Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104 (2015) 4960

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Solid waste pollution concern in economic value assessment: Is it

uni-dimensional or multi-dimensional?
Shehu Usman Adam a , Mad Nasir Shamsudin b, , Shauque F. Sidique c ,
Khalid Abdul Rahim d , Alias Radam d
a

Federal University Lokoja, P.M.B 1154, Lokoja, Kogi State, Nigeria

Faculty of Environmental Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia
c
Institute of Agricultural and Food Policy Studies, Putra Infoport, Universiti Putra Malaysia
d
Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 23 October 2014
Received in revised form 4 January 2015
Accepted 13 February 2015
Keywords:
Solid waste pollution
Environmental concern
Solid waste management
Factor analysis

a b s t r a c t
Pollution concern has been established as an important predictor of economic value ascription related to
solid waste service improvement, such as recycling. However, the variable is not directly observable and
as such, its inuence is captured by existing applied economics papers via yes or no discrete-nominal
measure. Such measure assumes the variable has one dimension. This leads to loss of information, considering its multi-dimensional structure in theory. It thus implies that, if a respondent in an economic
valuation study indicates a support for an improvement signied by a yes response to valuation question, a uni-dimensional dummy variable cannot tell what dimension of concern the respondent subscribes
to. Despite this importance of understanding the variables dimension, it has rarely been explored. This
study investigates such dimensions and our ndings support the existence of both the theoretically
espoused dual and tripartite factor models. This implies a possible misspecication in existing solid
waste related studies that have most often captured the variables via uni-dimensional nominal-discrete
measure.
2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction
Environmental concern is recently acknowledged as an important non-economic motivator of pro-environmental activities
which affect welfare estimates in economic valuation of environmental resources. This variable is broadly expressed in the context
of environmental concern (Ojea and Loureiro, 2007; Stern et al.,
1993; Stern and Dietz, 1994; Whittaker et al., 2005). Environmental concern is understood to have a few distinct dimensions and
all dimensions are believed to simultaneously exist in all humans,
motivating us to obtain utility from pro-environmental activities
even at some costs (Stern et al., 1993; Stern and Dietz, 1994;
Thompson and Barton, 1994).
Concern is a form of attitude or ethical consideration (Stern
et al., 1993; Stern and Dietz, 1994; Ojea and Loureiro, 2007).
However, economists have generally given little attention to the
consideration of all forms of attitudes, including concern, in

Corresponding author at: Faculty of Environmental Studies, Universiti Putra

Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.
Tel.: +603 8946 6024.
E-mail address: mns@upm.edu.my (M.N. Shamsudin).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.02.007
0921-3449/ 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.

estimating economic value. This is because attitude is viewed to

belong outside the realm of economics (Moissennen, 1990; Ojea
and Loureiro, 2007). Notwithstanding, the relationship between
attitude and economic value has been acknowledged in environmental economics literature (Mitchell and Carson, 1989; Bateman
et al., 2002). Accordingly, a few economic valuation studies have
empirically estimated the impact of attitude, and specically
environmental concern on economic value (Stern et al., 1993;
Moisseinen 1990; Ojea and Loureiro, 2007). However, these previous studies estimate the impact of general environmental concern
which could be misleading as concern on specic environmental
issues might have unique results (Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980).
To avoid this, Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) suggest studies to be focused on concerns specic to distinct environmental
issues. Accordingly, Mohai and Bryant (1998) and Mohai (2003)
have examined concerns specic to distinct environmental issues,
including solid waste related issues. Thus, solid waste pollution
concern is one of the specic dimensions of environmental concerns. This variable is commonly applied in economic valuation
studies on different aspects of solid waste management service. A
survey of existing studies reveals that all the previous studies that
include solid waste pollution concern found it statistically signicant in determining economic value estimates.

50

S.U. Adam et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104 (2015) 4960

Afroz et al. (2009), Afroz and Masud (2011), Jin et al. (2006),
and Othman (2003, 2007) assess the impact of solid waste pollution concern on willingness to pay (WTP) for waste management
service improvement. Meanwhile, Jamelske and Kipperberg (2006)
and Tadesse (2009) assess its impact on WTP for solid waste recycling service and willingness to separate solid waste. Similarly, Pek
and Jamal (2011) examine the impact of concern for solid waste
on WTP for the benets of solid waste alternative disposal options.
These studies have credibly examined the impact of environmental
concern specic to solid waste or particularly solid waste pollution
concern on economic value or WTP for solid waste improvement
or willingness to separate solid waste.
However, all aforementioned studies capture solid waste pollution concern as a YesNo discrete variable, allowing a great
deal of information to be lost. This is because such conceptualization ignores the distinct dimensions of the variable. In theory,
at least, two to three dimensions of such concern exist synchronously in every individual but not all such dimensions may
be activated to inuence solid waste management related proenvironmentalism such as paying for its improvement (Stern and
Dietz, 1994; Thompson and Barton, 1994). Thus, pollution concern
data collected based on YesNo discrete measure as presently
adopted in existing studies provide no information on what dimension of its structure is activated in support of value ascription. At
best, it only gives insight into the relationship between economic
value and concern. Meanwhile, information on such is important to inform policy on what dimension to focus when designing
awareness campaign programs to trigger support for solid waste
management improvement or related policies.
To address the above issue, this study assesses the dimensions
of solid waste pollution concern that could affect its related value
ascription by individuals. As far as our knowledge goes, this study is
the rst to examine such dimensions in the context of solid waste
pollution concern. The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 discusses the dimensions of concern based on relevant
frameworks, followed by discussion on the method of analysis in
Section 3. Section 4 presents the studys results and discussion, and
Section 5 concludes.

2. Concern dimensions in theory

There exists no scale on environmental concern specic to solid
waste pollution. This is despite the inconclusiveness of the relationship between demographic variables and environmental concern,
which has led Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) to suggest future studies
to focus on analyzing concerns specic to distinct environmental
issues (Whittaker et al., 2005). Since this has not been explored for
solid waste pollution concern, this study starts by adapting instruments from the existing general environmental concern scale. To
begin with, we draw from the existing literature on general environmental concern with the intent to ensure that the underlying
pollution concern orientations are captured within the context
of solid waste. This study acknowledges that the New Ecological
Paradigm scale (NEP) developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978)
was the rst to incorporate a sizeable number of items to measure
general environmental concern (Stern et al., 1993). However, in
adapting the instrument to capture the relevant dimensions, this
study draws on the motivational frameworks proposed by Stern
et al. (1993), Stern and Dietz (1994), and Thompson and Barton
(1994). These frameworks of general environmental concern which
are partly based on the earlier NEP scale, have been used by other
studies such as Amrigo et al. (2005, 2007).
The group of Paul C. Stern (Stern et al., 1993, 1995; Stern and
Dietz, 1994) offers one of the most concise contributions to the
scope of the value bases of environmental concern. These authors

believed there are at least three value dimensions that underlie environmental concern, attitude or environmentalism. They
noted that egoistic value which emphasizes environmental concern evoked by the motivation to protect the environment for the
benet of ones self is one of the value orientations that underlie concern. Secondly, drawing from Schwartzs theory of altruism
(Schwartz, 1968a, 1968b, 1970, 1977) they established that there
is a social or altruistic motivation behind environmental concern.
This entails holding a concern in favor of the environment solely to
enhance the welfare of other human beings.
The third orientation they perceived is the value orientation
toward non-human species or the biosphere itself as propagated
by ecologists such as the land ethic by Leopold (1948) as well
as environmentalists (Stern and Dietz, 1994). Biospheric concern
as instrument items appeared early in the works of Dunlap and
Liere (1977a, 1977b) and Heberlein (1972, 1977). This is conceived
within the framework of Stern et al. (1993) as a form of altruism that
transcends human welfare to the welfare of non-human species.
This implies some conceptual correlations between biospherism
and altruism.
Stern et al. (1993) noted that the three aforementioned value
orientations of environmental concern are not held in exclusivity.
Rather, they may be compatible and peoples environmental concern reects some mixture of the three orientations. However, the
authors obtained a statistically insignicant correlation between
egoistic and biospheric values.
Alternatively, Thompson and Barton (1994) introduced a similar
but slightly different conceptualization of environmental concern
structure based on anthropocentricecocentric distinctions. This
theoretical framework posits that there are at least two value orientations underlying concern for environmental issues. As with
Stern et al. (1993), they concluded that individuals holding either or
both orientations engage in pro-environmental activities, but the
purpose of their engagement differs. Ecocentric individuals value
the nature only for its sake and protect it based on its intrinsic
value. Meanwhile, anthropocentrics engage in pro-environmental
activities on account of its value to enhance the quality of life
for humans (Thompson and Barton, 1994). Anthropocentrism is
human-centered while ecocentrism emphasizes the wellbeing of
nature even at the expense of material loss.
Hence, they pointed that the motives are distinguishable which
would suggest low conceptual correlation among the dimensions.
In a further elaboration, Thompson and Barton (1994) compared
their framework of environmental concern to the earlier model
by Stern et al. (1993). They pointed that both egoistic and socialaltruistic values in the earlier theoretical framework are equivalent
to their concept of anthropocentric value because they focus on
outcomes for humans. Whereas, they noted that, biospheric value
in the earlier framework is equivalent to their ecocentric motive.
Thus under Thompson and Bartons (1994) framework, we expect
a convergence between egoistic and social-altruistic values to form
anthropocentric value while a low correlation is expected between
the latter and the ecocentric value. It is therefore not surprising that
their study reported a non-signicant correlation between these
two dimensions of anthropocentric and biospheric (ecocentric) values.
A few studies have attempted conrming the dimensions of general environmental concern by using a reduced version of existing
scales. These include Amrigo et al. (2005, 2007) and Straughan
and Roberts (1999). The present study aims at determining the
dimensions of solid waste pollution concern. We rely on the two
prominent frameworks of concern presented in Stern et al. (1993),
Thompson and Barton (1994) and Amrigo et al. (2007). These
two theories are presented in Fig. 1. It is instructive to note that
the items used to demonstrate the concern dimensions in these
previous studies are generic, comprising myriad of environmental

S.U. Adam et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104 (2015) 4960

Tripartite theory of
Value/Attitude/ Concern

51

Dualistic theory of
Value/Attitude/ Concern

Egoistic Concern

Anthropocentric
Concern
Environmental
(Pollution)
Concern

Social-Altruistic
Concern

Ecocentric
Concern
Biospheric
Concern

Stern et al., (1993)

Thompson and Barton

(1994)

Fig. 1. Theoretical framework for environmental concern dimensions.

issues. Our unique contribution lies in the adaption of the same

questionnaire items, reworded specically for solid waste pollution. This is motivated by the recent stride for solid waste-related
pro-environmental activities.
Both the tripartite and dualistic conceptualizations of the theory
of the value bases of environmental concern depicted in Fig. 1 are
consistent in terms of scope. This is evident in the study by Amrigo
et al. (2007). However, the major difference arises in disaggregation of the underlying concern dimensions into specic orientations
that provide the bases for inuencing pro-environmental actions.
In other words, the variant sub-theories differ in dening the purpose of environmentalists engagement in environmentalism. The
tripartite theory by Stern and colleagues conceives egoism, altruism
and biospherism as distinct but related purposes of engagement.
On the other hand, the dualistic theory by Thompson and Barton
identies only two distinct, yet correlated purposes of engagement. Unlike the former, in the latter case, both the egoistic and
altruistic purposes which are human centered are merged into
one, called anthropocentric concern as shown in Fig. 1. Yet, similar
to the former, the latter conceives concern for the nature which
is non-human to be driven by biospherism, specically dubbed
eco-centrism (Thompson and Barton, 1994). Thus, these two conceptualizations of concern (the dualistic and tripartite structures)
are contrasted in this study to nd the dimensions of solid waste
pollution concern.
3. Methods

is dubbed the Worlds fastest growing urban center (UN-HABITAT,

2006a,b; Campbell, 2012). The city is a conurbation of many settlements, including rural areas but the rise of urban slums in Lagos
is largely due to inadequate housing and basic services caused by
unplanned expansion (Aluko, 2010; Felix, 2007).
The urbanslum segment of the population was targeted
because it recorded the least cases of proper solid waste disposal
according to the 2009 country-wide general household survey conducted by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2010). As shown in
Table 1, the micro data analysis shows that about 86% of the total
incidences of improper waste disposal in Lagos state occurred in
rural areas which are mostly urbanslums. In addition, prior interviews reveal that private waste collectors face more challenges
arising from relatively poor cooperation by households in those
communities, most of whom are poor. This is consistent with the
ndings by Anestina et al. (2014).
3.2. Sampling and questionnaire administration
Data collection was done through face-to-face administration of
questionnaire to representatives of households. Household members above 18 years old were considered suitable for recruitment as
relevant respondent, with priority given to household-heads. The
questionnaires were distributed by 10 trained interviewers. The
Table 1
Contingency table for disposal methods across urban and rural sectors of Lagos.
Disposal methods

3.1. Participants
The respondents for this study were household representatives
in urbanslum areas of Lagos state in Nigeria. Slums are settlements characterized by inadequate housing and basic services
(UN-HABITAT, 2007). These characteristics dene the suburbs of
Lagos, which arises as a result of the citys high rate of urbanization
which causes urban sprawl (Aluko, 2010; Felix, 2007). Usually rural
areas are considered as areas outside urban metropolitan region.
However, in places characterized by high rate of urbanization leading to the scenario of urban sprawl, the city-center expands until
it engulfs its suburbs (Felix, 2007). This is the case of Lagos, which

Sectors
Urban areas
Count
% within sector
% within disposal type
% of total
Rural areas
Count
% within sector
% within disposal type
% of total

Total

Improper disposal

Proper disposal

53
15.2%
37.9%
11.8%

296
84.8%
95.5%
65.8%

349
100%
77.6%
77.6%

87
86.1%
62.1%
19.3%

14
13.9%
4.5%
3.1%

101
100%
22.4%
22.4%

Computed from 2009 general household survey (NBS, 2010).

52

S.U. Adam et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104 (2015) 4960

Table 2
Test items for environmental concern in the questionnaire.
Egoistic concern items

Biospheric concern items

1.

I am happy to be in an environment
clean of solid waste pollution (2)

5.

2.

When I am unhappy, I nd comfort in

environmental beauty (3)

6.

3.

I am sad to see the environment

polluted with solid waste (4)

7.

4.

A tidy environment is a source of stress

reducer for me (5)

8.

Prevention of solid waste is

more important than proper
disposal (1)
A clean natural environment is
valuable in its own right (2)
A clean environment is meant
for the benet of all living
things (4)
The negative impact of solid
waste pollution on the
environment has been
exaggerated (10 and 12)

Social-altruistic concern items

9.

10.

11.

12.

I support proper management

of waste because it generates
income (4)
I am sad about communities
exposure to diseases in dirty
places (1)
Increase in solid waste
generation is not too bad if it
assures satisfaction (5)
I support proper management
of waste because it creates
more jobs in Lagos (3)

Survey questionnaire.

questionnaire was broadly divided into three sections, which are

demographic, attitudinal concern and economic valuation.
A total of 300 questionnaires were completed via in-home
survey whereby enumerators went house-to-house to conduct
face-to-face interviews. Since reference list of households do not
exist in such slum areas, but clusters such as the number of wards
and streets are known, multistage cluster sampling technique was
used to recruit households. Firstly, Apapa Iganmu LCDA, a lowincome local government area of the state was selected among
fteen potential areas. That was followed by the second cluster of
random sampling where two administrative wards namely, Badia
and Sari, were selected. In the third cluster, ve streets were each
selected from the two wards and subsequently, 30 households were
randomly chosen within each street. Finally, a household representative within each of the selected households is administered
the questionnaire. Sampling in this last stage is not randomized
as preference is given to household heads, where available, since
they are the ones who pick up the bills for the households solid
waste management service. Such non-randomness of selection in
this nal stage is common in household surveys (Bateman et al.,
2002). Yet, beyond the practical relevance of such non-randomness,
it could bias estimated parameters. Out of the 300 questionnaires
administered, only 249 were reasonably completed.
3.3. Scales and measures
The data for this study was collected between September and
December of 2012. Although, the questionnaire was part of a bigger
research, the mean time employed to ll in the concern questions
was 6 min. To measure concern about the environment, specic
to solid waste pollution, we adapted the concern instrument by
Amrigo et al. (2007). The instrument which was generic in its coverage was reworded to reect only solid waste concern issues. The
instrument itself was a reduced version of the scale by Thompson
and Barton (1994). The questionnaire contained 12 items measuring each of the hypothesized dimensions. These include egoistic
(4 items), biospheric (4 items), and social-altruistic (4 items),
as shown in Table 2. The response anchor contains a ve-point
Likert-scale with one denoting strongly disagree and ve, strongly
agree about attitudinal concern questions on solid waste pollutionrelated issues. In Table 2, the gures in parentheses indicate the
respective numbers assigned to the original items in the sources
used. All items were adapted from Amrigo et al. (2007) except for
item 8.
Item 8 which is worded in the questionnaire as the negative
impact of solid waste pollution on the environment has been exaggerated was adapted from Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) and Dunlap
et al. (2000). The inclusion of this item was deemed t because it
was found repeatedly emphasized both in the original and revised

scales of the popular New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale. The

items by Dunlap and colleagues were worthwhile of consideration
in lieu of the measure being the most widely used in social psychology of environmentalism (Stern et al., 1999). In the last section
of the questionnaire, household representatives were requested to
respond to socio-demographic questions, such as income, education, gender and age.
3.4. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) technique
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a suitable statistical technique for measuring unobservable variables such as solid waste
pollution concern (Pallant, 2010; Hair et al., 2010). EFA is usually specied such that the measured indicators (items used to
measure the unobserved latent variables) are expressed as linear
combinations of both the underlying common and unique factors
(Bartholomew, 2007). The underlying common factors denoted by
f in Eq. (1) represent the number of latent constructs found to
describe the structure of a set of items or variables. Meanwhile, the
unique factors represented by E describe the variation in each of
the measured variables not explained by the underlying factors.
These are commonly referred to as the error variances.
xi = i1 f1 + i2 f2 + + iq fq + Ei ,

(i = 1, 2, . . ., p)

(1)

Eq. (1) denotes a factor analysis for the vectors of X observed variables and F underlying common factors such that:
X = (x1 , x2 , . . ., xp ), F = (f1 , f2 , . . ., fq ) and  is a constant (called
factor loadings/weight) denoting the correlation between individual components of X and F. In a more concise form capturing the
vectors of X, F,  and E, Eq. (1) could be re-specied as:
X = F + E
where X is a matrix of the measured items/variables, F is a matrix
of underlying structure (common factors),  is a matrix of factor
loadings, E is a matrix of error variance (unique factors).
Based on this specication, factor analysis permits the location
of each of the sampled individuals within the factor space (F-space)
based on their observed values (i.e., responses to questionnaire
items X). Thus, in the specic application of the present study, X
denotes all the 12 individual indicators of solid waste pollution
dimensions (xi ) while F represents the three or two dimensions
(fi ) respectively hypothesized under the tripartite and dual factor
models.
3.5. Analysis procedure
The data obtained was subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to respectively determine the dimensional structure for

S.U. Adam et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104 (2015) 4960

53

Table 3
Respondents summary statistics.
Socioeconomic variables
Gender
Male
Female
Marital status
Single
Married
Others
Age
Years of educational attainment
Never been to school
Primary school
Secondary school
N.C.E/diploma
University/HND
Occupation
Civil servant
Private sector
Pension
Self-employed
Housewife
Unemployed
Number of households in apartments
Monthly family income ( )
10,000 50,000
51,000
101,000
>

100,000
200,000

200,000

Frequency

Percentage

162
138

54
46

65
229
6

21.7
76.3
2

75
23
82
82
38

25
7.7
27.3
27.3
12.7

27
65
9
156
17
26

9
21.7
3
52
5.7
8.7

158

52.7

110

36.7

31

10.3

0.3

solid waste pollution concern. EFA is not theory driven, it is used

purposefully on account of its prociency at collapsing indicators
of unobserved variables into clumps via data reduction technique
(Thompson, 2004). It is not aimed at hypothesis testing but to
look for how variables form distinct clumps as explanations for
some underlying latent constructs based on their inter-correlations
(Pallant, 2010). This is necessary to provide a justiable ground
for computing an aggregate value in respect of each dimension for
further analyses. Accordingly, it was deemed necessary to explore
how the entire adapted concern variables (items) group together
to dene some structural dimensions. It is however instructive to
note that measures for each dimension would have to be subjected
to reliability analysis to determine whether they truly measure the
same latent constructs (Santos, 1999; Pallant, 2010).

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Demographic characteristics of respondents
The summary of respondents demographic characteristics is
shown in Table 3. Their disparity across gender shows that the
male (n = 162) constitute 54% while the female (n = 138) accounts
for a relatively smaller proportion of 46%. Only 75% of the sample
constitutes literate adults in terms of formal school educational
attainment. The occupational distribution of the sample shows
that majority (52%) of respondents are self-employed while the
pensioners and unemployed respectively constitute 3% and 8.7%.
Others include private sector workers (22%), civil servants (9%),
and housewives (5.7%). On average, there are 13 households in
each residential building. This gure conforms to the fact that
there are a minimum number of 7 households in each residential
building in such areas (Lukeman et al., 2014). Among these households, majority (89%) reported earning total household monthly
income ranging between 10,000 to 100,000. The mean household income reported by respondents is approximately 58,000.

Mean

Std. deviation

0.54

0.49

35.43
9.87

8.99
6.23

12.96
58,333.3

4.95
39,132.6

According to UNICEF1 the 2012 monthly average income in Nigeria

is
19,067.2 This implies an average daily income of USD3.9 per
day. Meanwhile, even if a very conservative estimate of the national
household size of ve members per household3 is used to compute
monthly and daily income based on the income levels claimed by
the sampled respondents, the gures fall below UNICEFs estimate.
This depicts that households in the sampled neighborhoods are, on
average, the poor who earn below the estimated national per capita
income.
4.2. Data normality and reliability of concern items
During the data cleaning process, outliers and missing observations were deleted. This reduces the sample size from 249 (with
missing values and outliers) to 234 usable observations. Out of the
15 observations that were deleted, 11 contain missing responses to
most of the concern items while the remaining 4 were conceived
outliers. The determination of outliers was based on Hair et al.s
(2010) univariate outlier detection procedure where standardized values in respect of responses to indicators are not expected
to exceed 4 in large samples. Since the skewness and kurtosis absolute values in Table 4 are less than 1 across all items,
it is admissible that the observed data is reasonably normal for
all indicators. Besides, normal probability plot is used to examine
the normality of the data using quantilequantile plot (QQ Plot).
Except for random uctuations, the visibility of diagonal linear lines
in the QQ plots shown in Figs. 213, evidences normality of the
observed indicators data.
On average, the mean values in Table 4 show that respondents
highest concern for solid waste pollution is based on its impact on

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/nigeria statistics.html.
This is based on the exchange rate of 1 USD =
160.
This estimate is provided by the National Bureau of statistics, Nigeria. It is available at: http://nigeria.prognoz.com/en/DataAnalysis.
2
3

54

S.U. Adam et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104 (2015) 4960

Table 4
Summary statistics, reliability and univariate normality for attitudinal concern items.
Attitudinal concern dimensions (n)

Mean

Egoistic concern
EGO1
EGO2
EGO3
EGO4

4.44

Biospheric concern
BIO1
BIO2
BIO3
BIO4 R

2.64

Social-altruistic concern
SOCTR1
SOCTR2
SOCTR3 R
SOCTR4
Observations

4.17

Std. deviation

Skewness

Kurtosis

Overall Cronbachs alpha

Individual items Cronbachs alpha

0.814
0.623
0.687
0.659
0.666

0.891
0.705
0.713
0.743

0.227
0.651
0.548
0.536

0.894
0.851
0.822
0.826

0.301
0.579
0.539
0.363

0.751
0.146
0.072
0.182

0.666
0.704
0.743
0.698

0.624
0.424
0.12
0.214

0.653
0.919
0.505
0.939

0.77
0.75
0.75
0.78
0.776
0.714
0.732
0.695
0.747
0.732
0.702
0.613
0.654
0.712

234

Inverse Normal

Inverse Normal

Fig. 4. Concern indicator (item) 3.

own-self, that is, egoistic concern. This was followed by concern on

others (social-altruistic) and lastly, concern on nature (biospheric).
Having established that there are descriptive differences between
the three dimensions of concern with each being reliable, it is necessary to determine whether the hypothesized categories of items

represent distinct dimensions. This is necessary to justify aggregation under each sub-dimension for further analysis (Barr, 2007).
As suggested by Santos (1999), reliability analysis aims at testing
the internal consistency of each dimension and it precedes factor
analysis.

Fig. 2. Concern indicator (item) 1.

4
Inverse Normal

Fig. 3. Concern indicator (item) 2.

Inverse Normal

Fig. 5. Concern indicator (item) 4.

55

S.U. Adam et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104 (2015) 4960

2
3
Inverse Normal

2
3
Inverse Normal

Fig. 9. Concern indicator (item) 8.

Fig. 6. Concern indicator (item) 5.

2
3
Inverse Normal

4
Inverse Normal

Fig. 10. Concern indicator (item) 9.

Fig. 7. Concern indicator (item) 6.

parallel reliability and Cronbachs alpha (Coakes et al., 2009). The

Cronbachs alpha method which is the most commonly applied
measure is employed in this study (Kline, 2005; Coakes et al., 2009).
Table 4 shows both constructs and items reliability based on Cronbachs alpha coefcient. Both the standardized and unstandardized

Reliability measures the extent to which multiple-choice itemsscores obtained from questionnaire responses for each underlying
variable are free from random measurement error (Kline, 2005).
There are several tests of reliability, including; the testretest,
split-half reliability, Guttman reliability, Parallel reliability, strictly

3
Inverse Normal

Fig. 8. Concern indicator (item) 7.

4
Inverse Normal

Fig. 11. Concern indicator (item) 10.

56

S.U. Adam et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104 (2015) 4960

( = 0.73) were all reliable. This implies that the items for each
of the latent sub-dimensions of concern are internally consistent.
This provides a good justication for analyzing the data from the
questionnaire (Barr, 2007).

4.3. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) result

4
Inverse Normal

Fig. 12. Concern indicator (item) 11.

Cronbach alpha coefcients are reported. The standardized coefcients are obtained from the average correlation of standardized
items-scores within a dimension. Meanwhile, unstandardized
coefcients are computed based on the average covariance itemsscores within a dimension. Cronbachs alpha could be interpreted
similar to correlation coefcient with its value ranging from 1 to 0.
When the scales for measuring a particular variable, such as the
concern for solid waste pollution, contain sub-scales (dimensions)
that may not necessarily be combined, it is more appropriate to
calculate reliability for each dimension separately (Pallant, 2010).
Reliability coefcient is sensitive to both sample size and the number of items that form each scale. As such, it is not uncommon
to nd coefcients as low as 0.5 (Pallant, 2010). While no gold
standard exist as to how high the reliability coefcient should be,
there is general consensus. Reliability coefcients 0.90 is considered excellent, a value 0.80 is deemed very good, while values
0.70 are considered ideal (Kline, 2005; Pallant, 2010).
Accordingly, the reliability of sub-dimensions of concern was
assessed based on Cronbachs alpha. All individual items reliability ranges from 0.61 to 0.78, as shown in Table 4. Their coefcients
were found to be less than the overall computed reliability value
for each dimension. This suggests the appropriateness of all items
(Coakes et al., 2009; Pallant, 2010). On the other hand, the reliability
for each aggregate dimension ranges from 0.73 to 0.81. Egoistic concern ( = 0.81), biospheric concern ( = 0.77), and social-altruistic

4
Inverse Normal

Fig. 13. Concern indicator (item) 12.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) are the two major types of analyses based on the statistical
common factor model (Brown, 2006, 2012; Cudeck and MacCallum,
2012; Thompson, 2004). However, EFA is used in this study since
the objective is only to explore the underlying dimensions of
concern. The indispensable issue of concern under EFA is the factorability of items. This could be disaggregated into sample size
requirement, sufcient inter-correlation both for individual items
and the entire items as a whole and the avoidance of outliers
(Pallant, 2010; Coakes et al., 2009). The rst factorability prerequisite of sample size requirement is met since the ratio of indicator
to free parameter exceeds 1:10 as evidenced by the sample size
of 234 for a maximum of three factors (Westland, 2010; Nunnally,
1978).
In the case of the second factorability requirement aforementioned, Tabachnick and Fidell (2006) suggested the inter-items
correlations to be examined for the dominance of associations
greater than 0.3. The inter-items correlations result shown in Table
1 in Appendix, evidences the fulllment of this requirement. Furthermore, the factorability requirement of sample adequacy for
individual items was examined. This was conrmed via the antiimage correlation matrix which is used to determine the sampling
adequacy of each item (variable). As shown in Table 5, the values
obtained for the items in this study range from 0.69 to 0.88. These
values, which are shown along the diagonal of Table 5, are greater
than the least acceptable threshold of 0.5 (Coakes et al., 2009; Hair
et al., 2010). This implies that all items are sufciently sampled to
permit factor analysis.
As for the last factorability requirement of overall items sample
adequacy, the KMO as well as Bertletts test of sphericity, reported
in Table 5 were found within acceptable thresholds. This justies the factorability of items. Since KMO value is greater than the
threshold of 0.6 and Bertletts test of sphericity is less than 0.05, the
factorability of all items is this study is assumed appropriate.
The next important item entails researchers employment of factor extraction method. There exist a long list of methods including
principal components, principal factors, image factoring, maximum
likelihood factoring, alpha factoring, unweighted least square and
generalized least square (Pallant, 2010). However, the most common approach (principal components) is applied in this study.
To determine the exact number of factors to be extracted, three
approaches were employed. These include the Kaiser criterion, the
scree plot and parallel analysis. While the rst two are directly
included in SPSS output, the third technique proposed by Horn
(1965), is not generated in the output. Thus, it was computed using
Monte Carlo PCA software for parallel analysis (Watkins, 2000).
The computation of result based on this last method is considered very important as both the Kaiser criterion and scree plot
potentially overestimate the true number of components (Pallant,
2010). To obtain an interpretable factor pattern, direct Oblimin
(oblique) rotation was used to examine which items converge
together. This choice of rotation method is based on the theoretical expectation that concern dimensions have correlated structural
dimensions.
To determine the appropriate number of factors to extract, it
is necessary to refer to the magnitude of eigenvalue greater than
one in Table 6 (Kaiser criterion). Another criterion entails observing the number of factors above the elbow of Cattells (1966) scree
plot shown in Fig. 1 of Appendix. Although determining the point

S.U. Adam et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104 (2015) 4960

57

Table 5
Overall and individual items measure of sample adequacy (MSA).
Individual items measure of sample adequacy
EGO1
EGO2
EGO3
EGO4
BIO1
BIO2
BIO3
BIO4 R
SOCTR1
SOCTR2
SOCTR3 R
SOCTR4

0.86a
0.30
0.13
0.18
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.13
0.00
0.15
0.06
0.08

0.85a
0.36
0.01
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.07
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.18

0.82a
0.31
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.09
0.02
0.01
0.17
0.10

0.87a
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.21
0.11
0.02
0.05

0.70a
0.00
0.29
0.45
0.13
0.02
0.09
0.11

0.70a
0.53
0.16
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.04

0.69a
0.03
0.00
0.09
0.01
0.06

0.71a
0.010
0.01
0.02
0.03

0.88a
0.26
0.05
0.04

0.86a
0.11
0.31

0.87a
0.25

0.83a

Overall items measure of sample adequacy

0.814b

KaiserMeyerOlkin measure of sample adequacy (KMO)

Bertletts test of sphericity
Approx. Chi-square
Degree of freedom
P-value
a
b

952.9
66
0.0000

Denotes individual measures of sample adequacy.

Denotes collective measures of sample adequacy.

Table 6
Total variance explained and components extraction based on eigenvalues.
Component

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Initial eigenvalues

Extraction sums of squared loadings

Total

% of variance

Cumulative %

Total

% of variance

Cumulative %

3.892779
2.501591
0.935763
0.842889
0.736322
0.628709
0.510187
0.490404
0.420386
0.398045
0.335388
0.307537

32.43983
20.84659
7.798029
7.024075
6.136016
5.239243
4.251556
4.086702
3.503215
3.317038
2.794901
2.562809

32.43983
53.28642
61.08445
68.10852
74.24454
79.48378
83.73534
87.82204
91.32525
94.64229
97.43719
100

3.892779
2.501591
0.935763

32.43983
20.84659
7.798029

32.43983
53.28642
61.08445

where the elbow begins on the scree plot can be quite subjective,
the eigenvalue suggests only two factors extraction to explain solid
waste pollution concern. Together, the two factors explain 53.3% of
variation in households solid waste pollution concern. It could be
reasonable to consider the third factor which has an eigenvalue
close to 1 (i.e., 0.9). This increases the total variance explained to
about 61%. Yet, the parallel analysis result in Table 7 would not
suggest such. This is because factors beyond the rst-two are all
rejected. Hence, using a strictly exploratory EFA, we could conclude
that the result obtained supports the existence of a dual-concern

structure rather the tripartite alternative. All factor loadings exceed

their minimum cut-off range of 0.350.4 for sample size exceeding
200 (Hair et al., 2010: 117).
Table 8 shows the dimensions which evidences that both the
egoistic and social-altruistic items load together, while the biospheric items load separately as related but distinct factor. This
supports the existence of a dual-factor environmental concern
model popularized by Thompson and Barton (1994). In the specic
case of this study, it implies that the human-centered dimensions of solid waste pollution concern load separately from the

Table 7
Parallel analysis result.
Component number

Actual eigenvalue from PCA

Random eigenvalue (criterion value) from parallel analysis

Decision rule

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

3.892779
2.501591
0.935763
0.842889
0.736322
0.628709
0.510187
0.490404
0.420386
0.398045
0.335388
0.307537

1.3849
1.2809
1.2036
1.1345
1.0727
1.0128
0.9592
0.9043
0.8507
0.7941
0.7368
0.6656

Accept
Accept
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject

58

S.U. Adam et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104 (2015) 4960

Table 8
Two-factor structure for solid waste pollution concern solution.
Questionnaire items

Pattern matrixa

Structure matrixa

Anthropocentric concern
EGO2
SOCTR2
EGO1
EGO4
EGO3
SOCTR4
SOCTR1
SOCTR3 R
BIO3
BIO1
BIO2
BIO4 R

Biospheric concern

Communalitiesa

Anthropocentric concern

0.771
0.737
0.728
0.722
0.714
0.675
0.627
0.57

Biospheric concern

(Explained items variance)

0.809
0.786
0.761
0.714

0.599
0.567
0.534
0.547
0.515
0.462
0.451
0.337
0.657
0.626
0.585
0.514

0.77
0.739
0.727
0.721
0.713
0.674
0.629
0.571
0.808
0.787
0.76
0.715

Correlation

Anthrop

Biosph

Anthrop
Biosph

0.01
1

Factors are extracted using principal component analysis (PCA) based on oblique rotation with Kaiser normalization.

non-human centered concern dimension. These respectively

denote the anthropocentric and eco-centric distinction portrayed
in the two-factor theory.

4.4. Does a three-dimensional factor exist?

Having examined solid waste pollution concern dimension
using a strictly exploratory EFA, it is worth mentioning that EFA
procedure to factor analysis comprises a family of choices with no
hard and fast rules (Thompson, 2004). No single statistical procedure is sufcient to justify the evaluation of the number of factor
extraction. This is because, eigenvalue like all other statistics is
not immune to sampling error and therefore, based on theory and
previous related EFA research, eigenvalue either slightly above or
below 1 could be retained or rejected (Thompson, 2004: 32). In a
corroboratory statement, Gorsuch (2003) noted that no EFA is completely exploratory as would be expected based on statistics since
we still need to make some logical considerations. For instance, we
need to decide what choice of factor rotation technique to use. This
is despite the acknowledgment that different factor analytic rotation techniques might yield dissimilar results due to EFA model
non-identication problem (Kline, 2011).

Thus, EFA could be done in a less exploratory way when we have

ideas about existing dimensions based on theory (Kline, 2011: 116;
Hair et al., 2010: 111). This could be done by constraining the number of factors based on theoretically expected outcomes. As such,
this study further conducts a less exploratory fashion of EFA for
solid waste pollution concern measure via ex-post specication of
three dimensions, theoretically consistent with the tripartite model
in Fig. 1. The MSA measure and components extraction based on
eigenvalues yield a higher proportion of variance explained to the
tune of 61% relative to 53% obtained under the strictly exploratory
fashion with two-factor outcomes. Although the eigenvalue of the
third component has a value of 0.9, which is slightly below 1,
this eigenvalue is high enough to increase the proportion of variance explained to 61%. This is determined by dividing the sum
of eigenvalues from extracted factors by the number of measured
indicators.
All items from the less exploratory EFA result shown in Table 9
have factor loadings above 0.4 with respective communalities
greater than 0.3. This is considered appropriate (Pallant, 2010). The
fulllment of such criterion implies that all items do t well with
other items in their respective components. Hence, the conduct of
EFA in a less exploratory fashion based on ex-post consideration
of the tripartite structure yields statistically admissive clumps of

Table 9
Three-Factor Structure for Solid Waste Pollution Concern solution.
Questionnaire items

Pattern matrixa
Ego

EGO3
EGO2
EGO4
EGO1
BIO1
BIO3
BIO4 R
BIO2
SOCTR4
SOCTR2
SOCTR3 R
SOCTR1

Structure matrixa
Bio

Altr

0.902
0.736
0.719
0.648

Ego

Communalitiesa
Bio

Altr

(Explained items variance)

0.812
0.782
0.648
0.573

0.563
0.654
0.733
0.606
0.654
0.612
0.664
0.610
0.457
0.655
0.693
0.430

0.849
0.799
0.767
0.732
0.807
0.780
0.765
0.716

0.798
0.796
0.742
0.740
0.808
0.678
0.600
0.411

Correlation

Ego

Bio

Altr

Ego
Bio
Altr

0.031
1

0.445
0.068
1

Factors are extracted using principal component analysis (PCA) based on oblique rotation with Kaiser normalization.

S.U. Adam et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104 (2015) 4960

three factors. Besides, as expected, the egoistic and social-altruistic

factors in the tripartite model which belong to the broader group of
anthropocentric factor in the dual-factor model show a signicant
correlation of up to 0.45. This is unlike the low and insignicant
correlation between biospheric and any of the egoistic and socialaltruistic dimensions which ranges between 0.03 and 0.07. This
result conforms to the notion inherent in both models.
5. Conclusion
This study investigates the dimensions of solid waste pollution concern via the broader lens of environmental concern. Based
on our ndings, the most comfortable conclusion that could be
reached is the way items in each dimension converge without any
item loading signicantly in a different factor or dimension. While
the results are interesting, reaching a conclusion on the structure
of solid waste concern apparently depends on whether a strictly
exploratory or less exploratory EFA is adopted. The theoretically
espoused two-factor model for concern is supported when a strictly
exploratory EFA was used. Meanwhile, the tripartite dimension
model for solid waste pollution concern is found using a fashion of EFA constrained by theoretical outcomes in favor of three
dimensions. This establishes the potential for the existence of both
conceptualizations of solid waste pollution concern. What seems
to be of overriding importance in our ndings is the non-existence
of uni-dimensional variable for solid waste pollution concern as
assumed when the nominal-discrete measure commonly used in
existing literature is adopted. This conforms to theoretical expectations based on both the dual-factor and tripartite-factor models.
To the extent that this is conrmed across different jurisdictions,
the nominal-discrete measure of pollution concern commonly used
in existing literature on economic value ascription for solid waste
management service in non-market benet or cost assessment
might not be appropriate. As such, subsequent related economic
value studies are suggested to incorporate variables to capture all
relevant dimensions.
However, further analysis that will allow inference is required.
Future studies could thus employ more sophisticated methods that
allow specifying alternative models based on theory and comparing
them to reach a conclusion on the model with the best t based on
inferences (Thompson, 2004). This is necessary because the EFA
technique used in this study is descriptive. This limits the use of
inference to statistically determine the best tting model for solid
waste pollution concern dimensions.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.
02.007.
References
Afroz R, Hanaki K, Hasegawa-Kurisu K. Willingness to pay for waste management
improvement in Dhaka city, Bangladesh. J Environ Manage 2009;90(1):492503.
Afroz R, Masud MM. Using a contingent valuation approach for improved solid waste
management facility: evidence from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Manage
2011;31(4):8008.
Aluko OE. The Impact of urbanization on housing development: the Lagos experience, Nigeria. Ethiop J Environ Stud Manage 2010;3(3.).
Amrigo M, Aragons JI, De Frutos B, Sevillano V, Corts B. Underlying dimensions of ecocentric and anthropocentric environmental beliefs. Span J Psychol
2007;10(01):97103.
Amrigo M, Aragons JI, Sevillano V, Corts B. La estructura de las creencias sobre la
problemtica medioambiental. Psicothema 2005;17(2):25762.
Anestina AI, Adetola A, Odafe IB. Performance Assessment of Solid Waste Management following Private Partnership Operations in Lagos State, Nigeria. Journal
of Waste Management 2014., http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/868072.

59

Barr S. Factors inuencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: a UK case study

of household waste management. Environ Behav 2007;39(4):43573.
Bartholomew DJ. Three faces of factor analysis. In: Cudeck R, MacCallum RC, editors. Factor analysis at 100 historical developments and future directions. New
Jersey/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007. p. 922.
Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, et al. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar;
2002.
Brown TA. Conrmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford
Press; 2006.
Brown TA. Conrmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford
Press; 2012.
Campbell J. This is Africas New Biggest City: Lagos, Nigeria, Population 21 Million.
The Atlantic 2012:2.
Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res
1966;1(2):24576.
Coakes SJ, Steed L, Ong C. Analysis without Anguish: SPSS version 16.0 for Windows.
John Wiley and Sons, Australia, Ltd; 2009.
Cudeck R, MacCallum RC. Factor analysis at 100: historical developments and future
directions. Routledge; 2012.
Dunlap RE, Liere KD. Land ethic or golden rule: comment on Land Ethic Realized
by Thomas A. Heberlein, JSI, 28 (4), 1972. J Soc Issues 1977a;33(3):2007.
Dunlap RE, Liere KD. Response to Heberleins rejoinder. J Soc Issues
1977b;33(3):2112.
Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD. The new environmental paradigm: a proposed measuring
instrument and preliminary results. J Environ Educ 1978;9(4):109.
Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Angela GM, Emmet JR. Measuring endorsement of
the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues
2000;56(3):42542.
Felix CM. A place to live: a case study of the Ijora-Badia community in Lagos, Nigeria.
Case study prepared for enhancing urban safety and security: global report on
human settlements; 2007, Available from http://www.unhabitat.org/grhs/2007.
Gorsuch RL. Factor analysis. In: Shinka JA, Velicer F, editors. Handbook of psychology:
Vol. 2. Research methods in psychology. New Jersey/Canada: John Wiley & Sons
Inc.; 2003. p. 14364.
Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin J Barry, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 2010.
Heberlein TA. The land ethic realized: some social psychological explanations for
changing environmental attitudes. J Soc Issues 1972;28(4):7987.
Heberlein TA. Norm activation and environmental action: a rejoinder to RE Dunlap
and KD Van Liere. J Soc Issues 1977;33(3):20711.
Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 1965;30(2):17985.
Jamelske E, Kipperberg G. A contingent valuation study and benetcost analysis of
the switch to automated collection of solid waste with single stream recycling
in Madison, Wisconsin. Public Works Manage Policy 2006;11(2):89103.
Jin J, Wang Z, Ran S. Estimating the public preferences for solid waste management programmes using choice experiments in Macao. Waste Manage Res
2006;24(4):3019.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. New York:
The Guilford Press; 2005.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The
Guilford Press; 2011.
Leopold A. A Sand County almanac. New York: Oxford; 1948.
Lukeman Y, Bako AI, Omole FK, Nwokoro IIC. Survival in the midst of challenges:
tale from Ijora-Badia slum dwellers of Lagos State, Nigeria. J Educ Soc Res
2014;4(3):13.
Mohai P. Dispelling old myths: African American. Environ: Sci Policy Sustain Dev
2003;45(5):1026, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139150309604546.
Mohai P, Bryant B. Is there a race effect on concern for environmental quality?
Public Opin Q 1998;62(4):475505.
Moisseinen E. On Behavioral Intentions in the Case of the Saimaa Seal: Comparing the Contingent Valuation Approach and Attitude-Behavior Research. In:
OConnor M, Spash C, editors. Valuation and the Environment: Theory, Method
and Practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; 1990. p. 183204.
Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation
method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 1989.
NBS. Annual collaborative survey of socio-economic activities in Nigeria: main statistical report. National Bureau of Statistics; August 2010.
Nunnally J. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
Ojea E, Loureiro ML. Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay
(WTP) for wildlife. Ecol Econ 2007;63(4):80714.
Othman J. Household preferences for solid waste management in Malaysia. Economy
and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA); 2003, Retrieved from
http://ideas.repec.org/p/eep/report/rr2003054.html.
Othman J. Economic valuation of household preference for solid waste management in Malaysia: a choice modeling approach. Int J Manage Stud
2007;14(1):189212.
Pallant J. SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. NY,
USA: McGraw-Hill International; 2010.
Pek C-K, Jamal O. A choice experiment analysis for solid waste disposal option: a
case study in Malaysia. J Environ Manage 2011;92(11):29933001.
Santos JRA. Cronbachs alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J Ext
1999;37(2):15.
Schwartz SH. Awareness of consequences and the inuence of moral norms on
interpersonal behavior. Sociometry 1968a:35569.

60

S.U. Adam et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104 (2015) 4960

Schwartz SH. Words, deeds and the perception of consequences and responsibility
in action situations. J Personal Soc Psychol 1968b;10(3):232.
Schwartz SH. Moral decision making and behavior. Altruism Help Behav
1970:12741.
Schwartz SH. Normative inuences on altruism. Adv Exp Soc Psychol
1977;10:22179.
Stern PC, Dietz T. The value basis of environmental concern. J Soc Issues
1994;50(3):6584.
Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA. The new ecological paradigm in socialpsychological
context. Environ Behav 1995;27(6):72343.
Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern.
Environ Behav 1993;25(5):32248.
Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support
for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Human Ecology Review
1999;6(2):8197.
Straughan RD, Roberts JA. Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look
at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. J Consum Market
1999;16(6):55875.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper and Row;
2006.
Tadesse T. Environmental concern and its implication to household waste separation and disposal: evidence from Mekelle, Ethiopia. Resour Conserv Recycl
2009;53(4):18391.

Thompson B. Exploratory and conrmatory factor analysis: understanding concepts

and applications. Am Psychol Assoc 2004, Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.
org/psycinfo/2004-13115-000.
Thompson SC, Barton MA. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the
environment. J Environ Psychol 1994;14(2):14957.
UN-HABITAT. State of the worlds cities 2006/7: the millennium development goals
and urban sustainability. Sterling: Earthscan; 2006a.
UN-HABITAT. State of the worlds cities 2006/7: the millennium development
goals and urban sustainability. United Nations Human Settlements Programme;
2006b, http://www.unhabitat.org.
UN-HABITAT. Enhancing urban safety and security. Global report on human settlements 2007. London: Earthscan and UN-HABITAT; 2007.
Van Liere KD, Dunlap RE. The social bases of environmental concern: a
review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opin Q
1980;44(2):18197.
Watkins MW. Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis [computer software]. State College, PA: Ed & Psych Associates; 2000.
Westland CJ. Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electron
Commer Res Appl 2010;9(6):47687.
Whittaker M, Segura GM, Bowler S. Racial/ethnic group attitudes toward environmental protection in California: is environmentalism still a white
phenomenon? Polit Res Q 2005;58(3):43547.