Understanding the Human Dimensions of Recycling and Source Separation Practices at the Household Level: An Evidence in Perak, Malaysia

Abstract

Recycling and source separation (R&SS) are believed to have been the first attempt to minimise waste. This research adopted mixed methods that followed sequential quantitative then qualitative data collection, combining questionnaire surveys from 100 households, semi-structured interviews, and participatory observations to study the human dimension of waste generation and management. Scoring Assessment (with modified Bloom’s Cut Off point) indicated that households had moderate knowledge and positive attitudes yet poor behaviour, and these three components indicated no linear associations, tested using Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient. However, age group, marital status, educational level and living duration showed statistical significance with households’ participation in source separation through Chi-Square Test. Meanwhile, observation data showed that waste management mechanisms and environment had inefficiently supported households’ participation in R&SS practices (external factors: poor accessibility to services, lack of tangible incentives, and absence of restriction in consumption). Elicited data indicated that a satisfactory level of intentions, knowledge, and willingness, together with good habit and quality persuasion (internal factors), were required to drive good behaviour. Subsequently, a series of recommendations were formulated to promote gradual yet solid transformation of the waste management system, tapping on existing initiatives by considering additional parameters upon the gap in households’ knowledge, attitude, and behaviour.

Assessment of Farmworker’s Level of Knowledge in Banana Cultivation and its Implication on Productivity Improvement in the Lower Shabelle Region of Somalia

“…The maximum expected knowledge score was 30 and 0 was the minimum. All knowledge statements were computed and categorized as low knowledge if the score was (≤60%) (0-18 scores), moderate level (61-80%) (19-23 scores), and high level (≥ 81%) (24-30 scores) according to bloom's cut-of-point classification (Bloom BS, 1956, Bloom, B. S. 1968Yu et al l 2022). Consequently, to find the weakest and strongest cultivation area each cultivation part that contains 5 statements is also computed separately and then categorize into Low-level (≤ 60%), Moderate level (61-80%), and High-level (≥ 81%) according to Bloom's cut-off point classification.…”

Associations between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Hepatitis B Virus Infection and HBV Infection among Blood Donors in Mogadishu, Somalia: A Hospital-based Cross-sectional Study

“…Likewise, the attitude section used a scoring system ranging from strongly disagree (1 score) to strongly agree (5 score) or vice versa for negative statements with a maximum score of 60. Responses were categorized as negative attitude (< 60%), neutral attitude (60-79%), and positive attitude (≥ 80%) based on Bloom's cut-off point classi cation [28][29][30][31]. The practice section scored "1" for correct responses (always) and "0" for incorrect responses (never and occasionally), with a maximum expected score of 10.…”

“…The practice section scored "1" for correct responses (always) and "0" for incorrect responses (never and occasionally), with a maximum expected score of 10. Categories were designated as poor practice (< 60%), moderate practice (60-79%), and good practice (≥ 80%) based on Bloom's cutoff point classi cation [26][27][28][29][30][31].…”

“…Attitude scores ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), or their opposites for negative statements, with a maximum score of 60. Responses were categorized as negative attitude (< 60%), neutral attitude (60-79%), or positive attitude (≥ 80%) according to Bloom's cutoff point classi cation [28][29][30][31]. Practice scores assigned 'always' as correct (1) and 'never'/'occasionally' as incorrect (0), leading to a maximum score of 10.…”

“…Practice scores assigned 'always' as correct (1) and 'never'/'occasionally' as incorrect (0), leading to a maximum score of 10. These were grouped as poor practice (< 60%), moderate practice (60-79%), and good practice (≥ 80%) aligning with Bloom's cutoff point classi cation [26][27][28][29][30][31].…”