Campus Community Responses on Waste Recycling Activity Towards Sustainable Lifestyles

Proceeding of 3rd International Conferences on Environment Research and Technology” (ICERT 2012), 30

May-1 June 2012, Parkroyal Hotel, Penang, Malaysia.

1

Campus Community Responses on Waste Recycling Activity Towards

Sustainable Lifestyles

Norizan Md. Nor, Asyirah Abdul Rahim, Fera Fizani Ahmad Fizri, Suzyrman Sibly, Syarilla

Mohamad Suhaili, Muhamad Azahar Abas, Siti Mariam Abdul Kadir and Mohd Ridzlie

Rizduan

[email protected]

Centre for Global Sustainability Studies (CGSS),

Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.

Abstract

Recycling practice is important in forming sustainable campus community. Unfortunately,

recycling has not been widely practice by Malaysian. Government target of achieving 22

percent in recycling by 2020 could become faking truth, compared to Thailand, Singapore,

Japan and China. This paper explore responds on community of Universiti Sains Malaysia,

Penang campus on recycling practice toward sustainable lifestyle with recycle bins are colour

coded to differentiate the category of waste. The result indicates positive responds but a need

to rigorously change attitude in recycling to the campus community.

Keywords: recycling attitudes, campus community, sustainable lifestyle, colour coded bins.

1. Introduction

Sustainability issues became more crucial nowadays. Changing lifestyles, urbanisation,

population growth and affluence had led to more acute waste problems; high consumerism,

discarded wrappers and plastics, careless attitude, lack of awareness among society has

resulted in increased waste. According to 9th

Malaysia Plan, estimated about 45% of the

waste is come from of food waste, 24% of plastic, 7% is paper, 6% of iron and glass and

others made of the rest. Municipal solid waste includes domestic waste, commercial waste,

community waste, construction waste and institutional waste. Based on statistic from

National Strategic Plan on Solid Waste Management estimated that the waste generated is to

increase by 3.59% per year based on the population growth for the period of 2002-2020.

Thus, the total waste generated in Peninsular Malaysia is 23,000 tonnes per day in 2010 and

25,000 tonnes per day in 2012. In 2020, the amount of waste generated is expected to be

30,000 tons per day with an average of 0.85 kg per capita per day. Table 1 shows the daily

waste generated by states in Malaysia.

Table 1: Daily Waste Generated by States in Malaysia (2000-2010)

States Municipal Solid Waste Generated (tonnes/day)

2000 2002 2004* 2006* 2009* 2010*

Johor 1915 2093.2 2255.3 2429.9 2655.2 2734.9

Kedah 1323.7 1446.9 1558.9 1679.6 1835.3 1890.4

Kelantan 1034.3 1130.5 1213.4 1302.3 1423.1 1465.8

Melaka 514.6 562.5 604.8 650.4 710.7 732

Negeri Sembilan 757 827.5 889.8 956.9 1045.6 1077

Pahang 957.1 1046.2 1125 1209.8 1322 1361.7

Perak 1527.1 1669.2 1795 1930.3 2109.3 2172.6

Perlis 195.5 213.7 229.8 247.1 270 278.1

Pulau Pinang 1087.6 1188.8 1278.4 1374.7 1502.2 1547.3

Selangor 2826.5 3089.5 3322.4 3572.8 3904.1 4021.2

Terengganu 882.7 964.8 1037.5 1115.7 1219.2 1255.8

Kuala Lumpur 2520 2754.5 3025.3 3322.7 3630.8 3739.7

WP Labuan 46 70 74.3 81.2 88.7 91.4

Sabah NA 2490 2641.6 2886.6 3154.3 3248.9

Sarawak NA 1905 2021 2208.4 2413.2 2485.6

Total 15587.1 21452.3 23072.5 24968.4 27283.7 28102.4

NA = Not Available * = estimated figure

Source: Agamuthu et.al (2009)

Realizing of the solid waste amount was increasing tremendously and end-up at landfill sites,

the 3Rs principle (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) was established since 1993 in Malaysia to

improve waste management systems towards a more sustainable approach. Part of this study

was funded by research grant of Delivering Excellence: APEX 2011 is to enhance sustainable

lifestyle practices to campus community through recycling program and to observe the

behaviour and responds campus community to do recycle in campus.

2. Sustainable Living Practices through Recycling Program in Campus

In order to enhance sustainable living practices among campus community, one of this

component to introduce a better understanding of solid waste management through recycling

program. Numerous studies have been done on recycling by many different disciplines.

Regardless of the discipline, all had a common goal-what factors affect recycling

participation. There has been a large discrepancy in the overall proportion of recycling

attitudes to recycling behaviours in people. In other words, there is more public talk support

for recycling but less public action taken in recycling (Mayfield, 2006). Kaiser (as cited in

Kelly et al., 2006) mentioned that student’s environmental awareness is one of the most

important indicators for displaying national civilization as it reflects many aspects of



3

environmental status, for instance personal consideration and behaviour, public capacity, and

the local citizens, attitude towards sustainable society as a whole, etc. Table 1 shows

university community take initiative on recycling program.

Table 1: Recycling Program Initiative in Campus

Universities Recycling Program Initiative

University of California @ Davis

-UC Davis’ history of recycling on campus started with

students: In 1980, ASUCD formed the Energy Programs

Task Force to increase awareness of recycling and energy

issues. In 1985 the task force became Project Recycle,

with students collecting materials to recycle from campus

bins.

-Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability was

created to coordinate and lead sustainability efforts across

campus.

-The current waste reduction goal set by the University of

California is diverting 75% of waste away from the

landfill by 2012, followed by achieving zero waste by

2020. In 2008-2009, UC Davis recycled or composted

76% of campus waste, and new data for 2009-2010

shows the campus diversion rate at 67%.

(http://sustainability.ucdavis.edu/news/2011/january/wast

e_reduction.html)

University of Missouri -Campus recycling programs range from small

collaborations with local recyclers to large operations

with processing facilities right on the campus.

-the initiative for the majority of campus recycling

programs has come from students or faculty.

-150 bins in classrooms, dorms, food service areas,

arenas, computer labs, and offices throughout the campus

for the collection of recyclables were established.

-40% reduction of solid waste by diverting recyclables

from the waste stream was achieved.

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

(UKM)

-UKM had launched a zero waste recycling project in

September 2010.

-They provided a mobile recycling centre and encouraged

all the campus community to send the recyclable

materials.

-They also having a talk session for new students to

encourage the participation in zero waste projects.

-Empirical study found that the campus community is

still lack and they were not ready to engage with

sustainability projects in terms of sustainability waste

management projects.

(Norfadillah, Noraziah & Halimaton, 2011)

http://sustainability.ucdavis.edu/news/2011/january/waste_reduction.html


Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) -Initiative of recycling program in USM campus has been

conducted in a small scale by allocates the three colours

of recycle bins in some selected locations.

-Faculty of Social Sciences has been actively involved in

recycling projects in 2007 until 2009.

-The collection of recyclable materials is 4170kg

(RM1125.82) and all the money goes to charities.

(Syarilla, 2011)

3. Study Area

Universiti Sains Malaysia has 3 campuses which are the Main Campus, Engineering Campus

(Nibong Tebal, Penang) and Health Campus (Kubang Kerian, Kelantan). This study focuses

on the main campus which located in the north east, Penang. Site covers an area of 416.6

hectares of campus. The population of the campus communities consists of the academics,

non-academics (administrators, support groups) and the students. In 2010, the number of

registered campus communities was about 15,721 populations (Division of Human Resource

Management and Admission and Student Intake Unit, 2011). Movement toward sustainable

campus was begun in year 2000 with the introduction of the “Kampus Sejahtera” and

“University in the Garden”. In November 2011, “Nafas Lestari” programme was launched

with campaigns of reducing further carbon emission by Let’s Cycle and not using plastic

bottle.

3.1. Location of Recycle Bins in Campus

The recycle stations are selected according on several factors. It implies of the location is

easy to access by the university community, give ease to university community to access and

the locations of students attractions spot. After examines these factors the outcome was 15

recycle stations were selected. The locations of the recycling stations are; School of Physic,

School of Distance Education, SOLLAT, School of HBP, School of Chemistry, School of

Industry Technology, School of Communication, School of Pharmacy, School of Educational

Studies, School of Humanities, School of Social Sciences, Permatang Pelajar, Examination

Main Hall, Convocation Site and CGSS.



5

Figure 1: Location Map of Recycle Bins in Campus

4. Research Methods

The study aimed to establish whether to prosper USM community importance of reducing

waste, reduction of carbon emissions and then implicate greater energy saving and efficiency.

Recycling practice later may generate good revenue for the community.

4.1. Fieldworks

Recycle bins were located mostly at faculty entrances. Bins were pasted with CGSS sticker

and colour coded according to the materials category to be deposited, with blue for paper,

cardboard and box, orange for plastics, can and tin, brown for glass. Each bin was labeled

with the icon and word stickers portrayed paper, plastics and glass respectively.

4.2. Observation & Monitoring

The recycling systems were left in place, with residuals collection and separation by 3

research assistants and 2 research officers of the project. The observation and monitoring of

recycling bins were conducted by in every 2 weeks. All sorted recycling sources were

collected and bought by small enterprise recycling vendor.

4.3 Survey

For the purpose of survey, a two page questionnaire was developed. It comprises three

sections: a) demographic information, b) respondent’s exposure to recycling practice

initiatives, and c) potential in implementing recycling practice in attaining sustainable

lifestyle. Responses were captured via tick boxes using the Likert Scale. The survey forms

were distributed the university community. The final analysis was conducted using SPSS

version 17.

5. Results and Discussion

5.1 Sample Characteristic

The total number of respondents was 722 (530 students and 192 staff). The students and staff

are from different schools in USM main campus. There are 11 schools are involved as the

case study in this research. Most of the respondents are teenagers especially from USM

student. This is understandable because majority of the student in university consist of

teenagers with age around 20-29 years old.

Table 2: Demographic characteristic of respondents.

Characteristics USM

Students

USM

Staff

Total (%)

Gender:

Male (%)

Female (%)

25

75

35

65

28

72

Age:

Under 20 (%)

20-29 (%)

30-39 (%)

40-49 (%)

50-59 (%)

60 above (%)

88

83

<1

-

-

-

<1

36

28

17

18

<1

11

70

8

5

5

<1

Ethnicity:

Malay (%)

Chinese (%)

Indian (%)

76

17

3

4

85

9

5

1

79

14

4

3

(Source: Fieldwork, 2011)

5.2 University Community Response on Recycling Programs

In this study, more than 80% of students and staff are aware about the locations of recycling

station that have been built around USM campus (Table 3). This is the positive response by

university community because of the strategic recycling stations were located and wide

publicity about this program. Besides that, 17% of the respondents do not response to

recycling station because they are not aware. Hence, bigger signage in more noticeable place

and nearer to the bin is important to increase university community response on recycling

programs (Kelly et al., 2006). The data collection of recyclable and non-recyclable waste in

the phase one (August 2011 till October 2011) was disappointed because of the total weight

of recyclable waste was lighter than non-recyclable waste (recyclable 494 kg and non-

recyclable 534 kg) (See Table 3). These results indicate that the exposure in recycling

practices within university communities still at low levels. Hence, several awareness

campaigns have been conducted within USM campus to mitigate awareness level to USM

communities.



7

Table 3: Data Collection on August 2011- October 2011

As the result, the data collections at the second phase (November 2011 till January 2012)

shows that the weight of recyclable waste was more than non-recyclable waste (See table 4).

Table 4: Data Collection on November 2011 till January 2012

Based on the data collection during phase one and two, it is observed that recycle station at

schools showed the higher percentage of recyclable waste compare to the public area. The

three recycle bin located at the public area are often be contaminated by food waste. This is

because the lack of rubbish bin provided around the public area such as Permatang Pelajar

and main examination hall. During the separate waste activity, recyclable waste such as paper

and bottle are mix together and do not put in the proper bin. This problem indicate that most

of the university community still unaware and don’t put their recyclable waste in the recycle

bins. Unfortunately, improvement for the signage including the image on the sign which easy

to understand by people as in Kelly et al., 2006 was still unable to understand by USM

communities.

Table 6: University community response on recycling station (N=722)

Characteristic USM

Students

USM

Staff

Total

Response on Recycling Station:

YES

NO

82%

18%

86%

14%

597 (83%)

125 (17%)

(Source: Fieldwork, 2011)

5.3 Recycling Practices among University Community

In this study, more than 40% of the respondents often practiced recycling in their daily life;

while only 3% of the respondents never practiced recycling (Figure 2). But, the result in the

data collection above showed the non-recyclable waste such as food waste, disposal diapers,

slippers and shoes are available in the recycle bins. These problems show that certain USM

community still do not understand how to recycle properly and still do not clear on the three-

bin recycle scheme operated. The recycling practice of three-bin scheme was often and most

often practiced for both students (70%) and staff (72%). The reason for the higher practiced

among the staff might be attributed to the fact that they frequented exposure to recycling

practice than student. In USM campus, majority of the student takes three or four years to

complete their study, but most of the USM staff had long been in USM campus and

frequented exposure on recycling practice.

Figure 2: Percentage of the campus communities practicing recycling.



9

Despite lacking exposure about how to separate waste properly for recycle, most of them

responded positively to separate recyclable waste properly in their daily life (Figure 4). Based

on the data gathered, 10% of the USM Staff and 20% of the USM students was disagree

because they do not have time to recycle, they feel recycle is inconvenient and they think

recycle is not their personal responsibility. (Kelly et al., 2006)

Figure 3: Potential of respondent on separated recyclable waste

5.4 Correlation between Separate Recyclable Waste and Sustainable lifestyle

Initial descriptive analysis showed that most of the respondents are unsure to separate their

recyclable waste base on three-bin recycling scheme (mean=3.60; sd=1.04), while the

sustainable lifestyle among respondent were sometime practiced (mean=3.72; sd=3.5). A

preliminary analysis was conducted to ensure that the assumptions of normality, linearity and

homoscedasticity were not violated. The Pearson Correlation analysis conducted showed that

there was a medium and positive relationship between both variables (refer to table 4).

Separate recyclable waste among respondents help to explain nearly 9% of the variance in

respondent’s score on the sustainable lifestyle practice scale. Hence, strongly agree to

separate recyclable waste would result in respondent’s practicing sustainable lifestyle.

Table 7: Pearson Correlation

Sustainable lifestyle

practice

Practicing Recycle

among Respondent

Pearson

Correlation, r

0.305**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000

N 722

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

6. Conclusion

Sustainable development agenda required an understanding, admiration and community

engagement to consummate this vision. Communities should work together to make the

ecosystem more sustainable in the future. Awareness campaign should be more to stimulate

participation involvement in such recycling projects. From the findings, it also show that the

result indicate the exposure in recycling practices within campus communities still at a low

levels. The campus communities is still lack of exposure about how to separate waste

properly as in this study we found that the non-recyclable items were in the three coded

colour bins in some selected area. However this project has brought a new paradigm to the

campus communities to change their attitudes towards waste that can be recycled.

Acknowledgment

This study is based on an “on-going” research project under the “Delivering Excellence” program

funded by Universiti Sains Malaysia (April 2011-March 2012).

References

Agamuthu, P., Hamid, F.S. and Khidzir, K. (2009). Evolution of solid waste management in

Malaysia: Impacts and Implications of the Solid Waste Bill 2007. Journal of

Matter Cycles Waste Management, 11: 96-103.

Kelly, T. C., Mason, I. G., Leiss, M. W., & Ganesh, S. (2006). University community

responses to on-campus resource recycling. Resources Conservation and Recycling,

47(1), 42-55. doi: Doi 10.1016/J.Resconrec.2005.10.002

Mayfield, A.M., (2006), The Effects of Education and Awareness on Recycling, Department

of Psychology, Missouri Western State University.

Norizan Md Nor et.al. (2011). 2nd International Academic Consortium for Sustainable Cities

Symposium (IACSC) 2011. Enhancing Urban Sustainable Living within Universiti

Sains Malaysia and Its Neighboring Communities, Penang, Malaysia.

The Economist, (2009). Round and round it goes: Recycling is good for the environment, but

it costs. Is it worth it? Retrieved 27 Feb 2012, from

http://www.economist.com/node/13135337?story_id=13135337

_________________. (2006). Rancangan Malaysia KeSembilan 2006-2010. Putrajaya:

Jabatan Perdana Menteri Malaysia.

Sustainable 2nd

Century, (2010), Waste reduction joins campus wide sustainability team.

Retrieved 19 February 2012, from


Office of Waste Management. Retrieved 19 February 2012 from

http://extension.missouri.edu/owm/greencampus/recycling.htm

http://www.economist.com/node/13135337?story_id=13135337


http://extension.missouri.edu/owm/greencampus/recycling.htm



11

Norfadillah Derahim, Noraziah Ali & Halimaton Saadiah. (2011). Menjejak Kelestarian

Pelajar ke Arah Kampus Lestari: Kajian Kes Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Proceedings from Persidangan Kebangsaan Geografi dan Alam Sekitar ke-3,

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 8-10 February 2011

Syarilla, M.S. (2011). Komuniti Berpagar, Enklaf dan Pendidikan untuk Pembangunan

Lestari. Master’s Thesis, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang,

Malaysia.

Campus Community Responses on Waste Recycling Activity Towards Sustainable Lifestyles

Documents

Transcript of Campus Community Responses on Waste Recycling Activity Towards Sustainable Lifestyles