Intention to reduce food waste: A study among Malaysians

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theory of planned behavior

Source: Ajzen (1991).

Figure 2. Norm activation model

Source: Schwartz (1977) as modified by Chaisamrej and Zimmerman (2014).

Figure 3. Research model for the study

Source: Adopted from: Liu et al. (2017).

Table 1. Top five highly populated states in Malaysia

State	Population
Selangor	6,472,400
Johor	3,742,200
Perak	2,504,900
Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur	1,795,200
Penang	1,766,800

Adapted from: Department of Statistics Malaysia (2018).

Table 2. Demographic information

Description	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	147	41.8
Female	205	58.2
Age
18 to 27 years old	102	29.0
28 to 37 years old	102	29.0
38 to 47 years old	71	20.2
48 to 57 years old	56	15.8
58 years old and above	21	6.0
Highest Education
High School	77	21.9
Diploma	99	28.1
Bachelor Degree	133	37.8
Master Degree & above	37	10.5
Others	6	1.7
Monthly Income Level
No Income	45	12.8
RM2,000 and below	96	27.3
RM2,000 – RM4,000	122	34.7
RM4,001 – RM6,000	60	17.0
Above RM6,000	29	8.2
State of Residence
Kuala Lumpur	38	10.8
Selangor	142	40.4
Penang	37	10.5
Perak	55	15.6
Johor	80	22.7
Race
Malay	133	37.8
Chinese	131	37.2
Indian	85	24.1
Others	3	0.9

Table 3. Central tendencies measurements of constructs

Variables	Items	Mean	Standard Deviation
Awareness of Consequences (AC)	AC1	4.5710	0.64101
	AC2	4.5057	0.66664
	AC3	4.4858	0.68756
	AC4	4.2813	0.82198
	AC5	4.3494	0.79532
Ascription of Responsibility (AR)	AR1	4.3778	0.69337
	AR2	4.4233	0.65791
	AR3	4.4034	0.64652
	AR4	4.4148	0.64813
Attitude (AT)	AT1	4.5369	0.62137
	AT2	4.3295	0.74683
	AT3	4.3239	0.76064
	AT4	4.4318	0.70481
	AT5	4.2898	0.75569
	AT6	4.3920	0.71192
Subjective Norm (SN)	SN1	3.5341	1.30263
	SN2	3.3494	1.18876
	SN3	3.6278	1.12502
	SN4	3.1676	1.21378
	SN5	3.4688	1.12932
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC)	PBC1	3.7670	0.98839
	PBC2	4.0028	0.78989
	PBC3	4.0938	0.75089
	PBC4	4.0568	0.77508
	PBC5	3.9716	0.84347
Personal Norms (PN)	PN1	4.4688	0.67443
	PN2	4.4205	0.64444
	PN3	4.3693	0.68768
	PN4	4.2642	0.72093
	PN5	4.2955	0.68203
	PN6	4.3267	0.69886
Behavioral Intention (BI)	BI1	4.3580	0.68956
	BI2	4.2898	0.70900
	BI3	4.3636	0.64374
	BI4	4.2045	0.75348
	BI5	4.3580	0.63358

Figure 4. PLS-SEM measurement model

Table 4. Construct reliability and validity

	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Ascription of Responsibility	0.890	0.924	0.752
Attitude	0.902	0.925	0.672
Awareness of Consequences	0.889	0.919	0.694
Behaviourial Intention	0.894	0.922	0.703
Perceived Behavioral Control	0.830	0.880	0.595
Personal Norm	0.893	0.919	0.653
Subjective Norm	0.902	0.926	0.715

Table 5. Fornell-Larcker criterion

	AR	AT	AC	BI	PBC	PN	SN
Ascription of Responsibility (AR)	0.867
Attitude (AT)	0.490	0.820
Awareness of Consequences (AC)	0.531	0.625	0.833
Behaviourial Intention (BI)	0.460	0.570	0.560	0.838
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC)	0.244	0.402	0.417	0.513	0.772
Personal Norm (PN)	0.552	0.581	0.552	0.623	0.411	0.808
Subjective Norm (SN)	0.128	0.230	0.060	0.168	0.117	0.092	0.845

Table 6. Model fit

	Saturated Model	Estimated Model
SRMR	0.059	0.071

Table 7. Structure model results

Hypothesis	Path	Beta	Standard Deviation	T Statistics	P Values	Results
H1	AC-> PN	0.361	0.048	7.589	.000	Supported
H2	AR-> PN	0.360	0.055	6.580	.000	Supported
H3	AT-> BI	0.238	0.056	4.224	.000	Supported
H4	SN-> BI	0.049	0.034	1.448	.148	Not Supported
H5	PBC-> BI	0.258	0.047	5.437	.000	Supported
H6	PN-> BI	0.374	0.046	8.198	.000	Supported

Figure 5. PLS-SEM structural model

Table 8. Structure model results excluding PN

	Beta	P Values
AC -> BI	0.205	.000
AR -> BI	0.165	.001
AT -> BI	0.235	.000
PBC -> BI	0.285	.000
SN -> BI	0.048	.190

Table 9. Specific indirect effects

	Beta	P Values
AC -> PN -> BI	0.110	.000
AR -> PN -> BI	0.111	.000

Table 10. Indirect and total effects of AC and AR

Path	Beta	Standard Deviation (STDEV)	T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)	P Values	Results
AC -> PN -> BI	Indirect effect 0.110	0.023	4.749	.000	Partial Mediation
AC -> BI	Total effect 0.270	0.056	4.816	.000
AR-> PN -> BI	Indirect effect 0.111	0.023	4.781	.000	Partial Mediation
AR -> BI	Total effect 0.181	0.050	3.605	.000

Table

Variables	Items	Description of items	Sources
Dependent variable: Behavioral Intention	BI1 BI2 BI3 BI4 BI5	I am willing to go out of my way to reduce food wastage. My personal goal is to reduce as much food wastage as possible. I will make every effort to produce only very little food waste. I have seriously thought of using all food leftovers. I have a firm intention to reduce food wastage in the future.	(Jeger, Ham, and Leko 2014)
Independent variable 1/Dependent variable: Personal Norms	PN1 PN2 PN3 PN4 PN5 PN6	I feel guilty/bad when I throw away food because some people don’t have enough to eat. I would be a better person if I do not waste food/zero-waste person. I feel disturbed by the amount of food being wasted since it takes a lot of resources to grow, process, package and transport food. I feel obliged to reduce food wastage into consideration when I make food or grocery choices. If I buy food, I feel morally obliged not to waste it. I feel morally obliged to reduce food wastage regardless of what others thinking.	(De Groot 2008)
Independent variable 2: Attitude	AT1 AT2 AT3 AT4 AT5 AT6	I think to reduce the amount of food wastage is very worthy. I think reducing the amount of food wastage makes me very happy. I think to reduce the amount of food wastage is very sensible. I think to reduce the amount of food wastage is very good. I think to reduce the amount of food wastage is very comfortable. I think to reduce the amount of food wastage is very useful.	(Sigurðardóttir 2017 adopted from Graham-Rowe, Jessop, and Sparks 2015)
Independent variable 3: Subjective Norm	SN1 SN2 SN3 SN4 SN5	Most people who are important to me believe that I should reduce food wastage. People often ask me to reduce food wastage. It is expected of me to reduce food wastage. I feel under social pressure to reduce food wastage. People who are similar to me reduce food wastage.	(Flowers, Freeman, and Gladwell 2017)
Independent variable 4: Perceived Behavioral Control	PBC1 PBC2 PBC3 PBC4 PBC5	I find it easy to prepare new meals from the leftover foods. I find it easy to make sure that only very small amount of food is discarded in my household. I find it easy to plan my food shopping in such a way that all the food I purchase is eaten. I have the feeling that I can do something about the food that I waste. People around me make it possible for me to reduce the amount of food wastage.	(Visschers, Wickli, and Siegrist 2016)
Independent variable 5: Awareness of Consequences	AC1 AC2 AC3 AC4 AC5	Reducing food wastage benefits everyone. Reducing food wastage will help to improve the quality of life for everyone. Reducing food wastage will create a better world for me and my family. Degradation of the environment due to food wastage directly affects my health. (i.e. Greenhouse gas) Food wastage caused in my country will often affect people in other parts of the world. (i.e. It could contribute to serious problems in other countries such as Starvation in Afrika, low food supply in India etc.)	(Bronfman et al. 2015)
Independent variable 6: Ascription of Responsibility	AR1 AR2 AR3 AR4	Every person is responsible to reduce food wastage. All Malaysians are responsible to reduce the amount of food wastage. All households are responsible for reducing food wastage. I am willing to reduce food wastage even though others do not do the same.	(Bronfman et al. 2015).

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2):179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schwartz, S. H. 1977. Normative influences on altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10:221–79. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5.

 Google Scholar

Chaisamrej, R., and R. S. Zimmerman. 2014. A comparative investigation of TPB and altruism frameworks for an empirically based communication approach to enhance paper recycling. Environ. Educ. Commun. Int. J. 13 (1):28–37. doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.913962 .

 Google Scholar

Liu, Y., H. Sheng, N. Mundorf, C. Redding, and Y. Ye. 2017. Integrating norm activation model and theory of planned behavior to understand sustainable transport behavior: Evidence from China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14 (12):1593. doi:10.3390/ijerph14121593.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Department of Statistics Malaysia. 2018. Population quick info. http://pqi.stats.gov.my/result.php?token=1ffce4aedb39858c035f57d401c4563c .

 Google Scholar

Jeger, M., M. Ham, and V. Leko. 2014. Attitudes toward green food purchase among students: Evidence from Eastern Croatia. Econ. East. Croatia Yesterday Today Tommorow 3:354–63. https://ideas.repec.org/a/osi/eecytt/v3y2014p354-363.html .

 Google Scholar

De Groot, J. I. M. 2008. Mean or green?: Value orientations, morality and prosocial behaviour. University Library Groningen.

 Google Scholar

Sigurðardóttir, S. 2017. Predicting household food waste reduction: An exploratory study comparing and contrasting the theory of planned behavior and value belief norm theory. Doctoral dissertation.

 Google Scholar

Graham-Rowe, E., D. C. Jessop, and P. Sparks. 2015. Predicting household food waste reduction using an extended theory of planned behaviour. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 101:194–202. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.020.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Flowers, E. P., P. Freeman, and V. F. Gladwell. 2017. The development of three questionnaires to assess beliefs about green exercise. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14 (10):1172. doi:10.3390/ijerph14101172.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Visschers, V. H. M., N. Wickli, and M. Siegrist. 2016. Sorting out food waste behaviour: A survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in households. J. Environ. Psychol. 45:66–78. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.007.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bronfman, N. C., P. C. Cisternas, E. López-Vázquez, C. Maza, and J. Oyanedel. 2015. Understanding attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors in a Chilean community. Sustainability 7:14133–52. doi:10.3390/su71014133 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar