Preferred Attributes of Waste Separation Behaviour: An Empirical Study

(1)

Procedia Engineering 145 ( 2016 ) 738 – 745

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ICSDEC 2016

doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.094

ScienceDirect

International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction

Preferred Attributes of Waste Separation Behaviour: An Empirical

Study

Low Sheau-Ting

a,

*, Tee Sin-Yee

b

, Choong Weng-Wai

b a

Centre of Real Estate Studies, Institute for Smart Infrastructure and Innovative Construction, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81300 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

b

Department of Real Estate, Faculty of Geoinformation and Real Estate, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81300 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

Abstract

This study attempts to identify the preferred attributes for waste separation behaviour among communities in Malaysian universities. Recycling is a plausible path to reduce the amount of waste generated in the country in a sustainable way. Regrettably, less than 10% of the waste in Malaysia is recycled. Separating the waste before recycling is important to avoid contamination of waste, which could diminish the value of recycling while increasing the recycling rate. Results of a preliminary survey conducted on a university campus indicate that the waste separation behaviour in the community on campus is not encouraging. A total of 564 convenience samples were invited from the community of the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia to provide their preferred attribute for waste separation behaviour on campus. A choice-based conjoint analysis identified a set of four attributes to foster waste separation behaviour, comprised of the following attributes: accessibility to the recycle bin, incentive, reminder, and information. Each attribute is associated with a list of sub-attributes. The accessibility to recycle bin attribute was identified by the community as the highest priority attribute for waste separation, with a share of 48%. The set of attributes proposed in this study will help the university management when making decisions and allocating scarce resources to foster waste separation behaviour among the community and fulfilling its social responsibility.

Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction 2015.

Keywords: Waste separation behaviour, choice based conjoint, recycling

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +6016- 7186819; fax: +607-5566163.

E-mail address: [email protected]

(2)

1.Introduction

Global waste has increased about 28% from 5.6 Mt in 1997 to 7.65 Mt in 2007 and is estimated to further increase by 30% in 2020 [1, 2]. Based on the statistics from [3], the solid waste generated from East Asia and the Pacific Region such as Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia is approximately 270 million tonnes per year. The amount of waste produced is expected to increase dramatically, parallel with the continuously increasing population and development. In Malaysia, municipal solid waste generation has gained prominence and is said to have increased more than 91% over the past 10 years [4]. The treatment of waste in Malaysia mostly relies on landfills, despite their negative impacts on the environment. Surprisingly, approximately 80% of the solid waste generated in the country are recyclables but disposed in the landfills [5].

Solid waste needs be managed properly and failing to do so will attract other issues such as expensive operation costs, environmental pollution, land scarcity, etc. Recycling is one of the most effective methods used to reduce wastes [6]. Malaysia’s target is to increase the nation’s recycling rate to 22% by the year 2020 [7]. Regrettably, recycling in Malaysia is still in its infancy [8]. The former National Solid Waste Management Director once stated that, “Malaysians need to work harder to practice 3R if compared to neighbouring countries, such as Singapore which has average recycle of 58% of their total waste” [9]. According to Solid Waste Corporation’s chief executive officer Datuk Ab Rahim Md Noor, out of the 33,000 tonnes of solid waste collected daily in Malaysia, only 10.5% was recycled while the rest was disposed of at the disposal sites [10]. The average recycling rate in Malaysia is only 10.5% while for the commercial and institutions sector it is even lower at 7.4%; recyclable materials generated per employee were at 0.12 kg/employee/day out of 1.94 kg/employee/day [11].

The Malaysian government is committed to reducing the country’s waste generation for a sustainable society. As in the Eighth Malaysia Plan (2001–2005), the emphasis has been placed on waste minimization while in Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006–2010), the government further emphasised Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle (3R). In the recent Tenth Malaysia Plan (2011–2015), the government is urging the nation towards waste separation practise. Recently, the Malaysian government has launched a programme called, “Separation of Solid Waste at Source,” the mandatory separation of waste at the source in stages effective 1September 2015. The programme aims to reduce the amount of solid waste sent to dumpsites by up to 40% by the year 2020, as well as to increase the rate of recycling in excess of 22% by the year 2020, as the government has committed. This is possible if the nation aggressively progresses towards waste separation behaviour. Separating the waste that has recycling value such as plastic, paper, and glass is the initial step to increase the recycling rate. Proper waste separation will not only increase the recycling rate, but also reduce the volume of waste and reduce detrimental impacts to the environment [12,13]. As in a study conducted by [14] in an institutional context, 16 months of a recycling programme conducted on a campus showed that the waste separation performance can increase the recycling rate to 84%.

Every programme’s success relies on the cooperation of the people and its community. For that, the active practise of waste separation behaviour among the community is among the key ingredients in realising the target set in Malaysia. Due to the large size and population of the campus community, universities produce large volumes of waste [15]. A university is an organisation that involves a large community and contributes to a significant amount of the country’s waste generation. As a waste producer, a university is responsible for managing its own waste. Previous research has highlighted the poor progress made in waste separation practise in the nation. Referring to a preliminary survey conducted at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in the year 2014, results showed that the campus community did not separate the waste according to the colour label of the recycle bins; instead, they contaminated and mixed different types of recyclables waste in a recycle bin. Solid waste that has recycle value should be separated to avoid contamination of waste. Contamination of the recyclables will decrease the value of the recycling. [16] has conducted a study in an institutional setting in Malaysia, and found that only 18% of the respondents practise waste separation on a weekly basis.

Poor waste separation behaviour among the community may be due to various factors that prohibit the waste separation practise, which may include a limited market for recyclables, lack of information about the right way to separate waste, poor access to recycling facilities, etc. To effectively foster waste separation behaviour among the community, identification of the right combination of attributes that facilitate the behaviour change must be identified. Attributes of waste separation behaviour can be described as components that likely encourage and

(3)

facilitate people to separate the waste, and thus, foster their waste separation behaviour. As according to [17], the attributes that lead people to separate the waste is important to policy makers, particularly in waste reduction efforts. A nationwide survey highlighted an interesting result which is that, “making recycling a habit should come from ‘inside,’ rather than be imposed from outside with stricter enforcement of health and safety regulations and imposition of penalties” [11]. This is consistent with the fundamental social marketing approach, where the behavioural change will be sustained if it is voluntary. The desired behaviour will only be sustained if it is done based on one’s own preference. As a matter of fact, the management should provide the right attributes that are preferred by the community instead of attributes that the management “think” might be important for the local community to facilitate the desired behaviour change. Previous studies have researched various factors such as social-psychological factors and situational factors affecting the recycling behaviour. However, to the best of our knowledge, studies focused on identification of the optimal combination of attributes to effectively foster waste separation behaviour among the community in Malaysia are limited. Hence, the question arises: what are the attributes that are preferred by the community to facilitate their waste separation behaviour? Accordingly, the present study serves as an initial attempt to propose the optimal combination of preferred attributes to facilitate waste separation behaviour among the community in a Malaysian university. The scope of this research is limited to the students and staff at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The organisation of the remainder of this paper is as follows: first, a description of the waste separation practise on the campus and the attributes that facilitate waste separation behaviour is presented; next, the measures used to develop the optimal combination of the attributes, the results and findings are discussed; and lastly, a conclusion and the limitations of the research is presented in the last section.

2.Attributes in fostering waste separation behavior

Attributes in fostering waste separation behaviour can be explained as the component that facilitates waste separation practise, and hence, fosters the waste separation behaviour in the local context. Recyclable waste in present study merely refers to plastic, paper and glass that have a recycle value. According to a definition provided by [12], recyclable waste separation is about separating the waste that has a recycle value from the other waste in order to have a higher recycle rate and to reduce the volume of waste. Based on a review of previous studies conducted on pro-environmental behaviour, mainly recycling behaviour, a total of four attributes have been identified. These include accessibility to recycle bins, information on the separation of waste, incentive for waste separation, and a reminder to separate waste. Each attribute consists of two to three sub-attributes. A further description of each of these attributes is presented below.

2.1. Accessibility to recycle bins

Accessibility to recycle bins means the proximity to available recycle bins. The proximity of recycle bins has a great influence on recycling behaviour as it encourages people to participate in recycling and waste separation behaviour [18]. The shorter the distance to recycle bins, the higher the likelihood people will separate their waste, as in found in a study by [19]; a shorter distance to recycling bins can increase recycling programme participation. Recycling bins should be easily accessed at the place where there is a higher generation of waste [20]. Lacking recycling bins is acknowledged as one of the factors that restrict the recycling behaviour [21]. One of the studies conducted by [22] that used a Geographical Information System to investigate preferable walking distance to drop municipal solid waste into the collection bin, has found that the optimal distance for complete collection of municipal solid waste is within 75 metres. The students and staff who might want to throw paper into the paper recycle bin possibly would not do so if the recycle bins are placed far from their classroom or office. A willingness for waste separation increased if the recycling bins were reached within walking distance [23]. Considering that distance may affect the waste separation behaviour among the community, this study has included three options of distance for access to the nearest recycle bins: access to recycle bins with less than 100 metres, access to recycle bins with a distance of 100–500 metres, access to recycle bins with a distance of more than 500 metres. The rationale is to identify the optimal distance that is acceptable from the community’s perspective.

(4)

2.2.Information to separate waste

Information to separate waste means clear instructions on how to separate waste correctly and feedback information about total waste separated on campus. These two sub-attributes are identified from the preliminary survey conducted among the campus community. A study conducted by [24] showed that university students lack knowledge about recycling on campus. Not knowing the procedures for waste separation has been acknowledged as one of the factors that prohibit waste separation among households in Surabaya, Indonesia [25]. A study conducted by [26] has found that the citizens who received information on how to sort the waste are more likely to participate in a recycling programme. Feedback on the waste separated provides updates to the participants regarding the quantity or amount of waste separated. Feedback may serve as a motivator to the participants on their efforts in separating the waste. The effectiveness of feedback in encouraging pro-environmental behaviour has been proven in previous research, for instance, a study by [27] on effectiveness of feedback in encouraging energy conservation among university students; the results showed that the respondent group that received feedback and education about electricity conservation used 11% less energy compared to another group that only received education on electricity conservation.

2.3.Incentives to separate waste

Incentives motivate people to do better and encourage the people to practise the desired behaviour. According to [28], incentives provide the initial motivation for a sustainable activity. Once the activity becomes part of their daily life, they will continue their habits even without the extrinsic motivation. Generally, incentives can be divided into two categories: monetary incentives such as a cash reward and non-monetary incentives, which involve a reward that is not in monetary form. The effectiveness of incentives in motivating desired pro-environmental behaviour has been confirmed in previous research. For instance, previous research conducted by [29] showed that up to half of the respondents would be encouraged to return old phones if they received monetary incentives (max. 5 euros). In addition, a study was conducted by [30] in Turkey to investigate if non-monetary incentives can work as motivation tool to the employee in a company. The study found that 70% of the employees consider non-monetary incentives as playing role in increasing the employee’s job performance. Hence, the significance of the monetary and non-monetary incentives confirmed in previous studies can potentially mirror the application in the waste separation context.

2.4.Reminder to separate waste

A reminder is, “instruction and gestures to increase the likelihood of people to make correct responses” [31]. A reminder is useful in retaining sustainable behaviour [32]. A reminder to separate waste helps users to remember and maintain the practise that they tend to forget. This study divided reminders into two types—verbal reminders and written reminders. According to the findings of a study conducted by [33], they found that a combination of verbal reminders and written reminders increases the recycle rate to 22.1%. A written reminder is a reminder provided in written form such as a sign in corridors, near the recycle bin, a flyer, email, or short written explanation about the types of waste that can be recycled. A verbal reminder is words and instructions that direct a person to be involved in the desired behavior [34]. For instance, lecturers in a university remind and encourage students to recycle and separate the waste; the head of a department reminds the staff to recycle and separate the waste. In a study by [35] about increasing the consumption of fruit served among schools in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) in America through a verbal reminder, the result showed that a verbal reminder is effective as it can significantly increase the percentage of children taking and consuming fruit.

(5)

3.Methodology

This study attempts to use a choice-based conjoint analysis to identify the most favourable attributes in the waste separation behaviour in a community. Eventually, a combination of a campus community’s preferred attributes can be identified. A choice-based conjoint analysis enables us to measure the attributes conjointly by asking respondents to choose a group of attributes (instead of one) that are most favourable. Sawtooth Software was used to analyse the empirical data gathered. A random method with balanced overlap was selected to generate the questionnaire using Sawtooth Software. In the present study, a number of questions recommended by Sawtooth Software is 8-13, thus, we have generated a total of 13 questions with each question displaying four profiles (including a “none” option) with various combinations of attributes to facilitate their waste separation behavior on campus. The respondents were asked to choose from the displayed profiles those which they preferred most to facilitate their waste separation behavior consistently over an extended period of time. However, due to a suggestion by respondents during the pre-test stage, the number of questions in the survey sheet was reduced to 11 questions, with the number of profiles in each question remaining. The “none” option profile is provided for respondents that do not wish to choose among those profiles shown; respondents were not forced to choose combinations of attributes they did not like.

CBC studies are commonly conducted online and administered by a computer, for many possible versions of questionnaire can be generated for each respondent to maintain accuracy. However, considering that respondents in this study are in a community on campus, which is easily reachable, a paper and pencil method for CBC administration was selected. To maintain the questionnaire accuracy, the researcher is required to create several versions of the questionnaire instead of a single version for all respondents. Thus, a total of 10 versions of the CBC questionnaire were generated for this study as suggested by Sawtooth Software. To ensure a balanced questionnaire distribution, every version of the questionnaire was distributed equally to users. The personal distribution and collection of questionnaires enabled researchers to provide an on-site explanation on any enquiries about the questionnaire, thereby minimising unnecessary errors and securing more valid responses. An example of question design is shown in Table 1.

The subjects of this study were 564 students and staff from the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Convenience sampling was employed to gather the required responses. A total of 800 copies of the questionnaire were distributed face-to-face to respondents. The overall response rate was 70.5%. Among the 564 respondents, 330 respondents were female (58.5%) and 234 respondents were male (41.5%). Students consisted of undergraduates (56.6%) and postgraduates (16.3%) while staff consisted of education service officers (24.3%) and academic staff (4.8%). Education service officers are members of the staff from different departments and faculty in UTM. Academic staffs are lecturers from different faculties.

Table 1. Example of question design

Package 1 Package 2 Package 3 Package 4

Access to Recycle Bins:100-500

metres Access to Recycle Bins: > 500 metres Access to Recycle Bins:< 100 metres

NONE: I wouldn't choose any of these. Clear Instructions (how to separate

the waste) Feedback on Total Waste Separated Clear Instructions (how to separate the waste)

Non-monetary Incentive Monetary Incentive Non-monetary Incentive

Verbal Reminder Verbal Reminder Written Reminder

4.Results and discussion

Two important findings from the CBC analysis are the average utilities values for the levels of each attribute and the average importance of the attributes. Average utilities values are computed from the individual part worth utilities values which, used to estimate the relative strengths of preferences for each attribute that facilitates waste separation behaviour. The higher the utilities values, the more the level is preferred by the community on campus. The utilities values are zero centred, where the utilities are scaled sum to 0 within each attribute. Thus, a negative value does not mean it is undesirable, but just slightly less desirable compared to other levels within the attribute [36]. On the other hand, the average importance of the attributes is to characterise the degree of importance of the attribute. The sum of all attributes’ importance is 100%. The average importance is calculated with reference to the

(6)

ranges of the attribute’s part worth utility values. Table 2 shows the average utilities values and average importance of the attributes from the community’s perspective. From all the attributes, the community agrees that the most favourable attributes to facilitate their waste separation behaviour on campus is accessibility to recycle bins. The optimal distance access to recycle bins is between 100 and 500 metres. The second preferred attribute is an incentive to separate waste (17.45%), followed by a reminder to separate waste that achieved 12.47%, and the least preferred attribute is information about separating waste.

Table 2. Average utilities values and average importance values

Attribute and Attribute Level Utility Value Average Importance /

Ranking

A1: Accessibility to Recycle Bins 19.22% / 1

Access to Recycle Bin: <100 metres 32.39

Access to Recycle Bin: 100 metres–500 metres 39.28

Access to Recycle Bin: >500 metres -71.67

A2: Information for waste separation 9.46% / 4

Clear Instruction of Waste Separation 5.35

Feedback on Waste Separation -5.35

A3: Incentive for waste separation 17.45% / 2

Monetary Incentive for Waste Separation 15.85

Non-Monetary Incentive for Waste Separation -15.85

A4: Reminder for waste separation 12.47% / 3

Written Reminder for Waste Separation 2.79

Verbal Reminder for Waste Separation Total Average Importance Values

-2.29

100%

The result demonstrates that the most important attribute in fostering waste separation behaviour is accessibility to the recycle bins, with an average importance of 48.37%. This result matches with the research of [18] who asserted that an adequate number of recycling bins is important to encourage people to recycle and separate the waste efficiency. Among the three options of distance of accessibility to recycle bin, the campus community agreed that the optimal distance is within 100–500 metres, with utilities values of 39.28. Thus, the university management should ensure that sufficient recycle bins are located and scattered around the campus within the distance of not more than 500 metres. The recycling bins that are placed far away (more than 500 metres) are less favourable and not convenient for the community to practise waste separation behaviour. Recycling bins should be located where they are near the waste generation. A reward with an incentive to waste separation behaviour performed by the community is agreed as the second important attribute motivating the waste separation behaviour among the campus community. The results of this study show that a monetary incentive is more favourable than a non-monetary incentive with the utility value of 15.85 and -15.85, respectively. This indicates that a financial incentive is more attractive compared to the non-monetary incentive, which is consistent with the findings in some previous studies. For instance, in a study by [37], a financial incentive is important to sustain waste separation and recycling among households, particularly the low-income groups. Among the four attributes to foster waste separation behaviour, the least preferred attribute that gained average importance of less than 10% is information to waste separation, 9.46%. This might be due to the campus community being aware of which types of waste and how to separate waste. The community does not need much information about the matter and has less interest in the progress, results and feedback on waste separation on the campus. In turn, they prefer to receive a reminder more than information on separating waste. A reminder had an average importance of 14.5%. According to [38], a reminder was acknowledged as the strategy that effectively encourages and reminds students to practise energy conservation in the university. Results show that the community prefers a written reminder instead of a verbal reminder. This is a rationale for verbal reminders given by superiors that will sound as a kind of pressure on the office environment. In any case, a reminder alone is not sufficient to increase the waste separation behaviour among the community; hence, the management should combine attributes to strengthen the practise of waste separation behaviour among the campus community.

(7)

5.Conclusion

This research complements existing literature, to identify the combination of attributes that are preferred by the campus community to foster waste separation behaviour on campus. Also, the relative weight of each of the attributes to foster waste separation on the university campus has been identified. The identification of such a combination of attributes provides strategic direction to the management for which attributes are more important to target, thus, ensuring that limited resources allocation is being used efficiently. This is intended as a long-term mechanism to cultivate the campus community’s sustainable waste separation behaviour. The results of this study revealed that the most important attribute to encourage waste separation on campus is to ensure that the community is able to access the recycling bins in a distance of 100–500 metres. Limited access to recycling bins will restrict the waste separation behaviour. Additionally, incentives to the waste separation efforts by the community, a reminder to remind the community to practise waste separation, and updated information should be included as a package of attributes in designing a programme to foster the campus community’s voluntary waste separation behavior. This study has limitations that should be acknowledged. Considering the package of attributes identified for waste separation behaviour, caution must be applied, as the findings might not be able to be transferred to all types of pro-environmental behaviour. Additionally, the results of this study are limited to the Malaysian context; an extension to other geographical contexts may be applied with further investigation.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the research grant and financial support provided by the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) and University Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), under the FRGS research grant number R.J130000.7809.4F506 and Q.J130000.2527.11H61.

References

[1] Tan, S.T., Ho, W.S., Hashim, H., Lee, C.T., Taib,M.R., & Ho, C.S. (2015). Energy, economic, and environmental (3E) analysis of waste-to-energy (WTE) strategies for municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Malaysia. Energy Conversion and Management. 102, 111-120. [2] Malaysia Second National Communication to the UNFCCC. ISBN 978-983- 44294-9-2; 2007

[3] Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: A global review of solid waste management. Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers. 15,1-98.

[4] Agamuthu, P., & Fauziah, S.H. (2011). Challenges and issues in moving towards sustainable land-filling in a transitory country – Malaysia.

Waste Management and Research, 29(1), 13–9.

[5] Moh, Y.C., & Manaf, L. A. (2014). Overview of household solid waste recycling policy status and challenges in Malaysia. Resources,

Conservation and Recycling. 82: 50-61

[6] Mrema, K. (2008). An Assessment of Student Environment Attitude and Behavior and Effectiveness of Their School Recycling Program. Dalhousie University.

[7] Periathamby.A and Hamid.S.F & Khidzir.K. (2009). Evolution of Solid Waste Management in Malaysia: Impacts and Implications of the Solid Waste Bill. Journal Material Cycles Waste Management.11. 96-103.

[8] Manaf, L. A., Samah, M. A. A., & Zukki, N. I. M. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: Practices and challenges. Waste

management, 29(11), 2902-2906.

[9] Lai, A. (25 May 2013). Sort your rubbish for recycling for separate collection. The Star Online, Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2012/03/24/Sort-your-rubbish-for-recycling-for-separate-collection/

[10] New Straits Times Online. (31 August, 2015). Separation of solid waste at source begins tomorrow. New Straits Times Online, Retrieved 15 September, 2015 from http://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/09/separation-solid-waste-source-begins-tomorrow

[11] Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing ad Local Government. Survey on Solid Waste Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of Solid Waste Recycling in Malaysia. June, 2013. Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara http://jpspn.kpkt.gov.my/resources/index/user_1/Sumber_Rujukan/kajian/Final_Report_REVz.pdf

[12] Matter, A., Dietschi, M., & Zurbrügg, C. (2013). Improving the Informal Recycling Sector through Segregation of Waste in the Household– The Case of Dhaka Bangladesh. Habitat International. 38, 150-156.

[13] Rahji, M.A.Y. & Oloruntoba, E.O. (2009). Determinants of Households’ Willingness-to-Pay for Private Solid Waste Management Services in Ibadan, Nigeria. Waste Management and Research, 27, 961-965.

[14] Armijo de Vega, C., Ojeda Benítez, S., & Ramírez Barreto, M. (2008), Solid Waste Characterization and Recycling Potential For a University Campus. Waste Management, 28, 21-26.

[15] Alshuwaikhat, H.M., & Abubakar, I. (2008). An integrated Approach to Achieving Campus Sustainability: Assessment of the Current Campus Environmental Management Practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1777-1785.

[16] Hashim, K. S. H., Mohamed, A. H., Zahidah, H., & Shah, M. (2012). Developing a Waste Minimization Awareness Model through Community Based Movement: A Case Study of The IIUM Green Team. 5(5), 112–123.

(8)

[17] Schultz, P., Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1996). Who Recycles and When? A Review of Personal and Situational Factors. Journal of

Environmental and Psychology, 15, 105-121

[18] Malakahmad, A., Za, M., & Nasir, M. (2010). Solid Waste Characterization and Recycling Potential for University Technology PETRONAS Academic Buildings. American Journal of Environmental Sciences. 6(5): 422-427.

[19] Lansana, F. M. (1992). Distinguishing Potential Recyclers From Nonrecyclers: A Basis For Developing Recycling Strategies. Journal of

Environmental Education. 23(2), 16-23.

[20] Penpece, D. (2011) The Effect of Communication Medium and Container Location on Paper Recycling: A Case Study. International Review

of Management and Marketing1, 8-13.

[21] Yoreh.T. (2010). Ultra-Orthodox recycling narratives: implications for planning and policy. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy. 4(4), 323-345.

[22] Nithya, A.R., Velumani.A. & Senthi Kumar (2012). Optimal Location and Proximity of Municipal Solid Waste Collection Bin Using GIS: Case Study of Coimbatore City. Waste Transactions on Environment and Development, 4(8), 107-119.

[23] Babaei, A., Alavi, N., Goudarzi, G., Teymouri,P., Ahmadi, K., & Rafiee, M. (2015). Household recycling knowledge, attitudes and practices towards solid waste management. Resources, Conservation & Recycling,102, 94–100. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.014

[24] Kaplowitz, M. D., Yeboah, F. K., Thorp, L., & Wilson, A. M. (2009). Garnering input for recycling communication strategies at a Big Ten University. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53, 612–623. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.04.018

[25] Dhokhikah, Y., Trihadiningrum, Y., & Sunaryo, S. (2015). Community participation in household solid waste reduction in Surabaya, Indonesia. Resources, Conversation and Recycling, 102, 153-162

[26] Guerrero, L. A., Maas, G., & Hogland, W. (2013). Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste

Management, 33(1), 220–232. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.008

[27] Carrico, A.R. (2011). Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: An evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 31:1-13.

[28] Gneezy, U., Meier, S., & Rey-Biel, P. (2011). When and Why Incentives (Don’t) Work to Modify Behaviour. Journal of Economic

Perspectives, 25(4), 191–210.

[29] Yla-Mella, J., Keiski, R.L., & Pongracz, E. (2015). Electronic waste recovery in Finland: Consumers’ perceptions towards recycling and re-use of mobile phones. Waste Management, 45,374-384.

[30] Yavuz, N. (2004).The Use Of Non-Monetary Incentives as a Motivational Tool: A Survey Study in a Public Organization. Master of Science in Science and Public Administration. Middle East Technical University.

[31] Krantz, P.J., & MacClannahan, L.E. (1999). Social Interaction Skills for Procedures with Validation of The Most Practical Procedure in Teaching Reading for Daily Living. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 14, 102-127.

[32] Choong, W.W. (2011). The process of fostering sustainable awareness and behavioiur among urban communities. Paper presented at the 17 international symposium on society and resource management, Sabah, Malaysia.

[33] Spaccarelli, S., Zolik, E. & Jason, L. A. (1989). Effects of Verbal Prompting and Block Characteristics on Participation in Curbside Newspaper Recycling. Journal of Environmental Systems, 19, 45-57.

[34] MacDuff, Gregory S., Patricia J. Krantz, & Lynn E. McClannahan. (2001). Prompts and Prompt-Fading Strategies For People With Autism.

Making A Difference: Behavioral Intervention For Autism. 37-50.

[35] Schwartz. M.B. (2007). The Influence of A Verbal Prompt on School Lunch Fruit Consumption: A Pilot Study. International Journal of

Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 4, 6.

[36] Orme, B. (2010). Getting Started With Conjoint Analysis. Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. (2nd ed.). Madison, Wis.: Research Publishers LLC.

[37] Permana, A. S., Towolioe, S., Aziz, N. A., & Ho, C. S. (2015). Sustainable solid waste management practices and perceived cleanliness in a low income city. Habitat International, 49, 197–205. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.05.028

[38] Marcell, K. , AGyeman, J., & Rappaport, A. (2004). Cooling the Campus: Experiences from a pilot study to reduce electricity use at Tuffs Universtiy, USA, using social marketing methods, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 5(2), 169-18