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
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
Proceeding of 3rd International Conferences on Environment Research and Technology” (ICERT 2012), 30
May-1 June 2012, Parkroyal Hotel, Penang, Malaysia.
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)
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.
Proceeding of 3rd International Conferences on Environment Research and Technology” (ICERT 2012), 30
May-1 June 2012, Parkroyal Hotel, Penang, Malaysia.
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.
Proceeding of 3rd International Conferences on Environment Research and Technology” (ICERT 2012), 30
May-1 June 2012, Parkroyal Hotel, Penang, Malaysia.
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.
Proceeding of 3rd International Conferences on Environment Research and Technology” (ICERT 2012), 30
May-1 June 2012, Parkroyal Hotel, Penang, Malaysia.
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
http://sustainability.ucdavis.edu/news/2011/january/waste_reduction.html
Office of Waste Management. Retrieved 19 February 2012 from
http://extension.missouri.edu/owm/greencampus/recycling.htm
Proceeding of 3rd International Conferences on Environment Research and Technology” (ICERT 2012), 30
May-1 June 2012, Parkroyal Hotel, Penang, Malaysia.
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.
Top Related