Waste Management 89 (2019) 313–321

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Garbage source classification performance, impact factor, and

management strategy in rural areas of China: A case study in Hangzhou
Xiangru Li, Feng Bi, Zedong Han, Yong Qin, Haoshu Wang, Weixiang Wu ⇑
Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Garbage classification and reduction is imperative in many developing countries, where the imbalance
Received 8 November 2018 between the rapid growth of solid waste and insufficient disposal capacity can be challenging. In order
Revised 31 March 2019 to evaluate whether a novel ‘2 + T’ source classification method (biodegradable waste, other waste, and
Accepted 8 April 2019
toxic waste) and three types of source classification and resourcing treatment patterns implemented
Available online 15 April 2019
in the rural areas of Hangzhou can be widely applied, field investigations, questionnaire interviews,
and factor analysis were carried out comprehensively. By means of ‘2 + T’ source classification method,
Keywords:
biodegradable waste, accounting for the largest proportion of rural domestic waste, can be effectively
Rural domestic waste
Source garbage classification
separated for the subsequent reduction and resource treatment. Classified deposition in the doorway
Classification performance and door-to-door collection of biodegradable and other wastes provided the best solution for the accu-
Factor analysis racy of source classification and public participation. Based on the analysis, appropriate classification
Management recommendations methods and patterns, sustainable publicity and supervision of source classification behavior as well
as sufficient financial support will be key factors for rural domestic waste classification and resourcing
management. These methods have a great potential for promoting solid waste classification in the rural
areas of China and in other developing countries.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction production. Therefore, it is urgent to explore novel methods to

Recently, solid waste management and disposal have been fac-
ing serious challenges, especially in developing countries, due to
the rapid growth in population, economic development and waste
generation (Diaz and Otoma, 2014; Taghipour et al., 2016). In many
developing countries, rural domestic waste (RDW) is usually trans-
ported to urban disposal facilities because of the low population
density and poor economic conditions (Ma et al., 2018; Wang
et al., 2017). However, urban disposal facilities lack the capacity
to process the garbage generated from both urban and rural areas,
due to the rapid increase in municipal solid waste (MSW). Many
cities are facing a dilemma called ‘Garbage Siege’, which means
the cities are surrounded by garbage piled up in suburban or rural
areas (Hu et al., 2012; Liao et al., 2018). The construction of dis-
posal facilities is hindered by the emission of toxic pollutants from
incineration facilities (Feo and Williams, 2013) and large land areas
required for landfills (Munawar et al., 2018; Spigolon et al., 2018),
resulting in a limited disposal capacity for growing garbage
⇑ Corresponding author at: 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou 310058, China.
E-mail address: weixiang@zju.edu.cn (W. Wu).
reduce the total amount of RDW.
In-situ RDW reduction might be an effective way to decrease
the increasing amounts of MSW. Many studies have shown that
the composition of RDW is different from that of urban waste,
and that the biodegradable components of RDW account for more
than 50% of the total garbage (Guérin et al., 2018; Han et al., 2018;
Kumar and Samadder, 2017; Saidan et al., 2017). It has been con-
firmed that the biodegradable components can be significantly
reduced in-situ by biological treatment (He, 2012). Nevertheless,
there is no standard methods on RDW reduction and resource uti-
lization systems based on source classification.
Hangzhou, the capital city of Zhejiang Province, China, has been
practicing RDW source classification in rural areas since 2014. In
2013, the total MSW generation in Hangzhou exceeded 3 million
tons/a (Fig. 1), far in excess of its designed disposal capacity. In
2014, the Zhejiang provincial government published the ‘Notice
on the Pilot Project of Rural Waste Reduction and Resource Treat-
ment’, and the Hangzhou municipal government conducted several
pilot projects for reducing the RDW sent to municipal disposal
facilities based on the ‘2 + T’ source classification method
(biodegradable waste, other waste, and toxic waste) and in-situ
resource treatment. In 2015, the Hangzhou government published
the ‘Three-year Action Plan for Classification and Reduction of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.020
0956-053X/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
314
400
MSW generation
MSW disposal capacity
MSW generation/104ton·a-1
300
200
100
0 0
2008 2010 2012 2014
Years
Fig. 1. MSW generation and disposal capacity of Hangzhou from 2008 to 2016.
(Data from Comprehensive Disposal Planning of Solid Waste in Hangzhou).
Rural Domestic Waste’. After four years of development, Hangzhou
formed a series of systems for the classified deposit, collection,
transportation and disposal of garbage in rural areas. Additionally,
effective source classification and resourcing treatment patterns
(SCRTPs) were developed in some districts of Hangzhou. However,
no systematic studies have been conducted on the performance of
typical SCRTP systems.
In this study, field investigations, questionnaire interviews, and
factor analysis were carried out to evaluate the feasibility of the ‘2
+ T’ classification method in rural areas. The efficiency of typical
SCRTPs was analyzed from economic and social perspectives. The
results provide a potent reference for source classification system
constructions and RDW reduction management in the rural area
of China and in other developing countries.
2. Methods
The study area description and concrete content of the survey
were introduced to collect basic data. The field experiment and
computational methods of RDW physical composition, source clas-
sification accuracy, public participation and SCRTP costs were mea-
sured or evaluated. These indexes were used to measure the
quality of source classification in different districts. Additionally,
the process of factor analysis based on questionnaires and the data
analysis method were described in details.
2.1. Survey implementation
2.1.1. Study area description
Hangzhou is among the most developed cities in the eastern
part of China. According to the 2017 statistics, the Hangzhou city
covers 13 districts and 190 towns (data from Hangzhou Statistics
Bureau of 2017). Of the towns, 137 in 7 districts (JD, YH, CA, FY,
TL, XS and LA) consist of rural areas, and the pilot projects have
only been partially applied in the 137 towns up to 2017. This study
investigated the first group of pilot projects in 2014 and 2015. We
randomly selected 16 towns (see Fig. 2), 2–3 towns in each district,
to avoid the particularity of individual samples.
Relevant background information of the selected districts
including population covered by this survey, RDW generation,
RDW disposal methods and supervisory staffing is given in Table 1.
As shown in the table, the population covered by this survey varies
from 6.0 to 43.0 thousands, and RDW generation varies from 2.2 to
16.4 thousands tons per year accordingly. In all selected districts,
biodegradable waste was all composted in situ, and other waste
was disposed by incineration, except for districts JD and LA.
X. Li et al. / Waste Management 89 (2019) 313–321
400 2.1.2. Survey content
The survey was conducted from June 2017 to June 2018. Field
MSW disposal capacity/104ton·a-1
investigations and experiments were carried out in each of the
300 selected towns to obtain basic data. In order to identify the signif-
icant factors affecting the source classification, a designed ques-
tionnaire was used in this study for face-to-face interviews. In
200 this study, 306 interviews were conducted, of which 18 samples
were invalid, resulting in 288 completed valid samples that were
used for the factor analysis.
100
2.1.3. RDW physical composition
The RDW physical composition was analyzed in accordance
2016 with the ‘National Standard for Sampling and Physical Analysis of
MSW’ (CJ/T313-2009) (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural
Development of the People‘s Republic of China). Waste samples
from each district were completely mixed and then reduced to
25–50 kg by the fourfold classification method (Zhuang et al.,
2008). After the pretreatment, classifications were made into
biodegradable waste (food scraps, wood, and bamboos), paper,
plastics, glass, metals textiles, toxic waste, and others. In order to
consider the variation of the composition of RDW in different sea-
sons, four field analyses in different seasons were conducted from
June 2017 to June 2018.
A component of the RDW (Ci, %) can be calculated using the fol-
lowing equation:
Mi
Ci ¼  100
M
where Mi is the wet weight of certain component (kg), and M is the
total wet weight of the waste sample (kg).
2.1.4. Source classification accuracy (SCA) and public participation
In-situ experiments were carried out at 219 sample points
throughout the 7 districts. The SCA of each household is calculated
as the weight proportion of biodegradable waste to the total waste
in the biodegradable waste bin. The SCA of each district is equal to
the average of the SCAs in all households of the district. Like the
RDW physical composition test, SCA in-situ experiments were car-
ried out four times. Besides, the public participation data was col-
lected from the relevant local government departments.
2.1.5. SCRTPS cost
The total SCRTP costs can be divided into four parts: deposit,
collection, transportation and disposal. Based on the basic data
provided by the governmental departments, the collection and
transportation costs were combined for the estimation of the total
cost in this study. The calculation formulas, variables and the inter-
pretation of variables are listed in details in Table 2.
2.2. Factor analysis
Factor analysis (FA) was first proposed by Charles Spearman in
1904 (Spearman, 1904). With the advent of computers, factor anal-
yses that require large numbers of calculations have been exten-
sively used in the fields of hydrology (Um et al., 2011), sociology
(Akintayo Opawole, 2017), energy (Mostafaeipour et al., 2017),
medicine (Broen et al., 2015), and sports science (Madigan,
2016). As a multivariate statistical method, FA is effective at data
simplification and dimensionality reduction. When faced with
many variables with intrinsic correlations, FA attempts to use a
few random variables to describe the basic structure of the vari-
ables. Factors that cannot be directly measured and described are
subsequently composed of a set of observational variables with
similar response patterns (Mostafaeipour et al., 2017). There are
four typical stages in FA (Um et al., 2011):
 X. Li et al. / Waste Management 89 (2019) 313–321 315

Fig. 2. Geographic location of the selected villages. The map shows the location of the survey city in China and the geographic location of the selected villages.

Table 1
The background of surveyed districts.

Districts JD YH CA FY TL XS LA
Population covered in this survey/thousands 19.7 6.0 14.2 11.0 16.6 38.0 43.0
RDW generation/103 ton a1 7.3 2.2 5.5 4.0 6.2 14.6 16.4
Households per one supervisor/households 480 500 250 250 250 250 250
Households per one collector/households 180 200 100 120 150 150 150
Disposal method of biodegradable waste In-situ composting
Disposal method of other waste Landfill Incineration Incineration Incineration Incineration Incineration Landfill

Table 2
Calculation formulas of SCRTPs cost.

Formulas Variables Interpretation of variables

($/ton)
CSCRTP ¼ Cdeposit þ Ccollection&transportation þ Cdisposal Cdeposit Cdeposit is the cost of deposit
Ccollection Ccollection & transportation is the cost of collection and transportation
&transportation
Cdisposal Cdisposal is the cost of disposal
P P
C deposit ¼ R þ pi ni =M þ Si R Ris the cost of propaganda and reward
Rpini/M pi is the unit price of garbage bins; ni is the number of garbage bins;
M is the amount of RDW
RS i RSi is the total classification supervisor salaries
P P
C collectionandtransportation ¼ ½V þ Ec þ Sc   C b þ ð1  C b Þ  Ctcollection&transportation V V is the depreciation cost of the vehicles transportation
RE c REc is the vehicles energy consumption
RS c RSc is the worker salaries
Cb (%) Cb is the component percentage of biodegradable waste
Ct-collection & Ct-collection & transportation is the other waste transportation cost
transportation
P P
C disposal ¼ ½D þ Ed þ Sd þ X C b þ ð1  C b Þ  C tdisposal D D is the depreciation cost of biodegradable waste resourcing plant
RE c REc is the resourcing plant energy consumption
RS d RSd is the operator salaries
X X is the cost of repairing and maintaining the resourcing plant
Ct-disposal Ct-disposal is the traditional MSW disposal (incineration or landfill) cost

Note: The depreciation period is 10 years and the residual value rate is 5%, which was stipulated in the ‘Regulations on the Implementation of the PRC Enterprise Income Tax
Law’.

 Data are gathered and then a correlation matrix is set for the  Factors are rotated to maximize the variable relationships
variables; between certain factors;
 Factors that are related to the variable correlation coefficients  Factors are scored in order to observe the variable positions.
are extracted from the correlation matrix;
316 X. Li et al. / Waste Management 89 (2019) 313–321

In this study, a questionnaire was designed to obtain the basic
data needed for the FA. First, the questionnaire surveyed the
respondents’ age, gender, and education level. Second, the
designed questionnaire contained a series of judgment questions
that may affect the consciousness of the garbage classification as
the observation variables. The answers to these questions were
measured with a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neu-
tral, disagree, and strongly disagree). In the pre-survey, we found
respondents in the rural areas were old and poorly educated. With
this information, we then changed the supplemented question-
naire with face-to-face interviews to ensure that the respondents
understood the questionnaire content. Finally, the FA was carried
out using SPSS 22.0. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) to measure the
sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were applied
to the factor analysis applicability test.
2.3. Data processing
One way ANOVA tests were carried out using SPSS 22.0 to
determine whether the SCA differences among the 7 districts were
statistically significant, and the level significance.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Classification performance
3.1.1. RDW physical composition
The RDW physical compositions in the 7 districts are shown in
Table 3. It can be observed that the biodegradable waste average
percentage exceeded 50%. Recyclable materials, including paper,
glass, plastics, metals and textiles, comprised of 13.86 to 52.06%
of the components. Toxic waste content was occupied from 0.45
to 1.96% in the RDW and had its own special collection and dis-
posal system. Of the RDW components, biodegradable waste and
recyclable materials are the main targets for source reduction
and recycling improvements. However, the RDW moisture content
is generally high due to the biodegradable waste component that
usually contaminates the recyclable materials and leads to lea-
chate pollution during transportation (Vaníček et al., 2017). Mean-
while, because of used batteries and fluorescent tubes, the
production of biodegradable waste resourcing was usually sub-
jected to the risk of heavy metal pollution (Ma et al., 2018). There-
fore, in the areas of this study the ‘2 + T’ classification method has
been used that requires the public to classify the daily RDW into
two parts. Biodegradable and other wastes (‘2’), and toxic waste
(‘T’) must be separately deposited in a centralized collection place
to avoid contaminating the daily RDW. After classification,
biodegradable waste is reduced in-situ, while other waste and
toxic waste are disposed of separately. In addition, the low heat
value (LHV) of other waste can also be significantly enhanced in
incineration due to the separation of biodegradable waste with
high water content (Waqas et al., 2018), which will be beneficial
to the incineration process (Fei et al., 2018). Thus, the ‘2 + T’ classi-
fication method can realize RDW source reduction and recycling to
provide positive environmental benefits for our society.
3.1.2. Source classification and resourcing treatment patterns
It is concluded that three types of SCRTPs were found to form
naturally (Fig. 3). Similarly, three patterns were revealed based
on the ‘2 + T’ classification method, and three types of waste were
transported by different vehicles to the disposal plants or the
resourcing treatment equipment after collection. However, in the
three patterns, there were different deposit and collection methods
of biodegradable waste and other waste. In JD and YH districts, rep-
resented by Pattern A (Fig. 3), residents are required to deposit
their source separated waste at a centralized point where it is col-
lected daily. No small garbage bins were observed at the gate of
each resident in Pattern A. For Pattern B (Fig. 3) which was repre-
sentative in CA, FY, and TL districts, biodegradable and other
wastes were deposited respectively in the doorway and collected
door-to-door by the collectors every day. In this way, the quality
of source classification can be ensured, and the collector can simul-
taneously evaluate and supervise each householder’s classification
behavior. For Pattern C (Fig. 3) which was representative in XS and
LA districts, biodegradable waste was collected daily from the
doorway, while other waste was collected to a centralized collec-
tion point every two days. Compared with Patterns A and C, the
classification infrastructures and collection processes for Pattern
B were relatively more complex.
Taking Hangzhou as an example, toxic waste was commonly
generated by agricultural activities in rural areas, such as pesticide
packaging. This part of toxic waste was recycled and disposed of by
the Agricultural Department of the city. The specific method was to
set up a paid recycling point at the pesticide and fertilizer store,
where all toxic waste related to agricultural activities could be
recycled to obtain economic subsidies for purchasing new agricul-
tural necessities. Furthermore, toxic waste generated in daily life
accounted for a small portion according to the data in Table 2. This
part of toxic waste was granted immunity from toxic waste man-
agement in the link of fixed-point deposit, regular collection and
transportation, but handed over to qualified toxic waste enter-
prises for disposal by the government compulsively. In SCRTPs,
the quality of source classification was often supervised by special
personnel, which effectively ensures that toxic garbage must not
enter biodegradable waste (Han et al., 2019).
3.1.3. SCRTPS cost
The costs for each type of SCRTPs are shown in Table 4. It can be
seen that the SCRTPs costs are much higher, almost twice the costs
of the traditional treatment pattern in rural areas. In general, to
ensure the effect and popularization during the initial garbage clas-
sification period, the high SCRTPs costs are mainly due to propa-
ganda, added infrastructure and manpower for garbage
classification supervision (Fig. 4). According to the labor intensity
difference of supervisors in different patterns (Table 3), the man-
power input required by Patterns B and C are higher than that of

Table 3
RDW Physical composition (Annual average data, %).

Districts Biodegradable waste Paper Plastic Textiles Dust Glass Metals Toxic waste Others
JD 68.91 5.46 4.62 0.42 6.30 2.94 0.42 1.68 9.25
YH 44.84 15.98 13.92 10.31 0.52 10.82 1.03 0.52 2.06
CA 58.27 6.88 8.13 18.75 0.63 2.50 1.25 0.63 2.96
FY 68.63 4.90 7.84 3.92 0.98 3.92 3.92 1.96 3.93
TL 59.38 9.38 19.64 1.34 0.45 8.04 0.45 0.45 0.87
XS 53.89 10.00 7.78 7.78 10.00 6.67 1.11 1.67 1.10
LA 61.72 3.09 14.81 4.32 0.62 9.26 1.23 1.85 3.10
Average 59.37 7.96 10.96 6.69 2.79 6.31 1.34 1.25 3.33
 X. Li et al. / Waste Management 89 (2019) 313–321 317

Fig. 3. Three types of SCRTPs in the studied area. The figure shows the differences between the pattern A, B and C, showing different facility configurations between the
modes and reflecting different collection processes.

Table 4
SCRTP costs.

Pattern District Deposit /($ ton1) Collection &Transportation /($ ton1) Disposal/($ ton1) SCRTP /($ ton1) Ref.
A JD 8.22 29.84 36.73 74.79
YH 6.72 33.83 30.9 71.45
Average 7.47 31.84 33.82 73.12
B CA 16.55 48.12 49.01 113.68
FY 14.85 37.48 28.8 81.13
TL 15.06 39.56 39.27 93.89
Average 15.49 41.72 39.03 96.23
C XS 12.78 37.98 31.39 82.15
LA 12.45 33.64 32.53 78.62
Average 12.62 35.81 31.96 80.39
Traditional Hangzhou – – – 41.00 (HE et al., 2014)

Note: Exchange rate data between USD and RMB cited from The People’S Bank of China.

Propaganda and reward Infrastructure Vehicle transportation Energy consumption Operator salaries Maintenance and repair cost
Supervisor salaries Worker salaries Energy consumption Equipment or plant
100 100 100

80 80 80
Percentage/%

Percentage/%

Percentage/%

60 60 60

40 40 40

20 20 20

0 0 0
JD-A YH-A CA-B FY-B TL-B XS-C LA-C JD-A YH-A CA-B FY-B TL-B XS-C LA-C JD-A YH-A CA-B FY-B TL-B XS-C LA-C
Districts-Patterns Districts-Patterns Districts-Patterns
Cost composition of classified deposit Cost composition of classified collection and transportation Cost composition of classified disposal
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 4. Cost composition of classified deposit (a), collection and transportation (b), and disposal (c). (a) shows the specific cost composition of classified deposit section; (b)
shows the specific cost composition of classified collection and transportation section; (c) shows the specific cost composition of classified disposal section.
318 X. Li et al. / Waste Management 89 (2019) 313–321

Pattern A. With the development of long-term garbage classifica- owned higher public participation. Interestingly, although Hang-
tion behavior, the propaganda and supervision inputs will gradu- zhou has carried out pilot work on RDW classification for several
ally decrease, and the SCRTPs costs will be significantly reduced. years and achieved a relatively high coverage rate, the public par-
On average, the costs for Patterns A, B, and C are $73.12/ton, ticipation and willingness are not even as good as those of Western
$96.23/ton, and $80.39/ton, respectively. In deposit section, the China (Han et al., 2019), which has just started the pilot project. It
average cost of Pattern A was $7.47/ton, which was obviously is probably due to the lack of management mechanisms and finan-
lower than that of Pattern B ($15.49/ton) and pattern C cial support (Han et al., 2019), resulting in unsustainable public
($12.62/ton). The average infrastructure input contributed most participation and enthusiasm. Thus, it can be seen from the corre-
to the deposit, with average of 50.62%, 49.68% and 43.55% in Pat- lation between the SCA and public participation that the latter has
terns B, C and A respectively (Fig. 4(a)); In the collection and trans- a positive impact on the former. In summary, districts where Pat-
portation, the average cost of Pattern B was $41.72/ton, which was tern B was adopted had the best SCA and public participation per-
higher than the others. Concretely, due to the door-to-door collec- formance, while Pattern A had the worst.
tion of biodegradable and other wastes from each household, the
transportation distances are elongated in Pattern B. Accordingly,
3.2. Factor analysis
the average vehicle transportation input of pattern B was the most
highest, reaching 63.69% (Fig. 4(b)); In disposal section, energy
From Fig. 5, it can be inferred that public participation had a sig-
consumption accounts for an average of 40.81% of the disposal cost
nificant impact on the RDW SCA in the seven studied districts.
(Fig. 4(c)), mainly because the existing composting equipment con-
Moreover, the different types of SCRTPs would result in consider-
sumes a lot of electricity to heat materials when disposing
ably different SCAs. It is reported that public classification willing-
biodegradable waste. In summary, Pattern B is the costliest type.
ness and habit rather than advanced equipment or mandatory
regulations are the most vital factors influencing garbage classifi-
3.1.4. SCA and public participation cation SCA in developed countries (De Feo and De Gisi, 2010;
During the four years study, some districts of Hangzhou Junquera et al., 2001). However, it is still worthy to explore the
achieved remarkable success with the RDW classification (Fig. 5). kind of factors that will play a significant role in improving the
There were significant SCA differences among the 7 investigated RDW SCA in developing countries. For this purpose, a question-
districts (P = 0.000), and SCAs in FY and TL districts were the high- naire survey was designed and investigated in the seven studied
est. Interestingly, the type of SCRTP had a significant impact on the areas. The data were analyzed using FA.
SCA and public participation in the rural areas. Firstly, Pattern B
makes source classification more convenient, and residents can 3.2.1. Social demographics
classify garbage in their own doorway instead of having to take It is widely accepted that demographic structure and education
the waste long distance to the centralized point. Secondly, with level will affect the quality of garbage classification in rural areas
the door-to-door collection method, the collector can supervise (Bhawal Mukherji et al., 2016; Martinez-Pena et al., 2013; Song
and trace the source classification behavior to ensure the SCA. et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2018). Table 5 shows the gender, age,
Finally, separate classified garbage collection and transportation and education distribution in the investigated districts, and the
can increase the sense of classification achievement in the public respondents covered different gender, age, and education levels.
and avoid ‘mixed-collection after classification’ that hinders public
classification enthusiasm. Meanwhile, the SCA is significantly
related to public participation (P < 0.01). Public participation is Table 5
the basis for ensuring the SCA, and public participation improve- Respondent social demographics.

ments depend mainly on the degree of publicity, education, and Group Variable Frequency Frequency
responsiveness (Triguero et al., 2016; Zeng et al., 2016). The dis- %
tricts where residents previously carried out garbage classification Gender Male 122 42.36%
or paid more attention to the garbage classification deservedly Female 166 57.64%
Total 288
Age 18  45 38 13.19%
120 46  60 124 43.06%
accuracy >60 126 43.75%
paticipation 100
Total 288
Source classification accuracy / %

100 a a
Education Under senior high 251 87.15%
ab 80 school
80 Senior high school 26 9.03%
Participation / %

b bc
Bachelor’s degree 11 3.82%
c Total 288
60
60 c
Occupation Peasant 70 24.30%
Enterprise staff 5 1.74%
40 Government 5 1.74%
40
officials
Worker 42 14.58%
20 20 Self-employment 43 14.93%
Teacher 4 1.39%
Student 8 2.78%
0 0 Retiree 51 17.71%
JD-A YH-A CA-B FY-B TL-B XS-C LA-C Other 60 20.83%
Districts-Patterns Total 288
Income per respondent/ per 0  2000 CNY 177 61.46%
Fig. 5. Source classification accuracy and public participation in the study areas. month 2000  5000 CNY 89 30.90%
The figure shows the SCA and participation of the studied areas, with uppercase >5000 CNY 22 7.64%
letters A, B and C denoting the SCRTP type selected in the district, and lowercase Total 288
letters ‘a, b, c, ab and bc’ denoting the significant level of different SCA in 7 districts.
 X. Li et al. / Waste Management 89 (2019) 313–321
With the development of the Chinese economy, most of the young
people moved to urban areas for higher incomes. As a result, the
permanent countryside population is mainly composed of
middle-aged and elderly people (>46 years old) (Tianming et al.,
2018). In contrast, their education levels are relatively low com-
pared to people living in the cities. Among the respondents, peas-
ant, retiree, worker and self-employment are main occupational
type. Therefore, more than 91% of the respondents’ salaries were
below 5000 CNY per month.
3.2.2. FA result
FA based on the questionnaire results was used to study the
impact of different SCRTPs on public categorization intentions in
the different districts. First, the KMO of the sampling adequacy
was 0.664, and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 0.000, indicating
that the data was suitable for FA (Mostafaeipour et al., 2017). Sec-
ondly, principal component analysis method was used to extract
common factors. As shown in Table 6, four components were
extracted and the total cumulative reached 65.77%. According to
the corresponding questions (Table 7) of four extracted compo-
nents, the factors influencing the garbage classification can be
summarized as public attitude (Stoeva and Alriksson, 2017), per-
ceived behavior control (Karim Ghani et al., 2013), knowledge
(Xiao et al., 2017), and government policy (Wang et al., 2018).
Thirdly, common factors were rotated by means of varimax with
Kaiser normalization to maximize the variable relationships.
Fourth, factors were scored to rank the performance between three
patterns, and then factor scores of different patterns were linked
together with SCA and participation.
The factor loading values for attitude were 0.884, 0.833, and
0.758 (Table 7), indicating that three items were suitable for these
components. Attitude had only three items with component coef-
ficients greater than 0.4. This showed that the impact of the items
in the components was relatively good. Besides, the factor weight
values for attitude were equal to 0.321, and represented the high-
est factor values. Hence, the influence of public attitude is the most
important one.
The factor loading values for perceived behavior control ranged
from 0.879 to 0.867 (Table 7), indicating that two items were suit-
able for these components. Perceived behavior control had only
two items with component coefficients of almost 0.5. This showed
that the impact of the items in the components was relatively
good. Meanwhile, relatively important among the factors, the fac-
tor weight values for attitude were equal to 0.258.
The factor loading values for knowledge were 0.786, 0.698, and
0.536 (Table 7) respectively, indicating that three items were suit-
able for these components. Knowledge had only three items with
component coefficients greater than 0.3 (Mostafaeipour et al.,
2017). This showed that the impact of the items in the components
was relatively good. Besides, relatively important among the fac-
tors, the factor weight values for knowledge were equal to 0.230.
Table 6
Total variance explained.
Component Initial Eigenvalues
Total % of variance Cumulative %
1 2.662 26.622 26.622
2 1.443 14.433 41.055
3 1.314 13.140 54.196
4 1.158 11.578 65.774
5 0.870 8.701 74.475
6 0.713 7.126 81.601
7 0.677 6.766 88.366
8 0.481 4.811 93.178
9 0.367 3.666 96.844
10 0.316 3.156 100.000
Extraction method: principal component analysis (PCA).
319
The factor loading values for policy varied from 0.767 to 0.711
(Table 7) (negative values indicate that the question was designed
to the contrary), indicating that two items were suitable for these
components. Policy had only two items where the component
coefficients were nearly 0.6. This showed that the impact of the
items in the components was relatively good. Besides, relatively
important among the factors, the factor weight values for policy
were equal to 0.191.
Firstly, for the No. 6 item ‘People in the village know how many
kinds of waste they should classify’, 81.76% of all respondents
chose ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’, which indicated a high aware-
ness rate of RDW classification in Hangzhou. Due to the late imple-
mentation of pilot projects, the awareness rate of rural garbage
classification in western or southern China is relatively low, while
the willingness and enthusiasm for garbage classification are even
higher than Hangzhou (Han et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2018). The con-
trast between the high awareness of garbage classification and the
polarized SCA and participation also provides a certain basis for the
unsustainable participation and enthusiasm of RDW classification
in Hangzhou. Secondly, economic incentive policy, mandatory reg-
ulations and punishment policy are considered by many studies as
important measures to promote rural domestic waste classification
work (Han et al., 2019; Liao et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2018; Zeng et al.,
2016). Different conclusions have been drawn in this study that
public attitude and perceived behavior control seem to be more
important than various policies. From a practical point of view,
various measures and policies are conducive to the rapid promo-
tion of RDW classification at the beginning and to the improve-
ment of the enthusiasm and willingness. However, based on the
results of the study in Hangzhou, these measures and policies have
not played a role in improving the source classification behavior
and ensuring the participation and accuracy over time. Therefore,
what might affect the participation and accuracy of RDW classifica-
tion most in the long run are subjective factors, such as public atti-
tude and perceived behavior control.
In addition, the comprehensive factor average score for the
seven districts was calculated by SPSS 22.0, and the linear regres-
sion was carried out between the factor score, SCA, and public par-
ticipation, respectively (Fig. 6). The results indicated that the factor
scores of the 7 districts were significantly related to the SCA
(R2 = 0.942), and the relationship between them was relatively
close (R2 = 0.756). It was observed that the poor performance of
Pattern A due to infrastructure, source classification behavior,
supervision, and traceability lead to negative impacts on public
garbage classification behavior, especially in the YH district. On
the contrary, the other three districts (TL, CA, and FY) where Pat-
tern B was adopted had higher factor scores, indicating that Pattern
B played a positive role in garbage classification attitude, percep-
tion behavior control, knowledge, and policy. Therefore, among
the three patterns, Pattern B was the most conducive to garbage
classification popularization and improvement.
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %
2.662 26.622 26.622 2.112 21.120 21.120
1.443 14.433 41.055 1.697 16.972 38.091
1.314 13.140 54.196 1.515 15.149 53.240
1.158 11.578 65.774 1.253 12.534 65.774
320 X. Li et al. / Waste Management 89 (2019) 313–321

Table 7
Factor analysis results.

Number Component Items Factor Component Factor

loadings coefficient weights
1 Attitude Garbage classification is a praiseworthy behavior. 0.884 0.450 0.321
2 Garbage classification is work conducive to environmental protection. 0.833 0.433
3 It is our duty to carry out garbage classification to achieve RDW reduction. 0.758 0.341
4 Perceived behavior When my neighbors start garbage classification, I will follow. 0.879 0.534 0.258
5 control I started the garbage classification because of the propaganda and government 0.867 0.533
promotion.
6 Knowledge People in the village know how many kinds of waste they should classify. 0.786 0.568 0.230
7 People in the villages know which components belong to easily-degradable in the 0.698 0.483
RDW.
8 People in the villages do not know which components belong to harmful waste in 0.536 0.322
the RDW.
9 Policy People in the villages accept the penalty when garbage classification has not been 0.767 0.622 0.191
properly performed.
10 People in the villages accept the awards when garbage classification is properly 0.711 0.589
performed.

Extraction method: principal component analysis (PCA); Four components were extracted; Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.

95 100
R2=0.94203 TL-B R2=0.75569 TL-B
Source classification participation/%
Source classification accuracy/%

90 Districts-Patterns FY-B 90 FY-B

Districts-Patterns CA-B
85 LA-C 80
80 LA-C
70
75 XS-C JD-A
60
70 CA-B XS-C
50
65
JD-A 40
60 YH-A YH-A
55 30
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
Factor score Factor score
(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Linear regression between the factor score and SCA (a), factor score and participation (b). (a) is the linear regression between the factor score and SCA; (b) is the linear
regression between the factor score and participation;

3.3. Management recommendations aging of the rural population is serious and the education levels are
low. Meanwhile, public attitude is the most important factor
Through the attempt to implement the ‘2 + T’ classification regarding classification behavior. Therefore, garbage classification
method and SCRTPs over four years, the ecological environment, knowledge should spread door-to-door to ensure that everyone
human behavior, and living conditions in rural areas were effec- knows, accepts, and voluntarily participates.
tively improved. Additionally, the popularization of garbage classi- Third, sustainable supervision of source classification behavior
fication began to rapidly develop. Based on the above findings, the must be maintained. Garbage classification starts late in develop-
following recommendations are suggested for the classification ing countries. As a result, it requires long-term training for classi-
and reduction of RDW in developing countries. fication awareness. Pattern B is beneficial for inspecting the SCA
First, it is necessary to choose the appropriate SCRTP. The door-to-door and eliminating the mixed collection of classified gar-
proper pattern helps to improve garbage classification efficiency bage. These benefits guarantee the source classification quality and
and promotes the popularization of garbage classification. The purity of the raw materials for resourcing. Gradually, the correct
reason is that public participation and SCA were significantly classification habits and positive classification awareness will be
affected by the different infrastructure and collection method cultivated.
in the different patterns. In this study, the SCA and public gar- Fourth, the government should provide continuous financial
bage classification participation in the districts that adopted Pat- input for guaranteeing the sustainable development of garbage
tern B were significantly higher than in other districts and classification. The improved configuration and staffing elevate
subsequently resulted in a positive impact on the public’s atti- the operational costs of Pattern B relative to the other patterns.
tude toward garbage classification. In addition, it is worth inves- Thus, in order to widely popularize Pattern B, it is necessary to
tigating further reduction of the economic costs of Pattern B as set up special funds that can be raised through government finan-
economic affordability would be conducive to the wider spread cial allocation, social donation, and a garbage metering and charg-
of Pattern B. ing system. In addition, Pattern B can be restructured to reduce the
Second, it is essential for the government to further strengthen operating costs. For example, the amount of other garbage will be
publicity and education towards improving public awareness greatly reduced in the case of a high SCA, and accordingly it can be
about the classification methods. According to the analysis results, collected and transported every 2–3 days.
 X. Li et al. / Waste Management 89 (2019) 313–321
4. Conclusions
The ‘2 + T’ garbage classification method can achieve source
separation of biodegradable waste for in-situ reduction in rural
areas of China. Among the three typical SCRTPs, Pattern B with
classified deposit in the doorway and door-to-door collection of
biodegradable and other waste showed the best SCA and perfor-
mance participation, with the exception of the operating cost. FA
highlighted that public attitude is the most important factor influ-
encing source classification behavior. Factor scores had a positive
correlation with source classification accuracy and participation.
Districts that adopted Pattern B had the highest factor scores. For
further improving the RDW classification efficiency and reduction,
it is of great importance to (1) adopt appropriate classification
methods and patterns to improve the classification and reduction
effect and cultivate positive public attitude, (2) strengthen public-
ity and education for improving public awareness of the classifica-
tion methods, (3) maintain sustainable supervision of source
classification behavior, and (4) provide sufficient financial support
to promote the popularization of garbage classification.
In rural areas of many developing countries, biodegradable
waste occupies a major position in RDW. Therefore, the ‘2 + T’ clas-
sification method is widely applicable. The quality of source classi-
fication can be effectively guaranteed by classified deposit in the
doorway and door-to-door collection. To promote RDW classifica-
tion in developing countries as soon as possible, measures such as
economic incentives, punishment policies and mandatory regula-
tions are effective. However, in order to achieve long-term results
of RDW classification, it is essential to change the subjective fac-
tors, such as public attitude and perceived behavior control,
through sustained publicity and supervision.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the China National Critical Pro-
ject for Science and Technology on Water Pollution and Control
under No. 2014ZX07101-012.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.020.
References
Akintayo Opawole, G.O.J., 2017. Factors affecting the performance of private party
in concession-based PPP projects in Nigeria. J. Eng., Des. Technol. 15, 44–57.
Bhawal Mukherji, S., Sekiyama, M., Mino, T., et al., 2016. Resident knowledge and
willingness to engage in waste management in Delhi, India. Sustainability 8
(10), 1065.
Broen, M.P.G., Moonen, A.J.H., Kuijf, M.L., Dujardin, K., Marsh, L., Richard, I.H.,
Starkstein, S.E., Martinez Martin, P., Leentjens, A.F.G., 2015. Factor analysis of
the Hamilton depression rating scale in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat.
Disorder 21 (2), 142–146.
De Feo, G., De Gisi, S., 2010. Public opinion and awareness towards MSW and
separate collection programmes: a sociological procedure for selecting areas
and citizens with a low level of knowledge. Waste Manage. 30 (6), 958–976.
Diaz, R., Otoma, S., 2014. Cost-benefit analysis of waste reduction in developing
countries: a simulation. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 16 (1), 108–114.
Fei, F., Wen, Z., Huang, S., De Clercq, D., 2018. Mechanical biological treatment of
municipal solid waste: energy efficiency, environmental impact and economic
feasibility analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 178, 731–739.
Feo, G.D., Williams, I.D., 2013. Siting landfills and incinerators in areas of historic
unpopularity: surveying the views of the next generation. Waste Manage. 33
(12), 2798–2810.
Guérin, J.É., Paré, M.C., Lavoie, S., Bourgeois, N., 2018. The importance of
characterizing residual household waste at the local level: a case study of
Saguenay, Quebec (Canada). Waste Manage. 77, 341–349.
Han, Z.D., Li, X.R., Bi, F., Qin, Y., Xu, G., Tu, Han, Wu, W.X., 2019a. Classified collection
and transportation patterns of rural domestic wastes in China: a case study of
Hangzhou. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 3, 688–695.
321
Han, Z.Y., Liu, Y., Zhong, M., Shi, G.Z., Li, Q.B., Zeng, D., Zhang, Y., Fei, Y.Q., Xie, Y.H.,
2018. Influencing factors of domestic waste characteristics in rural areas of
developing countries. Waste Manage. 72, 45–54.
Han, Z.Y., Zeng, D., Li, Q.B., Cheng, C., Shi, G.Z., Mou, Z.S., 2019b. Public willingness to
pay and participate in domestic waste management in rural areas of China.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 140, 166–174.
He, P.J., 2012. Municipal solid waste in rural areas of developing country: do we
need special treatment mode? Waste Manage. 32 (7), 1289–1290.
He, P.J., Zhang, H., Lu, F., Shao, L.M., 2014. Pattern classification of methods and
feasible technology route for household waste management in villages. J. Agro-
Environ. Sci. 33 (3), 409–414.
Hu, X.J., Zhang, M., Yu, J.F., et al., 2012. Food waste management in China: status,
problems and solutions. Acta Ecol. Sinica. 32 (14), 4575–4584.
Junquera, B., Del Br, O.J.Á., Mu Iz, M., 2001. Citizens’ attitude to reuse of municipal
solid waste: a practical application. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 33 (1), 51–60.
Karim Ghani, W.A.W.A., Rusli, I.F., Biak, D.R.A., Idris, A., 2013. An application of the
theory of planned behaviour to study the influencing factors of participation in
source separation of food waste. Waste Manage. 33 (5), 1276–1281.
Kumar, A., Samadder, S.R., 2017. An empirical model for prediction of household
solid waste generation rate–a case study of Dhanbad, India. Waste Manage. 68,
3–15.
Liao, C.H., Zhao, D.T., Zhang, S., Chen, L.F., 2018. Determinants and the moderating
effect of perceived policy effectiveness on residents’ separation intention for
rural household solid waste. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, 726.
Ma, J., Hipel, K.W., Hanson, M.L., 2018a. An evaluation of the social dimensions in
public participation in rural domestic waste source-separated collection in
Guilin, China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 190.
Ma, W.C., Tai, L.Y., Qiao, Z., et al., 2018b. Contamination source apportionment and
health risk assessment of heavy metals in soil around municipal solid waste
incinerator: a case study in North China. Sci. Total Environ. 631–632, 348–357.
Madigan, D.J., 2016. Confirmatory factor analysis of the multidimensional inventory
of perfectionism in sport. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 26, 48–51.
Martinez-Pena, R.M., Hoogesteijn, A.L., Rothenberg, S.J., Cervera-Montejano, M.D.,
Pacheco-Avila, J.G., 2013. Cleaning products, environmental awareness and risk
perception in Merida, Mexico. PloS One 8 (8), e74352.
Mostafaeipour, A., Zarezade, M., Goudarzi, H., Rezaei-Shouroki, M., Qolipour, M.,
2017. Investigating the factors on using the solar water heaters for dry arid
regions: a case study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78, 157–166.
Munawar, E., Yunardi, Y., Lederer, J., Fellner, J., 2018. The development of landfill
operation and management in Indonesia. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 20 (2),
1128–1142.
Saidan, M.N., Drais, A.A., Al-Manaseer, E., 2017. Solid waste composition analysis
and recycling evaluation: Zaatari Syrian refugees camp, Jordan. Waste Manage.
61, 58–66.
Song, Q., Wang, Z., Li, J., 2016. Exploring residents’ attitudes and willingness to pay
for solid waste management in Macau. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23 (16), 16456–
16462.
Spearman, C., 1904. ‘General intelligence’ objectively determined and measured.
Am. J. Psychol. 15, 201–292.
Spigolon, L.M., Giannotti, M., Larocca, A.P., Russo, M.A., Souza, N.D.C., 2018. Landfill
siting based on optimisation, multiple decision analysis, and geographic
information system analyses. Waste Manage. Res. 36 (7), 606–615.
Stoeva, K., Alriksson, S., 2017. Influence of recycling programmes on waste
separation behaviour. Waste Manage. 68, 732–741.
Taghipour, H., Amjad, Z., Aslani, H., Armanfar, F., Dehghanzadeh, R., 2016.
Characterizing and quantifying solid waste of rural communities. J. Mater.
Cycles Waste Manage. 18 (4), 790–797.
Tianming, G., Ivolga, A., Erokhin, V., 2018. Sustainable rural development in
northern China: caught in a vice between poverty, urban attractions, and
migration. Sustainability 10 (5), 1467.
Triguero, A., Álvarez-Aledo, C., Cuerva, M.C., 2016. Factors influencing willingness to
accept different waste management policies: empirical evidence from the
European union. J. Clean. Prod. 138, 38–46.
Um, M., Yun, H., Jeong, C., Heo, J., 2011. Factor analysis and multiple regression
between topography and precipitation on Jeju Island, Korea. J. Hydrol. 410 (3–
4), 189–203.
Vaníček, I., Jirásko, D., Vaníček, M., 2017. Transportation and environmental
geotechnics. Proc. Eng. 189, 118–125.
Wang, Z.H., Dong, X.Y., Yin, J.H., 2018. Antecedents of urban residents’ separate
collection intentions for household solid waste and their willingness to pay:
evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 173, 256–264.
Wang, A.Q., Zhang, L.X., Shi, Y.J., et al., 2017. Rural solid waste management in
China: status problems and challenges. Sustainability 9 (4), 506.
Waqas, M., Nizami, A.S., Aburiazaiza, A.S., Barakat, M.A., Rashid, M.I., Ismail, I.M.I.,
2018. Optimizing the process of food waste compost and valorizing its
applications: a case study of Saudi Arabia. J. Clean. Prod. 176, 426–438.
Xiao, L.S., Zhang, G.Q., Zhu, Y., Lin, T., 2017. Promoting public participation in
household waste management: a survey based method and case study in
Xiamen city, China. J. Clean. Prod. 144, 313–322.
Zeng, C., Niu, D.J., Li, H.F., Zhou, T., Zhao, Y.C., 2016. Public perceptions and economic
values of source-separated collection of rural solid waste: a pilot study in China.
Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 107, 166–173.
Zhuang, Y., Wu, S.W., Wang, Y.L., Wu, W.X., Chen, Y.X., 2008. Source separation of
household waste: a case study in China. Waste Manage. 28 (10), 2022–2030.