1. Maastricht Sustainability Institute, Maastricht University, Netherlands; pimmarten657@edu.mci
2. Maastricht Sustainability Institute, Maastricht University, Netherlands; gerojoko@gmail.com

*             Correspondence: pimmarten657@edu.mci

Keywords: waste management, variables, determinants, environmental friendly, consumer behavior

1. INTRODUCTION

Academic research, official government publications, and industry studies all seem to be very interested in consumer behaviour. The focus in the private sector is mostly on the marketing and economic components, which are often motivated by financial and strategic considerations. However, an increasing number of scholars and policymakers are investigating the ecological, psychological, social, and cultural dimensions of consumer behaviour and its consequences. This presents an alternative research avenue and an opportunity for a supplementary investigation into the more comprehensive economic and marketing analysis. In fact, a larger, more interdisciplinary approach to the economic and social study of consumer behaviour is required, especially from academics and business leaders, as evidenced by the rising body of research on consumer behaviour and sustainable development over the past few years. It is crucial to emphasise in this context that the development and promotion of a product for the consumer market goes beyond the customer’s purchase and the customer care department’s follow-up assistance. Apart from doing a comprehensive evaluation of a product’s environmental impact, this methodology ought to consider the ways in which the user contributes to such impact through routine actions such as recycling trash. For example, environmentally responsible product design, or eco-design, needs to be prioritised over production. It needs to outline the features of waste treatment plants and any limitations on recycling that the customer might run into while disposing of their garbage [1]. Furthermore, as mentioned by Wiesmeth and Hackl [2], these issues are made worse by ineffective laws and weak government activities. In fact, they assert that environmental “policies in waste management, including policies on one-way drinks containers and waste electrical and electronic equipment, reveal more or less severe deficiencies” (p. 332), as do extended producer responsibility programmes with additional applications to waste electrical and electronic equipment. For a thorough analysis of the consequences of all human activity on the environment, an interdisciplinary approach encompassing many fields such as engineering, chemistry, ecology, economics, marketing, law, business management, sociology, and psychology is required. It’s true that some fields, including environmental engineering, have seen tremendous advancements [3, 4]. Unfortunately, we also notice that the consumer purchase phase still receives most of the attention, often ignoring the consumer disposal and recycling phases, which are becoming more and more important because of the long-term effects on resource use and pollution in the environment. Institutions and academia need to fully understand that “human behaviour is a strategic domain because of the enduring effects of both poor and good recycling habits” (p. 367), as stated by Tseng et al. [5]. There is a dearth of research on the relationship between pro-environmental consumer behaviour (PECB) and generic consumer behaviour (GenCB). This research interprets the relationship as an interaction between those who care about sustainable development and others who are not as sensitive to environmental challenges. Both the efficiency of recycling at the level of the final user and the distribution of proper recycling habits among consumers are impacted by this kind of interaction. Although it is acknowledged that this effectiveness depends on having a robust recycling infrastructure and a supportive legal environment [6, 7], consumers can nevertheless make a significant impact with seemingly insignificant daily actions like recycling and disposing of rubbish. In actuality, “all agents, who are affected by the goals of a certain environmental policy, have to be integrated into this policy,” according to Wiesmeth and Hackl [2]. In this sense, the institutional and social frameworks, as well as a supportive environment [8], definitely promote interpersonal contacts or the shift in consumer behaviour towards “greener” practices [9, 10] through spillover and other impacts. Sadly, the research to date suggests that these PECB aspects are not thoroughly and methodically investigated; in fact, Geiger, et al. [11] recommend that future studies more thoroughly investigate the ways in which individual and contextual factors interact and how contextual factors affect recycling (p. 78). Furthermore, the meanings and interdisciplinary applications of terms like “green behaviour,” “recycling behaviour,” and “pro-environmental behaviour” (PEB) remain debatable despite their increased usage in recent literature [12]. This is because the scholars who use these concepts often influence their understanding of them. Similarly, the large number of theoretical models applied in the many field studies suggests that there is a dispute about the most appropriate model. As a result, there is a good chance that a researcher will discover a model that works well and has all the components needed for an interdisciplinary investigation of how human behaviour relates to waste management. This can happen, for example, when a researcher in law or economics seeks to understand the mechanisms governing PECB; in this situation, models that explain why human action deviates from reasonable expectations would be quite beneficial. In actuality, sociology and psychology provide an explanation for why human behaviour is not as linear or rational as one might expect; consequently, these disciplines employ terminology different from economics, which is predicated on rationality and profit maximization, such as “reasoned behaviour,” and adopt a different methodology [13, 14]. Adding to the standard components (goal, norms, attitude, and awareness of consequence) or incorporating a constant number of new ones makes behavioural models even more complex. Therefore, it is obvious that the classification and analysis of these variables would help researchers make better decisions about which variables to measure and how to connect them to one another. In particular, given the dearth of thorough, current, and rigorous reviews on this topic as well as the increase in interest in PECB in academic research over the past ten years [15–17], it is imperative to close these gaps by conducting a systematic literature review with ad hoc research questions to investigate these issues.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

With regard to the ideas and factors that define PECB and its potential interactions with GenCB in connection to waste management during routine everyday activities, this systematic literature review (SLR) aims to provide an overview and disclosure of the findings from the body of extant peer-reviewed research (excluding workplaces). This goal is driven by the observation that, to until, systematic literature reviews (SLRs) of scholarly works on waste management have concentrated on a range of particular elements, but have lacked interdisciplinary research and comprehension of human behaviour in connection to trash management. As further evidenced by Silchenko et al. [18], the articles typically reflect a narrow, cross-cutting perspective and frequently concentrate on particular fields such as technology (e.g., infrastructure, waste treatment and transportation), laws (e.g., illegal dumping), management (e.g., supply chain management), healthcare, biochemistry (e.g., micro-pollutants, biodegradation processes), economics and marketing, education, and nutrition. While a number of academics study consumer products and the trash associated with them, the focus is frequently on the product or how it is used [19], not on how consumers behave, particularly when it comes to recycling and disposal. Human behaviour must be analysed when examining the effectiveness of waste management at the local or municipal level because doing so will help researchers better understand how to encourage households to reduce their waste or raise their awareness of environmental issues, for example [20]. This SLR’s methodology is based on studies that have been carried out over the past few decades by a number of academics [21–24]. In addition to the purchase of environmentally friendly or electronic products, other often occurring waste kinds include plastics, metal cans, and batteries [25]. Waste management also affects the acquisition stage. The extent of this SLR on consumer behaviour and its direct influence on the environment through daily activities including food, electrical and electronic equipment, and trash discharge are the driving forces for this predominance. Additionally, the consumer-waste interaction provides an opportunity to confirm the validity and suitability of current socio-psychological theories and models as well as to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms driving this sort of waste’s behaviour. Thus, homes [26], neighbourhoods [27], residential areas [28], municipal areas [29], and small- to medium-sized towns [30] are the primary study sites. A few less frequent sites include urban labs, unique urban mines [31], and community gardens [32]. Schools and universities [32–34] are other common locations; in particular, dining halls [35] and cafeterias [36] are mentioned. A few articles also address green or sustainable building initiatives [38–41] and retail spaces, such as supermarkets [37]. In terms of academic institutions, the benefit of studying a faculty or an institute lies in how simple it is to identify a target audience and perform a thorough research by conducting interviews or distributing paper or electronic questionnaires. Research on shopping centres typically focuses on the purchase phase of the customer experience and how that phase affects recycling and disposal later on. In contrast, urban labs and green buildings focus on how people interact with each other or how pro-environmental attitudes and intentions affect daily operations. There is a distributed propensity to examine the behaviours of households, students, and users of electrical and electronic gadgets, namely mobile phones and tablets, or basic necessities (including green products), despite the fact that the investigated samples are quite varied in type [42]. It is important to note that although some chosen articles take into account the behaviour of both consumers and retailers/suppliers, this SLR does not concentrate on employees or managers. This SLR demonstrates which theories have been tested to ensure their applicability to consumer behaviour in relation to waste management, and which have been recalled to support the empirical findings by an analysis of the theoretical framework used in the chosen publications. While many scholars have attempted a transdisciplinary approach to include all relevant factors, and although the fundamental principles and the nature of the environmental actions taken by the pro-environmental consumer have been studied in very different contexts [43], the predominant theoretical framework is rooted in the socio-psychological field, especially in light of the fact that this SLR focuses on human behaviour. Over the past thirty to forty years, the attitude-behavior inconsistency has been, and continues to be, the central idea in many theories, particularly those pertaining to social psychology (Eiser [44], for instance, refers to the “attitude-behavior discrepancy”). Furthermore, outside from cognitive psychology and neuroscience, LeDoux [45] and Damasio [46] suggest that emotions in human cognition continue to play a significant role in a wide range of scientific fields. The idea of an integral approach, which holds that the relationship between reasoned processes and emotion is the path to understanding the origins of human concern for the environment, has replaced the mid-20th century separation of purposeful cognition from emotions [47]. When examining the most widely utilised theoretical frameworks across time, the TRA from Fishbein and Ajzen [48] comes to mind first. The goal of this theory is to use “a set of hierarchically linked constructs” to describe human conduct [49]. The goal of the TRA is to demonstrate the relationships that exist between human behaviour intentions and actions. The former is the attitude towards an object and is understood to be the outcome of the evaluation of the expected consequences of an action. Subjective norms originate from an individual’s impression of their social acceptance, while normative expectations for an action (or awareness) and acceptance of those expectations give rise to the latter, or the subjective norm. The idea that people behave in certain ways for a reason is implied by the phrase “reasoned.” In order to boost the original TPB’s predictive power, several researchers expand the TPB model by including one or more additional variables. For instance, Xu, et al. [50] extended a TPB-based model to examine home trash separation behaviour by include considered moral obligations, perceived policy effectiveness, and historical behaviour. “Home waste separation behaviour is significantly predicted by subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, past behaviour, and intention, with past behaviour being the most significant construct to predict individuals’ intention and behaviour,” the authors stated. Other expanded versions of the TPB incorporate environmental knowledge with varying outcomes; in certain instances, this considerably enhances the model’s predictive power, while in other instances, it yields no discernible benefit [51]. In addition to demographic characteristics, Wang et al. [52] included facility conditions, government policy, willingness to pay, and results perceptions to the conventional components of the TPB. “Willingness to pay among urban residents is more sensitive to perceptions of results and policy implications than separate collection intentions in China,” the authors concluded. This review also emphasises the challenges associated with integrating these disparate methods and the general consensus regarding the necessity of using a comprehensive strategy while examining these ideas. Indeed, a multidimensional model aimed at boosting PEB was suggested by López-Mosquera, Lera-López, and Sánchez [53]. This model included variables linked to environmental sensitivity, economic features, sociodemographic factors, and environmental attitudes and beliefs. Zhang, Williams, Kemp, and Smith [54] recommended carrying out a thorough examination that takes into account environmental, political, social, technological, legal, and economic (PESTL) aspects. This review also demonstrates how these methods are typically constrained by prejudices and the author’s own opinions, which vary according to the scholar’s area of interest and background. For example, researchers with a background in sociopsychology frequently concentrate on elements related to the social context, culture, religion, ethnicity, habits, perceived control, personality, and personal/social norms, to mention a few. On the other hand, writers with a background in environmental engineering or industrial ecology concentrate on topics such as the constraints placed on PECB by insufficient recycling systems, the evaluation of the costs and benefits of various recycling schemes, the development of eco-efficient products and eco-design, and the most effective approaches to raising consumer awareness [54]. As a result of this circumstance, models with a wide range of characteristics are used. Indeed, in addition to traditional characteristics such as age, income, environmental knowledge, or motivation, additional elements greatly depend on the kind of approach (e.g., socio-psychological, socio-institutional, socio-economic) that the authors choose to use. Overall, this SLR shows that the interaction is strongly context-related and is driven by various factors based on the degree of study performed by the researchers (e.g., community, neighbourhood, municipal, regional, or national level). For example, the adoption of creative waste management strategies and the spread of PECB among general consumers are typically encouraged at the local level by the existence of a pro-environmental organisation or by spillover effects. Conversely, as is the case in Singapore, at the national level, sufficient information and educational initiatives encourage the populace to adopt pro-environmental attitudes and, as a result, foster the ideal climate for this interaction. Meneses [55] examined the efficacy of recycling promotion via a blockleader at the community level. He concluded that when it comes to how people respond to the new recycling information, there is no distinction between cooperative and non-cooperative individuals. Although his study supports the necessity of an information campaign to encourage behavioural changes in all consumers, this result runs counter to the traditional recycling approach, which views individuals with a more innovative profile as more receptive to new recycling techniques. Thøgersen [56], Wonneck and Hobson [57], and Zhou et al. [58] provided several instances of positive and negative spillover at the micro or local level. Wonneck and Hobson [59], for example, deduced that the recycling pilot programme in Calgary had favourable effects on dry recycling but unfavourable effects on home composting. More covert behavioural mechanisms were examined by Rees et al. [60], who emphasised how feelings of guilt and humiliation over environmental disasters caused by humans “lead to reparative behavioural intentions and actual behaviour in the context of intergroup relations.” A advantageous infrastructure consisting of easily accessible services undoubtedly influences the aforementioned interaction and shift [59], particularly the effectiveness of the regional waste management programme. Several instances exist where the proper management of municipal solid waste has been achieved by an effective municipal recycling programme [61], which is predicated on providing high-quality services, offering financial and environmental incentives [62], and equitably distributing the costs and benefits of recycling. In certain instances, governments and waste management businesses have also been able to provide better services and chances for recycling [59], encouraging consumers—even the most suspicious ones—to actually participate in recycling programmes. Regretfully, there are a number of instances of ineffective waste management practices [63]. In this way, the setting and function of the municipal institutions and the waste management corporation serve as enabling factors. Generally speaking, this systematic literature review concludes that one diffused limitation of PECB research is the inability (or impossibility) to define a comprehensive framework that can be applied to various contexts and that simultaneously encompasses variables related to various fields, such as economics, laws, marketing, sociology, psychology, ecology, biology, energy management, infrastructure, and logistics.

3. CONCLUSION

This SLR addresses various viewpoints on adult consumer behaviour in relation to waste management, highlights pertinent issues, and offers a potential classification of the numerous factors and conditions influencing PECB in addition to offering a useful summary of the academic literature on a complex and multidisciplinary topic. Researchers (without a background in social psychology) who wish to look into or comprehend how consumer behaviour relates to trash management would also find this study useful. By consulting our research of conditions and causes, they may be able to get over the challenges associated with identifying the crucial elements that define consumer behaviour. In actuality, studies on consumer product marketing or the creation of goods for the consumer market today cannot overlook the examination of associated waste and how it affects consumer behaviour. In these situations, researchers may find it helpful to arrange their investigations in a way that best captures the subtle mechanisms and idiosyncrasies of human conduct thanks to the suggested component classification and the comprehensive framing of existing behavioural theories and models. Actually, academia has always been in the business of testing new goods, processes, and materials using reliable, repeatable processes before bringing them to a wider audience in the real world. Furthermore, this SLR demonstrates that one hotly debated area in the study of human behaviour interpretation and understanding is the ability to account for all relevant variables: the intricate interplay between reasoned and non-reasoned aspects of behaviour frequently reveals surprising relationships and motivations. Simultaneously, the examination of the environment in which a person lives and interacts is inherent to the understanding of human behaviour. It comes from the necessity of continuing with the interdisciplinary approach to reveal as many of these hidden systems impacting human conduct as feasible. For these reasons, in order to demonstrate their strength, resilience, and universality, all theories and models must go through ongoing testing in a variety of domains. This systematic literature review also reveals that a number of studies exhibit a preference for a particular approach (e.g., sociological, psychological, environmental, or legal), which is typically influenced (and limited) by the backgrounds of the authors. For instance, studies that concentrate on socio-psychological factors have demonstrated a partial or nonexistent interest in legal and infrastructure issues, which could undoubtedly aid in the explanation of certain aspects of human behaviour under particular conditions. In a similar vein, economic studies frequently view the individual as a rational agent who maximises his or her own interest or profit. In general, the many sectorial perspectives that scholars choose have an influence on and bias on the interpretation of human conduct. Therefore, the ability of the suggested models to account for all relevant elements continues to be crucial to their performance. Concurrently, determining the appropriate degree of granularity (e.g., micro versus macro scale) is additional challenge. Indeed, an overabundance of specifics always runs the risk of narrowing the focus to certain fields (such as psychology, marketing, or law), whereas a general model, while more adaptable to a wider range of situations, does not illuminate the subtleties of human behaviour.

REFERENCES

1. Gwenzi, W.; Mangori, L.; Danha, C.; Chaukura, N.; Dunjana, N.; Sanganyado, E. Sources, behaviour, and environmental and human health risks of high-technology rare earth elements as emerging contaminants. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 299–313.
2. Wiesmeth, H.; Hackl, D. Integrated environmental policy: A review of economic analysis. Waste Manag. Res. 2017, 35, 332–345.
3. Mihelcic, J.R.; Naughton, C.C.; Verbyla, M.E.; Zhang, Q.; Schweitzer, R.W.; Oakley, S.M.; Wells, E.C.; Whiteford, L.M. The Grandest Challenge of All: The Role of Environmental Engineering to Achieve Sustainability in the World’s Developing Regions. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2017, 34, 16–41.
4. Hong, R.J.; Wang, G.F.; Guo, R.Z.; Cheng, X.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, P.J.; Qian, G.R. Life cycle assessment of BMT-based integrated municipal solid waste management: Case study in Pudong, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2006, 49, 129–146.
5. Mohammad Musah Ibrahim & Munawar Rahman (2023). Brand Wrath and “The Negative Side of the Brand”: An Overview and Potential Research Focus. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):533-543.
6. Brenda Giray, Vargas Coutino-Gonzalez & Nicolas Reyes-Castillo (2023). A Systematic Literature Review on Risk Management in Small and Medium Scale Industries. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):544-549.
7. Sadia Asif, Shifa Mishta Shifat & Pritam Agnihotri (2023). Interconnection of Artificial Intelligence and Sustainability: A Study of Green Human Resource Management. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):550-555.
8. Salah Mahdi & Muhammad Ibrahim Juber (2023). The Connection among Audit Quality and Modifications in Iraq. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):556-563.
9. Maryam Sabah Salah Mahdi & Ali Jalil Mahadi (2023). Evaluation and Future Directions of Organization’ Human Resources Management Performance. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):564-570.
10. Tseng, M.L.; Wong, W.P.; Soh, K.L. An overview of the substance of Resource, Conservation and Recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 367–375.
11. Bliacheris, M.W. Socio-environmental responsibility in public administration. In Improving Employee Health and Well-Being; Rossi, A.M., Meurs, J.A., Perrewe, P.A., Eds.; IAP Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2014; pp. 119–138.
12. Feldman, Y.; Perez, O. How Law Changes the Environmental Mind: An Experimental Study of the Effect of Legal Norms on Moral Perceptions and Civic Enforcement. J. Law Soc. 2009, 36, 501–535.
13. Mannemar Sønderskov, K. Explaining large-N cooperation: Generalized social trust and the social exchange heuristic. Ration. Soc. 2011, 23, 51–74.
14. Xu, L.; Zhang, X.; Ling, M. Spillover effects of household waste separation policy on electricity consumption: Evidence from Hangzhou, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 129, 219–231.
15. Feldman, Y.; Perez, O. Motivating environmental action in a pluralistic regulatory environment: An experimental study of framing, crowding out, and institutional effects in the context of recycling policies. Law Soc. Rev. 2012, 46, 405–442.
16. Geiger, J.L.; Steg, L.; Van Der Werff, E.; Ünal, A.B. A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 64, 78–97.
17. Hursh, S.R. Behavioral economics. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1984, 42, 435–452.
18. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211.
19. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not ready to retire: A commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-Soares. Health Psychol. Rev. 2015, 9, 131–137.
20. Miafodzyeva, S.; Brandt, N. Recycling Behaviour Among Householders: Synthesizing Determinants Via a Meta-analysis. Waste Biomass Valorization 2013, 4, 221–235.
21. Ma, J.; Hipel, K.W. Exploring social dimensions of municipal solid waste management around the globe—A systematic literature review. Waste Manag. 2016, 56, 3–12.
22. Li, D.; Zhao, L.; Ma, S.; Shao, S.; Zhang, L. What influences an individual’s pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 28–34.
23. Petticrew, M.; Roberts, H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences. A practical Guide; Blackwell: Carlton, VIC, Australia, 2006.
24. Gough, D.; Oliver, S.; Thomas, J. An introduction to Systematic Reviews, 2nd ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2012.
25. Phuong, L.T.H.; Biesbroek, R.G.; Wals, A.E.J. The interplay between social learning and adaptive capacity in climate change adapation: A systematic review. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2017, 82, 1–9.
26. Bisaro, A.; Roggero, M.; Villamayor-Tomas, S. Institutional Analysis in Climate Change Adaptation Research: A Systematic Literature Review. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 151, 34–43.
27. Islam, S.; Smart, J.C.R.; Chu, C.; Liew, L. Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: A systematic literature review. Clim. Dev. 2019, 12, 255–267.
28. Gallego-Ayala, J. Trends in integrated water resources management research: A literature review. Water Policy 2013, 15, 628–647.
29. Sud, R.; Mishra, A.; Varma, N.; Bhadwal, S. Adaptation policy and practice in densely populated glacier-fed river basins of South Asia: A systematic review. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2015, 15, 825–836.
30. Tiedeken, E.J.; Tahar, A.; McHugh, B.; Rowan, N.J. Monitoring, sources, receptors, and control measures for three European Union watch list substances of emerging concern in receiving waters—A 20 year systematic review. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 574, 1140–1163.
31. Candel, J.J.L. Food security governance: A systematic literature review. Food Secur. 2014, 6, 585–601.
32. Thompson, H.E.; Berrang-Ford, L.; Ford, J.D. Climate Change and Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2719–2733.
33. Karen, E.C.; Joanna, R.; Emma, G.; Quentin, H.; Aurélie, D.; Brooke, C.; Johann, B. Fish, food security and health in Pacific Island countries and territories: A systematic literature review. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 1–26.
34. Warren, E.; Hawkesworth, S.; Knai, C.c. Investigating the association between urban agriculture and food security, dietary diversity, and nutritional status: A systematic literature review. Food Policy 2015, 53, 54–66.
35. Almosa, Y.; Parkinson, J.; Rundle-Thiele, S. Littering Reduction:A Systematic Review of Research 1995–2015. Soc. Mark. Q. 2017, 23, 203–222.
36. Schanes, K.; Dobernig, K.; Gözet, B. Food waste matters—A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 978–991.
37. Canali, M.; Amani, P.; Aramyan, L.; Gheoldus, M.; Moates, G.; Östergren, K.; Silvennoinen, K.; Waldron, K.; Vittuari, M. Food waste drivers in Europe, from identification to possible interventions. Sustainability 2017, 9, 37.
38. Norton, T.A.; Parker, S.L.; Zacher, H.; Ashkanasy, N.M. Employee Green Behavior:A Theoretical Framework, Multilevel Review, and Future Research Agenda. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 103–125.
39. Loverock, D.T.; Kool, R.; Kajzer-Mitchell, I. Workplace Culture as a Driver for Social Change: Influencing Employee Pro-Environmental Behaviors. In Social Issues in the Workplace: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2018; pp. 1–24.
40. Lo, S.H.; Peters, G.J.Y.; Kok, G. A Review of Determinants of and Interventions for Proenvironmental Behaviors in Organizations. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 42, 2933–2967.
41. Holland, R.W.; Aarts, H.; Langendam, D. Breaking and creating habits on the working floor: A field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 42, 776–783.
42. Chan, K. Use of environmental teaching kits in Hong Kong. Environmentalist 2000, 20, 113.
43. Gizzi, V.; Di Dio, S.; Schillaci, D. Junkbox, a waste management educational game for preschool kids. Interact. Des. Arch. 2019, 40, 46–56.
44. Cuccurullo, S.; Francese, R.; Passero, I.; Tortora, G. A 3D serious city building game on waste disposal. Int. J. Distance Educ. Technol. 2013, 11, 112–135.
45. Krettenauer, T. Pro-environmental behavior and adolescent moral development. J. Res. Adolesc. 2017, 27, 581–593.
46. Honig, A.S.; Mennerich, M. What does ‘go green’ mean to children?: Corrigendum. Early Child Dev. Care 2013, 183, 570.
47. Long, J.; Harré, N.; Atkinson, Q.D. Understanding change in recycling and littering behavior across a school social network. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2014, 53, 462–474.
48. Silchenko, K.; Del Gobbo, R.; Castellano, N.; Franceschetti, B.M.; Tosi, V.; La Verghetta, M. Sorting Through Waste Management Literature: A Text Mining Approach to a Literature Review. In Proceedings of the Management International Conference, Portoroz, Slovenia, 28–30 May 2015.
49. De Medeiros, J.F.; Ribeiro, J.L.D.; Cortimiglia, M.N. Success factors for environmentally sustainable product innovation: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 76–86.
50. Zacho, K.o.; Mosgaard, M.A. Understanding the role of waste prevention in local waste management: A literature review. Waste Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 980–994.
51. Littell, J.H.; Corcoran, J.; Pillai, V. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008; p. 202.
52. Cooper, H.M. Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach, 4th ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2010; p. 269.
53. Hart, C. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination; SAGE: London, UK, 2001.
54. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269.
55. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, W65–W94.
56. Aoyagi-Usui, M.; Vinken, H.; Kuribayashi, A. Pro-environmental Attitudes and Behaviors: An International Comparison. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2003, 10, 23–31.
57. Evans, D.; Abrahamse, W. Beyond rhetoric: The possibilities of and for ‘sustainable lifestyles’. Environ. Politics 2009, 18, 486–502.
58. Zsóka, Á.; Szerényi, Z.M.; Széchy, A.; Kocsis, T. Greening due to environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 126–138.
59. Biesbroek, G.R.; Termeer, C.J.A.M.; Klostermann, J.E.M.; Kabat, P. On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2013, 13, 1119–1129.
60. Mistiaen, P.; Poot, E. Telephone follow-up, initiated by a hospital-based health professional, for postdischarge problems in patients discharged from hospital to home. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2006, 4, 1–122.