Source separation is a pivotal strategy for addressing rural domestic waste pollution, significantly influencing the efficacy of the Reduce, Reuse and Recycle principles in waste management. Information interventions should be valued to address the deficiencies in economic policies that encourage waste separation. What kind of information intervention can best improve farmers’ domestic waste separation intention? Eight random intervention experimental groups were designed, including three single information intervention groups on topics such as environmental, technical and health issues, four interactive information intervention groups and one control group. Based on 904 valid samples of farmers were collected in Taihu Lake Basin of China, ordered probit and difference-in-differences models were constructed to achieve the goals of this study. The main conclusions are as follows. The experimental effect of health information intervention was the best, which impacted positively on the intention of farmers to separate domestic waste by 17.94%. The effect of the environmental information intervention was 14.59%. However, the test failed in the technical information intervention. The interactive information interventions’ effect was only 60.18% of the single information intervention, arguably due to information overload. The findings of this study help find out how to choose the appropriate information intervention content and way to improve farmers’ domestic waste separation intention.
AbbasiAArabanMHeidariZ, et al. (2020) Comparing the impact of educational messages based on an extended parallel process model on solid waste separation behaviors in female students: A four-group randomized trial. Waste Management117: 1–8.
2.
AlhassanHAsanteFAOteng-AbabioM, et al. (2018) Application of theory of planned behaviour to households’ source separation behaviour in Ghana. Management of Environmental Quality29: 704–721.
3.
AlhassanHKwakwaPAOwusu-SekyereE (2020) Households’ source separation behaviour and solid waste disposal options in Ghana’s Millennium City. Journal of Environmental Management259: 110055.
4.
ArkorfulVEZhaoSLuguBK (2023) Investigating household waste separation behavior: the salience of an integrated norm activation model and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management66: 2195–2221.
5.
BabaeiAAAlaviNGoudarziG, et al. (2015) Household recycling knowledge, attitudes and practices towards solid waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling102: 94–100.
6.
BanerjeeAFinkelsteinAHannaR, et al. (2021) The challenges of universal health insurance in developing countries: Experimental evidence from Indonesia’s National Health Insurance. American Economic Review111: 3035–3063.
7.
BayeIHasnasI (2017) Consumer flexibility, data quality and location choice. Journal of Economics120: 135–169.
8.
ChenFChenHLiuS, et al. (2020) Formation and recurrence mechanism of residents’ waste separation behavior under the intervention of an information interaction. Resources, Conservation and Recycling162: 105027.
9.
CourtemancheCJZapataD (2014) Does universal coverage improve health? The Massachusetts experience. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management33: 36–69.
10.
DamalasCAKhanM (2017) Pesticide use in vegetable crops in Pakistan: Insights through an ordered probit model. Crop Protection99: 59–64.
11.
Del PonteAMasiliūnasALimN (2023) Information about historical emissions drives the division of climate change mitigation costs. Nature Communications14: 1408.
12.
FanBYangWTShenXC (2019) A comparison study of ‘motivation-intention-behavior’ model on household solid waste sorting in China and Singapore. Journal of Cleaner Production211: 442–454.
13.
FidlerRYAhmadiaGNAmkieltiela, et al. (2022) Participation, not penalties: Community involvement and equitable governance contribute to more effective multiuse protected areas. Science Advances8: eabl8929.
14.
GebreeyosusMABerhanuW (2019) Households’ preferences for improved solid waste management options in Aksum city, North Ethiopia: An application of choice modelling. Cogent Environmental Science5: 1579456.
15.
GhaniWAWAKRusliIFBiakDRA, et al. (2013) An application of the theory of planned behaviour to study the influencing factors of participation in source separation of food waste. Waste Management33: 1276–1281.
16.
GuoDWangXFengT, et al. (2022) Factors influencing the waste separation behaviors of urban residents in Shaanxi Province during the 14th National Games of China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health19: 4191.
17.
GuoYQMengHZhaoSC, et al. (2023) How doesMicrocystis aeruginosa respond to elevated temperature? Science of the Total Environment889: 164277.
18.
HanZFeiYLiuD, et al. (2017) Yield and physicalcharacteristics analysis of domestic waste in rural areas of China and its disposal proposal. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering33: 1–14.
19.
HobsonKLynchNLilleyD, et al. (2018) Systems of practice and the Circular Economy: Transforming mobile phone product service systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions26: 147–157.
20.
HuJTangKQianX, et al. (2021) Behavioral change in waste separation at source in an international community: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Waste Management135: 397–408.
21.
HuangRChenD (2015) Does environmental information disclosure benefit waste discharge reduction? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics129: 535–552.
22.
JagerAKWeberA (2020) Can you believe it? The effects of benefit type versus construal level on advertisement credibility and purchase intention for organic food. J Clean Prod257: 120543.
23.
KareklasICarlsonJRMuehlingDD (2014) “I Eat Organic for My Benefit and Yours”: Egoistic and altruistic considerations for purchasing organic food and their implications for advertising strategists. Journal of Advertising43: 18–32.
24.
KimuraACNguyenCNHigaJI, et al. (2007) The effectiveness of vaccine day and educational interventions on influenza vaccine coverage among health care workers at long-term care facilities. American Journal of Public Health97: 684–690.
25.
KipperbergG (2007) A comparison of household recycling behaviors in Norway and the United States. Environmental and Resource Economics36: 215–235.
26.
KnowlerDBradshawB (2007) Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy32: 25–48.
27.
KrebsPKoutsiasNConederaM (2012) Modelling the eco-cultural niche of giant chestnut trees: New insights into land use history in southern Switzerland through distribution analysis of a living heritage. Journal of Historical Geography38: 372–386.
28.
LechnerM (2011) The estimation of causal effects by difference-in-difference methods: Foundations and trends. Econometrics4: 165–224.
29.
LeeE-YKhanA (2020) Prevalence and clustering patterns of pro-environmental behaviors among canadian households in the era of climate change. Sustainability12: 8218.
30.
MenesesGDPalacioAB (2005) Recycling behavior: A multidimensional approach. Environment and Behavior37: 837–860.
31.
MengHHuangXJYangH, et al. (2019) The influence of local officials’ promotion incentives on carbon emission in Yangtze River Delta, China. Journal of Cleaner Production213: 1337–1345.
32.
MiLYQiaoLJGanXL, et al. (2020) Assessing the effect of non-financial information intervention on promoting group-level energy savings. Science of the Total Environment720: 137533.
33.
MickaëlD (2014) The comparative effectiveness of persuasion, commitment and leader block strategies in motivating sorting. Waste Management34: 730–737.
34.
NiuYJiangXWangK, et al. (2020) Meta analysis of heavy metal pollution and sources in surface sediments of Lake Taihu, China. Science of the Total Environment700: 134509.
35.
RaiRKBhattaraiDNeupaneS (2019) Designing solid waste collection strategy in small municipalities of developing countries using choice experiment. Journal of Urban Management8: 386–395.
36.
RoetzelPG (2019) Information overload in the information age: A review of the literature from business administration, business psychology, and related disciplines with a bibliometric approach and framework development. Business Research12: 479–522.
37.
RollandNCMMarkusCRPostMJ (2020) The effect of information content on acceptance of cultured meat in a tasting context. PLoS One15: e0231176.
38.
RoustaKBoltonKLundinM, et al. (2015) Quantitative assessment of distance to collection point and improved sorting information on source separation of household waste. Waste Management40: 22–30.
39.
SchmidtK (2016) Explaining and promoting household food waste-prevention by an environmental psychological based intervention study. Resources Conservation and Recycling111: 53–66.
40.
ShenJZhengDHZhangXN, et al. (2020) Investigating rural domestic waste sorting intentions based on an integrative framework of planned behavior theory and normative activation models: Evidence from Guanzhong Basin, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17: 4887.
41.
ShresthaRPahariDPAdhikariS, et al. (2022) Effect of educational intervention based on theory of planned behaviour on physical activity intention among secondary school teachers of Nepal. Biomed Research International2022: 6953632.
42.
SultanPTarafderTPearsonD, et al. (2020) Intention-behaviour gap and perceived behavioural control-behaviour gap in theory of planned behaviour: moderating roles of communication, satisfaction and trust in organic food consumption. Food Quality and Preference81: 103838.
43.
VisserMGattolVvan der HelmR (2015) Communicating sustainable shoes to mainstream consumers: The impact of advertisement design on buying intention. Sustainability7: 8420–8436.
44.
WangCChuZZGuW (2021) Participate or not: Impact of information intervention on residents’ willingness of sorting municipal solid waste. Journal of Cleaner Production318: 128591.
45.
WeiC-FLeeBCYKouT-C, et al. (2014) Green marketing: The roles of appeal type and price level. Advances in Management and Applied Economics4: 63–83.
46.
WeiJChenHLongRY, et al. (2020) Maturity of residents’ low-carbon consumption and information intervention policy. J Clean Prod277: 124080.
47.
WeiYHD (2015) Network linkages and local embeddedness of foreign ventures in China: The case of Suzhou Municipality. Regional Studies49: 287–299.
48.
XiaZGuYLiJ, et al. (2023) Do behavioural interventions enhance waste recycling practices? Evidence from an extended meta-analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production385: 135695.
49.
XuLLingMLuY, et al. (2017) External influences on forming residents’ waste separation behaviour: Evidence from households in Hangzhou, China. Habitat International63: 21–33.
50.
YangHHuangXThompsonJR, et al. (2016) The crushing weight of urban waste. Science351: 674.
51.
YangHHuangXThompsonJR, et al. (2015) Enforcement key to China’s environment. Science347: 834–835.
52.
YangYHobbsJE (2020) The power of stories: Narratives and information framing effects in science communication. American Journal of Agricultural Economics102: 1271–1296.
53.
YeFLordD (2014) Comparing three commonly used crash severity models on sample size requirements: Multinomial logit, ordered probit and mixed logit models. Analytic Methods in Accident Research1: 72–85.
54.
YoungWRussellSVRobinsonCA, et al. (2017) Can social media be a tool for reducing consumers’ food waste? A behaviour change experiment by a UK retailer. Resources Conservation and Recycling117: 195–203.
55.
ZhaoADZhangLMMaXL, et al. (2022) Effectiveness of extrinsic incentives for promoting rural waste sorting in developing countries: Evidence from China. Developing Economies60: 123–154.
56.
ZhengHChenXJiangS, et al. (2023) How does health information seeking from different online sources trigger cyberchondria? The roles of online information overload and information trust. Information Processing & Management60: 103364.
57.
ZhouYSongHHuangX, et al. (2022) How does social capital affect residents’ waste-separation behavior? Evidence from China. InternationalJournal of Environmental Research and Public Health19: 3469.
58.
ZhouYCWeiBZhangR, et al. (2023) Narrowing the gap between intention and behavior? An empirical study of farmers’ waste classification in China. Frontiers in Environmental Science11: 1045816.
