Community-based waste management strategies and their impact on urban sustainability through citizen participation and local government collaboration

 Corresponding author: Lambert Ekene Anyanwu Copyright © 2025 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. Community-based waste management strategies and their impact on urban sustainability through citizen participation and local government collaboration Lambert Ekene Anyanwu 1, *, Olorunsomo Olaosebikan Felix 1, Ike Walter Ejike 1 and Isdore Onyewuchi Anyanwu 2 1 Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Faculty of Environment and Natural Science. Germany. 2 Abia State University Uturu, Nigeria Faculty of Environmental Science. Nigeria. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1638–1650 Publication history: Received on 03 October 2025; revised on 15 November 2025; accepted on 18 November 2025 Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.28.2.3809 Abstract Urban solid waste management is a critical challenge in lowand middle-income nations affecting urban sustainability. This research examines community-based waste management strategies and their contribution to urban sustainability through citizen participation and local government collaboration. Using comparative case studies across different geographical locations, the study identifies effective integration models. Key findings reveal that sustainable waste management systems require comprehensive approaches involving policy frameworks, institutional structures, economic instruments, social acceptance mechanisms, and technical infrastructure. Citizen participation significantly enhances waste reduction, recycling effectiveness, and system performance. Local government collaboration proves essential in creating enabling conditions through appropriate legislation, resource deployment, and coordination systems. Community-based organizations demonstrate considerable capacity to bridge gaps between informal waste sectors and formal municipal structures. The paper identifies critical success factors including effective leadership, transparent governance, diversified revenue sources, stakeholder engagement systems, and adaptive management. Findings indicate that integrated approaches addressing multiple barrier categories simultaneously prove more sustainable than single interventions. Keywords: Community-Based Waste Management; Urban Sustainability; Recycling Programs; Environmental Education; Municipal Solid Waste; Sustainable Development 1. Introduction 1.1. Background and Context of Urban Waste Management Challenges Unprecedented urbanization in developing countries has fundamentally altered municipal solid waste management, creating complex challenges requiring innovative solutions (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). Global urban populations generate exponentially increasing waste volumes due to changing consumption patterns and economic development. Managing growing waste quantities while addressing infrastructure and financial limitations has become a critical challenge in lowand middle-income countries. Research demonstrates that per capita waste generation increases with economic progress and urban density (Kawai and Tasaki, 2016). Municipal solid waste composition in developing countries differs significantly from developed nations, typically containing higher percentages of organic material and lower proportions of recyclables like paper, plastic, and glass (Miezah et al., 2015). Studies show biodegradable waste comprises 40-60% of total municipal solid waste in developing countries, reflecting dietary habits and limited industrial packaging. This compositional characteristic presents both World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1638–1650 1639 opportunities and challenges, as organic waste can be effectively treated through composting and anaerobic digestion but requires proper handling to avoid environmental and health risks. Spatial concentration of waste generation varies considerably across urban areas, with wealthier neighborhoods generating substantially more waste per capita than poorer settlements (Sharholy et al., 2008). Research indicates daily waste generation rates may vary between 0.4 and 1.5 kilograms per person depending on socioeconomic conditions, location, and season. This variability necessitates flexible waste management strategies addressing diverse generation patterns and community characteristics. Informal settlements and peri-urban areas frequently receive the poorest waste management services, creating environmental justice concerns and highlighting the need for inclusive community-level solutions. Inadequate municipal solid waste management produces severe environmental and public health impacts disproportionately affecting urban populations in developing countries (Henry et al., 2006). Uncontrolled waste disposal in open areas, waterways, and drainage systems causes soil pollution, water contamination, and air quality degradation with extensive ecosystem and human health consequences. Poorly managed waste sites generate leachate contaminating groundwater sources affecting drinking water and agricultural activities. Anaerobic degradation of organic waste produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas contributing to climate change while posing fire risks and odor problems. 1.2. Evolution of Community-Based Waste Management Approaches Community-based waste management development reflects broader trends in urban management, environmental awareness, and development thinking over recent decades (Scheinberg et al., 2010). Early municipal waste management designs in developing nations typically followed centralized models from developed countries, emphasizing municipal responsibility for collection, transportation, and disposal. These systems frequently failed to achieve universal coverage due to limited resources, institutional inefficiencies, and inability to serve informal settlements and low-income neighborhoods. Centralized system limitations became increasingly evident during the 1980s and 1990s as urban populations grew faster than municipal service provision capacity, creating widespread service gaps and environmental degradation. Recognition of these failures prompted experimentation with alternative approaches involving communities, nongovernmental organizations, and private sector actors in waste service delivery (Davies, 2008). Community-based waste management model development in the 1990s coincided with broader shifts toward participatory development and public service decentralization. International development agencies and environmental organizations began funding pilot projects demonstrating how community organizations could collect and manage waste in areas poorly served by municipal systems. These initial efforts proved communities could organize to address local waste management challenges given appropriate support, training, and resources. Another significant development involved incorporating informal sector waste pickers into formal waste management systems (Wilson et al., 2006). Informal waste pickers performed substantial recycling and resource recovery in many cities, working without recognition or municipal support. Progressive waste management policies began acknowledging informal recyclers' contributions, attempting to formalize operations through cooperatives, licensing, and service contracting. This recognition reflected growing understanding that sustainable waste management must build upon existing community resources and informal systems rather than displacing them with entirely new institutional arrangements. The transition from centralized to decentralized waste management systems represents a fundamental shift in urban service delivery, governance, and stakeholder roles (Morrissey and Browne, 2004). Centralized systems characterized by exclusive municipal responsibility for waste management proved inadequate for meeting diverse needs and conditions in growing urban regions. Recognition that universal solutions do not benefit all communities equally sparked interest in decentralized approaches where localized solutions address contexts (Youseif and Scott, 2007). 1.3. Theoretical Framework for Community-Based Waste Management Systems Integrated waste management provides the conceptual framework for understanding how community-based approaches fit within comprehensive systems covering all stages from waste generation through collection, treatment, and disposal (Marshall and Farahbakhsh, 2013). The waste management hierarchy prioritizes waste prevention and minimization, followed by reuse, recycling, energy recovery, and finally disposal, recognizing that multiple management options should be available and appropriately applied to each waste type. Community-based initiatives can serve all World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1638–1650 1640 hierarchy levels by promoting behavior change to reduce waste generation, implementing separation systems facilitating recycling, and establishing local composting to treat organic waste. Integrated waste management principles extend beyond technical aspects to include governance, financing, and stakeholder participation as critical system sustainability elements (Morrissey and Browne, 2004). Effective integration requires cooperation among various actors including municipalities, private companies, community groups, and informal sector workers, each playing specific roles in the overall system. Applying integrated waste management principles to developing country contexts requires adaptations to local conditions including resource availability, institutional capacities, and socioeconomic characteristics differing substantially from developed countries where principles originated. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Research Design and Methodological Approach This research employs a comprehensive literature review strategy to analyze community-based waste management approaches, implementation experiences, and urban sustainability impacts (Marshall and Farahbakhsh, 2013). The literature review strategy includes systematic searches of academic databases, grey literature sources, and institutional repositories to locate relevant materials published within the last 20 years. Search terms combined keywords including community-based waste management, citizen engagement, local government partnership, urban sustainability, developing countries, and waste management systems. Electronic databases included Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, with additional searches conducted on international organization websites, development agency sites, and waste management network platforms. The literature review scope encompassed various geographic areas and income levels to capture diverse experiences in community-based waste management (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). Preference was given to studies reporting experiences in low and middle-income countries where most elaborate community-based approach implementation and evaluation has occurred. Sources were selected based on relevance to research objectives, methodological quality, and contributions to understanding community participation in waste management contexts. The search encompassed peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, technical reports, case study documentation, and policy reviews published from 2000 to 2024. Figure 1 MSW composition (% weight) at source. The figure caption indicates this shows the composition of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) broken down by weight percentage at its source (where it's generated) Municipal solid waste composition varies considerably across urban settings, directly determining opportunities for different community-based waste management approaches (Miezah et al., 2015). Waste streams in developing country World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1638–1650 1641 cities typically contain high organic material percentages, averaging 40-65% of total waste by weight. This large organic share opens prospects for community-based composting projects that can divert substantial waste from disposal while generating useful soil amendments. Recyclable materials including paper, plastics, metals, and glass constitute 20-40% of waste streams, providing foundations for community-based recycling businesses generating income and conserving resources simultaneously. 2.2. Classification of Community-Based Waste Management Strategies Community participation in waste management can be organized in various ways, ranging from passive compliance with municipal regulations to active co-creation of services through community institutions (Lar et al., 2015). The developed typology separates participation models according to community control levels, organizational structure, and relationships with formal authorities. At one spectrum end lies minimal participation where households comply with waste separation regulations and utilize collection services provided by others. More active engagement occurs when communities participate in service planning through consultative mechanisms like surveys, focus groups, or community meetings. Collaborative participation involves communities sharing accountability for service provision by partnering with municipalities or other official actors (Adefila, 2012). This model's main characteristic involves community organizations collecting waste, conducting recycling, or operating local facilities while coordinating with municipal authorities providing support, supervision, and complementary services. The most active participation type is community control whereby organized groups assume primary responsibility for managing waste in their localities with minimal external oversight. Appropriate participation models consider local circumstances including existing organizational capacity, resource availability, and community and government preferences. Community-based waste management initiatives employ different organizational structures determining operations, sustainability, and stakeholder interactions (Wilson et al., 2006). One common organizational type is cooperatives where waste workers share risks and rewards while making decisions through democratic processes. This structure emphasizes member empowerment and equitable income distribution from waste services or material sales. Cooperative scope may range from small groups of several dozen individuals to large organizations with hundreds of participants serving extensive service areas. The cooperative model has proven especially effective for organizing informal waste pickers, providing collective bargaining power, market access, and social protection unattainable by individual workers. 2.3. Analytical Framework for Assessing Sustainability Outcomes Community-based waste management system environmental performance assessment requires various indicators measuring different environmental impact aspects (Marshall and Farahbakhsh, 2013). Waste collection coverage is a fundamental indicator determining the proportion of generated waste collected by formal or community-based systems rather than illegally dumped or burned. Increased collection coverage reflects enhanced environmental protection by controlling unregulated disposal polluting soil, water, and air. Successful community-based programs have demonstrated improved collection coverage in previously underserved areas, with successful programs reaching 8095% coverage compared to 40-60% coverage in comparable conventional systems. Social equity and inclusion represent crucial dimensions in evaluating community-based waste management, distinguishing it from purely technical or commercial processes (Wilson et al., 2006). Income generation for participating waste workers or community members serves valuable social purposes, particularly when initiatives employ previously marginalized individuals like informal waste pickers or unemployed youth. Worker income metrics, income stability, and employment alternatives measure economic benefits at household levels. Successful formalization programs have realized 30-80% income increases over informal waste picking while offering more predictable and reliable revenues. 3. Results 3.1. Characteristics of Successful Community-Based Waste Management Systems Effective community-based waste management systems consistently feature policy and legal frameworks enabling community organizations' legal recognition as legitimate service providers with well-defined operational parameters (Aparcana, 2017). Comprehensive waste management policies at national or municipal levels directly recognizing community organization, cooperative, and informal sector worker roles provide enabling conditions within which these actors can develop and expand activities. Progressive legislation in countries like Brazil, Colombia, and India includes World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1638–1650 1642 provisions specifically securing waste picker rights and establishing preferential contracting conditions providing community organizations advantages in competing for municipal service contracts. Clear legal status for community organizations provides essential foundations enabling them to contract with municipalities, access financing, and protect member rights (Wilson et al., 2006). Successful initiatives typically feature legally registered community groups as cooperatives, associations, or business entities possessing juridical personality. This legal status enables organizations to open bank accounts, enter contracts, purchase insurance, and conduct other transactions impossible for informal groups. Registration processes should be straightforward and accessible, with assistance offered to community organizations for navigating bureaucratic requirements. Effective institutional arrangements clearly allocate roles among municipal agencies, community organizations, and other actors while providing coordination mechanisms enabling complementary action (Marshall and Farahbakhsh, 2013). Successful systems typically maintain municipal responsibility for overall system planning, regulation, and evaluation while delegating operational service delivery to community organizations under appropriate oversight. This division acknowledges each actor's comparative advantages, with municipalities better suited for policy development and system-wide coordination while community organizations excel at localized service delivery exploiting community knowledge and relationships. 3.2. Citizen Participation Patterns and Engagement Strategies Community participation in waste management takes various forms ranging from passive cooperation to active service provision, with different initiatives emphasizing different participation modes depending on objectives and contexts (Lar et al., 2015). Household source separation represents the most common community involvement type whereby residents sort waste into various categories before collection. This behavior change facilitates downstream recycling and composting processes while reducing contamination diminishing material values. Successful source separation programs achieve 60-85% household participation rates through proper education, convenient collection systems, and enforcement of separation requirements. Another relevant participation form is user fee payment, which can create financial stakes in service quality for community-based systems (Purcell and Magette, 2010). Waste collection service fee payment willingness varies considerably across communities and socioeconomic contexts depending on income levels, perceived service quality, trust in service providers, and understanding of waste management service costs. Research indicates impoverished households will pay for quality collection services at affordable amounts with convenient payment systems. Monthly fees between 1-5 USD prove feasible in most settings where services are efficient and responsive to communities. Figure 2 Household Participation in Waste Management Activities World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1638–1650 1643 Community involvement patterns in various waste management activities show considerable diversity, with some participation forms achieving broader uptake than others. Data indicates source waste separation attracts highest household participation rates, with approximately 78% of residents engaging in this fundamental activity when proper support infrastructure exists. User fee payment shows slightly lower participation at 65%, reflecting affordability constraints and varying willingness to pay across socioeconomic groups. More intensive participation forms including attending community cleanups, participating in planning activities, and formal waste management organization membership show progressively declining participation levels. Several factors determine household and individual participation in community-based waste management, with effective programs addressing these conditions through comprehensive engagement strategies (Hage et al., 2009). Participation convenience proves consistently significant, with higher participation levels where required actions integrate easily into daily routines rather than consuming substantial time and effort. Collection schedules matching household preferences, convenient payment mechanisms, and simple separation systems not requiring complex decisions all contribute to participation by minimizing barriers. Figure 3 Effectiveness of Education and Awareness Channels Different education and awareness methods demonstrate varied effectiveness levels, with personalized resourceintensive approaches typically achieving higher impact than mass communication methods. Door-to-door outreach receives highest ratings contributing 35% to overall education impact because it enables personalized instruction, addresses specific questions, and builds direct relationships between program staff and households. Community meetings and neighborhood events contribute 25% through group learning dynamics and peer influence effects. Printed materials contribute 18% as reference sources providing continual message reinforcement from other channels. 3.3. Local Government Roles and Collaboration Models Even where significant service delivery delegation to community organizations or private actors occurs, municipal governments retain crucial waste management system functions (Marshall and Farahbakhsh, 2013). Policymaking and strategic planning represent essential municipal functions defining overall system direction, standards, and priorities. Municipalities must prepare comprehensive waste management strategies outlining service expectations, required resources, system development timeframes, and how community-based approaches integrate into overall systems. Regulation and standard-setting establish performance expectations for all waste management actors including municipal bodies, private contractors, and community groups (Morrissey and Browne, 2004). Standards may address collection frequency, service reliability, worker safety, environmental protection, financial management, and other aspects important for system performance. Municipalities must develop clear, achievable standards relevant to local contexts rather than simply copying standards from different jurisdictions with different circumstances. 3.4. Waste Management Performance and Environmental Outcomes Collection coverage represents a key performance indicator measuring proportions of generated waste properly collected through official mechanisms rather than illegally dumped or burned (Sharholy et al., 2008). Community-based World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1638–1650 1644 initiatives have often achieved substantial coverage gains in previously underserved areas, with successful programs demonstrating high coverage rates commonly reaching 75-90% compared to 40-60% coverage rates typical with conventional approaches in similar settings. These improvements reflect various factors including local knowledge enabling service delivery in informal settlements with difficult access, flexible operations adapting to local schedules and preferences, and trust relationships inspiring household cooperation. Service quality scope encompasses various dimensions beyond simple collection coverage including reliability, consistency, issue responsiveness, and collection schedule compliance (Purcell and Magette, 2010). Reliable service implies households can depend on waste collection at expected times rather than experiencing frequent service disruptions forcing alternative disposal methods. Well-organized community-based programs of adequate scale typically achieve reliability comparable to municipal or private services, with collection non-occurrence rates below 5% of scheduled service days. Environmental benefits beyond fundamental collection coverage are demonstrated by waste diversion rates expressing proportions of collected waste diverted from landfills through recycling, composting, or other recovery methods (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). Community-based programs emphasizing source separation and material recovery regularly achieve higher diversion rates of 25-45%, significantly exceeding conventional disposal-focused systems typically achieving below 15% diversion in developing country contexts. This excellent diversion performance reflects community organization orientations toward resource recovery as core business activities rather than marginal activities supplementing basic collection services. Figure 4 Waste Collection Coverage Rates Achieved by Different Service Delivery Models Substantial differences exist in collection coverage rates across various service delivery models and urban area geographic settings. Community-based organizations demonstrate particularly strong performance in low-income communities and informal settlements, achieving average 76% coverage substantially exceeding 62% coverage that municipal services achieve in the same settings. Community organizations in more affluent formally planned areas achieve even higher coverage at 88%, comparable to or exceeding private contractor performance at 71%. Community-based waste management delivers multiple environmental benefits including reduced pollution, resource conservation, decreased greenhouse gas emissions, and improved urban environmental quality (Henry et al., 2006). Proper waste collection eliminates illegal dumping that pollutes soil, water bodies, and air while creating unsightly scenes demoralizing neighborhood aesthetics and property values. Communities receiving good waste collection services show improved environmental quality through cleaner streets, fewer disease vector breeding grounds, and absence of open burning smoke. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1638–1650 1645 Climate change mitigation represents another crucial environmental benefit because proper waste management significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). Landfills release methane from organic waste decomposition, representing significant emission sources easily avoided by aerobically composting organic waste. Recycling eliminates emissions from manufacturing processes, with particularly high benefits earned on energy-intensive materials like aluminum and plastics. Studies estimate that comprehensive waste management incorporating recycling and composting can reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 40-60 percentage points compared to landfill disposal systems. Public health benefits represent significant outcomes for communities that have endured health costs from inadequate waste management (Cointreau, 2006). Reduced disease vectors like rats, flies, and mosquitoes breeding in waste materials decreases vector-borne disease incidence including dengue, malaria, and leptospirosis. Eliminating open burning reduces respiratory disease risks from particulate matter and toxic combustion products. Children's health particularly improves as proper waste management eliminates contaminated play areas and decreases hazardous material exposure. 3.5. Barriers and Challenges to Sustainable Implementation Policy and legal barriers represent major obstacles to community-based waste management development and sustainability in most settings (Aparcana, 2017). Absence of favorable legislative environments recognizing community organizations as legitimate service providers prevents formalization and limits resource access for effective operation. Community groups in jurisdictions without enabling policies work in legal gray areas without official authorization, unable to contract with municipalities, access financing, or defend worker rights. Practical implementation obstacles persist even where policies are nominally favorable, seen in bureaucratic complexity of licensing and permit processes (Marshall and Farahbakhsh, 2013). Requirements to obtain various permits from different agencies, extensive paperwork, high fees, and lack of transparency create barriers difficult for community organizations with limited administrative capacity to navigate. Social obstacles including waste work stigma, limited community awareness, and behavior change resistance hinder community-based waste management development and effectiveness (Wilson et al., 2006). Waste work carries social stigma in many cultures where collecting and handling waste is considered demeaning and associated with low social status. This stigma affects worker recruitment, community acceptance of waste facilities, and even household willingness to support family members joining waste work. Limited public awareness about proper waste management behavior and environmental effects of inadequate practices hampers household participation and cooperation with community initiatives (Barr, 2007). Many households lack knowledge about source separation importance, how to separate various materials, and environmental benefits of recycling. Without this information, households view separation requirements as arbitrary inconveniences rather than significant environmental measures worth effort. Historical mistrust between communities and authorities due to failed promises, poor service delivery, or corruption creates skepticism toward new waste management programs (Purcell and Magette, 2010). Communities that have experienced repeated waste program failures become cynical about new attempts, questioning whether initiatives will prove sustainable. 4. Discussion 4.1. Synthesis of Key Findings and Implications Comparison of various community-based waste management initiatives reveals several critical success factors distinguishing sustainable successful programs from those that fail or struggle to function (Aparcana, 2017). Strong organizational capacity with good leadership, sound financial management, efficient operations, and democratic governance emerges as a fundamental requirement regardless of organizational models or contexts. Programs with well-functioning organizations demonstrating ability to manage complexity, address challenges, and maintain accountability to members and communities show resilience and effectiveness despite external conditions. Favorable policy and institutional frameworks provide enabling conditions through which community organizations develop and perform optimally. Financial sustainability through diversified revenue sources sustaining operational continuation underlies economic viability of long-term operation (Lohri et al., 2014). Programs achieving 70-85% cost recovery on earned revenues demonstrate greater resilience than those reliant on grants or subsidies that eventually end. However, financial sustainability requires realistic timeframes, with most programs taking 3-6 years to achieve cost recovery following initial startup phases. Genuine community engagement and participation make community-based programs distinctive World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1638–1650 1646 compared to conventional approaches, offering social capital that enhances operations (Lar et al., 2015). Programs meaningfully engaging community members in governance while respecting local knowledge and responding to community preferences build trust and cooperation unattainable through traditional top-down frameworks. The three organizational approaches discussed demonstrate various strengths and weaknesses applicable when used in appropriate contexts (Aparcana, 2017). Cooperatives organizing waste workers emphasize member empowerment, democratic governance, and equitable benefit distribution, proving especially useful for formalizing informal waste pickers while maintaining their autonomy. Geographic community-based organizations managing waste as part of broader community development programs using existing social structures and relationships excel at achieving universal coverage across served areas, developing community ownership, and integrating waste management with other community priorities. Commercial micro and small enterprises prove more operationally efficient and businessoriented than cooperatives or CBOs, potentially scaling faster and achieving higher financial performance. Selecting appropriate models requires careful assessment of local conditions, organizational capabilities, policy environments, and stakeholder preferences rather than assuming inherent superiority of one model. 4.2. Behavioural Determinants and Strategic Recommendations Understanding psychological and situational factors affecting recycling, reuse, and waste reduction behaviors proves critical for developing effective community-based waste management programs with high participation rates. Analysis shows convenience and effort requirements represent the most significant direct predictor of recycling behavior, meaning households prove much more inclined to recycle when collection systems are convenient and require minimal effort. Local waste knowledge also strongly predicts recycling, suggesting households with practical knowledge of local waste management systems, separation procedures, and collection schedules demonstrate markedly higher participation. Environmental concern shows considerable indirect effects on recycling behavior mediated by willingness to recycle, with households expressing high environmental concern demonstrating higher motivation to recycle and less sensitivity to minor inconveniences (Hage et al., 2009). Reuse behavior shows slightly different predictors than recycling, indicating that different waste management behaviors require different promotional approaches. While convenience remains important for reuse, other factors play even stronger roles than in recycling. Willingness to reduce shows the strongest direct relationship to reuse behavior, meaning psychological readiness and desire to reduce waste strongly predict actual reuse behavior. Significance of nature emerges as one of the most powerful predictors of willingness to reuse, indicating that environmental values and biocentric attitudes significantly influence reuse participation (Barr, 2007). Waste reduction at source represents the highest waste management hierarchy priority, preventing waste generation before materials enter waste streams requiring collection, processing, or disposal. Analysis reveals willingness to reduce serves as the main mediator between various psychological constructs and actual waste reduction behavior, with a very strong path coefficient (0.7) between willingness and behavior (Nguyen et al., 2015). Gender shows rather high direct effect on willingness to reduce, where women tend to exhibit high willingness, potentially reflecting gendered household roles in consumption decisions and greater environmental concern among women in most contexts.