Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Institutionalize waste minimization governance towards campus

sustainability: A case study of Green Office initiatives in Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia
Irina Safitri Zen a, *, Deivendran Subramaniam b, Hanizam Sulaiman b, Abd Latif Saleh c, d,
Wahid Omar c, Mohd Razman Salim c, e
a
Faculty of Built Environment, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Center for Innovative Planning and Development (CIPD), Institut Sultan
Iskandar (ISI), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia
b
Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia
c
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia
d
Office of Asset and Development, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia
e
Center for Environmental Sustainability and Water Security (IPASA), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Waste minimization in campus sustainability can be an effective showcase of sustainability governance
Received 22 March 2015 in translating the elusive concept of sustainable development in the context of Higher Education Insti-
Received in revised form tution into more tangible outcome of sustainable consumption, reduce environmental effect from
9 July 2016
campus activities and create conducive campus environmental for behavioral change. As part of the
Accepted 9 July 2016
Available online 11 July 2016
sustainability initiative in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, the establishment of a Green Office reveals the
complexity of institutionalizing waste minimization in campuses as well as demonstrate the potential of
living laboratory framework as an integrative, transformative and structural approach of the triangula-
Keywords:
Waste minimization
tion elements of Higher Education Institutions; teaching & learning, research and operation. The first
Recycling part of the study begins with the science approach in develop waste profile with its’ strategic implica-
Campus sustainability tion; i. correction on waste generation 0.83 kg per capita per day in campus instead of 3.47 kg per person
Green Office per day received from the waste collector in 2011 and, ii. strategize and justify the campus sustainability
Waste management initiatives based on waste characterization figures; 46% compostable or food waste and 40.6% dry waste
or recyclable items (paper 39.7%, followed by plastic packaging 31.8%, plastic bottles 17.2% and aluminum
cans 11.3%) in 2011. The Green Office practices designed to minimize dry waste and provide situational
and systemic changes for behavior, such as Sustainable Meeting, Saving Paper and Practicing Recycling,
resulted in campus paper reduction rates of 30% (2011), 42% (2012) and 58% (2013). The economic
sustainability dimension from the total paper reduction consumption is 35, 089 reams, amounted saving
of MYR 561.424 or US$ 130,563 (2009e2013). The result equivalences with the carbon emission
reduction 6047.58 kg and the energy saving amounted 4,414,196.2 GJ/t as an environmental sustain-
ability dimension. The second part of the study, which is more on the social science approach, analyze
through the participatory based approach, governance and institutionalization process of waste mini-
mization. The process involves decentralization of solid waste management, established co-production of
knowledge and co-implementation as well as effective monitoring. Those aspects contributes to the
development of sustainable consumption in general and behavioral changes of the campus society. The
study demonstrates and explains in detail the adoption of waste profile data resulted from research has
corrected function for better management of waste minimization as to support integrated solid waste
management in campus. The result discloses several challenges in introducing such a task by introducing
Green Office initiative in systemic approach which reflects in waste data performance and monitoring.
The scientific evidence with a combination support top down and bottom up governance approach
showcase the successful of waste minimization initiatives in campus sustainability. Furthermore, the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: irinasafitri@utm.my (I.S. Zen), Subramaniam3@slb.com,
deivein88@gmail.com (D. Subramaniam), hanizam@utm.my (H. Sulaiman), alatif@
utm.my (A.L. Saleh), drwahid@utm.my (W. Omar), mohdrazman@utm.my
(M.R. Salim).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.053
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1408 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422
study suggests the Green Office awards and certification as to increase the competitiveness of CoR or
Green Manager and involves the cleaner services in the process as to sustain the Green Office perfor-
mance in the long term. This study provides a practical experience and detail process of adaptation waste
minimization in the context of campus sustainability which adds to the new dimension of growing body
of knowledge in waste management from the perspective of sustainability science.
1. Introduction
Waste minimization is at the forefront of campus sustainability
initiatives. The campus wide adaptation of waste minimization into
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) however, raises more complex
issues rather than an impact to the campus operation per se. It is
due to the spirit of universities to adopt and translate the Sus-
tainable Development initiatives consider the campus society has
responsibility to translate environmental sustainability to a more
intellectual and conceptual framework. The earlier effort has been
recognized since the early 1990s, in the form of the Talloires
Declaration (TD) signed by 276 University Presidents according to
University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (USLF) (Association of)
(2001). It states that universities have a role to play in education,
research, policy development, information exchange, and com-
munity outreach.
The ‘Greening’ of the campus (or Do What You Preach) was
emphasized in the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development (UNCSD) 2012 (Rio plus 20). In this conference, the
role of higher education in sustainability besides teaching sus-
tainable development concepts is also covered, encouraging
research on sustainable development issues, supporting sustain-
ability efforts, and fostering and engaging in international collab-
oration has been emphasize in UNCSD (2012). The crucial need of
integration sustainable development issues and principles into
education and learning is again recently in UNESCO (2005)
2005e2014 as the decade of Education for Sustainable Develop-
ment. Send a message for campus sustainability as a way to
demonstrate the downscaling effect of climate change into more
practical applications.
The maturity of sustainability initiatives implementation in
campus sustainability has been seen as an integrative and trans-
formative approach which needs to acknowledge The issues of
multifunction and complexity are in line with sustainability para-
digm. This process involves multi- and inter-disciplinary scales and
dimensions, that requires a dynamic balance of interaction be-
tween humans and the environment, as pointed out by Weinstein
(2010).
Consider campus function as a small city according to
Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008), the approach in managing
campus take into consideration this perspective. Study by Zhang
et al. (2011) emphasize the contribution of HEIs as considers a
size of small municipalities that contributed significantly in
developing sustainable waste management by using the University
of Southampton (UoS) as a case study. In further, other researchers
such as Gilbert et al. (1996) and Adger and Jordan (2009) point out
that managing campus sustainably involves good governance
practices to promote and practice sustainable resource use, such as
in waste minimization. Furthermore, the aspect of sustainable
consumption of resources involves changes in consumer behavior
and lifestyle, as given by the Oslo Symposium (1994). Gilg et al.
(2005) identified the more efficient, responsible, and ethical prac-
tices that are required from consumers. Finally, these conceptual
frameworks highlight the active participation of campus society in
order to make campuses more sustainably adaptable.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Another important dimension in establishing a sustainable
campus is the process by which structural changes are accommo-
dated through the institutionalization of campus sustainability.
Several researchers, such as Sharp (2002), Evans (2011) and Zen
et al. (2013b) emphasize the idea of strengthening the HEI's func-
tion to adopt sustainability in a more systematic way. Stephens
et al. (2008) emphasize on the IHEs as a changes agent in sus-
tainability. Emphasized by Folke et al. (2005), the institutionaliza-
tion of sustainability efforts in campus organization has been seen
as adaptive co-management practice. Meanwhile, Armitage et al.
(2007) defines adaptive co-management as “a process by which
institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and
revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self-organized process of learning-by-
doing.” This study will demonstrate the organic process of campus
sustainability being adopted in HEI/campus organizations.
In the context of waste management, waste minimization in
Malaysia is given as part of the solid waste management (SWM)
system, regulated by the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing
Management Act 207 (Act 672). The act covers aspects of waste
generation and collection, transportation, recovery/treatment, and
disposal, and includes several mechanisms to overcome crucial is-
sues related to SWM in Malaysia according to Yahaya (2008) and
Latifah et al. (2009). Several reduction strategies have been adopted
to achieve a 25% recycling rate by 2020, according to the Eighth
Malaysia Plan (Malaysia, 2001).
The institutional approach of SWM in Malaysia was declared in
the Eighth Malaysia Plan (Malaysia, 2001). It was recognize as one
strategy to achieve a 40% reduction in landfill waste was among
various other strategies recognized by Yahaya (2008). Such initia-
tives include the establishment of 100 waste banks at community
centers and retailers, and 180 at schools, by 2020. In addition, waste
minimization efforts in Malaysia have been supported by the
introduction of 30 private Material Recovery Facilities (MRF). The
Second Malaysia National Recycling Campaign, launched in 2000,
emphasizes the involvement of institutional recycling, mentioned
by Yahaya (2008) and more recently by Zen et al. (2014), as a
mechanism to instill sustainable habits across the business sector
and in offices/institutions and public buildings. Furthermore, this
study will demonstrate how HEIs in Malaysia adopt the institu-
tional approach of waste minimization in the context of campus
sustainability, which requires consideration of the multifunction of
HEIs by using UTM campus sustainability as a case study.
Focusing the discussion at the organizational level, study by
Biermann (2007) identifies suitable waste minimization initiatives
for the campus involving empirical or normative methods, or some
combination of the two. More specifically, Acurio et al. (1997) and
de Vega et al. (2008) identify the provision of waste management
and a waste profile as the basic empirical information needed to
support correct decision-making, leading to better understanding
of solid waste management (SWM) systems in campuses. Accord-
ingly, this study provides a unique case study of the adoption of
sustainable development in HEIs, at the same time demonstrating
practical information on how the integration of waste minimization
creatively affects SWM in campus organization albeit the issues and
challenges faced in the process.
 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422 1409

The authors provide an extensive review of possible adaptations

and analyses of waste minimization through the development of
waste profile and institutionalization process. Research was con-
ducted using the adaptation process of the Green Offices initiative
of UTM Campus sustainability as a case study. Furthermore, this
paper demonstrates the transformative, integrative and structural
adaptation of the living lab as a strategic approach for adjusting the
several functions of HEI campuses to reach out to the three com-
ponents of campus society: students, academia, and administra-
tive/operations. Hence, the sustainability science framework has
used to demonstrate inter- and trans-disciplinary efforts on the
multidisciplinary issue of waste minimization.
The study is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the
methods, covering the area of study, and the processes of estab-
lishing waste profiles consisting of waste generation and charac-
terization. The latter provides basic information to support the
institutionalization process in the existing campus waste man-
Fig. 1. UTM location in Malaysia.
agement system in order to establish correct waste minimization
initiatives. Section 3 was divided into two (2) sections; i. The
development of waste profile which covers waste generation and
characterization. The discussion reveal issues related with informal
sector involves in source separation as part of the institutionali-
zation; ii. The comprehensive discussion on institutionalization
waste minimization through green office includes sustainability
governance, integrated sustainable waste management, sustain-
ability science demonstration in campus, facilities management
approach - ‘People, Place & Process,’ and real contributions to
sustainable development in HEIs, giving several examples of waste
minimization as a campus sustainability initiative. Finally, Section 4
presents and analyzes the results of the waste profile and charac-
terization study, combined with the waste generation data gath-
ered from the Office of Asset and Development (OAD) and several
educational and awareness campaigns co-designed by organiza-
tional/institutional establishments. The Green Office initiative is
used as an example of the institutionalization process.

2. Methods

The research involving several types of data collection covers

primary data collection such as participatory action research using
social science approach and establishment of waste profiling by
using the science approach, secondary data collection of waste
generated is sourced from formal waste contractor, recycle
collected recorded by the formal recycle collector and paper con-
sumption from the Bursar Office.
The first type of primary data, the institutionalization process of
waste minimization through the Green Office will be discussed. The
process takes into account the HEI's roles and functions, co-
management processes, and good governance practices. The three
are explained as part of the knowledge generation of societal
learning by Berkes (2009). This process is part of the integrative
process of the living laboratory approach depicted in Fig. 3 as
adopted from Evans 2011.
As part of the participatory action research, the authors were
involved in the consultative process of the Green Office initiative.
Fig. 2. A Snapshot of UTM campus sustainability.
This practice falls under the dynamic process of the human and
campus sustainability environment, which reflects interaction in
adopting the participatory action research approach, as empha-
detailed application of sustainability science is given by de Vries
sized by Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) and Zuber-Skerritt (2002).
(2012). The involvement of students from the Faculty of Chemical
The process involves gathering hands-on experience of profes-
Engineering in establishing waste profiles as part of their final year
sional practitioners of the campus operations department and the
theses exemplifies participatory action research, and demonstrates
campus administrative staff, which involves a trans- and interdis-
the living lab framework which applied in UTM CS.
ciplinary knowledge approach. This element is a demonstration of
The second type of primary data is the establishment of a waste
sustainability science in the context of campus sustainability, onto
profile through 14 weeks of recorded waste generation and
which issues with waste problems have been translated. More
1410 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422
Fig. 3. The campus as a living laboratory (Evans, 2011).
composition, gained through student research and collaborative
works with Unit of Sustainability, under Office of Asset and
Development (OAD) and the waste contractor hired by OAD. The
primary data collected; waste composition and generation were
used as a basis to establish the waste minimization approach and to
improve the waste management strategy that leads to adequate
solid waste management (SWM) (Acurio et al., 1997). However, the
study is only cover during the study weeks and not non-study
weeks period. This might be one of the gaps identified in this
study in order to establish a comprehensive waste profile.
This complemented the secondary data on waste tonnage
collection recorded by the external waste contractor hired by OAD.
The contractor collected waste from the ‘house point’ in each CoR,
which consists of faculties, residential colleges, and administrative
buildings. The details are explained in Section 2.2.
The third type of primary data, reduction in paper waste, was
recorded by the Bursary Office. Administratively, paper consump-
tion was distributed to CoR, and the amount was recorded by the
Bursary Office. The process involves the recording of monthly paper
consumption by ream. As part of the Green Office initiative, the
amount of paper saved and recycled, as well as total paper
consumed, will be assessed e further detail is given in Section 3.1.
In addition, the study also covers sustainable resource consump-
tion, which is indicated by the level of paper usage. This mea-
surement will reflect the transition of behavioral aspects in the
campus community, as noted by De Young (2000).
2.1. Area of the study: UTM campus sustainability
UTM is a leading engineering, science, and technology with an
innovation-based, entrepreneurial and sustainable environment
located in Johor Bahru, Malaysia as depicted in Fig. 1. The other
branch which is city campus located in Kuala Lumpur. The main
campus in Johor Bahru develop in a total land area of 2800 acres,
the total floor area is 932,077 m2 and 612 number of building, it is
still save 60% green open space equivalent to 1680 acres/679.87 Ha
which is stated in a UTM Low Carbon Campus Report by Rahman
and Zen (2015).
The main campus, UTM Johor, is located in a slightly hilly area
and is divided into administrative area, academic core area, com-
mercial areas, and residential areas for students. The campus
development recognized as a combination of a mixed develop-
ment; compact and disperse, where the main administrative sec-
tion of the whole campus is located in the center, known as the
Inner Circle or Knowledge Circle as stated in Alang and Omar
(2010). The campus has approximately 14 faculties, 13 residential
colleges with their own commercial areas such as shops and food
and drink outlets, and an administrative office.
The launch of UTM Campus Sustainability in April 2011 was
initially begin with as a small effort to save paper consumption in
2009. Its accompanied by introducing a reduce paper usage and
reusing paper. It runs parallel with energy-saving efforts. The effort
continued with the introduction of UTM Campus Sustainability
Policy in 2010 (www.utm.my/sustainable/our-policy/) and the
launch of UTM Campus Sustainability in 2011. The policy states:
“UTM functions as a Sustainable Campus Community through
responsible and optimized resource management; innovative
environmental and ecosystem management; efficient energy
management and leadership commitment and campus-wide
participation”.
UTM Campus Sustainability Vision stated ‘To realize sustainable
lifestyle as personal and communal culture providing positive example
to future generation for them to emulate and continuously improve’.
UTM Campus Sustainability Mission categorize three core ele-
ments; i. Sustainable Practices (environmental, social and economic
impacts), ii. Healthy Living Culture and iii. Iskandar Malaysia Sus-
tainable Icon. The vision and mission is clearly stated in UTM
Campus Sustainability Balance ScoreCard as reported in UTM Low
Carbon Campus Report 2013 (Rahman & Zen, 2015). The UTM
Campus Sustainability tagline describes a ‘Happy, Healthy and
Sustainable Lifestyle’ stated in Zaini Ujang (2013).
The UTM campus sustainability initiative has their own struc-
ture which represents several stakeholders of the campus organi-
zation. The first layer of organization consists of Sustainable Council
members, who represent key internal stakeholders, the Sustainable
Expert Technical Group and Office of Campus Sustainability (OCS)
which is originated established under OAD. The UTM Sustainable
Council members consist of core or upper-level management of the
university, including the Bursar's Office, Registrar's Office, Office of
Assets and Development (OAD), Sustainability Research Alliance,
Library, Computer and Information Center & Technology (CICT),
and the Council of Student Representatives. It administers sus-
tainability governance, and represents the various groups of the
campus society; the academic and administrative staff and stu-
dents. The UTM Sustainable Expert Technical Group consists of
researchers or academics from crucial environmental fields such as
energy, waste, water, resource management social behavior, and
other economic experts. The Office of Campus Sustainability (OCS)
functions as the secretariat to the UTM Sustainable Campus orga-
nization. The establishment of OCS under Deputy Vice Chancellor
Development who work closely with researcher or sustainability
technical expert and students and the administrative and opera-
tional staff as to develop the integrated approach of campus sus-
tainability initiative. The summary snapshot of UTM Campus
Sustainability is displayed in Fig. 2.
This study will be focused on four key areas, representing the
academic area (faculty), administrative area (office), commercial
area (cafe), and residential area (college) as the areas of highest
human activity, thus leading to significant formation of waste. The
research area and waste collection sample shows in Table 1,
Research Areas and Waste Collection Point. As part of the con-
struction of a waste profile, the general framework of waste gen-
eration and characterization study is described in detail in Section
2.2 and Fig. 5.
2.2. Waste profile: waste generation & characterization
As mentioned, the waste profiling conducted in this study
covers two aspects: waste generation and characterization. For
waste characterization, waste samples were collected from eight
sampling points which covers residential college area, commercial
area, academic area and administration are. This is as to covers
different source of the waste generation take into consideration the
 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422 1411

Table 1
Research areas and waste collection points.

Four type of research area Selected location of waste collection points

Residential college area a) Perdana College

b) Tun Ghafar Baba College
c) Kolej Tun Hussein Onn College
Commercial area a) Arcade Meranti (AM)
b) College 9 Cafe (C9C)
Academic area a) Faculty of Chemical Engineering (FCE)/Faculty of Petroleum & Renewable Energy Engineering (FPREE)
b) Faculty of Electrical Engineering (FKE)
Administration area a) Office of Asset & Development (OAD)

Fig. 4. The Structure of the Green office taskforce, Solid waste flow & recycle practice.

characteristics and composition of the waste differ according to
their source and represent different activities performed as refer to
Tchobanoglous et al. (1996). In further, different waste manage-
ment strategies for UTM CS develop accordingly where dry waste
tackling by the Green Office and organic/food waste manage by
Sustainable Food Arcade.
A minimum of 100 kg of waste was bagged and tagged in thick
rubbish bags directly from the source (known as garbage transfer
points) from each type of research area. This point is also where
garbage is picked up daily by external waste collectors. The cate-
gory of waste is identified as one of the following: food waste,
plastic packaging, plastic bottles, paper, aluminum cans, EPS or
expanded polystyrene packaging which is highly versatile and
lightweight material, tissue, and others. All bags were weighed to
arrive at total weight of waste in one research location. Later, the
bags were opened on the canvas and separated into specific cate-
gories as followed the approach by Zhang et al. (2010) as outlined in
Table 2, Example of a Waste Generation Measurement Sampling
Bag.
After this crucial step was completed, all the waste in each of the
outlined categories was weighed using the weighing scale. The
waste material which had been separated into specific categories
was bagged again when weighing. All the separated waste was
weighed accordingly and the total weight in each category was
then calculated.
The same approach was taken for waste generation study.
However, the waste here was not separated into different cate-
gories. Specific collection bins with different levels of fullness were
first weighed to generate a range, displayed in Table 2, Example of a
Waste Generation Measurement Sampling Bag. This is the most
crucial step, as it establishes a standard range of weight for the level
of rubbish in the collection bin. Once completed, the minimum and
maximum amount of daily waste is calculated. This is equivalent to
one waste generation study run. Subsequently, another two runs
are executed after this to make up a total of three waste generation
cycles.
One person was assigned to recording data, while others
handled the waste material. Finally, all values were tabulated. This
step was repeated at each research location for one run. After the
first run of all the research locations was completed, the following
1412 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422

collected from the OAD which was supplied by private waste col-
Quantitative Analysis
lector as sub-contracting out, the recycling data obtained from the
Relevant recycling collector, and the save-paper data obtained from the
recommendations are Bursar's Office. As part of the monitoring process of CoR perfor-
made to the university mances in Green Office, several key data were requested: monthly
administration so that
subsequent action on Waste materials were collected, recycling quantity, paper consumption, electronic & electric waste
bagged and tagged for one run per generators, and energy consumption. The data was gathered by OCS
campus sustainability
week using random sampling method
can be implemented and facilitated by a Registrar Office report in a regular University
Management Meeting (UMG) to monitor CoR performance.

3. Result and discussions

Bags were separated according to
Conclusions the areas and days collected
are drawn based The effort to establish waste minimization as part of the solid
on analysis of waste management has start in operation department or OAD in
both sets of data voluntarily since 2009. The initiative was enhance formally in
March 2011 by the launch of ‘Monday is UTM Recycling Day’ (http://
The waste was segregated to its www.utm.my/sustainable/mobile-buy-back-centre/) at university
category and recyclability; subsequently
it was weighed level. It is the first task of Unit of Sustainability as a new unit under
Both waste OAD implement campus sustainability initiative. By engaging the
generation and waste formal recycle collector, money incentives have been given as to
composition data encourage the recyclable items collection. Through series of dis-
were analysed to cussion between the unit and recycle collector, Monday was
give a better picture
of waste being determine as the recycle collection day. Specific location deter-
Data mined for the campus society brings their recyclable items as to
produced on campus
analysis
provide conducive environment for the campus society change
their behavior towards recycle. At the same time, recycle bin has
provided for the drop off recycling method. It was the first attempt
Fig. 5. General framework of the waste generation and characterization study. (2011).
to establish the integrated waste minimization campus wide.
Recycler collector which is also a formal southern concession-
aire of waste management in Malaysia, Southern Waste Manage-
run began. The same method of collecting, separating and weighing
ment Sdn. Bhd., was collect the recyclable items by engaging CoR in
the waste material was used for each research location. A minimum
each designated recycle point. Each CoR which represent by the
of three cycles was completed, and finally an average of the values
Green Manager has responsibility to manage their recyclable item
was taken. It is important to note that more runs would have had to
and arrange the collection with recycler contractor. However, the
be completed if the data had deviated by a large margin.
effort faces several challenges reveal the internal conflict between
All the raw data were compiled and entered for data processing.
the cleaner working contractor, established informal recycle col-
A similar study by Smyth et al. (2010) employed Microsoft Excel to
lector and Green Manager.
process the data. Once the data was processed, an average of the
Study by de Vega et al. (2008) on the several important factors in
waste composition of the overall research at all research locations
the success, endurance and spread of recycling programs in most
was calculated over the three cycles. All the relevant values were
universities in the United State, found out that the introduction of
averaged and the standard deviation values were calculated to
economic incentives in stimulus behavioral changes need a struc-
show the accuracy and precision of the data collection phase.
tural framework changes in support the new systemic approach of
The analysis of generated waste was conducted by estimating
waste minimization as an integrated approach with SWM in
the average, the minimum and maximum masses for each cycle.
campus organization. Study by Allen (1999) identified that the
Using the overall average composition of waste from the previous
adoption of waste minimization in campuses which began in the
section, the maximum and minimum amounts of waste according
early 1990s in colleges and universities in the United States,
to the separated categories were calculated for the whole UTM
reached a level of 80% implementation across most colleges and
campus. The recycling level of waste materials was also determined
universities. The result is implicitly showing how campuses in
using the data obtained from the waste generation and waste
United State are being organized sustainably.
compositional study by Thanh et al. (2010). Finally, the processed
The engagement of external recycling collector has been seen as
data was then displayed in the form of pie charts, bar charts or line
an effort to accelerate the UTM campus sustainability agenda which
graphs. This helps give a clearer picture of a specific waste gener-
has been seen as a smart public-private partnership (PPP). Through
ation in each research location.
this mechanism there is additional value for the existing operations
The secondary data consisted of monthly solid waste data
and facilities according to Maas and Pleunis (2001). The smart PPP

Table 2
Example of a waste generation measurement sampling bag.

Level Minimum estimate (kg) Maximum estimate (kg) Number Minimum Mass (kg) Maximum Mass (kg)

100% Full a1 a2 N Na1 Na2

75% Full b1 b2 N Nb1 Nb2
50% Full c1 c2 N Nc1 Nc2
25% Full d1 d2 N Nd1 Nd2
<10% Full e1 e2 N Ne1 Ne2
Total e e SN SNxi SNxi
 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422
concept is not only reduces extra work for the operation depart-
ment or OAD, but also creates active engagement with other CoR as
part of the strategy to develop UTM campus sustainability culture.
While, most studies related to waste minimization in Malaysian
universities that conducted by Tiew et al. (2010), Chibunna et al.
(2010, 2012) are still at the infancy stage which identifying waste
generation, composition, and management practices. The focus on
waste minimization initiative was conducted without effort to
integrate the result for the improvement of the waste management
in the overall campus operation. The latest approach poses some
critical challenges from the sustainability governance perspective
according to Adger and Jordan (2009). The integration of research
output and teaching and learning process will discuss further.
However, growing concern over the role of the campus in sus-
tainable development in Malaysia have been recorded by several
studies by Hooia et al. (2012) and Zen et al. (2013b).
The typical campus organization has a centralized operational
department responsible for managing all aspects of facilities
management and operation. It is a wide scope of work that covers
water and sanitation, waste and energy management, and land-
scape. The concept of facilities management emphasizes three core
components in building sustainability in organizations: people,
places and processes. These are interconnected entities that play
significant roles in the development of campus sustainability ac-
cording to Maas and Pleunis (2001). Providing the right facilities in
campus sustainability that represents a ‘Place’ for the ‘People’ to
interact or respond sustainably requires a certain mechanism or
‘Process’. Finally, setting up a systematic approach with a new set of
standards and requirements for a new societal development pro-
cess of sustainable society will lead to sustainable facilities
management.
People's involvement and environmentally responsible
behavior as another core factor of successful waste minimization
programs has stated by Kelly et al. (2005). Furthermore, providing
the opportunity for a campus to operate sustainably and the society
changing their behavior is to allow the campus society to live
sustainably. Campus as a test bed for the society experiencing the
changing daily practice is part of the societal learning process has
stated by Petts (2001). Consuming sustainably is therefore given
priority, which requires the campus society to change the way they
consume by using various methods. In this context, waste mini-
mization initiatives should be looked at as a platform for the
campus society to experience and build sensitivity a more mature
sustainable society.
Back to the original definition of waste minimization, it is begin
with reducing and reusing, and is followed by recycling. The
concept has been developed based on the level of impact on the
environment by Castaldi (2014), it is also create a link on how so-
ciety consumes sustainably. According to the Oslo Symposium
(1994), sustainable consumption is defined as:
‘The use of goods and services that respond to basic needs and bring
a better quality of life, while minimizing the use of natural re-
sources, toxic materials and emissions of waste and pollutants over
the life cycle, so as not to jeopardize the needs of future
generations’.
In more practical terms, sustainable consumption is defined by
Gilg et al. (2005) as “the context surrounding sustainable ways of
living that incorporate other environmental actions from green pur-
chasing and green lifestyle.” Providing the situation for positive
changes is one of the main aim of UTM campus sustainability. The
Green Office initiative provides an office environment conducive to
deploying sustainable consumption by saving paper and energy,
and practicing recycling e crucial points for behavioral changes.
1413
This section will discuss in further.
In the context of integrated sustainable waste management
(ISWM), it is defined as “a waste management system that best suits
the society, economy and environment in a given location, a city in
most cases” by Van de Klundert and Anshutz (2000). The three
important dimensions embedded in ISWM such as stakeholders,
waste management system elements, and sustainability aspects
have potential to be adopted as part of the waste minimization
initiatives in campus sustainability. The three dimensions recog-
nized are contextualized waste minimization efforts, and are
applied in this study.
Furthermore, to provide an integrated waste management sys-
tem in the Campus of Mexicali-I of the Autonomous University of
Baja California (UABC), a waste generation and characterization
study was conducted by de Vega et al. (2008). The intention is to see
whether the implementation of a recovery, reduction and recycling
plan was feasible for campus society. The study revealed that UABC
produces 1 ton of solid waste a day, of which 65% was recyclable e
highlighting the potential to conduct a recycling program.
The integration of waste minimization in the complex campus
organization has been mentioned in several studies such as Wright
(2002) and Lozano (2006). These studies emphasize the impor-
tance of components such as operation, research, community
engagement, internal stakeholder engagement and cooperation
among institutions, teaching education and sustainability reporting
to be focused on in the integration process. Those components has
taking into account in our study.
Other studies have identified the need to include the policies
and procedures of related initiatives e this includes student groups,
external documents including government regulations and guide-
lines, and various municipal and campus waste composition
studies by O'Donnell (2002). This study however demonstrates
how the integration of waste minimization is included the student
teaching and learning process, research and operation in the more
strategic approach of campus as a living learning laboratory. Early
introduction of UTM in adopting campus sustainability as a living
lab approach for sustainability energy management program has
depicted by Zen et al. (2013a).
3.1. Waste profile: generation & characterization
The waste generation and characterization study is conducted to
establish baseline data for adequate solid waste management
practices of UTM CS. It is part of the development of systemic
approach and co-management approach of decentralization of
waste management practices. The involvement of students from
Faculty of Chemical Engineering in conducting the waste charac-
terization study with facilitation from OAD and OCS enhance the
linkages among the three core element function in campus sus-
tainability; research, operation and teaching & learning under the
living laboratory framework which has stated by Zen et al. (2013b).
During the process, there is knowledge transfer happened from
trans disciplinary perspective. The students have experienced in
faces the real problem on how is the waste management in campus
and learn the practical know-how from the waste collector and staff
in service department of OAD. At the same time the staff in OAD and
Unit Sustainability has learn the concept behind the waste mini-
mization and the importance to do waste generation and charac-
terization study. Furthermore, the information gathered is used to
strategize waste minimization effort and to improve the overall
sustainability operations.
The results of the study show that, from the three waste sam-
pling points, the waste generation rate was 5145 kg per day. From
that amount, it is estimated that 2366.7 kg of food waste is pro-
duced every day. In other words, about 46% of waste generated is
1414 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422
food waste, 44% is dry waste from office teaching and learning
activities and 13.4% non-recyclable waste. From the dry waste
category, 39.7% is paper, followed by 31.8 plastic. 17.2% plastic bottle
and 11.3% aluminum cans.
A study by Tiew et al. (2010) at the Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia (UKM) found that organic waste accounts for 43% of total
waste, followed by plastics at 36% and paper at 17%; they thereby
represent 96% of total solid waste. However, result of their study
was not use to enhance the sustainability operations of the campus.
Result of our study has used to strengthen and strategize the waste
minimization effort as an integrated approach between sustain-
ability operations and campus sustainability.
In bigger impact of waste minimization, a waste characteriza-
tion study was carried out at Brown University, revealing that 45%
of waste was recyclable. The waste management program at Brown
University started in 1972, and achieved a 31% recycling rate
(Brown University, 2004). Colorado State University and the Uni-
versity of Florida achieved recycling rates of 53% and 30% respec-
tively (UF Sustainability Task UF (University of Florida)
Sustainability Task Force, 2002). Some waste management prac-
tices in Rutgers University and Brown University were conducted
by engaging outside communities near campus to use food waste
for local farmers according to UF Sustainability Task UF (University
of Florida) Sustainability Task Force (2002). It shows a spillover
effect of campus society to the community adjacent. The data
supplied by the external solid waste contractor engaged by OAD
shows monthly average waste generation of 259.67 tons (2009),
followed by 285.47 tons (2010), 279.83 tons (2011), 280.74 (2012),
190.80 (2013) and 229.84 (2014) (Fig. 7). The data shows a
decreasing trend of waste generation from 2009 until 2014 due to
the various waste minimization strategies being implemented such
as Practice Recycling, Save Paper and Sustainable Meeting under
Green Office initiative.
The waste profile of UTM campus in Johor Bahru supplied by
private waste contractor was shown in Table 3. Further analysis was
conducted include the population of UTM in order to come up with
per capita waste per day. The profile describes in detail the grand
average of waste generation monthly for 2009 to 2014 is 256.65
tons. With the average of total campus population 26,678 in the
same period, the waste generation per capita per kg is 3.17 (Table 3).
Comparison of waste generation per capita per day for the same
year of 2011 shows the higher amount of the quantity recorded by
private waste contractor 3.48 (Table 3) when compared to our
primary data collection, which is shown 0.83.
Explanation on the highest amount of waste collected from
private waste contractor is due to the additional waste generated
Fig. 6. Recycling collection recorded by formal recycle collector.
Fig. 7. Solid waste generation in UTM recorded by waste Contractor (2009e2014).
from big events or functions organized by UTM, such as graduation
day and the convocation exhibition. Inviting the public into the
campus produced large amounts of waste after the event. Through
a series of meetings with OAD, OCS, and the Green Office Champion,
co-management practices were established, redefining the waste
reduction target as ‘reduction of waste generation from normal
campus routine activities’, which is 2 kg per capita per day. As part of
an effort to institutionalize waste minimization, the university
management decided to set waste generation at 2 kg per person per
day reported in Zaini Ujang (2013).
As describe above, the results from this study is used as a
checking value to improve the overall waste management and
minimization in campus. The meeting with UTM CS technical group
and sustainable council has agreed on the changes. The result was
recorded in UTM plan global 2014 (Omar 2014). The waste mini-
mization goal was also stated in UTM CS policy 2010 (www.utm.
my/sustainable/our-policy/) and UTM Balance Score Card. As a
result, waste generated from outside events would be treated
differently. The study shows primary data from the waste genera-
tion study functions to correct the data gained from the waste
collector. This result will lead to improved figures for waste man-
agement in the campus.
Compared with the national figures, Malaysian figures for waste
generation average 0.85 kg per person per day, and 1.2 kg per capita
per day in Kuala Lumpur according to World Bank (1999). Mean-
while, study by Agamuthu et al. (2009) shows the Malaysian waste
generation per capita escalates from 0.5 kg day in late 1980s to
more than 1.3 kg day of waste in 2009. The generation increased to
1.5e2.5 kg capita day in most of urbanized cities such as Kuala
Lumpur and Petaling Jaya according to EPU (2007) and Agamuthu
et al. (2009). Indeed, the result of the study reflects the waste
generation of UTM society 0.85 kg per person per day represent a
waste generated by city. The campus functions as a small city is also
emphasized by Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008) and Zhang et al.
(2011) in the University of Southampton, United Kingdom. How-
ever, being as an institution, advantage gained due to the control
and monitoring of waste management which resulted better and
sustainable waste minimization approach in the future.
In the context of solid waste management, a waste character-
ization study is needed to obtain the existing condition of solid
waste baseline data regarding the source of the waste according to
Tchobanoglous et al. (1996). In the context of governing sustain-
ability, the information needs to be distributed as part of the co-
management process across the department in a big campus or-
ganization. Information on waste characterization is a crucial part
of greening the campus has been emphasized in study by Smyth
 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422
Table 3
Waste profile of UTM Johor Bahru (2009e2014) by private waste contractor.
Year Total waste generation Average Monthly
(tonnage) (tonnage)
2009 3116.08 259.67
2010 3425.68 285.47
2011 3520.42 293.37
2012 3368.91 280.74
2013 2289.64 190.80
2014 2758.05 229.84
Grand 3079.80 256.65
Average
et al. (2010) and de Vega et al. (2008). A waste characterization
study conducted at the University of Northern British Columbia
(UNBC) determined the amount and composition of generated
waste, and provided recommendations to the senior university
administration. The study was part of a strategy to improve the
overall sustainability of the campus waste management program.
The same approach has been taken in this study.
The establishment of waste minimization initiatives such as the
Green Office presented several difficulties, ranging from the need to
establish an implementation procedure and a lack of support from
the facilities department, through encouraging the cleaning
contractor to perform source segregation, and to lack of coordina-
tion among stakeholders and lack of support staff to help the GM at
the CoR level. The study finds that, in order to achieve sustained
changes in the waste minimization institutionalization process,
interdependency is crucial, as is identifying the KPI, championship,
and other factors as mentioned in Section 2.1. As the recycling effort
is conducted as part of Green Office initiatives, and is supported by
‘Monday is UTM Recycling Day’, the diminishing trend of recycled
material quantity recorded is shown in Fig. 6. The involvement of
active cleaning services worker in paper recycling collection is also
recorded. Though this effort helped to reduce the amount of waste
generated on campus, it creates difficulties in recording the campus
recycling rate and the CoR achievement in order to inform a sus-
tainability system. This activity is also not given under their con-
tract of work, though it brings an additional source of income to the
informal sector recycling as supported by Murad and Siwar (2007).
It is therefore classified as ‘informal sector participation in waste
recovery and recycling’ according to Ojeda-Benitez et al. (2002).
Study by Zeeda et al. (2012) emphasize the contribution of
informal sectors in Malaysia as the key players in initiating the
source separation activities which still predominantly covers
scavengers, collection workers, middle-men or traders and manu-
facturers. This study shows that by using the institutional approach
where cleaning services worker's has their main task to collect the
waste from the waste bin and do separation of valuable material
such as paper, plastic or even can aluminum before dump it into
communal bin, they play important role in doing separation as to
reduce the waste generated. The involvement of service cleaners'
workers in source separation known as an informal sector due to
the activity is not part of their main task to collect waste from each
waste bin and dump it into communal bin. The finding implicates to
consider the source separation as part of the formal cleaning ser-
vices worker's job as to smooth the integration of waste minimi-
zation in the overall framework of solid waste management in
campus.
The domination of informal sector roles in recycling indicates
the relatively minimal role of formal sector e.g. the municipality
and the solid waste concessionaries in playing their roles in the
modern waste management system in Malaysia which has been
stated by Mohamad and Keng (2013). This study however indicate
the importance of cleaning services worker's as one of the
1415
Total Daily Waste generation per capita/ Waste generation per capita/
population (tonnage) Tonnage kg
25,256 8.54 0.000338 3.38
25,259 9.39 0.000372 3.72
27,702 9.64 0.000348 3.48
27,717 9.23 0.000333 3.33
27,496 6.27 0.000228 2.28
26,639 7.56 0.000284 2.84
26,678 8.44 0.000317 3.17
categories of the informal sectors in Malaysia as depicted from
Ahmed and Ali (2004) and Mohammed and Kheng (2013). Its' also
strengthening the institutional approach of waste minimization
demonstrated in this study.
This study captured a social dilemma for the waste management
group and Green Office stakeholders to prevent the cleaning ser-
vices worker's involves in doing the source separation. Source
separation has been known as provide extra income to the cleaning
services worker's. It works mainly as a personal interest rather than
a group interest. Besides that, the effort is not stated in their formal
job scope as cleaning services workers'. A social dilemma is defined
as a situation where a person is faced with a situation in which they
must choose between a personal interest and a group interest
(Kollock, 1998; de Cremer, 2007; Messick and Brewer, 1983).
The source separation activities, which involve selling recyclable
items, create extra income for this group which is known as low
income groups. Prohibiting this practice would therefore cause
them to lose this extra income. Some of the CoR agreed not to allow
the involvement of cleaning series worker's in Green Office, due to
their concern towards this group, who are known as a low income
group of workers.
From the voluntary effort by the informal sector or known as
cleaning service worker conducts the source separation in our
campus, these practices are among common practices found out for
waste minimization in most of developing countries according to
Wilson et al. (2006). Some of the success stories originated from
small-scale voluntary recycling efforts (Keniry, 1995), while other
major agreements have come from mandated procedures as part of
institutionalization in campus organization according to de Vega
et al. (2008).
Another dilemma is concern in establishing a systemic approach
to standardize data collection on recyclable items as part of the
integrated sustainable waste management system. Through series
of meeting between OAD, UTM CS, Registrar Office, in order to get
the consensus in establishing the co-management and co-
implementation of waste minimization effort, finally the task-
force decided to gives more freedom for the Green Managers
establish their own approach at their level, allowing them to decide
whether to prohibit the cleaner involvement. The recycling data,
meanwhile, needed to be collected and recorded by the Green
Managers and submitted to the Registrar Office. From the launch of
‘Monday is UTM Recycle Day’ in 2011, the sort period of data
recorded by Southern Waste Management Sdn. Bhd. has display in
Fig. 6 in diminishing trend of recycle quantity collected. The study
reveal difficulties in engaging the formal recycle collector due to
cheaper recyclable market prices and long establishment of the
cleaning service worker with the informal recycling collector as
explained before.
Waste characterization was dominated by food waste, which
accounted for 46.0%, followed by 40.6% of recyclable items and
13.4% non-recyclable waste (Fig. 8). The details of recyclable waste
are 16.1% paper, 12.9% plastic packaging, 7.0% plastic bottles, 4.6%
1416 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422

aluminum cans, 4.7% tissue paper, 1.8% EPS food packaging, and the
remaining 6.9% of MSW generated in UTM being labeled ‘other 31.8% Plastic
types of waste’. The detail recycle data display in Fig. 8, The
composition of recyclable waste generated in UTM. 11.3% Packaging
This result indicates a practical solution for the recycling activity Plastic
conducted. This study which represents the waste minimization Bottles
study from Asian country contributes to the limited number of
studies assessing the composition of solid waste within HEIs such Paper
as by Felder et al. (2001), Mason et al. (2004) and de Vega et al.
(2008). 39.7% 17.2%
A study by de Vega et al. (2008) in the campus of Mexicali I in Aluminium
Mexico found that 1 ton of solid waste was produced per day, of Cans
which more than 65% of was recyclable. These results show that a
program of segregation and recycling is feasible on campus. As the
Fig. 9. The Composition of recyclable waste generated in UTM Johor Campus (2011).
makeup of recyclable waste generated in UTM shows that paper
dominates over other types (paper 39.7%, plastic packaging 31.8%,
plastic bottles 17.2% and aluminum cans 11.3% (Fig. 9), waste
The significant reduction from Saving Paper sub element under
minimization strategies are developed with this in mind.
Green Office is support by Sustainable Meeting, which intensify call
The effect of waste minimization promoted by Green Office
for meeting using email, and the depository of meeting minutes in
campaigns is calculated also in the decreasing paper consumption,
an Online Meeting System (www.utm.my) at the university level as
with reduction rates from 30% (2011) to 42% (2012) and 50% (2013).
one way to avoid printing. This procedure reminds the faculties and
As depicted in Fig. 10, Paper Usage Reduction in Ream (2008e2013)
other internal stakeholders inside the campus to use the same
by using 70,783 ream of paper consumption in 2009 as a baseline
practice, the results of which will be reflected in paper reduction
data, the paper consumption reduce to 56,900 ream in 2010. Its
consumption recorded by the Bursary Office. In detail, the supply of
shows 20 percent of paper reduction rate within one year period.
office paper such as A4 type of paper and white paper to all CoR in
The paper consumption was reduced into 48,445 reams in 2011,
UTM falls under the responsibility of the Bursary Office. Under the
40,282 reams in 2012 and 35,694 reams in 2013 consecutively. Total
Green Office initiative, Green Managers in each CoR are responsible
paper reduction consumption from 2009 to 2013 is 35,089 reams.
for the monitoring of paper consumption. At the office level,
By using 70 g of paper weight per ream, the paper reduction is
housekeeping play important role to provide conducive environ-
2,498,580 g or 2499 kg and by using emission factor 2.42 CO2
ment for staffs to changes their behavior. Its encourage to avoid
conversion factor (kg CO2 eq per unit), the carbon emission reduce
printing, encourage double side printing or duplex-copy and two
under the Save Paper, Green Office initiative during that period is
type of paper bins; reuse and recycle are provided near the pho-
equal to 6047.58 kg.
tostadt machine. Un-printing found out the greatest climate change
From the economic perspective, the calculation based on the
emission reduction, 95% compared to recycling 76% and incinera-
money saving is calculated. By using the paper price per ream RM
tion 74% (Counsell and Allwood, 2007).
16 or US$ 4.35 the total reduction from paper consumption during
Paper reduction campaign was launched by WWF in the
that period is MYR 561.424 or US$ 130,563. In further, the envi-
Netherlands to reduce the amount of paper use in offices. There
ronmental impact was calculated by using the total carbon emis-
were 143 companies joined the program contributed to a reduction
sion reduction. From the total paper reduction 35,089 reams in year
in paper use of 10% within a year (Hekkert et al., 2002). The
2009e2013, the total carbon emission reduction is 119,302.6 tones
reduction is also support by the good housekeeping and explore the
or 119 million metric tones CO2 equivalent (MMt CO2e) by using
various option and measures to reduce the demand for publication
the net CO2 saved from un-printing (Counsell and Allwood, 2007).
papers such as thinner paper, efficient printing technology,
Using the 37 GJ/t of energy consumed per tones of office paper, the
duplexing and printing on demand (POD). As the pulp and paper
energy saving calculated from our Saving Paper campaign under
industry is the fifth largest industrial energy user, its amounting the
Green Office amounted 4,414,196.2 GJ/t. Un-printing is the biggest
10% of all industrial energy consumption (IIED, 1995; Trudeau et al.,
energy saved (95%) compared to other effort such as electronic-
2011). Paper also is one of the most energy intensive and most used
paper (85%), recycling (76%), incineration (74%), annual crop (3%)
materials.
and localization (1%) (Counsell and Allwood, 2007).
Study by Amutenya et al. (2009) on the use of paper by aca-
demics and student computer laboratories at Rhodes University
was used as a basis for identifying areas to reduce the amounts used
and increase rates of recycling. By using a sample of 50 academic
staff monitored the volume and purpose of the paper they used
over 5 months, and the procurement officers in all the academic
departments were interviewed regarding the total amount of paper
used per academic department, the study estimated that the uni-
versity could save approximately US$ 7000 per year for every 10%
reduction in current use of paper (12,784 reams/year). Significant
result in energy and paper reduction has been mentioned in Cardiff
university study by Wells et al. (2009).

3.2. Institutionalization & establishing Co-Management practices of

waste minimization in UTM campus sustainability

Fig. 8. The overall mean of waste Composition for UTM Johor Campus (2011). Two strategic approaches of waste minimization in the context
 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422
Fig. 10. Paper usage reduction in ream for UTM Johor Campus (2008e2013).
of UTM campus sustainability have been introduced which was
enhance by the two noticeable result of waste composition; 44% of
dry waste produces manage by the Green Office initiative and 46%
of food waste generated managed by the Sustainable Food Arcade
initiative. However, this paper will only concentrate on the Green
Office initiative consider office environment as major activity of
campus organization and HEIs roles and function as a centralized
teaching and learning institution that in further have a bigger
impact to the overall campus society. The Sustainable Food Arcade
was established to manage the wet/organic waste from the
canteen.
Referring to the various factors and strategies mentioned above,
the triangulation of integration process; research, teaching &
learning and operation by using waste minimization approach is
closely related with institutionalizing process of campus organi-
zation. Kramer (2002) defined, “Institutionalization is the active
process of establishing your initiativednot merely continuing your
program, but developing relationships, practices, and procedures that
become a lasting part of the community”. The basic approach of
triangulation of integration was based on the three basic commu-
nity in campus which represents the core function on HEI. As
emphasize by Natcher et al. (2005) and Berkes (2009), institu-
tionalization seen as an active and ongoing process of change that
necessitates co-management and co-production of knowledge
among the stakeholders inside the campus. The two characteristic,
co-management and co-production of knowledge are important to
succeed in the integration process of contextualization of waste
minimization initiatives.
The Green Office (GO) was established as one of the key initia-
tives to institutionalize the waste minimization effort in UTM.
There are six major GO initiatives: Save Paper, Practice Recycling,
Save Energy, Sustainable Meeting, Biodegradable Packaging, and
Green E-waste. A GO campaign was launched through the Green
Manager in Faculties or CoR as to socialize the low carbon emission
initiatives under the two years of strategic pilot partner of UTM CS,
Malaysia Green Technology Corporation (MGTC) and Ministry of
Green Technology, Energy and Water in adopt the Low Carbon
Cities Framework and Assessment System as reported by Rahman
and Zen (2015).
Furthermore, the GO effort engaged the Registrar's Office as to
1417
formalize the Green Manager involvement and considering the
main functions of administering and managing the office envi-
ronment in UTM falls under the Registrar Office. Structurally, there
are four core stakeholders that function as facilitators to the
Registrar Office, which is the champion of GO under the Structure of
the Green Office Taskforce (Fig. 4). These stakeholders are OCS, the
Waste Management Group (WMG), the recycling collector com-
pany, and the Sustainable Energy Management Group (SEMG). The
WMG is formed of a combination of practitioners from OAD, and
academics or researchers, representing a group of technical experts
from the socio-technical and economic perspective of waste
management.
As an important aspect of the lateral integration of sustainability
into the existing campus system, vertical integration; combining a
top-down and bottom-up approach is also needed. The process
affects the whole campus organizational system and requires major
changes to campus society. Indeed, it is part of the development of
sustainability culture that focuses on people-centered governance
approach which found by Berkes (2009). This approach, which
requires a series of dialogues, implementation, monitoring and
reanalysis of the process as part of integration, has been recognized
by Folke et al. (2005) as a dynamic system for adaptive governance
Furthermore, the process reveal the potential of campus sustain-
ability as a demo site of sustainability science approaches in HEIs. A
detailed explanation of sustainability science is given by de Vries
(2012).
Furthermore, the application of GO encompasses the main in-
ternal stakeholders in UTM such as faculties, centers, administra-
tive offices or other internal stakeholders in UTM, together known
as the Center of Responsibility (CoR). The post of Green Manager
(GM) was established as the person responsible for the Green Office
from each CoR. Currently, there are 40 GMs in the UTM main
campus in Johor Bahru and 19 GMs in UTM Kuala Lumpur. The
overall structure demonstrates a decentralization process, or
sharing the power of waste management as depicted by Berkes
(2009).
Co-management practices and co-production of knowledge are
demonstrated in a series of meetings and discussions with internal
key stakeholders and external parties. It is to gain cooperation from
the CoR and core stakeholders and to produce the guideline and
1418 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422
terms of reference. Furthermore, the Green Office guideline and
terms of reference contains the job description of Green Manager
and the core stakeholders, reporting mechanism and detail recy-
cling collection mechanism and the involvement of cleaning service
workers involvement are resulted. Those components mentioned
are in line with crucial efforts to establish the co-management
practices given by Wright (2002) and Lozano (2006) and it is part
of the institutionalization of waste minimization in campus orga-
nization that shown by Keniry (1995). The process, which repre-
sents stakeholder involvement, waste management systems, and
sustainability, forms the earlier stage of integrated sustainable
waste management (ISWM) previously outlined. The good gover-
nance practice of sustainability as an evolving process combines the
top-down and the bottom-up approach.
GO also demonstrates the resource component of sustainable
consumption. It is measured by the save-paper quantity of each CoR,
which began in 2009. The simple effort promoted the reuse of both
sides of paper and envelopes in every CoR, and was given attention
by the university management to record the paper consumed by
CoR. The Registrar Office plays an important role by issuing a cir-
cular on reducing paper consumption to the CoR, in order to get the
legitimate response stated by Kooiman (2003). Later on, the for-
mation of WMG represents the collaborative effort of facilities and
operations department and the Sustainable Technical expert. This
collaborative effort is referred to by Mason et al. (2003) as one of the
strategies to institutionalize waste minimization in sustainability
organization. The other important factor is the written policy
related to UTM waste minimization, as stated in UTM Campus
Sustainability Policy 2010 depicted by Rahman and Zen (2015).
The institutionalization of reducing paper consumption efforts
was conducted by recording the paper consumed in each CoR and
reporting it to the Registrar Office, where it was further analyzed by
OCS. It develops a relationship among the core GO stakeholders
with the Green Managers of the CoR, and establishes a standard
code of practice and procedures as part of the office system.
Engagement with relevant stakeholders in the form of meeting,
educational awareness and dialogue with the campus society is
among the crucial factors in managing ecosystem services and
human wellbeing (MA, 2005).
The top-down approach from campus management organiza-
tion continued as a transformation process of UTM towards a sus-
tainable campus, supported by a bottom-up approach from various
campus communities: students, academia and non-academic staff.
Later, the initiative demonstrates various efforts to holistically
adopt campus sustainability through campus organization gover-
nance, bridging the operation with research and as part of teaching
and learning. Despite the societal learning of campus society,
Berkes (2009) identify the effort evolves various types of co-
management, which include sharing the responsibility, building
institutional capacity, building trust and social capital, establish the
process, problem solving and governance.
In the context of governance, managing sustainable waste
management systems in campus involves good governance prac-
tices. According to Adger and Jordan (2009), governance is refer to
the ‘process of government, and more broadly, to the ways in which
society manages its collective interests’. Study by Gilbert et al. (1996)
and Adger and Jordan (2009) recognize the importance of good
governance in sustainability, specifically in the promotion and
practice of sustainable resource use, such as in waste minimization.
In governing sustainability, the process of co-management of
several crucial entities has evolved as one strategy to achieve
campus-wide participation. In addition, Mason et al. (2003)
emphasized several other strategies: i. Written policy, ii. Imple-
mentation of procedures, iii. Formation of working groups, iv.
External sources of funding for projects and activities, v. Student
volunteers lead by researchers, vi. Support from facilities and de-
partments, and vii. Platform for communication. Strange (2002)
and Stretz and Drescher (2012) have proposed several combina-
tions of strategies such as regulatory and technical standards,
innovative financial approaches such as taxes and financial in-
centives, and persuasive approaches which include information
campaigns, public relationships, and environmental management
systems. Those strategies are applied in implementation and
administer Green Offices initiative.
Recognize the emerging literature on transition management in
IHEs in response to sustainability, study by Stephens. et al. (2008)
identifies five critical issues to be considered in assessing the po-
tential for higher education as a change agent. The five critical is-
sues include regional-specific dominant sustainability challenges,
financing structure and independence, institutional organization,
the extent of democratic processes, and communication and
interaction with society.
Establishing co-management practices of GO requires more
time, leading to more legitimate management measures to increase
the compliance of internal stakeholders as depicted by Kooiman
(2003). Getting the internal buy-in from CoR which represent by
Green Manager is also part of the decentralization of SWM man-
agement strategy on campus. In the context of systemic paradigm,
the process includes the development of Green Office policy, a term
of reference for each stakeholder, and establishing a reporting
format for monitoring. These elements are mentioned by Seiffert
and Loch (2005). It shows the results of the creation of an institu-
tional dynamic appropriate for adaptive co-management, as
recognized by Folke et al. (2005). The process is applied by the
campus organizational system and requires major changes to the
campus administration. Overall, the process demonstrates the
adaptive governance of the UTM campus organization.
The recycling method of engaging the external party was
demonstrated in UKM. It takes the form of a pilot case study, and is
not yet part of the campus operation (Tiew et al., 2010). The inte-
gration of recycling efforts to existing waste minimization efforts in
UTM demonstrated the adoption of waste minimization in campus
operation concerning research and a teaching and learning site. The
process reflects the application of a trans disciplinary approach,
where hands-on experience in managing waste from the operation
department and paper consumption blend with the various disci-
plines, such as waste, behavioral, and management, to create a
holistic approach of waste minimization on campus. In the future,
the development of material recovery facility has potential to be
adopted to accelerate waste minimization initiatives.
From the perspective of the external stakeholder, it is seen as
one of the strategies to develop and share the same sustainability
aspiration and to broaden green network support and collaboration
in the local context. The university's involvement is seen as an
effort to strengthen the Malaysia National Recycling goals and
contribute to the national carbon reduction emission goals, tar-
geted at 40% by 2020 (Bernama Press, 2009).
Further waste reduction targeted in tonnage has been set at 5%
to monitor waste minimization performances (Zaini Ujang, 2013).
Setting up a target is used to drive the university towards a ‘Zero
Waste’ campus. Besides the recycling education campaign, the
concepts of a mobile buy-back center and economic incentives
were introduced to stimulate more participation from campus so-
ciety. The role of economic incentives for behavioral changes has
been stated by Bolaane (2006). This approach diverts the focus from
solid waste management to resource recovery. In addition, various
behavioral changes need to take place for the campus society to
behave sustainably by several researchers. Hines et al. (1987)
emphasize on the understanding of the local environmental prac-
tice and De Young (2000) stated that a feeling of confidence is
 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422
needed with the action taken where a declarative and procedural
knowledge of behavioral changes is required.
One of the important points of waste minimization is to provide
source separation facilities right at the point of possible waste
generation. According to Smith (2009) a successful recycling pro-
gram needs an accessible infrastructure to maximize the re-
cyclables collected, and for the impact on campus society to be
widespread. This also forms part of facilities management. The
provision of 50 sets or 150 indoor recycle bins distributed in the
first phase of the UTM recycling program initiatives improved ac-
cess to recycling facilities. The bins were located in corridors and
common areas inside the buildings to replace the standard garbage
baskets in office rooms.
Sustainable meeting is another approach that extensively pro-
motes reduction of paper consumption using electronic mail. The
formal internal circular among internal stakeholders or CoR was
managed by the Registrar Office as part of the Green Office initia-
tive. Further, used paper was channeled into two types of paper
bins or used boxes, labeled as Reuse Paper and Recycle Paper. The
two bins are located near the photocopy machine in the office
administration areas. This approach is a common practice in
campus sustainability in the United Stated of America (USA) (de
Vega et al., 2008). It is identified as the first stage in achieving
the first goal of waste minimization: reduction. This can then be
continued with the reuse of waste.
The informal recycling practice by the cleaner services presents
a challenge for the establishment of a recycling system to support
the Green Office initiatives. The mobile buy-back center organized
by the external recycling collector offers a fluctuating price for re-
cyclables, which brought about unwillingness in the campus Green
Managers to sell, as they preferred to sell recyclables to other
contractors who offered a better price.
Another important issue is putting the recyclable items into
wrong recycle bins, which may reflect a low level of awareness of
pro-environmental behavior. All these issues create more complex
barriers to the institutionalization of waste minimization in the
existing campus waste management system. In the context of
teaching and learning, the effort received an enthusiastic response
from students and researchers in various disciplines. The latter
would help in creating a Living Laboratory of campus sustainability
as a new teaching and learning experience in campus sustainability.
The crucial role and function of each entity in Waste Manage-
ment Group (WMG) (OCS, Green Managers and cleaner services
coordinator) is crucial in ensuring the success of the program. The
educational recycling campaign is not only for students as a major
group but also for the cleaner services, who are getting used to their
informal source separation practice.
The study found that the strategic effort of UTM in institution-
alized waste minimization initiatives are described as follows:
i. The co-creation of Green Office Terms of Reference (TOR) and
guideline among the internal stakeholder, OCS, OAD, Regis-
trar Office, Waste Management Group (WMG);
ii. Creating a Waste Management Group, as a combination of
operational staff and solid waste experts or researchers. The
operational staff from OAD includes the officer in charge
from Landscape Unit and Civil Unit which are responsible for
solid waste management in UTM;
iii. Co-share responsibility among the Green Managers, Regis-
trar Office and Office of Campus Sustainability (OCS) for
recycling practice and ‘Save Paper’ implementation through
Green Office;
iv. Establish the systematic approach and decentralize recycling
practice by setting up Green Managers as representatives
from the CoR at the local level;
1419
v. Engaging the Green Managers and developing a series of
engagements, discussions and training sessions to leverage
the Green Office initiative and create internal buy-in from
CoR.
Though various efforts are being implemented to create a sup-
portive environment for the campus society, the challenge lies in
changing the behavior that supports waste minimization efforts.
Change of behavior in the campus society is the ultimate goal in any
campus sustainability initiative. A study by Barr (2007) mentioned
that environmental values, situational characteristics, and psy-
chological factors play a significant role in the prediction of waste
management behavior. This effort needs to be supported by the
provision of the right facilities and establishment of a sustainability
system for a supportive environment for behavioral change as
stated by Buchanan and Griffin (2010). Recently, OCS has worked
together with Global Action Plan International to conduct the
Learning for Change (L4C) approach as a way to adopt the Educa-
tion for Sustainable Development (ESD) and provide an aid the
Green Manager to implement GO.
Furthermore, the urgency of creating advantageous environ-
mental change has been stressed by the Sustainable Development
Education Program (Council for Environmental Education, 1998).
The council identified ‘sustainable change’ as one important
component of education for sustainability. The six interdependent
elements include i. Citizenship and stewardship; ii. Needs and
rights of future generations; iii. Diversity (cultural, social, economic,
biological); iv. Quality of life, v. Equity and justice; and vi. Uncer-
tainty and precaution in action. Interdependence was noted as the
most common framework aspect of sustainable development as
emphasized by Summers et al. (2005). The lack of development in
capacity building to support an interdependent effort is another
important point that needs to be highlighted in the institutional-
ized waste minimization process.
Keniry (1995) and Mason et al. (2003) emphasize the cost
element that needs to be highlighted in the institutionalization
process of waste minimization. This is related with the quantity of
recycle collected, waste minimized which relates to the reduction
in waste collection charges by the formal waste collector contracted
by OAD. Difficulties in record the amount of waste recycle by Green
Manger and cleaning service worker which has their own
arrangement added to the real challenges in establish the baseline
data for waste minimization profile. This is as to record the
reduction of waste from recycling activity which relates to the
waste collection charges. At the end, the effort is came up with
several technological approach such as to the establishment of
weighting bridge at the main gate for the waste collector or the
development waste sensor detector to identify the exact amount of
waste collect from the campus. Up to now, the quantity of waste
collector supplied by the waste contractor which go through the
weighing process just before enter the landfill.
However, the fluctuations in rates for the recyclable market
create a challenge when the Green Managers of CoR have engaged
their own recycling collector for better prices. In further, campus
sustainability thinking to create a Green Office competition in order
to create conducive environment to sustain the Green Office ini-
tiatives. A study by de Vega et al. (2008) in the campus of Mexicali I
in Mexico shows the importance of local market availability for
recyclable waste, as well as the number of reliable recycling com-
panies and amount of recyclables accepted in support of the
campus recycling program.
In this case, the concern is for the GM to generate waste
reduction data and report them to the Registrar Office, where they
are subsequently analyzed by OCS. The process is part of the effort
to measure the reduction of cost and waste as one strategy of
1420 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422
institutionalizing sustainability campus efforts as experienced by
Keniry (1995).
At the beginning, recycling collection is contracted out to the
external recycling collectors, while campus waste collection is
handle by different company under contract basis with the OAD. In
addition to receiving a monthly report on recycling from each CoR
and conducting an educational awareness campaign and training
with the Registrar Office, OCS together with OAD also oversees the
implementation problem with recycling facilities. The two have
worked together to facilitate the Registrar's Office and the Green
Managers to look at the recycling performance in each CoR. All
these efforts demonstrate the multi-internal-campus-stakeholder
working to establish new co-management practices, which re-
flects good governance efforts in sustainability. As mentioned by
Gilbert et al. (1996), the institutionalization of sustainable waste
management concepts is related to the good governance aspect.
Providing an environment for campus sustainability imple-
mentation requires a great deal of effort, not only in embedding the
sustainability element into the existing campus operation system
but also as part of the campus structural. As highlighted by Hill
(2005)
‘Within and beyond educational contexts, environmental concerns
are seen as an add-on and advocates the development of holistic,
integrated and complex solutions to complex problems.’
The resistance of the GM is a part of the main challenge that
require consolidation of efforts with the OAD, the Registrar Office,
the OCS, and the Waste Management Group in order to establish
the co-management and co-implementation of the Green Office
initiatives. The dynamic interaction across several stakeholders
means that the continuous process may take longer in order to fully
adopt and implement the initiative. Stringent administrative pro-
cedures, structural challenges, and the urgency of a green job
professional are among the factors contributing to the adaptation
process.
The need to address the behavioral aspect of environmental
sustainability to become a campus culture has been emphasized in
Levy and Marans (2012). Three elements of the Green Office (save
paper, practice recycling, and sustainable meeting) have waste
minimization components. The other elements, such as saving
energy, biodegradable packaging, and green e-waste incorporation,
are considered under resource management of the holistic office
environment. It has been practiced in many campuses applying
sustainability concepts with various modifications of the elements
involved, such as with the Green Resilience Office Certification
Program in Oregon University (sustainability.uoregon.edu/
programs-projects/active/green-resilient-office-certification-
program). The commercialization of the Green Office program is
promoted by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), who provide Green
Office certification (http://wwf.fi/en/our-earth/green-office/). This
study may adopt the Green Office competition and certification as
to sustain and enhance the performance in the long run.
The incentives approach, characterized by cash payback for re-
cyclables collection, is one of the simpler mechanisms to change
behavior towards sustainable waste management according to
Aberg (2000), acting in tandem with educational campaigning and
providing the right recycling facilities. It uses a people-centric
approach, rather than technological, to gather wider participation
from campus society. A study by Bolaane (2006) however, em-
phasizes the need for direct incentives targeted at the participating
public and increasing the recycling center visibility for the public,
alongside the continuous promotion of public educational aware-
ness. According to Smith (2009), the adoption and establishment of
a waste management strategy should be designed to maximize
stakeholder/community/consumer participation. The provision of
indoor recycling bins as the effort to provide infrastructure for on-
site collection that is free and accessible was to maximize the
campus society participation.
The concept of green E-Waste was conceived as one of the
element in the Green Office initiative. It is explained in the
campaign material that green E-Waste is to cover all type of e-
waste generated from the campus activity such as computer,
laptop, hand phone and hand phone battery. We were established
the network with Department of Environment, Ministry of Natural
Resource and Environment of Malaysia as to support hand phone
battery collection and recycling campaign nationwide in 2011. Two
bins have been located strategically in foyer of main library and
main foyer of OAD in order to instill the hand phone battery re-
cycles. However, campaign has difficulties to sustain due to the
commitment from the recycling collector engaged by DOE.
Electronic waste or e-waste management involves coordination
between the Center for Innovation and Communication Technology
(CICT), the OAD, and the Bursary Office. OAD have responsibility for
managing electric and electronic waste, while CICT is responsible
for computer waste such as laptop and desktop computers. The
Bursary Office is responsible for recording and engaging the
external collector for disposal of all types of electronic waste on a
bulk basis. Up to now there has been no data recorded for each type
of electronic waste, but efforts have been made to stay in line with
Department of Environment of Malaysia initiatives in e-waste
management. The other source of waste is from laboratory work.
The Unit of Occupational Safety and Health Environment (OSHE) is
responsible for the management and disposal of such waste. The
OSHE Unit engages and pays external collectors for outside disposal
and treatment, in accordance with Environmental Regulations
(Hazardous Waste) 2000.
Electronic and electric waste produced by universities has the
potential to be adopted in campus waste minimization programs by
using the incentives approach. Study by Chibunna et al. (2010,
2012) on identifying the challenges related to e-waste manage-
ment in UKM such as inefficient data management, equipment
classifications, lack of awareness on e-waste, collection and
disposal problems, and lack of specific regulations and policy on
end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment (e-waste) manage-
ment and practices. Similar study should conducted as to provide
base line data for further enhancement of e-waste management at
UTM CS.
4. Conclusion
This study is a showcase of the existing concerns on the cam-
pus's role in sustainable development in Malaysia. Though most of
the studies in Malaysia have focused on the effort of waste mini-
mization initiatives as part of research and teaching activity, this
study provides an integrative and transformative approach of living
lab where the result of the research by students gives an input to
the integrated SWM by facilitation of OAD and OCS. Besides syn-
ergizing campus sustainability concerns, the effort creates a plat-
form for an inter- and trans-disciplinary approach demonstrating
sustainability science applicability.
Implementing waste minimization through the Green Office in
UTM can be seen as an example of sustainability governance, using
several strategies before. Among the strategies conducted in this
effort are campus policy, the UTM CS organization, and working
groups, which are reflected in structure, co-development of
implementation procedure for Green Office, external source of
funding activities such as Green Office training by using ESD, and
student experiential learning experience in the ‘real world’ in the
framework of living lab. Support from OAD, the Bursary Office and
 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422
the Registrar Office was ensured through a periodical meeting as a
platform for communication. The study suggests the Green Office
awards and certification as to increase the competitiveness of CoR
or Green Manager to sustain the Green Office performance in the
long term.
Finally, this paper discusses and analyzes crucial issues on the
governance and institutionalization of waste minimization efforts
in campus sustainability. It demonstrates challenges during the
interaction process of co-management and co-implementation of
campus sustainability through waste minimization initiatives,
namely the Green Office. The process encompasses the relationship
management of the Green Manager, representing the CoR, and the
establishment of common practices and procedures that need to be
documented to create a holistic approach for campus-wide waste
minimization implementation. It contributes to the creation of a
favorable campus environment for the societal change process.
Despite the challenges in coordination among the internal stake-
holders, the effort highlights several strategic issues in co-
implementation, such as the conflict of interest and issue of fair-
ness between the cleaner and Green Managers, and the importance
of capacity-building in sustainability to support the establishment
of campus sustainability governance. The paper also portrays the
decentralization process of waste minimization efforts as part of
the SWM in campus as an organization. It is also functions as a co-
management and co-production of knowledge process to provide
capacity-building toward sustainability professionals in HEI orga-
nizations. It is aimed at achieving a campus society sustainability
culture. This study shows the potential of a waste minimization
approach toward campus sustainability, with clear application for
sustainable consumption despite the elusive concept of sustainable
development. Finally, this paper demonstrates first-hand experi-
ence of sustainability science approach implemented in campus
sustainability.
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by a grant awarded to University
Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) by the Ministry of Education Malaysia for
Flagship Research Grant with Vot No. 01G47 (Campus Sustainability
Index) and the institutional grant awarded by Malaysia Green
Technology Corporation (MGTC), Ministry of Water, Green Tech-
nology and Energy, Malaysia with Vot No. 4F130 (Low Carbon Cities
Framework e LCCF Assessment System for Low Carbon Campus
Research Project). We also want to thank the Bursary Office and
Office of Assets and Development (OAD) of UTM for the data
supplied.
References
Aberg, H., 2000. Sustainable Waste Management e From International Policy to
Everyday Practice. Experineces from Two Swedish Field Studies. Go € teborg
Studies in Educational Sciences, Go €teborg, Sweden.
Acurio, G., Rossin, A., Teixeira, P.F., Zepeda, F., 1997. Situation of the Municipal Solid
Waste Management in Latin America and the Caribbean. BID No.ENV.97-107.
Panamerican Organization, Washington, DC, USA.
Adger, W.N., Jordan, A., 2009. Governing Sustainability. Cambridge Press, 338 pgs.
Agamuthu, P., Khidzir, K., Fauziah, S.H., 2009. Drivers of sustainable waste man-
agement in Asia. Waste Manag. Res. 27, 625e633.
Ahmed, S.A., Ali, M., 2004. Partnerships for solid waste management in developing
countries: linking theories to realities. Habitat Int. 2 (3), 467e479.
Alang, M.A., Omar, W., 2010. 3 Dekad Pembangunan Kampus UTM. UTM Press Pub,
Malaysia.
Allen, A.S., 1999. Institutional Environmental Change at Tulane University. Tulane
University, New Orleans, USA.
Alshuwaikhat, H.M., Abubakar, I., 2008. An integrated approach to achieving
campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental
management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (16), 1777e1785.
Amutenya, N., Shackleton, C.M., Whittington-Jones, K., 2009. Paper recycling pat-
terns and potential interventions in the education sector: a case study of paper
streams at Rhodes university, South Africa. Res. Conserv. Recycl. 53 (5),
1421
237e242.
Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Doubleday, N., 2007. Adaptive Co-management: Learning,
Collaboration and Multi-level Governance.
Barr, S., 2007. Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors a Uk case
study of household waste management. Environ. Behav. 39 (4), 435e473.
Berkes, F., 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation,
bridging organizations and social learning. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 1692e1702.
“Malaysia Announces Conditional 40% Cut in Emissions”, Dec 17 2009, 2009. Ber-
nama Press, Copenhagen.
Biermann, F., 2007. Earth system governance as a cross cutting theme of global
change research. Glob. Environ. Change 17, 326e337.
Bolaane, B., 2006. Constraints to promoting people centre approaches in recycling.
Habitat Int. 30, 731e740.
Brown University, 2004. Brown Recycling Program. Brown Is Green. Access via.
http://www.brown.edu/initiatives/brown-is-green//. accessed by ( 8.12.15.).
Buchanan, J., Griffin, J., 2010. Finding a place for environmental studies: tertiary
institutions as a locus of practice for education for sustainability. J. Teach. Educ.
Sustain. 12 (2), 5e16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10099-009-0050-1.
Castaldi, M.J., 2014. Perspectives on sustainable waste management. Annu. Rev.
Chem. Biomol. Eng. 5 (5), 547e562.
Chibunna, J.B., Chamhuri, S., Ahmad, F.M., Rawshan, A.B., 2010. E-waste manage-
ment for sustainable campus: case of university Kebangsaan Malaysia. In:
Proceedings of the Twenty Fifth International Conferences on Solid Waste
Technology and Management, pp. 537e547.
Chibunna, J.B., Siwar, C., Begum, R.A., Fariz, A., 2012. The challenges of e-waste
management among institutions: a case study of UKM. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
59, 644e649.
Coughlan, P., Coghlan, D., 2002. Action research for operations management. Int. J.
Operations Prod. Manag. 22 (2), 220e240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
01443570210417515.
Council for Environmental Education, 1998. Education for Sustainable Development
in the Schools Sector: a Report to DfEE/QCA from the Panel for Education for
Sustainable Development. Council for Environmental Education, Reading.
Counsell, T.A.M., Allwood, J.M., 2007. Reducing climate change gas emissions by
ctting out stges in the life cycle of office paper. Res. Conserv. Recycl. 49,
340e352.
de Cremer, D., 2007. Which type of leader do I support in step-level public good
dilemmas? the roles of level of threshold and trust. Scand. J. Psychol. 48, 51e59.
de Vega, C.A., Benítez, S.O., Barreto, M.E.R., 2008. Solid waste characterization and
recycling potential for a university campus. Waste Manag. 28, S21eS26.
de Vries, 2012. Sustainability Science. Cambridge University Press. Business &
Economics, 590 pages.
De Young, R., 2000. New ways to promote pro-environmental behavior: expanding
and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. J. Soc. Issues
56 (3), 509e526.
EPU (Economic Planning Unit) of the Prime Minister's Department (Malaysia), 2007.
Evans, S.T., 2011. Planning for a Decentralized Budget Model: Anticipating Change in
Higher Education (Doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia.
Felder, M., Petrell, R., Duff, S., 2001. A solid waste audit and directions for waste
reduction at the University of British Columbia,. Can. Waste Manage Res. 19,
354e365.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-
ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resurces 30, 441e473.
Gilbert, R., Stevenson, D., Girardet, H., Stren, R., 1996. Maling Cities Work: the Role of
Local Authorities in the Urban Development. Earthscan Publication Ltd, London.
Gilg, Andrew, Barr, Ford, Stewart &, Nicholas, 2005. Green consumption or sus-
tainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures 37, 481e504.
Green Resilience office Certification Program. sustainability.uoregon.edu/programs-
projects/active/green-resilient-office-certification-program (access 8.12.15).
Hekkert, M.P., van den Reek, J., Worrell, E., Turkenurg, W.C., 2002. The impact of
material efficient end use technologies on paper use and carbon emissions. Res.
Conserv. Recycl. 36, 241e266.
Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R., Tomera, A.N., 1987. Analysis and synthesis of research
on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 18
(2), 1e8.
Hill, S., 2005. Shared e Dare I Call It e Wisdom. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from.
http://www.stuartbhill.com/.
Hooia, Keoy Kay, Hassan, Fadzil, Mat, Masnizan Che, 2012. An exploratory study of
readiness and development of green university framework in Malaysia. In:
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 50: 525 e 536. AcE-bs 2012 Bangkok
ASEAN Conference on Environment-behaviour Studies, Bangkok, Thailand, 16-
18 July 2012.
IIED., 1995. The Sustainable Paper Cycle. International institute for Environment
Energy Development, London, UK.
Kelly, T.C., Mason, I.G., Leiss, M.W., Ganesh, S., 2005. University community re-
sponses to on-campus resource recycling, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Keniry, J., 1995. Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship at the Turn of the
21st Century. National Wildlife Federation, Washington DC, USA.
Kollock, P., 1998. Social dilemma: the anatomy of cooperation. Ann. Rev. Sociol 24,
183e214.
Kooiman, J., 2003. Governing as Governance. Sage, London.
Kramer, R., 2002. Strategies for the Long-term Institutionalization of an Initiative:
an Overview from the Community Tool Box accessed via. http://ctb.lsi.ukans.
edu (accessed on 8.12.15.).
Levy, B.L.M., Marans, R.W., 2012. Towards a campus culture of environmental
1422 I.S. Zen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (2016) 1407e1422
sustainability Recommendations for a large university. Int. J. Sustain. Higher
EduC. 13 (4), 366e377.
Lozano, R., 2006. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities:
breaking through barriers to change. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 787e796.
Maas, G.W.A., Pleunis, J.W., 2001. Facility Management. Kluwer.
Malaysia, 2001. The Eight Malaysia Plan (2001-2005). Government Printed, Kuala
Lumpur.
Mason, I.G., Brooking, A.K., Oberender, A., Harford, J.M., Horsley, P.G., 2003.
Implementation of a zero waste program at a university campus. Res. Conserv.
Recycl. 38, 257e269.
Mason, I., Oberender, A., Brooking, A., 2004. Source separation and potential re-use
of resource residuals at a university campus. Res. Conserv. Recycl. 40, 155e172.
Messick, David, Brewer, M., 1983. Solving social dilemmas. Rev.Personal. Soc. Psy-
chol. Bull. 9, 105e110.
Mohamad, Z.F., Keng, J., 2013. Opportunities and challenges in sustainable waste
management transition in Malaysia: a multi-level socio-technical perspective.
In: Globelics Seminar on Low Carbon Development, pp. 4e5.
Murad, M.W., Siwar, C., 2007. Waste management and recycling practices of the
urban poor: a case study in Kuala lumpur city, Malaysia. Waste Manag. Res. 25,
3e13.
Natcher, D.C., Davis, S., Hicky, C.G., 2005. Co-management: managing relationships,
not resources. Human Org. 64, 240e250.
Ojeda-Benitez, S., Armijo-de-Vega, C., Ramirez-Barreto, M.E., 2002. Formal and
informal recovery of recyclables in Mexicali, Mexico: handling alternatives. Res.
Conserv. Recycl. 34, 273e288.
Omar, W., 2014. Menjayakan UTM Global : Kesepakatan, Keterangkuman Dan
Keterlibatan. UTM Pub., Malaysia, 167pg.
Oslo symposium 1994. http://www.iisd.ca/consume/oslo004.html. Assessed on 11
November 2014.
O'Donnell, M., 2002. British Columbia Institute of Technology Burnaby Campus
Waste Audit. Available at: http://www.bcit.ca/files/green/pdf/
bcitsolidwastereport. pdf. (accessed 12.07.08.).
Petts, J., 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes: waste man-
agement case-studies. J. Enviro. Plan. Manag. 44 (2), 207e226.
Rahman, A.A., Zen, I.S., 2015. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Towards Low Carbon
Campus e Sustainability Report 2013. UTM Pub, p. 72.
Seiffert, M.E.B., Loch, C., 2005. Systemic thinking in environmental management:
support for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 1197e1202.
Sharp, L., 2002. Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic trans-
formation. Int. J. Sustain. Higher Edu. 3 (2), 128e145.
Smith, C., 2009. Reducing campus e-waste through product stewardship ecycling
programs adopting a management strategy that maximizes institutional
participation. University business solution for higher education management.
Smyth, D.P., Fredeen, A.L., Booth, A.L., 2010. Reducing solid waste in higher edu-
cation: the first step towards ‘greening'a university campus. Res. Conserv.
Recycl. 54 (11), 1007e1016.
Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 207 (Act 672).
Stephens, J.C., Hernandez, M.E., Roman, M., Graham, A.C., Scholz, R.W., 2008. Higher
education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts.
Int. J. Sustain. Higher Educ. 9 (3), 317e338.
Strange, K., 2002. Overview of waste management options: their efficacy and
acceptability. In: Hester y, R.E., Harrison, R.M. (Eds.), Environmental and Health
Impact of Solid Waste Management Activities. Royal Society of Chemistry,
Thomas Graham House, Cambridge, pp. 1e52.
Stretz, J., Drescher, S., 2012. Economic instruments in solid waste management, case
study Maputo, Mozambique. In: Gunsilius, E. (Ed.), Pub By. Deutsche Gesell-
schaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Concepts for Sustainable
Waste Management.
Summers, M., Childs, A., Corney, G., 2005. Education for sustainable development in
initial teacher training: issues for interdisciplinary collaboration. Environ. Educ.
Res. 11 (5), 623e647.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Vigil, S., 1996. Integrated Solid Waste Management.
McGraw-Hill.
Thanh, N.P., Matsui, Y., Fujiwara, T., 2010. Household solid waste generation and
characteristic in a Mekong Delta city, Vietnam. J. Environ. Manag. 91,
2307e2321. Elsevier Ltd.
Tiew, K.G., Kruppa, S., Basri, N.E.A., Basri, H., 2010. Municipal solid waste compo-
sition study at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia campus. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 4
(12), 6380e6389. ISSN 1991e8178.
Trudeau, N., Tam, C., Graczyk, D., Taylor, P., 2011. Energy Transition for Industry:
India and the Global Context. International Energy Agency (IEA), Energy
Technology Policy Division, Paris, France.
Final Report UF (University of Florida) Sustainability Task Force, 2002. UF Office of
Sustainability, USA. www.sustainable.ufl.edu.
Ujang, Zaini, 2013. Menyuburkan Kembali Jiwa Akademik. Malaysia. UTM Pub,
187pg.
UNCSD., 2012. Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Develop-
ment Rio de Janeiro. Brazil 20e22 June 2012. http://www.uncsd2012.org/
content/documents/814UNCSD%20REPORT%20final%20revs.pdf. Assessed on
12.12.15.
UNESCO, 2005. UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005e2014.
University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (USLF), 2001. Talloires Declaration
Resource Kit: a Guide to Promoting and Signing the Talloires Declaration. As-
sociation of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, Washington, DC.
Van de Klundert, Arnold, Anshutz, J., 2000. The Sustainability of Alliances between
Stakeholders in Waste Management. Working paper for UWEP/CWG, 30 May
2000eDraft. [www. gdrc. org/uem/waste/ISWM. pdf] Downloaded on
December 8, 2015.
Weinstein, M.P., 2010. Sustainability science: the emerging paradigm and the
ecology of cities. Sustain. Sci. Practice Policy 66 (1), 1e5.
Wells, P., Bristow, B., Nieuwenhuis, P., Christensen, T.B., 2009. The role of academia
in regional sustainability initiatives: Wales. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (12), 1116e1122.
Wilson, D.C., Velis, C., Cheeseman, C., 2006. Role of informal sector recycling in
waste management in developing countries. Habitat Int. 30, 797e808.
World Bank, 1999. What a Waste : Solid Waste Management in Asia. World Bank,
USA.
Wright, T.S., 2002. Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in
higher education. Int. J. Sustain. Higher Educ. 3 (3), 203e220.
Yahaya, N., 2008. Solid waste management in Malaysia: policy, issues and strategies.
In: EA-SWMC EU e Asia Solid Waste Management Cycle Conference (pp. 23e28).
Casuaria Impiana Hotel, Perak.
Zeeda, F.M., Noorshahzila, I., Azizan, B., Amran, M., Nik Meriam, N.S., 2012. The role
of religious community in recycling: empirical insights from Malaysia. Res.
Conserv. Recycl 58, 143e151.
Zen, I.S., Bandi, M., Zakaria, R., Saleh, A.L., 2013a. The UTM Sustainable Campus:
institutionalize sustainability, the living lab approach and sustainable energy
management program. In: International Workshop on UI Green Metrics 2013, at
Jakarta, Indonesia, vol. 1, pp. 53e60.
Zen, I.S., Ahamad, R., Omar, W., 2013b. No plastic bag campaign day in Malaysia and
the policy implication. Environ. Develop. Sustain. 15 (5), 1259e1269.
Zen, I.S., Ahamad, R., Omar, W., 2014. The development and measurement of
conducive campus environment for Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) of
campus sustainability. Jurnal Teknologi 68 (1).
Zhang, D., Keat, T.S., Gersberg, R.M., 2010. A comparison of municipal solid waste
management in Berlin and Singapore. Waste Manag 30 (5), 921e933.
Zhang, N., Williams, I.D., Kempa, S., Smith, N.F., 2011. Greening academia: devel-
oping sustainable waste management at higher education institutions. Waste
Manag. 31 (7), 1606e1616.
Zuber-Skerritt, O., 2002. The concept of action learning. Learn. Org. 9 (3), 114e124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470210428831.