**1. Introduction**

"The throw-away society is a human society strongly influenced by consumerism. The term describes a critical view of overconsumption and excessive production of shortlived or disposable items", quoted [1], who argues the cost of this throw-away culture in compromising the needs of future generations and threatening the natural system that the survival of all living things depends on [2]. As more products are made more affordable, they are less appreciated, as society can dispose and buy new items, often beyond what is needed, rather than send them for repair [3]. This marks the peak of the global waste generation at 2.01 billion tonnes (0.74 kg per person daily), but its rate, amount, and quality will continue to surge by 70%, without consideration of the concept of distancing in dealing with waste during post- and pre-consumerism [4,5].

Statistics show that over 90% of waste in low-income countries (compared to 66% for low-middle-income and 30% for upper-middle-income) is disposed of at open dumps or landfills, which are the most adopted waste disposal methods [5,6]. These waste disposal sites have thus become the only and popular method used by cities (with limited municipal

**Citation:** Yu, P.L.; Ab Ghafar, N.; Adam, M.; Goh, H.C. Understanding the Human Dimensions of Recycling and Source Separation Practices at the Household Level: An Evidence in Perak, Malaysia. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 8023. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su14138023

Academic Editors: Luis Garrote and Alban Kuriqi

Received: 26 April 2022 Accepted: 22 June 2022 Published: 30 June 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

budget) to dispose of the high volume of (unsorted) waste generated daily. Waste disposal sites are optimal breeding grounds for disease vectors and sources of toxin release into the atmosphere and oceans [2,5]. However, they will not be publicly acknowledged as environmental issues if landfilling remains the only urban waste management service [7]. If waste continues to be collected regularly without a proper sorting system to support it, and if there are no restrictions on consumption or changes in lifestyle choices, society will continue to remain in denial and ignorant to the over exploitation and destruction of the planet's natural systems as a result of their personal waste footprint [1,2].

Malaysia is one of the upper-middle-income countries that heavily rely on landfill disposal, with almost 89% of waste collected (from a waste generation rate at 33,130 tonnes daily) being sent to a total of 170 landfills. Out of these, only 14 are categorised as sanitary. The official lab report of the country estimates that at least 40% waste diversion can be achieved [8,9]. Consequently, space and land availability will gradually emerge as a major limitation to landfilling as the increasing waste volume exceeds the capacity of the treatment, not to mention other waste problems to be addressed, such as illegal dumping and plastic waste import [10,11]. The overconsumption of the throw-away society, together with almost-absent resource recovery attempts and a lack of political will and social responsibility towards sustainable and integrated waste management, present a huge barrier for the transition to waste minimisation [7].

The first effective step towards waste minimisation in the European Union waste hierarchy is recycling. This includes composting, which deals with more waste fractions, for instance, organic or biodegradable waste and e-waste [12,13]. The integration of recycling and source separation (R&SS) is crucial to create a compound effect on the waste diversion from landfilling when waste composition and its quality is carefully managed [14]. However, Malaysia's recycling efforts and implementation have focused on only a few categories of recyclables, while source separation only came into enforcement in late in 2015, along with the formulation of Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Act 672) [7]. A community survey showed that only 28% of households in Kuala Lumpur engage in source separation, even though the legislation has been enforced [15]. This result denotes several constraints found in the implementation, especially when dealing with the complexity of human dimensions within the current waste management system and mechanism [7].

This contrasts with a case reported in Shanghai, China, where source separation was mandated in 2019. The study in [16] reports that nearly half of the households had negative emotions towards the policy. Although the households found it difficult to follow the segregation guidelines, which were rather broad and ambiguous in the details [17], it was fear towards the heavy fines imposed by the government rather than environmental protection or sustainability that pressured the households to comply with the regulation [16]. Thus, it deviated from the Chinese government's initial vision of promoting sustainable development, which aims to depreciate the culture of throwaway consumerism [18]. The key idea here is to promote a sustainable society by sustainable waste disposal while looking into individual daily consumption through lifestyle choice [1,3,18]. However, diversified urban governances and management systems, as well as different cultural readiness, lead to different speed and quality of transition to waste minimisation [17,19].

As such, it is important to investigate the potential factors that drive households' behaviour change and their potential adaptation to local context. In identifying these factors, many researchers relate the discussion of waste management and sustainable consumption with pro-environmental behaviour; the studies in [20,21] suggest that environmental knowledge is important yet insufficient to drive action. The studies in [22,23] argue that a high satisfactory level of knowledge, together with attitude, could more likely drive good behaviour, while [24] explains behaviour is an interactive output of attitude and choice with the presence of external causality such as constraint (cost, time), habits or routine, disincentives and scepticism. The study in [20] also claims that pro-environmental behaviour involves both internal and external factors. Meanwhile, [25] categorises non-recyclers into

three major groups based on the common characteristics of the barriers (or "excuses", as referred in the original article) selected through a community survey conducted by Ipsos in 2011. Each group discusses distinctive reasons and psychology behind the action towards recycling participation; for instance, time consumption, issue of convenience, lack of knowledge, or absence of communal effort or strong influence. These parameters guided them to weigh their decision together with the current waste management environment they are provided with. The interpretation of each grouping, as well as the interventions the author proposed, conveys the relation of multiple internal and external factors (potential parameters other than knowledge and attitude level) with the behaviour.

This study aims to make locally adaptive recommendations to encourage household participation in R&SS practices with a case study in Manjung district, Perak. In doing so, the study examined household KAB, as well as other potential parameters that influence household behaviour towards waste generation and management. Specifically, authors ask (1) What are the associations between the households' level of KAB towards R&SS practices? (2) What are the enabling factors of households' participation in R&SS practices? (3) What are the barriers of non-recyclers or non-waste sorters? (4) What are the practical recommendations to encourage R&SS participation?

This study contributes to empirical evidence by addressing the gap between the households' awareness and the actual sustainable waste disposal rate that relates directly with the households' participation in R&SS practices. The authors advocate the idea that changes in behaviour start with improved level of knowledge and attitude, although improved level of knowledge and attitude may not necessarily lead directly to change in behaviour. At a minimum, the public will have some knowledge about the generation (which would influence the purchasing decision and the material leftover after consuming products) and disposal of domestic waste so that the demand for products will be shifted to those that carry sustainable and environmentally friendly qualities and are easier to manage during disposal. This would have an impact on the supply side of materials, of which the manufacturers may respond to the demand and redesign the products using ecofriendly material. Consequently, when the entire chain of production adopts the concept of sustainability from such market activity, the system could then be elevated to a higher level in the waste hierarchy: reduce, reuse, and lastly, prevention.

By identifying households' knowledge level, their attitude towards both practices and the waste management process, as well as their behavioural pattern on the R&SS practices, this research intends to establish a basis to support the decision making process in relation to the waste management system. The proposed recommendations highlight the importance of further encouraging household involvement on R&SS practices. Discussions of results concerning expectation and feedback are useful for the municipality and relevant stakeholders for their service improvement and to help policymakers, waste management planners, local administrators, and researchers to formulate policies and strategies in sustainable waste management, as well as serve as a basis to identify further areas of study.
