search
for
 About Bioline  All Journals  Testimonials  Membership  News


International Journal of Environmental Research
University of Tehran
ISSN: 1735-6865 EISSN: 2008-2304
Vol. 3, Num. 2, 2009, pp. 275-288

International Journal of Environmental Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, Spring 2009, pp.275-288

Investigating Households Attitude Toward Recycling of Solid Waste in Malaysia: A Case Study

Omran, A.1*, Mahmood, A.2, Abdul Aziz, H.3 & Robinson, G .M.4

1 School of Housing, Building and Planning, 11800, Minden, University Sains Malaysia
2 Department of Architecture and Building Science, College of Architecure and Planning, Kind Saud University, Riyadh 11574, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
3 School of Civil Engineering, 14300, Nibong Tebal, University Sains Malaysia
4 Centre for Environmental and Earth Science Research Kingston University; Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2EE, UK

*Corresponding author E-mail:naser_elamroni@yahoo.co.uk

Received 10 June 2008;
Revised 15 Sep. 2008;
Accepted 25 Sep. 2008

Code Number: er09030

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates householders’ attitudes to the recycling of solid wastes in one part of northern Malaysia, namely Alor Setar town, Kedah State. A postal questionnaire survey was administered to households in Alor Setar town in selected areas of high, middle and low incomes. 389 responses were obtained, a response rate of 86.4%. A personal interview with an official of the Municipal Council of Alor Setar was conducted in order to identify the current situation of solid waste recycling and household participation as well as obtaining views on the recycling campaigns carried out by the Malaysian government in 1993 and 2000. The paper indicates that participation in recycling of household waste relies on the level of awareness and understanding of recycling. Improved education and increasing the accessibility of recycling facilities are the best means of promoting positive attitudes to recycling attitude, partly because they help to remove barriers preventing households from recycling. Households in Alor Setor town have identified some of the effective strategies that can be initiated by the government to increase the rate of recycling in Malaysia which would also encourage them to participate in recycling. One of these strategies was providing recycling bins in every residential area.

Key words: Attitudes of Householders, Recycling, Solid Waste, Questionnaire Survey,Malaysia

INTRODUCTION

Solid waste management (SWM) is defined generates about 17,000 tones of domestic waste as the control of waste generation, storage, daily, which is sufficient to fill up the Kuala collection, transfer and transport, processing and Lumpur Twin Towers in nine days (Sunday Mail, disposal of solid wastes (SW) consistent with the 2005). In 1998, Malaysia generated about 5.5 best practice of public health, economics and million tones of SW of which a quarter was financial, engineering, administrative, and legal and produced in the Klang Valley alone, the most environmental considerations. Solid waste affluent area in Malaysia. In 1995, per-capita generation is one of the three major environmental generation rates averaged 0.77 kg/person/day. problems faced by municipalities in the world. These rates are expected to increase steadily as Generally, it is positively related to the level of the Malaysian economy grows. Solid waste income and urbanization, with higher income and generation for 2000 was estimated at 3.9 million more urbanized economies generating higher levels tones with 1 Kg per capita daily. Some urban areas of solid wastes per capita (Table 1). Malaysia, in the country have already generated MSW as with a population of over 26 million in 2007, high as 1.2 kg per person per day – close to figures for the major high-income economies. In Malaysia, to date, there is not any single agency responsible for SWM. Legally, SWM is under the control of state governments – the State Local Government Division. The main agencies implementing SWM are the local authorities. The Local Government Department in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government provides policy and technical guidance to local authorities. Related agencies include the Department of Environment (DOE) and the Town and Country Planning Department. There is also no comprehensive legislation on SWM in Malaysia. Existing legal frameworks involving SWM are the Local Government Act, 1974; Environmental Quality Act, 1974; Streets, Drainage, and Building Act, 1974; and the Town and Country PlanningAct, 1976.AParliamentary Solid Waste Act has been formulated and it is proposed to amend all the above acts. Part of the proposal includes the transfer of responsibility of SWM from state to federal government. In Malaysia the local government authorities have been responsible for the SWM service. However, over the years, lack of infrastructure, inefficient institutional setup, and weakness in financial and technical resources, has led to an inadequate and inefficient level of provision at various stages. These contrast with the increasing waste generation rates and rising environmental awareness among the general public. To reduce the burden facing the local governments, a privatization process was initiated in 1996 with the aim of attaining an integrated and efficient management system to enhance environmental quality through resource re-use and waste minimization.Privatizing MSW management became an integral part of the national privatizing program. Under the program, the government directly awards national infrastructural projects to business entities with long-term operating concessions. SWM was expected to be fully privatized in 2001 where four major private waste service providers would be given a 20 years concessionary period for MSW management. The current privatization mode is regarded as a transition period pending the approval of the proposed Parliamentary Solid Waste Act.

Recycling has gained increasing attention as a means of protecting the environment since it offers one of the most sensible solutions both economically and ecologically for managing waste. For this reason, the Malaysian Government through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government launched a national recycling campaign in 1993.

Yet, despite significant efforts, recycling has not become a universal way of life in Malaysia. Over 100 million tones annually of solid waste could be recycled, but instead is discarded and land-filled. Malaysia spent RM37.4 million (8.11645 million Euros) to collect and dispose of its urban rubbish in 1990 (Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment) with a total amount of 877 million pounds or an equivalent of 546 kg/person/year. The government decided to re-launch the recycling campaign again in 2001. This time more money was used for publicity and for educating the public. Several community groups and NGOs also took an active part by spearheading recycling programs and the collection of reusable materials. However, seven years after the re-launch, the result is comparatively still the same (Abdelnaser et al., 2006 a, b). So the question remains “why did the recycling campaigns fail?” Despite the high potential, only 5% of the total waste is being recycled (Department of Environment, 2005). In interview the head of the department of the recycling program in the Municipal Council of Alor Setar (MCAS) in the town of Alor Setar asserted that ‘the majority of households do not understand and respect the waste collection schedule of the private [waste collection] company and there is a lack of co-operation from the households to make the town clean’. Various activities have been implemented by the government (through the Department of Local Government, Ministry of Housing and Local Government) to increase awareness of the importance of household participation in recycling. Several advertisements and radio ‘jingles’ have been aired on television and radio channels as an effort to increase awareness of this issue. In addition, various NGO’s have also been involved in these recycling campaigns. For example, many ‘recycling days’ were organized at various levels involving the end users/general public. Programs were organized in housing estates, schools and shopping complexes. These programs were normally overseen by local politicians or Members of Parliament. However, despite the effort and money spent, the campaigns have failed to inspire the public due to a lack of support from householders and the need for longer term education and awareness campaigns that will change public attitudes (Ong, 2003). This paper investigates this need as part of an investigation into the attitude of householders towards the recycling of solid wastes in Alor Setar town in Kedah State (Fig.1).

Knowledge of the existence of recycling program and the knowledge required complying with the rules and regulations of this program are thought to be the basic issues that prevent individuals from participating. Salhofer and Isaac (2002) showed the importance of public relations in recycling strategies. They believed that public relations could be used as a tool to educate and motivate individuals into participating in recycling programs. As Salhofer and Isaac (2002) pointed out, public relations activities must aim at specific target groups in order to obtain promising results; therefore public relations projects must be planned carefully and professionally, and include an analysis of the target group and choice of media. In many cases there is plenty of government support and encouragement for recycling but limited public participation in recycling. Why does this discrepancy exist? Researchers have found a number of reasons. Hornik et al. (1995) did an extensive meta-analysis of 67 empirical studies on recycling and indicated several variables that might affect recycling behavior. Two basic types of variables were identified: incentives for social behavior and facilitators (or barriers) to social behavior. These can be either internal or external to the individual. Analysis by Hormuth et al. (1993) of recycling by apartment dwellers suggested two inter-related strategies for facilitating day-to-day recycling. One was to use conveniently located containers and the other was to embed recycling in the ongoing behavior stream of food preparation and clean-up. A similar idea, although from a different theoretical perspective, was proposed by Zimmerman (1989). In his examination of effective self-regulation, Zimmerman said that people need to figure out how to organize their environment so that it supports desired behaviors. He used an open-ended questionnaire to ascertain how participants organized their recycling to find out whether manageability contributes to desired behavior. Vining and Ebreo (1990) defined social influence as the concern over how friends and family might perceive one’s recycling behavior including the presence or lack of support. This social influence can be powerful enough to sustain the recycling behavior. DeYoung (1986) found that feeling good about doing something good for the environment had a strong influence on recycling. Recycling is a behaviour which can require considerable effort on the part of the individual as household waste must be sorted, prepared and stored (Boldero, 1995). Consequently the recycling decision is likely to be complex, and a number of factors may be taken into consideration. However, convenience is one of the factors that researchers have looked at. Nyamwange (1996) found that making recycling more convenient could be an effective motivator. Furthermore, the motivational factors behind recycling attitude and behavior have also been heavily researched in several studies, which have sought to isolate specific traits that can be attributed to recycling participation. Bratt (1999) emphasized the need to understand the influences of consumer environmental behavior and to identify variables that predicted such behavior. The study concluded that the social norm, which is the consistent behavioral patterns of a majority of individuals surrounding the individual, provided no link to behavior. It was striking, though, to note that in the findings of Oskamp et al. (1991), they identified peer pressure as an important predictor or motivational factor of recycling behavior. This means that when in the presence of others, the subjects were inclined to make more socially responsible decisions, especially when peers actually recycled. With respect to the factors that encourage selective collection, social influences and altruistic and regulatory factors are some of the reasons why certain communities develop strong recycling habits (Vining and Ebrero, 1992; Ewing, 2001). The major drawback, on the other hand, is the effort needed (Oskamp et al., 1991), the space needed (Vining and Ebrero, 1990; Beldero, 1995) and cost (Ewing, 2001). Curbside recycling is one way to overcome inconvenience and facilitate recycling. Boldero (1995) argues that recycling behaviour is likely to be influenced by situational factors such as the amount of effort involved, inconvenience, storage space and access to recycling schemes. In view of the significance of these factors in Boldero’s study, a measure incorporating situational factors was included within the model. Thomas (2001) emphasized the importance of public understanding in determining participation rates. Attention is correctly drawn to the success issues; not how many householders participate but how constantly and effectively they do it. Evison and Read (2001) reiterated the importance of local authority awareness and promotion campaigns; poorly designed and implemented campaigns will mean that participation rates will continue to remain low. A survey by MORI (2002) reported that in the UK, although a very high proportion of householders (more than 60%) claimed that they recycled, the evidence suggested that this self-reported behavior was an exaggeration, the actual proportion being much lower. More concerning is the recognition that a significant minority (10–15%) never recycle in any circumstances. Tucker and Speirs (2002) have developed a model to forecast recycling participation rates as well as material capture rates. They point out that while recycling rates are low there is, however, a range of cost-effective ways to obtain and sustain high participation and capture rates; these include well designed information campaigns for convenient collection systems. They rightly point out that high convenience in recycling schemes is often associated with high information and operational costs and they stress that such high-cost schemes need to be underpinned by a range of activities to ensure cost-effectiveness.Parfitt (2002) concluded that there are a number of factors that drive increasing municipal waste arising. These include: demographics, increased consumer spending, behavioral changes and changes in waste management practice. Garcés et al. (2002) noted that environmental awareness and knowledge of the environmental impact of urban waste were factors that helped determine an individual’s recycling behavior. McDonald and Oates (2003) probed the reasons for non-participation in curbside collection and produced sound guidelines on the need for in-depth audit of the given area before collection schemes are designed. The importance of socio-economic factors and their effect on recycling rates are emphasized by Emery et al. (2003). The authors demonstrate that it is vital to have accurate data on household purchasing trends and waste composition before effective local strategies can be produced. The problems with the recycling of green waste in MSW collection is explored by Williams and Kelly (2003). The lack of participation in this waste stream is a complex, multifaceted issue that requires much on-going research. Educating individuals about how, what, and where to recycle is important.However,individuals who are skeptical or have an external locus of control (Rotter, 1954) may believe that their participation in recycling would not make a difference. These individuals may need more persuasion to recycle.Thus it is vital that individuals are aware of the reasons for recycling and the positive impact that recycling has on the environment. Tonglet et al. (2004) suggest that pro-recycling attitudes are the major contributor to recycling behaviour, and that these attitudes are influenced firstly, by having the appropriate opportunities, facilities and knowledge to recycle, and secondly by not being deterred by the issues of physically recycling (for example time, space and inconvenience). The effectiveness of awareness-raising campaigns relies upon improved understanding and higher participation by the public in the recycling services (Read, 1998, 1999). In their study, Garcés et al. (2002) concluded that when a recycling programme is thought to be supported by sound environmental policies and is felt to be organized and controlled by good management, it has a positive influence on individual recycling behavior. The study also proposed the idea that the amount of effort required to participate in a program was a major barrier for those wishing to diminish their environmental impact but unwilling to go to any extra lengths to comply with governmental initiatives. Therefore responsibility is placed on the government to implement effective program that consider the needs of individuals and the environment. As a side note, Guerin et al. (2001) also studied the reaction of citizens after gauging the effectiveness of the government in managing environmental problems. People who believed that their government was making a reasonable effort to protect the environment were more inclined to adopt environmentally friendly behavior. If individuals perceive that recycling is an important issue, perhaps because of their knowledge of proactive decisions taken by the government, they will invest their time and effort in a recycling program (Guerin et al., 2001). It was decided by Jaslo City officials in Poland that a similar approach could prove worthwhile in the Polish context. However, the results do not parallel those that have been previously suggested (that the motivation of the householder is a function of socioeconomic factors) (Grodzińska-Jurczak et al., 2006). Researchers suggest that high rates of recycling participation appear mainly in areas where householders are better educated and financially secure and where the requirements of basic needs have been fulfilled (Tikka et al., 1999).

A recent study by Perry and Williams (2006) highlighted that it is essential to understand the recycling profile of ethnic minorities and to ensure that their participation in recycling schemes is encouraged. Their results have indicated that this can be achieved by providing written information in ethnic minority languages and conducting presentations and focus-groups at religious or cultural centers in ethnic minority languages. Bolaane (2006) highlights the potential constraints to promoting people-centered approaches in recycling and recommends some strategies that could mitigate these constraints. His study is based on a case study of Gaborone, Botswana, and used household and key-informant interviews. The study found that, even though municipal officials in Gaborone are aware of the potential benefits of recycling, they appear not to embrace waste management reforms such as municipally organized recycling schemes. Williams (2005) has argued that local authorities should be required to produce municipal waste management strategies via a twostages process that focuses on operational issues and is based upon the strategies and aims already developed and published by central government, and that central government should develop tools to assist local authorities to evaluate and select their strategic waste management options and produce implementation plans. A recent review by Imam et al. (2008) has examined in detail the attitude of the people in Abuja City. They found that people in Abuja have a poor attitude towards waste management. People who handle waste are regarded as dirty, poor and inferior, and carrying household waste to bins is often regarded as a duty only for children. Efforts have been made by both thegovernmentand the private sector inAbuja to increase public awareness of solid waste management issues, and there have been televised discussions on waste management. The side effects of improper waste disposal have also been well publicized. However, most people still do not appreciate that improving environmental quality is not just the responsibility of the government and that the individual also has an important role.

Alor Setar is the major and capital town of Kedah State with population about 400,000 in 2006 according to the Department of Statistics. It is located in the north-western part of Peninsular Malaysia in Kedah state. At the local government level, the town has one local authority, namely the Municipal Council of Alor Setar (MCAS). The per capita solid waste generation in Alor Setar town is roughly estimated at 0.85 kg/day in 2006, and the generation rate of solid waste is estimated at between 200-250 tones/day (MCAS, 2007). Currently, three types of collection system are employed: the first is house-to-house collection by push cart. The households leave their bins on the roadside in advance of the specified collection time. After collection, the owners take the empty bins back inside the house. Curbside collection is common in low-rise housing areas, which include terraced, semi-detached and detached houses, and single and double storey houses. The second way is to collect the waste at communal bin centers, especially at public markets and food centres. However, in this system, the householder takes the waste material from the household to the collection point. The collectors will collect the waste from the communal storage.

This system is commonly used in high-rise apartments and condominiums and also flats. The third way which is more applicable for high-rise apartments or flats in Malaysia (Razman, 1995) is Roll-to-Roll-off bins (RORO) or Reel-End Loaders (REL) which is also provided in Alor setar as an alternative way to collect the waste. The Municipal Council of Alor Setar use compactor Lorries and open Lorries (RORO) whereas 75% is own collection (by the Municipal Council of Alor Setar) and 25% is done by the appointed contractor. Even though Alor Setar town provides a free service for the collection of household waste, there are still many illegal dumps (MCAS, 2007). Solid wastes stored in containers are collected and transported to the sole sanitary landfill (level 3), which is the only option that is undertaken for the management of solid wastes. In fact, level 3, means Sanitary landfill with leachates recirculation system. The local authority has started to build another one (MCAS, 2007). Details about the landfill site are shown in (Table 2).

However, the estimated percentage of solid waste for domestic, commercial, municipal (garden waste, cleaning, markets), institutional, and industrial (non-hazardous) uses vary, as can be seen in (Table 3). The list of details on the operating landfill site in Alor Setar is summarized in (Table 2). The MCAS collected a total of 250 tones of MSW. In the new landfill area, wastes are disposed, spread and compacted in an uncontrolled manner and cover material is not applied regularly. Recycling practices are limited to those carried out by the scavengers. There is no data on the number of scavengers or on the amount of materials they salvage. Scavengers salvage glass, plastics, metals, papers and cardboard, but have no facilities or equipment for sorting valuable materials from the solid waste. Unfortunately, they suffer health problems and injuries due to dust, and the presence of broken glass and sharps. The local authority in Alor Setar is currently preparing some activities to operate a recycling campaign relating to solid wastes. Initially this will begin through local schools by distributing approximately 80-90 recycling bins in different areas in Alor Setar. These facilities are actually provided by the Federal Government through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. There is only one private company in Alor Setar town which was appointed by the Municipal Council of Alor Setar (MCAS) to collect and manage the wastes/recyclables and only one NGO to practice recycling of solid waste. These two sectors are not so effective to promote real recycling of solid wastes. This could be attributed to the fact that they have not been actively raising awareness on recycling through print media and the radio and among the households in general.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A postal survey (questionnaire) was used in the study to gather information as this is the accepted standard for conducting social surveys, though postal surveys are often hindered by having low response rates (Read et al., 1997). Respondents were given a list of questions ranging from personal and social background information to level of income and educational achievements. 450 questionnaires were distributed within a fivemonth period from 1st of August to 31st of December 2006. The strategy used was to distribute the questionnaire in randomly selected areas inAlor Setar town to represent high, middle and low incomes areas. The response rate was very good, with 389 useable questionnaires (86.4%) received and analyzed. Attributes recorded in the study included gender, age, race, education, income, family size and living area unit (Table 4).

The survey contained three sections. Data obtained included information on households’ awareness of recycling activities and campaigns, participation in recycling, facilities provided, perception as to success of the recycling campaigns and how to improve this issue. All data were analyzed using SPSS (version 11.5 for Windows) software. Additionally, Microsoft Excel version 2003 was also used to draw the Figures. An interview was carried out during January 2007 with the Head of the Department of Recycling and Waste Management in Alor Setar, focusing on problems in collecting solid wastes from the streets and in the gardens of the town. This examined whether there are enough facilities provided for solid waste recycling, such as bins, so that households can recycle their waste. If they exist how far are they away from places that people congregate and spend time? How much did it cost? Whereabouts did the promotion campaign take place? Who were the NGOs involved?And whereabouts did they operate? How long did the campaign operate?

Research hypotheses

(H1) Households’ attitudes toward recycling of solid waste recycling are positively related to their awareness. Respondents who have a more positive awareness toward recycling of solid waste will be more likely to participate in recycling campaigns.

(H2): Households’ attitudes toward recycling of solid waste recycling are positively related to the facilities provided for recycling such as distance/ location of facilities. There is a positive significant relationship between facilities provided and attitudes toward recycling solid waste.

(H3): Generally, householders have a positive attitude toward recycling. The failure of the recycling campaigns in Alor Setar is due to limitations in the approach taken by the authorities.

(H4): Participation in recycling activity can be encouraged if the weaknesses in the current approach are addressed.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Based on the question ‘have you heard or read about recycling solid wastes?, 354 (91%) of the participants responded “yes” that they have heard and read about recycling of solid wastes. A chisquare test was used to show if there is any statistically significant difference between household awareness towards recycling of solid wastes and demographics factors including race, age, gender, educational level, occupation and home type. However, significance was shown with race (p-value < 0.004) and also with occupation and house type (p-value < 0.001). The details of the inferential analysis are presented in (Table 5).

In accordance with the participants that said “yes”, it was found that most of them heard or read about recycling of solid wastes from different sources. Newspapers were the sources of information for 82.3% of respondents.(Table 6) illustrates the results of various sources through which households obtained information about recycling.

A majority (91 %) of the respondents claimed that they are aware of the ongoing campaign. Most knew it through advertisements in the newspapers. Television and radio advertising ranked second followed by newsletters and billboards. However, integrated use of all media can increase public participation (Abdelnaser et al., 2006 a,b), whereas traditional methods of promotion (including media campaigns, leaflet drops, newsletters, newspaper adverts, etc.) can only achieve a limited level of success in shifting public perception, behavior and attitude (Grodzińska-Jurczak et al., 2006). Read (1998) proved that the success of a recycling scheme depends largely on the public’s participation. Increasing household participation must be carried out using all available media, such as television and radio networks, as well as newspapers, to increase public awareness. Without appropriate information and rising of public awareness, new plans will fail to be implemented and new systems not effectively utilized (Read, 1999). Additionally, the study by Evison and Read (2001) stated that using a regular leafleting campaign to help to maintain public awareness, interest and understanding was vital for maintaining good responses. In order to increase household participation, the message of recycling and other forms of appropriate waste management need to be adequately communicated to the public, so that residents’ habits, behavior and traditions can be changed for the better, enabling local authorities to achieve government goals of recycling and recovery (Robinson and Read, 2005). In contrast, adverts in the local press intended to raise awareness of a scheme in Glasgow, Scotland, appear to have made little impression on the public and the visual impact of the sites themselves seemed to have been the best advert. A similar conclusion was reached by Belton et al.(1994) concerning the futility of newspaper adverts for a ‘bring’ scheme in Glasgow, where 84% of users had learnt of the bring sites’ existence simply by seeing sites.

Respondents were asked to give the best description of why they recycled. The survey provided eight possibilities in the questionnaire to describe their views of recycling (see Table 7). Respondents were asked to circle the reason (s) why they recycled. Only 38% claimed that they recycled to save landfill spaces, whereas 31.1% of households indicated that they recycled for the future environment/generations, respectively. Details are shown in (Table 7).

The study found that 59.9 % of households did not participate in the recycling activity. Amongst the non-participants, 25.7% indicated inconvenience or lack of time as the reason for their nonparticipation. Additionally, 32.6% of respondents agreed that the recycling facilities were too far away or inadequate. It is also interesting to note that a smaller percentage of the non-participating respondents (2.6%) indicated that they believed that recycling was only wasting their time. Table 8 presents in detail the respondents’ reasons for not participating in recycling.

When asked whether they knew the location of the nearest collection point for their area, 61.7% indicated that they knew the location. However, more than 60% complained that the collection point could not be easily located. In term of distance, only 33.7% indicated that it was within one kilometer from their house, 6.4% said it was within the radius of 2 – 3 kilometers, 7.5% indicated that it was more than 4-5 kilometers radius while 25.2% indicated that they had no idea how far these facilities were from their houses. Without doubt, the farther the location of the collection point, the more discouraged will the householders be.( Fig. 2) shows the frequency of this result. Robinson and Read (2005) found that a contributing factor for those who were not recycling was a high lack of awareness of the location of the nearest facility. While González-Torre and Adenso-Díaz (2005) commented that when citizens who are environmentally concerned have bins near to their home, they appear to be willing to recycle more fractions than when they have to walk for a longer time to drop off the waste, due to the inconvenience of carrying the large volumes that this type of waste usually occupies. Limitations and conditions of the physical environment have also been shown to be a critical factor in recycling behavior. In a study in Sheffield, UK, a main reason for non-participation in recycling was given by survey respondents as lack of space for the recycling bin (McDonald and Oates, 2003). There can be many physical barriers to recycling, making it inconvenient or unpleasant to recycle. Depending on where one lives, recycling can be easy or difficult. For instance, those living in New York City housing authority buildings (low-income housing) must typically go outside the building some distance away to deposit recyclables, and others may need to go to down to dark, vermin-ridden, garbage strewn basements. In more affluent multifamily dwellings, recycling areas are generally conveniently located on each floor and are well tended by the building superintendent. It was concluded that short distances and ready access to the bins were obviously incentives to recycling. The results relating to demographic factors were equivocal, but it was interesting to note that the types of housing in the case study were found to contribute heavily to recycling participation. This clearly showed that householders who lived in single-storey terraced houses (40.7%) and doublestorey terraced houses (26%) are more likely to recycle compare to those who lived in villages (2.5%). However, the single and double storey terraced houses are always ranked as high income areas in Malaysia while villages are always ranked as low income areas. Therefore, this can be clear proof to indicate that waste is usually collected from the high and middle income areas of the town but not in the lower-income areas because lower incomes areas sometimes have poor roads making it difficult for waste collection vehicles to access the area, and they generate fewer recyclables making it less profitable to recover materials from the waste stream.

The respondents were asked to give their opinion on the current recycling campaign hosted by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government through the Municipal Council in Alor Setar. On the question of whether the campaigns have succeeded or failed, a large proportion (83%) indicated that it had failed. Asked for the reasons for the failure, their responses can be divided into the following three broad categories: (i) there is no structured recycling mechanism being implemented to households at the moment.Recycling is done voluntarily with no incentives given. Some just do not bother to do it since there is no immediate return expected. On the part of government, measurement of the success or failure of recycling is difficult without this comprehensive structure; (ii) not enough facilities provided. Many areas are not provided with the facilities for recycling. Many people do not know the location of the nearest collection point. Location of collection points is poor or too far away, and so it is easier to throw the recyclables into the street than to bring them to a collection point; (iii) the present campaign on recycling is currently applied to the general public. The dedicated target is very broad and the success rate is quite difficult to measure. It would be better if the campaign is targeted to a specific group of people such as school children, various income groups and the most producers of wastes.Respondents were asked to rank the reasons for recycling of solid wastes. The ranking level was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= neither disagree nor agree; 4= agree and 5= strongly agree). From the results presented in (Table 9) it was found that ‘conserving resources for future generations and saving space in landfills’ was the most important reason for recycling followed by ‘saving costs’.

Other respondents ranked ‘information about the recycling improved’ as the third important factor to increase recycling in Alor Setar town.

About 99.5% of respondents ranked ‘Collection points / station placed in more convenient locations’ as the first approach to be considered by the government to increase the recycling activities and 99% ranked ‘provide recycling bins in every residential area’ in second place, followed with ‘To educate the people on the importance of recycling through activities such as: forum, exhibitions’. ‘Numerous campaigns should be launched/ started through the media (TV, internet, etc)’ was item number four to be considered by the government as one of the effective ways of increasing recycling. Surprisingly, householders placed ‘more benefits to areas with better recycling’ and ‘to organize more promotional functions’ as number six. Table 10 presents all the respondents’ rankings in terms of their effectiveness in increasing the recycling activities.The respondents were also asked of their views on how the situation could be improved. The majority of respondents suggested, “More facilities be provided”.There should be “local collection centers”, which are within easy reach for each community or housing areas. Community or group recycling should be encouraged and more effort is needed to educate the people of the need and importance of recycling. Monetary incentives may also be considered, for example by improving the community facilities in an area as a reward, based on the quantity of recyclables collected. In this regard, it is observed that the high rate of newspaper recycling might be due to the ready market for it. When asked whether they will recycle in the future, if all facilities are provided, 98 % of the respondents said that they would participate.

CONCLUSION

The survey and interview generated a number of valuable findings and it can be concluded that, even though householders were generally aware of recycling, this awareness appears not to necessarily translate into practicing recycling. This could indicate that there were other factors that hinder households’ participation in recycling, such as absence of ‘visible’ recycling centres and/or lack of incentives to do so. It is important to educate households on the possible benefits of recycling and create practical knowledge and experience in organizing a successful recycling campaign. This study was successful in identifying some reasons for the householders’ attitudes towards recycling. More specifically, it was identified many reasons given by recyclers and non-recyclers for their participation and nonparticipation. However, non-recyclers identified a number of factors that discouraged them from participating in recycling. It was clear that “lack of facilities” and “distance of facilities - being too far from homes” were the major factors. In addition, these reasons were also clear proofs that most households were not aware that they can do their bit in recycling by simply putting the recyclables and non-recyclables materials in separate bags and placing them in the ordinary rubbish bins available at house which will then be collected by the council or appointed private company or agent. Barriers to accessing solutions, such as lack of facilities or poorly designed facilities (for example, no recycling bins), inconvenience or lack of knowledge (for example, does not know the location of the nearest point to recycle) were the most commonly mentioned barriers related to facilities or infrastructure. The location of the recycling station is very important and the public attitudes towards knowledge about source separation in general and recycling stations in particular are of interest for the performance of the whole system. The study suggested more than a few strategies for the government to achieve sustained success in its recycling campaign. Firstly, to improve the operational aspects of recycling facilities by improving convenience by placing recycling bins in more accessible and visible location. Local authorities need to make their recycling services reliable, convenient and easy to use because the conventional dustbin, a convenient and reliable single point of disposal, is seen by many householders as a better option than recycling (Martin et al., 2006). Secondly, local authorities need to work closely with private sector companies and NGOs to design a range of waste containers that are suitable for a given locality. Clear instructions should be provided as to how the schemes operate and they must communicate the benefits of recycling, and emphasize that recycling does not have to be inconvenient, or take up too much time or space in the home (Read, 1999; Thomas, 2001). Thirdly, awareness of recycling and concern for the environment should be inculcated from an early age. Unfortunately, there is no formal subject dedicated to achieving this purpose in the present education system at primary and secondary level in Malaysia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Municipal Council of Alor Setar (MCAS) for providing assistance and help with the interview. The authors also wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the householders in Alor Setar town.

REFERENCES

  1. Abdelnaser, O., Mahmood, A. and Aziz, H. A. (2006a). A Brief Case on the Attitude of Households toward Recycling of Solid Waste on Terengganu State, Malaysia.Paper presented at the International Conference on Infrastructure Development and Environmental, ,Abuja City, Nigeria.
  2. Abdelnaser, O. Mahmood A. and Aziz, H.A. (2006b). Study on Households Attitude toward solid waste recycling in Perlis State, Malaysia.Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Environmental Engineering and Management (ICEEM/03), Iasi City, Romania.
  3. Belton,V., Crowe, D.V., Mathews, R. and Scott, S. (1994). A survey of public attitudes to recycling in Glasgow (U.K). J. Waste. Manage., 12, 351-667.
  4. Bolaane, B. (2006). Constraints to promoting people centred approaches in recycling. J. Hab. Internat., 30(4), 731-740.
  5. Boldero, J. (1995). The prediction of household recycling of newspapers; the role of attitudes, intentions and situational factors. J. App. Soc. Psych., 25, 440-462.
  6. Bratt, C. (1999). The impact of norms and assumed consequences on recycling behavior. J. Environ. Behav., 31, 630-656.
  7. Chong, T. L., Matsufuji, Y. and Nasir, H. (2005). Implementation of the semi-aerobic landfill system (Fukuoka Method) in developing countries: AMalaysia cost analysis. J. Waste. Manage., 25, 702-711.
  8. DeYoung, R. (1989). Exploring the differencebetween recyclers and non-recyclers: The role of information. J. Environ. Syst., 18, 341-351.
  9. Domina, T. and Koch, K. (2002). Convenience and frequency of recycling: Implications for including textiles in curbside recycling programs. J. Environ. Behav., 34(2), 216-238.
  10. Emery, A.D., Griffiths, A.J. and Williams, K.P. (2003). An in-depth study of the effects of socio-economic conditions on household waste recycling practices. J. Waste. Manage. Resea., 21, 180-1 90.
  11. Evison, T. and Read, A.D. (2001). Local authority recycling and waste awareness publicity/ promotion in UK. J. Resou.Conserv. Recyc., 32, 275-291.
  12. Ewert, A. and Baker, D. (2001). Standing for where you sit: an exploratory analysis of the relationship between academic major and environmental beliefs. J. Environ. Behav., 33(5), 687-707.
  13. Ewing, G. (2001). Altruistic, egoistic and normative effects on curbside recycling. J. Environ. Behav., 33(6), 733-764.
  14. Gamba, R.J. and Oskamp, S. (1994). Factors influencing community resident’s participation in commingled curbside recycling program. J. Environ. Behav., 26, 587-612.
  15. Garcés, C., Lafuente, A., Pedraja, M., and Rivera, P. (2002). Urban waste recycling behaviour: Antecedents of participation in a selection collection program. J. Environ. Manage., 30(3), 378-390.
  16. Gonnerman, Jr., Lutz, G.M., and Ingram, S. (2000). Beverage container deposit law: a survey of adults Iowans, Center for Social and Behavioural Research. University of Northern Iowa. Retrieved July 27, 2007, from .
  17. González-Torre, B. and Adenso-Díaz, P. L. (2005). Influence of distance on the Motivation and frequency of household recycling. Int. J. Waste. Manag., 5, 15-23.
  18. Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., Marta, T. and Read, A.D. (2003). Increasing participation in rational municipal waste management -A case study analysis in Jaslo City (Poland). Int. J. Resou., Conver. Recyc., 38, 67-88.
  19. Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., Tomal, P., Tarabula-Fiertak, M., Nieszporek, K. and Read, A.D. (2006). Effects of an educational campaign on public environmental attitudes and behaviour in Poland. Int. J. Resou., Conver. Recyc., 46, 182-197.
  20. Guerin, D.,Crete, J. and Mercier, J. (2001).A multilevel analysis of the dertminants of recycling Behaviour in the European countries. J. Soc. Scie. Resea., 30, 195-218.
  21. Hormuth, S.E., Katzenstein, H., Bruch, B. and Ringenberger, B. (1993). Psychological Studies on Garbage Avoidance and Recycling. Paper presented at the International Conference on Healthy Environments, Oklahoma City.
  22. Hornik, J., Cherian, J., Michelle, M. and Narayana, C. (1995). Determinants of recycling behaviour: A synthesis of research results. J. Socio-Econom. 4(1), 105-127.
  23. Imam, A., Mohammed, B., Wilson, D.C. and Cheeseman, C.R. (2007). Solid waste management in Abuja, Nigeria. J. Waste. Manage. 28(2), 468-472.
  24. Martin, M., Williams, I.D. and Clark, M. (2006). Social, cultural and structural influences on household waste recycling: A case study. J. Resou. Conserv. Recyc. 48(4), 357-395.
  25. McDonald, S. and Oates, C. (2003). Reasons for nonparticipation in a kerbside Recycling schemes. J. Resou. Conserv. Recyc. 39, 369–385.
  26. MORI Social Research Institute, (2002). Public attitudes towards recycling and waste ,anagement. Retrieved May 23, 2006, from http://www.number-10.gov.uk/su/ waste/report/downlaods/mori.pdf;2002.
  27. Municipal Council ofAlor Setar (2007). Information on solid wastes and recycling obtained through an interviewconducted byAbdelnaser Omran with MCAS [23th January 2007].
  28. Noor, M.Z. (2005). The Scenario of solid waste management in Malaysia, A case study (Paper presented at the Pre-Conference on Professional Training Programme on Solid Waste Management in SEA Cities, Siem Reap, Cambodia). Retrieved August 18, 2007, from http://www.SouthEast-Asia/ UrbanEnvironmentalManagement/Applications Project.htm.
  29. Nyamwange, M. (1996). Public perception of strategies for increasing participation in recycling programs. J. Environ. Educa. 27, 19–22.
  30. Oskamp, S., Harrington, M., Edwards, T., Sherwood, D., Okuda, S. and Swanson, D. (1991). Factors influencing household recycling behavior. J. Environ. Behav. 23(4), 494-519.
  31. Parfitt, J.P. Lovett, A.A. and Sunnenberg, G. (2001). A classification of local authority waste collection and recycling strategies in England and Wales. J. Resou.Conserv. Recyc., 32, 239–58.
  32. Perry, G.D.R. andWilliams, I.D. (2006). The participation of ethnic minorities in kerbside recycling: A case study. J. Resou.Conserv. Recyc., 49(3), 308-323.
  33. Petersen, C.M. and Berg, P.O. (2004). Use of Recycling Stations in Borlänge, Sweden – Volume Weights and Attitudes. J. Was. Manage., 24, 911-918.
  34. Rahardyan, B., Matsuto, T., Kakuto, Y. & Tanaka, N. (2004). Resident’s Concerns and Attitudes towards Solid Waste Management Facilities in Japan. J. Was. Manage., 24, 437-445.
  35. Razman, M.S. (1995). Solid waste management: materials flow and generation of solid waste, solid waste collection and transport. Paper presented at shortcourse on environmental engineering for non-Environmental engineers, Senai, Jojor.
  36. Read, A.D. (1998). Getting the message across: recycling in Kensington and Chelsea. Int. J. Educ. Inform., 17, 299-314.
  37. Read, A.D. (1999). A Weekly doorstep recycling collection, I had no idea we could overcoming the Local barriers to Participation. Int. J. Resou., Conver. Recyc., 26, 217-249.
  38. Robinson, G.M. & ReadA.D. (2005). Recycling behaviour ina London Borough: Results from large-scalehousehold surveys. Int. J. Resou., Conver. Recyc., 45, 70-83.
  39. Rothwell, S.A. & Walker, W. (1995). Development of community based social marketing approaches for achieving sustainability. Ontario: Pinecrest Queensway Community Economic Development Group Inc.
  40. Rotter, B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Prentice–Hall, New Jersey, USA.
  41. Salhofer, S. and Issac, N.A. (2002). Importance of public relations in recycling strategies: principles and Case Studies. J. Environ. Manage., 30(1), 68-76.
  42. Teik, K.H. (2005). Heading toward zero waste in solid waste management, The Pinang experience: Paper presented at the Pre-Conference on Professional Training Programme on Solid Waste Management in SEA Cities, Siem Reap, Cambodia). Retrieved August 18, 2007, from http://www.SouthEast-Asia/ UrbanEnvironmentalManagement/Applications Project.htm.
  43. Thomas, C. (2001). Public Understanding and its Effect on Recycling Performance in Hampshire and Milton Keynes. Int. J. Resou., Conver. Recyc., 32, 259-274.
  44. Tikka, P.M., Kuitunen, M. and Tynys, S.A. (1999). Effects of educational background on students’ attitudes, activity levels and knowledge concerning the environment. J. Environ. Educa., 31, 12-8.
  45. Tonglet, M., Phillips, P.S. and Bates, M.P. (2004). Determining the drivers for householder behaviour: waste minimization compared to recycling. Int. J. Resou., Conver. Recyc., 42, 27-48.
  46. Vining, J. and Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler? A compression of Recyclers and Non-recyclers. J. Environ. Behav., 22, 55-73.
  47. Williams, I.D. (2005). Waste strategies for local authorities: a systematic approach:Paper presented at the Annual Conference of CIWM, Raising Standard.
  48. Williams, I.D. and Kelly, J. (2003). Green waste collection and the publics recycling behaviour in the Borough of Wyre, England. Int. J. Resou., Conver. Recyc., 38, 139–160.
  49. Zimmerman, J. (1989). A social cognitive view of selfregulated academic learning. J. Educa. Psycho., 81, 329-339.

Copyright 2009 - International Journal of Environmental Research

The following images related to this document are available:

Photo images

[er09030t7.jpg] [er09030f2.jpg] [er09030t9.jpg] [er09030t5.jpg] [er09030t2.jpg] [er09030t4.jpg] [er09030f1.jpg] [er09030t3.jpg] [er09030t6.jpg] [er09030t10.jpg] [er09030t8.jpg] [er09030t1.jpg]
Home Faq Resources Email Bioline
© Bioline International, 1989 - 2024, Site last up-dated on 01-Sep-2022.
Site created and maintained by the Reference Center on Environmental Information, CRIA, Brazil
System hosted by the Google Cloud Platform, GCP, Brazil