University as stimulus to promote intention to separate food waste: a study on the Chinese female residential students

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed research framework.

Table 1. Respondents’ profiles.

Profiles	Frequency	Percentage
Age
18-year-old	23	6.78
19-year-old	99	29.20
20-year-old	103	30.38
21-year-old	83	24.48
22-year-old	22	6.49
23-year-old	4	1.18
24-year-old	5	1.47
Year of study
Year 1	159	46.90
Year 2	168	49.56
Year 3	11	3.24
Year 4	1	0.29

Table 2. Reliability and convergent validity assessment.

Constructs	Items	Loading	AVE	CR	VIF
University environment	UE1	0.9136	0.8723	0.9647	4.8060
	UE2	0.9334
	UE3	0.9552
	UE4	0.9331
Green university initiatives	GUI1	0.8491	0.8243	0.9591	3.8250
	GUI2	0.9061
	GUI3	0.9122
	GUI4	0.9463
	GUI5	0.9231
University policy regulation	UPR1	0.9567	0.9192	0.9715	4.9600
	UPR2	0.9676
	UPR3	0.9518
Attitude	ATT1	0.9299	0.8481	0.9571	4.4340
	ATT2	0.9015
	ATT3	0.9299
	ATT4	0.9221
Intention	INT1	0.9483	0.8942	0.9769	3.3370
	INT2	0.9668
	INT3	0.9584
	INT4	0.9151
	INT5	0.9386

Table 3. Discriminant validity using HTMT.

	UE	GUI	UPR	ATT	INT
UE
GUI	0.8765
UPR	0.8801	0.8528
ATT	0.8247	0.7609	0.8547
INT	0.7496	0.6906	0.7831	0.8582

Figure 2. Research framework with path coefficients and p-values.

Table 4. Coefficient of determination (R²), predictive relevance (Q²), and effect size (f²).

	R^2	Q^2	f^2 (INT)	f^2 (ATT)
INT	0.7003	0.6180
ATT	0.6959	0.5786
UE			0.0068	0.0759
GUI			0.0000	0.0013
UPR			0.0257	0.2177

Table 5. Path coefficient and hypotheses testing.

Hypo	Path	Beta	t-value	p-value	BCI-LL	BCI-UL	Decision
H1	UE - > ATT	0.3200	3.7919	0.0001	0.1759	0.4552	Supported
H2	UE - > INT	0.0988	1.4008	0.0807	−0.0219	0.2101	Not Supported
H3	GUI - > ATT	0.0388	0.6487	0.2583	−0.0614	0.1335	Not Supported
H4	GUI - > INT	0.0024	0.0437	0.4826	−0.0864	0.0953	Not Supported
H5	UPR - > ATT	0.5128	6.4681	0.0000	0.3741	0.6349	Supported
H6	UPR - > INT	0.1929	2.1011	0.0178	0.0405	0.3414	Supported
H7	ATT - > INT	0.5860	5.9071	0.0000	0.4196	0.7419	Supported

Table 6. Hypotheses testing through mediation analysis.

Hypo	Path	Beta	t-value	p-value	BCI-LL	BCI-UL	Decision
H8	UE - > ATT - > INT	0.1875	3.3166	0.0005	0.1070	0.2974	Supported
H9	GUI - > ATT - > INT	0.0227	0.6309	0.2641	−0.0323	0.0855	Not Supported
H10	UPR - > ATT - > INT	0.3005	4.5722	0.0000	0.2072	0.4260	Supported

Figure 3. Importance-performance map analysis.

Table 7. Importance-performance map analysis.

Constructs	Importance	Performance
UE	0.2863	67.9901
GUI	0.0251	66.8590
UPR	0.4934	66.7949
ATT	0.5860	70.0085
Average	0.3477	67.9131

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Pick-Soon Ling, upon reasonable request.