Table (1) outlines the demographic features of the participants, revealing that of the 437 study participants, 258 (60.4% of the total) were male, 294 (69%) were students, and there was a poor response from teachers and employees. We have a low participation rate from non-Arabic speakers 33 (7.7%), so the language variable removed from analysis and interpretations.
Table (1) demographic classes of the survey respondents in QU
Variable
|
Category
|
n
|
%
|
Gender
|
Male
|
258
|
60.4
|
Female
|
169
|
39.6
|
Positionn
|
Students
|
294
|
68.9
|
Faculty members
|
118
|
27.6
|
Employees
|
15
|
3.5
|
Age
|
Less than 25
|
265
|
62.1
|
From 25 to 40
|
60
|
14.1
|
More than 40
|
102
|
23.9
|
Language
|
Arabic
|
394
|
92.3
|
English
|
33
|
7.7
|
3.1 Analysis of Knowledge Situation
Ten statements were designed to measure the basic knowledge of waste management such as waste types, recyclable waste, environmental protection, and waste legislation as presented in table (2). The knowledge statements are designed to be positive with three answer choices; Yes (3), I do not know (2), and No (1). Some statements are about waste classes (from K01 to K07). Other statements are related to the national and University legislation of waste management (K08 and K09). The mean values and standard deviation of responses are presented in the table (2). The level of awareness is considered "High" if the average score is greater than 2.5, "Medium" if the average score is between 2.5 and 2, and "Low" if the average score is less than 2. The highest weighted mean (2.97) is belonged to the statement of the responsibility of preservation; “K010: Environmental preservation should be everyone’s responsibility”. While the least average value (2.03) felled to the statement of waste legislation in the University; “K09: Regulations in place to reduce the disposal”. The general weighted mean value for the knowledge section is 2.66 which implies that the respondents in QU have “High” awareness about the importance of separation waste classes.
Table (2) Assessment of participants' knowledge of waste management's concepts
Key
|
Knowledge Statement
|
Mean
|
St. Dev.
|
Assessment
|
K01:
|
Solid waste can be classified into organic waste such as food waste and inorganic waste such as paper, plastics, and glass waste
|
2.69
|
0.664
|
High
|
K02:
|
Solid waste can also be classified as biodegradable and non-biodegradable products
|
2.85
|
0.449
|
High
|
K03:
|
Solid waste such as paper and plastics has economical value if they are exploited
|
2.94
|
0.276
|
High
|
K04:
|
Recycling of solid waste can help to protect the surrounding environment
|
2.96
|
0.258
|
High
|
K05:
|
Recycling of solid waste preserves natural resources.
|
2.92
|
0.316
|
High
|
K06:
|
Solid waste disposal represents an economic burden
|
2.26
|
0.835
|
Medium
|
K07:
|
The universities have a major role in social and environmental issues
|
2.77
|
0.553
|
High
|
K08:
|
There is a national government regulation for integrated management of waste
|
2.23
|
0.647
|
Medium
|
K09:
|
There are strict regulations in place to reduce the disposal of solid waste in its specified places
|
2.03
|
0.865
|
Medium
|
K010:
|
Environmental preservation should be everyone’s responsibility
|
2.97
|
0.215
|
High
|
Cross tabulation analysis (table 3) referred that high percentage of respondents (> 90%) responded “yes” to the statements of waste recycling and environment protection; K03, K04, K05, and K010. Also, percentage from 80–90% are obtained “Yes” responses to the knowledge statements K01, K02, and K07. For the statement “K06: Solid waste disposal represents an economic burden”, half of respondents have a low awareness of the economic costs of waste disposal. Most respondents, 65 percent for K08 and 61 percent for K09, are unaware of the existence of national and university wastes legislation.
The Chi-square test examines if there is a significant relationship between dependent and independent variables. The test was carried out to find the association between the knowledge status of the QU’s stakeholders and their demography variables. The test results in table (3) indicated that the awareness level of solid did not depend on the gender variable where the computed p-value is greater than 0.05 for all statements. The test referred also that there are significant association between the knowledge statements K04, K06, and K09 with the age, and position categories.
Deep analysis of the awareness items that have significant statistical associations with variables is carried out using the cross-tabulation analysis and the results are given in table (4). The awareness increases by increasing the age of the statement for the statement of waste classification (K01). Almost 100% of students and faculty members have full awareness of the contribution of recycling waste to environmental protection. According to the statement of the economic burden of waste disposal, 64% of the respondents who have more than 40 years old answered “Yes” more than the age category less than 25 years old (44%-Yes) and the category from 25 to 40 years (60%-Yes). The same trend is observed between the position category and the awareness of the economic burden of waste disposal, where faculty members (67%-Yes) have more awareness than employees (60%-Yes) and students (44%-Yes). Less than 40% of all age and position categories have knowledge of the existing waste management legislation in the university. The difference in percentage for this legislation knowledge is similarly notable by age and position, except for employees (54%) who know more than faculty and students.
Table (3) Relationships between sociodemographic and knowledge of wastes management
Knowledge
Statement
|
Percent from the total respondents
|
Significance (p) from Chi - Square test
|
No
|
I don’t know
|
Yes
|
Gender
|
Position
|
Age
|
K01
|
11.2
|
8.9
|
79.9
|
0.521
|
0.002
|
0.001
|
K02
|
3.5
|
8.4
|
88.1
|
0.780
|
0.586
|
0.228
|
K03
|
0.9
|
4.2
|
94.8
|
0.765
|
0.106
|
0.643
|
K04
|
1.4
|
1.2
|
97.4
|
0.951
|
0.000
|
0.006
|
K05
|
1.4
|
4.9
|
93.7
|
0.539
|
0.301
|
0.035
|
K06
|
25.3
|
23.9
|
50.8
|
0.343
|
0.000
|
0.000
|
K07
|
6.3
|
10.5
|
83.1
|
0.140
|
0.119
|
0.405
|
K08
|
11.9
|
52.7
|
35.4
|
0.829
|
0.647
|
0.508
|
K09
|
35.8
|
25.3
|
38.9
|
0.256
|
0.035
|
0.014
|
K010
|
0.9
|
0.9
|
98.1
|
0.221
|
0.869
|
0.644
|
Table (4) Crosstabs results for the significant association “Yes%” between respondents and demographic variables
item
|
Position
|
Age
|
Students
|
Faculty
|
Employees
|
Less than 25
|
From 25 to 40
|
More than 40
|
K01
|
75
|
92
|
80
|
74
|
88
|
91
|
K04
|
98
|
97
|
87
|
99
|
92
|
96
|
K05
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
94
|
98
|
90
|
K06
|
44
|
67
|
60
|
44
|
60
|
64
|
K09
|
38
|
39
|
47
|
39
|
40
|
38
|
3.2 Analysis of Practice Situation
A set of statements was developed to measure the attitudes and practices of the university’s stakeholders toward solid wastes. The measured practices included attitudes related to solid waste in university and in general practices as given in table (5). One statement (P07) is designed to measure the degree of willing to participate in an intended pilot study about waste separation in specific bins of recyclable materials. Respondents were asked to rate the likelihood of their practice through seven statements with five Likert scale choices. The choices were “Strongly disagree” (1), “Disagree” (2), “Neutral” (3), “Agree” (4), and “Strongly agree” (5).
The average values and standard deviation of the responses to the practice statements are presented in table (5). Analysis of participants levels of practice based on the estimated mean values, the evaluation is classified as “Very good” if the mean is greater than 4.5, “Good” if the mean ranges from 4 to 4.49, “Fair” for the mean value range from 3.5 to 3.99, and “Poor” if the mean is less than 3.5. The results of average values in table (5) implied that the statement “I am ready to classify solid waste at the source (P07)” obtained the highest weighted mean (4.81). Two attitudes also got very good ranks (mean > 4.5). Their statements are related to putting the waste in its specific place (P01) and not throwing the waste on the street (P02). The least average result (3.3) belonged to the practice of waste separation in classified bins that was denoted as poor practice. The general weighted mean value for the practice section is 4.2, which implies that the respondents in general have “Good” practices.
Table (5) Evaluation of respondents' own levels of practice toward wastes separation
Key
|
Knowledge Statement
|
Mean
|
St. Dev.
|
Assessment
|
P01:
|
I always set the waste at the specified places
|
4.67
|
0.656
|
Very Good
|
P02:
|
I never throw away waste on streets during driving my car
|
4.70
|
0.727
|
Very Good
|
P03:
|
I exploit old empty papers of finished projects and assignments in my studying
|
4.20
|
1.012
|
Good
|
P04:
|
I respond positively with national projects and regulations that invite to protect the environment and economic resources
|
4.02
|
0.990
|
Good
|
P05:
|
I had previously practiced the separation of solid waste in its specific bins
|
3.32
|
1.333
|
Poor
|
P06:
|
I use some solid waste to do useful items
|
3.52
|
1.211
|
Fair
|
P07:
|
I am ready to throw solid waste (paper-plastic ....) into its specified containers in the University if they available
|
4.81
|
0.493
|
Very Good
|
Cross-tabulation analysis (table 6) referred that 95% of the responses agreeing with the practice of disposal of waste in its specified bins. But only 51% of the respondents are exploiting the empty pages in the used papers (P06), while less than 50% of the QU stakeholders have participated in waste separation at the generation site. In addition, the data revealed that 56% of respondents repurposed outdated materials for beneficial purposes. The association between the practices and the demographic variables was also examined using the Chi-square test as given in table (6). The test implied that the gender variable has significant statistical relationships with three attitudes: P02, P05, and P06. While the age and position variables are significantly associated with practices of responding positively with national projects related to the environment.
Table (6) Relationships between sociodemographic and practices of stakeholders in QU
Practice
|
Percent from the total respondents
|
Significance (p) from Chi - Square test
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
Gender
|
Position
|
Age
|
P01
|
0.7
|
0.5
|
4.7
|
19.9
|
74.2
|
0.095
|
0.847
|
0.656
|
P02
|
1.2
|
1.6
|
4.0
|
12.2
|
81.0
|
0.022
|
0.423
|
0.716
|
P03
|
1.6
|
6.6
|
13.6
|
26.7
|
51.5
|
0.202
|
0.083
|
0.279
|
P04
|
0.7
|
6.8
|
23.2
|
28.1
|
41.2
|
0.280
|
0.000
|
0.000
|
P05
|
11.0
|
19.9
|
19.7
|
24.6
|
24.8
|
0.001
|
0.353
|
0.180
|
P06
|
7.5
|
13.6
|
23.2
|
31.1
|
24.6
|
0.001
|
0.004
|
0.114
|
P07
|
1.2
|
0.9
|
13.6
|
84.3
|
1.2
|
0.372
|
0.280
|
0.138
|
Further analysis of the practice activities that have significant statistical relationships was carried out using crosstabs as presented in table (7). The practice of “responding to national projects and regulations for environmental protection (P04)” has a significant association with the position and age. Where employees have more practice to protect the environment than faculty members and faculty members responds positively to the environmental projects more than students. Also, it is concluded that as age increases, the response of projects to protect the environment also increases. The statement P05 measures the previous practices of respondents toward the separation of waste types in specific bins. The cross-tabulation results proved that females (59% Agree) had more practice of waste separation than males (43% Agree). However, it is found that English speakers with a percentage of 76% practiced waste separation more than Arabic speakers (47%). The not found association between waste separation practices and position or age variables. The practice of reusing old waste to create useful things (P06) has a significant association with gender and positions where females (64%) are exploiting old waste more than males (50%). For the position variable, employees responded more positively toward reusing used staff than faculty members and students.
Table (7) association between the agreement (strongly agree + agree) % and sociodemographics
item
|
Gender
|
Position
|
Age
|
Male
|
Female
|
Students
|
Faculty
|
Employees
|
Less than 25
|
From 25 to 40
|
More than 40
|
P02
|
90
|
98
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
P04
|
-
|
-
|
62
|
85
|
93
|
62
|
73
|
86
|
P05
|
43
|
59
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
P06
|
50
|
64
|
51
|
64
|
80
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
3.3 Evaluation of Solid Waste Management in QU
The waste management system in QU was assessed through six statements as presented in table (8). The suggested statements were designed to discover the quality of waste management (M04), existing of separate waste bins for each waste type (M02), the awareness and the advertisement in QU related to the waste separation and the environment (M01 & M03). The respondents were asked to choose one option from a five Likert scale. The choices were "Strongly disagree” (1), “Disagree” (2), “Neutral” (3), “Agree” (4), and “Strongly agree” (5).
The average values and standard deviation of the responses for the waste management status on QU are presented in table (8). The waste management situation is classified as very good if the mean is greater than 4.5, good if the mean ranges from 4 to 4.49, fair if the mean is from 3 to 3.99, and poor if the mean is less than 3. The general average value of the estimated means is 3.0, which implies that the waste management related to waste source separation is almost fair in QU. The obtained mean value for the collection of solid waste in QU is 4.15, which is the only good level in the management section. statement of teaching an environmental course in the QU. The least mean fell on the system of waste separation in specific bins (2.3), which concluded poor implementation of waste separation at sources. It is worth to say that waste separation at sources needs decisions from the authorities to activate these practices in QU.
Table (8) Average responses and standard deviation of the waste management in QU
Key
|
Knowledge Statement
|
Mean
|
St. Dev.
|
Assessment
|
M01:
|
There are advertisements in the University related to solid waste segregation
|
2.42
|
1.18
|
Poor
|
M02:
|
There are specific bins for each solid waste type in the university
|
2.32
|
1.29
|
Poor
|
M03:
|
Awareness programs of Environmental protection are implemented in the university
|
2.86
|
1.28
|
Poor
|
M04:
|
The waste management processes at your workplace are well managed
|
4.15
|
1.02
|
Good
|
M05:
|
Environmental protection and sustainable should be taught as a university course requirement
|
3.61
|
1.25
|
Fair
|
M06:
|
There is a strict protocol concerning protecting the environment inside the university campus
|
2.80
|
1.25
|
Poor
|
The table (9) provides a descriptive analysis of respondents' perspectives regarding the management of institutional wastes based on the Likert scale agreement levels, and a Chi-square test used to analyze the relationships between these responses and the demographic variables. Results refer that 61% respondents in general are disagree with the existing situation of the waste separation at source. While 60% believed that QU should provide an environmental course as a university requirement. In addition, just 17% supported the existence of advertisements (M01) to encourage stakeholders to separate wastes. It is worth saying that 71% of the stakeholders agreed that waste collection is implemented well on their site and only 6% reject this item. The association between demographic variables and management system is examined using the cross-tabulation test as presented in table (10). Based on this table, the hypothesis of no association between the responses of waste management and gender is not rejected as all the obtained significant value is greater than 0.05 as shown in table (9). However, considered relationships is proved between age and positions of the respondents with the waste management situations M02, M04, M05, and M06.
Further analysis of the significant associations in table (10) implied that 72% of the age category from 25 to 40 disagreed the existing separate bins for waste separation against 68% of the younger than 25-years old, but only 50% older than 40 years disagreed with the same statement. The interpretation is that some offices of the faculty and employees are equipped with classified waste bins. Teaching of environmental courses is refused by 26% of the age category less than 25 years old that matches the same percentage of the student category. While faculty members agreed to teach an environmental course in QU with a percentage of 88%, just 6% disagreed with this suggestion.
Table (9) frequency of Likert scale choices and Pearson Chi-square test of waste management in QU
Practice
|
Percent from the total respondents
|
Significance (p) from Chi - Square test
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
Gender
|
Position
|
Age
|
M01
|
26.0
|
30.4
|
26.2
|
10.3
|
7.0
|
0.681
|
0.541
|
0.007
|
M02
|
33.5
|
30.4
|
16.2
|
10.3
|
9.6
|
0.830
|
0.031
|
0.004
|
M03
|
18.7
|
20.8
|
28.1
|
20.1
|
12.2
|
0.380
|
0.303
|
0.191
|
M04
|
1.6
|
4.4
|
23.0
|
19.7
|
51.3
|
0.539
|
0.097
|
0.006
|
M05
|
9.1
|
10.1
|
20.4
|
31.4
|
29.0
|
0.965
|
0.001
|
0.000
|
M06
|
18.7
|
21.8
|
31.9
|
15.9
|
11.7
|
0.108
|
0.006
|
0.000
|
Table (10) percentage of strongly disagree and disagree about the association of demographic variables with waste management statement in QU.
item
|
Position
|
Age
|
Students
|
Faculty
|
Employees
|
Less than 25
|
From 25 to 40
|
More than 40
|
M01
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
57
|
58
|
53
|
M02
|
68
|
53
|
67
|
68
|
72
|
50
|
M04
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
15
|
4
|
7
|
M05
|
25
|
6
|
7
|
26
|
15
|
4
|
M06
|
46
|
26
|
47
|
45
|
53
|
22
|
3.4 Examining the Designed Hypotheses
The hypothesis HP1 is represented by the knowledge statements K03, K04, and K05. The hypothesis assumed that the benefits of waste separation at sources are well known to respondents and do not depend on demography variables. The average value of K03, K04, and K05 were estimated for each respondent and the average of the product was estimated as 2.94 out of 3 as given in table (11). This result refers that the first part of HP1 is accepted where the benefits of waste separation is well known for QU stakeholders. One way ANOVA was used to explore the difference of the mean among the demographic variables. The result showed that the average of the position variable was equal (2.9) for faculty, students, and employees with the P value greater than 0.05. The same result was obtained for the age and gender variable. The mentioned results implied that the second part of HP1 is also accepted where the benefits of the solid waste separation are not dependent on the demographic variables among the QU stakeholders.
For the HP2: “The majority of responders have not engaged in waste source separation”, t-test was used with examined mean value of 3. The result revealed that the actual mean is 3.32 and the difference between the tested mean and the actual mean is significant as P is 0.000. The crosstabs analysis (table 6) also proved that 50% of the respondents have already practiced the waste separation in specific bines while only 20% (table 9) agreed that there are no specific bins for waste separation in QU. The interpretation is that the participants may practice solid waste separation in other sites rather than QU campuses and this means the hypothesis HP2 cannot be accepted. The acceptance of wastes separation in designated (hypothesis HP3) gained high positive responses with a percentage of 98% of the respondents. Also, the t-test in table (11) showed that the actual mean value (4.81) is greater than the tested value (4.5) therefore, the hypothesis HP3 cannot be rejected.
Table (11) Results of t-test to examine the designed hypotheses
Hypothesis
|
Statement/s
|
Test value
|
Mean
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
Mean
Difference
|
HP1
|
K03, K04, K05
|
2.75/3
|
2.9
|
0.000
|
0.191
|
HP2
|
P05
|
3/5
|
3.32
|
0.006
|
1.02
|
HP3
|
P07
|
4.5/5
|
4.81
|
0.000
|
0.31
|
HP4
|
P01-K04 & K01-K06
|
R > 75
|
2.32
|
0.000
|
-1.18
|
HP5
|
M02
|
3/5
|
2.32
|
0.000
|
-0.68
|
HP6
|
M04
|
4.5/5
|
4.15
|
0.000
|
-1.58
|
HP7
|
M05
|
4.5/5
|
3.61
|
0.000
|
-0.889
|
The hypothesis of HP4 (Positive Knowledge is strongly correlated with sound practice) was tested using correlation coefficient as given in table (12). The results revealed that there is no correlation between knowledge and practices of solid waste disposal, therefore, the hypothesis cannot be accepted. Some statements matched a weak correlation coefficient (R < 15%) such as K03 and K04 with the practice of exploiting empty paper to protect the environment. The stakeholders were compatible with the hypothesis HP5 (In QU, there is no waste separation in designated bins) where 64% responded that there are no existing separate bins for waste types while only 20% accepted the statement as presented in table (9). Also, t-test proved that the tested average value (3) is greater than the actual mean (2.32) of the responses and difference between them is statistically significant as illustrated in table (11).
Table (12) Spearman correlation test between knowledge and practice of the respondents
Average of the Knowledge statements
|
Average response of Practice statements
|
4.67
|
4.7
|
4.2
|
4.02
|
P01
|
P02
|
P03
|
P04
|
2.69
|
K01
|
Correlation Coefficient
|
-0.043
|
0.017
|
-0.008
|
0.064
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
0.373
|
0.722
|
0.869
|
0.185
|
2.85
|
K02
|
Correlation Coefficient
|
0.005
|
0.078
|
0.117*
|
0.035
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
0.924
|
0.106
|
0.015
|
0.473
|
2.94
|
K03
|
Correlation Coefficient
|
0.063
|
0.085
|
0.143**
|
-0.022
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
0.192
|
0.081
|
0.003
|
0.651
|
2.96
|
K04
|
Correlation Coefficient
|
0.008
|
0.034
|
0.143**
|
-0.024
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
0.864
|
0.480
|
0.003
|
0.614
|
2.92
|
K05
|
Correlation Coefficient
|
0.066
|
0.124*
|
0.105*
|
0.066
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
0.176
|
0.010
|
0.030
|
0.173
|
2.26
|
K06
|
Correlation Coefficient
|
-0.029
|
-0.018
|
0.019
|
0.009
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
0.553
|
0.704
|
0.696
|
0.856
|
For the hypothesis of well management of the solid waste in the workplaces (HP6) the acceptance of this hypothesis was 71% against just 6% rejected the statement. The t-test assumed a mean value of not less than 4.5 for waste management while the obtained average was 4.15. The interpretation is that may in some campuses the collection of waste be not implemented efficiently but the hypothesis cannot be rejected. For the hypotheses (HP7) that assumed widespread approval of teaching an environmental course, 61% of the respondents agreed to teach environmental courses in QU while only 5% and 25% of the faculty and students respectively protested the teaching environmental courses in QU. The average is examined using t-test and implied that the assigned test value of 4.5 was not achieved while the actual mean is 3.61. The hypothesis cannot be accepted where the difference between the tested and the actual value is significant. Therefore, more awareness by lectures, training, and advertisement is recommended to increase the awareness with the importance of teaching environmental issues.
3.5 Exploring the Types of Disposed of Waste
To discover types of solid waste that are most disposed of by the QU stakeholders, a statement is devised to choose one or more of six waste types. The respondents can select any number of the suggested solid waste: paper, plastic, glass, metal cans, wood, and leather. Some respondents (2.1%) selected all the available six choices as illustrated in table (13). While the highest percentage was for the choice of “paper and plastic” followed a percentage of 41.5% for the choice of only plastic with percentage of 20%. The choice of disposing of only paper was the third percentage (11%). Exploring the most selected individual waste type is developed directly from the responses from the google form as given in figure (1). It is found that the most selected disposed recyclable material is plastic with percentage of 42% followed by paper 35% and the third rank was Glass 8%. Wood and rubber waste were the least choices of the responses with percentage of 2%. According to this results any pilot study in the university should interest in collecting plastic and paper wastes.
Table (13) frequency and percentage of disposed solid waste in QU
Waste
|
n
|
%
|
Paper, Plastic
|
177
|
41.5
|
Plastic
|
84
|
19.7
|
Paper
|
46
|
10.8
|
Paper, Plastic, Glass
|
33
|
7.7
|
Paper, Plastic, Metal (Cans)
|
16
|
3.7
|
Paper, Plastic, Glass, Metal (Cans)
|
9
|
2.1
|
Paper, Plastic, Glass, Metal (Cans), Wood, Rubber
|
9
|
2.1
|
Metal (Cans)
|
5
|
1.2
|
Plastic, Glass, Metal (Cans)
|
5
|
1.2
|
Plastic, Metal (Cans)
|
5
|
1.2
|
Sum
|
389
|
91
|
Sum of other 24 mutual choices
|
38
|
9
|
Table (14) Association of waste disposal type with gender, position, and age.
Waste type
|
Gender (P = 0.064)
|
Position (P = 0.000)
|
Age (P = 0.000)
|
Male
|
Female
|
Students
|
Faculty
|
Employees
|
Less than 25
|
From 25 to 40
|
More than 40
|
Paper, Plastic
|
39
|
45
|
38
|
50
|
33
|
37
|
43
|
51
|
Plastic
|
21
|
17
|
26
|
7
|
7
|
28
|
7
|
7
|
Paper
|
14
|
6
|
10
|
14
|
13
|
9
|
10
|
15
|
Paper, Plastic, Glass
|
6
|
10
|
8
|
7
|
13
|
7
|
12
|
7
|
Paper, Plastic, Metal (Cans)
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
0
|
5
|
2
|
3
|
Paper, Plastic, Glass, Metal (Cans)
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
7
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
Metal (Cans)
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
Plastic, Metal (Cans)
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
Paper, Plastic, Glass, Metal (Cans), Wood, Rubber
|
1
|
4
|
1
|
4
|
7
|
1
|
8
|
2
|
Plastic, Glass, Metal (Cans)
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
Sum
|
91
|
92
|
93
|
89
|
80
|
94
|
87
|
89
|
Exploring the most selected individual waste type is developed directly from the responses from the google form as given in figure (1). It is found that the most selected disposed recyclable material is plastic with percentage of 42% followed by paper 35% and the third rank was Glass 8%. The study hypothesis that the percentage of disposed metal Cans will be more than Glass disposal as the cold drinking usually in Cans rather glass. Wood and rubber waste were the least choices of the responses with percentage of 2%. According to this results any pilot study in the university should interest in collecting plastic and paper waste.