Next Article in Journal
Hybrid Photovoltaic Output Forecasting Model with Temporal Convolutional Network Using Maximal Information Coefficient and White Shark Optimizer
Previous Article in Journal
Responses of Ecosystem Services to Land Use/Cover Changes in Rapidly Urbanizing Areas: A Case Study of the Shandong Peninsula Urban Agglomeration
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 14
10.3390/su16146099
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Investigating the Relationship between Recycling/Reuse Knowledge and Recycling/Reuse Intention: The Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy

by
Mijeong Noh
Department of Recreation, Sport Pedagogy, and Consumer Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA
Sustainability 2024, 16(14), 6099; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146099
Submission received: 23 May 2024 / Revised: 20 June 2024 / Accepted: 11 July 2024 / Published: 17 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Waste and Recycling)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examined whether an individual’s self-efficacy has a moderating role in the relationship between the different types of recycling/reuse knowledge they may have and their recycling/reuse intention, and the positive relationship between recycling/reuse intention and recycling/reuse behavior. A total of 725 undergraduate and graduate university students were recruited to complete an online survey via MTurk, with the survey covering topics such as recycling/reuse knowledge, intention, behavior, and self-efficacy. Five hypotheses were tested via structural equation modeling. The results showed that even with low self-efficacy, acquiring “effectiveness” recycling/reuse knowledge can enhance recycling/reuse intention and behavior. Conversely, the respondents with high self-efficacy were shown to have positive recycling/reuse intentions and behaviors due to their “social” recycling/reuse knowledge. In general, recycling/reuse intention and behavior were positively related. These significant findings imply that educators, environmental agencies, and brand managers must develop efficient education and/or advertising strategies to provide appropriate action-related recycling/reuse knowledge (including both effectiveness and social knowledge) to university students with either low or high self-efficacy in order to enhance recycling/reuse intention and, ultimately, behavior.

1. Introduction

The global clothing industry produces around 100 billion articles of clothing annually, with approximately one-third being discarded within the initial year of purchase [1]. In 2018, the average American disposed of roughly 47 kg (103 pounds) of textiles and apparel. Merely 15% of these textiles was repurposed or recycled, while the remaining 85% found its way into landfills or was incinerated, resulting in the squandering of valuable resources, the exacerbation of climate change, and the contamination of waterways [2].
Recycling is one of the most efficient ways for individuals to help conserve natural resources, reduce waste, save energy, and promote a sustainable economy [3]. Nevertheless, according to an estimate by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the recycling rates for all textiles and textiles in clothing and footwear were only 14.7 percent and 13 percent, respectively, in 2018 [4]. Fashion consumers’ behavior plays a critical role in textile product recycling due to the demand for fast fashion driving textile products’ high consumption and disposal rates [5]. Recently, there has been a growing trend among young consumers to purchase fast fashion products that are typically disposed of quickly [6], a pattern of consumption that generates large amounts of clothing and textile waste [7].
Environmental knowledge is significantly associated with consumers developing better consumption and recycling behaviors [8,9,10,11]. This environmental knowledge impacts consumers’ behavior as it leads these individuals to perceive green behaviors as having a material impact on the environment, while those with less knowledge do not have the same perception. Therefore, it is essential to empower consumers with environmental knowledge to render their consumption and recycling behaviors more eco-friendly [9,10,11]. Some studies have found that sustainability knowledge types, namely, declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, effectiveness knowledge, and social knowledge, indirectly influence the behavioral intention to use sustainable fashion products [12]. In addition, it has been reported that knowledge of general recycling significantly affected consumers’ intentions to adopt clean recycling strategies (i.e., cleaning items, taking them apart, and separating them into individual materials) at home [13].
It is particularly important to educate young consumers using sound programs that provide environmental knowledge because these individuals are the most avid consumers of fast fashion and are heavily influenced by fashion media [14]. Students who develop recycling and reuse behaviors during college are more likely to continue practicing these behaviors for the rest of their lives. Information on the recycling/reuse of clothing or other textile products obtained through classes or informational campaigns helps college students develop more positive attitudes and behaviors toward recycling and reuse [15].
However, not all students respond to this kind of information in the same way. This study aimed to determine whether students’ self-efficacy (their confidence in their ability to make effective decisions [16]) impacted their ability to benefit from recycling/reuse knowledge. People with high self-esteem also tend to have high self-efficacy, which could influence their perception of their own ability to carry out new behaviors [17]. Huang (2016) found that self-efficacy has direct positive effects on environmental behaviors [18]. Despite this finding, there is still limited research on the relationships between self-efficacy, recycling/reuse knowledge, and recycling behaviors. Therefore, it is important to determine how recycling/reuse knowledge affects recycling/reuse behaviors depending on the degree of an individual’s self-efficacy. Understanding how self-efficacy affects this relationship between recycling knowledge and behavior will help in the development of efficient education and/or advertising strategies so that college students with either low or high self-efficacy can acquire the knowledge most likely to maximally influence their behavior.
This study examined whether self-efficacy (high self-efficacy vs. low self-efficacy) has a moderating role in the relationships between four types of recycling/reuse knowledge and recycling/reuse intention. The main research questions were as follows: (1) How does a student’s level of self-efficacy influence the relationship between each type of recycling/reuse knowledge they could receive and their recycling/reuse intention? (2) How do the students’ recycling/reuse intentions influence recycling/reuse behaviors? Answering these questions will help determine what type of knowledge should be provided to college students based on their level of self-efficacy to enhance their recycling/reuse intentions and behaviors.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Source of Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy, as described by Bandura [16], refers to an individual’s belief in their capacity to take action and have their action result in the intended outcome. In Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy, individuals who possess strong belief in their capacity to change their behaviors tend to attain higher levels of accomplishment compared to those who demonstrate lower levels of belief in their capacity. Applying this theory, previous researchers have found that self-efficacy affects consumers’ behaviors regarding environmental conservation [18,19,20]. Huang (2016) found that self-efficacy had a direct positive impact on environmental behaviors with a sample of adults over the age of 20 in Taiwan [18]. Meinhold and Malkus (2005) investigated the relationship between environmental attitude and behavior in male and female adolescents and found that self-efficacy moderated the relationships among female adolescents [19]. In other words, female adolescents who demonstrated more pro-environmental attitudes and high self-efficacy had more pro-environmental behaviors than those who had less pro-environmental attitudes and lower self-efficacy. Rizkalla and Erhan (2020) found that environmental concern, self-efficacy, and environmental knowledge all impact sustainable consumption behavior (e.g., recycling) positively [20].

2.2. Recycling Knowledge Types

Knowledge can motivate people to take action [21]. For example, what people know about environmental conservation can influence how they act to preserve the environment. Previous researchers have found positive correlations between environmental knowledge and consumers’ behaviors regarding the environment [8,19,20,22]. Kaiser and Fuhrer [23] proposed four forms of sustainability knowledge that might play a crucial role in attitude and behavior change: first, declarative knowledge, which is referred to as factual knowledge [12], including the answers to questions about how environmental systems function; second, procedural knowledge (i.e., action-related knowledge), which consists of knowledge that informs about possible necessary environmental actions; third, effective knowledge, which is a type of knowledge that indicates the relative effectiveness of different environmental behaviors to achieve a certain goal; and fourth, social knowledge, which refers to understanding the motives and intentions of other people [8]. Effective and social knowledge have been further classified as “action-related” knowledge [12]. Schahn and Holzer (1990) emphasized the differences between factual knowledge and action-related knowledge [24]. Comparing these two forms of knowledge shows a clear difference: action-related knowledge is more likely than factual knowledge to influence behavior [25].

2.3. Recycling/Reuse Behavior

Pro-environmental behavior refers to a behavior that, when assessed by its impact, can have a positive influence on the availability of materials, energy, or the dynamics of ecosystems [26]. Pro-environmental behavior can be motivated by concerns about environmental degradation, climate change, or the desire to live more sustainably. Therefore, recycling is considered an individuals’ personal environmental behavior, similar to the conservation of resources, or green consumption practices [18].
Recycling offers an avenue to divert unwanted clothing and textiles away from landfills. If items are dry and clean, even if they are in a poor condition, they can be sold on secondary markets for use as rags or industrial fillers. Reuse presents another strategy to preserve the original function of the clothing, whether by reselling unwanted garments or sourcing one’s own clothes from local thrift, resale, and consignment outlets [27]. There are many ways to reuse clothing and textiles, including repairing worn-out garments, salvaging components like zippers or buttons, exchanging items with friends, reselling unwanted apparel, participating in take-back programs, and handing down clothing and footwear [28,29].
Throughout the pandemic, numerous charitable organizations in the West faced closure, making them unable to gather and resell surplus clothes that would otherwise be bound for landfills [30]. Additionally, due to concerns regarding infection and cleanliness, consumers seemed reluctant to resume shopping at thrift stores, which, by some estimates, generate a significant portion of charity revenues [31]. Post-COVID-19, however, there is a growing inclination among many to increase the recycling efforts. The pandemic has not only bolstered the commitment of environmentally conscious individuals, but has also profoundly influenced those who previously had only a mild interest in eco-friendly practices [32].

2.4. Relationships among Self-Efficacy, Recycling/Reuse Knowledge, and Recycling/Reuse Behavioral Intention

Self-efficacy, essentially one’s belief in one’s ability to accomplish tasks [17], plays a significant role in influencing behaviors, including recycling [18]. Huang (2016) found that environmental self-efficacy had a direct positive impact on proactive environmental behaviors, including recycling, with a sample of Taiwanese adults older than 20 [18]. Scafuto, Sodano, and La Barbera (2018) also found a significant positive effect of self-efficacy on recycling behavior [33]. Lee et al. (2014) found a positive effect of perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) or efficacy on good citizenship behavior (e.g., recycling) with a sample of consumers (over 19 years of age) in South Korea [34]. In terms of the correlation between knowledge and behavior, their study also suggested that it is critical to obtain knowledge about issues through public education in order to maximally impact one’s actions [34]. Kong et al. (2016) found an indirect influence of sustainability knowledge types on behavioral intentions towards the purchase of sustainable fashion products in a sample of South Korean fashion consumers from their early 20s to late 30s [12]. Specifically, in Kong et al.’s (2016) study, it was found that effectiveness and social knowledge, which the authors defined as action-related knowledge, had an indirect positive effect on sustainable consumer behavioral intention toward sustainable fashion products. In Meinhold and Malkus’s study (2005), they found that adolescents on the west coast of the US who had more positive pro-environmental attitudes and greater environmental knowledge were engaged in more environmental actions compared to those who did not [19]. Rizkalla and Erhan (2020) found that both self-efficacy and environmental knowledge had a significant effect on sustainable consumption behavior in the context of millennials in Indonesia [20]. This body of research makes it abundantly clear how important it is to understand how both self-efficacy and knowledge play a role in shaping behavior. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate how certain types of knowledge can affect behavior even when self-efficacy is low. The following hypotheses were developed to address this:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
College students’ self-efficacy moderates the relationship between factual recycling/reuse knowledge and recycling/reuse intention.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
College students’ self-efficacy moderates the relationship between procedural recycling/reuse knowledge and recycling/reuse intention.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
College students’ self-efficacy moderates the relationship between effectiveness recycling/reuse knowledge and recycling/reuse intention.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
College students’ self-efficacy moderates the relationship between social recycling/reuse knowledge and recycling/reuse intention.

2.5. Relationship between Recycling/Reuse Intention and Recycling/Reuse Behavior

In Mamun et al.’s study (2018), a positive relationship was found between recycling intention and recycling behavior among low-income households in Coastal Peninsular Malaysia [35]. Sujata et al. (2019) confirmed the intention-to-behavior relationship in Malaysian consumers’ recycling habits [36]. Rosenthal (2018) found a positive relationship between recycling intention and behavior with a sample of adult residents in Singapore [37]. Based on these previous findings, the following hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
College students’ recycling/reuse intention and recycling/reuse behavior are positively related.

3. Methods

3.1. Data Collection and Sampling

To examine the moderating effect of college students’ self-efficacy on the relationship of recycling/reuse knowledge to recycling/reuse intention towards clothing and textile products, an online survey was conducted using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). This researcher used MTurk to sample respondents with diverse backgrounds. The participants who completed the online questionnaire within seven days of its initial posting were given a USD 1 incentive.
The completed responses (N = 725) from undergraduate and graduate students were used for data analysis. The ages of the respondents varied from 18 to 39 years, with an average age of 21. The respondents’ characteristics were as follows: male (66%), female (34%); Caucasian (40.6%), Asian (41.9%), and African American (4.7%); freshmen (5.6%), sophomores (5.5%), juniors (40.0%), seniors (38.2%), and graduate students (10.7%). The yearly taxable income ranged from less than USD 10,000 (26.5%) to USD 25,000 or more (30.4%), with the rest of the respondents falling between those categories (see Table 1).

3.2. Measurements

This researcher measured the following recycling/reuse knowledge categories: factual recycling/reuse knowledge, procedural recycling/reuse knowledge, effectiveness recycling/reuse knowledge, and social recycling/reuse knowledge. This researcher used two items to measure factual knowledge (e.g., natural fibers are good for the environment), two items to measure procedural knowledge (e.g., clothing and textile recycling/reuse activities can reduce clothing and textile waste), three items to measure effectiveness knowledge (e.g., clothing and textile recycling/reuse prevents environmental pollution), and two items to measure social knowledge (e.g., clothing and textile recycling helps create more jobs in a community). Recycling/reuse behavioral intention was measured using two items (e.g., how likely is it that, in the near future, you will plan to take part in recycling/reuse activities for clothing and textile products?) using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely). Actual recycling/reuse behavior was measured using 10 items (e.g., I repair my old clothing and textile products). The researcher used eight items to measure self-efficacy (e.g., I have plenty of opportunity to recycle/reuse). All items except intention were assessed utilizing a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) (see Table 2).

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Validity and Reliability

Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to evaluate the measurement of each construct. This researcher deleted one item (i.e., throwing away into the waste) from the recycling/reuse behavior measurement scale because of a low factor loading below 0.60. Except for this one deleted item, the factor loadings were above 0.60, indicating acceptable convergent validity (see Table 2). The researcher confirmed unidimensionality across all the measurement scales.
Next, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using AMOS 29.0 to validate the measurements of recycling/reuse knowledge, behavioral intention, behavior, and self-efficacy. The results showed a significant chi-squared statistic (χ2 = 1681.527; df = 329; χ2/df = 5.111; p = 0.000). The CFI (0.90) and IFI (0.90) values indicated a reasonable model fit. The RMSEA estimate of 0.07, being below 0.1, suggested moderate data fit to the model [38]. The standardized factor loadings, which ranged from 0.52 to 0.78, were deemed adequate and statistically significant (p < 0.000), indicating construct validity. The reliabilities with Cronbach’s alphas for the recycling/reuse knowledge, intention, behavior, and self-efficacy constructs were 0.85, 0.70, 0.85, and 0.85, respectively. The composite reliability ranged from 0.87 to 0.91. The average variance extracted (AVE) for all the variables was equal to or greater than 0.5, confirming construct validity (see Table 2).

4.2. Measurement Invariance

Multi-group structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum-likelihood estimation was performed to evaluate the moderating effect of college students’ self-efficacy on the relationship between their recycling/reuse knowledge and recycling/reuse intention with respect to clothing and textile products. A measurement equivalence test was conducted using multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to ensure that the items in the measurement instruments were equal across the two self-efficacy groups (low and high). The sets of items in the measurement instruments included knowledge, intention, behavior, and self-efficacy scales. To evaluate the equivalence of measurement instruments, a base model and a constrained model were developed. In the base model, the corresponding coefficients were allowed to vary freely across the two self-efficacy groups. In the constrained model, it was assumed that the corresponding coefficients (i.e., factor loadings) were equal across the two self-efficacy groups. The test results showed that the corresponding factor loadings between the two models (i.e., base and constrained) were not invariant, as indicated by a significant chi-squared value for the difference test between the two models (Δχ2 = 116.22, Δdf = 15, p = 0.000). This researcher considered the chi-squared test to be sensitive to the sample size. Because of this restriction, this researcher checked other fit indices to supplement the results of the chi-squared test [38]. The goodness of fit did not exhibit significant disparities between the base and constrained models. Additionally, the constrained model demonstrated a moderate model fit with an RMSEA of 0.06, although other model fit indices were below the acceptable cutoff levels (GFI = 0.82, CFI = 0.82) [38]. Based on these findings, it is implied that the structural relationships were consistent across both self-efficacy groups (i.e., low and high).

4.3. Hypotheses Testing

To test the hypothesized relationships (from H1 to H4), this researcher initially assessed the model fit between the base model and the constrained model across the two self-efficacy groups. The comparison of the model fit between the base model and the constrained models revealed a statistically significant chi-squared value in the difference test (Δχ2 = 21.18, Δdf = 5, p = 0.001). This chi-squared value indicated that the two self-efficacy groups exhibited different path coefficients for the hypothesized model. In the base model, the other model fit indices were below acceptable cutoff levels (GFI = 0.83, CFI = 0.83). However, the RMSEA was 0.06, indicating a moderate fit of the model. The constrained model yielded GFI and CFI values of 0.83 each, while the RMSEA of the constrained model also indicated a moderate fit (0.06) [38].
In the high self-efficacy group (401 respondents), all the path coefficients, except those between social recycling/reuse knowledge (e.g., clothing and textile recycling helps create more jobs in a community) and recycling/reuse intention and between intention and behavior, were not significant. In the low self-efficacy group (324 respondents), all the path coefficients, except those between effectiveness recycling/reuse knowledge (e.g., clothing and textile recycling/reuse prevents environmental pollution) and recycling/reuse intention and between intention and behavior, were not significant. Therefore, H1 and H2 were not supported. However, the path coefficients between effectiveness recycling/reuse knowledge and intention for the low self-efficacy group (0.389) and high self-efficacy group (−0.035) were different, supporting H3. The path coefficients between social recycling/reuse knowledge and intention for the low self-efficacy group (0.258) and high self-efficacy group (0.835) were different, supporting H4. These findings support the notion that action-related recycling/reuse knowledge influences behavioral intention more than factual recycling/reuse knowledge for both the high and low self-efficacy groups. This research outcome aligns with the findings of Tanner and Kast (2003), who found that action-related knowledge is more likely to influence behavior compared to factual knowledge. These findings partially align with the results of Kong et al.’s study (2016), which found that effectiveness and social sustainability knowledge played a significant, but indirect role in shaping behavioral intention toward sustainable fashion products (see Figure 1) [8]. Therefore, it is important for school recycling programs to expose students to effectiveness or social recycling knowledge tailored to their self-efficacy levels in order to increase students’ recycling intention. This researcher also conducted single-group SEM with maximum-likelihood estimation to test H5. The results indicated that the proposed conceptual model had a significant chi-squared statistic (χ2 = 1022.59, df = 159, p = 0.000), and the other model fit indices were also below the acceptable cutoff levels (GFI = 0.85, CFI = 0.85). However, the RMSEA was 0.08, indicating a moderate fit of the model [38]. Therefore, this researcher addressed the path coefficient of the model corresponding to H5. The regression coefficient for the path from recycling/reuse intention to behavior was statistically significant (0.851, p < 0.000), supporting H5 (see Table 3). This result indicates that college students’ recycling/reuse intention was positively related to their recycling/reuse behavior. This result is consistent with Noh’s 2021 study, which indicated a positive relationship between behavioral intention for recycling/reuse and actual recycling/reuse behavior concerning clothing and textile products [15]. This result also supports the findings of Sujata et al.’s study (2019), which found a positive relationship between recycling intention and behavior.
Additionally, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine whether there were significant differences in self-efficacy according to the respondents’ ethnic groups, marital status, academic year, or total income. First, the ANOVA results showed that there was a significant difference in self-efficacy among the different ethnic groups (F(5, 703) = 8.321, p < 0.001). After conducting the ANOVA, a post hoc Tukey’s HSD test was performed to examine the pairwise comparisons between the groups. A significant difference was found between the Caucasian and Hispanic groups, with a mean difference of −0.413 (p < 0.01). A significant difference was also found between the Caucasian and Asian or Pacific Islander groups, with a mean difference of −0.278 (p < 0.001). Therefore, it was found that the Hispanic group had the highest mean score in self-efficacy, while the Caucasian group had the lowest mean score. Second, no significant differences were observed in the mean scores for self-efficacy according to marital status. Third, there was a difference in self-efficacy among grades (F(4, 704) = 4.573, p < 0.001). A post hoc Tukey’s HSD test showed a significant difference between the freshman and senior students, with a mean difference of −0.467 (p < 0.01). The mean self-efficacy score for the seniors was the highest, and for the freshmen, it was the lowest. Lastly, there was a difference in self-efficacy based on the total income of the respondents (F(4, 704) = 2.662, p < 0.05). A post hoc Tukey’s HSD test showed a significant difference between the groups making less than USD 10,000 and making from USD 10,000 to USD 14,999, with a mean difference of −0.285 (p < 0.05). The mean self-efficacy score for the respondents with an income from USD 10,000 to USD 14,999 was the highest, and for those with an income less than USD 10,000 was the lowest. In summary, the factors affecting self-efficacy were found to be the participants’ ethnic group, academic year, and total income.

5. Conclusions and Implications

This study examined whether high or low self-efficacy has a moderating role in the relationships between recycling/reuse knowledge types and recycling/reuse intention, or the positive relationship between recycling/reuse intention and recycling/reuse behavior. The results showed that even with low self-efficacy, obtaining effectiveness recycling/reuse knowledge (such as a better understanding of the positive environmental impacts of recycling/reuse) can enhance recycling/reuse intention and behavior. The results also showed that students with high self-efficacy have positive recycling/reuse intentions and behaviors, mainly due to their social recycling/reuse knowledge (such as the positive impacts of recycling/reuse on their community).
The main results implied that the students who have acquired appropriate knowledge, such as effectiveness and social knowledge, regardless of their self-efficacy levels, can contribute to reducing clothing and textile waste and environmental protection through desirable recycling and reuse behavior. Therefore, educators, environmental agencies, and/or brand managers may develop efficient education and/or advertising contents to provide appropriate action-related recycling/reuse knowledge (including both effectiveness and social knowledge) to college students regardless of their self-efficacy, which will greatly enhance recycling/reuse intention and, ultimately, behavior. For young consumers with high self-efficacy, educators and/or brand managers may orient their programs or advertising materials more towards social knowledge. This type of knowledge involves understanding others’ “motives and intentions” [8]. Social knowledge refers to actions in response to conventional norms and the need for social approval [23]. Therefore, if college students with high self-efficacy acquire social recycling/reuse knowledge through appropriate information resources, they are likely to participate more actively in recycling/reuse and, ultimately, make significant contributions to environmental protection and resource conservation in the community as recycling specialists, recycling designers, or recycling consultants. For example, as a recycling specialist, they may operate recycling facilities within the community or oversee recycling programs. Brand managers can devise advertising materials that show the social benefits of recycling/reuse, such as community improvements and charity projects, to motivate college students to recycle more. For example, advertising campaigns promoting the sale of recycled goods and channeling the profits to charity can positively influence students’ recycling intentions and behaviors, motivating those with strong self-efficacy to recycle more. The government can create and endorse educational initiatives focused on recycling/reuse to spread awareness of social recycling/reuse knowledge. This includes supporting activities (e.g., recycling workshops and awareness campaigns) in local communities that emphasize the importance of recycling. Meanwhile, in general, “effectiveness knowledge” refers to practical information such as the potential cost benefits from energy efficiency and effectiveness [39]. For college students with low self-efficacy, educators and/or brand managers may provide educational programs and advertising content focused on action-related recycling/reuse effectiveness knowledge. This includes practical economic benefits (e.g., significant cost saving in energy consumption when producing new products from recycled materials) gained through the recycling/reuse behavior. The government can also expand recycling facilities and promote innovation (e.g., textile recycling technologies) to increase clothing recycling. This can lead to more garments being recycled, thus saving energy. Additionally, college students with low self-efficacy can be encouraged to recycle more for the community’s environmental protection by providing effectiveness knowledge through recycling education programs that highlight how their actions contribute to environmental conservation. Such educational programs and/or advertising content can help students to understand that their recycling efforts play a vital role in preventing environmental pollution, instilling confidence in their ability to make a positive impact. This can motivate students with low self-efficacy to actively engage in recycling for the sake of community environmental protection. Based on these current research findings, a future study will investigate how different personality traits influence preferences for specific recycling/reuse information resources and how these preferences impact recycling/reuse intention and behavior. Using the Big Five Inventory for personality traits (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and the openness to experience), this researcher will investigate how personality traits can influence the ways in which students respond to different college campaign sources. This researcher will then examine how recycling information sources chosen based on personality traits might significantly impact recycling intentions. For instance, individuals who are highly conscientious might prefer detailed and practical information, which could enhance their intention to recycle due to the clear guidance provided. On the other hand, those who are very open might be influenced by creative and innovative sources, which can inspire them to adopt new recycling habits. Therefore, matching the information sources to personality traits in addition to self-efficacy levels could effectively motivate different college students to engage in recycling behaviors.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Ohio University (protocol code 19-E-102 and date of approval 19 November 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is unavailable due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgments

The researcher would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editors.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Coming Full Circle on Fast Fashion for a Sustainable Future. Monash University, 2021. Available online: https://lens.monash.edu/@environment/2021/03/31/1382982/coming-full-circle-on-fast-fashion-for-a-sustainable-future (accessed on 30 April 2024).
  2. Your Clothes Can Have an Afterlife. NIST, 2022. Available online: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/05/your-clothes-can-have-afterlife (accessed on 30 April 2024).
  3. Recycling Basics and Benefits. Environmental Protection Agency, 2023. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/recycle/recycling-basics-and-benefits#benefits (accessed on 30 April 2024).
  4. Textiles: Material-Specific Data. Environmental Protection Agency, 2023. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/textiles-material-specific-data (accessed on 30 April 2024).
  5. Castano Garcia, A.; Ambrose, A.; Hawkins, A.; Parkes, S. High consumption, an unsustainable habit that needs more attention. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 80, 102241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Goel, V.; Michaelides, M. What is the economic impact of fast fashion?—Economics research question. Int. J. Sci. Res. Sci. Technol. 2022, 9, 571–581. [Google Scholar]
  7. Stanescu, M.D. State of the art of post-consumer textile waste upcycling to reach the zero waste milestone. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 14253–14270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Ernst, A.M.; Spada, H. Modeling agents in a resource dilemma: A computerized social learning environment. In Simulation-Based Experiential Learning, 1st ed.; Towne, D., de Jong, T., Spada, H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1993; Volume 122, pp. 105–120. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chan, R.Y.K. Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior. Psychol. Mark. 2001, 18, 389–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lee, K. The green purchase behavior of Hong Kong young consumers: The role of peer influence, local environmental involvement, and concrete environmental knowledge. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2011, 23, 21–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tan, B.C. The roles of knowledge, threat, and PCE on green purchase behavior. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2011, 6, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kong, H.M.; Ko, E.; Chae, H.; Mattila, P. Understanding fashion consumers’ attitude and behavioral intention toward sustainable fashion products: Focus on sustainable knowledge sources and knowledge types. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2016, 7, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ng, S.L. Knowledge–intention–behavior associations and spillovers of domestic and workplace recycling. Soc. Sci. J. 2023, 60, 254–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. The Teen Takeover: ‘Forget Angst and Acne. Today’s Teens Are into Chanel Bags and Lanvin Shoes. And, as the Fashion Industry Scrambles to Cash in, a New Breed of Young Tycoons Is Leading the Way’. Available online: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1069381/Teen-takeover-Meet-new-breed-young-tycoons-leading-way-fashion.html (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  15. Noh, M. Understanding the effect of information sources on college students’ recycling/reuse behavior towards clothing and textile products. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, 1st ed.; W.H. Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gardner, D.G.; Pierce, J.L. Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organization context: An empirical examination. Group Organ. Manag. 1998, 23, 48–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Huang, H. Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2206–2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Meinhold, J.L.; Malkus, A.J. Adolescent environmental behaviors: Can Knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy make a difference? Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 511–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rizkalla, N.; Erhan, T.P. Sustainable consumption behaviour in the context of millennials in Indonesia—Can environmental concern, self-efficacy, guilt and subjective knowledge make a difference? Manag. J. Sustain. Bus. Manag. Solut. Emerg. Econ. 2020, 25, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Arbuthnot, K.D. Education for sustainable development beyond attitude change. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2009, 10, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. D’Souza, C.; Taghian, M.; Lamb, P. An empirical study on the influence of environmental labels on consumers. Corp. Mark. Inf. Commun. Int. J. 2006, 11, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kaiser, F.G.; Fuhrer, U. Ecological behavior’s dependency on different forms of knowledge. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 52, 598–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Schahn, J.; Holzer, E. Studies of individual environmental concern: The role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environ. Behav. 1990, 22, 767–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tanner, C.; Kast, S.W. Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychol. Mark. 2003, 20, 883–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stern, P.C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kim, I.; Jung, H.J.; Lee, Y. Consumers’ value and risk perceptions of circular fashion: Comparison between secondhand, upcycled, and recycled clothing. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ha-Brookshire, J.E.; Hodges, N.N. Socially responsible consumer behavior?: Exploring used clothing donation behavior. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 2009, 27, 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Weber, S.; Lynes, J.; Young, S.B. Fashion interest as a driver for consumer textile waste management: Reuse, recycle or disposal. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2017, 41, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Charities Beg People to Stop Leaving Donations outside Closed Stores Amid Coronavirus Shutdowns. ABC News. 4 April 2020. Available online: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-04/charities-say-stop-donating-if-shop-closed-due-to-coronavirus/12120046 (accessed on 29 April 2024).
  31. Coronavirus Pushes Charity Shops into Survival Battle. The Telegraph. 6 June 2020. Available online: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/06/06/coronavirus-pushes-charity-shops-survival-battle/ (accessed on 29 April 2024).
  32. Tchetchik, A.; Kaplan, S.; Blass, V. Recycling and consumption reduction following the COVID-19 lockdown: The effect of threat and coping appraisal, past behavior and information. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 167, 105370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Scafuto, F.; Sodano, V.; La Barbera, F. What drives recycling behavior? The role of social trust, perceived risk, and self-efficacy. Qual.—Access Success 2018, 19, 463–469. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee, Y.; Kim, S.; Kim, M.; Choi, J. Antecedents and interrelationships of three types of pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 2097–2105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mamun, A.A.; Mohiuddin, M.; Ahmad, G.B.; Thurasamy, R.; Fazal, S.A. Recycling intention and behavior among low-income households. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sujata, M.; Khor, K.; Ramayah, T.; Teoh, A.P. The role of social media on recycling behaviour. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 20, 365–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rosenthal, S. Procedural information and behavioral control: Longitudinal analysis of the intention-behavior gap in the context of recycling. Recycling 2018, 3, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Meyers, L.S.; Gamst, G.; Guarino, A.J. Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation, 1st ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gardner, G.T.; Stern, P.C. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior, 1st ed.; Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 16 06099 g001
Figure 1. Structural model and path estimates with low (a) or high (b) self-efficacy.
Figure 1. Structural model and path estimates with low (a) or high (b) self-efficacy.
Sustainability 16 06099 g001
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Percentage
(N = 725)		 Percentage
(N = 725)
Age Gender
  18–191.3%  Male66.0%
  20–2993.3%  Female34.0%
  Over 305.4%
Ethnic group Marital status
  White, non-Hispanic40.6%  Married/living with partner59.7%
  Native American3.2%  Not married39.1%
  African American4.7%  Other (divorced, etc.)1.2%
  Asian41.9%
  Hispanic/Latino8.7%
  Other0.9%
Academic year Total income
  Freshman5.6%  Under USD 10,00026.5%
  Sophomore5.5%  USD 10,000 to USD 14,99914.8%
  Junior40.0%  USD 15,000 to USD 19,99915.7%
  Senior38.2%  USD 20,000 to USD 24,99912.6%
  Graduate Student10.7%  USD 25,000 or more30.4%
Table 2. Principal component analysis: factor loadings and reliability of measurement scale items.
Table 2. Principal component analysis: factor loadings and reliability of measurement scale items.
ConstructsMeasurement Scale ItemsCronbach’s Alpha/
Composite Reliability
Recycling/Reuse
Knowledge		Factual recycling/reuse knowledge
  • Natural fibers are good for the environment (0.64)
  • Fast fashion has a negative effect on the environment (0.61)
Procedural recycling/reuse knowledge
3.
Clothing and textile recycling/reuse activities can reduce clothing and textile waste (0.65)
4.
Sorting one’s recyclables is important to reduce landfill waste (0.73)
Effectiveness recycling/reuse knowledge
5.
One’s use of recycling/reuse products can contribute to resource savings (0.74)
6.
Buying recycled products has a great effect on energy conservation (0.71)
7.
Clothing and textile recycling/reuse prevents environmental pollution (0.73)
Social recycling/reuse knowledge
8.
Clothing and textile recycling/reuse contributes to overall health and well-being of a community (0.72)
9.
Clothing and textile recycling helps create more jobs in a community (0.68)
0.85/0.89
Recycling/Reuse
Intention
  • How likely is it that, in the near future, you will recycle/reuse clothing and textile products? (0.88)
  • How likely is it that, in the near future, you will plan to take part in recycling/reuse activities for clothing and textile products? (0.88)
0.70/0.87
Recycling/Reuse
Behavior
  • I use a take-back program for my unwanted clothing to receive some incentives (e.g., discounts for purchasing new clothing in exchange for turning in used clothing) (0.74)
  • I recycle (i.e., repurpose) my unwanted clothing and textile products to new styles or items (0.74)
  • I resell my unwanted clothing and textile products at consignment/vintage stores, or online (e.g., eBay) (0.72)
  • I repair my old clothing and textile products (0.71)
  • I hand down my unwanted clothing to friends/family (0.70)
  • I swap my unwanted clothing with friends/family (0.69)
  • I place my unwanted clothing and textile products into storage (0.69)
  • I make an effort to find and use recycling bins for my unwanted clothing and textile products (0.67)
  • I donate my unwanted clothing and textile products to charity organizations (e.g., Salvation Army, Goodwill) (0.67)
0.85/0.89
Self-efficacy
  • I have plenty of opportunity to recycle/reuse (0.74)
  • I know what items can be recycled/reused (0.78)
  • I know where to take my waste for recycling/reuse (0.70)
  • I know how to recycle/reuse my waste (0.80)
  • It is easy to participate in recycling/reuse activities (0.71)
  • I am confident about participating in recycling/reuse activities (0.76)
  • It is most likely up to me whether or not to participate in recycling/reuse activities (0.67)
  • I can fully control my behavior of participating in recycling/reuse activities (0.77)
0.85/0.91
Table 3. Hypotheses test results.
Table 3. Hypotheses test results.
HypothesesPath Coeff. (B)S.E.t-ValueTest Results
H10.448 (low)0.603 (high)0.374 (low)0.805 (high)0.932 (low)0.812 (high)Not supported
H20.014 (low)0.169 (high)0.092 (low)0.082 (high)0.024 (low)1.916 (high)Not supported
H30.389 (low)−0.035 (high)0.084 (low)0.041 (high)4.275 (low) ***−0.380 (high)Supported
H40.258 (low)0.835 (high)0.116 (low)0.316 (high)1.547 (low)2.640 (high) **Supported
H50.8510.07914.521 ***Supported
Note: *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Noh, M. Investigating the Relationship between Recycling/Reuse Knowledge and Recycling/Reuse Intention: The Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6099. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146099

AMA Style

Noh M. Investigating the Relationship between Recycling/Reuse Knowledge and Recycling/Reuse Intention: The Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy. Sustainability. 2024; 16(14):6099. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146099

Chicago/Turabian Style

Noh, Mijeong. 2024. "Investigating the Relationship between Recycling/Reuse Knowledge and Recycling/Reuse Intention: The Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy" Sustainability 16, no. 14: 6099. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146099

APA Style

Noh, M. (2024). Investigating the Relationship between Recycling/Reuse Knowledge and Recycling/Reuse Intention: The Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy. Sustainability, 16(14), 6099. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146099

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop