See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340425436

Knowledge–intention–behavior associations and spillovers of domestic and

workplace recycling

Article  in  The Social Science Journal · April 2020

DOI: 10.1080/03623319.2020.1735857

CITATIONS READS

2 94

1 author:

Sai ng
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
44 PUBLICATIONS   970 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pokémon Go and City: The Effects of Location based Augmented Reality on the Use of Built Environment for Physical Activity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sai ng on 06 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Social Science Journal

ISSN: 0362-3319 (Print) 1873-5355 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ussj20

Knowledge–intention–behavior associations and

spillovers of domestic and workplace recycling

Sai Leung Ng

To cite this article: Sai Leung Ng (2020): Knowledge–intention–behavior associations

and spillovers of domestic and workplace recycling, The Social Science Journal, DOI:
10.1080/03623319.2020.1735857

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1735857

Published online: 03 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ussj20
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1735857

Knowledge–intention–behavior associations and spillovers of

domestic and workplace recycling
Sai Leung Ng
Department of Geography and Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper examined the relations among the knowledge and intention of Received 3 August 2019
clean recycling and the recycling behavior at home and in the workplace, Revised 24 February 2020
and the spillover of recycling behavior from home to workplace. Through Accepted 24 February 2020
a territory-wide questionnaire survey in 2016, this paper successfully inter- KEYWORDS
viewed 600 respondents involved in domestic and workplace recycling. Knowledge; intention; clean
Structural equation modeling was employed to examine the correlations recycling; domestic
among their knowledge and intention of clean recycling, and recycling recycling; workplace
behavior at home and in the workplace. Results indicated that the knowl- recycling; spillover
edge–intention–behavior association was found in the domestic context,
but not in the workplace. Specifically, the correlation between knowledge
of clean recycling and intention of clean recycling was significant in the
home context but such correlation was not significant in the workplace
context. Intention to participate in clean recycling significantly correlated
with recycling behavior in both contexts of home and workplace.
Significant correlations were found between intentions of clean recycling
at home and in the workplace, and recycling behaviors at home and in the
workplace, respectively, indicating that the contextual spillover encom-
passed both conscious and unconscious pathways. The findings of this
paper supplement the literature and provide insights into how to improve
recycling programs in Hong Kong.

1. Introduction
The excessive production of solid waste has become an acute environmental problem in modern
cities. Population growth and modern lifestyles have inevitably increased the production of solid
waste. In 2016, the world’s cities generated estimated 2.01 billion metric tons of solid waste,
amounting to the daily production of 0.74 kg per capita (Kaza et al., 2018). To manage this problem,
most countries, whether developed or developing, have adopted a hierarchal framework for waste
management that involves, in descending order of priority, prevention, minimization, reuse, recy-
cling, and disposal (Price & Joseph, 2000). Although waste prevention, minimization, and reuse are
the more preferable options in the hierarchy of waste management, their effectuation requires
a significant change in lifestyle; thus, they are difficult to implement (Yau, 2012). Practically speak-
ing, recycling has become the most popular option for waste management in many countries around
the world (Ng, 2019a).
Recycling can be defined as the separation and reuse of recoverable materials from composite
wastes (Begum et al., 2007; Ofstad et al., 2017). Recycling reduces the amount of waste that must
otherwise be disposed of at landfill sites and helps save natural resources by demanding less material
from the natural environment (Ofstad et al., 2017).

CONTACT Sai Leung Ng slng@cuhk.edu.hk Department of Geography and Resource Management, The Chinese University
of Hon Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong
© 2020 Western Social Science Association
2 S. L. NG

Recycling is not new to most large cities. The practice emerged when governments recognized
that natural resources were in short supply during the Second World War (Marans & Lee, 1993).
After the 1970s, recycling was recognized as an integral component of waste management systems,
and many cities implemented various recycling programs (Oskamp et al., 1998). Since then, recycling
behavior has been extensively studied by environmental psychologists and behavioral scientists. The
majority of studies of recycling behavior have assumed simple recycling that required the recycler to
separate the recyclable materials from the bulk of trash and drop these materials into recycling bins
(e.g., Iyer & Kashyap, 2007). However, in reality, recycling is not a single behavior but a spectrum of
behaviors (Andersson & von Borgstede, 2010). For example, causal recyclers may simply separate the
recyclable materials from the wastes, whereas the more serious recyclers may take additional efforts
to ensure that the materials are proper or suitable for recycling. These serious recyclers may clean the
item and then disassemble it into parts as single materials (i.e., clean recycling).
In recent years, the number of countries striving to encourage the public to practice clean
recycling is increasing, and at the same time, they are progressively tightening their recycling policies
(OECD, 2018). Hopefully, the new initiatives can increase the motivation to recycle (Hong Kong
Productivity Council, 2014). Furthermore, clean recycling ensures the quality of recyclables, which
makes the recycling process smoother and more efficient and economical (Deloitte Risk Advisory,
2018). This situation calls for further studies that provide insights into the behavioral change from
simple to clean recycling.
Many studies have examined the predictive factors of recycling behavior. Although most of these
studies have focused on household recycling (de Young, 1990; Varotto & Spagnollia, 2017), some
have examined recycling behavior in the workplace (e.g., Ofstad et al., 2017; Whitmarsh et al., 2018),
at schools (e.g., Blok et al., 2015), and on vacation (e.g., Whitmarsh et al., 2018). Notably, recycling
behaviors performed outside of the home have not been fully explored (Paillé & Boiral, 2013;
Whitmarsh et al., 2018). Furthermore, recycling behaviors in different contexts seem to be asso-
ciated, and the linkage is often called the spillover effect (Dolnicar & Grün, 2009; Nilsson et al.,
2017). From the viewpoint of solid waste management, an effective recycling policy must generate
impacts on household recycling as well as recycling behaviors in other contexts. However, very few
studies have directly compared the home and other contexts. The knowledge of the associations of
recycling behaviors in different contexts has been relatively limited (Blok et al., 2015; Heidrich &
Harvey, 2018; Whitmarsh et al., 2018).
This paper helps fill the gap in the literature by analyzing the first-hand data from a territory-wide
survey (n = 600) conducted in Hong Kong in 2017. Specifically, this paper sought to investigate: (1)
the knowledge–intention–behavior associations of domestic and workplace recycling; and (2) the
spillover of recycling behavior from home to workplace. This paper contributes to the literature and
provides insights on how to improve the implementation of the recycling programs in Hong Kong.

2. Literature review
2.1. Recycling in Hong Kong
With a land area of approximately 1100 km2, Hong Kong sustains a population of more than 7 million
people or 2.3 million households. In 2015, Hong Kong generated 15,629 metric tons of municipal solid
waste per day, a daily per capita production of 2.14 kg (Legislative Council Secretariat, 2017). This
amount was more than most advanced economies with good waste management practices such as Japan
(0.97 kg), South Korea (0.98 kg), the United Kingdom (1.35 kg), and the United States (1.99 kg) (OECD,
2015). The daily disposal amount of municipal solid waste in Hong Kong was 1.39 kg per capita,
accounting for a disposal rate of 65% (Environmental Protection Department, 2016).
Because Hong Kong generates an extremely large volume of municipal solid waste daily, sustain-
able waste management has become a high priority since 2008. Notably, this municipality principally
relies on landfills to dispose of its solid waste, and the capacity of the existing landfills is expected to
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 3

be exhausted before the early 2020s (Environmental Protection Department, 2005). Thus, to over-
come this challenge, recycling is therefore crucial to minimize the amount of waste requiring
disposal (Environmental Protection Department, 2010).
In Hong Kong, approximately two-thirds of municipal solid waste is domestic waste, and the
remainder is commercial and industrial waste (Environmental Protection Department, 2013).
Currently, the Program of Source Separation of Domestic Waste (SSDW) and the Program of
Source Separation of Commercial and Industrial Waste (SSCIW) are the recycling frameworks for
domestic, and commercial and industrial wastes, respectively (Environmental Protection
Department, 2019a, 2019b). These programs facilitate the parallel development of recycling systems
within residential buildings and estates, commercial buildings, and industrial buildings. Typically,
the so-called “three-colored” recycling bins are installed for collecting paper, metal, and plastic, but
additional bins for other recyclables (e.g., glass) may be available in some buildings or estates. The
actual operation of the recycling system may vary by building, but the general practice is that
recyclers bring recyclables to the designated area where the recycling bins are installed and then put
the recyclables into the respective bins. These programs are well accepted by Hong Kong society. For
example, in 2017, the SSDW program included 2,130 housing estates and buildings in Hong Kong
(Environmental Protection Department, 2017). These housing estates and buildings represented
more than 1.75 million households and 80% of Hong Kong’s population.
In 2013, 2.01 million tons of materials were collected under these two recycling programs. Among
these items, 52% was paper, 30% was metal, and 12% was plastic (Environmental Protection
Department, 2013). Clearly, the success of waste paper collection is because paper is easy to handle.
However, the recycling rates of plastic and metal were relatively low, probably because these items
often were often mixed with contaminated and unsorted materials that could not be processed by the
current recycling system (Hong Kong Productivity Council, 2014; Legislative Council Secretariat,
2018). Contaminated recyclables and mixed materials must be taken away, even when in recycling
bins, because of logistic and technological reasons (Environment Bureau, 2013).
To improve the quality and quantity of recyclables, the government strived to initiate the
behavioral change from simple recycling to clean recycling. Regarding public education, the govern-
ment launched promotional activities, including roving exhibitions and television episodes
(Legislative Council Secretariat, 2017). Non-profit organizations were funded to organize public
engagement activities at approximately 100 private housing estates to promote the idea of clean
recycling. Intensive training and information sharing activities were provided to frontline staff and
residents’ associations of housing estates to enhance their capability to perform clean recycling
(Legislative Council Secretariat, 2017).
Different from simple recycling, which was dropping their recyclables into designated bins, the
people are now educated to follow two principles of clean recycling:

● Cleaning principle – Wash the recyclables before recycling.

● Sorting principle – Disassemble composite items into separated materials before recycling.

For example, if a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottle is to be recycled, it should be rinsed with
water (i.e., the “cleaning principle”) and disassembled into the cap, body, and plastic label (i.e., the
“sorting principle”).

2.2. Psychology of recycling: Knowledge, intention, and behavior

Environmental psychologists and behavioral scientists strived to understand how recycling initiatives
can lead to behavioral change in domestic recycling (Blok et al., 2015). De Young (1990) reviewed 13
programs in the United States and recommended that recycling programs should focus on “helping
people become more familiar with the details of how to recycle” (p. 253) and “motivating people to
4 S. L. NG

turn their good intentions into actual behavior” (p. 261). Therefore, the first theme of this study is
the association between the knowledge and intention of clean recycling, and recycling behavior.
Intention is defined as a voluntary and goal-directed decision to perform a particular action or
behavior (Sheeran, 2002; Triandis, 1980). An assumption is that humans are rational beings and free to
do what they intend. A person without an intention (i.e., non-intenders) will not act (Sheeran, 2002).
Behavioral psychologists have identified the association between intention and behavior. The
association has been adopted as a key premise in many behavioral theories. For example, the theory
of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein, 1980), the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), and
social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001). Although different mediating factors are included, these
theories consider intention as the most proximal and immediate predictor of a person’s behavior
(Vries et al., 1988). Comprehensive reviews of the intention–behavior association have been pro-
vided by Sheeran (2002) and Husin and Rahman (2013).
Empirically, intention has been identified to be a very reliable predictor of well-defined behavior.
Intention has been used to predict a range of pro-environmental behaviors, including waste reduction
(Taylor & Todd, 1995), green purchasing (Yadava & Pathak, 2017), consumption of green electricity
(Ahmed et al., 2019), energy saving (Kriek et al., 2013), and recycling (Cheung et al., 1999; Jones, 1989;
Stoeva & Alriksson, 2017; Swaim et al., 2014). Sheeran (2002) meta-analyzed 10 meta-analyses in the
literature that comprised 422 intention–behavior studies, and the sample-weighted average correlation
between intention and behavior was reported as r = 0.53. Intention was found to have a higher predictive
power of behavior than other behavioral variables, such as attitude, norm, perception (McEachan et al.,
2011), and extraneous factors such as demographics (e.g., Chiaburu et al., 2011; Poropat, 2009). Because
intention generally is a good predictor of behaviors, many recycling studies have simply adopted the
intention as a proxy of the actual recycling behavior (Park & Ha, 2014).
Despite the high correlations between intention and behavior, a common phenomenon is that
people do not act even when they have developed the intention. Such discrepancy is called the
intention–behavior gap (Faries, 2016; Sheeran & Webb, 2016). Three reasons for the gap have been
asserted: a person does not enact the intention (i.e., inclined abstainer) as a response to external
controls, such as ability, opportunity, availability, cooperation, and even emergency (Orbell &
Sheeran, 1998; Sheeran, 2002); the corresponding behavior is difficult to perform (Sheeran et al.,
2003); and a person could prevent the performance of an intended behavior when external support
for taking action is limited (i.e., low facilitating conditions) (Triandis, 1980).
Because of logistics and privacy, most studies on recycling behavior have measured only self-
reported recycling behavior (Oskamp et al., 1998). Amount of recyclable materials (e.g., Ng, 2019b)
and frequency of recycling (e.g., Arı & Yılmaz, 2016; Chu & Chiu, 2003) were two major aspects of
recycling behavior that have been examined. This paper argued that the former is a better measure of
recycling behavior than the latter because the amount of recyclable materials represents the overall
efforts to recycle. Unless all recyclers recycle the same amount of recyclables in each recycling action,
the frequency of recycling may not provide useful information on the performance of the recycling
program. A few regional studies have determined the recycling rate of a region or city (e.g., Sidique
et al., 2010). However, recycling rate has seldom been studied at the individual level because the
calculation requires data on total amount of waste generated by each person.
In this paper, the intentions to follow the cleaning and sorting principles were measured to
determine the level of intention of clean recycling. Because cleaning and sorting principles were
manifested by the recycling of metal and plastic items, this paper measured the amount of metal and
plastic items recycled in the past week as indicators of recycling behavior. Two hypotheses were
proposed based on two contexts, namely, home and workplace, respectively:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Level of intention of clean recycling has a positive effect on recycling behavior
at home.
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 5

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Level of intention of clean recycling has a positive effect on recycling behavior
in the workplace.

Knowledge can be defined as the theoretical or practical understanding (i.e., facts, information,
and skills) of a given subject (Rav-Marathe et al., 2016). There are two main types of knowledge:
declarative knowledge (knowing that) and procedural knowledge (knowing how) (Ten Berge & van
Hezewijk, 1999). Declarative knowledge is the cognition of information and fact, procedural knowl-
edge is the prerequisite for performing a particular behavior, such as recycling (Andersson & von
Borgstede, 2010; Coskun & Topkaya, 2019; Frick et al., 2004). Because declarative knowledge is not
directly related to the formation of behavioral intention (Ten Berge & van Hezewijk, 1999), this
paper focuses on procedural knowledge that refers to the know-how skills required for clean
recycling.
There is a normative association between procedural knowledge and intention (Habgood-Coote,
2018). A person will only intend to perform an action if they know how to perform it. If a person
does not know how to perform a specific action, it is impossible for them to have the behavioral
intention (Andersson & von Borgstede, 2010). Schultz (2002) indicated that although knowledge
may not be a motive to recycle, insufficient knowledge is a barrier to recycling.
Hornik et al. (1995) conducted a meta-analysis of 17 studies on the knowledge–intention
association. The trend observed was that the more a person knows about when, where, and how
to recycle, the more likely she or he will be to recycle. The average relationship between procedural
knowledge and recycling behavior was reported as r = 0.541 (Hornik et al., 1995). However, some
studies (e.g., Gotschi et al., 2009) have not reported a significant correlation between knowledge and
intention. One probable reason for their results was that they had asked questions on general
environmental information (i.e., declarative knowledge) but not on specific knowledge (i.e., proce-
dural knowledge) related to recycling practice (Oskamp, 1995).
Knowledge generally translates into a behavioral change, but some behavioral psychologists have
often questioned the importance of knowledge in forming behavioral intention. Habgood-Coote (2018)
indicated that merely having knowledge is insufficient for having a rational intention and, by contrast,
suggests a direction to the intention. In other words, knowledge is the necessary condition for episte-
mically appropriate assertions, beliefs, and actions (Hawthorne & Stanley, 2008). Setiya (2008) explained
that knowledge provides epistemic entitlement for the intention, but the formation of the intention is
often based on practical reasons. If a behavior is difficult to perform, having knowledge is not necessarily
sufficient to have a rational intention (Ajzen et al., 2011). The discrepancy between knowledge and
intention is called the knowledge–intention gap (Wegwartha et al., 2014).
In this paper, knowledge of the cleaning and sorting principles was measured to determine the
level of knowledge of clean recycling. Thus, two more hypotheses were proposed:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Level of knowledge of clean recycling has a positive effect on level of
intention of clean recycling at home.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Level of knowledge of clean recycling has a positive effect on level of
intention of clean recycling in the workplace.

2.3. Spillover
Spillover can be defined as the phenomenon that engaging in one behavior influences the probability
of performing a subsequent behavior (Nilsson et al., 2017). There are two main types of spillovers:
behavioral spillover refers to the phenomenon that performing one behavior influences the prob-
ability of performing another behavior (e.g., Thøgersen & Noblet, 2012), and contextual spillover is
the phenomenon that performing the behavior in one context affects the probability of performing
6 S. L. NG

the behavior in another context (e.g., Whitmarsh et al., 2018), respectively. Contextual spillover can
be found in various pro-environmental behaviors, for example, waste disposal (Poortinga et al.,
2013), environmental-friendly consumption (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2003), energy-saving behavior
(Steinhorst et al., 2015), and recycling (Lee, de Young, & Marans, 1995; McDonald & Oke, 2018;
Tudor et al., 2007; Young et al., 2015). This paper was a study of contextual spillover because it
examined associations between recycling behaviors at home and in the workplace.
Many theories have been formulated to explain context spillover. The most popular one perhaps
is the “consistency” theory. According to this theory, a person always has a tendency toward self-
consistency in her or his cognitive structure. Festinger (1957) stated that psychological inconsistency
is an active force that individuals attempt to reduce or avoid because the perception of inconsistency
leads to a feeling of discomfort, that is, cognitive dissonance. The psychological drive for self-
consistency underpins the performance of similar and consistent behaviors across contexts
(Andersson et al., 2012; Whitmarsh et al., 2018). In other words, the consistency of intention of
recycling results in consistent recycling behavior between home and workplace.
For those studies using the “consistency” theory, the majority have hypothesized that spillover
originates from homes because of the home’s long-term impacts on a person’s personality and behavior
(McDonald & Oke, 2018; Tudor et al., 2007). In other words, the cognitive structure (e.g., norm, role,
and identity) initially formulated and organized at home, it consistently works in various contexts (Boss
et al., 2009). Dolnicar and Grün (2009) argued that people would take care of their homes to ensure
a good long-term living environment so that they would extend the pro-environmental behavior to
other contexts. However, Andersson et al. (2012) and Gadeikienė et al. (2019) reported on the spillover
from the workplace to home and indicated that the spillover may not be unidirectional.
Notably, home and workplace are different contexts that pose different behavioral controls (Nash
et al., 2017). Because a home is a person’s owned territory, domestic recycling is primarily
a voluntary action. However, in the workplace context, at least the intention of recycling is partially
affected by the employer (Blok et al., 2015; McDonald, 2011; Norton et al., 2017). Nindyati (2014)
indicated that the behavioral rules set by the employer formed the basis for all parts of the workplace.
If the employer does not promote the idea of recycling, it is difficult for an employee to develop the
intention of recycling despite knowing how to recycle, or vice versa (Ruepert et al., 2016; Yuriev
et al., 2018). Therefore, the contextual difference prompts the possibility that the tendency toward
self-consistency may be ineffective (Wells et al., 2016).
Another popular theory for context spillover is the “behavioral” theory. According to this theory,
there is a connection between the past experience of a behavior and the subsequent performance of
that behavior (Kallgren & Wood, 1986). The behavioral connection echoes the idea of the foot-in-the
-door effect, that is, a former commitment to a small request made people more likely to comply
with a larger request later (Freedman & Fraser, 1966). As a person repeatedly performs a behavior,
an automaticity starts to develop (Gardner, 2015). The higher degree of automaticity, the less
dependence on intentional pursuit is (Wood & Rünger, 2016). Psychologists often use the term,
habit, as a representation of the degree of automaticity (Ofstad et al., 2017).
In contrast to the intentional behavior which tends to be associated with consciousness, the automatic
behavior tends to be associated with unconscious mechanisms (Morsella & Poehlman, 2013). When
a person performs an automatic behavior, they would not be intentionally aware of the goal or reason for
taking action. For example, people brush their teeth every day at home but will also automatically brush
their teeth after waking up in another location, for example, a hotel. Similarly, the repetitive nature of
recycling behavior may enable a person to recycle automatically at home or in other contexts (Ofstad
et al., 2017). Furthermore, Littleford et al. (2014) indicated that contextual spillover of pro-
environmental behavior required taxonomic connection as a cue to behavior. Lee et al. (1995) reported
that approximately the same composition of recyclable materials was found at home and in the work-
place, implying the behavioral connection between domestic and workplace recycling.
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 7

Figure 1. The conceptual framework of this paper.

Based on the aforementioned observations, two more hypotheses were proposed:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Level of intention of clean recycling at home has a positive effect on level of
intention of clean recycling in the workplace.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Recycling behavior at home has a positive effect on recycling behavior in the
workplace.

Based on the findings in the literature, this paper developed a conceptual framework (Figure 1) by
hypothesizing the associations between knowledge and intention, and intention and behavior, which
are valid both at home and in the workplace. Furthermore, this paper hypothesized that spillover,
from home to workplace, occurs at both levels of intention and behavior.

3. Method
3.1. Survey and sampling
In this study, a territory-wide sampling survey was conducted from July 20, 2016 to August 12, 2016.
The sampling method was adapted from Chiu and Jiang (2017). First, all telephone numbers in the
residential directory of Hong Kong were compiled. After removing duplicates, the last two digits of
these numbers were replaced with numbers from 00 to 99. Because these numbers were not listed,
they had an equal chance of being selected. Next, telephone numbers were randomly selected from
the sampling frame and called by a trained research assistant. After confirming that the housing
estate or building participated in the recycling program, one household member aged between 15
and 64 years was selected by the “next birthday” method to participate in a telephone interview. This
age range was used because people who are too young or old might not be able to communicate
effectively via telephone. The survey successfully interviewed 1010 respondents. The response rate
was 47.4%, comparable to other social studies in Hong Kong.
In order to examine the knowledge-intention-behavior associations and spillovers of domestic
and workplace recycling, only those respondents involving both domestic and workplace recycling
were further selected. For this reason, 410 respondents (out of 1010) were excluded because they
were unemployed or did not indicate their occupation. Therefore, the 600 respondents who
declared their occupation were included in the structural equation modeling (SEM) (Figure 2).
The demographic characteristics of these 600 respondents are presented in Table 1. Although
these respondents did not represent a general sample of the Hong Kong population, the sample
8 S. L. NG

Figure 2. Sample distribution of this paper.

profile of this paper did not differ substantially from the population profile of Hong Kong residents
(Census and Statistics Department, 2016).

3.2. Survey measures

The questionnaire was designed according to the aforementioned conceptual framework suggested.
To confirm the content validity of the instrument (Jain et al., 2016), the appropriateness of the
questionnaire items was assessed by a few key stakeholders, who were government officers of
recycling and representatives of recycling industry, and then was reviewed by an independent expert
in the field.
Other than the demographic characteristics of respondents, the questionnaire included five
groups of questions (Table 2): knowledge of clean recycling, intention of clean recycling at home,
recycling behavior at home, intention of clean recycling in the workplace, and recycling behavior in
the workplace. To enhance the apparent and face validity (Jain et al., 2016), a pilot test was organized
in which 20 respondents were randomly selected and asked to answer the questions. Finally, the
questionnaire was finalized after refining the instances of ambiguous or unclear wording.
In the section of demographics, respondents were asked about their socioeconomic and demo-
graphic characteristics, including gender, age, education level, occupation, monthly income, house-
hold size, and home district. For unemployed respondents, the questions on the workplace were not
asked and thus not included in the SEM.
The section on knowledge of clean recycling comprised two items of procedural knowledge
related to clean recycling. Specifically, respondents were asked whether they knew of the “cleaning
principle” and the “sorting principle,” respectively. A score of 1 and 0 was given for “yes” and “no”
answers, respectively; the score for knowledge of clean recycling ranged from 0 to 2.
In the section on intention of clean recycling at home, the respondents were asked whether or not they
recycled at home. The answer was either “yes” or “no.” If the answer was “no,” the questions on their
intention of clean recycling and recycling behavior were not asked because zero recycling intention and
behavior were assumed. Respondents who answered yes were asked about their intention to follow the
“cleaning principle” and the “sorting principle” at home. A score of 1 and 0 was given for “yes” and “no”
answers, respectively; therefore, the score of intention of clean recycling at home ranged from 0 to 2.
In the section on recycling behavior at home, respondents were asked to report the amount of
plastic and metal items recycled by their households in the past week. If a respondent was unsure of
the amounts, she or he would answer “don’t know,” and this case was considered a missing datum in
the subsequent analysis. The amount of recyclables produced by the respondent was estimated by
dividing the household’s amount by the household size. The scale reliability of two items of recycling
behavior at home was satisfactory and yielded a Cronbach alpha of 0.761.
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 9

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents (n = 600).

This study Hong Kong Population (2016)
Demographic variables Number (%)a (%)
Gender
Male 295 47.8 46.0
Female 313 52.2 54.0
Age
0–14 – – 11.3
15–19 19 3.2 4.6
20–24 38 6.3 6.1
25–29 46 7.7 7.0
30–34 69 11.5 7.9
35–39 57 9.5 7.8
40–44 82 13.7 7.8
45–49 59 9.8 7.7
50–54 92 15.3 8.8
55–59 78 13.0 8.5
60–64 60 10.0 6.8
>65 – – 15.9
Education level
Primary or below 26 4.3 20.0
Junior (Lower secondary) 69 11.4 17.1
Senior (Upper secondary) 213 35.3 30.2
Diploma (and sub-degree course) 67 11.1 10.5
Bachelor or above 228 37.8 22.2
Occupation (n = 593)
Manufacturing industry 36 6.1 3.8
Construction industry 50 8.4 8.5
Import, export, trade and wholesale 40 6.7 18.9
Transportation, express service, communication 101 17.0 12.4
Retailing, hospitality 84 14.2 8.2
Commercial services, business, insurance, 177 29.8 20.8
Public administration, education, health care, social services 105 17.7 15.1
Monthly income (HK$)b
$9,999 or below 13 2.5 19.2
$10,000–$19,999 62 11.7 21.8
$20,000–$29,999 93 17.6 15.8
$30,000–$49,999 159 30.1 26.4
$50,000–$99,999 144 27.3 10.3
$100,000 or above 57 10.8 6.5
Household size
1 person 22 3.7 18.3
2 persons 86 14.4 26.5
3 persons 148 24.8 24.4
4 persons 194 32.6 19.5
5 persons 113 19.0 8.0
6 persons or more 33 5.5 3.3
Living district
Hong Kong Island 112 18.7 17.1
East Kowloon 76 12.7 20.3
West Kowloon 84 14.0 10.2
East New Territories 161 26.8 23.7
West New Territories and others 167 27.8 28.6
(a: the sum is less than 100.0% because some respondents did not answer the question; b: HK$7.8 = US$1).

In the sections on intention of clean recycling and recycling behavior in the workplace, questions
identical to those in the sections for home were asked, except the context was the workplace. The
score of intention of clean recycling in the workplace ranged from 0 to 2. The scale reliability of two
items of recycling behavior in the workplace was satisfactory and yielded a Cronbach alpha of 0.836.
10 S. L. NG

Table 2. Questionnaire and terms of operation.

1. Knowledge of clean recycling (overall = sum of items) (0 – 2) 1.59 ± 0.55a
● Do you know the “cleaning principle”- wash the recyclables before recycling? no=0; yes=1 no=15.1%; yes=84.9% b

● Do you know the “sorting principle”- do not recycle composite items? no=0; yes=1 no=30.7%; yes=69.3% b

2. Intention of clean recycling at home (overall = sum of items) (0 – 2) 0.82 ± 0.45 a

● Would you follow the “cleaning principle”- wash the recyclables before no=0; yes=1 no=23.2%; yes=76.0% b

recycling at home?
● Would you follow the “sorting principle”- dissemble the composite items no=0; yes=1 no=34.5%; yes=63.4% b

before recycling in the workplace?

3. Recycling behavior at home
● How much plastic did you recycle at home in the last week? Number of bags 6.58 ± 15.49a
● How much metal did you recycle at home in the last week? Number of bags 6.78 ± 16.05a
4. Intention of clean recycling in the workplace (overall = sum of items) (0 – 2) 0.57 ± 0.53a
● Would you follow the “cleaning principle”- wash the recyclables before no=0; yes=1 no=48.6%; yes=49.0% b

recycling in the workplace?

● Would you follow the “sorting principle”- dissemble the composite items no=0; yes=1 no=43.9%; yes=53.8% b

before recycling at home?

5. Recycling behavior in the workplace
● How much plastic did you recycle in the workplace in the last week? Number of bags 9.21 ± 18.19a
● How much metal did you recycle in the workplace in the last week? Number of bags 12.17 ± 20.29a
(a: mean ± standard deviation; b: the sum is less than 100.0% because some respondents did not answer the question).

3.3. Statistical analysis

All valid data were input to SPSS ver 22.0 for descriptive and parametric statistical analyses. After
testing reliability and normalization, skewed data were square root transformed and highly skewed
data were log transformed, respectively. Next, the SEM was constructed based on the conceptual
framework, and the analysis was performed using AMOS ver 21.0.
The construction of SEM comprises five variables. Knowledge is the independent variable, and
recycling behaviors at home and in the workplace are dependent variables, respectively. Intentions at
home and in the workplace are mediators because they were affected by knowledge and affected
recycling behaviors at home and in the workplace.
SEM is a powerful tool to examine causal relations among multiple variables of different
levels. More importantly, the analysis can be used to test whether a multivariate set of non-
experimental data fits well with a priori model (i.e., the conceptual framework of this paper).
Detailed reviews of SEM and path analysis have been provided by Pedhazur (1982) and Lei and
Wu (2007).

4. Results
4.1. Recycling at home and in the workplace
The results indicated that the respondents had a good knowledge of clean recycling. The majority
knew of the “cleaning principle” (84.9%) and the “sorting principle” (69.3%), respectively, and 76.0%
and 63.4% of respondents indicated that they would follow these two principles when they recycled
at home, respectively. The level of intention in the workplace was lower: only 49.0% and 53.8% of
respondents would follow the “cleaning principle” and the “sorting principle” when they recycled in
the workplace, respectively. On average, each respondent recycled 6.91 bags of plastic and 8.04 bags
of metal at home in the last week, but one recycled 9.21 bags of plastic and 12.17 bags of metal in the
workplace, respectively. Notably, the home and workplace are different contexts; thus, a direct
comparison between the amounts of recyclables generated at home and in the workplace is
inappropriate.
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 11

Table 3. Fit indices of the SEM of this paper.

Accepted value
Fit index (Schreiber et al., 2006) This study
Normed Chi-square (χ2/df) <2 1.557
Probability of Chi-square >0.05 0.104
Normed Fit Index (NFI) >0.9 0.926
Relative Fit Index (RFI) >0.9 0.811
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) >0.9 0.972
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) >0.9 0.923
Comparative fit index (CFI) >0.95 0.970
Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) 0–1 0.364
Parsimony Comparative Fit Index fit index (PCFI) 0–1 0.381
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) <0.08 0.030

4.2. SEM construction

The SEM was assessed by various indices of fit. The accepted values of these fit indices and the
observed values of the SEM are listed in Table 3. Results indicated that the SEM fits the data very
well because most fit indices met the accepted values (Schreiber et al., 2006), and only the relative fit
index (RFI) (0.81) was slightly lower than the accepted value of 0.90.
Significant structural paths and their standardized regression coefficients are shown in Figure 3. Table 4 lists
the unstandardized and standardized regression coefficients for the structural paths of SEM. Standardized path
coefficient is a measure of the association between two latent variables (i.e., degree of correlation). The value of
standardized path coefficient varies from −1 to 1. Although the value of the coefficient indicates the strength of
the relationship, the sign indicates the direction of the relationship. The significance of path coefficient can be
reflected by the critical ratio (CR), which is identical to the t-test in regression analysis to check whether the
regression coefficient differs significantly from zero. A path is significant at the 0.05 level if the value of CR is
>1.96, and at the 0.01 level if the value of CR is >2.576, respectively (Hox & Bechger, 1998). Based on the results
of the SEM, all hypotheses, except H4, are accepted (Table 4).

5. Discussion
5.1. Knowledge-intention-behavior association
Respondents were asked about their knowledge of and intention of clean recycling, and recycling behaviors
in the contexts of the home and workplace using two sets of identical questions, respectively. A comparison

Figure 3. Structural paths of the SEM of this paper.

12 S. L. NG

Table 4. Unstandardized and standardized regression coefficients for the structural paths, and verification of hypotheses.
Unstandardized
Coefficient
Std. Standardized Critical
Path β Error Coefficient Beta Ratio Decision
H1 (Intention of clean recycling at home → Recycling behavior 0.520 0.237 0.330 2.194* Accepted
at home)
H2 (Intention of clean recycling in the workplace → Recycling 1.286 0.397 0.299 3.236** Accepted
behavior in the workplace)
H3 (Knowledge of clean recycling → Intention of clean recycling 0.347 0.081 0.243 4.272** Accepted
at home)
H4 (Knowledge of clean recycling → Intention of clean recycling 0.169 0.123 0.147 1.377 Rejected
in the workplace)
H5 (Intention of clean recycling at home → Intention of clean 0.388 0.084 0.330 4.612** Accepted
recycling in the workplace)
H6 (Recycling behavior at home → Recycling behavior in the 0.995 0.215 0.697 4.626** Accepted
workplace)
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

of the similarities and differences in knowledge–intention–behavior associations was possible in these two
contexts.
Significant knowledge–intention association was found at home but not in the workplace.
Specifically, the correlation between knowledge of clean recycling and intention of clean recycling
was significant at home (r = 0.243, CR = 4.272, p < .01), indicating that educating people on clean
recycling could effectively motivate them to form an intention of clean recycling at home. Similar
correlations have been reported by studies on domestic recycling (Andersson & von Borgstede, 2010;
Coskun & Topkaya, 2019; Frick et al., 2004). However, the correlation between knowledge and
intention was not significant in the workplace (r = 0.147, CR = 1.377, p > .05), indicating that to
form an intention of clean recycling in the workplace by educating people was unsuccessful. This
finding is consistent with the literature (Rayner & Morgan, 2018). This paper highlighted the
contextual difference between home and workplace in affecting the formation of recycling intention.
However, this paper could not provide an empirical explanation because no contextual factors were
measured. Further research is thus necessary to clarify what contextual factors affect employees’
intentions and how they can be changed (Yuriev et al., 2018).
The correlations between intention and behavior were significant at home (r = 0.330, CR = 2.194, p < .05)
and in the workplace (r = 0.299, CR = 3.236, p < .01), suggesting that the intention–behavior gap is not wide
in these two contexts. Significant correlations between intention and behavior have been reported by studies
on both domestic recycling (Cheung et al., 1999; Stoeva & Alriksson, 2017) and workplace recycling (Jones,
1989; Swaim et al., 2014). People with the intention of clean recycling could effectively perform their
recycling behaviors at home or in the workplace. One probable reason for the narrow intention–behavior
gap is that clean recycling is easy to perform, although a little bit more complicated than simple recycling.
Consequently, recyclers may be able to materialize their intention both at home and in the workplace.

5.2. Spillover
This study demonstrated the complex structure of the contextual spillover of recycling behavior from
home to workplace. Spillover occurs at both levels of intention and behavior that encompassed
conscious and unconscious pathways, respectively. The conscious pathway can be explained by
consistency theories. Psychological constructs that originate at home are believed to spillover to
other contexts, such as the workplace, because of the psychological drive for self-consistency, as
indicated by the significant correlation between the intention of clean recycling at home and in the
workplace (r = 0.330, CR = 4.612, p < .01). Consequently, consistent intentions resulted in consistent
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 13

behaviors (Figure 4, path 1). By contrast, the unconscious pathway can be explained by the concept
of automaticity. Repetitive performance of recycling behavior can be a direct reason for the spillover,
that is, recycling behavior at home can directly lead to the adoption of recycling behavior in the
workplace (Figure 4, path 2). Therefore, there was a significant association between recycling
behaviors at home and in the workplace (r = 0.697, CR = 4.626, p < .01).
The dual nature, that is, intentional and automatic, of recycling behavior deserves further research
(Wood & Neal, 2007). Because pro-environmental behaviors are generally assumed to be intentional
and conscious, researchers have often applied the concept of pro-environmental consciousness to
describe and explain why people act or do not act in a pro-environmental manner (Blok et al., 2015;
Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). As recycling is a pro-environmental behavior, the literature has
extensively investigated recycling behavior from this perspective of consciousness. Thus, consistency
theory is a popular explanation of spillover phenomena, but the automatic nature of recycling
behavior is often overlooked (Gardner, 2015). Because conscious and unconscious pathways of
spillover were not mutually exclusive, further research on recycling behavior should consider both
pathways together.
As recycling is deeply implemented in the domestic routines, it is performed both often and under the
same situational circumstances. In Hong Kong, 15.2% of recyclers recycled every day, and 49.9% recycled
once per week (Ng, 2019a). The repetitive nature of recycling behavior points to a high potential of

Figure 4. Paths of spillover from home to workplace.

14 S. L. NG

automaticity. Initially, when a person practices recycling, he or she is conscious and the behavior is
largely controlled by the intention. If a person regularly and repeatedly practices recycling, his or her level
of consciousness decreases as the level of automaticity increases (Ouellette & Wood, 1998; Wood &
Rünger, 2016). After recycling behavior has become habitual, the behavioral pattern is dominated by the
mechanism of automaticity (Ofstad et al., 2017). Consequently, people would automatically perform
recycling behavior across contexts, without the mediation of intention (Thomas & Sharp, 2013).
Furthermore, a few studies have indicated that the repetitive nature of the behavior affected
psychological constructs, such as attitude (Verplanken & Aarts, 1999) and norms (Bamberg &
Schmidt, 2003), which in turn would affect the further performance of the behavior. On the other
hand, taxonomic connection, for example, the same recycling materials (i.e., plastic and metal items)
at home and in the workplace, were positive for contextual spillover because they might serve as
a cue to behavior (Poortinga et al., 2013).

5.3. Practical implications

Because a knowledge-based campaign is cheap, it always is a popular means of promoting recycling
behaviors in the general public (Schultz, 2002). The behavioral change is dependent on whether the
knowledge can affect the formation of intention. In the case of the Clean Recycling Campaign in
Hong Kong, the knowledge–intention association may not occur in other contexts outside the home. In
other words, the clean-recycling intervention is successful in promoting domestic recycling but not
workplace recycling. Because domestic recycling and workplace recycling are controlled by different
factors (Nye & Hargreaves, 2010; Oke, 2015; Schultz et al., 1995), the principles of domestic recycling
may not be applicable to the workplace. Therefore, workplace-specific recycling programs are recom-
mended for the promotion of workplace recycling. Lessons can be learned from some foreign examples,
such as “Exploring Behavior Change at Work: The Environment Champions Program” in the United
Kingdom (Nye & Hargreaves, 2010). Another strategy is to strengthen the automaticity of domestic
recycling and then let the behavior spillover from home to other contexts. A strong contextual spillover
may generate a snowball effect if the spillover is continuous (Barr, 2007).

5.4. Limitations and recommendations

This paper has limitations that should be refined in future studies. First, the information collected in this
paper was self-reported. Although self-reported measurements are often the preferred method of data
collection for a social survey because of low cost, relative ease of use, and flexibility (Kormos & Gifford,
2014), inaccuracies may stem from a variety of reasons, for example, respondents might be biased in
reporting their opinions and behaviors. Referring to recycling studies, it is impossible to validate their
knowledge and intention regarding recycling. However, it is recommended that, as far as possible, future
studies should seek to verify recycling behavior, through field observations and measurements, such as
waste checks. Second, a questionnaire survey is effective means of ascertaining a broad picture of
domestic and workplace recycling in Hong Kong. However, the relations among constructs are basically
statistical that do not imply causation. Therefore, qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews and
focus groups, would be useful to understand the causal relationships among knowledge, intention, and
behavior, and how these variables are framed at home and in the workplace, respectively. Third, this
paper focused on the role of two psychological variables, namely, knowledge and intention, in the
performance of recycling behavior. Further research is recommended to include a few mediating factors,
for example, attitude (Verplanken & Aarts, 1999) and norms (Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003), and contextual
factors in the conceptual framework. It is critical to understand how recycling intention is formed at
home and in the workplace. Fourth, the automatic nature of recycling behavior deserves further research.
Future studies are recommended to examine the impacts of the degree of automaticity on recycling
behavior and spillovers. Fifth, there are other notable topics related to clean recycling, such as placing
recyclables into wrong recycling bins, or non-recyclable items into recycling bins, and the spillover from
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 15

home or workplace to other contexts, such as school, parks, and public places. Last but not least, it was
found that some demographic variables (Iyer & Kashyap, 2007), for example, gender (Gamba & Oskamp,
1994) and age (Scott, 1999) and education level (Saphores et al., 2006) were good predictors of recycling
behavior. However, they are beyond the scope of this paper but call for further studies.

6. Conclusion
This paper collected first-hand data from a territory-wide sampling survey and examined the interplay
of knowledge, intention, and recycling behaviors at home and in the workplace by using SEM. Results
indicated that the knowledge–intention–behavior association was found in the domestic context but not
in the workplace. Specifically, intention has a significant effect on the performance of recycling behavior
at home and in the workplace. Knowledge of clean recycling significantly affected the formation of
intention of clean recycling at home, but such an effect was not found in the workplace. Spillover
encompassed both conscious and unconscious pathways because of the dual (intentional and auto-
matic) nature of recycling behavior. These findings may supplement the literature by providing a better
understanding of the knowledge–intention–behavior associations of the domestic and workplace con-
texts and demonstrate the complex mechanism of the spillover of recycling behavior from the home to
the workplace. Furthermore, this paper may provide novel insights on how to improve recycling
programs and promotion interventions in Hong Kong.

Highlights
● This paper examined the relations among the knowledge and intention of clean recycling and
the recycling behavior at home and in the workplace, and the spillovers of recycling behaviors
from home to workplace.
● The knowledge–intention–behavior association was found in the domestic context, but not in
the workplace.
● Recycling behaviors were found to consistent between home and workplace. The contextual
spillover encompassed both conscious and unconscious pathways.

Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Ms. Crystal P.Y. Chan who assisted in organizing the telephone survey. Thanks are given to
The Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey (CCPOS) of The Chinese University of Hong Kong for the
operation of the telephone survey. The author is also grateful to Mr. Andrew Y.T. Ng and Elsevier Language Service
for polishing and editing the English of this paper.

Funding
This study was supported by a research fund (Ref: 06915-06660) from the Environmental Protection Department
(EPD), the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

References
Ahmed, A. S. I., Sultan, M. P., & Williams, G. (2019). Factors influencing green energy purchase intention future
research agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Advanced Business and Social Studies, 5(2), 9–20. https://apiar.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2019/07/2_APJABSS_v5i2_2019_pp.-9-20.pdf
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),
179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
16 S. L. NG

Ajzen, I., Joyce, N., Sheikh, S., & Cote, N. G. (2011). Knowledge and the prediction of behavior: The role of
information accuracy in the theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(2), 101–117.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.568834
Andersson, M., Eriksson, O., & von Borgstede, C. (2012). The effects of environmental management systems on source
separation in the work and home settings. Sustainability, 4(2), 1292–1308. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4061292
Andersson, M., & von Borgstede, C. (2010). Differentiation of determinants of low-cost and high-cost recycling.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 402–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.003
Arı, E., & Yılmaz, V. (2016). A proposed structural model for housewives’ recycling behavior: A case study from
Turkey. Ecological Economics, 129, 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.002
Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes
with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment and Behavior, 35(2), 264–285. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0013916502250134
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors. A U.K. case study of household waste
management. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 435–473. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505283421
Begum, R. A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J. J., & Jaafar, A. H. (2007). Implementation of waste management and minimisation
in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 51(1), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.resconrec.2006.09.004
Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O., & Kemp, R. (2015). Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: A survey on the
pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.063
Boss, P., Doherty, W. J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K. (Eds.). (2009). Sourcebook of family theories
and methods. Springer.
Census and Statistics Department. (2016). 2016 population BY-census. Summary results. https://www.bycensus2016.
gov.hk/data/16bc-main-results.pdf
Cheung, S. F., Chan, D. K. S., & Wong, Z. S. Y. (1999). Reexamining the theory of planned behavior in understanding
wastepaper recycling. Environment and Behavior, 31(5), 587–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972254
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor model of personality traits and
organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1140–1166. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0024004
Chiu, S. W. K., & Jiang, N. (2017). The future of telephone surveys in Hong Kong: A comparison of fixed line surveys
with cellular phone surveys. Social Transformations in Chinese Societies, 13(1), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/STICS-
09-2016-0016
Chu, P. Y., & Chiu, J.-F. (2003). Factors influencing household waste recycling behavior: Test of an integrated model.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(3), 604–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01915.x
Coskun, K., & Topkaya, Y. (2019). Is procedural knowledge of recycling correlated with socioeconomic status and
residential area? Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 17(4). published online. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1533015X.2019.1593263
De Young, R. (1990). Recycling as appropriate behaviour: A review of survey data from selected recycling education
programs in Michigan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 3(4), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-3449(90)
90022-V
Deloitte Risk Advisory. (2018). Drink without waste. Research report. Deloitte Advisory (Hong Kong) Limited and
ADM Capital Foundation. https://drinkwithoutwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/deloitte-cn-ra-drink-
without-waste-en-181204.pdf
Dolnicar, S., & Grün, B. (2009). Environmentally friendly behavior: Can heterogeneity among individuals and
contexts/environments be harvested for improved sustainable management? Environment and Behavior, 41(5),
693–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319448
Environment Bureau. (2013). Hong Kong blueprint for sustainable use of resources 2013 – 2022. https://www.enb.gov.
hk/en/files/WastePlan-E.pdf
Environmental Protection Department. (2005). A policy framework for the management of municipal solid waste
(2005–2014). https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/msw/htm_en/content.htm
Environmental Protection Department. (2010). Annual update 2010. programme on source separation of domestic
waste. https://www.wastereduction.gov.hk/sites/default/files/resources/SSW%20Annual%20Update%202010.pdf
Environmental Protection Department. (2013). Monitoring of solid waste in Hong Kong. Waste statistics for 2013.
https://www.wastereduction.gov.hk/sites/default/files/msw2013.pdf
Environmental Protection Department. (2016). Monitoring of solid waste in Hong Kong. Waste statistics for 2015.
https://www.wastereduction.gov.hk/sites/default/files/msw2015.pdf
Environmental Protection Department. (2017). List of participating housing estates/buildings. Unpublished Data from
the Environmental Protection Department.
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 17

Environmental Protection Department. (2019a). Guide to application. Programme on source separation of waste.
https://www.ecf.gov.hk/doc/ssdwp_guide_e.pdf
Environmental Protection Department. (2019b). Programme on source separation of commercial & industrial waste.
https://www.wastereduction.gov.hk/sites/default/files/en/materials/workplace/C%26I_SSP_Brochure_and_
Application_Form_EN_2019%20v2%20%28F%29.pdf
Faries, M. D. (2016). Why we don’t “just do it”: Understanding the intention-behavior gap in lifestyle medicine.
American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 10(5), 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559827616638017
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Fishbein, M. (1980). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. In H. Howe & M. Page (Eds.),
Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 27, pp. 65–116). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the door technique. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023552
Frick, J., Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: Exploring
prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(8), 1597–1613.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015
Gadeikienė, A., Dovalienė, A., Grase, A., & Banytė, J. (2019). Sustainable consumption behaviour spill-over from
workplace to private life: Conceptual framework. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 19(2), 142–154. https://doi.
org/10.17512/pjms.2019.19.2.12
Gamba, R. J., & Oskamp, S. (1994). Factors influencing community residents’ participation in commingled curbside
recycling programs. Environment and Behavior, 26(5), 587–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916594265001
Gardner, B. (2015). A review and analysis of the use of ‘habit’ in understanding, predicting and influencing health-
related behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 9(3), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2013.876238
Gotschi, E., Vogel, S., Lindenthal, T., & Larcher, M. (2009). The role of knowledge, social norms, and attitudes toward
organic products and shopping behavior: Survey results from high school students in Vienna. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 41(2), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960903295225
Habgood-Coote, J. (2018). Knowledge-how is the norm of intention. Philosophical Studies, 175(7), 1–25. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11098-017-0931-4
Hawthorne, J., & Stanley, J. (2008). Knowledge and action. Journal of Philosophy, 105(10), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.
5840/jphil20081051022
Heidrich, O., & Harvey, J. (2018). An examination into recycling and waste management attitudes and behaviors by UK
employees. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 17(1), 71–81. http://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2018.009
Hong Kong Productivity Council. (2014). A study to promote recycling of plastic, paper and used cooking oil in Hong
Kong. https://www.wastereduction.gov.hk/sites/default/files/HKPC%20Consultancy%20Report%20Final%20%
28Eng%29.pdf
Hornik, J., Cherian, J., Madansky, M., & Narayana, C. (1995). Determinants of recycling behavior: A synthesis of
research results. The Journal of Socio-economics, 24(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-5357(95)90032-2
Hox, J. J., & Bechger, T. M. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modelling. Family Science Review, 11(4),
354–373. http://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2018.009
Husin, M. M., & Rahman, A. A. (2013). A review of intention-behaviour theories: How useful are these for measuring
consumer intention to participate in family takaful. Insurance and Takaful Journal, 4, 37–49. http://www.mycite.
my/en/files/article/83273
Iyer, E. S., & Kashyap, R. K. (2007). Consumer recycling: Role of incentives, information, and social class. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 6(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.206
Jain, S., Dubey, S., & Jain, S. (2016). Designing and validation of questionnaire. International Dental & Medical Journal
of Advanced Research, 2(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.15713/ins.idmjar.39
Jones, R. E. (1989). Understanding paper recycling in an institutionally supportive setting: An application of the theory
of reasoned action. Journal of Environmental Systems, 19(4), 307–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/8KX2-9XQM-
RP38-CLPP
Kallgren, C. A., & Wood, W. (1986). Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of
attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(4), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0022-1031(86)90018-1
Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., & van Woerden, F. (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste
management to 2050. The World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30317
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to
pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13504620220145401
Kormos, C., & Gifford, R. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003
Kriek, J., Stols, G., & Bukula, T. (2013). Can behavioral intentions predict domestic electricity consumer’s actual
behavior towards energy efficiency? Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational
Studies, 5(1), 189–206. https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/57032
18 S. L. NG

Lee, Y., de Young, R., & Marans, R. W. (1995). Factors influencing individual recycling behavior in office settings
a study of office workers in Taiwan. Environment and Behavior, 27(3), 380–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916595273006
Legislative Council Secretariat. (2017). Background brief on support for local recycling industry (LC Paper No. CB(1)
233/17-18(05)). https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr17-18/english/panels/ea/papers/ea20171127cb1-233-5-e.pdf
Legislative Council Secretariat. (2018). Fact sheet. Management of plastic waste in selected places. https://www.legco.
gov.hk/research-publications/english/1819fs01-management-of-plastic-waste-in-selected-places-20181010-e.pdf
Lei, P.-W., & Wu, Q. (2007). Introduction to structural equation modeling: Issues and practical considerations.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00099.x
Littleford, C., Ryley, T. J., & Firth, S. K. (2014). Context, control and the spillover of energy use behaviours between office
and home settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.002
Marans, R. W., & Lee, Y. J. (1993). Linking recycling behavior to waste management planning: A case study of office
workers in Taiwan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26(1–4), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(93)90017-8
McDonald, S. (2011). Green behaviour: Differences in recycling behaviour between the home and the workplace. In
D. Bartlett (Ed.), Going green: The psychology of sustainability in the workplace, British psychological society (pp.
59–64). England: Leicester.
McDonald, S., & Oke, A. (2018). Recycling at home and work: An exploratory comparison. Social Business, 8(2),
145–165. https://doi.org/10.1362/204440818X15208755610874
McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton, R. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related
behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(2), 97–144. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.613995
Morsella, E., & Poehlman, T. A. (2013). The inevitable contrast: Conscious vs. unconscious processes in action control.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00590
Nash, N., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S., Hargreaves, T., Poortinga, W., Thomas, G., Sautkina, E., & Xenias, D. (2017).
Climate-relevant behavioral spillover and the potential contribution of social practice theory. WIREs Climate
Change, 8(6), 481. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.481
Ng, S. L. (2019a). Predicting multi-family dwelling recycling behaviors using structural equation modelling: A case study of
Hong Kong. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 149, 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.007
Ng, S. L. (2019b). An assessment of multi-family dwelling recycling in Hong Kong: A managerial perspective. Waste
Management, 89, 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.014
Nilsson, A., Bergquist, M., & Schultz, W. P. (2017). Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and
context: A review and research agenda. Environmental Education Research, 23(4), 573–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13504622.2016.1250148
Nindyati, A. D. (2014). Green behavior (reuse, reduce, recycling- 3R) at home and at workplace [Paper presentation].
5th International Asian Association of Indigenous and Cultural Psychology (AAICP) Conference, Surakarta,
Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3229.7365
Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., Parker, S. I., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2017). Bridging the gap between green behavioral
intentions and employee green behavior: The role of green psychological climate. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 38(7), 996–1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2178
Nye, M., & Hargreaves, T. (2010). Exploring the social dynamics of proenvironmental behavior change: A comparative
study of intervention processes at home and work. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00193.x
OECD. (2015). Environment at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. http://www.oecd.org/environment/environment-at-a-glance/
OECD. (2018). Improving plastics management: Trends, policy responses, and the role of international co-operation and
trade. Background report. https://www.oecd.org/environment/waste/policy-highlights-improving-plastics-
management.pdf
Ofstad, S. P., Tobolova, M., Nayum, A., & Klöckner, C. A. (2017). Understanding the mechanisms behind changing
people’s recycling behavior at work by applying a comprehensive action determination model. Sustainability, 9(2),
204. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020204
Oke, A. (2015). Workplace waste recycling behaviour: A meta-analytical review. Sustainability, 7(6), 175–7194. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su7067175
Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (1998). ‘Inclined abstainers’: A problem for predicting health-related behaviour. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 37(2), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01162.x
Oskamp, S. (1995). Resource conservation and recycling: Behavior and policy. Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 157–177.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01353.x
Oskamp, S., Burkhardt, R. L., Schultz, P. W., Hurin, S., & Zelezny, L. (1998). Predicting three dimensions of residential
curbside recycling: An observational study. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(2), 37–42. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00958969809599111
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past
behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 19

Paillé, P., & Boiral, O. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior at work. Construct Validity and Determinants. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 36, 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.014
Park, J., & Ha, S. (2014). Understanding consumer recycling behavior: Combining the theory of planned behavior and
the norm activation model. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 42(3), 278–291. https://doi.org/10.
1111/fcsr.12061
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research (2nd ed.). Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., & Suffolk, C. (2013). The introduction of a single-use carrier bag charge in Wales.
Attitude Change and Behavioural Spillover Effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 240–247. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.09.001
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological
Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996
Price, J., & Joseph, J. (2000). Demand management–a basis for waste policy: A critical review of the applicability of the
waste hierarchy in terms of achieving sustainable waste management. Sustainable Development, 8(2), 96–105.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1719(200005)8:2<96::AID-SD133>3.0.CO;2-J
Rav-Marathe, K., Wan, T. T. H., & Marathe, S. (2016). A systematic review on the KAPO framework for diabetes
education and research. Medical Research Archives, 4(1), 1–21. https://journals.ke-i.org/images/sidebar/pdf/483-
1710-1-PB.pdf
Rayner, J., & Morgan, D. (2018). An empirical study of ‘green’ workplace behaviours: Ability, motivation and
opportunity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12151
Ruepert, A., Keizer, K., Steg, L., Maricchiolo, F., Carrus, G., Dumitru, A., Mira, R. G., Stancu, A., &Moza, D. (2016).
Environmental considerations in the organizational context: A pathway to pro-environmental behaviour at work.
Energy Research and Social Science, 17, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.004
Saphores, J. M., Nixon, H., Ogunseitan, O. A., & Shapiro, A. A. (2006). Household willingness to recycle electronic
waste: An application to California. Environment and Behavior, 38(2), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916505279045
Schreiber J. B., Stage F. K., King J., Nora A. & Barlow E. A. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and
confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338. http://doi.org/
10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
Schultz, P. W. (2002). Knowledge, information, and household recycling: Examining the knowledge-deficit model of
behavior change. In T. Dietz & P. C. Stern (Eds.), New tools for environmental protection: Education, information,
and voluntary measures (pp. 67–82). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Schultz, W., Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90019-5
Scott, D. (1999). Equal opportunity, unequal results: Determinants of household recycling intensity. Environment and
Behavior, 31, 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972100
Setiya, K. (2008). Practical knowledge. Ethics, 118(3), 388–409. https://doi.org/10.1086/528781
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social
Psychology, 12(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003
Sheeran, P., Trafimow, D., & Armitage, C. J. (2003). Predicting behavior from perceived behavioural control: Tests of
the accuracy assumption of the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(3), 393–410.
https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322438224
Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9),
503–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265
Sidique, S. F., Satish, V., Joshi, S. V., & Lupi, F. (2010). Factors influencing the rate of recycling: An analysis of
Minnesota counties. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(4), 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2009.08.006
Steinhorst, J., Klöckner, C. A., & Matthies, E. (2015). Saving electricity- for the money or the environment? Risks of
limiting pro-environmental spillover when using monetary framing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43,
125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.012
Stoeva, K., & Alriksson, S. (2017). Influence of recycling programmes on waste separation behaviour. Waste
Management, 68, 732–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.005
Swaim, J. A., Maloni, M. J., Napshin, S. A., & Henley, A. B. (2014). Influences on student intention and behavior
toward environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
013-1883-z
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Understanding household garbage reduction behavior: A test of an integrated model.
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 14(2), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569501400202
Ten Berge, T., & van Hezewijk, R. (1999). Procedural and declarative knowledge: An evolutionary perspective. Theory
and Psychology, 9(5), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354399095002
Thøgersen, J., & Noblet, C. (2012). Does green consumerism increase the acceptance of wind power? Energy Policy, 51,
854–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.044
20 S. L. NG

Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behavior. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 23(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00018-5
Thomas, C., & Sharp, V. (2013). Understanding the normalisation of recycling behaviour and its implications for other
pro-environmental behaviours: A review of social norms and recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79,
11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.04.010
Triandis, H. C. (1980). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In H. Howe & M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation (Vol. 27, pp. 195–259). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Tudor, T., Barr, S., & Gilg, A. (2007). A tale of two locational settings: Is there a link between pro-environmental
behaviour at work and at home? Local Environment, 12(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830701412513
Varotto, A., & Spagnollia, A. (2017). Psychological strategies to promote household recycling. A systematic review with
meta-analysis of validated field interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 168–188. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.011
Verplanken, B., & Aarts, H. (1999). Habit, attitude, and planned behaviour: Is habit an empty construct or an
interesting case of goal-directed automaticity? European Review of Social Psychology 10(1), 101–134. http://doi.
org/10.1080/14792779943000035
Vries, D. H., Muslims, D., & Kuhlman, P. (1988). Self-efficacy: Third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as
a predictor of behavioral intention. Health Education Research, 3(3), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/3.3.273
Wegwartha, O., Kurzenhäuser-Carstensb, S., & Gigerenzera, G. (2014). Overcoming the knowledge–behavior gap: The
effect of evidence-based HPV vaccination leaflets on understanding, intention, and actual vaccination decision.
Vaccine, 32(12), 1388–1393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.12.038
Wells, V. K., Taheri, B., Gregory-Smith, D., & Manika, D. (2016). The role of generativity and attitudes on employees
home and workplace water and energy saving behaviours. Tourism Management, 56, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tourman.2016.03.027
Whitmarsh, L. E., Haggar, P., & Thomas, M. (2018). Waste reduction behaviors at home, at work, and on holiday.
What Influences Behavioral Consistency across Contexts? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2447. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.02447
Wood, W, & Neal, D.T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit–goal interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843–
863. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.843
Wood, W., & Rünger, D. (2016). Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.
1146/annurev-psych-122414-033417
Yadava, R., & Pathak, G. S. (2017). Determinants of consumers’ green purchase behavior in a developing nation:
Applying and extending the theory of planned behavior. Ecological Economics, 134, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.019
Yau, Y. (2012). Stakeholder engagement in waste recycling in a high-rise setting. Sustainable Development, 20,
115–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.468
Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I. M., Malhotra, B., Russell, S., Unsworth, K., & Clegg, C. W. (2015). Changing
behaviour: Successful environmental programmes in the workplace. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8),
689–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1836
Yuriev, A., Boiral, O., Francoeur, V., & Paill, P. (2018). Overcoming the barriers to pro-environmental behaviors in the
workplace: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.
02.041

View publication stats