Enhancing Sustainability in University Campuses: A Study on Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Practices among Students in Politehnica University Timisoara, Romania
1
Department of Communication and Foreign Languages, Interdisciplinary Research Center for Communication and Sustainability (PoliCom), Politehnica University of Timisoara, 300006 Timisoara, Romania
2
Department of Teacher Training, Interdisciplinary Research Center for Communication and Sustainability (PoliCom), Politehnica University of Timisoara, 300006 Timisoara, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(16), 6866; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166866
Submission received: 1 July 2024
/
Revised: 4 August 2024
/
Accepted: 8 August 2024
/
Published: 9 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Waste and Recycling)
Download keyboard_arrow_down
Figure 1
<p>Waste recycling in Europe: European Environment Agency’s home page (europa.eu) [<a href="#B18-sustainability-16-06866" class="html-bibr">18</a>].</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Description of personal behavior (1).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Description of personal behavior (2).</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Description of personal behavior (3).</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Description of sustainable recycling behavior.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Description of personal behavior related to office resources.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Selective collection of household waste.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Description of waste management sustainable behavior.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Suggestions for more efficient selective collection of waste.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Graphical representation of the 39 variables.</p> ">
Versions Notes
<p>Waste recycling in Europe: European Environment Agency’s home page (europa.eu) [<a href="#B18-sustainability-16-06866" class="html-bibr">18</a>].</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Description of personal behavior (1).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Description of personal behavior (2).</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Description of personal behavior (3).</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Description of sustainable recycling behavior.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Description of personal behavior related to office resources.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Selective collection of household waste.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Description of waste management sustainable behavior.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Suggestions for more efficient selective collection of waste.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Graphical representation of the 39 variables.</p> ">
Abstract
:A major issue recurrent in sustainability ensuring concerns is pollution due to human activities, mainly related to the reduction in waste generation. The present study aims to identify students’ awareness of waste management, their daily routines in separately collecting recyclable waste, and their behaviors leading to reducing wasteful consumption in campus residential living, in a large university in the Western part of Romania, to channel the strategic plan of the university and the efforts of institutional teams dealing with the issues of waste management and sustainability. The methodology consists of an analysis of waste management in the university campus hosting around 6000 students in 16 dormitories, and of an anonymous online survey mapping the self-perceived behavior of students in solid waste management. Data from 1172 valid responses are refined through factorial analysis. While recycling behavior seems to be largely shared by the respondents, with more than 50% declaring that they always reuse recyclables, separate collection of waste is typical for only a quarter of the sample. Therefore, a vigorous intervention is needed to guide young adults’ behavior towards sustainability choices. Campus greening needs to join interventions from the university, in charge of campus life in the selected case, city administration, waste management companies, and the student body. The findings are useful to explore the possible directions for action to increase or contribute to territorial sustainability in the socio-ecological context of Timisoara, the largest university city in the western part of Romania through educational, managerial, and policy interventions, based on local partnerships and collaborations, in accordance with SDG 17.
1. Introduction
Sustainable waste management has become a key issue in all larger communities, independent of their organizational form. Congruent efforts are needed to address this complex aspect of our life. The UN 2030 Agenda has oriented the initiatives of legislators, municipalities, public institutions, private companies, NGOs, and others in their quest to meet the targets of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. A special place in this realm is occupied by higher education institutions (HEIs), which in the context of their university autonomy have the means and the opportunity to test new approaches and implement out-of-the-box solutions towards becoming zero-waste organizations. The present study deals with realities specific to Romania. Statistics show that it is one of the countries in the European Union with the highest economic growth [1]. In the past two decades, “Romania’s GDP per capita increased from a level of 28% relative to the advanced economies to 58.6% in 2020. This increase means that Romania ranks 5th in the world in the 2000–2020 period, outpacing most regional economies and China, with Lithuania being the only other country in the CEE a bit ahead. Ireland, Singapore and Taiwan are also ahead” [2]. Although it has actively sought solutions to reduce disparities and considerable progress in economic performance and convergence with the European Union (EU), a report by the World Bank states that Romania still “faces challenges in fostering growth that is more inclusive and sustainable, both economically and environmentally. Challenges include regional disparities, weak institutions, skilled labor shortages, poor connectivity, and vulnerabilities to natural hazards and climate change” [1].
The capital of Romania, Bucharest, and the bordering area, for example, reached a level more than double the country’s average, with 164% of EU purchasing power. The Bucharest–Ilfov region is thus ranked among the richest regions in Europe, alongside Île-de-France or areas in Germany, Belgium, or the Netherlands, while the rest of the country lingers at the bottom of the ranking. Moldova, i.e., the north-east region, has a purchasing power four times lower than that of Bucharest–Ilfov, according to the same Eurostat classification based on PPS [3].
The present research was carried out in Timisoara, the largest university city in western Romania and the second wealthiest area in the country after Bucharest [4]. There are four major universities active with a total of over 40,000 students, out of which around 19,000 live in dormitories provided by the universities at subsidized prices. The student campus located near the city center was developed to foster the needs of the growing Politehnica University Timisoara (UPT), the oldest higher education institution in this part of Romania and one of the major building owners in the city. Currently, around 13,000 students reside there, of which 6000 are students of UPT. In accordance with the preoccupations of other HEIs [5,6,7,8], Politehnica University Timisoara incorporates sustainability concepts in its strategic development documents but only recently started actively implementing measures to pursue such goals not only in teaching and research, but also in other activities such as student services [9]. The university is also in the process of greening its campus [10]. Therefore, investigating recycling and waste management behavior is critical for the adoption of the proper internal regulation to underpin the goal of greening the campus.
Based on previous research on waste collection, ecological behavior, sustainable universities, and green campus [11,12,13], the research team set out to map the behavior of students regarding the use of resources and pro-environmental decisions that affect recycling and waste management in general, in order to help guide the future information and awareness campaigns, and with the purpose of formulating recommendations for the management of the university. Therefore, three research objectives were set to be pursued, as follows:
RO1. Identify the actions and behaviors of the respondents with effects in reducing the consumption of resources.
RO2. Determine the way in which the respondents’ selective collection behavior is reflected in their daily actions.
RO3. Highlight the factors responsible for the selective collection and consumption of resources.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Waste Management Trends in Romania and Other EU Countries
To reach the target of the 2030 Agenda to which Romania adhered in 2015, continuous efforts are being made to adapt the legislation and develop the infrastructure that can help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). An overview of the current status of reaching the SDGs in Romania is presented in the 2023 Country Report issued by the European Commission, which presents the progress Romania has made for each SDG in comparison to the average performance of the European Union. For example, in the case of SDGs 14 and 17, Romania is progressing towards the target and its status is better than the EU average, while in the case of SDGs 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 15, and 16, even though Romania is progressing towards them, its status falls behind than that of the EU. Unfortunately, there are also SDGs from which the European Union is moving away: SDG 2, SDG 4, SDG 5, SDG 7, SDG 9, SDG 12, and SDG 13. Romania is also moving away from Sustainable Development Goals, but its status is better than that of the EU for SDGs 5 and 7 and worse for SDGs 2, 4, 9, 12, and 13 [14].
The research conducted by the National Institute of Statistics confirms the trends mentioned by the European Commission for each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and indicates an acute need to accelerate the process of adopting and implementing strategies that can accelerate the process of implementing change [15].
The same Country Report highlights that Romania’s green transition requires continued action on several aspects, including renewable energy, sustainable transport and air quality, and climate adaptation. The main challenges relate to decarbonization of industry and energy efficiency. Moreover, “Romania’s circular economy transition is insufficient and needs accelerating to meet the EU’s circular economy goals. For various reasons regarding funding, administrative capabilities, or preoccupation, irregular and substandard landfills are still widespread and present serious risks to health and the environment. Recycling rates stagnate and remain below EU targets” [14]. That is why Romania may be facing the risk of missing the targets defined by the EU Waste Framework Directive and the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive.
As Europe aims to become a circular economy, the EU has set targets for the 27 Member States (EU-27) to increase recycling and reduce landfilling. “Specifically, according to the European Environment Agency, by 2025, 55% of municipal waste and 65% of packaging waste must be prepared for re-use or recycled” [16].
According to Statista, “the recycling rates of municipal waste vary greatly throughout the EU, with only eight countries having a recycling rate higher than 50% in 2022. Meanwhile, countries such as Cyprus, Romania, and Malta have recycling rates lower than 20%. Overall, the recycling rate of municipal waste in the European Union was estimated at 48.6 percent in 2022” [17], as presented in Figure 1.
Addressing waste management and recycling is a complex challenge as it encompasses the human behavior component, which can be difficult to assess and influence. Nevertheless, studies show that if the right conditions are met, attitudes and behavior can be predicted and changed [19,20]. Environmental knowledge and awareness are the main factors for successful solid waste management implementation. As stated by Ramayah et al. (2012) [21], awareness, attitudes, knowledge, and social norms are highly related to each other. “Policy integration is emerging as the main modality of support to countries in achieving the SDGs” [22].
A recent local example is the Return-Guarantee System (SGR) program launched on 30 November 2023 in Romania, which has become the largest national project for circular economy. In the first three months of implementation, beverage manufacturers put more than 500 million packages on the market. While in December 2023, approximately 45 million SGR packages appeared at the points of sale, in January 2024, their number increased four times, reaching approximately 180 million packages placed on the Romanian market, and in February 2024, their number reached 290 million. Furthermore, the rate of packaging returns by consumers registered significant increases from one month to the next, from 31,000 packages returned in December 2023 to over 21 million in February 2024, 99% of which were returned through RVMs (reverse vending machines) at the automatic return points [23].
2.2. Universities as Active Factors in Implementing Change
Developing efficient ecosystems that deal with waste management at all levels and for all walks of life is mandatory for the success of building a greener future. University campuses are a good place to test different approaches and solutions for local context, with the potential of multiplying the results, if satisfactory.
Universities and other educational institutions can be considered small communities that have a significant impact on the surrounding urban areas [20,24]. Furthermore, Armijo de Vega et al. believe that “solid waste management in educational institutions can informally train students to practice good solid waste management approaches and take this experience back to their homes. Therefore, successful practices can be easily adopted by surrounding communities” [25].
Shadi Moqbel concludes his analysis on “Solid Waste Management in Educational Institutions: The Case of The University of Jordan” by arguing that a “recycling program on campus is highly recommended but requires full-scale cooperation and careful handling” [26]. Such a task might be best handled by a designated department for waste management and recycling.
The young generation is open to selective recycling, even if they sometimes do not follow the established rules. Based on this model, common problems can be identified and universities, as incubators of ideas, as Boca mentions [27], can welcome the use of the necessary methods and tools to stimulate care and students’ awareness of the environment and its protection.
An aspect to be considered in developing policies based on campus experiences is the drop-out rate of students in Romania, which may lead to further disparities between people who have access to information about waste management or recycling and the opportunity to exercise sustainable behavior, and those who do not have the means or the mindset to follow such recommendations.
The rate of early exit from the educational system (18–24 years) represents the percentage ratio of the population aged 18–24 with elementary (low) education who did not attend any form of training (formal or non-formal) in the previous four weeks to the research, in the total population of 18–24 years [15]. People are considered to have a low level of education if they only graduated from gymnasium or primary school or have not graduated from any school.
A comparative study between Dutch and Romanian students and their views on the sustainability of their universities drew attention to the challenges launched by sustainable development. Universities are evaluated on how they “are organized, the programs they deliver, the way they respond to the demands of the younger generation who claim to be better informed and equipped to protect the environment and ensure sustainable development of society” [28]. Thus, in the authors’ opinion, a university preoccupied with implementing greening and following the SDGs becomes a vector of sustainable development, enlarging and redefining its mission, as it actively influences the context in which it acts.
Within a university, disparities based on lack of education can be reduced throughout the study years, especially for students living on campus. Therefore, information and awareness campaigns are important, as well as developing appropriate recycling infrastructure. According to Rusli Yusuf and Iwan Fajri [29], “non-physical measures include socialization [30], training opportunities [31,32], environmental education [33,34], increasing capacity regarding environmental behavior, attitudes, knowledge, and actions [35,36] as well as participation in the learning, family, and community areas” [31,37,38]. Their study acknowledges that the “engagement, behavior, and environmental knowledge of higher education students are important in waste management” and states that “the success of waste management is caused by the environmental behavior level [39,40] of students followed by an increase in their knowledge” [41]. This proves that if students are involved in environmental issues, they can speed up the achievement of a zero-waste environment [42], and their level of information and awareness can affect behavior and support good waste management [5].
Recently, campus greening initiatives in higher education have become a very productive field. These focus on investigating a variety of institutional aspects from curricula content, strategic plans or key actors, like students or teachers. However, as Sima, Grigorescu, and Nikolova mention, “there are many discrepancies between more advanced countries with innovative initiatives and less developed states, where the concept is still in an early stage. In Europe, for example, the East—West divide is still visible in terms of the way these initiatives are integrated, advanced and rendered effective” [7].
According to the EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme [43], “a green campus is one which addresses environmental challenges in all its fields of activity: administration, research and education”. This shows the role of higher education institutions as “incubators, role models and multipliers for sustainable development among researchers, people in leadership positions, and in wider society”. Thus, greening campuses entails introducing environmentally friendly practices at all levels of university operations and infrastructure [44]. The “campus greening” and “campus sustainability” concepts have been continuously argued over the last few decades, as shown by the academic events and declarations adopted and their role in disseminating the dialog on the role of universities as multipliers of sustainable development and in increasing the number of campus initiatives [45,46,47].
In search of an already successful implementation of campus greening, the case of Universitas Negeri Malang (UM) appeared, which was declared as a green campus. Obtaining this title was the result of a combination of strategies which focused on involving students in the process and empowering them to join the cause. The main key to their success was based on bringing students together, building up their knowledge and awareness in a fun and engaging manner, and enacting sustainable activities where knowledge and preoccupations were put to practice. The research concluded that by following the recommendations mentioned above, “the way of thinking and perspective can be changed that results in improvements in campus citizens’ behavior and awareness” [6].
In Timisoara, the universities display an interest in promoting sustainable behavior through dedicated information and awareness campaigns [48], building complex research projects [49], and staging events in common spaces that enable information exchange and many others. The oldest university in the area was chosen for this study since it represents the driving force in environment protection topics, having a full-fledged study program oriented to educate future experts in this area. However, the study does not focus on the curricular or research aspects developed by the selected university, but on the mindset and behaviors of students residing on campus, which is viewed by the university as an educational area preparing students for their future independent life [48].
3. Materials and Methods
This exploratory research aimed at investigating the attitudes and self-perceived behaviors of campus-residing students with respect to their recycler profile, to obtain data for improving waste management in the large campus area. While Romanian students have been studied from a variety of perspectives, studies on their general attitude towards recycling behavior are rare, except for a relatively recent study authored by Lakatos et al. [50]. Planning interventions in the educational area need to be data-driven and with an in-depth understanding of the target audience. To carry out this study, the research team opted for a questionnaire-based survey as a tool to collect information, following a trend in research that assesses population awareness and willingness to engage in environmental issues and recycling [8,51,52,53,54,55]. The population subjected to the investigation was formed by the students of the Politehnica University Timișoara (UPT) residing in the university’s dormitories, and the field data collection took place between May and June 2023. Out of the 13,000 UPT students, around 6000 live on campus, in the 16 dormitories owned and managed by the university.
3.1. Sample
A total of 1172 participants were included in this study, selected from all study years of UPT. Relative to the institution’s total of approximately 6000 on-campus students, the margin of error was estimated at ±2.73%. The sampling was randomly stratified, and stratification was carried out according to year of study, faculty, gender of respondents, and area of residence. The result was a final sample of 466 women and 706 men, with a mean age of 21.65 years. The sampling was stratified according to the parameters mentioned, and the selection was random in each stratum. Inclusion criteria refer to the student status and self-identified residence in UPT dormitories. The exclusion criteria were related to the residents of the apartment-type dormitories in which student families live alongside other members of the academic community, either staff or academic members.
3.2. Data Collection
Participation in the survey was voluntary, and it was completed online on the mobile phones of the respondents, with all students owning such a device. The time to complete a questionnaire averaged 15–20 min and the response rate was 50%. Measures were taken to ensure that responses cannot be traced back to the respondents and that anonymity is guaranteed. The recruitment of participants was carried out via information posted on the student mobile app, studentupt.ro, but also by face-to-face interaction, mediated by dormitory administrators and student leagues, on WhatsApp or email groups. Efforts were made to ensure that all the 14 targeted dormitories offered at least 50 responses, to obtain comprehensive coverage of the campus student population. These efforts led to a good response rate, with one out of six on-campus students offering their views on the proposed topic.
3.3. The Questionnaire-Based Survey and Factor Analysis
To create the questionnaire, the Delphi method was used, with students treated as experts in their capacity as co-researchers. Initially, 100 items were submitted to the analysis of the group of students in the research method discipline. After 4 iterations, 39 statements were retained. These statements refer to the measure of selective waste collection, various selective collection behaviors, and ways to make waste collection more efficient. In the present case, the value of CVR (Content Validity Report) proposed by Lawshe [56] is 1 because the research team reached a consensus with all the students participating in this endeavor [57]. The questionnaire was pre-tested one month before its distribution to a pilot group of 45 students.
The applied questionnaire included 11 questions, out of which 5 were closed questions on the topic, 1 was an open question, and the other 5 were socio-demographic questions (age, sex, year of studies, place of origin, faculty). For the thematic questions, a 5-point Likert scale was used, while level 6 was only used to eliminate respondents who did not want or did not know how to express a point of view about the aspect requested in the question or the item of the question.
The questionnaire was locally built by the research team, inspired by the literature [8,51,52,53,54,55], but tailored for the pursued purpose: to obtain data on the UPT student population in three areas, namely students’ self-assessed behavior leading to waste production or saving, their voluntary adoption of sustainable recycling practices, and their projection regarding future waste management-related actions. The questions included in the tool employed multiple-choice selection (students being invited to indicate which statements best described their behavior), rated on an ascending 5-point Likert scale. The numerical equivalents used for this set of statements are 1 for “never” to 5 for “always”. The added option “In don’t know/I don’t answer” was rated with 0, because some of the situations may not apply or may not be familiar to the respondents.
The responses are presented in Section 4, where frequency analysis is unfolded for the items in the questionnaire. Further, the data obtained through the questionnaire were refined by using factor analysis, with the purpose of identifying sustainable behavioral patterns regarding waste management. Factor analysis is useful for grouping variables into meaningful categories, avoiding loss of focus due to the numerous variables, some of which may prove to be trivial [58]. The identified factors are of help in better understanding human actions regarding waste management, with potential for further interventions through awareness, information, or education campaigns addressing various directions or behavioral patterns. To carry out the factor analysis, the following steps were taken:
- Evaluation of the internal consistency of the questionnaire items through the Cronbach Alpha test.
- Measurement of the adequacy of the sample chosen for factor analysis by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test.
- Suitability of the data set for an exploratory factor analysis using the Bartlett sphericity test.
- Factor extraction in tabular and graphical form.
- Saturation of variable values in each extracted factor, obtained after rotating the factors.
- Calculation of correlation coefficients between factors.
3.4. Evaluation of the Internal Consistency of the Questionnaire Items Using the Cronbach Alpha Test
To evaluate the internal consistency of the questionnaire items, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was used. It can take values between 0 and 1 [59]. A value above 0.7 is required [60]. According to Table 1, all Cronbach Alpha values are greater than 0.947, which indicates a very good consistency of the questionnaire items taken into analysis.
To measure the adequacy of the sample chosen for factor analysis, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test [61] was used. The KMO test must have a value as close as possible to 1, with the minimum accepted being 0.5, thus indicating that items can be grouped into different factors. For the analyzed sample, the value of the KMO test is 0.947, which shows the appropriateness of the sample results to a factor analysis (Table 2).
3.5. Suitability of the Data Set for an Exploratory Factor Analysis Using the Bartlett Sphericity Test
To ensure that the data set is suitable for an exploratory factor analysis, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used. According to Table 2, the value of Chi-square (10,748.988), the number of degrees of freedom (df = 741), and the associated probability (p < 0.01) prove that the data set is suitable for an exploratory factor analysis.
3.6. Data Processing and Statistical Tools Used
Statistical methods were used for data processing and analysis. Data collected for the selective collection of solid waste were interpreted in a key related to the self-assessed attitudes and behaviors of students. The statistical analysis was carried out with the software SPSS Statistics 27.0.1.0.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Actions and Behaviors of the Respondents with Effects in Reducing Consumption
To identify the actions and behaviors of the respondents with effects on reducing the consumption of resources, research questions dealing with the personal assessment of sustainable behavior fitting into circular economy (in domestic or work environments) were formulated. For this set of questions that correspond to RO1, respondents were invited to select, from a predefined list, the versions that best describe their habitual choices, as presented in Figure 2.
The figure highlights the wide range of answers, showing that students do not necessarily link waste-related topics in a consolidated vision. The first listed behavior, I collect household waste selectively, rendered the following responses: never (7.1%), rarely (9.3%), sometimes (28.1%), often (27.3%), always (25.9%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (2.4%). The majority of respondents (53.2%, i.e., those who answered often and always) declared that they managed to collect waste selectively. For the behavior I use a cloth/paper/biodegradable bag when I go shopping, the recorded responses were never (4.4%), rarely (13.1%), sometimes (26.9%), often (25.9%), always (26.9%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (2.9%). It follows that a majority of 52.8% (cumulative of the answer options often and always) declared that they use sustainable bags. The third behavior in the list, I reuse the gift bags and boxes I receive, recorded the following responses: never (2.1%), rarely (4.9%), sometimes (16.8%), often (23.7%), always (50.9%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (1.5%). Almost two-thirds of the sample (74.6%) declared that they reuse these types of bags (cumulatively, those who answered often and always). The behavior I choose to buy from local producers: I support the national economy and save CO2 emissions has an approximately Gaussian distribution. The recorded responses are never (4.0%), rarely (13.7%), sometimes (33.1%), often (24.1%), always (15.1%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (9.9%). A possible explanation could be related to the fact that many of the respondents reside in dormitories and do not necessarily go to the markets to do their shopping or do not care about it at their age. For the behavior I choose cleaning products that contain biodegradable and non-toxic compounds, the responses collected were never (11.3%), rarely (17.5%), sometimes (26.6%), often (15.3%), always (11.6%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (17.7%). And here, the distribution is quasi-Gaussian. A quarter of respondents (26.6%) chose mediocre behavior—sometimes. The behavior I use public transport, walking or cycling whenever possible, instead of using the car recorded the following answers: never (4.0%), rarely (9.8%), sometimes (23.3%), often (28.9%), always (31.6%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (2.4%). The majority of students (60.5%—totaling the answers from often and always) display this behavior. It is a promising sign that these young people mostly use public transport. A sustainable future for transportation can be built if young people maintain the habit into adulthood [24,25]. However, being part of the green campus Politehnica University Timisoara is aiming to build, most students residing on campus do not need a car to reach educational areas, which spatially are very close. It is also true that they do not have access to good parking spots and most of them do not have the financial means to own a car. Therefore, the topic of sustainable transportation must be tackled with caution.
The following set of behaviors related to sustainability choices in consumption continue the numbering in the previous figure, but for the sake of a clearer analysis are listed as a group below, in Figure 3.
The statement Iuse rechargeable batteries, where possible, resulted in the following answers: never (7.5%), rarely (11.5%), sometimes (26.8%), often (20.6%), always (24.8%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (8.7%). A high percentage of 45.4% (summing the answers often and always) of the respondents embrace this practice. Recharging batteries also involves the related devices, meaning there is probably a higher cost and a bigger effort that should be made. There is room for improvement, and the reasons for not having more favorable responses are worth investigating. For the statement I borrow books from the library as often as I can, to limit my purchases, the answers collected were never (18.6%), rarely (18.3%), sometimes (21.6%), often (13.1%), always (14.4%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (14.0%). Even the respondents declaring that they do not borrow books from the library very often is not necessarily worrying, since the digital age makes it easy to document research and learn without physical resources by remotely accessing the electronic archive of the university library or other online sources. The statement I refuse plastic cutlery or straws obtained the following results: never (22.2%), rarely (17.9%), sometimes (23.4%), often (16.6%), always (13.1%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (6.8%). A balanced, quasi-Gaussian distribution of the answers can be detected. This behavior also depends on what is offered as tableware in public places. For the statement I use cloth towels in the kitchen to reduce the use of paper towels, the collected results were never (5.4%), rarely (11.9%), sometimes (25.5%), often (28.2%), always (25.9%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (3.2%). In total, 54.1% of respondents answered often and always to this request. This behavior is probably debatable given the use of paper towels for daily hygiene in various environments (kitchen, toilets, etc.). In Romania, the use of textile towels in the kitchen was part of a tradition of the last century, but nowadays, paper towels take the lead [62]. It will take an effort to re-accommodate the public with traditional cloth towels, if such a choice will be recommended. Another statement when I spend time in nature, picnicking or hiking, I leave no waste behind obtained the following results: never (5.4%), rarely (2.8%), sometimes (9.5%), often (7.8%), always (72.5%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (2%). The fact that 80.3% (the sum of the answers often and always) of respondents have behaviors of leaving nature and hiking places clean is a very good sign, showing an awareness of personal responsibility for the quality of the natural environment. The statement I drink water from the tap and not bottled in plastic containers obtained the following results: never (33.3%), rarely (18.3%), sometimes (20.1%), often (13.5%), always (12.5%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (2.4%). Apparently, 51.6% of respondents display unsustainable behaviors, since they declared that they never or very rarely drink tap water. This type of behavior depends on several factors: the quality of the water, the quality of the water pipes, and a certain public perception related to tap water that is not necessarily favorable to consumption of unbottled water [63]. For the statement I use a cup/glass to drink liquids and not disposable cups, the following answers were collected: never (1.7%), rarely (4.3%), sometimes (12.1%), often (18.8%), always (61.2%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (2%). With this parameter, respondents display a sustainable lifestyle as 80% answer that they often or always use a cup or glass for liquids and not disposable ones. The last statement shown in Figure 3, I reduce paper consumption by choosing to pay bills online, obtained the following results: never (3.6%), rarely (7.8%), sometimes (21.9%), often (26.1%), always (32.7%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (7.9%). And here, more than half of the sample (58.8%) declared sharing this sustainable online payment behavior. The percentage will increase further through education, training and, probably, with more situations requiring paying bills.
Finally, the set of statements related to handling goods is presented in Figure 4.
The statement I donate the clothes I no longer use recorded the following answers: never (4.9%), rarely (11.0%), sometimes (25.9%), often (23.0%), always (31.5%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (3.8%). This behavior of 54.1% donating clothes often and always is a positive aspect because the textile industry consumes a lot of resources and is recognized as a major polluter [64]. However, there is room for improvement and more should adhere to this behavior. Another statement related to donations I donate old but functional devices to schools or other institutions (computers, laptops) obtained the following results: never (27.6%), rarely (17.2%), sometimes (17.2%), often (10.7%), always (11.1%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (16.3%). Although more than half of the respondents are involved in donating clothes, this does not apply to donating old but functional devices: 44.8% of respondents never or very rarely have such behavior. The reasons here can also be diverse: old but functional devices also have wear and tear, and usually those who want to purchase devices want new, high-performance devices. For the statement when purchasing goods or services, I pay attention to sustainability, the percentages of answers collected were never (2.5%), rarely (5.2%), sometimes (19.1%), often (28.2%), always (41.4%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (3.6%). The fact that 69.6% of the respondents (those who answered often and always) are careful about sustainable goods and services means that they are mindful not to produce a lot of waste.
Another statement, if possible, I repair items that have broken, recorded the following responses: never (1.9%), rarely (5.1%), sometimes (18.2%), often (27.1%), always (45.1%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (2.6%). Although a percentage of 72.2% of the sample declares that, if possible, they repair broken objects, the consumerist trend encourages people to replace broken things instead of repairing or mending them. The old repair or circular economy habits of reusing them elsewhere need additional efforts and infrastructure to diminish the consumerist curve [65]. The final statement when shopping, I choose products with ecological packaging (bulk, paper bag, recyclable) recorded the following responses: never (6.1%), rarely (13.4%), sometimes (34.0%), often (21.7%), always (18.5%), don’t know/don’t answer/not the case (6.4%). More than half of the sample (55.7%) declared that they use ecological packaging often and always. And here, there is room for improvement and perhaps more education.
The top sustainable behaviors include the following: when I spend time in nature, picnicking or hiking, I leave no waste behind; I use a cup/glass for drinking liquids and not disposable cups; I reuse the gift bags and boxes I receive. These behaviors must be preserved and extended to all respondents, in all situations. The least often selected consist of the following behavioral actions: I donate old but functional devices to schools or other institutions (computers, laptops); I drink water from the tap and not bottled in plastic containers; I choose cleaning products that contain biodegradable and non-toxic compounds. For these behaviors, in addition to the personal effort of each one, coordinated actions are required to educate and raise awareness on the issues that need addressing. In pursuing such a goal, collaborations with the service providers [48] could become the new norm. The following set of statements probe the awareness of students regarding recycling behaviors, as shown in Figure 5.
This question refers to the recycling behavior regarding various products. The results are as follows. For the item I recycle glass, dormitory residents provided the following answers: 6.7%—never; 9.2%— rarely; 21.4%—sometimes; 26.9%—often; 33.3%—always; 2.6%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. For the item I recycle plastic containers, the results read 5%—never; 7.7%—rarely; 20.3% sometimes; 29.7%—often; 35.7%—always; 1.6%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. For the item I recycle batteries, the results obtained were 10.6%—never; 17.2%—rarely; 24.1% sometimes; 18.2%—often; 25%—always; 4.9%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. For recycling of light bulbs, the results were 15.4%—never; 18.2%—rarely; 23.1% sometimes; 15.5%—often; 20.8%—always; 6.9%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. For the item I recycle waste from iron packaging, the answers received were 14%—never; 17.6%—rarely; 21.5% sometimes; 16.6%—often; 21.5%—always; 8.8%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. For I recycle aluminum (beverage cans, cans, etc.), the results were 13%—never; 13.7%—rarely; 22.9% sometimes; 21.9%—often; 24.8%—always; 3.8%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. Regarding the collection of used cooking oil and handing it over to recycling points, the results recorded were 19.2%—never; 13.7%—rarely; 18% sometimes; 18.1%—often; 22.8%—always; 8.3%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. For the recycling of electronics and household appliances (the “rabla” program for household appliances, handing them over to collection centers, etc., [66]), the results collected were 12.7%—never; 15.3%—rarely; 24.1% sometimes; 16%—often; 21.3%—always; 10.5%—don’t know/don’t answer/not applicable. For the last item, I recycle printer toner, the answers show 21.9%—never; 11.6%—rarely; 14.7% sometimes; 10.1%—often; 12.5%—the always variant; 29.3%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case.
In summing up the variants often and always, one can see that in the majority of situations, more than half of the respondents recycle constantly. The fact that for item number 9, 22% said they never recycle and 29,3% did not know what to answer leads to the hypothesis that they do not own a printer and are not faced with such a task. The recycling of glass (35.9% selected often and always) is very important since Romania is lagging behind the EU [67]. While in the European Union, 78% of glass bottles and jars are collected for recycling, Romania succeeds to do so only in 63% of cases.
The following set of questions addresses the sustainable use of office resources, as shown in Figure 6.
A ranking of the answers can be made if major sustainable behavior is identified in the often and always variants of responses. The first analyzed item is I turn off the computer completely, I do not leave it in sleep or hibernate mode. It rendered the following answers: 4.5%—never; 8.8%—rarely; 16% sometimes; 16.6%—often; 52.4%—always; 1.7%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. The sum of the often and always variants is 69%, which proves that this is a habitual behavior. The second place in this ranking is occupied by the item I recycle paper whenever possible with the following answers: 6.1%—never; 8.7%—rarely; 23.1% sometimes; 26%—often; 31.9%—variant; 4.2%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. The sum of the often and always variants is 57.9%, which shows that the majority of students are aware of the importance of paper recycling. In third place, the item I copy both sides on a single A4 sheet collected the following answers: 4.8%—never; 9.3%—rarely; 21.2% sometimes; 24.2%—often; 28.3%—always; 12.1%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. The 52.5% generated by the sum of the variants often and always is the last in the ranking where more than half of the respondents mention the behavior. In fourth place, the item I share the car with my colleagues when I have meetings obtained the following answers: 9.1%—never; 6%—rarely; 17.9% sometimes; 19.5%—often; 21.5%—always; 25.9%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. There are two noticeable aspects—the fact that adding up the variants often and always only leads to 41%, and that 25,9% opted for don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. It is possible that this percentage has to do with the fact that they are young and may not own or drive a car yet and thus, they opted for the “it’s not the case” variant. In fifth place, there are the answers to the item I set the printer to automatically print front-back and black and white format with the following results: 10.4%—never; 10.1%—rarely; 19.9%, sometimes; 19%—often; 18.4%—the always (37.4%—the sum of the variants often and always); 22.2%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. In sixth place, the answers to the item I print my educational resources useful in learning activity obtained the following answers: 13%—never; 18.1%—rarely; 31.9% sometimes; 13.9%—often; 12%—always; 11.1%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. This time, the sustainable behavior can be deduced by adding the “never” and “rarely” options (31.1%). In last place, there are the answers to the item I print my e-mails, that is, 58.5%— never; 15.4%—rarely (73.9%—by adding never and rarely); 11.5%— sometimes; 6.1%—often; 3.1%— always; 5.5%—don’t know/don’t answer/it’s not the case. However, the fact that 73,9% of the sample do not display this behavior can be interpreted as refraining from mail printing being the most sustainable behavior in this group of items. However, students rarely handle documents or communications that need to be archived for a long time. In correlation with the hypothesis that they rarely own a printer, this type of behavior may not be interpreted solely as a sustainability behavior.
4.2. Respondents’ Selective Collection Behavior Reflected in Their Daily Actions
The second research objective of the present study aimed to determine the way in which the respondents’ selective collection behavior is reflected in their daily actions. It covers three questions, the first two being multiple choice and the last one an open question, inviting students’ ideas and thoughts.
The first question investigated the extent of household waste collection, by type, as recommended by the waste management company. The responses to the question “To what extent do you selectively collect household waste in your living space?” are presented in Figure 7, with comments following with details regarding the variations in the sample.
To this question, over 43% (43.6%) of the respondents answered that they make efforts to a large or very large extent in the selective collection of waste in the living space. Meanwhile, 36.6% make efforts to an average extent, and 19.8% make efforts to a small or very small extent. Because almost 20% of the interviewed students make only small efforts in selective collection and 36.6% assess this activity to an average extent, it follows that greater efforts should be taken in the direction of information, awareness, and education of this type of public.
The following question looked for a more nuanced view on the topic, as seen in Figure 8.
This question addressed various aspects of selective collection in residential or commercial and waste storage premises. The detailed analysis presented in Figure 8 shows the following results. For the selective collection of waste in the room/apartment, the following responses were offered: 6.4% declared never; 10.8%—rarely; 28.1%—sometimes; 27.1%—often; 25.3%—always; and 2.4% do not know or do not answer. For the item related to throwing garbage bags in specially designed bins (depending on their color), the following answers were collected: 3.8%—never; 7.4%—rarely; 18.9%—sometimes; 25.7%—often; 41.9%—always; and 2.2% do not know or do not answer. The item at school, I throw the trash in specially designed bins, depending on their color/ by category (plastic, paper, glass, household waste, etc.) rendered the following answers: 2.8%—never; 5.7%—rarely; 16%—sometimes; 28.1%—often; 43.9%—always; 3.5% do not know or do not answer. For the last item of this question, I have a behavior of selective waste collection in any space where I move, the results read 3.8%—never; 8.5%—rarely; 25.4%—sometimes; 30,1%—often; 29.4%—always; and 2.7% do not know or do not answer. As can be seen in Figure 8, the sustainable behavior regarding waste stands out especially in terms of storing garbage in the places specially arranged according to colors in more than 65% of the cases (summation of the answers often and always), aligning with the statements of our respondents. In the next place, with almost 60% of the respondents (summing the responses often and always), is the selective collection of waste in any space. The local public sanitation service provider is constantly unfolding information campaigns about correct waste management in different spaces [70], contributing to a rather high level of information on the students’ side. Over 52% of the respondents answered that selective collection of waste is present in their own home often and/or always. In other words, public behavioral actions or actions that are seen/controlled by other community members induce responsibility related to various aspects of the sustainability of waste management.
An open question possibility was offered to the respondents, to collect their views on possibilities to improve waste management, as seen in Figure 9. Out of the 1172 respondents, 978 provided an answer to this question. Their suggestions were processed through qualitative analysis and the results are presented below.
The percentage of 19.6% of the sample that provided no clear suggestion selected either I don’t know, I have no idea, or it does not exist. These answers may indicate that they lack knowledge, imagination, or hope for a greener future regarding the selective collection of waste. In total, 15.8% of respondents suggested organizing more selective collection points, while 13.9% of them highlighted the necessity to increase the number of trash bins for selective collection. Their suggestions regard infrastructure and can be solved either by university management, which in the Romanian case is responsible for dormitories and all buildings on campus, or by Timisoara Municipality, which owns the alleys and the green spaces around the dormitories, jointly with the waste management company, which should ensure the appropriate pace in emptying the bins.
The next three answer categories, in descending order, are the following: information campaigns (11%), fining/penalizing those who don’t follow the rules (9.1%), through education (8.1%). All suggestions contained in these categories refer to forms of education and encourage information and awareness campaigns as means of improving selective collection of waste efficiency. Other responses such as posters promoting the importance of selective collection (1.1%) or writing the type of waste on each bin (3.1%) fall into the same main recommendation of intensifying communication/information campaigns. On the other hand, emptying the bins more often (0.2%), automatic waste sorting (0.3%), and encouraging waste pickers not to mix waste (1.1%) concern the local public sanitation service provider and cannot be solved by the dormitory administrator.
The answers provided for this question point to the challenges specific to Timisoara, and Romania in general, where the success of waste management can be achieved only through collaboration between the local administrations, service providers, communication specialists, and direct beneficiaries.
The best results were obtained by the following choices: “when I spend time in nature, picnicking or hiking, I leave no waste behind” (the sum of answers often and always was 80.3%), “I use a cup/glass for drinking liquids and not disposable cups” (80%), and “I reuse the gift bags and boxes I receive” (74.6%). These behaviors must be preserved and extended to the student body, and for all situations. On the opposite side, few students declare that they drink tap water instead of water bottled in plastic containers (26%) or that they choose cleaning products that contain biodegradable and non-toxic compounds (26.9%). To encourage and consolidate these behaviors, in addition to the personal effort of each individual, coordinated actions are required to educate and raise awareness of the issues.
4.3. Factors Responsible for the Selective Collection and Consumption of Resources
The obtained data were further boiled down to extract factors responsible for students’ environment-related behaviors, in accordance with RO3. The factor analysis is presented below, in tabular and graphical forms.
Six factors stand out, having an eigenvalue greater than 1. This means they have an explanatory power greater than a single variable. The rest of the factors that were not extracted show error variance that cannot be explained. Rotating the factors shows that the first factor explains 15.040% of the variance, the second factor explains 13.438% of the variance, the third factor explains 10.509%, the fourth factor explains 7.951% of the variance, the fifth factor explains 6.703%, and the sixth factor explains 5.402% of covariance. In total, as can be seen in Table 3, the six factors explain 59.044% of the variance, which is a good percentage for the present study.
From the graphical representation of the 39 variables (Figure 10 below), it appears that the first 6 factors are above 1, i.e., super unitary, and they will be considered (in concordance with Table 3).
The variables are presented in full in Table A1, ordered according to the saturation they have in the extracted factors.
Factor 1—Recycling behavior of small objects—corresponding to a recycling behavior of some common objects;
Factor 2—Waste reduction behavior—corresponding to daily waste reduction actions;
Factor 3—Selective collection behavior—through specific daily actions;
Factor 4—Environmental protection behavior—by reducing the number of pollutants that negatively impact the environment;
Factor 5—Recycling behavior regarding office products—corresponding to the recycling of office supplies;
Factor 6—Sustainable household behavior—based on actions like drinking tap water or refusing plastic cutlery.
Factor 1 (Recycling behavior of small objects) loads the variable values introduced in the questionnaire with the following saturations: I recycle light bulbs with 0.786; I recycle batteries with 0.778; I recycle aluminum (battery boxes, cans, etc.) with 0.753; I recycle waste from iron packaging with 0.750; I collect used cooking oil and hand it over to recycling points with 0.701; I recycle electronics and household appliances (the rabble program for household appliances, handing them over to collection centers, etc.) with 0.701; I recycle printer toner with 0.688; I recycle glass with 0.547; I recycle plastic containers with 0.528.
Factor 2 (Waste reduction behavior) loads the variable values introduced in the questionnaire with the following saturations: I use a cup/glass for drinking liquids and not disposable cups with 0.755; when I spend time in nature, picnicking or hiking, I leave no waste behind with 0.723; I reuse the gift bags and boxes I receive with 0.662; I use public transport, walking or cycling whenever possible, instead of driving with 0.605; if possible, I fix items that have broken with 0.603; when purchasing goods or services, I pay attention to sustainability with 0.590; I reduce paper consumption by choosing to pay bills online by 0.584; I use cloth towels in the kitchen to reduce the use of paper towels by 0.566; I donate the clothes I no longer use for 0.469; I use a cloth/paper/biodegradable bag when I go shopping with 0.451.
Factor 3 (Selective collection behavior) loads the variable values introduced in the questionnaire with the following saturations: I throw garbage bags into the specially designed bins (depending on their color) with 0.801; I collect waste selectively in my the room/apartment with 0.758; at school, I throw trash in the specially designed bins, depending on their color/category (plastic, paper, glass, household waste, etc.) with 0.706; I have a behavior of selective waste collection in any space in which I move with 0.690; I collect household waste selectively with 0.627; I turn off the computer completely, I don’t leave it in sleep or hibernate mode with 0.432.
Factor 4 (Environmental protection behavior) loads the variable values introduced in the questionnaire with the following saturations: I choose cleaning products that contain biodegradable and non-toxic compounds with 0.720; I choose to buy from local producers: I support the national economy and save CO2 emissions by 0.581; I borrow books from the library whenever I have the opportunity, to limit my purchases by 0.570; use rechargeable batteries where possible with 0.512; when shopping, I choose products with ecological packaging (bulk, paper bag, recyclable) with 0.422.
Factor 5 (Recycling behavior regarding office products) loads the variable values introduced in the questionnaire with the following saturations: I set the printer to automatically print front-back, black and white format with 0.700; I copy both sides on a single A4 sheet with 0.694; I print the educational resources with 0.590; I share the car with colleagues when I have meetings with 0.551; I recycle paper whenever possible with 0.441.
Factor 6 (Sustainable household behavior) loads the variable values introduced in the questionnaire with the following saturations: I drink water from the tap and not bottled in plastic containers with 0.692; I refuse plastic cutlery or straws with 0.561; I donate old but functional devices to schools or other institutions (computers, laptops) with 0.553; I print my emails with 0.488.
The calculation of correlation coefficients between factors is presented in Table 4 and discussed, considering all correlations.
The correlation coefficients range from −0.158 (between factor 4 and 6) to 0.872 (between factor 4 and 5). At a general glance, waste management behavior is complex and often, people do not realize the correlations between their actions.
If factors 1 and 2 are considered (which have a correlation coefficient of 0.481 between them, that is, an average correlation), it can be inferred that the respondents partially associate the recycling of small objects with reducing the amount of waste. Factors 1 and 3 have a correlation coefficient of 0.435, that is, an average correlation and a link that the respondents make between the recycling of small objects and selective collection. The result is quite small for drawing conclusions regarding the recycling of various objects. Between factors 1 and 4, the average correlation is 0.365, i.e., the recycling of small objects is linked in the minds of our respondents to environmental protection behavior. On the other hand, it is normal not to have a stronger correlation, since by recycling various products, it is not possible to trace direct and immediate effects on the environment. Between factors 1 and 5, the correlation of 0.295 is weak. Most probably, in the minds of the respondents, the selective collection actions are not related to the recycling component of office supplies. Between factors 1 and 6, the correlation of only 0.198 is also weak. The actions of recycling various objects of personal use apparently have nothing in common with the actions of household waste management (the fact that they would drink water from the tap would not still produce plastic waste, etc.). There is no direct, causal relationship between these two types of actions, but rather they are part of the general behavior of waste management respondents.
The negative, even weak correlation of only −0.148 between factors 2 and 3 is a good one, and it means that the respondents are aware that if no waste is produced, there is nothing to collect (selectively, or otherwise). The very weak correlation between factor 2 and 4 of only 0.086 is somewhat surprising, because if the amount of generated waste is reduced, the environment is also spared. It seems that the respondents are not sufficiently aware of this aspect, or the chain from waste to environmental protection is very long in the minds of the respondents and not very noticeable. There is also a very weak correlation between factor 2 and factor 5, of only 0.036, most likely due to the lack of awareness of the effects of small actions in the office area (such as two-sided printing) on reducing the amount of waste. There is a good correlation between factors 2 and 6, of 0.398, showing that waste reduction is related to sustainable household behavior.
There is a good correlation of 0.485 between factor 3 and factor 4, that is, between selective collection behavior and environmental protection, an aspect that is much clearer in the minds of respondents than selective collection of small objects (factor 1) and environmental protection. There is a weak correlation of 0.283 between factor 3 and factor 5, meaning that the two major types of actions are not directly related. Also, there is a good correlation between factor 3 and factor 6, 0.346, meaning that selective collection is related to sustainable household behavior.
It is interesting to observe the high correlation coefficient of 0.872 between factors 4 and 5, i.e., between the environmental protection factor and recycling behavior regarding office supplies. Most probably, the respondents are more aware of the fact that the use of excess paper in bureaucratic activity leads to the cutting down of more trees. Factors 4 and 6 have a small and inversely proportional correlation of only −0.158. This inverse correlation can be partially explained by the fact that printing emails would not be an environmental protection action. On the other hand, this factor would also include the action of drinking water from the tap and not buying water containers from stores, which would protect the environment, but exactly the opposite is seen. The presented data prompt the necessity of further studies on this matter.
Between factor 5 and factor 6, an average correlation of 0.446 was obtained, that is, a correlation between factors that are not related to each other but are actions that are part of general waste management.
The factor analysis has led to the extraction of six factors which have an eigenvalue greater than 1: factor 1—recycling behavior of small objects; factor 2—waste reduction behavior; factor 3—selective collection behavior; factor 4—environmental protection behavior; factor 5—recycling behavior regarding office products; and factor 6—sustainable household behavior. Considering surprising results like the very weak correlation between factor 2 and 4 of only 0.086 or the high correlation coefficient of 0.872 between factor 4 and 5, it may be concluded that the analysis of correlations between factors shows a lack of clarity in the minds of the respondents regarding waste management. It also reveals the fact that students do not always envision the effects of their actions and the relevance on impact on environmental protection. The main conclusion of the factor analysis enhances the recommendations regarding the importance of information and awareness campaigns in building a greener future [25,26,27].
In the case of Romania, with universities owning and ensuring the administration of the student dormitories, the opportunity to create and control a proper waste management infrastructure is greater, thus ensuring an environment that encourages learning by doing and peer corrections [19,20,30,31,33]. The responses to the open question show that students also expect that local institutions to assume part of the responsibility, for example, by creating more selective collection point as 15.8% of the respondents suggested, or by encouraging the accountability of the legislative bodies, since almost 10% mentioned fining the perpetrators that do not follow the established rules as a solution.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Young adults display sustainable behaviors regarding waste generation and disposal, but the percentage of their awareness and involvement varies heavily. Education campaigns and continuous communication efforts are mandatory if Romania is to narrow the gap between its current waste management capacities and the 2030 target. The results of this study are encouraging. Most students acknowledge sustainable behaviors related to most of the items listed in the questionnaire.
A major challenge for developing a culture of sustainability in higher education institutions is transforming positive attitudes and mindsets concerning the environment into action. Among the relevant issues for environmental protection, waste management holds a prominent position. The results of the study indicate that students, at least the ones residing in the surveyed university campus, have a positive attitude towards the selective collection of waste and display a mindset predisposed to the adoption of sustainable behaviors regarding waste generation and disposal, despite the gap between awareness of environmental issues and actual readiness for involvement in effective waste management activities. Most students self-assess sustainable behaviors related to a wide range of environment-related activities. Their responses indicate that they voluntarily undertake actions aiming at reducing their footprint on nature, saving resources and thus preventing the generation of unnecessary waste, and, finally, selectively collecting the recyclables. The least relevant activities for them are the ones related to behavior in office environments, but this may be due to their relative lack of experience with such situations. However, optimism should be tempered by the reality that almost one-fifth of the respondents do not have any concept or clue on the possibility of improving the selective collection of recyclables, despite the context in which Romania has numerous concurrent initiatives, heavily presented in the media (both traditional and social media networks) targeting the topic.
The factors extracted in the process of research and their correlations are useful to better understand the profile of respondents and the actionable points in information-education campaigns. The administrative staff can draw lessons on what is relevant to the residents of the campus in terms of issues raised related to everyday life and habitual activities like reducing the pressure on resources, better managing solid waste, and reducing the quantity of packaging when buying food, clothing, and educational supplies. In the case of Politehnica University Timisoara, the management has incorporated these results in tailored interventions, like the EcoPoli awareness campaign, while the waste management company donated 4000 yellow bags to be distributed in all dormitories, creating more easy-to-use recyclable waste disposal spaces. Moreover, the waste management company that provides services for Timisoara and the surroundings can target this large group of stakeholders with better-directed messages. Another example of a secondary outcome of our research is the fact that Politehnica University Timisoara has introduced new specifications in the housing contract of students, which highlight their responsibility towards waste generation and disposal, as well as responsible consumption of water, electricity, and heat. Understanding students’ attitudes and behaviors, as highlighted by this study, is conductive to the formulation of better norms and regulations, in support of increasingly more effective waste management in the residential area. Once socialized in such a manner, students will most likely carry these behaviors in their independent life, as skilled workers at the future places of employment, but also in their private lives.
Further studies should revisit the results, via repeating the polling of the student population, also correlating their attitudes and behaviors with the efforts undertaken by the university towards deepening the adoption of sustainability principles in all areas of its activity and with the national and European trends regarding environment protection and the pursuit of the “zero-waste” goal. In addition, it is important to highlight the fact that student behaviors result from the educational environment during their study years, peer pressure, and the norms and regulations that universities enforce in a variety of ways, including the lease contract, as in the presented case. In a different context, they may or may not necessarily preserve the same attitudes and behaviors towards habitual issues, waste management included. Therefore, a comparative study between students residing on campus and students having different living arrangements could offer new perspectives on the issue. Also, comparing student attitudes with the ones displayed by the general population could also be beneficial to understand the power of education and calibrate appropriate interventions to raise the general awareness of Romanians towards the issue of proper waste management and support the goal of a greener country.
6. Limitations
The present research is the first post-pandemic investigation of the selective waste collection behavior of students at Politehnica University Timisoara. For more accurate predictions, the study should be dynamic and measure behavior tendencies with certain recurrence, across several years. The sample, consisting exclusively of students residing in the dormitories of Politehnica University Timișoara, could be extended so that a larger student population is represented. Also, opinions of other stakeholders and decision-makers involved in the process of waste production and disposal may be collected to extract a 360-degree view of the issue, but this is a path to be explored in a different frame, with appropriate tools and methodology. The authors of this study also acknowledge that a comparative approach, inserting students into the larger population, may bring forth new perspectives that would complement the present study.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, V.G., G.-M.D., M.C.-B. and A.P.; formal analysis, V.G., G.-M.D., M.C.-B. and A.P.; investigation, V.G., G.-M.D., M.C.-B. and A.P.; methodology, V.G., M.C.-B. and G.-M.D.; software, V.G. and G.-M.D.; supervision V.G., G.-M.D., M.C.-B. and A.P.; visualization, V.G., G.-M.D., M.C.-B. and A.P.; writing—original draft, G.-M.D. and A.P.; writing—review and editing, V.G., G.-M.D., M.C.-B. and A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
Data collection was carried out within the University Students Engaging in Responsible and Sustainable Energy Consumption Project (USE-REC), no. 2022/346695, financed by the EEA and Norway grants 2014–2021, and the “Energy Program in Romania”. The financing body had no role in collecting, processing, or interpreting the data. The authors express their gratitude to the Rectorate of Politehnica University of Timisoara for providing access to data collection in the student population.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Saturations of variable values in each extracted factor, obtained after rotating the factors.
Table A1.
Saturations of variable values in each extracted factor, obtained after rotating the factors.
| Rotated Component Matrix a | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Component | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| I recycle light bulbs | 0.786 | 0.097 | 0.155 | 0.261 | 0.157 | 0.100 |
| I recycle batteries | 0.778 | 0.175 | 0.186 | 0.193 | 0.156 | 0.137 |
| I recycle aluminum (beverage cans, cans, etc.) | 0.753 | 0.164 | 0.250 | 0.021 | 0.154 | 0.075 |
| I recycle waste from iron packaging | 0.750 | 0.098 | 0.214 | 0.216 | 0.136 | 0.047 |
| I collect used cooking oil and hand it over to recycling points | 0.701 | 0.122 | 0.152 | 0.148 | 0.050 | 0.167 |
| I recycle electronics and household appliances (handing them in collection centers, etc.) | 0.701 | 0.101 | 0.224 | 0.309 | 0.201 | 0.124 |
| I recycle printer toner | 0.688 | 0.026 | 0.122 | 0.349 | 0.175 | 0.180 |
| I recycle glass | 0.547 | 0.344 | 0.415 | −0.039 | 0.093 | 0.180 |
| I recycle plastic containers | 0.528 | 0.315 | 0.511 | −0.039 | 0.147 | 0.166 |
| I use a cup/glass for drinking liquids and not disposable cups | −0.027 | 0.755 | 0.171 | 0.039 | 0.118 | −0.053 |
| When I spend time in nature, picnicking or hiking, I leave no waste behind | 0.031 | 0.723 | 0.217 | −0.107 | 0.020 | −0.089 |
| I reuse the gift bags and boxes I receive | 0.211 | 0.662 | 0.153 | 0.134 | 0.196 | −0.102 |
| I use public transport, walking or cycling whenever possible, instead of using the car | 0.155 | 0.605 | −0.027 | 0.173 | 0.063 | 0.144 |
| If possible, I repair items that have broken | 0.101 | 0.603 | 0.229 | 0.270 | 0.188 | −0.078 |
| When purchasing goods or services, I pay attention to sustainability | 0.096 | 0.590 | 0.251 | 0.280 | 0.231 | −0.092 |
| I reduce paper consumption by choosing to pay bills online | 0.291 | 0.584 | 0.132 | 0.058 | 0.053 | 0.169 |
| I use cloth towels in the kitchen to reduce the use of paper towels | 0.156 | 0.566 | 0.145 | 0.278 | 0.088 | 0.244 |
| I donate the clothes I no longer use | 0.168 | 0.469 | 0.143 | 0.332 | 0.164 | 0.231 |
| I use a cloth/paper/biodegradable bag when I go shopping | 0.193 | 0.451 | 0.195 | 0.365 | 0.033 | 0.165 |
| I throw the garbage bags in the specially designed bins (depending on their color) | 0.222 | 0.149 | 0.801 | 0.071 | 0.090 | 0.026 |
| I collect waste selectively in my room/apartment | 0.307 | 0.089 | 0.758 | 0.152 | −0.001 | 0.123 |
| At school, I throw the trash in specially designed bins, according to their color/ category (plastic, paper, glass, household waste, etc.) | 0.136 | 0.282 | 0.706 | 0.151 | 0.179 | −0.068 |
| I have a behavior of selective collection of waste | 0.360 | 0.216 | 0.690 | 0.049 | 0.076 | 0.085 |
| I collect household waste selectively | 0.317 | 0.219 | 0.627 | 0.258 | 0.019 | 0.052 |
| I turn off the computer completely, I do not leave it in sleep or hibernate mode | −0.065 | 0.356 | 0.432 | 0.159 | 0.347 | 0.027 |
| I choose dry cleaning products that contain biodegradable and non-toxic compounds. | 0.246 | 0.184 | 0.160 | 0.720 | 0.092 | 0.130 |
| I choose to buy from local producers: I support the national economy and save CO2 emissions | 0.260 | 0.324 | 0.103 | 0.581 | 0.150 | 0.027 |
| I borrow books from the library as often as I can, to limit my purchases | 0.268 | 0.061 | 0.086 | 0.570 | 0.058 | 0.322 |
| I use rechargeable batteries | 0.295 | 0.410 | 0.069 | 0.512 | 0.090 | 0.027 |
| When shopping, I choose products with ecological packaging (bulk, paper bag, recyclable) | 0.215 | 0.347 | 0.261 | 0.422 | 0.220 | 0.262 |
| I set the printer to automatically print front-back and black and white format | 0.235 | 0.137 | 0.106 | 0.138 | 0.700 | 0.053 |
| I copy both sides on a single A4 sheet | 0.139 | 0.253 | 0.169 | 0.254 | 0.694 | −0.092 |
| I print my educational resources | 0.125 | 0.053 | 0.026 | −0.117 | 0.590 | 0.355 |
| I share the car with colleagues when I have meetings | 0.333 | 0.286 | 0.047 | 0.133 | 0.551 | 0.094 |
| I recycle paper whenever possible | 0.398 | 0.346 | 0.322 | 0.145 | 0.441 | 0.071 |
| I drink water from the tap and not bottled in plastic containers | 0.220 | 0.074 | −0.026 | 0.049 | 0.000 | 0.692 |
| I refuse plastic cutlery or straws | 0.070 | 0.134 | 0.211 | 0.362 | 0.047 | 0.561 |
| I donate old but functional devices to schools or other institutions (computers, laptops). | 0.247 | −0.037 | 0.127 | 0.364 | 0.175 | 0.553 |
| I print my emails | 0.111 | −0.394 | −0.055 | 0.047 | 0.356 | 0.488 |
Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization. a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations. The background shading is meant to highlight the factors and the statement that correspond to that particular factor.
References
- The World Bank in Romania. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/romania/overview (accessed on 28 June 2024).
- Pop, S. Colliers: Romania Has Enough Resources to Remain among World’s Leaders in Terms of Economic Growth in the next Decade. 2021. Available online: https://business-review.eu/news/colliers-romania-has-enough-resources-to-remain-among-worlds-leaders-in-terms-of-economic-growth-in-the-next-decade-219484 (accessed on 30 June 2024).
- Popa, D. Nivelul de trai din România Recuperează Decalajul față de UE, Ajungând la 80% din Media Europeană—HotNews.ro. Available online: https://hotnews.ro/nivelul-de-trai-din-romnia-recupereaza-decalajul-fata-de-ue-ajungnd-la-80-din-media-europeana-908702 (accessed on 28 June 2024).
- Pană, I. Forbes Best Cities 2019, locul 2: Timișoara rezistă—Forbes.ro. Forbes Romania. Available online: https://www.forbes.ro/articles/forbes-best-cities-2019-cele-mai-bune-orase-pentru-afaceri-lista-completa-140464 (accessed on 4 June 2019).
- Goldman, D.; Ayalon, O.; Baum, D.; Weiss, B. Influence of ‘Green School Certification’ on Students’ Environmental Literacy and Adoption of Sustainable Practice by Schools. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 1300–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novianti, V.; Sumberartha, I.W.; Amin, M. Production and Waste Management for Initiation of Green Campus Program at Universitas Negeri Malang. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 276, 012039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sima, M.; Grigorescu, I.; Bălteanu, D.; Nikolova, M. A Comparative Analysis of Campus Greening Practices at Universities in Romania and Bulgaria: Sharing the Same Challenges? J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 373, 133822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, N.; Williams, I.D.; Kemp, S.; Smith, N.F. Greening Academia: Developing Sustainable Waste Management at Higher Education Institutions. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1606–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cernicova-Buca, M.; Gherheș, V.; Palea, A.; Dragomir, G.M. Students as Co-Creators of an Environment-Friendly Campus in Timisoara. In Proceedings of the INTED2024 Proceedings, Valencia, Spain, 4 March 2024; IATED: Valencia, Spain, 2024; pp. 7929–7937. [Google Scholar]
- Bănățeanu, C. Investiții de Milioane de Euro: Campusul Verde Și Inteligent al Universității Politehnica Timișoara, În Inima Orașului—Ziua de Vest 2024. Available online: https://www.ziar.com/news=15855438 (accessed on 30 June 2024).
- Cernicova-Buca, M.; Dragomir, G.-M.; Gherheș, V.; Palea, A. Students’ Awareness Regarding Environment Protection in Campus Life: Evidence from Romania. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Șimon, S.; Stoian, C.E.; Gherheș, V. The Concept of Sustainability in the Romanian Top Universities’ Strategic Plans. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gherheş, V.; Fărcaşiu, M.A.; Para, I. Environmental Problems: An Analysis of Students’ Perceptions Towards Selective Waste Collection. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 803211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Commission. Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs. In 2023 Country Report: Romania; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- “România Durabilă”—Indicatori Naționali Pentru Dezvoltare Durabilă—Orizont 2030 | Institutul Național de Statistică. Available online: https://insse.ro/cms/ro/content/%E2%80%9Crom%C3%A2nia-durabil%C4%83%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-indicatori-na%C8%9Bionali-pentru-dezvoltare-durabil%C4%83-orizont-2030 (accessed on 17 July 2024).
- Many EU Member States Not on Track to Meet Recycling Targets for Municipal Waste and Packaging Waste. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/many-eu-member-states/many-eu-member-states-not (accessed on 17 July 2024).
- EU: Municipal Waste Recycling Rate by Country. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1219551/municipal-waste-recycling-eu-by-country/ (accessed on 28 June 2024).
- Waste Recycling in Europe. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/waste-recycling-in-europe (accessed on 28 June 2024).
- Seyfang, G. Consuming Values and Contested Cultures: A Critical Analysis of the UK Strategy for Sustainable Consumption and Production. Rev. Soc. Econ. 2004, 62, 323–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armijo de Vega, C.; Ojeda-Benítez, S.; Ramírez-Barreto, M.E. Mexican Educational Institutions and Waste Management Programmes: A University Case Study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2003, 39, 283–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramayah, T.; Lee, J.W.C.; Lim, S. Sustaining the Environment through Recycling: An Empirical Study. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 102, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Applying Integrated Policy Approaches to Accelerate the 2030 Agenda | UNSSC | United Nations System Staff College. Available online: https://www.unssc.org/courses/applying-integrated-policy-approaches-accelerate-2030-agenda (accessed on 28 June 2024).
- Trei Luni de La Introducerea Sistemului de Garanţie-Returnare. Available online: https://www.businessmagazin.ro/analize/comert/trei-luni-de-la-introducerea-sistemului-de-garantie-returnare-22316342 (accessed on 28 June 2024).
- Taghizadeh, S.; Ghassemzadeh, H.R.; Vahed, M.M.; Fellegari, R. Solid Waste Characterization and Management within University Campuses Case Study: University of Tabriz. Elixir Pollut. 2012, 43, 6650–6654. [Google Scholar]
- Armijo de Vega, C.; Ojeda Benítez, S.; Ramírez Barreto, M.E. Solid Waste Characterization and Recycling Potential for a University Campus. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, S21–S26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moqbel, S. Solid Waste Management in Educational Institutions: The Case of The University of Jordan. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 2018, 74, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boca, G.D.; Ișitan, A.; Çağlarer, E.; Saraçli, S. A Cross-Cultural Analysis for Plastic Waste Perception of Students from Romania and Turkey. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popescu, F.; Edu, T.; Negricea, I.C.; Zaharia, R. Cum apreciază studenții sustenabilitatea universității lor? O comparație între studenții olandezi și români de la facultăţile economice. Amfiteatru Econ. 2020, 22, 283. [Google Scholar]
- Yusuf, R.; Fajri, I. Differences in Behavior, Engagement and Environmental Knowledge on Waste Management for Science and Social Students through the Campus Program. Heliyon 2022, 8, e08912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jia, F.; Soucie, K.; Alisat, S.; Curtin, D.; Pratt, M. Are Environmental Issues Moral Issues? Moral Identity in Relation to Protecting the Natural World. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 52, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jabbour, C.J.C. Environmental Training and Environmental Management Maturity of Brazilian Companies with ISO14001: Empirical Evidence. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinzone, M.; Guerci, M.; Lettieri, E.; Huisingh, D. Effects of ‘Green’ Training on pro-Environmental Behaviors and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from the Italian Healthcare Sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O.; Garcia, J.; de Andrade Lima, M.; Barbosa, S.B.; Heerdt, M.L.; Berchin, I.I. A Proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an Environmental Education Program at Universities. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1674–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varela-Candamio, L.; Novo-Corti, I.; García-Álvarez, M.T. The Importance of Environmental Education in the Determinants of Green Behavior: A Meta-Analysis Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 1565–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janmaimool, P.; Khajohnmanee, S. Roles of Environmental System Knowledge in Promoting University Students’ Environmental Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fielding, K.S.; Head, B.W. Determinants of Young Australians’ Environmental Actions: The Role of Responsibility Attributions, Locus of Control, Knowledge and Attitudes. Environ. Educ. Res. 2012, 18, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prager, K.; Nienaber, B.; Neumann, B.; Phillips, A. How Should Rural Policy Be Evaluated If It Aims to Foster Community Involvement in Environmental Management? J. Rural Stud. 2015, 37, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; Xu, H.; Au, W.; Xu, C.; Wu, K. Involvement of Family Environmental, Behavioral, and Social Functional Factors in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2018, 11, 447–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulhasanah, N.; Goto, N. Assessment of Citizens’ Environmental Behavior toward Municipal Solid Waste Management for a Better and Appropriate System in Indonesia: A Case Study of Padang City. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2018, 20, 1257–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janmaimool, P. Application of Protection Motivation Theory to Investigate Sustainable Waste Management Behaviors. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhawal Mukherji, S.; Sekiyama, M.; Mino, T.; Chaturvedi, B. Resident Knowledge and Willingness to Engage in Waste Management in Delhi, India. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viebahn, P. An Environmental Management Model for Universities: From Environmental Guidelines to Staff Involvement. J. Clean. Prod. 2002, 10, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). Available online: https://green-business.ec.europa.eu/eco-management-and-audit-scheme-emas_en (accessed on 28 June 2024).
- Savelyeva, T.; McKenna, J.R. Campus Sustainability: Emerging Curricula Models in Higher Education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2011, 12, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adomßent, M.; Fischer, D.; Godemann, J.; Herzig, C.; Otte, I.; Rieckmann, M.; Timm, J. Emerging Areas in Research on Higher Education for Sustainable Development—Management Education, Sustainable Consumption and Perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 62, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berchin, I.I.; Sima, M.; de Lima, M.A.; Biesel, S.; dos Santos, L.P.; Ferreira, R.V.; de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O.; Ceci, F. The Importance of International Conferences on Sustainable Development as Higher Education Institutions’ Strategies to Promote Sustainability: A Case Study in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 756–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Disterheft, A.; Ferreira da Silva Caeiro, S.S.; Ramos, M.R.; de Miranda Azeiteiro, U.M. Environmental Management Systems (EMS) Implementation Processes and Practices in European Higher Education Institutions—Top-down versus Participatory Approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 31, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gherhes, V.; Cernicova-Buca, M.; Dragomir, G.-M.; Palea, A. Comunicare În Sprijinul Sustenabilității. Diagnoză, Intervenție Și Experiență Transformatoare Într-Un Campus Studențesc; Tritonic: Bucuresti, Romania, 2024; ISBN 978-606-749-747-2. [Google Scholar]
- Teaching for Sustainability. Available online: https://www.teachsus.eu/ (accessed on 17 July 2024).
- Lakatos, E.S.; Cioca, L.-I.; Dan, V.; Ciomos, A.O.; Crisan, O.A.; Barsan, G. Studies and Investigation about the Attitude towards Sustainable Production, Consumption and Waste Generation in Line with Circular Economy in Romania. Sustainability 2018, 10, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geronimo, C.A.; Geronimo, A.L. Higher Education Institution’s Solid Waste Management: Practices, Needs, and Opportunities. Int. J. Emerg. Multidiscip. Res. 2018, 2, 15–26. [Google Scholar]
- Ferronato, N.; Guisbert Lizarazu, E.G.; Velasco Tudela, J.M.; Blanco Callisaya, J.K.; Preziosi, G.; Torretta, V. Selective Collection of Recyclable Waste in Universities of Low-Middle Income Countries: Lessons Learned in Bolivia. Waste Manag 2020, 105, 198–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucker, P.; Speirs, D. Attitudes and Behavioural Change in Household Waste Management Behaviours. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2003, 46, 289–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zen, I.S.; Noor, Z.Z.; Yusuf, R.O. The Profiles of Household Solid Waste Recyclers and Non-Recyclers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat Int. 2014, 42, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Werner, C.M.; Turner, J.; Shipman, K.; Shawn Twitchell, F.; Dickson, B.R.; Bruschke, G.V.; von Bismarck, W.B. Commitment, Behavior, and Attitude Change: An Analysis of Voluntary Recycling. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawshe, C.H. A Quantitative Approach to Content Validity. Pers. Psychol. 1975, 28, 563–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H. Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research. Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag. 2016, 5, hal-02546799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yong, A.G.; Pearce, S. A Beginner’s Guide to Factor Analysis: Focusing on Exploratory Factor Analysis. TQMP 2013, 9, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cătoiu, I.; Bălan, C.; Popescu, I.C.; Orzan, G.; Vegheş, C.; Dăneţiu, T.; Vranceanu, D. Cercetări de Marketing; Editura Presa Universitara Clujeana: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2002; pp. 145–330. [Google Scholar]
- Cronbach, L.J. Essentials of Psychological Testing; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1990; ISBN 978-0-06-041418-4. [Google Scholar]
- Macovei, O.I. Modelarea Prin Ecuaţii Structurale În Cercetarea de Marketing: Aplicaţie Practică; Ştiinţe Economice; Editura Universitară: Bucuresti, Romania, 2014; ISBN 978-606-28-0044-4. [Google Scholar]
- Prosoapele de Hârtie, alese în Defavoarea Lavetelor Textile. Cum Arată Piața Hârtiei de uz Casnic | Progresiv. Available online: https://revistaprogresiv.ro/stiri/fmcg/prosoapele-de-hartie-alese-defavoarea-lavetelor-textile-cum-arata-piata-hartiei-de-uz-casnic/ (accessed on 9 July 2024).
- Cornea, O. De ce evită românii să bea apă de la chiuvetă. “O folosim doar fiartă, are gust de țeavă!”. Europa Liberă România. Available online: https://romania.europalibera.org/a/apa-potabila-orase/32087518.html (accessed on 24 October 2022).
- The Impact of Textile Production and Waste on the Environment (Infographics)—EU Monitor. Available online: https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vlf0bgvqy6vx?ctx=vjxzjv7ta8z1 (accessed on 9 July 2024).
- US EPA, O. What Is a Circular Economy? Available online: https://www.epa.gov/circulareconomy/what-circular-economy (accessed on 9 July 2024).
- Alina, O. Programul Rabla 2024 va Incepe pe 19 Martie. Available online: https://green-report.ro/programul-rabla-2024-va-incepe-pe-19-martie/ (accessed on 9 July 2024).
- Glass Recycling: If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It. Available online: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/opinion/glass-recycling-if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it/ (accessed on 9 July 2024).
- (23) Why Printing Is Greener than Not Printing: Debunking Myths around Print Media | LinkedIn. Available online: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-printing-greener-than-debunking-myths-/ (accessed on 9 July 2024).
- Carli, D. False Dilemmas and Forced Choices. Available online: https://twosidesna.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2018/05/ISC_Carli_Don_-_Print_vs_Digital_Media_False_Dilemmas_and_Forced_Choices_2010.pdf (accessed on 9 June 2024).
- Boboutanu, D.; Baghina, N. The Sanitation Activity Carried out by SC Retim Ecologic Service Sa in Timişoara Municipality. Res. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 52, 196. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1.
Waste recycling in Europe: European Environment Agency’s home page (europa.eu) [18].
Figure 1.
Waste recycling in Europe: European Environment Agency’s home page (europa.eu) [18].
Figure 2.
Description of personal behavior (1).
Figure 3.
Description of personal behavior (2).
Figure 4.
Description of personal behavior (3).
Figure 5.
Description of sustainable recycling behavior.
Figure 6.
Description of personal behavior related to office resources.
Figure 7.
Selective collection of household waste.
Figure 8.
Description of waste management sustainable behavior.
Figure 9.
Suggestions for more efficient selective collection of waste.
Figure 10.
Graphical representation of the 39 variables.
Table 1.
Calculation of the Cronbach Alpha.
| Cronbach’s Alpha | N of Items |
|---|---|
| 0.947 | 39 |
Table 2.
The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Barlett test.
| KMO and Bartlett’s Test | ||
|---|---|---|
| Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. | 0.947 | |
| Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity | Approx. Chi-square | 10,748.988 |
| df | 741 | |
| Sig. | 0.000 | |
Table 3.
The six extracted factors.
| Total Variance Explained | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Component | Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings | Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings | ||||||
| Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | |
| 1 | 13.629 | 34.946 | 34.946 | 13.629 | 34.946 | 34.946 | 5.866 | 15.040 | 15.040 |
| 2 | 3.284 | 8.419 | 43.365 | 3.284 | 8.419 | 43.365 | 5.241 | 13.438 | 28.479 |
| 3 | 2.139 | 5.485 | 48.850 | 2.139 | 5.485 | 48.850 | 4.099 | 10.509 | 38.988 |
| 4 | 1.527 | 3.917 | 52.767 | 1.527 | 3.917 | 52.767 | 3.101 | 7.951 | 46.939 |
| 5 | 1.413 | 3.624 | 56.391 | 1.413 | 3.624 | 56.391 | 2.614 | 6.703 | 53.642 |
| 6 | 1.035 | 2.653 | 59.044 | 1.035 | 2.653 | 59.044 | 2.107 | 5.402 | 59.044 |
| 7 | 0.938 | 2.404 | 61.448 | ||||||
| 8 | 0.901 | 2.310 | 63.757 | ||||||
| 9 | 0.864 | 2.216 | 65.973 | ||||||
| 10 | 0.801 | 2.054 | 68.027 | ||||||
| 11 | 0.782 | 2.004 | 70.031 | ||||||
| 12 | 0.702 | 1.800 | 71.831 | ||||||
| 13 | 0.656 | 1.681 | 73.512 | ||||||
| 14 | 0.640 | 1.640 | 75.152 | ||||||
| 15 | 0.620 | 1.591 | 76.743 | ||||||
| 16 | 0.606 | 1.554 | 78.297 | ||||||
| 17 | 0.553 | 1.418 | 79.715 | ||||||
| 18 | 0.539 | 1.383 | 81.098 | ||||||
| 19 | 0.537 | 1.376 | 82.474 | ||||||
| 20 | 0.515 | 1.320 | 83.794 | ||||||
| 21 | 0.484 | 1.241 | 85.035 | ||||||
| 22 | 0.460 | 1.178 | 86.213 | ||||||
| 23 | 0.459 | 1.177 | 87.390 | ||||||
| 24 | 0.438 | 1.122 | 88.512 | ||||||
| 25 | 0.427 | 1.095 | 89.608 | ||||||
| 26 | 0.389 | 0.996 | 90.604 | ||||||
| 27 | 0.374 | 0.959 | 91.563 | ||||||
| 28 | 0.364 | 0.934 | 92.497 | ||||||
| 29 | 0.360 | 0.924 | 93.421 | ||||||
| 30 | 0.336 | 0.863 | 94.284 | ||||||
| 31 | 0.327 | 0.840 | 95.123 | ||||||
| 32 | 0.305 | 0.781 | 95.905 | ||||||
| 33 | 0.278 | 0.713 | 96.617 | ||||||
| 34 | 0.271 | 0.696 | 97.313 | ||||||
| 35 | 0.260 | 0.667 | 97.980 | ||||||
| 36 | 0.246 | 0.632 | 98.611 | ||||||
| 37 | 0.237 | 0.607 | 99.218 | ||||||
| 38 | 0.168 | 0.431 | 99.649 | ||||||
| 39 | 0.137 | 0.351 | 100.000 | ||||||
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 4.
Correlations between extracted factors.
| Factors | Factor 1 (Recycling Behavior of Small Objects) | Factor 2 (Waste Reduction Behavior) | Factor 3 (Selective Collection Behavior) | Factor 4 (Environmental Protection Behavior) | Factor 5 (Recycling Behavior Regarding Office Products) | Factor 6 (Sustainable Household Behavior) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Factor 1 (Recycling behavior of small objects) | 1 | 0.481 | 0.435 | 0.365 | 0.295 | 0.198 |
| 2. Factor 2 (Waste reduction behavior) | 0.481 | 1 | −0.148 | 0.086 | 0.036 | 0.398 |
| 3. Factor 3 (Selective collection behavior) | 0.435 | −0.148 | 1 | 0.485 | 0.283 | 0.346 |
| 4. Factor 4 (Environmental protection behavior) | 0.365 | 0.086 | 0.485 | 1 | 0.872 | −0.158 |
| 5. Factor 5 (Recycling behavior regarding office products) | 0.295 | 0.036 | 0.283 | 0.872 | 1 | 0.446 |
| 6. Factor 6 (Sustainable household behavior) | 0.198 | 0.398 | 0.346 | −0.158 | 0.446 | 1 |
Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Gherheș, V.; Dragomir, G.-M.; Cernicova-Buca, M.; Palea, A. Enhancing Sustainability in University Campuses: A Study on Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Practices among Students in Politehnica University Timisoara, Romania. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6866. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166866
AMA Style
Gherheș V, Dragomir G-M, Cernicova-Buca M, Palea A. Enhancing Sustainability in University Campuses: A Study on Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Practices among Students in Politehnica University Timisoara, Romania. Sustainability. 2024; 16(16):6866. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166866
Chicago/Turabian StyleGherheș, Vasile, Gabriel-Mugurel Dragomir, Mariana Cernicova-Buca, and Adina Palea. 2024. "Enhancing Sustainability in University Campuses: A Study on Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Practices among Students in Politehnica University Timisoara, Romania" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 6866. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166866
APA StyleGherheș, V., Dragomir, G.-M., Cernicova-Buca, M., & Palea, A. (2024). Enhancing Sustainability in University Campuses: A Study on Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Practices among Students in Politehnica University Timisoara, Romania. Sustainability, 16(16), 6866. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166866
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.