Sustaining the Environment: Critical Success Factors and Barriers of Solid Waste Management through Composting Practices by Rural Communities in Malaysia

Abstract

Generally, rural areas can contain large amounts of organic and household wastes, which on average, is rarely managed well. Meanwhile, composting is a waste management method that decomposes organic waste biologically, thus contributing toward better waste management and environmental sustainability. However, exposure to more efficient waste management methods and the knowledge of the importance of composting are still low among rural communities. These communities also do not realise that composting has the added potential benefit of increasing household income. Therefore, this exploratory study was performed guided by two objectives, first to identify the critical success factors of composting practice for improving the economy and quality of life among rural communities, and second, to identify factors that hinder this composting practice. A quantitative approach was used for this purpose, where data were obtained through non-probability sampling from respondents located in 32 rural villages in the Kubang Pasu District of Kedah, Malaysia. The results of this study revealed that villagers living outside of city limits do not practice composting as part of their waste management. Among the barriers that were identified as preventing composting practice in these rural village communities, were the lack of knowledge, awareness, and interest in composting. However, some of these respondents indicated that they were aware of composting through television, radio, social media, newspapers, and from various programmes organised by certain organisations. In conclusion, this study has provided information as a guide to stakeholders for them to act by further educating rural communities about composting, perhaps highlighting more the potential benefits of earning a side income through the adoption of composting practices by producing and selling compost fertilisers.

1. Introduction

Every individual wants a comfortable lifestyle and a better standard of living, regardless of where they are, whether in urban or rural areas. However, there are many factors that contribute to the improvement of the quality of life and socio-economic status of a community, in which the quality of life is not only viewed based on economic development, but also through other perspectives, such as social, psychological, political, cultural, educational, and environmental aspects. This also includes self-development, a healthy lifestyle, the freedom to acquire knowledge, and enjoying a standard of living that exceeds the basic and psychological needs of the individual when achieving a higher level of social well-being [1].

However, discussions on improving the quality of life and economy of rural populations are still limited and mainly focus on agricultural activities. Some communities today are still unaware that solid waste produced daily from homes can also generate significant income to sustain their survival.

Solid waste is anything that results from human activities, and is thrown away and unwanted. Typically, the population produces a lot of household waste. In accordance with the Solid Waste and Public Waste Management Act (2007) [2], household solid waste is any scrap material or unwanted excess or rejected products arising from the use of any process; any items required to be disposed of as damaged, worn out, contaminated, or otherwise impaired; or any other material in accordance with this Act or any other written law required by the authority to be disposed of. However, for most of these households, their organic waste is made up of vegetables and fruits. According to Paul, Jarencio, Boorsma, and Libradilla [3], organic waste that is dumped into landfills are poorly managed and this would create environmental hazards, such as the build-up of gases (like methane) from sewage. The lack of collection and treatment of organic waste is expected to become a threat to the environment, as well as resulting in more waste and increased cost of solid waste management [4].

Therefore, effective solid waste management can prevent environmental pollution. It is a systematic method of management and treatment of waste, and it is regulated by specific methods with innovation [5], such as recycling, waste separation [6], and composting. However, in this paper, organic waste management methods are focused upon exploring how much they can help improve the quality of life and economy of the rural population. More specifically, the objectives of this study were to identify critical success factors toward improving the quality of life and economy of rural communities through composting, and the barriers to implementing composting in rural communities.

This study was performed to explore the potential of composting as a method of organic waste management, which can increase the side income of rural communities through the production and sale of compost fertiliser, to perhaps attain Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8, which is “Decent Work and Economic Growth”, and also contribute toward achieving SDG 1 of “No Poverty”. This is because rural areas produce a lot of organic waste from agricultural activities in plantations, as well as organic and household waste in residential areas. However, this waste is mostly not managed properly and systematically. Therefore, there is a need to study rural areas to examine whether composting activities are performed in rural communities to manage organic waste, with the additional positive benefit of increasing household income. This would further improve the quality of life and the overall economy of the rural community. In the next section, the discussion focuses on composting and its implementation in other countries.

2. Literature Review

Composting

Composting is a process of biodegradation and stable transformation of humus by bacteria, microorganisms, and high-level organisms in solid waste from decomposed organic elements, such as agricultural, urban, commercial, and other types of waste [7]. This composting usually involves organic waste, consisting of kitchen waste or food waste and crop residues, which can be used as supplemental fertilisers to replace chemical fertilisers, and serve as soil structure enhancers to promote better crop production. Improved compost quality can be achieved by adding nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, which can help farmers to use low-cost fertilisers from good organic sources [7].

At the same time, such composting is said to be a potential source of income and can improve quality of life and economy of the rural community [8]. Composting is one of the practices for sustainable solid waste management that is applicable and important to rural areas in terms of resulting in less reliance on solid waste disposal facilities [9]. Composting has also been identified as an intervention initiative in sustainable housing and office development [10]. Typical methods of disposal in rural areas include wild sewage, river discharge, or open burning of household waste [11]. Such practices, however, not only threaten public health and the local environment, but can also cause significant losses in terms of planning for the implementation of composting and recycling activities, as well as losing the potential for energy recovery.

As such, home composting is considered a more appropriate treatment option and can play a key role in rural areas to remove biological waste (bio-waste) from wildlife or waste disposal sites that are not protected by waste collection services [12]. In fact, according to Mihai and Ingrao [11], home composting is good practice among rural residents with sustainable environmental solutions and enhances the quality of compost and productivity of agricultural land, while incorporating rural bio-based economies.

Meanwhile in the Philippines, the use of organic waste is said to offer the opportunity to improve the livelihood of the people where rural waste collection exceeds 50% of organic matter. It is seen as having a good potential because these rural areas comprise agricultural areas and offer various options for recycling or composting organic waste amounting up to 2000 tons per year, as compared to urban areas in terms of waste recovery of organic matter [3]. Meanwhile in Nairobi, Welie, Truffer, and Yap [13] reported that composting involved the use of urea-coated biodegradable bags to disinfect faeces directly, which were then reused as fertilisers by coffee farmers. This was introduced in 2009 by an international social enterprise. Composting was also regarded as a viable option, where three out of five case studies reviewed by Johansson, Krook, and Eklund [14], had selected compost as an output for their separation methods. Meanwhile in New Zealand, the wine sector has incorporated composting wastes from aquaculture farms in nearby areas as fertilisers [15].

3. Research Methodology, Sampling, and Instrument

The implementation of this study was based on a research design that included an action plan that shows in detail how the study was conducted and serves as a guide in helping researchers though the process of collecting, analysing, and interpreting the results of the research. Therefore, to answer the research question, namely, what are the critical success factors and barriers to improving the quality of life and economy of rural communities through composting, this study was performed using a quantitative approach [16] that involved non-probability sampling. This quantitative approach, namely a questionnaire-based survey, was employed as it was deemed to be suitable for this work in identifying how many villages were involved in composting. At this stage of the research journey, the authors wanted to confirm which factors really mattered. Additionally, based on the research output by these authors, potential factors had been identified previously, and this current research effort, therefore, focused on measuring the percentage of agreement of respondents to those factors. A qualitative approach was considered for this study, but it was decided that the information would perhaps be restricted by the concerns of those interviewed. However, by using the current survey approach, the critical success factors could be voted upon by more respondents to confirm their importance.

The population sampled in this study consisted of 180 selected villages in rural communities in Daerah Kubang Pasu, Kedah, Malaysia. There was a need for performing this research as the problem relating to the use of the potentially beneficial waste management method of composting has not been thoroughly investigated in the past. Because this research was newly performed in this area, it can be considered as exploratory, which is the type of research conducted to have a better understanding of the existing problem [17].

Meanwhile, the population limits the extent to which data can be collected and analysed, and the interpretation and inference of the collected data was also limited to the population studied. Sampling was the research strategy to obtain information about a population from several individuals who were members of that population. Therefore, for this study, 125 respondents were identified, representing rural villages with similar characteristics.

In this study, of the 125 villages in the rural parts of Kedah, Malaysia, that were initially approached, only 32 responded. Non-probability sampling is useful for exploratory studies that deploys a survey to a smaller sample, and it was employed using convenient sampling where samples can be easily obtained and accessed from the expected location to provide information [18] without knowing the exact population. This convenient sampling is the most basic type of non-probability sampling and is performed based on an existing subject or any location that has respondents with the characteristics to be studied.

The implementation of this study involved a questionnaire as the main instrument for data collection. This questionnaire was divided into two main sections, namely sections A (respondents’ demographics) and B (critical success factors and barriers to composting activities).

The questionnaire instrument used a Likert scale where value 1 represents “strongly disagree” and value 5 represents “strongly agree”, according to the relevance of the questions. The questions were designed to obtain data related to the implementation factors of composting activity. An open-ended question was used to obtain data related to barriers to composting activity execution. The five-point Likert scale was chosen because of its high reliability and that it presented sufficient choices to the respondent. Furthermore, it is simple to understand and often used for surveys, as it takes less time and effort to complete than higher-point scales. Respondents have choices without becoming overwhelmed. In today’s digital age, the five-point Likert scale also fits mobile device screens better than higher-point scales.

This study assessed face validity of the questionnaire through expert opinion to ensure that the wording/content of questions in each critical success factor appears to measure what it is supposed to measure. Furthermore, this study evaluated the reliability of questionnaire through the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test, as summarised in

Table 1. Reliability of Questionnaire.

Factors	Items	Reliability
Local Culture/Environment	3	0.712
Social Acceptance	3	0.701
Attitude	3	0.791
Information Delivery	2	0.819
Composting Facilities	3	0.827
Education/Program	3	0.737
Policy/Organizational Planning	2	0.946
Financing	2	0.720
Technical/Operations	4	0.767
Marketing/Promotion	2	0.975

. It was observed that the values ranged from 0.701 to 0.975, which is higher than the 0.70 cut off value, thus indicating the questionnaire had adequate reliability.

In this study, pie and bar charts were used to depict the distribution of categorical data, especially the respondents’ profile. For the item/question in each critical success factor, mean (average) score for each question were computed to assess the level of awareness, or level of performance. As the 1 to 5 Likert scale was used, this study classified the level of the mean score as 1.00–1.99 (Low), 2.00–2.99 (Slightly Low), 3.00–3.99 (Slightly High), and 4.00–5.00 (High). In addition, respondents’ count (n) and percentage (%) were presented alongside the mean scores to show the distribution of respondents’ opinion regarding particular questions.

4. Data Collection and Research Limitation

Data collection was done through presenting the questionnaire in an online Google form to known village representatives and asking them to forward it to other village community members. However, out of the 125 rural villages in the Kubang Pasu district that were approached, only 32 provided feedback within the three-month data collection period set.

This study was limited by researchers having difficulties in accessing villages and meeting face-to-face with the respondents due to the Movement Control Order (MCO) that was enforced by the authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, it was difficult for the researchers to explain in detail the purpose of the study to the rural village communities. In fact, follow-up sessions were also difficult due to limited Internet coverage in rural areas. The researchers also could not collect all the required contact numbers of the community members to send the Google form link, so they could only contact a few village heads and ask for their assistance to forward the Google form to other village representatives. However, the researchers assumed that it was possible that the community also did not fully know the purpose of the study and perhaps ignored the questionnaire upon receiving it. In retrospect, poor Internet coverage in rural areas was the main cause of difficulties for rural community members to answer this Google form questionnaire. Therefore, not many village representatives were able to answer the questionnaire for this study.

5. Results and Discussion

The findings explained a few aspects that were obtained in relation to the critical success factors and barriers in implementing composting among rural communities.

5.1. Respondent Profile

This section aims to describe the distribution of the population involved in the survey based on factors such as gender, status, race, age, education level, household number, occupation, and monthly income.

Figure 1 presents the gender distribution of respondents. From the pie chart, clearly most of the respondents were male, making up as much as 94% of the total. In terms of respondents’ marital status (Figure 2), all were married (100%).

Figure 3 shows the respondents’ race distribution. It was observed that all respondents from rural villages were Malay. This was expected as most of the Kedah population (80%) are Malay, according to the census done by the Department of Statistics Malaysia in 2010.

Figure 4 depicts the age distribution of respondents from rural villages around Kedah. Most were above 50 years old (85%), followed by those who were 41–50 years old (12%), and lastly only about 3% of respondents were 21–30 years old.

In terms of respondents’ education level, this study depicts the distribution using a bar chart, as shown in Figure 5. Most respondents from rural villages in Kedah had completed secondary school level (70%), followed by a diploma level (15%), certificate level (12%), and lastly only 3% with a master level of education.

Next, this study revealed the respondents’ number of household members using a bar chart, as shown in Figure 6. From this chart, clearly most rural area villagers had more than five household members staying with them (36%), followed by those with five (33%), then four (24%), and lastly three (6%). It can be said that about 95% of respondents had at least four household members staying with them.

Figure 7 presents the occupation status of respondents using a pie chart. From the chart, it was observed that most respondents were self-employed, accounting for 88% of the total. A minority of respondents were either private workers (9%) or government workers (3%).

Next, this study analysed the respondents’ monthly income and distribution, as depicted in Figure 8. Based on this chart, clearly most rural area villagers had low income, in which 55% of respondents earned about RM 501–1500 monthly, followed by respondents earning RM 1501–2000 monthly (27%), then RM 2001–3000 monthly, and only about 3% of respondents earned RM 4001–5000.

5.2. Assessment of Critical Success Factors

This section evaluates the performance level of critical success factors for composting practices among villages in Kedah, Malaysia. This study employed ten critical success factors to be assessed, namely (1) local culture or environment, (2) social acceptance, (3) attitude, (4) information delivery, (5) composting facilities, (6) education or programme, (7) policy or organisational planning, (8) financing, (9) technical or operations, and (10) marketing or promotion.

Table 2. Level of local culture or environment.

Question	Mean	SD (%)	D (%)	U (%)	A (%)	SA (%)
a. My village carries out agricultural activities.	4.4	0 (0)	1 (3)	0 (0)	16 (48.5)	16 (48.5)
b. My village implements large scale composting activities (in groups).	1.3	25 (75.8)	5 (15.2)	3 (9.1)	0 (0)	0 (0)
c. My village implements small scale composting activities (individual).	2.5	7 (21.2)	7 (21.2)	14 (42.4)	4 (12.1)	1 (3)

SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, U = Unsure, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

depicts the level of performances for each aspect in the local culture or environment critical success factor. It is important to state that the overall mean for local culture or environment was revealed at 2.8, which is slightly underperformed. From the results, clearly many rural villages in Kedah carried out agricultural activities, supported with a mean agreement level of 4.4. Furthermore, rural villages in Kedah had a very low level of large-scale composting activities or slightly low in small-scale practices, with mean values of 1.3 and 2.5, respectively.

Next, this study examined the critical success factor of social acceptance among rural villages in Kedah, as summarised in

Table 3. Level of social acceptance.

Question	Mean	SD (%)	D (%)	U (%)	A (%)	SA (%)
a. My village has received encouragement from the involved parties/organisations’ regarding the implementation of composting activities.	1.8	20 (60.6)	6 (18.2)	2 (6.1)	4 (12.1)	1 (3)
b. My village has the potential to implement composting of household/kitchen/food waste.	3.1	2 (6.1)	7 (21.2)	12 (36.4)	10 (30.3)	2 (6.1)
c. My village has the potential to implement composting of vegetation/garden waste.	3.8	0 (0)	1 (3)	8 (24.2)	20 (60.6)	4 (12.1)

SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, U = Unsure, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

. Overall, the mean value of 2.9 indicates that rural villages in Kedah were slightly underperformed in this factor. From this table, it can be clearly seen that the low social acceptance was due to lack of encouragement from involved parties or organisations regarding the implementation of composting activities, with a mean value of 1.8. The results showed that villagers had a high social acceptance to looking at the potential to implement composting of vegetation or garden waste in their village, with a mean value of 3.8. In addition, 72% of respondents agreed that there was huge potential for implementing composting if vegetation or garden waste are used. Furthermore, the results clearly showed that there were several respondents unsure (36.4%) of the potential of composting using household, kitchen, or food wastes, resulting in a mean value of 3.1.

Next, this study examined the critical success factors in terms of attitude toward composting and the results are as summarised in

Table 4. Level of attitude.

Question	Mean	SD (%)	D (%)	U (%)	A (%)	SA (%)
a. The residents of my village are aware about the importance of composting.	3.4	1 (3)	3 (9.1)	11 (33.3)	17 (51.5)	1 (3)
b. The residents of my village are interested in composting activities.	3.0	2 (6.1)	3 (9.1)	21 (63.6)	6 (18.2)	1 (3)
c. The residents of my village have implemented composting activities.	2.3	8 (24.2)	11 (33.3)	9 (27.3)	5 (15.2)	0 (0)

SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, U = Unsure, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

. Attitude had an overall mean value of 2.9, implying that rural villages in Kedah had a slightly low performance in the attitude factor. In other words, the rural villages in general, were neutral about composting. From this table, clearly the rural villages had a slightly higher awareness regarding the importance of composting with a mean value of 3.4. In addition, 54.5% of respondents from rural villages agreed with the statement, while 33% were unsure, and only 12% disagreed.

Meanwhile, rural area villages showed neutral or an average level of interest in composting activities, supported with a mean value of 3. Furthermore, it was noticed that as high as 63.6% of respondents claimed they were unsure whether the residents of their village were interested in composting activities, and about 21% claimed that residents in their village were interested in composting activities.

Next, the mean value of 2.3 suggests that there was a low level of composting implementation in rural area villages in Kedah. Based on the results, only five respondents from rural villages (15.2%) claimed that their village had implemented composting activities, while 27.3% of respondents were unsure about this, and as high as 57.5% of respondents disagreed that the residents of their village had implemented composting activities.

For this part, this study assessed the information delivery as one of the critical success factors of composting implementation, and the results are as summarised in

Table 5. Level of information delivery.

Question	Mean	SD (%)	D (%)	U (%)	A (%)	SA (%)
a. My village has received information regarding composting.	3.8	0 (0)	4 (12.1)	2 (6.1)	25 (75.8)	2 (6.1)
b. The residents of my village understand the composting information that has been received or read.	3.6	1 (3)	2 (6.1)	8 (24.2)	20 (60.6)	2 (6.1)

SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, U = Unsure, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

. This factor has overall mean of 3.7, indicating that rural area villages had an above average level of information delivery. Referring to this table, it was noticed that both aspects had above average mean values, at 3.8 and 3.6. For the first aspect, more than 80% of respondents from rural villages in Kedah claimed to have received information regarding composting, with only 12% disagreeing. For the second aspect, about 67% of respondents believed that residents from their village actually understood the composting information received, which led to a higher than average mean level of 3.6.

Next, this study examined the critical success factor of composting facilities, and the results are as shown in

Table 6. Level of composting facilities.

Question	Mean	SD (%)	D (%)	U (%)	A (%)	SA (%)
a. My village has composting facilities.	2.2	15 (45.5)	6 (18.2)	3 (9.1)	9 (27.3)	0 (0)
b. My village receives aid and facilities from certain parties/organisations for the implementation of composting activities.	1.5	25 (75.8)	4 (12.1)	0 (0)	3 (9.1)	1 (3)
c. The residents of my village prepare their own materials and equipment for composting.	2.0	13 (39.4)	11 (33.3)	5 (15.2)	4 (12.1)	0 (0)

SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, U = Unsure, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

. In general, this factor showed below average achievement, with an overall mean value of 1.9, indicating that rural area villages lack composting facilities. Looking at this table, it was observed that all aspects were low, especially the second aspect with a mean value of 1.5 (lowest score = 1). The first aspect measures availability of composting facilities in rural villages around Kedah. From the results, as high as 45.5% of respondents strongly disagreed, and 18.2% disagreed that their village had composting facilities, which resulted in a mean value of 2.2.

For the second aspect, it measured whether rural villages received aid and facilities from certain parties or organisations for the implementation of composting activities. From the results, most respondents disagreed that they had received aid, with 75.8% of them strongly disagreeing and 12.1% of them disagreeing. The large amount of disagreement from rural villages resulted in a mean value of 1.5.

The third aspect measured the availability of composting facilities prepared by the residents of rural villages. From the results, clearly as high as 85% of respondents strongly disagreed that residents from their village prepare their own materials and equipment for composting. This led to a low mean value of 2.0 for the third aspect of composting facilities. Therefore, it can be concluded that rural villages in Kedah had a low level of composting facilities.

Next, this study evaluated the composting implementation critical success factors in terms of education or programme, and the results are shown in

Table 7. Level of education or programme.

Question	Mean	SD (%)	D (%)	U (%)	A (%)	SA (%)
a. The residents of my village have received training from certain parties/organisations regarding composting.	1.4	24 (72.7)	6 (18.2)	1 (3)	2 (6.1)	0 (0)
b. The residents of my village have attended programmes about composting.	1.5	24 (72.7)	3 (9.1)	4 (12.1)	2 (6.1)	0 (0)
c. There are certain parties/organisations that organise composting programmes in my village.	1.4	28 (84.8)	1 (3)	1 (3)	1 (3)	2 (6.1)

SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, U = Unsure, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

. Overall, education or a programme has a low achievement level among rural area villages in Kedah with an overall mean value of 1.5. Based on this table, it is obvious that all aspects had low levels of achievement with mean values of 1.4, 1.5, and 1.4, respectively.

The first aspect measured whether rural area villages had received training from certain parties or organisations regarding composting. The low mean value of 1.4, plus that most respondents strongly disagreed (72.7%) or disagreed (18.2%) with this statement, indicated that those rural villages in Kedah did not have the opportunity to receive training regarding composting.

Then, the second aspect measured whether the residents from respondents’ village have attended programmes about composting. The low mean value of 1.5, together with that most respondents strongly disagreed (72.7%) or disagreed (9.1%) with the statement, implied that villagers from rural villages rarely had the opportunity to attend programmes related to composting activities.

The third aspect served to discover whether there were certain parties or organisations that organised composting programmes in respondents’ villages. From the result, clearly the mean value was low, and a high (84.8%) proportion of respondents strongly disagreed that there was any composting programme in their village, organised by certain parties or organisations. Based on these findings, this study can safely claim that there was a low level of education or programmes pertaining to composting provided to rural villages in Kedah.

The results of the policy or organisational planning critical success factor are summarised in

Table 8. Level of policy or organisational planning.

Question	Mean	SD (%)	D (%)	U (%)	A (%)	SA (%)
a. There is a framework or planning that has been created related to the composting activities in my village	1.3	29 (87.9)	1 (3)	1 (3)	2 (6.1)	0 (0)
b. My village has followed the framework or planning regarding composting activities that have been given by certain parties/organisations.	1.3	29 (87.9)	0 (0)	3 (9.1)	1 (3)	0 (0)

SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, U = Unsure, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

. Overall, policy or organisational planning showed a low achievement level among rural villages in Kedah, with a mean value of 1.3. Both aspects showed extremely low mean values of 1.3 and most respondents strongly disagreed (87.9%) with statements regarding them. In short, there was no framework or planning provided, thus residents from rural area villages had nothing to follow.

Next, this study assessed the critical success factor in terms of composting related financing, and the results are as reported in

Table 9. Level of financing.

Question	Mean	SD (%)	D (%)	U (%)	A (%)	SA (%)
a. There is financing or monetary resource that is specially provided for implementing composting activities in my village.	1.2	30 (90.9)	1 (3)	0 (0)	2 (6.1)	0 (0)
b. The residents of my village use their own personal financial resource to produce compost.	1.8	20 (60.6)	3 (9.1)	7 (21.2)	3 (9.1)	0 (0)

SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, U = Unsure, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

. In general, the financing factor had a low achievement level in the rural villages in Kedah with an overall mean value of 1.5. Furthermore, looking at the two aspects, it was noticed that both showed a low mean value, of 1.2 and 1.8, respectively. It was also observed that 90.9% respondents strongly disagreed that they receive financing or monetary resource for implementing composting. Furthermore, most respondents strongly disagreed (60.6%) that villagers finance themselves to produce compost. Hence, the rural area villages in Kedah lacked financing to implement composting.

Table 10. Level of technical or operations.

Question	Mean	SD (%)	D (%)	U (%)	A (%)	SA (%)
a. There is available technology or method to implement composting in my village.	1.6	23 (69.7)	3 (9.1)	5 (15.2)	2 (6.1)	0 (0)
b. There is skilled manpower to implement composting activities in my village.	2.2	13 (39.4)	6 (18.2)	9 (27.3)	4 (12.1)	1 (3)
c. The overall operations of implementing composting activities in my village run smoothly.	1.4	27 (81.8)	2 (6.1)	2 (6.1)	2 (6.1)	0 (0)
d. The operational costs for running composting activities in my village are at the bare minimum.	1.5	26 (78.8)	1 (3)	4 (12.1)	2 (6.1)	0 (0)

SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, U = Unsure, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

reports the results for the critical success factor of technical or operations. Overall, rural villages in Kedah only had a low level of achievement when it came to technical or operation aspects, supported with an overall mean value of 1.7. The first aspect measured the availability of technology or method to implement composting in rural villages. The low mean value of 1.6 was in tandem with 69.7% of respondents who strongly disagreed or 9.1% who disagreed with the statement, which strongly suggests that the technology or methods for composting were absent from rural villages in Kedah.

Then, the second aspect measured whether there was sufficient skilled manpower to implement composting activities in rural villages. From the results, this aspect had a low mean value of 2.2. In addition, there were 39.4% of respondents who strongly disagreed, 18.2% that disagreed, and 27.3% that were unsure whether there was skilled manpower in the rural villages. All these responses highlight the fact that rural villages lacked skilled manpower for composting activities.

Furthermore, this study measured whether operations for implementing composting activities run smoothly in rural villages. It was observed that this aspect received extremely low agreement from respondents, resulting in a mean value of 1.4 and as high as 81.8% of respondents strongly disagreed with this statement. This finding was expected due to the lack of composting activities in rural villages in Kedah.

Finally, this study assessed the fourth aspect that measured whether the operational costs for running composting activities at rural villages in Kedah were at a bare minimum. The results showed that respondents thought composting activities can be costly with a mean score of 1.5, and 78.8% of them strongly disagreed that the costs were at bare minimum. Therefore, the findings above showed that rural villages in Kedah have a low level of technical ability for operations.

In this part, the study analysed the critical success factor of marketing or promotion, and the results are shown in

Table 11. Level of marketing or promotion.

Question	Mean	SD (%)	D (%)	U (%)	A (%)	SA (%)
a. My village has implemented promotional activities for the composting that has been carried out.	1.1	31 (93.9)	0 (0)	2 (6.1)	0 (0)	0 (0)
b. My village sells or markets the compost to outsiders.	1.2	31 (93.9)	0 (0)	1 (3)	1 (3)	0 (0)

SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, U = Unsure, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree.

. For the marketing or promotion factor, the achievement was extremely low with an overall mean value of 1.1. Two aspects were measured here, i.e., whether there were promotional activities for composting conducted in rural villages in Kedah, and whether the compost produced was sold or marketed to others. From the results, the low mean values (1.1, and 1.2, respectively) and that a large majority of respondents strongly disagreed with the statements (93.9%), strongly suggested that rural villages in Kedah did not have marketing or promotion related to composting.

In this section, this study sheds light on the critical success factors by comparing all the levels of performance or achievements together, as shown in Figure 9. From the mean values, this study found that information delivery factor had the highest performance, with a mean value greater than 3. The findings of this study have proven that in line with the results of a previous study performed by Chukwunonye [19], one of the critical success factors for implementation and growth of composting activity is optimal information delivery.

The bar chart also shows that the factors of local culture or environment, social acceptance, and attitude have above average performances. These findings were also supported by Chukwunonye [19] as success factors for the implementation of composting activities. Lastly, six factors were found to underperform with mean values less than 2 (low performance), namely composting facilities, education or programme, policy or organisational planning, financing, technical or operations, and marketing or promotion. In general, many of these critical success factors have room for improvement. Overall, Figure 10 shows the summary of all critical success factors according to high, average, and low performance ratings of composting for rural villages in Kedah.

Indeed, the success of implementation and growth of such composting activities is supported by several factors, such as composting facilities, operational or technical processes [3], attitude, optimal information delivery, sustainable education or programmes, financing, local culture, policy and legislation, and organisational planning [19].

However, these success factors also depend on the cooperation of all parties, including those involved with the related composting activity. According to Chukwunonye [19], in Abuja, Nigeria, although policy and environmental frameworks have been proposed as a factor in the success of composting activities, as a new city, this factor has not yet been established.

In terms of financing factors, the study by Paul et al. [3] revealed that municipalities need to provide adequate funding for composting based on local waste generation rates and support private or individual operators to process organic waste to prevent waste from being dumped or incinerated at landfill and disposal sites, respectively.

In fact, under the small-scale composting projects in the Philippines, operating factors also played a role in the execution of composting activities whereby the cost of operations involved must be implemented at a minimal rate [3]. In addition, Paul et al. [3] also stated that marketing development for composting products was necessary from the beginning by integrating marketing strategies into project planning. In fact, the planning of a project should consider a uniform process for the overall treatment and suitability of composting facilities provided with the amount of organic material to be processed. At the same time, efficient project and operational staff skills are crucial as relationships with the private sector are encouraged to explore economic performance with specific functions to meet public and community functions and objectives.

5.3. Barriers in Composting Implementation

This section explored the barriers to implement composting in rural villages in Kedah. This was based on the open-ended question asking respondents about what they thought were the barriers that hinder them from implementing composting activities. From their responses, this study further classified the challenges into (1) awareness, (2) knowledge, (3) attitude, (4) tools/facilities, (5) financial support, (6) organisation or party support, (7) market/sales, and (8) source.

Figure 11 depicts the number of counts for barriers mentioned by respondents from rural villagers in Kedah. This chart shows that the barriers related to mostly a lack of knowledge or skill that hinders the implementation of composting. This result was in line with the studies by Abarca et al. [20], Wang and Geng [21], and Satori et al. [22]. Next, the second barrier was lack of awareness of composting, a result that parallels the studies by Abarca et al. [20], and Wang and Geng [21]. Third, attitude, such as lazy and lack of interest, was identified. Furthermore, the lack of composting facilities and financial support for composting was in line with the studies by Abarca et al. [20], Aparcana [23], Ezeah and Roberts [19], Paul et al. [3], and Wang and Geng [21]. Some of the barriers mentioned by respondents that are worth considering include, lack of organisations or parties for support, lack of market or sales, and lack of sources for compost. These findings parallel those in the studies by Abarca et al. [20], Aparcana [23], Ezeah and Roberts [19], and Paul et al. [3]. Overall, Figure 12 shows the summary of barriers to composting in rural villages in Kedah according to rank order from highest (first) to lowest (eighth).

The implementation of composting methods for solid waste management was impeded by various factors, such as technical, financial or economic, socio-cultural, institutional or organisational, and political or legal aspects [20,23], environment [20], and operating and investment costs [3].

Following this, Abarca et al. [20] pointed out that barriers to policy and legal planning are viewed in terms of insufficient policies and clear laws regarding composting. In fact, it was revealed that these waste laws are broken down into different laws, which result in deficiencies in many important elements of composting, such as technology, cost effectiveness, and enforcement mechanisms [19]. In fact, budgetary constraints and lack of governmental economic support are also seen as factors that could impede the implementation of this beneficial waste management system [19,20]. The lack of organisational capacity and skills at the local authority management level can also hinder the success of this waste management system, including lack of educational campaigns and awareness of the importance of proper waste management systems, as well as the role of the community as a waste generator and processor. In addition, lack of technology and a lack of skilled technical labour for operating waste management efficiently, lack of waste equipment and structures, such as waste transfer stations, stores, old waste, vehicles, poor road conditions, and so on, are also seen as factors that impede the implementation success of this solid waste management process [20,21].

Meanwhile, in the Philippines, while there are various benefits in composting from small-scale commercialisation projects in the local waste management system, they do involve excess costs and investment. Although the Philippine legal framework has promoted the recovery and recycling of materials especially for the formation of compost components in each municipality, the remaining management practices are still poor and difficult to implement [3]. According to Paul et al. [3], composting is extremely beneficial and can significantly improve the waste management system in rural areas. However, it is difficult to implement at the household level and can only be implemented on a small scale in municipal projects based on the rural environment. The lack of good roads also impedes waste collection efficiency as well as impeding promotion of production, including compost that is difficult to handle without composting facilities.

Looking at Indonesia, there are various solid waste management methods implemented, including composting of organic waste, or kitchen and garden waste. However, the public understanding of composting through urban farming programmes is still seen as low and requires the public to be informed. One of these programmes is through the brick composting bin method. This overlay brick technology is a method of composting organic waste using aerobic principles. It is made of red bricks arranged without a layer of cement at a certain distance where the function of the hole that is formed is intended for ventilation that assists aerobic bacteria [22].

6. Conclusions

The value of this paper is in its potential contribution toward achieving the SDG 8 goal, where composting of household, garden, and other agricultural wastes that were previously eliminated without proper waste management, is one of the potential activities to generate additional income for rural communities. Therefore, this exploratory study of composting in rural village communities can highlight the potential for composting to enhance the quality of life through the generation of additional income from production and sale of compost fertilisers, while at the same time creating a clean and healthy environment. However, from this study, it was revealed that most villages in the rural areas of Kedah do not practice composting; only a handful of villages performed this activity. The success factors and those that hinder the community from implementing composting were significantly opposing: rural communities do get the information about composting through television, radio, social media, newspapers, and from various programs organised by particular organisations (success factors), but lack of knowledge, awareness, and interest about composting were identified barriers that hindered the wide practice of composting.

From the several obstacles identified in this study, it is recommended that future studies can explore other appropriate methods to encourage composting among rural communities to increase household income while contributing toward the sustainability of nature. In addition, future studies can provide ideas for the development of a framework or policy for composting in rural areas. In the meantime, based on the limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic that made it difficult to successfully collect data, it is recommended that future studies should be conducted face-to-face so that the purpose of the study can be explained more clearly to the respondents. In fact, future studies can also be performed using a qualitative approach, so that more detailed information can be obtained as compared to only obtaining information through questionnaires.

Overall, this exploratory study provides a reference and information to interested parties and stakeholders showing that the level of awareness and disclosure about the importance of composting is still insufficient for rural village communities. Therefore, organisations and parties involved can take immediate steps to educate the community so that household and organic wastes that are produced outside city limits can be properly managed through sustainable composting and at the same time increase the household income of the rural communities, in support of achieving the SDG 8, mostly focusing on economic growth, thus ultimately leading toward the achievement of SDG 1 and the elimination of poverty.