This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
The continuous generation of solid waste worldwide requires innovative solutions that combine technological innovation with public participation. Although Smart Waste Management Systems (SWMS) have emerged as a major component of Waste 4.0, limited research has examined the behavioral factors influencing their public adoption. This study develops and empirically examines the Integrated Smart Waste Adoption Model (ISWAM), a context-specific framework that draws on constructs from the Technology Acceptance Model, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and a limited environmental-concern component informed by Value–Belief–Norm theory to investigate residents' willingness to adopt SWMS in the United Arab Emirates. Using survey data from 394 residents, the framework was examined using observed-variable logistic regression, mediation, and moderation analyses. The results indicate that environmental concern and perceived ease of use are positively associated with adoption willingness, whereas awareness of smart waste technologies operates indirectly through perceived usefulness. Incentive-related findings are mixed: reward willingness shows a negative association with adoption intention, whereas fee willingness shows a positive but borderline association in the standard model and should be interpreted cautiously. Demographic characteristics explained little variation in adoption willingness within the surveyed sample. The study contributes to Waste 4.0 adoption research by jointly examining technological, institutional, and environmental determinants in the UAE context and by providing policy implications for user-friendly system design, communication of environmental benefits, and equitable incentive policies aligned with circular-economy objectives and SDG 12. .
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shaban et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: