other factors that affect the community’s waste management behavior.
Future research could be conducted to gather larger samples and investigate critical drivers
in a particular area and group.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding Acquisition, and Writing—Review
and Editing, Y.-T.J., K.A.M. and C.S.S.; Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization,
and Writing—Original Draft, D.A.B., J.R.C., K.G., J.M., F.S. and K.A.V. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
20 of 23
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Tsydenova, N.; Morillas, A.V.; Salas, A.C. Sustainability assessment of Waste Management System for Mexico City
(mexico)—Based on analytic hierarchy process. Recycling 2018, 3, 45. [CrossRef]
Baawain, M.; Al-Mamun, A.; Omidvarborna, H.; Al-Amri, W. Ultimate composition analysis of municipal solid waste in Muscat.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 148, 355–362. [CrossRef]
Hoang, N.H.; Fogarassy, C. Sustainability Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management System for Hanoi (vietnam)—Why
to choose the ‘waste-to-energy’ concept. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1085. [CrossRef]
David, V.E.; Cha, J.Y.; Hussain, S. Rethinking sustainability: A review of Liberia’s municipal solid waste management systems,
status, and challenges. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2020, 22, 1299–1317. [CrossRef]
Global Waste Index. Sensoneo. Available online: https://sensoneo.com/global-waste-index/ (accessed on 25 July 2023).
Coracero, E.E.; Gallego, R.J.; Frago, K.J.M.; Gonzales, R.J.R. A Long-Standing problem: A review on the solid waste management
in the Philippines. Indones. J. Soc. Environ. Issues 2021, 2, 213–220. [CrossRef]
Municipal Planning Development Office. Comprehensive Land and Water Use Plan, Socio Economic and Physical Profile (SEPP)
Volume One. 2017. Available online: https://m.facebook.com/MPDOSanJoseOccMindoro/photos/the-sectoral-and-specialarea-studiesthe-municipality-of-san-jose-occidental-min/2057851954433737/?_se_imp=1NgZiQhqozYxTU820#_=_ (accessed on
18 December 2023).
Khan, S.; Anjum, R.; Raza, S.T.; Bazai, N.A.; Ihtisham, M. Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste Management: Current Status,
Challenges, and Future Perspectives. Chemosphere 2022, 288, 132403. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wu, L.; Zhu, Y.; Zhai, J. Understanding Waste Management Behavior among university students in China: Environmental
knowledge, personal norms, and the theory of planned behavior. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 771723. [CrossRef]
Liu, N.; Liu, Y.; Yu, X. The impact of Public Environmental Concern on environmental pollution: The moderating effect of
Government Environmental Regulation. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0290255. [CrossRef]
Larson, L.R.; Stedman, R.C.; Cooper, C.B.; Decker, D.J. Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental
behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 112–124. [CrossRef]
Enger, E.D.; Smith, B.F. Environmental Science: A Study of Interrelationships, 14th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education and Tsinghua
University Press Limited: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
Liu, H.; Zhu, G.; Li, Y. Research on the impact of environmental risk perception and public participation on evaluation of Local
Government Environmental Regulation Implementation Behavior. Environ. Chall. 2021, 5, 100213. [CrossRef]
Silva, E. The politics of policy implementation and reform: Chile’s environmental impact assessment system. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2023,
15, 101321. [CrossRef]
Degnet, M.B.; Hansson, H.; Hoogstra-Klein, M.A.; Roos, A. The Role of Personal Values and Personality Traits in Environmental
Concern of Non-industrial Private Forest Owners in Sweden. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 141, 102767. [CrossRef]
Saracevic, S.; Schlegelmilch, B.B. The impact of social norms on pro-environmental behavior: A systematic literature review of the
role of culture and self-construal. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5156. [CrossRef]
Reaños, M.A.T.; Meier, D.E.; Curtis, J.; Pillai, A. The Role of Energy, Financial Attitudes and Environmental Concerns on Perceived
Retrofitting Benefits and Barriers: Evidence from Irish Home Owners. Energy Build. 2023, 297, 113448. [CrossRef]
Belanche, D.; Casaló, L.V.; Flavián, C. Integrating trust and personal values into the Technology Acceptance Model: The case of
e-government services adoption. Cuad. Econ. Dir. Empresa 2012, 15, 192–204. [CrossRef]
Kinzig, A.P.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Alston, L.J.; Arrow, K.; Barrett, S.; Buchman, T.G.; Daily, G.C.; Levin, B.; Levin, S.; Oppenheimer, M.;
et al. Social norms and global environmental challenges: The complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. BioScience
2013, 63, 164–175. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Harring, N.; Jagers, S.C.; Nilsson, F. Recycling as a large-scale collective action dilemma: A cross-country study on trust and
reported recycling behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 140, 85–90. [CrossRef]
Kulin, J.; Sevä, I.J. Quality of government and the relationship between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior:
A cross-national study. Environ. Politics 2020, 30, 727–752. [CrossRef]
Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N.F. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal. 2003, 23, 961–972. [CrossRef]
Wang, Z.; Guo, D.; Wang, X. Determinants of residents’ e-waste recycling behaviour intentions: Evidence from China. J. Clean.
Prod. 2016, 137, 850–860. [CrossRef]
Geng, M.-M.; He, L.-Y. Environmental regulation, environmental awareness and environmental governance satisfaction. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3960. [CrossRef]
Gangwar, B.; Kaur, B. Exploring the Role of Lifestyle and Personality in Predicting the Green Buying Intentions of Responsible
Consumers: Sustainability Insights From an Emerging Economy. In Sustainable Marketing, Branding, and Reputation Management:
Strategies for a Greener Future; IGI Global: Firozpur, India, 2023. [CrossRef]
Sorkun, M.F. How do social norms influence recycling behavior in a collectivistic society? A case study from Turkey. Waste Manag.
2018, 80, 359–370. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ham, M.; Jeger, M.; Ivković, A.F. The role of subjective norms in forming the intention to purchase Green Food. Econ. Res.-Ekon.
Istraz. 2015, 28, 738–748. [CrossRef]
Milfont, T.L.; Duckitt, J. The Environmental Attitudes Inventory: A Valid and Reliable Measure to Assess the Structure of
Environmental Attitudes. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 80–94. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
21 of 23
Wahyudin, M.; Yuliando, H.; Savitri, A. Consumer Behavior Intentions to Purchase Daily Needs through Online Store Channel.
Agritech 2021, 40, 306–311. [CrossRef]
Yeo, V.; Goh, S.K.; Rezaei, S. Consumer Experiences, Attitude and Behavioral Intention toward Online Food Delivery (OFD)
Services. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 35, 150–162. [CrossRef]
Juma-Michilena, I.-J.; Ruiz-Molina, M.E.; Gil-Saura, I.; Belda-Miquel, S. An analysis of the factors influencing pro-environmental
behavioural intentions on climate change in the University Community. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraz. 2023, 36, 2264373. [CrossRef]
Henry, R.K.; Yongsheng, Z.; Jun, D. Municipal Solid Waste Management Challenges in Developing Countries—Kenyan Case
Study. Waste Manag. 2006, 26, 92–100. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Khan, O.; Daddi, T.; Slabbinck, H.; Kleinhans, K.; Vazquez-Brust, D.; De Meester, S. Assessing the Determinants of Intentions and
Behaviors of Organizations Towards a Circular Economy for Plastics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 163, 105069. [CrossRef]
Cheng, X.; Long, R.; Yang, J. Interactive Effects of Two-way Information and Perceived Convenience on Waste Separation
Behavior: Evidence from Residents in Eastern China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 374, 134032. [CrossRef]
Aboelmaged, M. E-waste Recycling Behaviour: An Integration of Recycling Habits into the Theory of Planned Behaviour. J. Clean.
Prod. 2020, 278, 124182. [CrossRef]
Memon, M.A.; Ting, H.; Cheah, J.-H.; Thurasamy, R.; Chuah, F.; Cham, T.H. Sample Size For Survey Research: Review and
recommendations. J. Appl. Struct. Equ. Model. 2020, 4, 1–20. [CrossRef]
Bosnjak, M.; Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P. The theory of planned behavior: Selected recent advances and applications. Eur. J. Psychol.
2020, 16, 352–356. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nguyen, T.T.; Malek, L.; Umberger, W.J.; O’Connor, P.J. Household food waste disposal behaviour is driven by perceived personal
benefits, recycling habits and ability to compost. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 379, 134636. [CrossRef]
Kharaba, Z.; Khasawneh, L.; Aloum, L.; Ghemrawi, R.; Jirjees, F.; Bataineh, N.A.; Al-Azayzih, A.; Buabeid, M.; Al-Abdin, S.Z.;
Alfoteih, Y. An Assessment of the Current Practice of Community Pharmacists for the Disposal of Medication Waste in the United
Arab Emirates: A Deep Analysis at a Glance. J. Saudi Pharm. Soc. 2022, 30, 1773–1780. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Insani, W.N.; Qonita, N.A.; Jannah, S.S.; Nuraliyah, N.M.; Supadmi, W.; Gatera, V.A.; Alfian, S.D.; Abdulah, R. Improper disposal
practice of unused and expired pharmaceutical products in Indonesian households. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04551. [CrossRef]
Komal. Archimedeanconorm based intuitionistic fuzzy WASPAS method to evaluate health-care waste disposal alternatives with
unknown weight information. Appl. Soft Comput. 2023, 146, 110751. [CrossRef]
Uba, U.J.; Efut, E.N.; Obeten, U.B.; Asuquo, E.E.; Uba, J.C. Sociodemographic factors and environmental workers’ knowledge of
the impact of awareness creation on sustainable disposal of solid wastes. Heliyon 2023, 9, e18122. [CrossRef]
Mensah, D.; Ng, K.T.; Hasan, M.M.; Jeenat, R.E.; Hurlbert, M. Assessing non-hazardous solid waste business characteristics of
Western Canadian provinces. Ecol. Inform. 2023, 75, 102030. [CrossRef]
Mor, S.; Ravindra, K. Municipal solid waste landfills in lower- and middle-income countries: Environmental impacts, challenges
and sustainable management practices. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2023, 174, 510–530. [CrossRef]
Ara, L.; Billah, W.; Bashar, F.; Mahmud, S.; Amin, A.; Iqbal, R.; Rahman, T.; Alam, N.H.; Sarker, S.A. Effectiveness of a multi-modal
capacity-building initiative for upgrading biomedical waste management practices at healthcare facilities in Bangladesh: A 21st
Century challenge for developing countries. J. Hosp. Infect. 2022, 121, 49–56. [CrossRef]
Jiang, P.; Zhou, J.; Fan, Y.V.; Klemeš, J.J.; Zheng, M.; Varbanov, P.S. Data Analysis of resident engagement and sentiments in social
media enables better household waste segregation and recycling. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 319, 128809. [CrossRef]
Kamaruddin, S.M.; Pawson, E.; Kingham, S. Facilitating social learning in Sustainable Waste Management: Case Study of ngos
involvement in Selangor, Malaysia. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 105, 325–332. [CrossRef]
Deliberador, L.R.; Santos, A.B.; Carrijo, P.R.S.; Batalha, M.O.; César, A.d.S.; Ferreira, L.M.D. How risk perception regarding the
COVID-19 pandemic affected household food waste: Evidence from Brazil. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2023, 87, 101511. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Jerin, D.T.; Sara, H.H.; Radia, M.A.; Hema, P.S.; Hasan, S.; Urme, S.A.; Audia, C.; Hasan Md, T.; Quayyum, Z. An overview of
progress towards implementation of solid waste management policies in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Heliyon 2022, 8, e08918. [CrossRef]
Makwara, E.C.; Snodia, S. Confronting the reckless gambling with people’s health and lives: Urban solid waste management in
zimbabwe. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 2, 67–98. [CrossRef]
Outka, U. Fairness in the Low-Carbon Shift: Learning from Environmental Justice. HeinOnline. 2016. Available online:
https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/brklr82&section=27 (accessed on 4 September 2023).
Segerson, K.; Tietenberg, T. The Structure of Penalties in Environmental Enforcement: An Economic analysis. In Economics and
Liability for Environmental; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 333–354. [CrossRef]
Gallo, F.; Fossi, C.; Weber, R.; Santillo, D.; Sousa, J.; Ingram, I.; Nadal, A.; Romano, D. Marine litter plastics and microplastics and
their toxic chemicals components. In Analysis of Nanoplastics and Microplastics in Food; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020;
pp. 159–179. [CrossRef]
Ndum, A.E. Bottom-Up Approach to Sustainable Solid Waste Management in African Countries. 2013. Available online:
https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-btu/frontdoor/index/index/docId/2753 (accessed on 4 September 2023).
Zaman, A. A comprehensive review of the development of zero waste management: Lessons learned and guidelines. J. Clean.
Prod. 2015, 91, 12–25. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
22 of 23
Tang, D.; Cai, X.; Nketiah, E.; Adjei, M.; Adu-Gyamfi, G.; Obuobi, B. Separate your waste: A comprehensive conceptual framework
investigating residents’ intention to adopt household waste separation. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 39, 216–229. [CrossRef]
Guo, X.; Li, X.; Bian, J.; Yang, C. Deposit or reward: Express packaging recycling for online retailing platforms. Omega 2023,
117, 102828. [CrossRef]
Salem, M.; Raab, K.; Wagner, R. Solid waste management: The disposal behavior of poor people living in Gaza Strip refugee
camps. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104550. [CrossRef]
Pei, Z. Roles of neighborhood ties, community attachment and local identity in residents’ household waste recycling intention.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118217. [CrossRef]
Almulhim, A.I. Household’s awareness and participation in sustainable electronic waste management practices in Saudi Arabia.
Ain Shams Eng. J. 2022, 13, 101729. [CrossRef]
Ke, J.; Cai, K.; Yuan, W.; Li, J.; Song, Q. Promoting solid waste management and disposal through contingent valuation method:
A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 379, 134696. [CrossRef]
Fagerholm, A.-S.; Haller, H.; Warell, A.; Hedvall, P.-O. What a waste—A norm-critical design study on how waste is understood
and managed. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2023, 19, 200178. [CrossRef]
Katan, L.; Gram-Hanssen, K. ‘Surely I would have preferred to clear it away in the right manner’: When social norms interfere
with the practice of waste sorting: A case study. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2021, 3, 100036. [CrossRef]
Knebel, M. Cross-country comparative analysis and case study of institutions for future generations. Futures 2023, 151, 103181.
[CrossRef]
Diprose, K.; Liu, C.; Valentine, G.; Vanderbeck, R.M.; McQuaid, K. Caring for the future: Climate change and intergenerational
responsibility in China and the UK. Geoforum 2019, 105, 158–167. [CrossRef]
Chi, N.T.K. Ethical consumption behavior towards eco-friendly plastic products: Implication for cleaner production. Clean.
Responsible Consum. 2022, 5, 100055. [CrossRef]
Rottman, J.; Lerner, M. The burden of climate action: How environmental responsibility is impacted by socioeconomic status.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 77, 101674. [CrossRef]
Zhang, J.; Yu, X.; Wang, J.; Sui, Q.; Zhao, W. Impacts of Garbage Classification and Disposal on the Occurrence of Pharmaceutical
and Personal Care Products in Municipal Solid Waste Leachates: A Case Study in Shanghai. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 874, 162467.
[CrossRef]
Goyal, V.; Dharwal, M. The Puzzle of Garbage Disposal in India. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 60, 926–929. [CrossRef]
Jia, Q.; Islam, M.S.; Hossain, M.S.; Li, F.; Wang, Y. Understanding Residents’ Behaviour Intention of Recycling Plastic Waste in a
Densely Populated Megacity of Emerging Economy. Heliyon 2023, 9, e18921. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Malek, W.; Mortazavi, R.; Cialani, C.; Nordström, J. How Have Waste Management Policies Impacted the Flow of Municipal
Waste? An Empirical Analysis of 14 European Countries. Waste Manag. 2023, 164, 84–93. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Habib, M.D.; Kaur, P.; Sharma, V.; Talwar, S. Analyzing the Food Waste Reduction Intentions of UK Households. A ValueAttitude-Behavior (VAB) Theory Perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 75, 103486. [CrossRef]
Yang, J.; Long, R.; Chen, H.; Cheng, X. Willingness to Participate in Take-out Packaging Waste Recycling: Relationship Among
Effort Level, Advertising Effect, Subsidy and Penalty. Waste Manag. 2021, 121, 141–152. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Akmal, E.; Panjaitan, H.P.; Ginting, Y.M. Service quality, product quality, Price, promotion, and location on customer satisfaction
and loyalty in CV. Restu. J. Appl. Bus. Technol. 2023, 4, 39–54. [CrossRef]
Norberg, M.; Stenlund, H.; Lindahl, B.; Anderson, C.; Weinehall, L.; Hallmans, G.; Eriksson, J.W. Components of metabolic
syndrome pre-dicting diabetes: No role of inflammation or dyslipi-demia. Obesity 2007, 15, 1875–1885. [CrossRef]
Li, H.; Arditi, D.; Wang, Z. Factors that affect transaction costs in construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 60–68.
[CrossRef]
Algi, S.; Abdul Rahman, M.A. The relationship between personal mastery and teachers’ competencies at schools in Indonesia.
J. Educ. Learn. 2014, 8, 217–226. [CrossRef]
Chen, Y.Q.; Zhang, Y.B.; Liu, J.Y.; Mo, P. Interrelationship among critical success factors of construction projects based on the
structural equation model. J. Manag. Eng. 2012, 28, 243–251. [CrossRef]
Doloi, H.; Sawhney, A.; Iyer, K.C. Structural equation model for investigating factors affecting delay in Indian construction
projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2012, 30, 869–884. [CrossRef]
Jafari, F.; Azadi, H.; Abdi, A.; Salari, N.; Faraji, A. Cultural Validation of the Competence in Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire
(EBP-COQ) for Nursing Students. J. Edu. Health Promot. 2021, 10, 464. Available online: https://www.jehp.net/text.asp?2021/10/
1/464/333921 (accessed on 18 December 2023).
Lee, S.; Park, E.; Kwon, S.; del Pobil, A. Antecedents of behavioral intention to use mobile telecommunication services: Effects of
Corporate Social Responsibility and Technology Acceptance. Sustainability 2015, 7, 11345–11359. [CrossRef]
Pan, D.; Fan, W.; Kong, F. Dose Environmental Information Disclosure Raise Public Environmental Concern? Generalized
Propensity Score Evidence From China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 379, 134640. [CrossRef]
Negash, Y.T.; Sarmiento, L.S.C.; Tseng, M.-L.; Lim, M.K.; Ali, M.H. Engagement Factors for Household Waste Sorting in Ecuador:
Improving Perceived Convenience and Environmental Attitudes Enhances Waste Sorting Capacity. Resour. Conserv. Recycling
2021, 175, 105893. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1087
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
23 of 23
Zhang, Y.; Wang, G.; Zhang, Q.; Ji, Y.; Xu, H. What determines urban household intention and behavior of solid waste separation?
A case study in China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022, 93, 106728. [CrossRef]
Salvia, G.; Zimmermann, N.; Willan, C.; Hale, J.R.; Gitau, H.; Muindi, K.; Gichana, E.; Davies, M. The Wicked Problem of Waste
Management: An Attention-based Analysis of Stakeholder Behaviours. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 326, 129200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tinio, E. Solid Waste and Social Norms: How Your Friends Affect How You Throw Your Trash. EnP Tinio. 2021. Available online:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/enptinio.com/social-norms-waste-management/amp/ (accessed on 18 December 2023).
Fadhullah, W.; Imran, N.I.N.; Ismail, S.N.S.; Jaafar, M.H.; Abdullah, H. Household Solid Waste Management Practices and
Perceptions among Residents in the East Coast of Malaysia. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 1. [CrossRef]
Tavakol, M.; Wetzel, A. Factor analysis: A means for theory and instrument development in support of construct validity. Int. J.
Med. Educ. 2020, 11, 245–247. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Biggs, J.; Kember, D.; Leung, D.Y.P. The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2001, 71,
133–149. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Aryampa, S.; Maheshwari, B.; Sabiiti, E.; Bateganya, N.L.; Olobo, C. Understanding the Impacts of Waste Disposal Site Closure on
the Livelihood of Local Communities in Africa: A Case Study of the Kiteezi Landfill in Kampala, Uganda. World Dev. Perspect.
2022, 25, 100391. [CrossRef]
Food and Agriculture Organization. Ecological Solid Waste Management Act No. 9003 of 2000. FAO.org. Available online:
https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC045260/ (accessed on 18 December 2023).
Ramonmitcs. GARBAGE = REWARDS—Bacolod City Government. Bacolod City Government—City of Smiles. Available online:
https://bacolodcity.gov.ph/garbage-rewards/ (accessed on 7 February 2023).
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.