Comparative assessment on household e-Waste management in three cities in Malaysia / Mahmuda Aziz

• Main Author: Mahmuda Aziz, Aziz
• Format: Thesis
• Published: 2021
• Subjects: GE Environmental Sciences; Q Science (General)
• Online Access: http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/14328/1/Mahmuda_Aziz.pdf; http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/14328/2/Mahmuda_Aziz.pdf; http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/14328/
• Institution: Universiti Malaya

Electronic waste or E-waste is a relatively new waste stream that is fast growing because of the increased production of electronic items with short lifespans. Like other developing countries, Malaysia is also facing problems of managing E-waste. Although research have been carried out on industrial E-waste, however, E-waste from households has not been adequately studied. Thus, this study is intended to assess the current E-waste management and recycling practice among the public in three major cities in Malaysia, namely Putrajaya, Shah Alam, and Petaling Jaya. A questionnaire survey was the main method used to collect data from 1200 respondents from the three cities. From the Material Flow Analysis (MFA) 23,033 kg per year (at a rate of 19.19 kg per capita) of E-waste was generated from the study areas, from which only 15.89% was recycled. The public in Putrajaya generated the lowest amount of E-waste (17.99 kg per capita) compared to that in Petaling Jaya and Shah Alam. 33% of public generally kept their E-waste at home or sell to scrap dealers rather than sending it to recycling centers. 88.96% of electronic items was recorded as stocks (153.73 kg per capita) and air conditioner was the largest stock at 59,235 kg (28.38%). Pearson correlation revealed a significant but positively weak correlation (r = 0.067, p < 0.05) and a significant regression equation was found as well [F (1,1198) = 5.416, p < 0.05), with an R2 of 0.005 between knowledge and practice on E-waste management and recycling among the public in the three cities. From One-way ANOVA and Bonferroni Post Hoc test, significant differences among the three cities were observed in level of public knowledge [ F (2,1197) = 12.886, p < 0.05], and practice [Welch’s F (2,770.49) = 119.79, p < 0.05] on E-waste management and recycling. However, significant variations were only observed in E-waste management and recycling practices among the public between 31 to 40 age group, higher learning education, and higher income level. According to the public opinion, inadequate facilities, lack of awareness and education, insufficient recycling centres, and public ignorance towards E-waste management were the main reasons behind the unsuccessful recycling program in the study areas. Law enforcement, frequent programs on public awareness, incentives or gifts, and closer proximity of recycling centre will enhance the E-waste recycling in the study areas. The findings of this study can be utilised by the policy makers and other stakeholders so that effective steps can be taken to increase the performance of recycling among the public.