Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Young consumers’ e-waste awareness, consumption, disposal, and

recycling behavior: A case study of university students in Sydney,
Australia
Md Tasbirul Islam a, Pablo Dias b, Nazmul Huda a, *
a
School of Engineering, Macquarie University, NSW, 2109, Australia
b
School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

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

Article history: In this study, young consumers, especially university students’ awareness, perception, and disposal
Received 23 February 2020 patterns for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), were measured using a questionnaire
Received in revised form survey in Sydney, Australia. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt to understand
17 August 2020
the consumer behavior of e-waste, focusing on educated young generation in an urban setting. Besides,
Accepted 29 September 2020
Available online 4 October 2020
descriptive analysis, statistical analysis was performed to identify correlation among variables, such as
reasons for disposing of equipment, hoarding (storage), and disposal behavior. The lifespan of electrical
Handling editor: Dr. Govindan Kannan and electronic equipment (EEE), when possessed by young consumers, was also investigated. The results
of the study showed that although the consumers were aware of what electronic waste (e-waste) is,
Keywords: there is a severe lack of knowledge regarding collection points and current recycling programs, such as
Consumer awareness the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS). Furthermore, it was also found that
National television and computer recycling most respondents were inclined to sound e-waste disposal, indicating that awareness programs are
scheme (NTCRS) essential to avoid the incorrect disposal of WEEE. Reasons for disposal and frequency of new product
Storage
purchases were positively associated with the household income. Mean possession lifespan (in years)
Lifespan
across our respondents was 6.21 for television sets, 4.31 for laptop computers and 5.47 for desktop
Desktop computers
Laptops computers. The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers developing sustainable e-waste
management strategies among young consumers in Australia.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction undocumented e-waste flow is continuously increasing, and, ac-

Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) or electronic
waste (e-waste) is one of the fastest-growing waste streams all over
the world due to high consumer demand for new featured prod-
ucts, technological uptake and shorter replacement cycles of the
electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) (StEP, 2019b). Both
developed and developing countries are struggling to combat this
considerable waste stream (Islam and Huda, 2019b; Mahmoudi
et al., 2019; Shumon et al., 2014). According to the United Nations
University (UNU), in 2016, 44.7 million metric tonnes (Mt) of e-
waste waste generated out of which only 20% (8.9 Mt) was collected
and recycled within a proper channel (Balde et al., 2017). The
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: md-tasbirul.islam@hdr.mq.edu.au, tasbirul.islam@gmail.com
(M.T. Islam), pablo.ribeiro-dias@hdr.mq.edu.au (P. Dias), nazmul.huda@mq.edu.au
(N. Huda).
cording to the 2015/2016 annual report by Solving the E-waste
Problem (StEP), approximately US$ 40.6 billion worth of recover-
able materials were lost in the year 2014 (StEP, 2016). In the global
context, secondary raw material circularity from e-waste (as one of
the significant waste streams having potential of reusing, recycling,
and remanufacturing) has been understood significantly and
resulted in evolutionary concepts, such as the circular economy
(CE). European Union (EU) proposed holistic action plans in
recovering the material as it aims to reduce the dependence of
imports of material and metals by 53% by the year 2050 (StEP,
2016). Under the CE concept, consumers or users play the most
crucial role in determining the final destination of the waste
products (MacArthur, 2013). However, to select the appropriate
path and understand the importance of material value, as well as
potential negative environmental impact of improper disposal,
consumers must be aware of this specific kind of waste and have a
critical role in the overall management scenario (Islam et al., 2016;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124490
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda
Islam and Huda, 2018a). Household-level e-waste generation is
significantly higher compared to other sources (Islam and Huda,
2018a, b). Consumer awareness is among the success factors for
long-term strategic e-waste management system development
(Borthakur and Govind, 2017).
Australia is part of the developed Organizations of the Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) and a net importer of
various kinds of EEE (Islam and Huda, 2019a). As per United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP), Australia is among the top 10
countries, which has a high Human Development Index (HDI) and
considered one of the major developed nations in the world (United
Nations Development Programme, 2019). According to Global E-
waste Monitor (GEM) 2020 report (Forti et al., 2020) by the UNU,
Australia is also one of the top e-waste generating countries after
Germany in 2019. Considering the HDI and purchasing power of the
consumers, Fig. 1 shows that except Norway, Hong Kong (China)
and Singapore, purchasing power is relatively similar to all the
major economies. The figure also reflects that despite the compa-
rable purchasing power characteristic, e-waste generation varies
substantially across the countries. In 2019, per capita, e-waste
generation in Australia was 21.7 kg, which was slightly lower than
Norway (26 kg/capita) (Forti et al., 2020).
According to Bovea et al. (2018), consumers behavior about e-
waste can be broadly characterized as consumption behavior,
disposal behavior, storage behavior, recycling behavior. After the
possession lifespan (from purchase to the end of active use), a large
number of inactive EEE products are being stored at households by
the consumers. Kahhat et al. (2008) and Kahhat and Williams
(2012) mentioned that hibernation is one of the significant char-
acteristics of e-waste disposal in developed countries. Several
reasons could contribute to the behavior. For example, Kurisu et al.
(2020) identified that lack of knowledge on where to dispose of
waste personal computers (PC) and misunderstanding the current
waste PC collection scheme among the consumers in Japan created
a large stock of PC residing at homes of the residents. The aspect
eventually resulted in a low collection volume under the scheme.
Golev et al. (2016b) mentioned that mobile phones kept in storage
(not being in use) in Australia has been gradually increasing, that
reached 50% of the total phones in between 2012 and 2014.
In Australia e-waste is growing three times faster than general
municipal solid waste Australia (Blue Environment, 2018). In
Australia, specifically, around the 2006e2008 period, e-waste was
growing rapidly and very little of it (roughly 1e4%) was being
Fig. 1. Consumers’ purchasing power and e-waste generation in 2019 in major developed nations and Hong Kong, China (Forti et al., 2020; StEP, 2019a).
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490
recycled (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006; Total Environment
Centre, 2008). However, in 2011, under the Product Stewardship
Act 2011, the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme
(NTCRS) commenced, diverting thousands of tonnes of WEEE
(mainly computer, television, and IT peripheral product) from
landfills (Islam and Huda, 2019c). The scheme is a “free of change”
system by which households and small businesses can dispose of
their waste items at 1800 collection points across Australia. The
NTCRS shares similarities with leading WEEE management pro-
grams: material recovery target (Japanese program), allocation of
roles and responsibilities to stakeholders (Swiss program), recy-
cling and collection target (European Union program) (Dias et al.,
2018). However, is a distinct approach compared to Switzerland
in what refers to customers needing to pay advance recycling fees
at the point of purchase of any WEEE components (Islam et al.,
2018), and here, according to Morris and Metternicht (2016) and
Dias et al. (2018), there is a significant opportunity to raise
awareness among the consumers in Australia towards the appro-
priate disposal of e-waste.
This study aims to understand the level of awareness with a
focus on young consumers regarding the current e-waste man-
agement system, knowledge about the NTCRS collection and
recycling system, and general consumption, and disposal behavior
of television sets, desktop computers, and laptops. It must be un-
derstood that the products mentioned above were selected because
they are under the coverage of NTCRS. The reasons for selecting the
consumer segment are: 1) the consumer group is representative of
the society, and they are considered as long-term electronic prod-
uct users; 2) due to technological advancement, the consumers
have the strong consumption ability and finally, 3) the group is
exclusively unrepresented in the academic research (Ramzan et al.,
2019; Yadav and Pathak, 2016). Although consumer knowledge and
awareness and subsequent consumption and disposal pattern have
been discussed for quite some time in the academic literature, a
limited number of studies focused on young consumers, specifically
when it comes to e-waste. To the best of the authors’ knowledge,
this is the first systematic attempt investigating the issues from the
context of Australia.
Thus, this study performs an explanatory survey on university
students (as young consumers) with the following specific aims to:
1) investigate the knowledge regarding e-waste, its hazardous and
valuable metals content
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda
2) understand the consumers’ awareness about the current e-
waste management system in Australia
3) examine the consumption of electronic devices such as televi-
sion sets, laptops and desktop computers, and the storage,
disposal and recycling behavior of the e-waste generated from
the items
5) identify statistical relationship between consumption and
recycling behavior with various socio-economic variables of the
respondents
Research contributions of this study are as follows:

The study provides a detailed understanding of the consumers’
perspective (using survey data) that may render valuable in-
formation to the policymakers and stakeholders of the present
NTCRS system so that the overall system can be improved, and
more customer-oriented service provided. (See literature review
in Section 2). With this research, young consumers’ perceptions
and opinions regarding the present Australian e-waste man-
agement system were revealed for the first time, which could be
utilized devising future policies and awareness-building stra-
tegies (Section 4.2.1).

“Number of family members in the household” and “number of
items in use” within the household provides an essential indi-
cation of per capita possession of EEE, by which stock-level
assessment can be made. With this study, it was identified
which products are being used the most and the penetration
rate. In the academic literature, such data is relatively scarce in
Australia, specially acquired from a survey. The data gathered
could be utilized by analyzing the national-level EEE con-
sumption pattern (Section 4.2.2).

Average device storage time and reason for storage were iden-
tified which could be used developing appropriate collection
strategies (See section 4.2.4).

Product lifespan-related data is crucial for future e-waste and
stock estimation. This study gathered such data for the first-
time using survey for academic research from the Australian
context (see Section 4.2.3.1). Moreover, parameters (shape and
scale factor) of the Weibull distribution are essential for various
estimation models (such as sales-stock-lifespan, stock-lifespan,
and others), which were determined using the firsthand survey.

Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) as a statistical analysis
technique was previously applied to other research fields such
as tourism (Richards and van der Ark, 2013), cross-cultural study
(Kahma and Toikka, 2012), and health services (Choulakian
et al., 2013). However, according to the authors’ knowledge, no
previous study has been conducted in the e-waste-related sur-
vey in Australia, which may be helpful for future researchers.
Recently, Kurisu et al. (2020) used MCA for analyzing hiber-
nating behavior of desktop computers in Tokyo, Japan for gen-
eral households. Detailed analysis using the method can be
found in Section 4.2.5.

The target groups (in terms of socio-economic variables such as
income, age, household size) were identified which would
further ease the policymakers’ effort organizing future
awareness-raising campaigns (Section 4.2.5.1)
2. Background and literature review
Research related to consumer awareness, consumption, and
disposal and recycling behavior on e-waste has become a widely
utilized research approach for understanding the necessity and
possible development of the overall management system. Survey-
based data collection and subsequent data analysis with various
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490
socio-economic variables are increasingly gaining popularity
among the researchers, as can be verified by the increase in the
number of publications within the topic (Fig. 2).
These studies highlight the low level of awareness about e-
waste in several countries and regions. In Northwest China, for
example, Ramzan et al. (2019) found that young consumers have
low awareness about e-waste-related (i) laws, (ii) policies, (iii)
recycling programs, and (iv) formal and informal recycling sectors,
and that such awareness is essential to make e-waste management
successful. The research around public perception and consumer
behavior assist in better defining the lifespan of EEE and the rea-
sons why EEE are disposed of (Zhang et al., 2019). For instance, data
from Cai et al. (2020) shows that the lifespan of computers and TV
sets in China is 4e5 and 5e7 years, respectively. This data can be
used to compare the lifetime of equipment in different countries
and better understand the waste management needs for each in-
dividual region (Kumar, 2019; Yushkova and Feng, 2017; Zhang
et al., 2019). It can also assist in identifying macro-regions of one
or more countries with similar behavior patterns, which again aids
in building a waste management structure for that region. This is
important since several results in this field are contradictory and
demonstrate that the consumer behavior towards WEEE collection
and recycling is dependent on the peculiarities of each country
(Colesca et al., 2014; Yushkova and Feng, 2017). Moreover, elec-
tronic lifespan quantification can help estimate the amount of e-
waste stockpiled by relating the questionnaire answers, the
awareness regarding takeback services, and the number of equip-
ment in use per capita (Ongondo and Williams, 2011).
Identifying the reasons for disposal also assists in avoiding the
creation of WEEE in the first place, respecting the waste hierarchy,
where reduction is prioritized over recycling (Dagiliu
te_ et al., 2019;
Rebellon, 2012). Ongondo and Williams (2011), for example, found
that, among university students, replacing their broken phones,
network operator upgrades, remaining “fashionable” and desiring a
device with longer battery life are the main reasons for the rapid
device replacement observed. This has some overlap with research
conducted in China, where the main reason for disposing of old
electronic devices was that they were functionally damaged. The
lack of recycling facilities and concerns for information security
(also referred to as privacy concerns) were identified as reasons
why most survey participants preferred hoarding their device,
instead of reusing or recycling (Zhang et al., 2019).
In European research published as a white paper surveying 153
business and 55 government officials, Kirchherr et al. (2017) found
the lack of awareness to be the main barrier in the transition to a
circular economy and Arain et al. (2020), in the USA, mentioned
that “consumer behaviors are critical to managing and reducing e-
waste”. Research shows that the level of awareness in a population
is of utmost importance in achieving a superior e-waste manage-
ment system. Edumadze et al. (2013), gathering results in Ghana,
reports that poor public awareness is still one of the main barriers
to pro-environmental behavior. Dagiliu
te_ et al. (2019), in Lithuania,
mention that “information provision remains the primary tool for
WEEE management system efficiency from the consumer side”
along with proper infrastructure.
Contrary to these findings is that of Colesca et al. (2014), who
claim attitudes and habits are the most critical factors on de-
terminants of their WEEE recycling behavior while recycling
knowledge has only moderate effects. Yushkova and Feng (2017)
also found that mobile phone devices are stockpiled even if there
is a positive intention towards recycling in the absence of an
established habit. They go onto conclude, however, that “environ-
mental education may be a key factor that, through direct and in-
direct effects, would lead to a higher intention to engage.”
Along with environmental education and raising the general
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda
Fig. 2. Trend of e-waste-related consumer behavior (source: Scopus).
awareness level in a population, other public and private measures
such as infrastructure, legislation, and waste tracking were crucial
for maximizing resource efficiency through recycling (Dias et al.,
2019). Such measures have been identified as being needed for
several countries; for example, Pakistan (Shaikh et al., 2020),
Australia (Dias et al., 2018), and China (Cai et al., 2020), among
others. Shaikh et al. (2020) go even further to claim that clear,
effective policies are needed at the upstream level to increase
awareness and improve formal disposal mechanisms at the
downstream level. Ramzan et al. (2019) agree and conclude that
there is a need for a legislative framework around e-waste to
encourage consumers to participate in formal recycling activities.
Other public measures mentioned in the literature include the
employment of a reward and punishment system for e-waste
recycling (Cai et al., 2020), which may include monetary incentives
such as cash payments and vouchers to increase the willingness to
utilize takeback services (Dagiliu
te_ et al., 2019; Ongondo and
Williams, 2011). The preference for specific policy implementa-
tion can change according to socio-economic conditions. For
instance, the incentives (“exchange for money,” in this case) are
favored by citizens in a precarious economic situation in Portugal.
At the same time, those with higher education levels prefer tax
incentives (Botelho et al., 2016).
The importance of the level of awareness is increased in light of
results that confirm that the majority of the population is willing to
participate in recycling programs and be involved in extended
producer responsibility (EPR) schemes (Miner et al., 2020). For
example, according to a survey, most Nigerians from Jos metropolis
were willing to participate in WEEE, provided they are given
appropriate knowledge on its safe disposal and recycling, which
further strengthens the argument for awareness measurement and
increasing programs (Miner et al., 2020). Shaikh et al. (2020), in
Pakistan, also mentioned that consumers indicate a willingness to
pay to proper e-waste recycling mechanisms, but that the disposal
decisions appear to be mostly dependent on the convenience of the
options available.
Finally, disposal and recycling behavior studies are useful for
identifying the vital socio-economic groups that should be targeted
to maximize the effectiveness of the waste management strategies
mentioned above. Nowakowski (2016), for example, claims courses
and campaigns from WEEE organizations should focus on adults
because they are responsible for their disposal decisions. Colesca
et al. (2014), on the other hand, found that younger generations
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490
are more related to small personal electronics, which are more
often replaced because of fashion on the loss of functions (outdated
device). Edumadze et al. (2013), instead of grouping by age groups
by occupation and shows that e-waste awareness among students
was generally low when running a university survey in Ghana.
Ongondo and Williams (2011) who also surveyed students, found
they represent an essential source of e-waste, as they replaced their
phones at least once per year. Similar results were found in China,
where Zhang et al. (2019) found that the lifespan of small elec-
tronics of university students was shorter than that of the general
population. Indeed, several studies followed after Ongondo and
Williams (2011) and Edumadze et al. (2013) targeted students
and their main findings are shown in Table 1.
As demonstrated, it is essential to assess the population’s level
of awareness towards e-waste, and there are particularities in
different countries (and even regions) that make generalization
difficult and require detailed region-specific research. Furthermore,
the literature shows that young consumers were found to be a
critical group as they not only are responsible for the decision-
making around disposal (Nowakowski, 2016) but also replace
their electronic devices more often than the older generations
(Zhang et al., 2019). Therefore, in this study, the objectives as
mentioned above were set based on this review to investigate the
consumers’ awareness, consumption, disposal, and recycling
behavior in Australia, for which, from the literature review per-
formed, no study has previously been conducted. Australia is one of
the highest per capita e-waste generating nations in the world
(23.6 kg/inhabitants) (StEP, 2020), and this study aims to provide
insights to its policymakers, so that future management system can
be synchronized according to consumers’ consumption and
disposal pattern, mainly focusing on young consumers. WTP was
not considered in this study as the selected products are collected
and recycled “free-of-charge” in Australia (as mentioned in the
introduction). To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first
baseline study in the academic literature, where a survey-based
approach considering various behavioral issues have been investi-
gated from the Australian context.
3. Materials and methods
The main structure of the study is presented in Fig. 3. To
investigate the young customers’ knowledge, awareness, con-
sumption, disposal, and recycling pattern of e-waste mainly from
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490

Table 1
Summary of e-waste survey-based studies conducted with university public.

Author Country Sample size Main findings and recommendations

Arain et al. (2020) U.S.A. 155 university students, staff,
Disposal cost, consumer knowledge about products and disposal sites, and distance to recycling facility are
and faculty critical factors in consumer decisions

Free disposal of e-waste is the most important consideration in whether participants choose to recycle e-
waste through formal methods

Increasing consumer knowledge about e-waste products and hazardous may also be important in
increasing recycling behaviors, but are unlikely to overcome the cost factor
Borthakur and India 334 students
Device purchase and disposal behavior and e-waste awareness are interrelated, and gap existed in the
Singh (2020) area

In national e-waste-related policy formulation, young adults identified as a critical group
Zhang et al. (2019) China 385 university students
Lifespan of the devices possessed by the students was shorter compared to the general population in
China

Students were willing to recycle their e-waste via an online-based recycling platform
Ramzan et al. China 850 university students
Young consumers have a low-level of awareness regarding e-waste-related regulations, recycling pro-
(2019) grams, and formal and informal recycling

The promotion of environmental awareness is required, and local government and social media could play
essential roles in circulating awareness and recycling-related information
Deniz et al. (2019) Turkey 159 university students
Students possessed a low-level of knowledge about e-waste recycling and regulations

Manufacturers and municipalities have distinct roles to play, increasing awareness

te_ et al.
Dagiliu Lithuania 300 university students
Despite available regulation, some of the small WEEE were still disposed of with the household garbage
(2019) bins by consumers

In addition to information circulation, an adequate number of collection points and possibly a refund
system need to be established
Kumar (2019) China and 300 university students
Age, gender, and education level were the critical determining variables that contributed to the behavior
India
Crucial factors guiding recycling behavior are attitude, subjective norm, perceived control, and individual
responsibility; while consequences awareness and convenience are less important
Yushkova and Feng China/ 1013 university students
Environmental education may be a key factor to achieve better disposal behavior
(2017) Germany
While there is positive intention to give phones to recycling, there is still no established habit, and devices
are stockpiled at home or given away
Nowakowski Poland 300 students, mainly aged
Recycling and disposal behavior could be substantially changed by improving the operations of the e-
(2016) between 22 and 60 waste collection system

Collection schemes should have a specific schedule, and the information could be disseminated via
websites or mobile apps with the location of collection points
Edumadze et al. Ghana 1154 university students
Students replaced their mobile phones once per year
(2013)
Poor public awareness of e-waste was found as a significant barrier towards pro-environmental behavior
Ongondo and U.K. 79,029 university students
Students replaced their mobile phones once a year
Williams (2011)
A limited number of students used available take-back service disposing of their waste mobile phones

Age and gender were the two significant socio-economic variables that contributed to behavioral
intention

the waste computers (e.g. desktop computers and laptop com-

puters), and television sets at Sydney, Australia, this study
employed a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire is prepared
based on the previously published e-waste-related survey studies
conducted by Islam et al. (2016), Pe rez-Belis et al. (2015), and Bovea
et al. (2018) and the papers reviewed in literature review section.
The questionnaire survey was self-administered and was designed
according to the procedure described by Alreck and Settle (1995).
The data collection was started on August 8, 2017 and ended on
April 10, 2019. The questionnaires were distributed in paper form to
assure higher reliability. Finally, a statistical analysis was performed
based on the results obtained from the questionnaire survey.
3.1. Survey outlining
A pilot study with 20 participants was initially conducted to
understanding whether the survey questions are deemed appro-
priate or not as per the recommendation of Krosnick (2018). Based
on the comments and responses from the pilot survey, the final
edition of the survey form was prepared.
3.2. Selection of the representative sample
To select a representative sample from the student population at
Sydney, Australia, the following equation was implemented to es-
timate the total number of samples required for this survey, ac-
cording to the suggestion of Kotrlik and Higgins (2001):
5
ðZÞ2 *ðpÞð1  pÞ
n¼ (1)
ðdÞ2
where: n is the sample size, Z ¼ Z value for a selected alpha level in
each tail (normal typified distribution) (e.g., 1.96 for 95% confidence
level), p is the percentage of respondents who selected a specific
choice (p ¼ 0.50) and d is the confidence interval or margin of error
(d ¼ 5%).
As of June 2019, the number of university students in Sydney
reached approximately 254,000 (University Reviews, 2019). Based
on equation (1), and the model developed by SurveyMonkey
(2019), it is found that a sample of 385 is appropriate to survey
the population. According to Leedy and Ormrod (2013), when the
population size is beyond 5000, a sample size of around 400 would
be sufficient. \
3.3. Survey application
The questionnaires were largely distributed to universities in
Sydney, and the main distribution occurred at Macquarie Univer-
sity, where unit conveyors distributed the surveys in their respec-
tive units, and the survey circulated in the newsletter of the
university. Other universities that participated in the study circu-
lating the survey in their internal servers included the University of
Sydney (USyd), University of New South Wales (UNSW), University
of Technology Sydney (UTS), and Western Sydney University
(WSU). All the participants in the survey were aged 18 or over. In
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda
Fig. 3. Research framework and structure of the survey.
this study, 440 samples were collected with a 97.5% response rate to
maintain the required responses for the survey.
3.4. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed in order to find association
between the independent (socio-demographic) variables such as
age, gender, number of families member in the households, level of
education and income level of the respondents and dependent
variables such as number of items in use, reason of disposal, and
average possession time and others. Firstly, the chi-square inde-
pendence test was carried out to find the significance of the rela-
tionship. This was previously applied by Martinho et al. (2017) to
identify such associations in the case of smartphones and tablets.
Perez-Belis et al. (2015) also assessed the waste toys disposal
behavior among the consumers in Spain using the method at a
significance level of p < 0.05. In the chi-square independence test, if
the expected values are more than 20%, the test is generally
assumed to be not reliable, and some of the categories (dichotomies
variable) need to be grouped to improve the result of the statistical
analysis. In two separate segments, the analysis was performed.
Firstly, e-waste-related knowledge and NTCRS familiarity among
participants were considered against socio-demographic variables.
In the second part, consumption and disposal-related issues were
analyzed against the variables. MCA was performed in the case of a
significant association (p-value < 0.05) between variables. The
application of MCA is useful in understanding how different cate-
gorical variables (e.g., different methods of disposal) are associated
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490
with each level of socio-demographic variables, for instance, in-
come levels, which was divided into five separate groups. All sta-
tistical processing was carried out in SPSS version 23.
4. Results
4.1. Socio-economic condition of respondents
The socio-economic conditions of the respondents are shown in
Fig. 4. The survey had 297 male and 138 female respondents. The
highest number of respondents were from the age group of 18e24
(67%), which aligns with the age of most university students. The
average age of the respondents was 25.87 years. The highest
educational qualification of the majority of the respondents’
household was bachelor’s degree (218), and 123 respondents had
four members in their household; however, the sample mean value
was 3.58 members per household. The average income of the re-
spondents’ household was approximately AU$ 473,300 per year,
and the highest number of responses were from the income group
of AU$ 62,400e104,000 per year ($1200 - $2000 weekly).
4.2. Descriptive analysis
4.2.1. Level of awareness about e-waste and current e-waste
management system in Australia
Considering the level of awareness, most of the participants
(79%) were aware of what e-waste is. In addition, 80.6% of the re-
spondents knew that e-waste has harmful impacts towards
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda
Fig. 4. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, (A) gender; (B) education level; (C) number of family members in the respondents’ household; (E) age; (D) income of
the respondents’ household.
human-health, and the environment, and its material value.
Despite this knowledge, young consumers were unaware of the
end-of-life (EoL) treatment that happens in the country, since 16.1%
never thought about the final destination of the Australian e-waste,
67.2% of the consumers believed that e-waste is recycled domes-
tically, 37.6% answered that the country exports it, 64.4% thought
that e-waste being landfilled in the country, and 12.8% assumed
that e-waste is incinerated. Another coherent result showed that
most participants (57.3%) were not aware of any e-waste collection
site (or drop off point), where in reality, most of them (60.1%) found
drop-off points near them in their own interpretation when asked
to check the disposition of the e-waste collection points in Sydney
(using the Planet Ark’s “Recycle Near You” website - http://
recyclingnearyou.com.au). Another contrast is the intentions to-
wards e-waste versus the basic knowledge around the disposal.
Most respondents believed e-waste should be recycled domesti-
cally (86.2%), recycled abroad (15.6%) or exported (5.3%) e all ac-
tivities that require collection and transportation of e-waste as a
separate waste stream e and only 2.8% of respondents believed e-
waste should be landfilled e a destination that allows e-waste to be
disposed of mixed with other waste streams. Despite the positive
intentions towards recycling (domestically or internationally), only
a minority was aware of the programs responsible for e-waste
management (e.g., NTCRS) and identified proper disposal sites
(drop-off points).
Around 71% of the respondents mentioned that e-waste mate-
rial should be recycled in Australia so that valuable materials can
remain in Australia (Fig. 5). On the other hand, 14% of the partici-
pants did not think about this issue before conducting this survey.
About 9% of participants mentioned that the recycling process of e-
waste should be done in other countries so that Australia does not
need to worry about the downstream material recovery, while only
4% answered the choice of “export to any other country”. Only 2% of
the respondents stated a positive response to the landfilling of e-
waste in the country (i.e., e-waste should be landfilled in Australia).
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490
4.2.2. Pattern of consumption and in use EEE
Fig. 6 shows the use of various EEE equipment that respondents
possessed in their households. The penetration rate of small
equipment category (as per recast of EU WEEE Directive, 2012/19/
EU (Directive, 2012)) was 99.8%, followed by screen and monitor
category, 99.3%, and small IT (information technology) category,
99.1%.
On the other hand, television sets and laptops were the domi-
nant products under “5 or more” items in-use among the partici-
pants. Laptops were the highest possessed product (5 or more
items among a third of the respondents). Approximately 32% of the
respondents have one desktop computer, while two desktop
computers and two television sets possessed by 24% of the re-
spondents each. Only 16% of the respondents mentioned that they
have three television sets and laptops each in their households.
Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviation of the number of
items among the respondents. There are more laptops than desktop
computers and television sets among young consumers, as per the
sample of this study. As the target group in this study were young
consumers who are studying at universities, it is easily under-
standable that laptops are widely used among the participants
compared to the other devices.
4.2.3. E-waste disposal behavior
4.2.3.1. Lifespan of EEE among young consumers. After the active
use of components, EEE becomes an item that can either be stored,
reused (by repairing), and disposed of directly in the collection
system. Murakami et al. (2010) and Oguchi et al. (2010) proposed
various terminology regarding product lifespans. In general,
possession lifespan is defined by the duration from purchase until it
became obsolete. This includes the dead-storage span (Oguchi
k and Dra
et al., 2010). Later on, Pola palova (2012) modified the
terminology of the possession lifespan, as the use duration that
excludes the storage span. In this study, possession lifespan defined
by Pola k and Drapalova
 (2012), was considered to get a response
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490

Fig. 5. Customer opinion on what can be done with the e-waste in Australia.

Fig. 6. Penetration rate of various categories of EEE among the respondents.

Table 2
Average number of in use EEE item among the respondents’ household.

Product Mean number of items Standard deviation

Television sets 2.76 1.57

Laptops 3.43 1.46
Desktop computers 2.08 1.55

Table 3
Average and standard deviation of the EEE possession lifespan among the
respondents.

Product Mean possession lifespan (in years) Standard deviation

Television sets 6.21 2.65

Laptops 4.31 2.03
Desktop computers 5.47 2.45 Fig. 7. Lifespan distribution (with Weibull distribution scale and shape factor) of three
types of products possessed by the university students.

from the participants. Storage time of various EEE was also
considered in this study and the results are shown subsequently. It
is found that 33%, 44%, and 41% of the participants mentioned that
they had possession lifespan of around 4e5 years for televisions,
laptops, and desktop computers, respectively. In the sample, 25% of
the respondents mentioned that they used their television sets for
more than 8 years, while 33% of the participants used their laptops
8
for 2e3 years. Table 3 shows the average and standard deviation of
the possession lifespan of various EEE. Based on the lifespan data
obtained in this questionnaire study, the Weibull distribution of
three types of the EEE devices are estimated as shown in Fig. 7,
along with the estimated shape and scale parameter.
4.2.3.2. Reason of changing/disposing EEE. Regarding the reasons of
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda
disposing of e-waste items, it is found that “damaged or not func-
tioning” was the main reason among the consumers. For the tele-
vision group, this option was selected by 51% of the respondents,
followed by 50% for desktop computers and 39% for the laptop
category (Fig. 8). Surprisingly, 33% of the respondents mentioned
that they changed their laptops because the capacity of the item
becomes backdated. For desktop computers, this reason was
selected by 26% of the respondents. Moreover, around 20% disposed
of televisions and laptops because they “wanted additional fea-
tures”. Among the other reasons mentioned by the participants,
friends/family recommendation and low price of a new product
found relatively crucial for the laptops (4% of the respondents) and
television sets (5% of the respondents). Television sets were
disposed of because of residence move for 4% of the respondents;
this might be due to the high weight and volume characteristics of
old television technologies.
4.2.3.3. Disposal pathways of e-waste. In response to where e-
waste is disposed of, it is found that around 29% of the respondents
said they stored their waste desktop computers in their house-
holds, followed by 24% who took the item to the council drop-off
centers (Fig. 9).
For the case of waste television sets (Fig. 9A), over 31% of the
respondents mentioned that they took the item to council drop-off
centers, while 21% answered they stored it at home. A similar
percentage of the respondents (10%), disposed of waste TV-set in
the household garbage bins. Leaving the item on the sidewalk (or
kerbside) and selling it to another person was also answered by
over 8% of the respondents.
Approximately 11% of the respondents disposed of their desktop
computers in the household garbage bins, while 7.49% sold their
items to other persons (Fig. 9C). Over 6% of respondents left the
item in their household’s sidewalk as a method of disposal.
Over 5% of the respondents selected the “others” option, where
they later specified that they would wait for the council collections
via mobile community recycling service and collection event,
periodically organized by the councils. Despite the existing NTCRS,
almost 70% of the respondents did not dispose of their waste
desktop computers through the appropriate channel.
Unlike desktop computers and televisions, storing the items at
home was the predominant practice (over 40% of the respondents)
for waste laptops (Fig. 9B). Only around 17% of the respondent
Fig. 8. Reason for the disposal of television sets, laptops, and desktop computers.
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490
disposed of their laptops in the council drop-off locations, which is
15% less than the waste television and desktop disposal. About 9% of
respondents said they sold their laptops, while only 1.87% claimed
they left it on the sidewalk. Disposing of laptops in the garbage bin
was also reported as being practiced by around 10% of the
respondents.
4.2.4. Storage behavior among respondents
Storage behavior is one of the significant actions taken by the
participants, as seen earlier. Regarding the behavior among the
participants, it is found that over 70% of the respondents affirmed
that they store their obsolete EEE items (in the term of - no longer
wanted by the first owner) before disposal (Fig. 10B). 41% of the
respondents mentioned that they store their unwanted EEE com-
ponents for over 6 months, while 24% said it is around 2e3 months
(Fig. 10A). “To keep the item as spare parts” (responded by 41% of
the participants) was the most critical reason followed by 34% of
the respondents who mentioned that they do not know what to do
with their e-waste (Fig. 10C).
The reasons for storage under the category of “others” (as seen
in Fig. 8C) showed multiple rationales (Fig. 11). Around 18% of the
respondents mentioned that they generally dispose of their un-
wanted EEE in the council-organized e-waste event drop-off events
after storing for a while. On the contrary, respondents wait until
next council clean up collection (for all waste materials) is
announced (over 10% of the respondents mentioned this reason). A
similar percentage of the respondents mentioned the storage
practice occurred due to multiple reasons in a combined manner.
Close of 16% of the respondents felt reluctant to dispose of their e-
waste in the collection points. Around 13% of the respondents
mentioned that to some extent, e-waste collection points are
located far from their households, and they prefer to take multiple
items rather than a single item to the drop-off points, which sub-
stantially reduce their travel time and effort for disposing of e-
waste.
4.2.5. Relationship between consumer awareness attitudes and
their socio-economic characteristics
In order to supplement the descriptive analysis, statistical
analysis (using Chi-square test of independence) was performed to
determine whether evidence of significant association existed be-
tween knowledge and awareness, the selected products’ (e.g.,
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda
Fig. 9. Disposal methods of waste (A) television sets (B) laptops (c) desktop computers
among the respondents.
desktop computers, laptop computers, and television sets)
possession lifespan, number of in-use items, disposal methods, and
reason of disposal concerning the socio-economic variables. Be-
sides, MCA was employed investigating the fact of how close the
association of the variables with the consumption and recycling
behavior among the respondents is.
4.2.5.1. Awareness of e-waste, NTCRS and current e-waste manage-
ment system. Chi-square test of independence shows that age
(p ¼ 0.019), family size (p ¼ 0.007), and income level of the par-
ticipants’ household (p ¼ 0.039) is significantly associated with
their knowledge about e-waste (Table 4). Over 90% of the re-
spondents of the age groups of 30e39 and 40e49 mentioned that
they knew about e-waste before the survey; this fraction was about
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490
76% of respondents aged between 18 and 24. Households with one
person are more aware of what e-waste is than any other group,
while approximately 89% of respondents with yearly income
greater than $156,000 knew about e-waste before this survey. A
positive trend was found between income groups and e-waste
knowledge (R2 ¼ 0.982). Among the age groups, most respondents
(>90%) aged between 18 and 24 claimed that they were not familiar
with the national recycling scheme, NTCRS (p ¼ 0.024). Participants
aged over 60 knew the location of the collection points (p < 0.0001)
comparatively better than other age groups. Participants with an
income of more than $156,000 per year were also more aware of
the e-waste collection points (p ¼ 0.003). This group also identified
e-waste collection points near them via the “recycling near you”
website (p < 0.0001). Regarding the knowledge of collection points,
participants aged between 40 and 49, are better than other age
groups (p ¼ 0.001).
In terms of satisfaction of the current e-waste management
system (p ¼ 0.002), only respondents aged between 30 and 39
showed a positive response, while most respondents across all age
groups “don’t know” or “didn’t think about this matter at all”.
Around 72% of the respondents aged between 40 and 49 mentioned
that they are not satisfied with the current e-waste management
system. On the other hand, when it comes to the income level of the
respondents (p ¼ 0.049), almost all income groups responded they
“don’t know” in response to the level of satisfaction regarding
current e-waste management system. A similar case is found
evident in the case of members in the household (p ¼ 0.017) in
response to the level of satisfaction. Surprisingly, it was found that
there is no evidence of a significant relationship between education
level and e-waste awareness and knowledge regarding NTCRS and
e-waste collection points among the participants.
4.2.5.2. Consumption and disposal behavior. Table 5 shows the re-
sults of the Chi-square test. It was found that the “number of items
in use” for three types of EEE - desktop computers (p ¼ 0.004),
television sets (p ¼ 0.011), laptops (p¼<0.0001) showed a strong
relationship with the age of the participants. Similarly, household
size and level of income also showed a significant relationship with
the variable. Furthermore, through a crosstab analysis of the vari-
ables concerning the number of items in use, it is found that stu-
dents aged between 18 and 24 are the most affluent age group that
possesses the highest number of EEE items. On the other hand,
gender had no effect on the “number of items in use” for any of the
considered products. It is also found that the level of education had
no evidence of significant association with the number of in-use
desktop computers and television sets; however, did have an as-
sociation with the laptop category.
Fig. 12A shows a cluster of participants who had a household
income of $156,000 or more per year, four family members in their
households, and 5 or more television sets (TV-sets). Two (2) TV-sets
are present in the participants’ households of 3 members and in-
come between $62,400 - $104,000 per year. Income group of
$104,000 - $156,000 per year with 3 household members tend to
have 5 or more television sets in their households.
A similar analysis can be made for the laptop computers: par-
ticipants with a household income between $62,400 - $104,000 per
year generally consisted of 3 household members, and the number
of in-use laptops varies from 2 to 4. Participants with income
greater than $156,000 per year with a family member of “5 or
more” have “5 or more” laptops in their households (Fig. 12B).
Household of the participants with 5 members, whose income was
in between $33,800 e $62,400 per year had 3 to 4 desktop com-
puters, while income of $62,400 - $104,000 per year with 3 or 4
household members had “more than 5” of these items (Fig. 12C).
Participants with an income greater than $156,000 per year
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490

Fig. 10. Storage behavior among the respondents (A) average storage time of EEE, (B) affirmation of storing items after active use and (c) reasons of storage.

Fig. 11. Other reasons of storing e-waste by the respondents.

Table 4
Chi-square tests of independence between socio-demographic variables and awareness regarding e-waste, current NTCRS management system.

Variable Age Gender Household size Education level Income

c2 p-value c2 p-value c2 p-value c2 p-value c2 p-value

Knowledge about e-waste 10.332 (5) 0.019 1.537 (2) 0.278 15.810 (5) 0.007 6.865 (5) 0.231 10.103 (4) 0.039
Knowledge regarding hazardous content in e-waste 4.040 (5) 0.464 1.521 (2) 0.291 4.165 (5) 0.526 3.460 (5) 0.603 0.864 (4) 0.930
Knowledge about valuable metal content in e-waste 3.855 (5) 0.378 1.699 (2) 0.436 1.753 (5) 0.882 6.927 (5) 0.210 2.797 (4) 0.592
Consumer familiarity about NTCRS 18.316 (5) 0.024 1.208 (2) 0.432 1.385 (5) 0.926 6.450 (5) 0.353 10.510 (4) 0.033
Knowledge about e-waste collection point 27.663 (5) <0.0001 2.169 (2) 0.340 9.715 (5) 0.084 3.640 (5) 0.602 15.769 (4) 0.003
Knowledge about nearest e-waste collection point among consumers 18.394 (5) 0.001 4.733 (2) 0.092 14.503 (5) 0.013 9.541 (5) 0.089 24.006 (4) <0.0001

Note: Number inside () refers to degree of freedom found in the SPSS analysis result for the test.

wanted “addition features” as the reason of disposal of their laptop
computers, while those had income between $104,000-$156,000
per year reported that they replaced their laptops due to being
“damaged/not functioning” and due to the capacity of the items
becoming “backdated”. Most respondents with income smaller
than $33,800 per year did not discard their laptops. “Recommen-
dation of friends and family” along with “low price” of the new
product were the two principal reasons for the disposal of laptop
computers of participants with income between $33,800 - $62,400
per year. A similar pattern of disposal behavior was found evident
in the case of desktop computers. It can be concluded that higher
income among the participants tends to trigger changing their
laptops frequently.
The analysis of income level with possession time of desktop
computers and TV-sets (due to evidence of significant relationship)
showed that participants with household income $104,000 -

11
 M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda
Table 5
Chi-square test of independence between socio-demographic variables and consumption behavior.

Variable Age Gender Family size Education Income

DC T L DC T L DC T L DC T L DC T L

Number of items in use c2 45.183 47.634 135.307 13.669 13.006 11.272 53.194 62.706 130.795 33.773 29.283 42.728 40.044 66.971 58.854
(25) (25) (25) (10) (10) (10) (25) (25) (25) (25) (25) (25) (20) (20) (20)
p- 0.004 0.011 <0.0001 0.123 0.139 0.444 0.001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.141 0.284 0.050 0.005 <0.0001 <0.0001
value
Reason of changing/disposal the c2 31.646 26.012 35.395 (35) 8.675 (14) 11.784 11.728 48.856 47.818 42.084 (35) 36.375 37.122 23.337 39.734 40.006 45.757
devices (35) (35) (14) (14) (35) (35) (35) (35) (35) (28) (28) (28)
p- 0.365 0.674 0.289 0.596 0.620 0.454 0.112 0.55 0.264 0.451 0.358 0.929 0.036 0.088 0.016
value
Average possession time of the c2 23.644 36.464 32.998 (30) 12.010 16.212 16.127 21.981 23.289 23.229 (30) 39.635 22.490 39.414 47.237 38.151 21.360
devices (30) (30) (12) (12) (12) (30) (30) (30) (30) (30) (24) (24) (24)
p- 0.858 0.176 0.257 0.501 0.308 0.283 0.843 0.846 0.846 0.119 0.769 0.115 0.001 0.020 0.605
value

Note: DC: Desktop computers; L: Laptops; T: Television sets.

12

group earning more than $156,000 per year and $104,000 -

possession time substantially varies across income levels. The
possessed the computers for around 4e5 years. For the TV-sets,
6e8 years, while participants earning $62,400 - $104,000 per year
$156,000 per year generally possessed their desktop computers for

computers items across income levels and number of family members.

Fig. 12. Number of in use EEE items (A) TV-sets (B) laptops/tablets and (C) desktop

Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490

M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490

$156,000 per year possessed their television sets for around 4e5
years, while participants with income between $33,800 - $62,400
per year possessed it for 6e8 years.

4.2.5.3. Recycling behavior. For this study, if e-waste items are

disposed of at council collection points for recycling, this practice is
considered as an appropriate recycling behavior. MCA was con-
ducted to understand the association between the participants’
household income (as the independent variable) and the disposal
method (as the dependent variable). Fig. 13A shows that partici-
pants with the income “$104,000e156,000 per year” and “more
than 156,000 per year” took their unwanted television sets to
council drop-off stations. The same two income groups also dispose
of their laptops in the council’s collection drop-off points (Fig. 13B).
For the case of desktop computer items, besides taking the
waste to the council collection points, the income groups also
practiced “leaving the item in the sidewalk” and deposing of the
item along with regular “household waste” (Fig. 13C). “Store at
home” and “donate” are the two primary practices that were
closely associated with the participants whose income was less
than $33,800 per year. Reselling the item to another person and
returning it to recycling companies were being practiced by the
respondents with the income between “$33,800 - $62,400 per
year”. Similarly, “sell it to another person” and “store at home” were
the other two most widely practiced for laptops by the respondents
with income between “$33,800e62,400 per year” and “less than
33,800 per year”, respectively. On the other hand, participants with
the income of “less than $33,800 per year” showed a tendency of
either disposing of their waste television sets with household waste
or returning it to the recycling companies. Respondents who
referred “others” mentioned that rather than disposing of the items
through the various channels, they store items for a while and then
disposed of it via council clean-up collection services (provided by
some councils as mentioned earlier).

5. Discussion

5.1. Comparison of the results

5.1.1. Level of awareness and knowledge about national e-waste

collection and recycling system
Data obtained from the survey regarding the general e-waste
awareness showed that 79% of the respondents were aware of e-
waste, which is following the literature. Dagiliu
te_ et al. (2019) re-
ported that 81.3% of students in Lithuania were aware of e-waste,
whereas Ramzan et al. (2019) found that in China, 61% of the stu-
dents knew about e-waste. Knowledge about existing collection
and recycling schemes is one of the critical factors for the success of
a scheme or program. In this study, it is found that only 9.9% of the
respondents mentioned that they were familiar with the national
recycling scheme (e.g., NTCRS), which is insignificant if compared
to other countries. For instance, Ongondo and Williams (2011)
found that 69% of the students in the UK were aware of the waste
mobile phone take-back scheme, while Ramzan et al. (2019)
mentioned that 81% of the respondents were familiar with one of
the programs (i.e., the old for new rebate program) organized by
the Chinese government for e-waste collection and recycling.
Furthermore, Deniz et al. (2019) showed that Turkish students had Fig. 13. Association of disposal practice of waste (A) TV-sets (B) laptops/tablets and (C)
low-level of awareness around e-waste management. Therefore, it desktop computers items and income group of the respondents.
can be concluded that in terms of general understanding about e-
waste, young consumers in Australia have similar level of knowl-
edge compared to these countries, and probably a higher level and Poland. Thus, publicity and awareness building campaigns of
compared to Turkey. However, when it comes to familiarity (of a the NTCRS system should have specific attention.
recycling system), young Australian consumers have limited Research conducted by Kwatra et al. (2014) mentioned that due
awareness compared to other developed nations, such as the UK to lack of information on proposal disposal of WEEE, Indian

13
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda
residents (74% of the respondents) in their survey confessed that
they disposed of their e-waste in the general waste bins. The gap is
also a significant contributor to stockpiling, particularly for small IT
equipment and mobile phones observed by Nowakowski (2019) in
Poland. From here, it can also be said that even though, high level of
awareness does exist among the respondents regarding e-waste;
however, due to lack of knowledge associated with the existing
collection and recycling program (e.g., NTCRS), such knowledge is
not reflecting into practice. This phenomenon was confirmed by
Borthakur and Govind (2019).
5.1.2. Consumption pattern
Regarding the consumption pattern, it is seen that the students
use more laptop computers than desktop computers and television
sets in their households. Zhang et al. (2019) found that laptops were
one of the top five products used by the students in China, and the
number of units in use per capita was 0.97. Another study per-
formed in Australia by Zhu et al. (2017) showed that per capita
laptop computer use in greater Sydney and Melbourne urban areas
was 0.61. If mean number of family members in the household and
the laptop possession is considered, in this study, per capita laptop
among students is found as 0.95, which is very similar to the study
conducted by Zhang et al. (2019) in China considering students;
however, slightly higher than the value obtained by Zhu et al.
(2017) considering Australian residents. This result means that
university students, as young consumers possess a higher number
of laptops in their households than ordinary residents. This phe-
nomenon was already confirmed by Zhang et al. (2019) that stu-
dents’ ownership of various electronic products was higher than
other people on a per capita basis. Nevertheless, considerable dif-
ferences would exist when ownership of electronic products
among university students and the average household is compared.
A similar pattern is also evident in the present study. In the present
study, it is found that on a household basis, the mean number of
laptop computers per household is 3.43, which showed similar
pattern according to the study by Golev et al. (2016a), who found
that the average number of laptops and tablets in Australian
households was 3.3 in the year 2014. A study performed by Bovea
et al. (2018) in Spain found that the number of laptops and tab-
lets varied from 2 to 4 per household.
For the case of television sets, the number of in-use items found
in this study (2.76 items/household) is very similar to a national
survey performed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), as
shown by Golev et al. (2016a), which was 2.8 Flat-panel TVs/
households in 2014. On the other hand, at national level (including
all the states and territories), it was estimated that per household,
number of in-use desktop computer was 1.3 in 2014 in Australia
(Golev et al., 2016a); however, in the present study, this number
was found as 2.08 which is slightly higher than the national
average.
Nevertheless, on the per capita basis, Golev et al. (2016a) found
that in 2014, per capita desktop computers in Australia was 0.51
which is very similar with the number found in the present study
(0.58 desktop computers/capita). This further confirmed that
households with university going students possess higher number
of desktop computers than general public. Zhu et al. (2017)
mentioned that the majority of the IT-related and other EEE are
in the state of New South Wales (NSW) (Sydney is the capital of
NSW).
5.1.3. Disposal pattern
Product lifespan is an essential attribute in the e-waste gener-
ation. In the present study, it is found that average possession
lifespan of laptop computers (4.31 years) is less than the desktop
computers (5.47 years), which is as per the study conducted by
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490
Zhang et al. (2019), who found that the total possession lifespan
(average age of the device plus the average hibernating years) of
laptop computers and desktop computers were 4 and 5.8 years,
respectively among students in China. For laptop computers, life-
span found by Wang et al. (2015) as 4.5 years in China, Thie baud
et al. (2016) as 4 years in Switzerland and Pereira et al. (2018) as
4 years in China and Arushanyan et al. (2014) as 4 years in Sweden
also matched with the result obtained by the present study. On the
other hand, Wang et al. (2015), Babbitt et al. (2009) and Ma and Xu
(2013) found lifespan of desktop computer as 5.5 years, which
matched with the data obtained in this study. The average
possession lifespan of television sets among the respondents’
household is found as 6.21 years in the present study which also
matched with the study performed by Kalmykova et al. (2015) -
Sweden, Peeters et al. (2017)- Belgium, Thie baud et al. (2016) -
Switzerland and He et al. (2018) -China - who found the lifespan as
6 years. By reviewing 139 research articles on e-waste product
lifespan, Islam and Huda (2020a) mentioned that on average, the
lifespan of laptop computers, television sets, and desktop com-
puters varies from 2 to 9.1 years, 3.5e13 years and 3e8.4 years,
respectively.
“Damaged or not functioning” is found as the main reason
replacing or changing EEE items among the respondents (39e51%
varied across products), which matched with some of the earlier
studies performed in this issue. This reason (as the primary cause)
was selected by 24.23% of the respondents in the study conducted
by Islam et al. (2016) in Bangladesh, while 22.12% of the households
in the study of Afroz et al. (2013) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; with
57.71% of respondents giving this reason in the study of Ongondo
and Williams (2011) in the UK.
The present data obtained showed similar pattern from the
developed country’s context. The capacity of the items became
backdated” was the second most important reason for e-waste
disposal found in this study, which was also the reason for changing
EEE items found by Yin et al. (2014). In the present study, these are
the top two reasons for replacing EEE items representing over 60%
of the respondents.
5.1.4. Storage and recycling behavior
Storing e-waste at household and taking them to the e-waste
collection points are found as two most widespread practices
among the respondents; however other methods such as disposing
of e-waste with household waste and selling items to other persons
were also noticed. Nowakowski (2016) mentioned that due to
limited knowledge about e-waste collection services, such
malpractice (e.g., disposing of with general waste) occur. As it is
seen that only 9.9% of the respondents in the present study knew
about NTCRS recycling system, this is obvious that such practice is
due to such limited knowledge about the system among the re-
spondents (e.g., almost 70% of the respondents did not use proper
collection services disposing of their waste desktop computers).
This issue also might be the reason where around 18% of the re-
spondents believed that e-waste disposal is not a priority for them,
which eventually results in storage for over six months (for 41% of
the respondents). 31% of the respondents did not know where to
dispose of their waste desktop computers. Martinho et al. (2017)
and Yin et al. (2014) found that 25% and 45.9% of the re-
spondents, respectively in their studies did not know where to
deliver e-waste items due to less information provided to the
consumers by the system. For the present study, this value is 34%.
Using obsolete items like spare parts for reuse among the re-
spondents also found as per the study confirmed by the surveys
conducted by Ongondo and Williams (2011), Yla €-Mella et al. (2015),
Wieser and Tro € ger (2018) and Sabbaghi et al. (2017).
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda
5.2. Future perspectives on young consumers’ behavior in Australia

Institutional and organizational effort enhancing knowledge
and awareness
Although it is found that respondents with higher income, age,
and family size tend to have more e-waste- and current program-
related awareness and knowledge, participants, aged 18e24
(influencing consumer group in the product-service system) need
to provide more information about the current recycling program
and locations of the collection points. Income groups “$33,800 -
$62,400 per year” and “less than $33,800 per year” should provide
more information on the negative impact of improper e-waste
disposal as these groups tend to dispose of unwanted television sets
with the general household waste. Furthermore, results revealed
that laptops were disposed of in the regular garbage bins and at the
inappropriate channels (e.g., placed in the sidewalk) by the con-
sumers, which is a clear indication of the lack of awareness and
information circulation about e-waste. On the other hand, only 9.9%
of respondents were familiar with the NTCRS, which revealed that
young consumers had insignificant knowledge regarding the cur-
rent recycling programs available in the city of Sydney. In this case,
e-waste awareness-raising campaigns and the information circu-
lation regarding the NTCRS are critical tasks for stakeholders of
NTCRS, policymakers, and waste management authorities (for
instance, local government councils (LGCs)). LGCs could provide
facts about proper e-waste disposal on their council tax collection
invoice. NTCRS could establish small takeback points at universities
in association with product manufacturers and retailers. Large re-
tailers (such as JB Hi-Fi, Good Guys, Harvey Norman) could provide
leaflets about NTCRS and e-waste related information at the point
of purchase. Specific workshops and courses could be organized at
universities educating young adults on waste management issues
and sustainable production and consumption (as per guidelines of
UN Sustainable Development Goals), more specifically, improper e-
waste disposal, and their negative environmental impact. Majority
universities in Australia do have an e-waste collection box, espe-
cially for waste mobile phones, batteries, and lamps. However, this
should be extended to laptops and other EEE (small equipment and
small IT product groups), as the students widely use laptops, and
the penetration rate of the categories was comparatively high.
Besides establishing the points, information to be circulated about
the facilities, and these should be in the university’s sustainability
agenda. Television advertisement was the most successful medium,
creating students’ awareness about a takeback initiative (Ongondo
and Williams, 2011), which can be applied to Australia. “Word of
mouth,” social networking sites, and internet-based electronic
media could be used in information dissemination (Ramzan et al.,
2019). At movie theaters in Sydney, waste mobile phone takeback
program is promoted, which should be extended to the selected
products.

Sample size and coverage of survey study
This study used 440 samples from universities in Sydney, which
could be extended to other major cities and regions with higher
samples. In future research, young consumers from the Group of
Eight (Go8) universities could be explored. Although gender was
not a significant factor in consumption and disposal behavior found
in this study, further research is required understanding, if this is
the case for another city, such as Melbourne. A case study of Hobart,
Tasmania (the island state of Australia) could be unique, as waste
management on the island is relatively problematic, and young
consumers’ behavior (on e-waste) is particularly interesting in this
regard. Majority of the students in Australia come from other parts
15
Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490
of the world, which is an opportunity for cross-cultural study on
this issue. As the sample represents the young consumers in
Australia, it is often difficult to make comments on the differences
(in terms of consumption, disposal, and recycling behavior) be-
tween young and older consumers in Australia. Further research is
required in this area. In this study, responses were collected from
students regardless of their discipline. Future studies could inves-
tigate students’ awareness and knowledge from various disciplines
such as environmental science, engineering, and social science,
separately, which then may reflect the necessity of environmental
education and building new theories on sustainability in education.
There is an opportunity to collect data on product-specific lifespan,
including small equipment and IT categories.

Statistical method and modeling technique
Theory of planned behavior (TPB), Technology acceptance
model (TAM), conjoint analysis, and other models such as multi-
nomial logistics regression, principal component analysis can be
applied in future studies on the issues. TPB was utilized by Wang
et al. (2018), Kumar (2019), Liu et al. (2019) and others to assess
behavioral intentions among residents in China and India. Zhang
et al. (2019) implemented TAM assessing students’ hibernating
behavior in China. Young consumers’ attitudes, subject norms, and
perceived behavioral control could be measured, focusing the
theories and models from the Australia context.

Product use and disposal
Due to fast-paced technological innovation, products’ avail-
ability and affordability, laptops, and televisions were changed
frequently. Despite the small number of samples, the results of the
present study reflect a snapshot of the overall national consump-
tion pattern of EEE (at household level) that matched the national
average, which could be utilized to understand EEE consumption
pattern in Australia which will be helpful devising future e-waste
management strategies. Currently, limited research is being carried
out from the Australian context on this issue.
There is a relationship found between the income and the
disposal action, where participants with higher incomes were more
inclined to take their WEEE to council drop-off centers. The con-
cerned authorities, especially the sustainability offices and asset
management personal at the universities, should provide more
information on where waste laptops and other devices can be
recycled and availability of disposal options. 19% of the respondents
mentioned that as city dwellers, limited time is given disposing of
e-waste. Locations of the collection points and distance need to
travel disposing of e-waste might be the reasons. The manufac-
turers and retail shops could also provide services related to waste
laptop collection and disposal. NTCRS-related policymakers should
target these income groups developing appropriate strategies.
Local government councils and e-waste management associated
policymakers should consider developing strategies on restricting
households disposing of e-waste items with other waste materials
during council waste collection days.

Storage, repair, and reverse supply chain
As “damaged or not functioning” found as one of the critical
reasons for changing or disposing of an item, this could provide an
opportunity for developing small scale repair shops at universities.
Voluntary organizations and repair cafe  working in the city of
Sydney can participate along with universities educating young
consumers while repairing electronic devices, which would
enhance the students’ technical capability in their personal and
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda
professional lives. As reselling is one of the practices made by the
respondents, such learning could also create jobs as well as
entrepreneurial opportunities among young consumers. Local
government councils and vocational education providers might be
engaged in this effort as part of the government initiatives.
“Reselling the items to others” (whole product or separate com-
ponents) eventually extends the lifespan of products. There is a
scope for developing a social business model with the repaired
products at universities and deliver to use the products in other
places such as age-care facilities. It is seen that repair is one of the
significant reasons among the “others” category why respondents
store their components. It can be said that storage and repair have
some specific interrelations which should be explored further.
Impact of incentive-oriented system also needs future
investigation.
However, storing e-waste and disposing of the item via council
collection services (which does not separate e-waste from the total
waste stream) are the two critical issues that need further consid-
eration. The proximity of the collection centers and information
dissemination among consumers were found as critical success
factors for an e-waste management system (Wang et al., 2018).
Internet-based e-waste collection system is unavailable which
should be developed in Australia and this is a critical future
research area.

Product lifespan and e-waste generation estimation
The data obtained on product lifespans are within the range of
international studies, as seen earlier. There is a substantial research
gap in estimating the lifespan of EEE items from the Australian
context, and this is the first empirical research, in which the life-
span of these three types of equipment are found along with the
estimation of the Weibull distribution’s scale and shape factor.
Islam and Huda (2020b) previously mentioned the necessity of this
(data collection via survey and parameter estimation). After
calculation, the factors obtained in the survey closely matched with
the proxy value (for countries other than EU) mentioned in a
guideline document prepared by United Nations University (UNU)
(Forti et al., 2018) for e-waste generation estimation. It further
validates the quality of the survey and the data obtained for the
selected products’ lifespan. These parameters are crucial in esti-
mating potential e-waste generation in the future under the dy-
namic material flow analysis models, such as the sales-stock-
lifespan model, stock-based model, and others (Islam and Huda,
2019a), which should be explored in future studies.

Refinement of e-waste management structure
The majority young consumers (over 70% of the respondents)
believed that e-waste is recycled domestically in Australia, which in
reality, is only partially true, a significant portion of the e-waste is
transferred to foreign countries for downstream recycling after
conducting expensive manual disassembly in Australia (Dias et al.,
2018). Besides, young consumers demanded domestic recycling
rather than shipping abroad. While the result was not a reflection of
the country’s overall population, it should be considered a positive
inclination of a young, educated consumer group, which should be
considered by the policymakers developing sustainable strategies
for the e-waste management sector. Furthermore, face-to-face
conversations with some of the respondents revealed that they
believed someone else could use the item if it is placed on the
sidewalk. It also needs to be mentioned that in a typical council
collection day and with a pre-booked household bulky waste
collection (ordered by the households) and managed by the council
(in the respective area), collected waste directly goes to landfills
16
Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490
without any further segregation and separation. Some councils in
the Sydney metropolitan area offer this service; others prohibit the
disposal of e-waste even in bulky waste collection pickups. In-
terventions by local councils are required to assess the repairability
of disposed of items.
The “distance of the collection points from households” and
“getting rid of e-waste is not a priority” were the two significant
reasons for the respondents not to participate in the official drop-
off services. The location of the collection points and delivering
convenient services (e.g., dedicated door-to-door e-waste collec-
tion services) were also highlighted as critical improvement op-
portunities in the current management system.
6. Conclusion
This is the first systematic study on young consumers’ knowl-
edge and awareness about e-waste, current national e-waste
collection, and recycling scheme, and collection point locations in
Sydney, Australia. Besides these issues, consumption and recycling
behaviors were also analyzed through statistical analysis, which
found evidence of significant association of age, income, and
number of family members in the respondents’ household. Product
level analysis showed that young consumers widely use laptops.
However, limited knowledge was identified among respondents
regarding the e-waste recycling program and collection point lo-
cations. Respondents with higher household income possess a
higher number of devices; however, they tend to use their devices
for longer compared to low-income groups. The latter group also
choose to dispose of e-waste with regular garbage bins without
considering proper channels to recycle. Overall, this study identi-
fied critical aspects of device consumption, storage, disposal, and
recycling behaviors which should be taken into consideration by
the responsible authorities promoting and disseminating infor-
mation and raising awareness for sustainable e-waste management
system in a large city like Sydney in Australia.
With the present study, young consumers’ behavioral perspec-
tive regarding e-waste was revealed for the first time in general e-
waste awareness, a familiarity about NTCRS and perception of the
Australian e-waste management system. It could be utilized to
develop future policies and awareness-building strategies.
Furthermore, target socio-economic groups (age, income, house-
hold size) has been discovered in this study for whom such cam-
paigns could be organized. Product-focused consumption pattern
(e.g., penetration rate, product lifespan) has been identified among
young consumers via the survey conducted in the study, which
could be utilized to estimate the national-level EEE consumption
pattern. Besides, the parameter associated with the Weibull dis-
tribution revealed in the study by understanding product lifespan
would deliver significant baseline modeling opportunities (e.g.,
stock-, sales-stock-lifespan-based model), which should be utilized
by the future researchers in Australia. Analyzing survey data on
product lifespan (then identifying distribution parameters) is the
fundamental aspect of e-waste generation estimation, which is
attempted in this baseline study. Identifying the storage behavior
would provide valuable information to the NTCRS authorities
developing a consumer-oriented collection system, which is one of
the significant areas of investigation in the future. Although
powerful, the application of MCA is relatively less in e-waste
research, which researchers should utilize in the future.
Although this study provides valuable information on the con-
sumption and recycling pattern among young consumers in Syd-
ney, certain limitations are present in the study, for example, the
number of samples, geographical locations, and types of products
considered. Future work in this area should focus on both young
consumers and general residents in other states, which would
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda
highlight the big picture of consumption and recycling patterns of
e-waste among Australian. In general, as the body of research is
minimal (e.g., young consumers’ behavior towards e-waste), more
research should be carried out in developed countries to under-
stand similarities and differences of young consumers’ behavior.
Analyzing significant indicators of the behavior considered in the
study (e.g., product use (number of items in use), product lifespan,
disposal route, knowledge, and awareness) with specific product
focus (e.g., television sets, desktop computers, and laptops) would
provide more insight into sustainable consumption pattern of
young consumers.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Md Tasbirul Islam: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing. Pablo Dias: Formal analysis, Investigation, Re-
sources, Writing - review & editing. Nazmul Huda: Validation,
Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Visualization, Project
administration.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors like to thank anonymous reviewers for their
constructive and valuable comments for improving the manuscript.
The first author acknowledges the financial support from Mac-
quarie University under the scholarship scheme “International
Macquarie University Research Training Program (iMQRTP)” for
conducting this research. The survey conducted in the study was as
per guidelines of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in
Human Research (2007) (updated July 2018) and under the su-
pervision of the faculty ethics subcommittees at Macquarie Uni-
versity. The reference number of the ethics approval was
5201924578655 (Project ID: 2457).
References
Afroz, R., Masud, M.M., Akhtar, R., Duasa, J.B., 2013. Survey and analysis of public
knowledge, awareness and willingness to pay in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia e a
case study on household WEEE management. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 185e193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.004.
Alreck, P., Settle, R., 1995. The Survey Research Handbook, second ed. Richard D.
Irwin, Chicago, IL.
Arain, A.L., Pummill, R., Adu-Brimpong, J., Becker, S., Green, M., Ilardi, M., Van
Dam, E., Neitzel, R.L., 2020. Analysis of e-waste recycling behavior based on
survey at a Midwestern US University. Waste Manag. 105, 119e127. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.02.002.
Arushanyan, Y., Ekener-Petersen, E., Finnveden, G., 2014. Lessons learnedeReview
of LCAs for ICT products and services. Comput. Ind. 65 (2), 211e234.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006. Australia’s Environment Issues and Trends
2006. Available from: https://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/
0/5BC32E8955FEF5E3CA2572210019AF02/$File/46130_2006.pdf. Accessed on
11 August 2020.
Babbitt, C.W., Kahhat, R., Williams, E., Babbitt, G.A., 2009. Evolution of product
lifespan and implications for environmental assessment and management: a
case study of personal computers in higher education. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43
(13), 5106e5112.
Balde, C.P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., Stegmann, P., 2017. The Global E-Waste
Monitor 2017: Quantities, Flows and Resources. Available from: https://www.
itu.int/en/ITU-D/Climate-Change/Documents/GEM%202017/Global-E-waste%
20Monitor%202017%20.pdf. Accessed on 26 October 2018.
Blue Environment, 2018. National Waste Report 2018. Available from: https://www.
environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7381c1de-31d0-429b-912c-
91a6dbc83af7/files/national-waste-report-2018.pdf. Accessed on 29 May 2019.
Borthakur, A., Govind, M., 2017. Emerging trends in consumers’ E-waste disposal
17
Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490
behaviour and awareness: a worldwide overview with special focus on India.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 117, 102e113.
Borthakur, A., Govind, M., 2019. Computer and mobile phone waste in urban India:
an analysis from the perspectives of public perception, consumption and
disposal behaviour. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 62 (4), 717e740.
Borthakur, A., Singh, P., 2020. The journey from products to waste: a pilot study on
perception and discarding of electronic waste in contemporary urban India.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09030-6.
Botelho, A., Ferreira Dias, M., Ferreira, C., Pinto, L.M.C., 2016. The market of electrical
and electronic equipment waste in Portugal: analysis of take-back consumers’
decisions. Waste Manag. Res. 34 (10), 1074e1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242x16658546.
Bovea, M.D., Iba n~ ez-Fore
s, V., Pe
rez-Belis, V., Juan, P., 2018. A survey on consumers’
attitude towards storing and end of life strategies of small information and
communication technology devices in Spain. Waste Manag. 71, 589e602.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.10.040.
Cai, K., Song, Q., Peng, S., Yuan, W., Liang, Y., Li, J., 2020. Uncovering residents’ be-
haviors, attitudes, and WTP for recycling e-waste: a case study of Zhuhai city,
China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 27 (2), 2386e2399. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11356-019-06917-x.
Choulakian, V., Allard, J., Simonetti, B., 2013. Multiple taxicab correspondence
analysis of a survey related to health services. J. Data Sci. 11 (2), 205e229.
Colesca, S.E., Ciocoiu, C.N., Popescu, M.L., 2014. Determinants of WEEE recycling
behaviour in Romania: a fuzzy approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. 8 (2), 353e366.
Dagiliu
te,
_ R., Zabulionis, D., Sujetoviene, 
_ G., Zaltauskait _ J., 2019. Waste of electrical
e,
and electronic equipment: trends and awareness among youths in Lithuania.
Waste Manag. Res. 37 (1), 95e101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x18806999.
Deniz, P.O.,€ Aydın, Ç.Y., Kiraz, E.D.E., 2019. Electronic waste awareness among stu-
dents of engineering department. Cukurova Medical Journal 44 (1), 101e109.
Dias, P., Bernardes, A.M., Huda, N., 2018. Waste electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE) management: an analysis on the australian e-waste recycling scheme.
J. Clean. Prod.
Dias, P., Bernardes, A.M., Huda, N., 2019. Ensuring best E-waste recycling practices
in developed countries: an Australian example. J. Clean. Prod. 209, 846e854.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.306.
Directive, E., 2012. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, WEEE.
Official Journal of the European Union L 197, 38e71.
Edumadze, J.K., Tenkorang, E.Y., Armah, F.A., Luginaah, I., Edumadze, G.E., 2013.
Electronic waste is a mess: awareness and proenvironmental behavior among
university students in Ghana. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. Int. J. 12 (4),
224e234.
Forti, V., Balde, C.P., Kuehr, R., Bel, G., 2020. The Global E-Waste Monitor 2020:
Quantities, Flows and the Circular Economy Potential. Available from: https://
collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:7737/GEM_2020_def_july1.pdf. Accessed on 11
August 2020.
, K., Kuehr, R., 2018. E-waste statistics: guidelines on classifications,
Forti, V., Balde
reporting and indicators. Available from: http://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:
6477/RZ_EWaste_Guidelines_LoRes.pdf. Accessed on 26 October 2018.
Golev, A., Schmeda-Lopez, D.R., Smart, S.K., Corder, G.D., McFarland, E.W., 2016a.
Where next on e-waste in Australia? Waste Manag. 58, 348e358. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.025.
Golev, A., Werner, T.T., Zhu, X., Matsubae, K., 2016b. Product flow analysis using
trade statistics and consumer survey data: a case study of mobile phones in
Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 262e271.
He, P., Wang, C., Zuo, L., 2018. The present and future availability of high-tech
minerals in waste mobile phones: evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 192,
940e949.
Islam, M.T., Abdullah, A.B., Shahir, S.A., Kalam, M.A., Masjuki, H.H., Shumon, R.,
Rashid, M.H., 2016. A public survey on knowledge, awareness, attitude and
willingness to pay for WEEE management: case study in Bangladesh. J. Clean.
Prod. 137, 728e740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.111.
Islam, M.T., Dias, P., Huda, N., 2018. Comparison of E-waste management in
Switzerland and in Australia: a qualitative content analysis. Int. J. Environ. Ecol.
Eng. 12 (10), 610e616.
Islam, M.T., Huda, N., 2018a. Application of material flow analysis (MFA) in elec-
tronic waste (E-Waste) management: a review. Multidisciplinary Digital Pub-
lishing Institute Proceedings 2 (23), 1457.
Islam, M.T., Huda, N., 2018b. Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain of Waste
Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)/E-waste: a comprehensive litera-
ture review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 137, 48e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2018.05.026.
Islam, M.T., Huda, N., 2019a. E-waste in Australia: generation estimation and un-
tapped material recovery and revenue potential. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117787, 117787.
Islam, M.T., Huda, N., 2019b. Material flow analysis (MFA) as a strategic tool in E-
waste management: applications, trends and future directions. J. Environ.
Manag. 244, 344e361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.062.
Islam, M.T., Huda, N., 2019c. Reshaping WEEE management in Australia: an inves-
tigation on the untapped WEEE products. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.119496, 119496.
Islam, M.T., Huda, N., 2020a. 23 - E-waste management practices in Australia. In:
Prasad, M.N.V., Vithanage, M., Borthakur, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Electronic
Waste Management. Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 553e576.
Islam, M.T., Huda, N., 2020b. Assessing the recycling potential of “unregulated” e-
M.T. Islam, P. Dias and N. Huda
waste in Australia. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 152 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2019.104526, 104526.
Kahhat, R., Kim, J., Xu, M., Allenby, B., Williams, E., Zhang, P., 2008. Exploring e-
waste management systems in the United States. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52
(7), 955e964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.03.002.
Kahhat, R., Williams, E., 2012. Materials flow analysis of e-waste: domestic flows
and exports of used computers from the United States. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
67, 67e74.
Kahma, N., Toikka, A., 2012. Cultural map of Finland 2007: analysing cultural dif-
ferences using multiple correspondence analysis. Cult. Trends 21 (2), 113e131.
Kalmykova, Y., Patrício, J., Rosado, L., Berg, P.E., 2015. Out with the old, out with the
neweThe effect of transitions in TVs and monitors technology on consumption
and WEEE generation in Sweden 1996e2014. Waste Manag. 46, 511e522.
Kirchherr, J., Hekkert, M., Bour, R., Huijbrechtse-Truijens, A., Kostense-Smit, E.,
Muller, J., 2017. Breaking the barriers to the circular economy. Delo.
Kotrlik, J., Higgins, C., 2001. Organizational research: determining appropriate
sample size in survey research. Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform J. 19 (1), 43.
Krosnick, J.A., 2018. Questionnaire Design, the Palgrave Handbook of Survey
Research. Springer, pp. 439e455.
Kumar, A., 2019. Exploring young adults’ e-waste recycling behaviour using an
extended theory of planned behaviour model: a cross-cultural study. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 141, 378e389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.013.
Kurisu, K., Miura, J., Nakatani, J., Moriguchi, Y., 2020. Hibernating behavior for
household personal computers. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 162 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105015, 105015.
Kwatra, S., Pandey, S., Sharma, S.J.M.o.E.Q.A.I.J., 2014. Understanding public
knowledge and awareness on e-waste in an urban setting in India. A case study
for Delhi 25 (6), 752e765.
Leedy, P.D., Ormrod, J.E., 2013. Practical Research: Planning and Design, tenth ed.
Pearson Education Limited, New Jersey.
Liu, J., Bai, H., Zhang, Q., Jing, Q., Xu, H., 2019. Why are obsolete mobile phones
difficult to recycle in China? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141, 200e210. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.030.
Ma, E., Xu, Z., 2013. Technological process and optimum design of organic materials
vacuum pyrolysis and indium chlorinated separation from waste liquid crystal
display panels. J. Hazard Mater. 263, 610e617.
MacArthur, E., 2013. Towards the circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 2, 23e44.
Mahmoudi, S., Huda, N., Alavi, Z., Islam, M.T., Behnia, M., 2019. End-of-life photo-
voltaic modules: a systematic quantitative literature review. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 146, 1e16.
Martinho, G., Magalh~ aes, D., Pires, A., 2017. Consumer behavior with respect to the
consumption and recycling of smartphones and tablets: an exploratory study in
Portugal. J. Clean. Prod. 156, 147e158.
Miner, K.J., Rampedi, I.T., Ifegbesan, A.P., Machete, F., 2020. Survey on household
awareness and willingness to participate in E-waste management in Jos,
plateau state, Nigeria. Sustainability 12 (3), 1047.
Morris, A., Metternicht, G., 2016. Assessing effectiveness of WEEE management
policy in Australia. J. Environ. Manag. 181, 218e230.
Murakami, S., Oguchi, M., Tasaki, T., Daigo, I., Hashimoto, S., 2010. Lifespan of
commodities, part I: the creation of a database and its review. J. Ind. Ecol. 14 (4),
598e612.
Nowakowski, P., 2016. The influence of residents’ behaviour on waste electrical and
electronic equipment collection effectiveness. Waste Manag. Res. 34 (11),
1126e1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x16669997.
Nowakowski, P., 2019. Investigating the reasons for storage of WEEE by residents e
a potential for removal from households. Waste Manag. 87, 192e203. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.02.008.
Oguchi, M., Murakami, S., Tasaki, T., Daigo, I., Hashimoto, S., 2010. Lifespan of
commodities, part II: methodologies for estimating lifespan distribution of
commodities. J. Ind. Ecol. 14 (4), 613e626.
Ongondo, F.O., Williams, I.D., 2011. Greening academia: use and disposal of mobile
phones among university students. Waste Manag. 31 (7), 1617e1634. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.01.031.
Peeters, J.R., Vanegas, P., Dewulf, W., Duflou, J.R., 2017. Economic and environmental
evaluation of design for active disassembly. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 1182e1193.
Pereira, E.B., Suliman, A.L., Tanabe, E.H., Bertuol, D.A., 2018. Recovery of indium from
liquid crystal displays of discarded mobile phones using solvent extraction.
Miner. Eng. 119, 67e72.
rez-Belis, V., Bovea, M.D., Simo
Pe , A., 2015. Consumer behaviour and environmental
education in the field of waste electrical and electronic toys: a Spanish case
study. Waste Manag. 36, 277e288. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2014.10.022.
k, M., Dra
Pola palova, L., 2012. Estimation of end of life mobile phones generation:
the case study of the Czech Republic. Waste Manag. 32 (8), 1583e1591.
18
Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021) 124490
Ramzan, S., Liu, C., Munir, H., Xu, Y., 2019. Assessing young consumers’ awareness
and participation in sustainable e-waste management practices: a survey study
in Northwest China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 26 (19), 20003e20013.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05310-y.
Rebellon, L.F.M., 2012. Waste Management: an Integrated Vision. BoDeBooks on
Demand.
Richards, G., van der Ark, L.A., 2013. Dimensions of cultural consumption among
tourists: multiple correspondence analysis. Tourism Manag. 37, 71e76.
Sabbaghi, M., Cade, W., Behdad, S., Bisantz, A.M., 2017. The current status of the
consumer electronics repair industry in the U.S.: a survey-based study. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 116, 137e151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.013.
Shaikh, S., Thomas, K., Zuhair, S., 2020. An exploratory study of e-waste creation and
disposal: upstream considerations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 155 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104662, 104662.
Shumon, M.R.H., Ahmed, S., Islam, M.T., 2014. Electronic waste: present status and
future perspectives of sustainable management practices in Malaysia. Envi-
ronmental Earth Sciences 72 (7), 2239e2249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-
014-3129-5.
StEP, 2016. Annual Report 2015/2016. Available from: http://www.step-initiative.
org/files/_documents/annual_reports/2015_16/Step_Annual_Report_2015_16_
ebook.html. Accessed on 18 June 2019.
StEP, 2019a. Step e-waste world map. Available from: http://www.step-info.org/
step-e-waste-world-map.html. Accessed on.
StEP, 2019b. What is e-waste? Available from: http://www.step-initiative.org/e-
waste-challenge.html. (Accessed 22 April 2019). Accessed on.
StEP, 2020. Step e-waste world map. Available from: http://www.step-info.org/step-
e-waste-world-map.html. Accessed on.
SurveyMonkey, 2019. 5 steps to make sure your sample accurately estimates your
population. Available from: https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size/.
Accessed on 26 April 2019.
Thiebaud, E., Peskova, M.B., Hilty, L.M., Schluep, M., Faulstich, M., 2016. Service
Lifetime and Disposal Pathways of Business Devices. 2016 Electronics Goes
Green 2016þ(EGG), pp. 1e8.
Total Environment Centre, 2008. Tipping point: Australia’s E-waste Crisis. Available
from: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/boomerangalliance/pages/570/
attachments/original/1486603096/e-waste_report_updated.pdf?1486603096.
(Accessed 11 August 2020). Accessed on.
United Nations Development Programme, 2019. Human Development Reports -
Human Development Data (1990-2018. Available from: https://data.humdata.
org/dataset/human-development-report-2019/resource/38ce930c-9cc2-4e23-
8774-f97aab8c6988. (Accessed 11 August 2020). Accessed on.
University Reviews, 2019. List of universities in Sydney. Available from: https://
universityreviews.com.au/list-of-universities/sydney/. (Accessed 3 November
2019). Accessed on.
Wang, H., Gu, Y., Wu, Y., Zhang, Y.-N., Wang, W., 2015. An evaluation of the potential
yield of indium recycled from end-of-life LCDs: a case study in China. Waste
Manag. 46, 480e487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.07.047.
Wang, Z., Guo, D., Wang, X., Zhang, B., Wang, B., 2018. How does information
publicity influence residents’ behaviour intentions around e-waste recycling?
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 133, 1e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2018.01.014.
Wieser, H., Tro € ger, N., 2018. Exploring the inner loops of the circular economy:
replacement, repair, and reuse of mobile phones in Austria. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
3042e3055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.106.
Yadav, R., Pathak, G.S., 2016. Young consumers’ intention towards buying green
products in a developing nation: extending the theory of planned behavior.
J. Clean. Prod. 135, 732e739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.120.
Yin, J., Gao, Y., Xu, H., 2014. Survey and analysis of consumers’ behaviour of waste
mobile phone recycling in China. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 517e525. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.006.
€-Mella, J., Keiski, R.L., Pongra
Yla cz, E., 2015. Electronic waste recovery in Finland:
consumers’ perceptions towards recycling and re-use of mobile phones. Waste
Manag. 45, 374e384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.02.031.
Yushkova, E., Feng, Y., 2017. What explains the intention to bring mobile phones for
recycling? A study on university students in China and Germany. Int. Econ.
Econ. Pol. 14 (3), 501e516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10368-017-0383-5.
Zhang, L., Qu, J., Sheng, H., Yang, J., Wu, H., Yuan, Z., 2019. Urban mining potentials of
university: in-use and hibernating stocks of personal electronics and students’
disposal behaviors. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 143, 210e217. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.007.
Zhu, X., Lane, R., Werner, T., 2017. Modelling in-use stocks and spatial distributions
of household electronic devices and their contained metals based on household
survey data. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 120, 27e37.