CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Findings

Description of Nam Tien Commune, Pho Yen town, Thai Nguyen

Nam Tien Commune is in the South of Pho Yen town, only 3 kilometers from the town center on

National Road 3. It borders Ba Hang in the North, Trung Thanh Commune in the South, Dong Tien

Commune and Tan Huong Commune in the East, and Van Phai Commune and Dac Son Commune in

the West. The total area of the commune is 831.04 hectares with the total population of 8112. Nam

Tien Commune was recognized new rural area in 2015. It has had public landfills in villages and

signed contract with environment cooperatives to collect household waste in the commune.

A. The status of solid household waste treatment

4.1. Treatment method of Nam Tien people

Vt rc tp trung t
Vt ba bi Chn lp

8%
10%

24% 58%

Vt rc tp trung: public landfill

t: incineration

Vt ba bi: Improper waste disposal

Chn lp: Dumping

 Biu 4.1: Table of waste treatment methods

As shown in table of waste treatment methods practiced by Nam Tien people above, it is clear
that the percentage of people throwing garbage in the public landfills is 58%. While 24% of the
studied respondents said they burn waste, only 10 % of the respondents dispose waste on river,
lake and empty spaces. Dumping waste is practiced by 8 % of the interviewees. As can be seen
from the result, the highest percentage belongs to the group of people who throw garbage into the
public landfills. People are aware of the waste collection process regulated by the local authority
and the waste treatment standards stated by the government. However, the number of people who
treat waste on their own is still high, especially the percentage of people disposing waste
improperly is still high. This is the cause of the damage of rural beauty and pollution of water,
land and air resources.

4.2. Causes of improper waste disposal

35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
26.0% 14.0% 16.0% 8.0% 30.0% 6.0%

Thoi quen: Habit

So ton tien do rac; Waste collection charge

Thung rac u dong: Full trash bin

THieu thung rac: lack of trash bin

THuan tien: Convenience

Lam theo nguoi khac: Imitation

Table 4.2: Causes of improper waste disposal

Table 4.2 shows peoples opinion on the causes of improper waste disposal in their commune.
According to the respondents, convenience is the leading causes of improper waste disposal
(30%). People throw waste wherever they find it convenient. The next main reason is the habit of
the local people which accounts for 26%. It happens because public trash bins are not in place in
the public places. Full trash bin takes up 16%. This is due to the fact that the environment
companies sometimes do not collect the waste. When the trash bins are left full, people tend to
dispose waste wherever they can. The lack of trash bin accounts for 8% while the imitation of
bad behaviors takes up only 6 %.

4.3. Opinions on the importance of household waste treatment

Table 4.3. Opinions on the importance of household waste treatment

Level of importance Number of people Percentage (%)

Very necessary 9 18
Necessary 14 28
Neutral 15 30
Unnecessary 11 22
Very unnecessary 1 2
Total 50 100

Table 4.3 reveals the opinion of 50 interviewees in Nam Tien Commune on the importance of
household waste treatment. As can be seen from the table, the percentages for people stating the
level of importance as neutral and unnecessary are 30 % and 22 % respectively. There is even 2
% of the respondents indicating the unnecessity of this activity. However, there are also a large
number of people aware of the importance of this matter (18% for very necessary and 28 % for
necessary). It is clear that peoples awareness of the importance of household waste treatment is
not high

4.4. Frequency of household waste sorting before treatment

Table 4.4: Frequency of household waste sorting before treatment in Nam Tien
Commune

Level of importance Number of people Percentage (%)

Always 11 22
Usually 6 12
Often 8 16
Sometimes 9 18
Never 16 32
Total 50 100

Table 4.4 shows the frequency of household waste sorting before treatment in Nam Tien
Commune. As can be seen from the table, the frequency of waste sorting is very low. The
percentages of people who always, usually, often separate waste are 22%, 12% and 16%
respectively. The number of people who never separate wastes takes up 32% while those who
sometimes do this task account for only 18%. It is clear that frequency of household waste sorting
before treatment in Nam Tien Commune is very low.

4.5. Opinions on the importance of waste sorting

Table 4.5. Opinions on the importance of waste sorting in Nam tien commune

Level of importance Number of people Percentage (%)

Very necessary 4 8
Necessary 15 30
Neutral 19 38
Unnecessary 12 24
Very unnecessary 0 0
Total 50 100

Table 4.5 shows opinions on the importance of waste sorting in Nam tien commune. It is clear
that people are not aware of the importance of waste sortinting before treatment. Only 8% of the
respondents said that it is very necessary to separate waste; 30% of the participants agree that this
task is necessary while the percentages for unnecessary and very unnecessary are 38% and 24%
respectively.

B. Factors affecting the treatment of solid household waste

4.6. Descriptive statistics of variables

Bng 4.6: Descriptive statistics of variables

Variables N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation
Age 50 21 67 42.24 12.66
Education 50 5 12 10.62 1.98
Income 50 2000000 15000000 5480000 2626318.91
Amount 50 0.3 0.7 0.51 0.10
Fine times 50 0 2 0.26 0.56
Training 50 0 3 0.66 0.87

The descriptive statistics of the collected data are given in the table 4.5. The age of the
respondents has the average value of 42.24 ranging from 21 to 67. The education background
level of respondents is from grade 5 to grade 12 with the average mean of 10.62. According to
their answers, their average income is 5.480.000 and the highest and lowest amount is 15.000.000
and 2.000.000 respectively. The average amount of waste disposed by one respondent is 0.51
kg/day. The average frequency of fine is 0.26 in which some have not ever been fined while
others were fined twice. The average number of training sections is 0.66 per year. The highest
number of training sections attended by respondents is 3 while the lowest is none.

4.7. Effects of internal variables on solid household waste treatment

 4.7.1. Effects of internal variables on the importance of solid household waste treatment

Table 4.7.1. Effects of internal variables on the importance of solid household waste
treatment

Variable Coefficient P Value

the importance of solid household 1

waste treatment

Age 0.26 0.85 ns

Education background level 0.097 0.50 ns

Income 0.5 0.71 ns

Amount of garbage -0.89 0.53 ns

Note: ns: no significant.

Table 4.7.1 shows the results of internal factors on the importance of solid household waste

treatment. The coefficient correlation table covers factors such as age, education background

level, income, amount of garbage to see if they affect people awareness of the importance of solid

household waste treatment. However, this table shows that there is no relationship between

internal factors and the awareness of the importance of waste treatment

4.7.2. Effects of internal variables on the frequency of solid household waste sorting

Table 4.7.2. Effects of internal variables on the frequency of solid household waste sorting

Variable Coefficient P Value

Frequency of waste sorting 1

Age -0.18 0.2 ns

Education background level 0.19 0.18 ns

Income 0.26 0.63 ns

Amount of garbage -0.47 0.74 ns

Note: ns: no significant.

Table 4.7.2 shows the results of internal factors on the frequency of solid household waste

sorting. The coefficient correlation table covers factors such as age, education background level,
income, amount of garbage to see if they affect peoples frequency of solid household waste

sorting. However, this table shows that there is no relationship between internal factors and the

frequency of solid household waste sorting

4.7.3. Effects of internal variables on the importance of solid household waste sorting

Variable Coefficient P Value

The importance of waste sorting 1

Tui -0.205 0.15 ns

Hc vn 0.149 0.30 ns

Thu nhp 0.13 0.36 ns

Lng rc thi ra -0.06 0.66 ns

Note: ns: no significant.

Table 4.7.3 shows the results of internal factors on the importance of solid household waste

sorting. The coefficient correlation table covers factors such as age, education background level,

income, amount of garbage to see if they affect peoples awareness of importance of solid

household waste sorting. However, this table shows that there is no relationship between internal

factors and the importance of solid household waste sorting

4.8. Effects of external factors on the treatment of solid household waste

4.8.1. Effects of external factors on the importance of the solid household waste treatment

Table 4.8.1. Effects of external factors on the importance of the solid household waste

treatment

Variable Coefficient P Value

Importance of waste treatment 1

Training 0.42 <0.01**

Number of fines -0.39 <0.01**

Note: **: Significance level <0.01

 Table 4.8.1 indicates correlation coefficient between the importance of waste treatment and
external factors such as training, number of fines. Both these factors affect the recognition of the
importance of waste treatment at P <0.01. However, training has positive effects on the the
awareness of the importance of waste treatment while the number of fines has negative effects on
this issue.

4.8.2. Effects of external factors on the frequency of the solid household waste sorting

Table 4.8.2. Effects of external factors on the frequency of the solid household waste
sorting

Variable Coefficient P Value

Frequency of waste sorting 1

Training 0.68 <0.01**

Number of fines -0.14 <0.01**

Note: **: Significance level <0.01

Table 4.8.2 shows that external factors have effects on the frequency of the solid household waste

sorting. The correlation coefficient table includes external variables such as training, number of

fines to see if they affect the frequency of waste sorting. Both these factors affect the frequency

of waste sorting at P <0.01. However, training has positive effects on the the frequency of waste

sorting while the number of fines has negative effects on this issue.

4.8.3. Effects of external factors on the importance of the solid household waste sorting

Bng 4.8.3. Effects of external factors on the importance of the solid household waste

sorting

Variable Coefficient P Value

Importance of waste sorting 1

Training 0.68 <0.01**

Number of fines -0.47 <0.01**

Note: **: Significance level <0.01

According to table 4.8.3, both external factors affect the awareness of the importance of waste

sorting at P <0.01. However, training has positive effects on the the frequency of waste sorting

while the number of fines has negative effects on this issue.

Discussion

Previous studies have agreed that the differences in understanding, belief and action are

inspired from peoples awareness (attitudes) toward the environment which is affected by

the differences in education background, age group, occupation, social status, living place

and gender. Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) state that five main factors that affect

environmental awareness of different social groups include age, gender, living place,

political belief and social status (cited in Anf H. Ziadat, 2007). Study about environmental

awareness of the local people in South Jordan (Anf H. Ziadat, 2007) also reveals the main

factors affecting our environmental awareness, namely geographical features, age, gender,

education background. The study concludes that the old people have better environmental

awareness than the young; women have better environmental awareness than men; people

in the regions of which economic benefits are closely linked to environment (e.g. owning

travelling sites) have better environmental awareness. The higher the education

background is, the better the environment awareness is. Besides, the study also indicates

the differences in living quality and culture in the case of Jordan are not the main factors

that affect its people enrivonmental awareness.

Other studies also state that among factors affecting peoples awareness, education

background is an important one and raising education level is one basic solution to

enhance the environmental awareness. The study which focuses on the perception,
understanding, awareness and attitude toward environmental issues in two groups:

community (including 3 sectors: industrial, commercial and the residential) and lecturers

at Indonesian National University indicates that the group with higher education

background have better perception, understanding, awareness and attitude toward

environmental issues than the other group (Sigit Sudarmadi et al. ,2001).

However, my study reveals that factors such as age, education background level, amount

of garbage have no effects on peoples treatment methods (the importance of waste

treatment, frequency of waste sorting, importance of waste sorting). External factors such

as training, number of fines have effects on waste treatment (the importance of waste

treatment, frequency of waste sorting, importance of waste sorting at p<0.01). Training

has positive effects and the more training sections people attend, the more they are aware

of waste treatment. However, the number of fines have negative effects on peoples

awareness of waste treatment. People who are fined more often have lower awareness of

waste treatment
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion

People in Nam Tien have not treated their waste in accordance to the regulations. They treat
their waste by their own way (58% throwing at landfill; 24% burning waste; 10% disposing
improperly; 8% dumping). However, people also throw garbage into public landfills which
allows environment company to collect and process. The reasons leading to improper disposal of
waste are (their habit 26%; charge of waste collection 14%; full trash bin 16%; lack of trash bin
8%; convenience 30%; imitation 6%)

Internal factors such as age, income, education, amount of garbage have no effect on the

treatment of waste while external factors such as training have positive effects on the population.

The more training sections people attend, the more they are aware of waste treatment.

However, the number of fines have negative effects on peoples awareness of waste

treatment. People who are fined more often have lower awareness of waste treatment. It is

clear that fine is not the best solution to raise peoples awareness of waste treatment

5.2. Recommendation

More training on solid waste treatment should be introduced to people in the rural area so as to
raise theirs awareness of waste treatment. All kinds of fine on improper waste disposal
should be strictly applied so as to encourage people to follow the waste treatment procedure.