Sociological Perspectives on Waste Management: Socio-Cultural, Social Practice and Institutional Factors on Waste Sorting Behaviour in Indonesia

Sociological Perspectives on Waste Management: Socio-Cultural, Social Practice and Institutional Factors on Waste Sorting Behaviour in Indonesia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Sociological Perspectives on Waste Management: Socio-Cultural, Social Practice and Institutional Factors on Waste Sorting Behaviour in Indonesia Yoanita Kartika Sari Tahalele, Toetik Koesbardiati, Tuti Budirahayu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8499309/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 8 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The rapid growth of waste generation has become one of the most pressing environmental challenges of the 21st century, particularly in developing countries like Indonesia where waste management systems struggle to keep pace with urbanization, consumerism, and population growth. Indonesia is the second-largest contributor of plastic waste in the oceans right now, and poor waste sorting at the source is still a major problem in reaching national sustainability targets. There has been a lot of talk about technical and infrastructural fixes, but not much is known about how socio-cultural values, daily habits, and institutional frameworks affect how people sort their trash in Indonesia. This creates a significant gap in the discourse on waste management, which often overlooks the role of culture and social interaction in sustaining environmental practices. This research addresses that gap by examining waste sorting behaviour in a university setting in Surabaya, Indonesia, through the lens of sociology. By integrating Social Practice Theory and Institutional Theory, the study provides a novel analytical framework for understanding how waste sorting is not merely an individual choice but a socially embedded practice influenced by cultural values, peer influence, and organizational norms. Using a year-long ethnographic observation and semi structured interviews with faculty and staff, the study uncovers the ways in which Indonesian collectivist culture, workplace routines, and institutional support or lack thereof shape both engagement and disengagement in waste segregation. The findings indicate that socio-cultural belonging, peer conformity, institutional legitimacy, and consistency are essential for the maintenance of waste sorting behaviors, whereas infrastructural deficiencies and inadequate enforcement hinder progress. This research contextualizes waste management within Indonesia's distinctive socio-cultural framework, thereby enhancing sociological understandings of environmental practices and offering practical recommendations for policymakers, academic institutions, and organizations aiming to promote sustainable waste management. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences Social science/Environmental studies Scientific community and society/Geography Social science/Geography Social science/Sociology Waste Management Social Practice Theory Institutional Theory Socio-Cultural Influences Waste Sorting Behaviour Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1. Introduction Waste management has become a pressing global issue, with improper waste disposal contributing to environmental degradation, public health risks, and resource depletion (Wilson et al., 2015 ). As the world produces more and more waste, we need good waste management plans, such as sorting waste, to reach our goal of sustainable development. Waste sorting is a very important part of waste management since it makes recycling more effective, reduces the amount of waste going to landfills, and minimizes pollution in the environment (Chen & Tung, 2010 ). However, the effectiveness of waste sorting programs depends on more than just technical and infrastructural solutions, but also on social, cultural, and institutional factors that shape individual behaviours and collective practices (Oke et al., 2017 ). To make good and long lasting waste management policies, it's important to understand these elements from a sociological point of view. In Indonesian, socio-cultural aspects have a big impact and play an important role in shaping waste management practices. Indonesian society is marked by robust communal ideals, exemplified by gotong royong (mutual cooperation), which frequently serve as the foundation for collective action in villages and communities, including environmental initiative and efforts. Gotong Royong has historically been a key part of Indonesian community life for a long time (Bowen, 1986 ; Mulder, 1998 ). Rooted in village traditions, gotong royong emphasizes shared responsibility, solidarity, and the idea that the wellbeing of the community is prioritized over individual interests. This cultural value continues to influence modern social practices, including environmental behaviours. In the context of waste sorting, gotong royong can encourage collective participation: when waste management is framed as a communal responsibility, individuals are more motivated to contribute, as refusing to do so risks being perceived as selfish or disruptive to social harmony. This aligns with Berger and Luckmann’s ( 1966 ) notion of social construction, where reality is shaped by collective agreements and everyday interactions within cultural contexts. In addition to gotong royong , Indonesians are deeply influenced by the cultural need of belonging ( rasa kebersamaan ) and avoid social exclusion. In Indonesia, social identity is often linked to group membership, and people feel uneasy when their actions differ from those of the majority (Ajzen, 1991 ). This social conformity creates both opportunities and barriers for waste sorting. In a university or other workplace settings, for instance, if the majority of peers actively engage in sorting waste, others are likely to follow to do the same, even if they don't want to, simply just to avoid being seen as indifferent and regarded as careless or apathetic. On the other hand, when the dominant practice is to ignore sorting bins or rely on janitors, individuals may hesitate to break from the group, fearing that they will stand out or waste effort. These socio-cultural realities make it harder to adopt waste segregation behaviors. Therefore, it is important to understand how social norms, cultural views, and collective practices operate with institutional frameworks. Social norms and cultural values significantly influence waste-related behaviours, as individuals tend to adopt practices that align with their societal expectations and peer influences (Barr, 2007 ). In many societies, waste sorting is embedded within cultural practices that define acceptable and unacceptable waste management behaviours. Social Practice Theory by Elizabeth Shove provides a useful framework for analysing how these behaviours are developed and maintained through repeated daily activities, shared routines, and interactions within specific material and social contexts (Shove et al., 2012 ). These theory become the foundation to explores waste sorting habit as a social practice shaped by materials such as infrastructure like bins, meanings (cultural perceptions of waste), and competencies (knowledge about sorting). Meanwhile, institutional factors also play a critical role in shaping waste sorting behaviours, as regulations, norms, and organizational structures create the conditions under which individuals engage in waste management (Scott, 2014 ). Institutional Theory suggests that individuals conform to established norms and rules within an organization, and these frameworks influence their decision-making and behaviour (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983 ). In educational institutions, for example, the presence of waste sorting bins, institutional norms, pressure and faculty engagement can facilitate or hinder sustainable waste management practices (Zhang et al., 2019 ). This study focuses on university setting in Indonesia, where waste sorting behaviour is shaped by the interactions between social, cultural, and institutional factors. Universities serve as microcosms of society, reflecting broader socio-cultural influences such as gotong royong , informal waste practices, and generational differences in sustainability awareness, while also functioning as structured environments with distinct norms and expectations. By examining waste sorting practices within a faculty office in a university in Surabaya, Indonesia, this research investigates how social norms, workplace routines, and institutional norms or policies intersect to influence sustainable waste practices. A qualitative ethnographic approach was adopted to provide an in-depth analysis of waste sorting behaviour within the faculty office environment. Over one year, 32 faculty members of school of creative industry in a university in Surabaya, Indonesia were observed in their interactions with waste sorting infrastructure, with additional semi-structured interviews conducted with the participants as well. This methodology enables an exploration of both explicit behaviours and underlying motivations, shedding light on the socio-cultural and institutional dimensions of waste management. By applying Social Practice Theory and Institutional Theory, this research contributes to the broader discourse on sustainable waste management by emphasizing the importance of integrating social and institutional strategies. The study’s findings are valuable for policymakers, educators, and institutional leaders in Indonesia, as they highlight the necessity for culturally informed, socially reinforced, and institutionally supported approaches to waste management. This integration ensures that waste sorting becomes not only a technical or environmental responsibility but also a culturally meaningful and socially embedded practice within Indonesian society. 2. Literature Study Waste management is a critical environmental and social issue that involves the collection, transportation, processing, recycling, and disposal of waste materials (Wilson et al., 2015 ). Effective waste management aims to minimize environmental pollution, reduce health risks, and promote resource efficiency through sustainable practices (Moqsud et al., 2020 ). One of the key strategies in sustainable waste management is waste sorting, which involves the separation of waste at the source into categories such as organic, recyclable, and non-recyclable waste (Zhang et al., 2019 ). Waste sorting plays a vital role in improving recycling rates, reducing landfill waste, and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions (Nguyen et al., 2021 ). However, the effectiveness of waste management systems depends on several factors, including institutional policies, social norms, and individual behavioural practices (Schultz et al., 2018 ). The primary purpose of waste management and waste sorting behaviour is to promote sustainability by reducing waste generation and increasing resource recovery (UNEP, 2020). Proper waste sorting ensures that materials such as plastics, paper, metals, and organic waste can be efficiently recycled and repurposed, thus contributing to a circular economy (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017 ). From a sociological perspective, waste management is not only a technical process but also a social practice influenced by cultural values, social interactions, and institutional frameworks (Hargreaves, 2011 ). Social Practice Theory emphasizes that waste sorting behaviour is shaped by habits, routines, and the availability of infrastructure, while Institutional Theory highlights the role of government regulations, policies, and workplace norms in reinforcing sustainable waste practices (Geels et al., 2015 ). The importance of waste management and waste sorting behaviour extends beyond environmental benefits to include economic and social advantages. Effective waste management systems contribute to job creation in the recycling and waste treatment industries while also reducing the financial burden associated with landfill maintenance and waste disposal (UNEP, 2020). Additionally, waste sorting behaviour fosters environmental awareness and collective responsibility, encouraging individuals to participate in sustainability initiatives (Barr, 2007 ). Universities and educational institutions play a crucial role in promoting waste sorting habits by integrating sustainability education, providing adequate waste disposal facilities, and fostering a culture of environmental responsibility among students and staff (Lozano, 2010 ). Therefore, understanding the socio-cultural, institutional, and behavioural aspects of waste management is essential for developing effective strategies to enhance waste sorting practices and promote long-term environmental sustainability. Socio-cultural factors play a crucial role in shaping waste sorting behaviour, as individuals’ perceptions, values, and habits are deeply embedded within their cultural and social contexts (Berger & Luckmann, 1966 ). Cultural norms and collective beliefs influence how individuals engage in environmental practices, including waste management. In many societies, waste sorting is perceived differently based on traditional beliefs and societal attitudes toward cleanliness, environmental responsibility, and consumption patterns (Huang et al., 2021 ). For example, societies with strong communal values often demonstrate higher levels of participation in collective waste management efforts, whereas individualistic cultures may place more responsibility on formal institutions rather than personal actions (Zhu et al., 2019). Furthermore, generational differences in environmental awareness also contribute to variations in waste sorting habits, with younger generations often being more engaged in sustainability efforts due to increased exposure to environmental education (Steg & Vlek, 2009 ). Social interactions and peer influence also play a significant role in waste sorting behaviour. According to Ajzen’s ( 1991 ) Theory of Planned Behaviour, people are more likely to engage in sustainable practices if they perceive that others in their social environment value and practice those behaviours. Community-led initiatives, public campaigns, and educational programs are effective in reinforcing positive waste sorting behaviours through collective social reinforcement (White et al., 2019 ). In university settings, faculty and students who witness their peers participating in waste sorting are more likely to adopt similar practices due to social conformity and perceived behavioural norms (Barr, 2007 ). However, socio-cultural barriers such as stigma, lack of awareness, and traditional disposal practices may hinder participation, making it essential for institutions to address these cultural dynamics in promoting effective waste management strategies (Zeng et al., 2016). Meanwhile Social Practice Theory (SPT) provides a useful framework for understanding waste sorting behaviour as an embedded practice shaped by daily routines, material contexts, and social interactions (Shove et al., 2012 ). According to SPT, practices are not solely determined by individual choices but are the result of interrelated elements, including social meanings, materials, and competencies (Reckwitz, 2002 ). Waste sorting, from this perspective, is a practice that is learned and reinforced through habitual engagement, social norms, and infrastructural support. When waste sorting facilities are easily accessible and integrated into daily routines, individuals are more likely to engage in the practice without conscious effort (Hargreaves, 2011 ). Conversely, if waste sorting bins are inconveniently placed or if sorting is perceived as time-consuming, individuals may default to unsorted waste disposal, demonstrating how material conditions shape behaviour. The role of SPT in waste sorting behaviour is particularly relevant in institutional settings such as universities and workplaces. As individuals interact with organizational structures and peer groups, waste sorting becomes a normalized practice reinforced by collective habits and expectations. For instance, when universities provide structured recycling programs and clear waste disposal guidelines, faculty members and students integrate waste sorting into their daily academic and professional activities (Evans, 2011 ). However, if waste management policies are inconsistent or if waste sorting is not actively encouraged, individuals may disengage from the practice despite having environmental awareness (Hargreaves, 2018). Understanding waste sorting through the lens of SPT highlights the importance of creating enabling environments that facilitate sustainable behaviours through infrastructure, education, and reinforcement mechanisms. In addition, Institutional Theory examines how formal rules, regulations, and organizational structures influence individual and collective behaviour (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983 ). In the context of waste sorting behaviour, institutions such as universities, businesses, and government agencies play a significant role in shaping waste management practices by implementing policies, providing resources, and establishing social norms (Scott, 2001). When institutions enforce waste sorting policies by implementing regulations, providing necessary infrastructure such as provide designated recycling bins, and incorporate sustainability programs into their operational frameworks, individuals within those institutions are more likely to adopt waste sorting as a routine practice. Institutions also contribute to shaping environmental behaviour through incentive structures, penalties for non-compliance, and sustainability training, all of which influence the degree of participation in waste management programs (Scott, 2001). Institutional Theory highlights the importance of legitimacy in shaping waste sorting behaviour. Institutional factors provide the necessary framework to support and formalize waste sorting behaviours by integrating them into organizational policies and public governance structures. Organizations that prioritize sustainability and align their policies with broader environmental goals are more likely to gain social legitimacy and encourage behavioural compliance (Berger & Luckmann, 1966 ). Universities serve as influential institutions that can promote sustainability through research, education, and policy implementation (Lozano, 2010 ). However, gaps in institutional commitment, lack of enforcement, and competing organizational priorities can undermine waste sorting initiatives, leading to inconsistent participation and ineffective waste management systems (Greenwood et al., 2017 ). Thus, the successful integration of waste sorting behaviour within institutional settings requires strong policy frameworks, clear communication, and continuous reinforcement to ensure long-term sustainability. The socio-cultural, social practice, and institutional factors are deeply interconnected and collectively influence the success of waste sorting behaviour and the overall waste management process. Socio-cultural norms shape individuals' attitudes and perceptions toward waste sorting, influencing whether they view it as a personal responsibility, a community practice, or an institutional obligation (Huang et al., 2021 ). These norms interact with social practices, as daily routines and habitual actions determine how individuals engage with waste sorting within their social environment (Shove et al., 2012 ). For instance, in societies where environmental awareness is culturally valued, waste sorting naturally becomes part of collective behaviour, further reinforced by peer influence and everyday routines (White et al., 2019 ). However, without institutional support, even strong socio-cultural norms and well-established practices may struggle to sustain long-term waste management success, as individuals require adequate resources, guidelines, and regulatory structures to maintain effective participation (Scott, 2014 ). When institutions recognize and align with existing social norms and practices, they can create policies that are more effective and widely accepted, enhancing compliance and participation in waste management efforts. For example, universities that integrate sustainability education and provide waste sorting facilities encourage faculty, staff, and students to incorporate waste sorting into their routines, reinforcing both social practices and cultural expectations (Lozano, 2010 ). Therefore, the harmonious interaction between socio-cultural influences, social practice dynamics, and institutional frameworks ensures that waste sorting behaviour is not only encouraged but also systematically supported, leading to more sustainable waste management outcomes. 3. Methodology This study employs a qualitative research design with an ethnographic approach to explore the socio-cultural, social practice, and institutional factors influencing waste sorting behaviours in a university setting. The ethnographic method is particularly suitable for understanding human behaviours, interactions, everyday social practices and institutional influences, as it allows researchers to engage directly with participants and observe their daily interactions with waste management systems within their natural contexts (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019 ). By immersing in the study environment over an extended period, the researcher gains a deeper insight into how faculty members engage with waste sorting as part of their social and institutional routines. The research was conducted over one year period within a school of creative industry faculty office at a university in Surabaya, Indonesia, where 32 faculty members work and interact daily. The chosen setting allows for an in-depth examination of waste sorting behaviours in a professional and institutional context, where sustainability facilities are in place but require individual and collective action to be effective. The office is equipped with designated waste sorting bins for different types of waste, providing a structured environment to observe the implementation and practice of waste management efforts. The ethnographic approach enabled the researcher to observe and document daily interactions, practices, and barriers encountered in waste sorting while identifying the influence of social norms, material arrangements, and institutional policies on behaviour (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019 ). A core component of the ethnographic study was participant observation to collect data. The researcher directly engaged with faculty members while maintaining an observational role to capture their waste sorting habits, interactions, and decision-making processes (Spradley, 2016 & Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019 ). Over the year-long observation period, notes were taken on key themes such as the frequency of waste sorting, adherence to institutional policies, peer influence on waste-related behaviours, and challenges in maintaining sustainable practices. Particular attention was given to moments of non-compliance or inconsistencies, helping to reveal potential obstacles in the successful implementation of institutional waste management strategies. This method enabled the identification of patterns, challenges, and factors influencing waste sorting behaviours. The observational data were analysed using thematic coding, where emerging patterns and behaviours were categorized according to themes related to socio-cultural influences, social practice dynamics, and institutional factors. For example, faculty members’ attitudes towards waste sorting were examined in relation to peer influence, workplace culture, accessibility of waste bins, and policy enforcement. In addition to observations, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 lecturers and staff members who were directly engage and actively involved in waste management initiatives as part of their daily routines. Participants were selected using purposive sampling to ensure that those with direct experience in university waste sorting policies and practices were included (Creswell & Poth, 2018 ). The interviewees included faculty members and academic staff from different socio-culture and backgrounds. The interviews provided a more personal and in-depth perspective, focused on participants’ motivations, perceptions, and challenges and institutional drivers regarding waste sorting behaviours. Interview questions covered key themes, including: (1) Personal attitudes towards waste sorting and environmental sustainability, (2) Influence of workplace culture and peer interactions on waste sorting practices, (3) Institutional support and challenges in enforcing waste management policies, (4) Perceived barriers to effective waste sorting and potential solutions. Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 minutes and was written documented for analysis. By employing an ethnographic approach complemented by semi-structured interviews, this study provides a nuanced understanding of the interconnected socio-cultural, social practice, and institutional factors shaping waste sorting behaviour in a university setting. The findings contribute to broader discussions on sustainable waste management practices, emphasizing the need for integrated approaches that align cultural, social, and institutional strategies. 3.1 Ethical Statement This study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards for research involving human participants. Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Ciputra, Indonesia (Approval No.: 021/EC/KEP-UC/2025)). All research procedures complied with institutional and national guidelines governing qualitative research and sociological inquiry. Prior to data collection, all participants were informed about the purpose, scope, and objectives of the study. Participation was entirely voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants before interviews and observational activities were conducted. Participants were also informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any stage without any negative consequences. To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, no personally identifiable information was collected or disclosed in this study. Interview transcripts and observational data were anonymized and securely stored, accessible only to the researcher. Ethical principles of respect, beneficence, and justice were upheld throughout the research process. 4. Finding and Discussion The findings from this study indicate that waste sorting behaviour among faculty members, staff and lecturers in the school of creative industry in Surabaya, Indonesia is shaped by a complex interplay of socio-cultural norms, social practices, and institutional influences. By observing daily interactions for a year and supplementing them with semi-structured interviews, this study offers a nuanced understanding of the motivations, barriers, and social dynamics influencing waste sorting behaviours. The findings highlight the intersection of individual attitudes, workplace culture, and institutional support in shaping waste sorting habits. While some participants demonstrate a strong commitment to sustainability, others reveal inconsistencies in their waste management practices due to various personal and external factors. The themes that emerged from the data provide valuable insights into the mechanisms driving or hindering effective waste sorting within an academic institution. The qualitative data derived from observations and interviews were categorized into four main themes: (1) Personal attitudes towards waste sorting and environmental sustainability, (2) Motivation for doing or not doing waste segregation, and (3) Strategies and possible solutions in imposing waste segregation. These themes collectively provide a comprehensive understanding of how waste management policies and facilities operate in practice, shedding light on areas for improvement and intervention. 4.1. Personal attitudes towards waste sorting and environmental sustainability The findings of this study reveal that participant behaviour in waste sorting habits among faculty members varied significantly , with some individuals consistently engaging in waste sorting and demonstrating strong commitment, while others expressed scepticism or apathy and displayed inconsistent or negligible participation. After a year of observation of the 32 respondents, 26 individuals (81%) reported that they engage in waste sorting at some frequency , while 6 respondents (19%) admitted to rarely or never sorting waste . A significant proportion of respondents reported engaging in waste sorting. A participant who engage in waste sorting shared, "I believe that sorting waste is a small but meaningful step in preserving our environment. However, those who do not sort waste or rarely sort waste often cited reasons such as lack of necessity or peer pressure-based behaviour only in certain situations. One respondent mentioned, "I don’t feel the need, but when my colleagues do it, I follow along." This finding suggests that while a majority are engaged in waste sorting, social influence plays a key role in shaping behaviours. Below is a table 1 and picture 1 showing a pie chart about the percentage of participants who sort waste: Table 1: Participants’ Waste Sorting Behaviour Sorting Waste Participation Percentage (%) Total Respondents Sorting waste (vary in frequency) 81% 26 Rarely or never sort waste 19% 6 The majority of faculty members do sort waste, although with varying frequency, moderate to strong engagement . Those who sort waste occasionally or regularly, are not consistent due to factors such as forgetfulness, inconvenience, and lack of time. Among the 32 participants , 40.6% (13 people) regularly sorting in campus but not necessary consistent outside the campus . 40.6% (13 people) sort with a frequency that is not always consistent, depending on conditions such as free time or convenience. One stated, "Sometimes I forget and I do not have time to wash the waste ," other person stated “ One respondent stated, "I want to reduce waste, but if it's a hassle and there's no time, I just throw it away." This aligns with the idea that sorting habits are linked to convenience and accessibility rather than just environmental concern. Another 3.1% (1 person) sort waste rarely, only in certain situations depending on convenience and motivation, such as when the surrounding environment is favourable. Meanwhile, 15. 6% (5 people) not sorting at all, with the main reasons being laziness, hassle, no time, or ignorant. One stated, "I do not think this activity can make a different to solve the environment problem.” Another stated, “I'm too lazy to sort and wash the waste." Interestingly , no respondents indicating that they always sorting consistently every day and everywhere, perfection in adherence is still lacking. Below is table 2 and picture 2 displaying the participants frequency of waste sorting behaviour. Table 2: Participants Frequency of Waste Sorting Waste Sorting Level Percentage (%) Total Respondents Not sorting 15.6% 5 Rarely sorting 3.1% 1 Moderate or inconsistent sorting 40.6% 13 Regularly sorting 40.6% 13 The findings of this study highlight a significant majority (81%) of respondents reported engaging in waste sorting at some frequency. Their participation levels varied, with only 40.6% sorting regularly on campus but not necessarily all maintaining the habit outside, and 15.6% not sorting at all. Interestingly, no respondents indicating that they sort waste regularly, perfection both in campus and outside campus. 4.2. Motivation for Doing or Not Doing Waste Segregation 4.2.1. Motivation for Doing Waste Segregation The findings of this study highlight the complexity of waste sorting behaviour among faculty members, influenced by personal attitudes, social norms, and institutional structures or facilities. The data reveals that individuals’ motivation toward waste sorting behaviour vary because of social influenced, social and environmental awareness, institutional facilities and other personal motivations. Of the 26 individuals who practiced waste sorting, there are several main factors that motivate participants in sorting waste, some individuals have more than one reason, including: 1. Social environment influence, including peer behaviour, peer pressure and workplace culture: A dominant factor cited by ten participants was the influence of their social environment in shaping waste sorting practices. This influence manifested through peer pressure, observation of colleagues’ behaviours, and he presence of a workplace culture that normalized and reinforced waste segregation. Many individuals admitted that they initially began sorting waste not out of personal conviction, but because they felt obligated due to their colleagues' behaviours. Others expressed a sense of pressure or fear of negative judgment if they failed to comply with the collective norm. For many, participation was tied to the desire to maintain harmony, avoid alienation, and affirm their place within the group. The act of sorting waste becomes not only a practice of hygiene or efficiency but a performance of social belonging . One participant explained, " I do it because everyone in the department does it. if I don’t, it feels awkward. " From a sociological perspective, this finding underscores how waste sorting operates not merely as a practice of hygiene, efficiency, or ecological concern, but also as a performance of social belonging . Workplace culture and peer influence serve as powerful mechanisms of social regulation, where conformity to collective expectations reinforces sustainable practices. In this sense, waste segregation is embedded within a broader system of social relations, where individual actions are shaped as much by the pursuit of social acceptance as by environmental awareness. 2. Personal awareness and pre-existing habits: Seven participants linked their waste sorting practices to personal awareness and internalized environmental values. Their motivations were deeply influenced by prior experiences, including past education, international exposure in countries with strict waste management systems (e.g., Taiwan, Germany, or the UK), or early exposure to sustainability in their family or home environments. They had already developed waste sorting habits, either from school, home or in the country where they previously lived with strict waste management policies. These individuals brought with them a system of embodied dispositions shaped by long term socialization, which made waste sorting a natural and routine practice in their daily lives. One participants reflected, " I did my master degree in the UK, where you’re fined if you don’t sort your waste. Then it just became part of my life." Such accounts highlight how long-term socialization processes shape embodied dispositions toward sustainability, where practices once enforced by external structures eventually become self-regulated, internalized behaviors. This shows how once practices are stabilized in daily life, they can travel across contexts, carried by individuals who bring their embodied habits into new environments. In this sense, waste sorting is less about one-time individual choices and more about the reproduction of social practices shaped by prior structures, rules, and cultural contexts 3. Facilities and availability of waste sorting infrastructure: Three participants indicated that the presence of adequate facilities, such as clearly labelled bins, visible signage, strongly influenced their waste sorting behavior. They noted that institutional cues, in the form of physical infrastructure and rules, served as reminders of the expected behavior while also reducing the effort required to comply. One participant stated, " If the bins and signs are there, I’ll do it. Otherwise, I just throw it all together. " This illustrates how the design of the physical environment can either enable or discourage sustainable practices. The provision of accessible facilities functions as a form of institutional scaffolding, guiding individuals toward desired behaviors through environmental design. Furthermore, this finding underscores the importance of institutional responsibility in shaping individual action, as the presence or absence of supportive infrastructure directly impacts the likelihood of consistent waste segregation. 4. Convenience and efficiency in disposing of waste: A smaller group of two participants identified convenience as their main motivation for sorting waste. For them, the practice was primarily associated with practicality and efficiency rather than ecological values. They explained that waste segregation made the process of disposal easier, reduced clutter, minimized unpleasant odors, and decreased the frequency of taking out the trash. One participant summarized this perspective by stating, “It keeps my workspace clean.” This indicates that, for some individuals, waste segregation driven by the immediate personal benefits of maintaining order and comfort in their daily routines. 5. Environmental Concern (because of love for animals): Although a minor finding, two participants expressed that their motivation for practicing waste segregation was rooted in environmental concern, particularly stemming from their love for animals. They highlighted that improper waste management can harm animals and ecosystems, and thus, treating waste responsibly was seen as part of showing care and respect for all living beings. Their concern extended beyond personal or institutional benefits, reflecting a moral responsibility to protect animals and ensure that the environment remains a safe habitat for diverse forms of life. This perspective illustrates how emotional attachment to animals can influence pro-environmental behaviour and strengthen personal commitment to sustainability practices. 6. Self-Satisfaction (Feeling Proud): One participant expressed that engaging in waste segregation fostered a sense of personal pride and self-satisfaction. Beyond fulfilling institutional expectations, the act of contributing to sustainable practices was perceived as a meaningful personal achievement. The participant emphasized that even small individual actions, such as properly sorting waste, provided a sense of pride in being able to make a positive contribution to the environment and the university community. 7. The need for data and reporting: One participant emphasized the necessity of supporting institutional reporting and performance evaluation through waste segregation data. Holding a leadership position, she expressed a sense of responsibility to set an example for other faculty members to follow. Her primary goal was to generate measurable outcomes in waste segregation that could contribute meaningful data to strengthen the university’s performance in the Green Matrix ranking. Here is a table 3 and picture 3 that summarizing the motivations and reasons for engaging in waste segregation, including percentages and respondent quotes: Table 3: Motivation for Waste Sorting Behaviour Motivation/Reason Number of Respondents Percentage (%) Quotes Social Influence (Peer Behaviour, Peer Pressure and workplace culture ) 10 38.46% "I don’t feel the need, but one of my colleague pressure me to do it, so I follow along." “I see that my surrounding environment practices waste sorting, so I feel uncomfortable if I don’t do it too. Awareness & Habit (from previous experience) 7 26.92% “I have received a lot of information and education about waste sorting since junior high school, so I’ve been aware of this behaviour and become my habit from an early age” Facilities and availability of Waste Sorting Infrastructure 3 11.54% "The bins are easily accessible, that’s why I sort my waste." Convenience and efficiency 2 7.69% “I sort waste because when all types of garbage are mixed and left to accumulate, it becomes dirty and difficult to dispose of” Environmental Concern because Animal lover 2 7.69% "I believe that sorting waste is a small but meaningful step in preserving our environment." Self-Satisfaction (Feeling Proud) 1 3.85% “The action give me a sense of personal pride and self-satisfaction” The need for data and report 1 3.85% “I engage in waste sorting because, as the head of the department, I want to ensure that the segregated waste is properly recycled and contributes to the University’s performance data.” Most faculty members acknowledged the importance of waste sorting in promoting environmental sustainability. However, their motivations for engaging in the practice were diverse and layered, ranging from social influence to personal awareness, pragmatic convenience, and institutional obligations. Interestingly, for many respondents, waste sorting did not begin as an internalized ecological commitment but as a socially driven practice that, over time, became normalized into daily routines and habits. The most dominant factor was social influence , cited by ten participants (38.46%). Peer behavior, workplace culture, and subtle forms of peer pressure strongly shaped waste-sorting practices. Many individuals admitted that they initially participated only because of social expectations, fearing negative judgment or feeling awkward if they did not follow collective norms. As one participant explained, “Initially, I participated in sorting because of the work environment. I was pressured and pushed by one of faculty who had strong principles about waste sorting behaviour. Over time it became a habit and, without realizing it, it became a culture in the campus.” These accounts illustrate how social belonging and conformity can drive behavior, transforming what begins as peer pressure into a routinized practice. A second significant driver was awareness and pre-existing habits, reported by seven participants (26.92%). These individuals often had prior exposure to sustainability education or lived in contexts with strict waste management rules, such as schools, family environments, or countries abroad. Waste segregation thus became an embodied routine, ingrained through long-term socialization. For instance, one respondent noted, “I have received a lot of information and education about waste sorting when I was in college. At first it was difficult it and it was troublesome, but after a few weeks you finally got used to it and so now it became habit.” Another recalled how their postgraduate studies in the United Kingdom cultivated waste-sorting habits through regulations, peer influence, and institutional structures such as fines for non-compliance. Similarly, another participant attributed their habit to their studies in Penang, Malaysia, where structured facilities and environmental practices reinforced sorting. These examples demonstrate how personal history, cultural background, and exposure to structured practices abroad shaped sustainable routines that were later carried into the university setting. Other contributing factors were more situational and pragmatic . Three participants (11.54%) identified the availability of facilities and clear infrastructure, such as labelled bins and signage as their primary motivator. As one explained, “The bins are easily accessible, that’s why I sort my waste.” Similarly, two respondents (7.69%) framed waste sorting as a matter of convenience and efficiency , emphasizing its role in reducing clutter, odour, and the frequency of waste disposal: “I sort waste because it is more tidy and clean .” These findings highlight how environmental design and infrastructural support act as forms of institutional scaffolding that lower the barrier to sustainable behavior. However, several respondents admitted that they only sort waste at the university because of such facilities, while at home or in public spaces they do not engage in the practice due to lack of infrastructure. Finally, a small number of participants articulated more individualized motivations . Two respondents (7.69%) cited environmental concern rooted in their love for animals, associating waste sorting with a moral responsibility toward all living beings. One participant (3.85%) expressed a sense of self-satisfaction and pride: “The action gives me a sense of personal pride and self-satisfaction.” Another (3.85%) was motivated by institutional responsibility, citing the need for data to support sustainability performance and rankings . These perspectives illustrate the diversity of meaning attached to the practice, ranging from moral conviction to symbolic pride and institutional accountability. Taken together, these findings reveal how waste-sorting behaviors are shaped by the interplay of socio-cultural background, daily routines, material contexts, and institutional policies , in line with Social Practice Theory . Sorting waste is not merely the outcome of individual choices, but rather emerges from the integration of three elements: materials (facilities, bins, signage), competences (knowledge, prior habits, and environmental awareness), and meanings (social belonging, moral concern, personal pride, and institutional expectations). Social structures and peer behaviors normalize waste sorting as part of workplace culture, while institutional policies and infrastructural cues scaffold and reinforce practices. At the same time, personal histories, such as exposure to strict environmental regulations abroad shape embodied dispositions that persist across contexts. Thus, the practice of waste segregation within the university reflects a dynamic interconnection of social influence, cultural experience, material design, and institutional frameworks, demonstrating how sustainable behavior is cultivated not only through individual conviction but through broader socio-cultural and organizational contexts. 4.2.2. Motivation for Not Doing Waste Segregation In contrast to those who engaged in waste sorting, six participants reported that they rarely or never participated waste segregation. Their reasons revealed a combination of structural, practical, and perceptual barriers that hinder consistent participation. Here are the main reasons why they did not consistently sort waste were: 1. Inconvenience, hassle and time constraints: The most commonly cited barrier, mentioned by two participants, was the perception that waste sorting requires extra effort and time. They described the process as inconvenient, particularly when it involved rinsing or cleaning certain types of waste before disposal. For busy faculty members juggling multiple responsibilities, this was seen as an unrealistic expectation. One respondent admitted, " I want to reduce waste, but it's a hassle and I have no time, so just throw it away without sorting it ." This illustrates how time scarcity and competing priorities can override pro environmental intentions, making convenience a decisive factor in daily decision making. 2. Lack of trust in the system: Two participants expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of their efforts, believing that janitorial staff mixed the trash together after collection, thereby nullifying their contribution. One respondent stated bluntly, “ I think the cleaning service mix together all the trash from sorting bin. So I don’t think this segregation will make a difference” The other considered the activity “useless,” arguing that it only contributes minimally to solving environmental problems. This distrust in the waste management system reflects a breakdown in institutional credibility and they did not believe such small-scale actions could make a meaningful difference in addressing larger ecological challenges. Without visible assurance that waste is actually processed separately and make an impact, individuals perceive their effort as futile, leading to disengagement and resignation. 3. Lack of adequate facilities outside the work environment: One admitted that “ I never sorted waste before because there are no facilities outside the workplace. Even though there are sorting bins in the Department, the lack of consistency across the University makes me feel less motivated to do it. ” This demonstrates the dependency of sustainable behavior on environmental design and infrastructure. In spaces where supportive facilities are missing, sorting practices are easily abandoned. 4. No Formal Rules and Enforcement: Another barrier identified by participants was the absence of clear institutional rules or enforcement mechanisms. One respondent emphasized, “Since there is no rules, I am not obligated to do so.” This highlights the role of regulatory structures in shaping behavioral consistency. Without formal policies or sanctions, waste sorting is perceived as optional rather than mandatory, leading to variability in participation. The lack of institutional enforcement diminishes both the sense of accountability and the collective obligation to engage in sustainable practices, leaving the behavior dependent on individual discretion and convenience rather than embedded within organizational culture. Below is a table 4 and picture 4 that summarizing the motivations and reasons for not engaging in waste segregation, including percentages and respondent quotes: Table 4: Motivation for not Doing Waste Sorting Behaviour Motivation/Reason Number of Respondents Percentage (%) Quotes Inconvenience, hassle and time constraints 2 33.33% “Sorting waste feels inconvenient, especially when I’m rushing, so I end up discarding it all in one bin.” Lack of trust in the system and skepticism 2 33.33% "I do not think this activity can make a difference in solving the environmental problem." Lack of adequate facilities outside the work environment 1 16.67% "The bins are easily accessible, that’s why I sort my waste." No Formal Rules and Enforcement 1 16.67% “When there are clear rules, it feels easier and more natural to follow them, but without rules, the commitment tends to be inconsistent.” The findings reveal that a notable minority of participants, six in total, admitted to rarely or never practicing waste segregation. Their reasons highlight a set of barriers that are both practical and structural, underscoring how sustainable behavior is often constrained by everyday routines, institutional design, and perceptions of efficacy. Four primary themes emerged: inconvenience and time constraints, lack of trust in the system, inadequate facilities beyond the workplace, and the absence of formal rules or enforcement. The most common factors, each reported by 33.33% of respondents, were inconvenience and time constraints as well as scepticism or lack of trust in the system . Several participants expressed that waste sorting requires additional effort and is impractical when they are rushing. As one explained, “Sorting waste feels inconvenient, especially when I’m rushing, so I end up discarding it all in one bin.” Others doubted the effectiveness of waste segregation altogether, with one respondent stating, “I do not think this activity can make a difference in solving the environmental problem.” These responses reveal how both perceived inconvenience and doubts about environmental impact can discourage participation, even among those who acknowledge sustainability as important. Another barrier, mentioned by 16.67% of respondents, was the lack of adequate facilities outside the work environment and throughout the university . This indicates that sustainable practices are often context dependent, relying heavily on the presence of supportive material conditions to enable consistent action. Finally, 16.67% of participants emphasized the absence of formal rules or enforcement as a limiting factor. One respondent reflected, “When there are clear rules, it feels easier and more natural to follow them, but without rules, the commitment tends to be inconsistent.” This highlights the role of institutional policies and governance structures in shaping waste management practices. Without regulatory scaffolding or clear accountability, waste segregation is treated as a voluntary act rather than an organizational norm, resulting in uneven engagement across individuals. 4.3. Strategies and Solutions in Imposing Waste Segregation To address these challenges, respondents suggested several strategies and practical solutions to improve participation in waste segregation, emphasizing that education, accessibility, and reinforcement are key to overcoming existing challenges. Many highlighted the need for increased education and transparency , noting that clear communication about what happens to waste after it is sorted would strengthen trust in the system. While posters, emails, and digital signage were considered useful, respondents emphasized that these reminders alone had limited impact unless reinforced by direct engagement, such as during staff or faculty meetings. They recommended the use of simple infographics placed near bins to guide proper disposal and interactive awareness sessions where faculty and staff could witness the full waste management cycle, making the process more tangible and credible. By showing how sorted waste is processed and recycled, institutions can assure participants that their efforts are meaningful and not wasted. Equally important was the call to improve accessibility and convenience , as respondents believed that waste segregation must be seamlessly integrated into daily routines. They suggested placing segregated bins in high-traffic areas such as workspaces, canteens, and parking lots to minimize effort and time constraints. Color coded bin lids could allow for quicker identification, while the addition of small washing stations near disposal points would make it easier for individuals to clean recyclable materials before sorting. These infrastructural adjustments would remove practical barriers, reduce perceptions of inconvenience, and encourage more consistent participation. Finally, participants emphasized the role of incentives, rewards, and reinforcement in maintaining motivation and cultivating a culture of sustainability. Recognition programs that acknowledge individuals or departments with strong commitment to waste sorting through certificates, recycled products, or public appreciation were suggested as effective ways to reinforce positive behaviour. Some also recommended fostering peer accountability through a “buddy system,” where colleagues remind and encourage one another to sort waste properly, thus embedding the practice within everyday social interactions. Taken together, these strategies highlight that effective waste segregation requires not only individual awareness, but also supportive infrastructures, institutional reinforcement, and a culture of shared responsibility. 5. Conclusion This research highlights that waste sorting behaviour is not merely an individual choice but a socially embedded practice shaped by socio-cultural values, social interactions, and institutional frameworks. From a socio-cultural perspective , individuals’ engagement with waste management is strongly influenced by cultural norms, shared beliefs, and generational exposure to sustainability education. As Berger and Luckmann (1966) suggest, reality is socially constructed, and in the context of waste management, cultural understandings of responsibility, cleanliness, and collective action directly inform behavioural choices. These findings emphasize that waste sorting in Indonesia cannot be separated from the broader cultural and social context in which individuals live and work. At the same time, Social Practice Theory (SPT) provides insight into how waste sorting becomes a routine, habitual action sustained through material infrastructures, competencies, and shared meanings (Shove et al., 2012). In this study, waste sorting was shown to thrive in environments where facilities such as labelled bins were available and where peers modelled the practice, allowing it to be embedded seamlessly into daily routines. Conversely, when infrastructures were absent or inconvenient, participants often defaulted to unsorted disposal, showing how material and structural barriers can undermine sustainable intentions. Peer pressure and workplace culture further demonstrate that social reinforcement is critical in normalizing waste sorting, supporting the idea that practices are carried by collectives rather than individuals. Finally, Institutional Theory underscores the central role of formal structures, policies, and enforcement in sustaining waste sorting behaviours. Universities and workplaces act as institutional settings that provide legitimacy, resources, and guidelines for sustainable practices. Where institutions implemented clear policies, waste sorting was perceived as easier, more natural, and more consistent. However, gaps in enforcement or lack of system wide consistency often weakened participants’ motivation, with some expressing scepticism about the effectiveness of their efforts. In light of these findings, it becomes clear that waste segregation initiatives must go beyond merely providing facilities or appealing to individual responsibility. Instead, they must engage with the deeper social and cultural meanings attached to environmental practices, while simultaneously reshaping daily routines and institutional expectations. Unlike in highly individualistic societies, Indonesian culture emphasizes gotong royong , mutual cooperation and collective responsibility, which can serve as strong cultural foundations for sustainability programs. Policies that integrate education, awareness campaigns, and cultural values into institutional frameworks can foster a sense of ownership and collective accountability. Moreover, embedding waste sorting within the rhythms of everyday academic and professional life through visible infrastructure, peer modelling, and routine reinforcement ensures that it transitions from being a conscious decision to an ingrained practice. This perspective highlights that effective waste management is not simply about behaviour change but about cultivating and sustaining socially shared practices within supportive environments. Universities in Indonesia, as influential educational institutions, play a particularly critical role in this cultural negotiation. By aligning institutional policies with both global sustainability standards and local cultural values, they can create a supportive ecosystem where waste sorting is not seen as an external obligation but as an extension of cultural identity and collective responsibility. For example, connecting waste sorting to gotong royong and moral responsibility rooted in religious and ethical values may increase acceptance and compliance. When reinforced by practical infrastructures, peer influence, and consistent institutional support, waste sorting can move from being a foreign or imposed behaviour into a normalized practice deeply embedded in Indonesian academic and social life. This research thus underscores the need for culturally grounded, socially embedded, and institutionally supported strategies that recognize Indonesia’s unique social fabric while advancing sustainability agendas. Declarations Funding Declaration This research was conducted without external financial support from public, commercial, or non-profit funding agencies. The study was carried out as part of the author’s independent academic research and routine scholarly activities within the institutional framework. All stages of the research process, including conceptual development, data collection, analysis, interpretation of findings, and manuscript preparation were undertaken without the influence of any funding body. The absence of external funding ensured full academic independence and minimized potential financial bias in the research design, analytical approach, and conclusions presented in this study. Author Contribution Y.K.S.T. conceptualized the study, conducted the literature review, designed the methodology, collected and analyzed the data, wrote the main manuscript text, and prepared all figures. T.K. and T.B. critically reviewed the manuscript and provided substantial intellectual input, particularly in strengthening the literature framework, refining the methodological approach, and deepening the discussion. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Data Availability The materials supporting the findings of this study have been made available to ensure transparency. The shared materials include the complete research datasets, survey instruments, raw survey responses, and comprehensive research protocols. These protocols consist of full documentation of the questionnaires, interview guides, data collection procedures, and coding schemes used during data analysis. Due to ethical and confidentiality considerations, certain materials cannot be publicly shared. Specifically, the raw field notes from observations are not made available, as they contain sensitive information that could compromise participant anonymity and confidentiality. All publicly accessible materials can be accessed through the following repository link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gc8PL2hyHgTJWsEfgKINgbVfejdf96bG/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105174377325133806737&rtpof=true&sd=true References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179-211. Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A UK case study of household waste management. Environment and Behavior, 39 (4), 435-473. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin Books. Bowen, J. R. (1986). On the political construction of tradition: Gotong royong in Indonesia. The Journal of Asian Studies, 45 (3), 545–561. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147-160. Chen, M. F., & Tung, P. J. (2010). The moderating effect of perceived lack of facilities on consumers’ recycling intentions. Environment and Behavior , 42 (6), 824-844. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches . Sage publications. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). The new plastics economy: Rethinking the future of plastics & catalyzing action . Evans, D. (2011). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology, 46 (1), 41-56. Geels, F. W., McMeekin, A., Mylan, J., & Southerton, D. (2015). A sociotechnical analysis of plastic waste management in the UK: An interdisciplinary approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114 , 27-36. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2017). The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. SAGE Publications. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2019). Ethnography: Principles in practice . Routledge. Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practice-ing behavior change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behavior change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11 (1), 79-99. Huang, Y., Wang, C., & Wang, C. (2021). Exploring the impact of cultural factors on waste sorting behavior: A cross-regional study in China. Waste Management & Research, 39 (7), 1021-1033. Lozano, R. (2010). Diffusion of sustainable development in universities’ curricula: An empirical example from Cardiff University. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18 (7), 637-644. Moqsud, M. A., Rahman, M. A., Mahmud, K., & Alam, M. A. (2020). A comprehensive review of solid waste management in developing countries: Current practices and future directions. Waste Management & Research, 38 (7), 687-707. Mulder, N. (1998). Inside Indonesian Society: Cultural Change in Java . Amsterdam: The Pepin Press. (discusses harmony, conformity, and collectivism). Nguyen, H. T., Zhu, N., & Le, T. P. (2021). Households’ willingness to separate waste: A case study in Vietnam. Waste Management, 126 , 467-476. Oke, T. R., Mills, G., Christen, A., & Voogt, J. A. (2017). Urban climates . Cambridge university press. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5 (2), 243-263. Schultz, P. W., Bator, R. J., Large, L. B., Bruni, C. M., & Tabanico, J. J. (2018). Littering in context: Personal and environmental predictors of littering behavior. Environment and Behavior, 45 (1), 35-59. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations. SAGE Publications. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. SAGE Publications. Spradley, J. P. (2016). Participant observation . Waveland Press. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of environmental psychology , 29 (3), 309-317. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (2020). Waste management during the COVID-19 pandemic: From response to recovery . White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83 (3), 22-49. Wilson, D. C., Velis, C., & Cheeseman, C. (2015). Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in developing countries. Habitat International, 30 (4), 797-808. Zhang, D., Keat, T. S., & Gersberg, R. M. (2019). A comparison of municipal solid waste management in developed and developing countries. Waste Management & Research, 37 (12), 1197-1214. Tables Table 1 Participants’ Waste Sorting Behaviour Sorting Waste Participation Percentage (%) Total Respondents Sorting waste (vary in frequency) 81% 26 Rarely or never sort waste 19% 6 Table 2 Participants Frequency of Waste Sorting Waste Sorting Level Percentage (%) Total Respondents Not sorting 15.6% 5 Rarely sorting 3.1% 1 Moderate or inconsistent sorting 40.6% 13 Regularly sorting 40.6% 13 Table 3 Motivation for Waste Sorting Behaviour Motivation/Reason Number of Respondents Percentage (%) Quotes Social Influence (Peer Behaviour, Peer Pressure and workplace culture) 10 38.46% "I don’t feel the need, but one of my colleague pressure me to do it, so I follow along." “I see that my surrounding environment practices waste sorting, so I feel uncomfortable if I don’t do it too. Awareness & Habit (from previous experience) 7 26.92% “I have received a lot of information and education about waste sorting since junior high school, so I’ve been aware of this behaviour and become my habit from an early age” Facilities and availability of Waste Sorting Infrastructure 3 11.54% "The bins are easily accessible, that’s why I sort my waste." Convenience and efficiency 2 7.69% “I sort waste because when all types of garbage are mixed and left to accumulate, it becomes dirty and difficult to dispose of” Environmental Concern because Animal lover 2 7.69% "I believe that sorting waste is a small but meaningful step in preserving our environment." Self-Satisfaction (Feeling Proud) 1 3.85% “The action give me a sense of personal pride and self-satisfaction” The need for data and report 1 3.85% “I engage in waste sorting because, as the head of the department, I want to ensure that the segregated waste is properly recycled and contributes to the University’s performance data.” Table 4 Motivation for not Doing Waste Sorting Behaviour Motivation/Reason Number of Respondents Percentage (%) Quotes Inconvenience, hassle and time constraints 2 33.33% “Sorting waste feels inconvenient, especially when I’m rushing, so I end up discarding it all in one bin.” Lack of trust in the system and skepticism 2 33.33% "I do not think this activity can make a difference in solving the environmental problem." Lack of adequate facilities outside the work environment 1 16.67% "The bins are easily accessible, that’s why I sort my waste." No Formal Rules and Enforcement 1 16.67% “When there are clear rules, it feels easier and more natural to follow them, but without rules, the commitment tends to be inconsistent.” Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 07 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 19 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 14 Feb, 2026 Editor invited by journal 06 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 30 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 30 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8499309","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":595571401,"identity":"900e6603-acd3-4b7e-ad48-583eafed985d","order_by":0,"name":"Yoanita Kartika Sari Tahalele","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Airlangga University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yoanita","middleName":"Kartika Sari","lastName":"Tahalele","suffix":""},{"id":595571402,"identity":"30caae07-430e-4486-8013-3e0d4417ce4c","order_by":1,"name":"Toetik Koesbardiati","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Airlangga University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Toetik","middleName":"","lastName":"Koesbardiati","suffix":""},{"id":595571403,"identity":"f7e76df8-245e-48a5-adda-672d33ff35a6","order_by":2,"name":"Tuti Budirahayu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Airlangga University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tuti","middleName":"","lastName":"Budirahayu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-02 08:38:31","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8499309/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8499309/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103506586,"identity":"55004f91-40b1-4f3a-ba18-1e5ef73716c4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-26 13:37:48","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":84605,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePicture 1: Pie Chart on Participants’ Waste Sorting\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8499309/v1/56fc5b0f21ac0e1016b290e4.png"},{"id":103309191,"identity":"0fd535f8-fd88-407d-87e8-4f1398da5980","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-24 09:49:00","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":101682,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePicture 2: Pie Chart on Participants Frequency of Waste Sorting\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8499309/v1/5dc98d0b48ac590d9c768e2e.png"},{"id":103309190,"identity":"bc7d0ac0-883b-493f-8929-b9e90e8fc56e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-24 09:49:00","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":144426,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePicture 3: Pie Chart on Motivation for Waste Sorting Behaviour\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8499309/v1/d6cfc5a6eed9ef3deb5e4dbb.png"},{"id":103309188,"identity":"09a2e664-3002-4148-b9f6-32961daa3fce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-24 09:49:00","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":126258,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePicture 4: Pie Chart on Motivation for not Doing Waste Sorting Behaviour\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8499309/v1/de134e5f859f00f3e4504db0.png"},{"id":103509711,"identity":"2020a165-c515-4fc8-a033-29d4d306681b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-26 14:00:42","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1975365,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8499309/v1/e4e4a9fc-dbaa-4c1b-96c0-57e6c067f31d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Sociological Perspectives on Waste Management: Socio-Cultural, Social Practice and Institutional Factors on Waste Sorting Behaviour in Indonesia","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWaste management has become a pressing global issue, with improper waste disposal contributing to environmental degradation, public health risks, and resource depletion (Wilson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). As the world produces more and more waste, we need good waste management plans, such as sorting waste, to reach our goal of sustainable development. Waste sorting is a very important part of waste management since it makes recycling more effective, reduces the amount of waste going to landfills, and minimizes pollution in the environment (Chen \u0026amp; Tung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). However, the effectiveness of waste sorting programs depends on more than just technical and infrastructural solutions, but also on social, cultural, and institutional factors that shape individual behaviours and collective practices (Oke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). To make good and long lasting waste management policies, it's important to understand these elements from a sociological point of view.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Indonesian, socio-cultural aspects have a big impact and play an important role in shaping waste management practices. Indonesian society is marked by robust communal ideals, exemplified by gotong royong (mutual cooperation), which frequently serve as the foundation for collective action in villages and communities, including environmental initiative and efforts. \u003cem\u003eGotong Royong\u003c/em\u003e has historically been a key part of Indonesian community life for a long time (Bowen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e; Mulder, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Rooted in village traditions, \u003cem\u003egotong royong\u003c/em\u003e emphasizes shared responsibility, solidarity, and the idea that the wellbeing of the community is prioritized over individual interests. This cultural value continues to influence modern social practices, including environmental behaviours. In the context of waste sorting, \u003cem\u003egotong royong\u003c/em\u003e can encourage collective participation: when waste management is framed as a communal responsibility, individuals are more motivated to contribute, as refusing to do so risks being perceived as selfish or disruptive to social harmony. This aligns with Berger and Luckmann\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1966\u003c/span\u003e) notion of social construction, where reality is shaped by collective agreements and everyday interactions within cultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to \u003cem\u003egotong royong\u003c/em\u003e, Indonesians are deeply influenced by the cultural need of belonging (\u003cem\u003erasa kebersamaan\u003c/em\u003e) and avoid social exclusion. In Indonesia, social identity is often linked to group membership, and people feel uneasy when their actions differ from those of the majority (Ajzen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). This social conformity creates both opportunities and barriers for waste sorting. In a university or other workplace settings, for instance, if the majority of peers actively engage in sorting waste, others are likely to follow to do the same, even if they don't want to, simply just to avoid being seen as indifferent and regarded as careless or apathetic. On the other hand, when the dominant practice is to ignore sorting bins or rely on janitors, individuals may hesitate to break from the group, fearing that they will stand out or waste effort. These socio-cultural realities make it harder to adopt waste segregation behaviors. Therefore, it is important to understand how social norms, cultural views, and collective practices operate with institutional frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial norms and cultural values significantly influence waste-related behaviours, as individuals tend to adopt practices that align with their societal expectations and peer influences (Barr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). In many societies, waste sorting is embedded within cultural practices that define acceptable and unacceptable waste management behaviours. Social Practice Theory by Elizabeth Shove provides a useful framework for analysing how these behaviours are developed and maintained through repeated daily activities, shared routines, and interactions within specific material and social contexts (Shove et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). These theory become the foundation to explores waste sorting habit as a social practice shaped by materials such as infrastructure like bins, meanings (cultural perceptions of waste), and competencies (knowledge about sorting).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeanwhile, institutional factors also play a critical role in shaping waste sorting behaviours, as regulations, norms, and organizational structures create the conditions under which individuals engage in waste management (Scott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Institutional Theory suggests that individuals conform to established norms and rules within an organization, and these frameworks influence their decision-making and behaviour (DiMaggio \u0026amp; Powell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e). In educational institutions, for example, the presence of waste sorting bins, institutional norms, pressure and faculty engagement can facilitate or hinder sustainable waste management practices (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study focuses on university setting in Indonesia, where waste sorting behaviour is shaped by the interactions between social, cultural, and institutional factors. Universities serve as microcosms of society, reflecting broader socio-cultural influences such as \u003cem\u003egotong royong\u003c/em\u003e, informal waste practices, and generational differences in sustainability awareness, while also functioning as structured environments with distinct norms and expectations. By examining waste sorting practices within a faculty office in a university in Surabaya, Indonesia, this research investigates how social norms, workplace routines, and institutional norms or policies intersect to influence sustainable waste practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA qualitative ethnographic approach was adopted to provide an in-depth analysis of waste sorting behaviour within the faculty office environment. Over one year, 32 faculty members of school of creative industry in a university in Surabaya, Indonesia were observed in their interactions with waste sorting infrastructure, with additional semi-structured interviews conducted with the participants as well. This methodology enables an exploration of both explicit behaviours and underlying motivations, shedding light on the socio-cultural and institutional dimensions of waste management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy applying Social Practice Theory and Institutional Theory, this research contributes to the broader discourse on sustainable waste management by emphasizing the importance of integrating social and institutional strategies. The study\u0026rsquo;s findings are valuable for policymakers, educators, and institutional leaders in Indonesia, as they highlight the necessity for culturally informed, socially reinforced, and institutionally supported approaches to waste management. This integration ensures that waste sorting becomes not only a technical or environmental responsibility but also a culturally meaningful and socially embedded practice within Indonesian society.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Study","content":"\u003cp\u003eWaste management is a critical environmental and social issue that involves the collection, transportation, processing, recycling, and disposal of waste materials (Wilson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Effective waste management aims to minimize environmental pollution, reduce health risks, and promote resource efficiency through sustainable practices (Moqsud et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). One of the key strategies in sustainable waste management is waste sorting, which involves the separation of waste at the source into categories such as organic, recyclable, and non-recyclable waste (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Waste sorting plays a vital role in improving recycling rates, reducing landfill waste, and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions (Nguyen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, the effectiveness of waste management systems depends on several factors, including institutional policies, social norms, and individual behavioural practices (Schultz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary purpose of waste management and waste sorting behaviour is to promote sustainability by reducing waste generation and increasing resource recovery (UNEP, 2020). Proper waste sorting ensures that materials such as plastics, paper, metals, and organic waste can be efficiently recycled and repurposed, thus contributing to a circular economy (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). From a sociological perspective, waste management is not only a technical process but also a social practice influenced by cultural values, social interactions, and institutional frameworks (Hargreaves, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Social Practice Theory emphasizes that waste sorting behaviour is shaped by habits, routines, and the availability of infrastructure, while Institutional Theory highlights the role of government regulations, policies, and workplace norms in reinforcing sustainable waste practices (Geels et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe importance of waste management and waste sorting behaviour extends beyond environmental benefits to include economic and social advantages. Effective waste management systems contribute to job creation in the recycling and waste treatment industries while also reducing the financial burden associated with landfill maintenance and waste disposal (UNEP, 2020). Additionally, waste sorting behaviour fosters environmental awareness and collective responsibility, encouraging individuals to participate in sustainability initiatives (Barr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Universities and educational institutions play a crucial role in promoting waste sorting habits by integrating sustainability education, providing adequate waste disposal facilities, and fostering a culture of environmental responsibility among students and staff (Lozano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, understanding the socio-cultural, institutional, and behavioural aspects of waste management is essential for developing effective strategies to enhance waste sorting practices and promote long-term environmental sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocio-cultural factors play a crucial role in shaping waste sorting behaviour, as individuals\u0026rsquo; perceptions, values, and habits are deeply embedded within their cultural and social contexts (Berger \u0026amp; Luckmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1966\u003c/span\u003e). Cultural norms and collective beliefs influence how individuals engage in environmental practices, including waste management. In many societies, waste sorting is perceived differently based on traditional beliefs and societal attitudes toward cleanliness, environmental responsibility, and consumption patterns (Huang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). For example, societies with strong communal values often demonstrate higher levels of participation in collective waste management efforts, whereas individualistic cultures may place more responsibility on formal institutions rather than personal actions (Zhu et al., 2019). Furthermore, generational differences in environmental awareness also contribute to variations in waste sorting habits, with younger generations often being more engaged in sustainability efforts due to increased exposure to environmental education (Steg \u0026amp; Vlek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial interactions and peer influence also play a significant role in waste sorting behaviour. According to Ajzen\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e) Theory of Planned Behaviour, people are more likely to engage in sustainable practices if they perceive that others in their social environment value and practice those behaviours. Community-led initiatives, public campaigns, and educational programs are effective in reinforcing positive waste sorting behaviours through collective social reinforcement (White et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In university settings, faculty and students who witness their peers participating in waste sorting are more likely to adopt similar practices due to social conformity and perceived behavioural norms (Barr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). However, socio-cultural barriers such as stigma, lack of awareness, and traditional disposal practices may hinder participation, making it essential for institutions to address these cultural dynamics in promoting effective waste management strategies (Zeng et al., 2016).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeanwhile Social Practice Theory (SPT) provides a useful framework for understanding waste sorting behaviour as an embedded practice shaped by daily routines, material contexts, and social interactions (Shove et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). According to SPT, practices are not solely determined by individual choices but are the result of interrelated elements, including social meanings, materials, and competencies (Reckwitz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Waste sorting, from this perspective, is a practice that is learned and reinforced through habitual engagement, social norms, and infrastructural support. When waste sorting facilities are easily accessible and integrated into daily routines, individuals are more likely to engage in the practice without conscious effort (Hargreaves, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, if waste sorting bins are inconveniently placed or if sorting is perceived as time-consuming, individuals may default to unsorted waste disposal, demonstrating how material conditions shape behaviour.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe role of SPT in waste sorting behaviour is particularly relevant in institutional settings such as universities and workplaces. As individuals interact with organizational structures and peer groups, waste sorting becomes a normalized practice reinforced by collective habits and expectations. For instance, when universities provide structured recycling programs and clear waste disposal guidelines, faculty members and students integrate waste sorting into their daily academic and professional activities (Evans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). However, if waste management policies are inconsistent or if waste sorting is not actively encouraged, individuals may disengage from the practice despite having environmental awareness (Hargreaves, 2018). Understanding waste sorting through the lens of SPT highlights the importance of creating enabling environments that facilitate sustainable behaviours through infrastructure, education, and reinforcement mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, Institutional Theory examines how formal rules, regulations, and organizational structures influence individual and collective behaviour (DiMaggio \u0026amp; Powell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e). In the context of waste sorting behaviour, institutions such as universities, businesses, and government agencies play a significant role in shaping waste management practices by implementing policies, providing resources, and establishing social norms (Scott, 2001). When institutions enforce waste sorting policies by implementing regulations, providing necessary infrastructure such as provide designated recycling bins, and incorporate sustainability programs into their operational frameworks, individuals within those institutions are more likely to adopt waste sorting as a routine practice. Institutions also contribute to shaping environmental behaviour through incentive structures, penalties for non-compliance, and sustainability training, all of which influence the degree of participation in waste management programs (Scott, 2001).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional Theory highlights the importance of legitimacy in shaping waste sorting behaviour. Institutional factors provide the necessary framework to support and formalize waste sorting behaviours by integrating them into organizational policies and public governance structures. Organizations that prioritize sustainability and align their policies with broader environmental goals are more likely to gain social legitimacy and encourage behavioural compliance (Berger \u0026amp; Luckmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1966\u003c/span\u003e). Universities serve as influential institutions that can promote sustainability through research, education, and policy implementation (Lozano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). However, gaps in institutional commitment, lack of enforcement, and competing organizational priorities can undermine waste sorting initiatives, leading to inconsistent participation and ineffective waste management systems (Greenwood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, the successful integration of waste sorting behaviour within institutional settings requires strong policy frameworks, clear communication, and continuous reinforcement to ensure long-term sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe socio-cultural, social practice, and institutional factors are deeply interconnected and collectively influence the success of waste sorting behaviour and the overall waste management process. Socio-cultural norms shape individuals' attitudes and perceptions toward waste sorting, influencing whether they view it as a personal responsibility, a community practice, or an institutional obligation (Huang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These norms interact with social practices, as daily routines and habitual actions determine how individuals engage with waste sorting within their social environment (Shove et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, in societies where environmental awareness is culturally valued, waste sorting naturally becomes part of collective behaviour, further reinforced by peer influence and everyday routines (White et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). However, without institutional support, even strong socio-cultural norms and well-established practices may struggle to sustain long-term waste management success, as individuals require adequate resources, guidelines, and regulatory structures to maintain effective participation (Scott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen institutions recognize and align with existing social norms and practices, they can create policies that are more effective and widely accepted, enhancing compliance and participation in waste management efforts. For example, universities that integrate sustainability education and provide waste sorting facilities encourage faculty, staff, and students to incorporate waste sorting into their routines, reinforcing both social practices and cultural expectations (Lozano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the harmonious interaction between socio-cultural influences, social practice dynamics, and institutional frameworks ensures that waste sorting behaviour is not only encouraged but also systematically supported, leading to more sustainable waste management outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a qualitative research design with an ethnographic approach to explore the socio-cultural, social practice, and institutional factors influencing waste sorting behaviours in a university setting. The ethnographic method is particularly suitable for understanding human behaviours, interactions, everyday social practices and institutional influences, as it allows researchers to engage directly with participants and observe their daily interactions with waste management systems within their natural contexts (Hammersley \u0026amp; Atkinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). By immersing in the study environment over an extended period, the researcher gains a deeper insight into how faculty members engage with waste sorting as part of their social and institutional routines.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research was conducted over one year period within a school of creative industry faculty office at a university in Surabaya, Indonesia, where 32 faculty members work and interact daily. The chosen setting allows for an in-depth examination of waste sorting behaviours in a professional and institutional context, where sustainability facilities are in place but require individual and collective action to be effective. The office is equipped with designated waste sorting bins for different types of waste, providing a structured environment to observe the implementation and practice of waste management efforts. The ethnographic approach enabled the researcher to observe and document daily interactions, practices, and barriers encountered in waste sorting while identifying the influence of social norms, material arrangements, and institutional policies on behaviour (Hammersley \u0026amp; Atkinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA core component of the ethnographic study was participant observation to collect data. The researcher directly engaged with faculty members while maintaining an observational role to capture their waste sorting habits, interactions, and decision-making processes (Spradley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e \u0026amp; Hammersley \u0026amp; Atkinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Over the year-long observation period, notes were taken on key themes such as the frequency of waste sorting, adherence to institutional policies, peer influence on waste-related behaviours, and challenges in maintaining sustainable practices. Particular attention was given to moments of non-compliance or inconsistencies, helping to reveal potential obstacles in the successful implementation of institutional waste management strategies. This method enabled the identification of patterns, challenges, and factors influencing waste sorting behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe observational data were analysed using thematic coding, where emerging patterns and behaviours were categorized according to themes related to socio-cultural influences, social practice dynamics, and institutional factors. For example, faculty members\u0026rsquo; attitudes towards waste sorting were examined in relation to peer influence, workplace culture, accessibility of waste bins, and policy enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to observations, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 lecturers and staff members who were directly engage and actively involved in waste management initiatives as part of their daily routines. Participants were selected using purposive sampling to ensure that those with direct experience in university waste sorting policies and practices were included (Creswell \u0026amp; Poth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The interviewees included faculty members and academic staff from different socio-culture and backgrounds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The interviews provided a more personal and in-depth perspective, focused on participants\u0026rsquo; motivations, perceptions, and challenges and institutional drivers regarding waste sorting behaviours. Interview questions covered key themes, including: (1) Personal attitudes towards waste sorting and environmental sustainability, (2) Influence of workplace culture and peer interactions on waste sorting practices, (3) Institutional support and challenges in enforcing waste management policies, (4) Perceived barriers to effective waste sorting and potential solutions. Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 minutes and was written documented for analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy employing an ethnographic approach complemented by semi-structured interviews, this study provides a nuanced understanding of the interconnected socio-cultural, social practice, and institutional factors shaping waste sorting behaviour in a university setting. The findings contribute to broader discussions on sustainable waste management practices, emphasizing the need for integrated approaches that align cultural, social, and institutional strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1 Ethical Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards for research involving human participants. Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Ciputra, Indonesia (Approval No.: 021/EC/KEP-UC/2025)). All research procedures complied with institutional and national guidelines governing qualitative research and sociological inquiry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to data collection, all participants were informed about the purpose, scope, and objectives of the study. Participation was entirely voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants before interviews and observational activities were conducted. Participants were also informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any stage without any negative consequences. To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, no personally identifiable information was collected or disclosed in this study. Interview transcripts and observational data were anonymized and securely stored, accessible only to the researcher. Ethical principles of respect, beneficence, and justice were upheld throughout the research process.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Finding and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings from this study indicate that waste sorting behaviour among faculty members, staff and lecturers in the school of creative industry in Surabaya, Indonesia is shaped by a complex interplay of socio-cultural norms, social practices, and institutional influences. By observing daily interactions for a year and supplementing them with semi-structured interviews, this study offers a nuanced understanding of the motivations, barriers, and social dynamics influencing waste sorting behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings highlight the intersection of individual attitudes, workplace culture, and institutional support in shaping waste sorting habits. While some participants demonstrate a strong commitment to sustainability, others reveal inconsistencies in their waste management practices due to various personal and external factors. The themes that emerged from the data provide valuable insights into the mechanisms driving or hindering effective waste sorting within an academic institution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe qualitative data derived from observations and interviews were categorized into four main themes: (1) Personal attitudes towards waste sorting and environmental sustainability, (2) Motivation for doing or not doing waste segregation, and (3) Strategies and possible solutions in imposing waste segregation. These themes collectively provide a comprehensive understanding of how waste management policies and facilities operate in practice, shedding light on areas for improvement and intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1. Personal attitudes towards waste sorting and environmental sustainability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study reveal that participant behaviour in\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;waste sorting habits among faculty members varied significantly\u003c/strong\u003e, with some individuals consistently engaging in waste sorting and demonstrating strong commitment, while others expressed scepticism or apathy and displayed inconsistent or negligible participation. After a year of observation of the 32 respondents, \u003cstrong\u003e26 individuals (81%) reported that they engage in waste sorting at some frequency\u003c/strong\u003e, while \u003cstrong\u003e6 respondents (19%) admitted to rarely or never sorting waste\u003c/strong\u003e. A significant proportion of respondents reported engaging in waste sorting. A participant who \u003cstrong\u003eengage in waste sorting\u003c/strong\u003e shared, \u003cem\u003e\u0026quot;I believe that sorting waste is a small but meaningful step in preserving our environment.\u003c/em\u003e However, those who do not sort waste or rarely sort waste often cited reasons such as lack of necessity or peer pressure-based behaviour only in certain situations. One respondent mentioned, \u003cem\u003e\u0026quot;I don\u0026rsquo;t feel the need, but when my colleagues do it, I follow along.\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eThis finding suggests that while a majority are engaged in waste sorting, social influence plays a key role in shaping behaviours. Below is a table 1 and picture 1 showing a pie chart about the percentage of participants who sort waste:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1:\u003c/strong\u003e Participants\u0026rsquo; Waste Sorting Behaviour\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"3\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSorting Waste Participation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal Respondents\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSorting waste (vary in \u003cstrong\u003efrequency)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRarely or never sort waste\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe majority of faculty members do sort waste, although with varying frequency,\u0026nbsp;moderate to strong engagement\u003cstrong\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThose who sort\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;waste occasionally or regularly, are not consistent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003edue to factors such as forgetfulness, inconvenience, and lack of time. Among the \u003cstrong\u003e32 participants\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003e40.6% (13 people) regularly sorting in campus but not necessary consistent outside the campus\u003c/strong\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e40.6% (13 people)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003esort with a frequency that is not always consistent, depending on conditions such as free time or convenience. One stated, \u003cem\u003e\u0026quot;Sometimes I forget and I do not have time to\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ewash the waste\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;other person stated \u0026ldquo;\u003c/strong\u003eOne respondent stated, \u003cem\u003e\u0026quot;I want to reduce waste, but if it\u0026apos;s a hassle and there\u0026apos;s no time, I just throw it away.\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e This aligns with the idea that sorting habits are linked to convenience and accessibility rather than just environmental concern.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Another 3.1% (1 person)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003esort waste rarely, only in certain situations depending on convenience and motivation, such as when the surrounding environment is favourable. Meanwhile, 15.\u003cstrong\u003e6% (5 people) not sorting at all,\u003c/strong\u003e with the main reasons being laziness, hassle, no time, or ignorant. One stated, \u003cem\u003e\u0026quot;I do not think this activity can make a different to solve the environment problem.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnother stated, \u0026ldquo;I\u0026apos;m too lazy to sort and wash the waste.\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e Interestingly\u003cstrong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eno respondents indicating that they always sorting consistently every day and everywhere, perfection in adherence is still lacking. Below is table 2 and picture 2 displaying the participants frequency of waste sorting behaviour.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2: Participants Frequency of Waste Sorting\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"3\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 290px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWaste Sorting Level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 149px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 167px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal Respondents\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 290px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot sorting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 149px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 167px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 290px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRarely sorting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 149px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 167px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 290px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerate or inconsistent sorting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 149px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 167px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 290px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegularly sorting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 149px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 167px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study highlight a significant majority (81%) of respondents reported engaging in waste sorting at some frequency. Their participation levels varied, with only 40.6% sorting regularly on campus but not necessarily all maintaining the habit outside, and 15.6% not sorting at all. Interestingly, no respondents indicating that they sort waste regularly, perfection both in campus and outside campus.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2. Motivation for Doing or Not Doing Waste Segregation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2.1. Motivation for Doing Waste Segregation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study highlight the complexity of waste sorting behaviour among faculty members, influenced by personal attitudes, social norms, and institutional structures or facilities. The data reveals that individuals\u0026rsquo; motivation toward waste sorting behaviour vary because of social influenced, social and environmental awareness, institutional facilities and other personal motivations. Of the 26 individuals who practiced waste sorting, there are several main factors that motivate participants in sorting waste, some individuals have more than one reason, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Social environment influence, including peer behaviour, peer pressure and workplace culture: A dominant factor cited by ten participants was the influence of their social environment in shaping waste sorting practices. This influence manifested through peer pressure, observation of colleagues\u0026rsquo; behaviours, and he presence of a workplace culture that normalized and reinforced waste segregation. Many individuals admitted that they initially began sorting waste not out of personal conviction, but because they felt obligated due to their colleagues\u0026apos; behaviours. Others expressed a sense of pressure or fear of negative judgment if they failed to comply with the collective norm. For many, participation was tied to the desire to maintain harmony, avoid alienation, and affirm their place within the group. The act of sorting waste becomes not only a practice of hygiene or efficiency but a \u003cstrong\u003eperformance of social belonging\u003c/strong\u003e. One participant explained, \u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eI do it because everyone in the department does it. if I don\u0026rsquo;t, it feels awkward.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026quot; From a sociological perspective, this finding underscores how waste sorting operates not merely as a practice of hygiene, efficiency, or ecological concern, but also as a \u003cstrong\u003eperformance of social belonging\u003c/strong\u003e. Workplace culture and peer influence serve as powerful mechanisms of social regulation, where conformity to collective expectations reinforces sustainable practices. In this sense, waste segregation is embedded within a broader system of social relations, where individual actions are shaped as much by the pursuit of social acceptance as by environmental awareness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Personal awareness and pre-existing habits: Seven participants\u0026nbsp;linked their waste sorting practices to personal awareness and internalized environmental values. Their motivations were deeply influenced by prior experiences, including past education, international exposure in countries with strict waste management systems (e.g., Taiwan, Germany, or the UK), or early exposure to sustainability in their family or home environments. They had already developed waste sorting habits, either from school, home or in the country where they previously lived with strict waste management policies. These individuals brought with them a system of embodied dispositions shaped by long term socialization, which made waste sorting a natural and routine practice in their daily lives. One participants reflected, \u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eI did my master degree in the UK, where you\u0026rsquo;re fined if you don\u0026rsquo;t sort your waste. Then it just became part of my life.\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e Such accounts highlight how long-term socialization processes shape embodied dispositions toward sustainability, where practices once enforced by external structures eventually become self-regulated, internalized behaviors. This shows how once practices are stabilized in daily life, they can travel across contexts, carried by individuals who bring their embodied habits into new environments. In this sense, waste sorting is less about one-time individual choices and more about the reproduction of social practices shaped by prior structures, rules, and cultural contexts\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cstrong\u003eFacilities and availability of waste sorting infrastructure: Three participants\u003c/strong\u003e indicated that the presence of adequate facilities, such as clearly labelled bins, visible signage, strongly influenced their waste sorting behavior. They noted that institutional cues, in the form of physical infrastructure and rules, served as reminders of the expected behavior while also reducing the effort required to comply. One participant stated, \u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eIf the bins and signs are there, I\u0026rsquo;ll do it. Otherwise, I just throw it all together.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026quot; This illustrates how the design of the physical environment can either enable or discourage sustainable practices. The provision of accessible facilities functions as a form of institutional scaffolding, guiding individuals toward desired behaviors through environmental design. Furthermore, this finding underscores the importance of institutional responsibility in shaping individual action, as the presence or absence of supportive infrastructure directly impacts the likelihood of consistent waste segregation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. \u0026nbsp; Convenience and efficiency in disposing of waste: A smaller group of \u003cstrong\u003etwo participants\u003c/strong\u003e identified convenience as their main motivation for sorting waste. For them, the practice was primarily associated with practicality and efficiency rather than ecological values. They explained that waste segregation made the process of disposal easier, reduced clutter, minimized unpleasant odors, and decreased the frequency of taking out the trash. One participant summarized this perspective by stating, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;It keeps my workspace clean.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e This indicates that, for some individuals, waste segregation driven by the immediate personal benefits of maintaining order and comfort in their daily routines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5. \u003cstrong\u003eEnvironmental Concern (because of love for animals):\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAlthough a minor finding, \u003cstrong\u003etwo\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eparticipants expressed that their motivation for practicing waste segregation was rooted in environmental concern, particularly stemming from their love for animals. They highlighted that improper waste management can harm animals and ecosystems, and thus, treating waste responsibly was seen as part of showing care and respect for all living beings. Their concern extended beyond personal or institutional benefits, reflecting a moral responsibility to protect animals and ensure that the environment remains a safe habitat for diverse forms of life. This perspective illustrates how emotional attachment to animals can influence pro-environmental behaviour and strengthen personal commitment to sustainability practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6. \u003cstrong\u003eSelf-Satisfaction (Feeling Proud):\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eOne participant expressed that engaging in waste segregation fostered a sense of personal pride and self-satisfaction. Beyond fulfilling institutional expectations, the act of contributing to sustainable practices was perceived as a meaningful personal achievement. The participant emphasized that even small individual actions, such as properly sorting waste, provided a sense of pride in being able to make a positive contribution to the environment and the university community.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7. \u003cstrong\u003eThe need for data and reporting:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eOne participant emphasized the necessity of supporting institutional reporting and performance evaluation through waste segregation data. Holding a leadership position, she expressed a sense of responsibility to set an example for other faculty members to follow. Her primary goal was to generate measurable outcomes in waste segregation that could contribute meaningful data to strengthen the university\u0026rsquo;s performance in the Green Matrix ranking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHere is a table 3 and picture 3 that summarizing the motivations and reasons for engaging in waste segregation, including percentages and respondent quotes:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eMotivation for Waste Sorting Behaviour\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"3\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMotivation/Reason\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNumber of Respondents\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 258px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Influence (Peer Behaviour, Peer Pressure and\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eworkplace culture\u003cstrong\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.46%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 258px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;I don\u0026rsquo;t feel the need, but one of my colleague pressure me to do it, so I follow along.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I see that my surrounding environment practices waste sorting, so I feel uncomfortable if I don\u0026rsquo;t do it too.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAwareness \u0026amp; Habit (from previous experience)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.92%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 258px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I have received a lot of information and education about waste sorting since junior high school, so I\u0026rsquo;ve been aware of this behaviour and become my habit from an early age\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFacilities and availability of Waste Sorting Infrastructure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.54%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 258px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;The bins are easily accessible, that\u0026rsquo;s why I sort my waste.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConvenience and efficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.69%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 258px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I sort waste because when all types of garbage are mixed and left to accumulate, it becomes dirty and difficult to dispose of\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnvironmental Concern because\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAnimal lover\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.69%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 258px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;I believe that sorting waste is a small but meaningful step in preserving our environment.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSelf-Satisfaction (Feeling Proud)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.85%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 258px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The action give me a sense of personal pride and self-satisfaction\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe need for data and report\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.85%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 258px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I engage in waste sorting because, as the head of the department, I want to ensure that the segregated waste is properly recycled and contributes to the University\u0026rsquo;s performance data.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost faculty members acknowledged the importance of waste sorting in promoting environmental sustainability. However, their motivations for engaging in the practice were diverse and layered, ranging from social influence to personal awareness, pragmatic convenience, and institutional obligations. Interestingly, for many respondents, waste sorting did not begin as an internalized ecological commitment but as a socially driven practice that, over time, became normalized into daily routines and habits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most dominant factor was \u003cstrong\u003esocial influence\u003c/strong\u003e, cited by ten participants (38.46%). Peer behavior, workplace culture, and subtle forms of peer pressure strongly shaped waste-sorting practices. Many individuals admitted that they initially participated only because of social expectations, fearing negative judgment or feeling awkward if they did not follow collective norms. As one participant explained, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Initially, I participated in sorting because of the work environment. I was pressured and pushed by one of faculty who had strong principles about waste sorting behaviour. Over time it became a habit and, without realizing it, it became a culture in the campus.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e These accounts illustrate how social belonging and conformity can drive behavior, transforming what begins as peer pressure into a routinized practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA second significant driver was\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;awareness and pre-existing habits,\u003c/strong\u003e reported by seven participants (26.92%). These individuals often had prior exposure to sustainability education or lived in contexts with strict waste management rules, such as schools, family environments, or countries abroad. Waste segregation thus became an embodied routine, ingrained through long-term socialization. For instance, one respondent noted, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I have received a lot of information and education about waste sorting when I was in college.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eAt first it was difficult it and it was troublesome, but after a few weeks you finally got used to it and\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;so now it became habit.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/em\u003e Another recalled how their postgraduate studies in the United Kingdom cultivated waste-sorting habits through regulations, peer influence, and institutional structures such as fines for non-compliance. Similarly, another participant attributed their habit to their studies in Penang, Malaysia, where structured facilities and environmental practices reinforced sorting. These examples demonstrate how personal history, cultural background, and exposure to structured practices abroad shaped sustainable routines that were later carried into the university setting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOther contributing factors were more \u003cstrong\u003esituational and pragmatic\u003c/strong\u003e. Three participants (11.54%) identified the availability of facilities and clear infrastructure, such as labelled bins and signage as their primary motivator. As one explained, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The bins are easily accessible, that\u0026rsquo;s why I sort my waste.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e Similarly, two respondents (7.69%) framed waste sorting as a matter of \u003cstrong\u003econvenience and efficiency\u003c/strong\u003e, emphasizing its role in reducing clutter, odour, and the frequency of waste disposal: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I sort waste because it is more tidy and clean .\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e These findings highlight how environmental design and infrastructural support act as forms of institutional scaffolding that lower the barrier to sustainable behavior. However, several respondents admitted that they only sort waste at the university because of such facilities, while at home or in public spaces they do not engage in the practice due to lack of infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, a small number of participants articulated more \u003cstrong\u003eindividualized motivations\u003c/strong\u003e. Two respondents (7.69%) cited environmental concern rooted in their love for animals, associating waste sorting with a moral responsibility toward all living beings. One participant (3.85%) expressed a sense of self-satisfaction and pride: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The action gives me a sense of personal pride and self-satisfaction.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e Another (3.85%) was motivated by institutional responsibility, citing the need for data to support sustainability performance and rankings\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eThese perspectives illustrate the diversity of meaning attached to the practice, ranging from moral conviction to symbolic pride and institutional accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings reveal how waste-sorting behaviors are shaped by the interplay of \u003cstrong\u003esocio-cultural background, daily routines, material contexts, and institutional policies\u003c/strong\u003e, in line with \u003cstrong\u003eSocial Practice Theory\u003c/strong\u003e. Sorting waste is not merely the outcome of individual choices, but rather emerges from the integration of three elements: materials (facilities, bins, signage), competences (knowledge, prior habits, and environmental awareness), and meanings (social belonging, moral concern, personal pride, and institutional expectations). Social structures and peer behaviors normalize waste sorting as part of workplace culture, while institutional policies and infrastructural cues scaffold and reinforce practices. At the same time, personal histories, such as exposure to strict environmental regulations abroad shape embodied dispositions that persist across contexts. Thus, the practice of waste segregation within the university reflects a dynamic interconnection of social influence, cultural experience, material design, and institutional frameworks, demonstrating how sustainable behavior is cultivated not only through individual conviction but through broader socio-cultural and organizational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2.2. Motivation for Not Doing Waste Segregation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast\u0026nbsp;to those who engaged in waste sorting, six participants reported that they rarely or never participated waste segregation. Their reasons revealed a combination of structural, practical, and perceptual barriers that hinder consistent participation. Here are the main reasons why they did not consistently sort waste were:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Inconvenience, hassle and time constraints: The most commonly cited barrier, mentioned by two participants, was the perception that waste sorting requires extra effort and time. They described the process as inconvenient, particularly when it involved rinsing or cleaning certain types of waste before disposal. For busy faculty members juggling multiple responsibilities, this was seen as an unrealistic expectation. One respondent admitted, \u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eI want to reduce waste, but it\u0026apos;s a hassle and I have no time, so just throw it away without sorting it\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026quot; This illustrates how time scarcity and competing priorities can override pro environmental intentions, making convenience a decisive factor in daily decision making.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Lack of trust in the system: Two participants\u0026nbsp;expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of their efforts, believing that janitorial staff mixed the trash together after collection, thereby nullifying their contribution. One respondent stated bluntly, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eI think the cleaning service mix together all the trash from sorting bin. So I don\u0026rsquo;t think this segregation will make a difference\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp; The other considered the activity \u0026ldquo;useless,\u0026rdquo; arguing that it only contributes minimally to solving environmental problems. This distrust in the waste management system reflects a breakdown in institutional credibility and they did not believe such small-scale actions could make a meaningful difference in addressing larger ecological challenges. Without visible assurance that waste is actually processed separately and make an impact, individuals perceive their effort as futile, leading to disengagement and resignation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Lack of adequate facilities outside the work environment: One admitted that \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eI never sorted waste before because there are no facilities outside the workplace. Even though there are sorting bins in the Department, the lack of consistency across the University makes me feel less motivated to do it.\u003cem\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/em\u003e This demonstrates the dependency of sustainable behavior on environmental design and infrastructure. In spaces where supportive facilities are missing, sorting practices are easily abandoned.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. \u0026nbsp; No Formal Rules and Enforcement: Another barrier identified by participants was the absence of clear institutional rules or enforcement mechanisms. One respondent emphasized, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Since there is no rules, I am not obligated to do so.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e This highlights the role of regulatory structures in shaping behavioral consistency. Without formal policies or sanctions, waste sorting is perceived as optional rather than mandatory, leading to variability in participation. The lack of institutional enforcement diminishes both the sense of accountability and the collective obligation to engage in sustainable practices, leaving the behavior dependent on individual discretion and convenience rather than embedded within organizational culture.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBelow is a table 4 and picture 4 that summarizing the motivations and reasons for not engaging in waste segregation, including percentages and respondent quotes:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4: Motivation for not Doing Waste Sorting Behaviour\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"3\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMotivation/Reason\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNumber of Respondents\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuotes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInconvenience, hassle and time constraints\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.33%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sorting waste feels inconvenient, especially when I\u0026rsquo;m rushing, so I end up discarding it all in one bin.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of trust in the system and skepticism\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.33%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;I do not think this activity can make a difference in solving the environmental problem.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of adequate facilities outside the work environment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.67%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;The bins are easily accessible, that\u0026rsquo;s why I sort my waste.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo Formal Rules and Enforcement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.67%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;When there are clear rules, it feels easier and more natural to follow them, but without rules, the commitment tends to be inconsistent.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings reveal that a notable minority of participants, six in total, admitted to rarely or never practicing waste segregation. Their reasons highlight a set of barriers that are both practical and structural, underscoring how sustainable behavior is often constrained by everyday routines, institutional design, and perceptions of efficacy. Four primary themes emerged: inconvenience and time constraints, lack of trust in the system, inadequate facilities beyond the workplace, and the absence of formal rules or enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most common factors, each reported by 33.33% of respondents, were \u003cstrong\u003einconvenience and time constraints\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas well as \u003cstrong\u003escepticism or lack of trust in the system\u003c/strong\u003e. Several participants expressed that waste sorting requires additional effort and is impractical when they are rushing. As one explained, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sorting waste feels inconvenient, especially when I\u0026rsquo;m rushing, so I end up discarding it all in one bin.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e Others doubted the effectiveness of waste segregation altogether, with one respondent stating, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I do not think this activity can make a difference in solving the environmental problem.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e These responses reveal how both perceived inconvenience and doubts about environmental impact can discourage participation, even among those who acknowledge sustainability as important.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother barrier, mentioned by 16.67% of respondents, was the \u003cstrong\u003elack of adequate facilities outside the work environment and throughout the university\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis indicates that sustainable practices are often context dependent, relying heavily on the presence of supportive material conditions to enable consistent action. Finally, 16.67% of participants emphasized the \u003cstrong\u003eabsence of formal rules or enforcement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas a limiting factor. One respondent reflected, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;When there are clear rules, it feels easier and more natural to follow them, but without rules, the commitment tends to be inconsistent.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e This highlights the role of institutional policies and governance structures in shaping waste management practices. Without regulatory scaffolding or clear accountability, waste segregation is treated as a voluntary act rather than an organizational norm, resulting in uneven engagement across individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.3. \u0026nbsp;Strategies and Solutions in Imposing Waste Segregation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address these challenges, respondents suggested several strategies and practical solutions to improve participation in waste segregation, emphasizing that education, accessibility, and reinforcement are key to overcoming existing challenges. Many highlighted the need for \u003cstrong\u003eincreased education and transparency\u003c/strong\u003e, noting that clear communication about what happens to waste after it is sorted would strengthen trust in the system. While posters, emails, and digital signage were considered useful, respondents emphasized that these reminders alone had limited impact unless reinforced by direct engagement, such as during staff or faculty meetings. They recommended the use of simple infographics placed near bins to guide proper disposal and interactive awareness sessions where faculty and staff could witness the full waste management cycle, making the process more tangible and credible. By showing how sorted waste is processed and recycled, institutions can assure participants that their efforts are meaningful and not wasted.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEqually important was the call to \u003cstrong\u003eimprove accessibility and convenience\u003c/strong\u003e, as respondents believed that waste segregation must be seamlessly integrated into daily routines. They suggested placing segregated bins in high-traffic areas such as workspaces, canteens, and parking lots to minimize effort and time constraints. Color coded bin lids could allow for quicker identification, while the addition of small washing stations near disposal points would make it easier for individuals to clean recyclable materials before sorting. These infrastructural adjustments would remove practical barriers, reduce perceptions of inconvenience, and encourage more consistent participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, participants emphasized the role of \u003cstrong\u003eincentives, rewards, and reinforcement\u003c/strong\u003e in maintaining motivation and cultivating a culture of sustainability. Recognition programs that acknowledge individuals or departments with strong commitment to waste sorting through certificates, recycled products, or public appreciation were suggested as effective ways to reinforce positive behaviour. Some also recommended fostering peer accountability through a \u0026ldquo;buddy system,\u0026rdquo; where colleagues remind and encourage one another to sort waste properly, thus embedding the practice within everyday social interactions. Taken together, these strategies highlight that effective waste segregation requires not only individual awareness, but also supportive infrastructures, institutional reinforcement, and a culture of shared responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research highlights that waste sorting behaviour is not merely an individual choice but a socially embedded practice shaped by socio-cultural values, social interactions, and institutional frameworks. From a \u003cstrong\u003esocio-cultural perspective\u003c/strong\u003e, individuals\u0026rsquo; engagement with waste management is strongly influenced by cultural norms, shared beliefs, and generational exposure to sustainability education. As Berger and Luckmann (1966) suggest, reality is socially constructed, and in the context of waste management, cultural understandings of responsibility, cleanliness, and collective action directly inform behavioural choices. These findings emphasize that waste sorting in Indonesia cannot be separated from the broader cultural and social context in which individuals live and work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, \u003cstrong\u003eSocial Practice Theory (SPT)\u003c/strong\u003e provides insight into how waste sorting becomes a routine, habitual action sustained through material infrastructures, competencies, and shared meanings (Shove et al., 2012). In this study, waste sorting was shown to thrive in environments where facilities such as labelled bins were available and where peers modelled the practice, allowing it to be embedded seamlessly into daily routines. Conversely, when infrastructures were absent or inconvenient, participants often defaulted to unsorted disposal, showing how material and structural barriers can undermine sustainable intentions. Peer pressure and workplace culture further demonstrate that social reinforcement is critical in normalizing waste sorting, supporting the idea that practices are carried by collectives rather than individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, \u003cstrong\u003eInstitutional Theory\u003c/strong\u003e underscores the central role of formal structures, policies, and enforcement in sustaining waste sorting behaviours. Universities and workplaces act as institutional settings that provide legitimacy, resources, and guidelines for sustainable practices. Where institutions implemented clear policies, waste sorting was perceived as easier, more natural, and more consistent. However, gaps in enforcement or lack of system wide consistency often weakened participants\u0026rsquo; motivation, with some expressing scepticism about the effectiveness of their efforts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn light of these findings, it becomes clear that waste segregation initiatives must go beyond merely providing facilities or appealing to individual responsibility. Instead, they must engage with the deeper social and cultural meanings attached to environmental practices, while simultaneously reshaping daily routines and institutional expectations. Unlike in highly individualistic societies, Indonesian culture emphasizes \u003cem\u003egotong royong\u003c/em\u003e, mutual cooperation and collective responsibility, which can serve as strong cultural foundations for sustainability programs. Policies that integrate education, awareness campaigns, and cultural values into institutional frameworks can foster a sense of ownership and collective accountability. Moreover, embedding waste sorting within the rhythms of everyday academic and professional life through visible infrastructure, peer modelling, and routine reinforcement ensures that it transitions from being a conscious decision to an ingrained practice. This perspective highlights that effective waste management is not simply about behaviour change but about cultivating and sustaining socially shared practices within supportive environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUniversities in Indonesia, as influential educational institutions, play a particularly critical role in this cultural negotiation. By aligning institutional policies with both global sustainability standards and local cultural values, they can create a supportive ecosystem where waste sorting is not seen as an external obligation but as an extension of cultural identity and collective responsibility. For example, connecting waste sorting to \u003cem\u003egotong royong\u003c/em\u003e and moral responsibility rooted in religious and ethical values may increase acceptance and compliance. When reinforced by practical infrastructures, peer influence, and consistent institutional support, waste sorting can move from being a foreign or imposed behaviour into a normalized practice deeply embedded in Indonesian academic and social life. This research thus underscores the need for culturally grounded, socially embedded, and institutionally supported strategies that recognize Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s unique social fabric while advancing sustainability agendas.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research was conducted without external financial support from public, commercial, or non-profit funding agencies. The study was carried out as part of the author\u0026rsquo;s independent academic research and routine scholarly activities within the institutional framework. All stages of the research process, including conceptual development, data collection, analysis, interpretation of findings, and manuscript preparation were undertaken without the influence of any funding body. The absence of external funding ensured full academic independence and minimized potential financial bias in the research design, analytical approach, and conclusions presented in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eY.K.S.T. conceptualized the study, conducted the literature review, designed the methodology, collected and analyzed the data, wrote the main manuscript text, and prepared all figures. T.K. and T.B. critically reviewed the manuscript and provided substantial intellectual input, particularly in strengthening the literature framework, refining the methodological approach, and deepening the discussion. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe materials supporting the findings of this study have been made available to ensure transparency. The shared materials include the complete research datasets, survey instruments, raw survey responses, and comprehensive research protocols. These protocols consist of full documentation of the questionnaires, interview guides, data collection procedures, and coding schemes used during data analysis. Due to ethical and confidentiality considerations, certain materials cannot be publicly shared. Specifically, the raw field notes from observations are not made available, as they contain sensitive information that could compromise participant anonymity and confidentiality. All publicly accessible materials can be accessed through the following repository link:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gc8PL2hyHgTJWsEfgKINgbVfejdf96bG/edit?usp=sharing\u0026amp;ouid=105174377325133806737\u0026amp;rtpof=true\u0026amp;sd=true\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gc8PL2hyHgTJWsEfgKINgbVfejdf96bG/edit?usp=sharing\u0026amp;ouid=105174377325133806737\u0026amp;rtpof=true\u0026amp;sd=true\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAjzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50\u003c/em\u003e(2), 179-211.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A UK case study of household waste management. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment and Behavior, 39\u003c/em\u003e(4), 435-473.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerger, P. L., \u0026amp; Luckmann, T. (1966). \u003cem\u003eThe social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge.\u003c/em\u003e Penguin Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBowen, J. R. (1986). On the political construction of tradition: Gotong royong in Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Asian Studies, 45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 545\u0026ndash;561.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiMaggio, P. J., \u0026amp; Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Sociological Review, 48\u003c/em\u003e(2), 147-160.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, M. F., \u0026amp; Tung, P. J. (2010). The moderating effect of perceived lack of facilities on consumers\u0026rsquo; recycling intentions. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment and Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(6), 824-844.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W., \u0026amp; Poth, C. N. (2018). \u003cem\u003eQualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches\u003c/em\u003e. Sage publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEllen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). \u003cem\u003eThe new plastics economy: Rethinking the future of plastics \u0026amp; catalyzing action\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvans, D. (2011). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. \u003cem\u003eSociology, 46\u003c/em\u003e(1), 41-56.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeels, F. W., McMeekin, A., Mylan, J., \u0026amp; Southerton, D. (2015). A sociotechnical analysis of plastic waste management in the UK: An interdisciplinary approach. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production, 114\u003c/em\u003e, 27-36.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., \u0026amp; Suddaby, R. (2017). \u003cem\u003eThe SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism.\u003c/em\u003e SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHammersley, M., \u0026amp; Atkinson, P. (2019). \u003cem\u003eEthnography: Principles in practice\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHargreaves, T. (2011). Practice-ing behavior change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behavior change. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Consumer Culture, 11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 79-99.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuang, Y., Wang, C., \u0026amp; Wang, C. (2021). Exploring the impact of cultural factors on waste sorting behavior: A cross-regional study in China. \u003cem\u003eWaste Management \u0026amp; Research, 39\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1021-1033.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLozano, R. (2010). Diffusion of sustainable development in universities\u0026rsquo; curricula: An empirical example from Cardiff University. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production, 18\u003c/em\u003e(7), 637-644.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoqsud, M. A., Rahman, M. A., Mahmud, K., \u0026amp; Alam, M. A. (2020). A comprehensive review of solid waste management in developing countries: Current practices and future directions. \u003cem\u003eWaste Management \u0026amp; Research, 38\u003c/em\u003e(7), 687-707.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMulder, N. (1998). \u003cem\u003eInside Indonesian Society: Cultural Change in Java\u003c/em\u003e. Amsterdam: The Pepin Press. (discusses harmony, conformity, and collectivism).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, H. T., Zhu, N., \u0026amp; Le, T. P. (2021). Households\u0026rsquo; willingness to separate waste: A case study in Vietnam. \u003cem\u003eWaste Management, 126\u003c/em\u003e, 467-476.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOke, T. R., Mills, G., Christen, A., \u0026amp; Voogt, J. A. (2017). \u003cem\u003eUrban climates\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge university press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Social Theory, 5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 243-263.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchultz, P. W., Bator, R. J., Large, L. B., Bruni, C. M., \u0026amp; Tabanico, J. J. (2018). Littering in context: Personal and environmental predictors of littering behavior. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment and Behavior, 45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 35-59.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScott, W. R. (2014). \u003cem\u003eInstitutions and organizations.\u003c/em\u003e SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShove, E., Pantzar, M., \u0026amp; Watson, M. (2012). \u003cem\u003eThe dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes.\u003c/em\u003e SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpradley, J. P. (2016). \u003cem\u003eParticipant observation\u003c/em\u003e. Waveland Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteg, L., \u0026amp; Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. \u003cem\u003eJournal of environmental psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(3), 309-317.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (2020). \u003cem\u003eWaste management during the COVID-19 pandemic: From response to recovery\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhite, K., Habib, R., \u0026amp; Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing, 83\u003c/em\u003e(3), 22-49.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson, D. C., Velis, C., \u0026amp; Cheeseman, C. (2015). Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in developing countries. \u003cem\u003eHabitat International, 30\u003c/em\u003e(4), 797-808.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, D., Keat, T. S., \u0026amp; Gersberg, R. M. (2019). A comparison of municipal solid waste management in developed and developing countries. \u003cem\u003eWaste Management \u0026amp; Research, 37\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1197-1214.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":" \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eParticipants\u0026rsquo; Waste Sorting Behaviour\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eSorting Waste Participation\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eTotal Respondents\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eSorting waste (vary in frequency)\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e81%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e26\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eRarely or never sort waste\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e19%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e6\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cbr/\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eParticipants Frequency of Waste Sorting\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eWaste Sorting Level\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eTotal Respondents\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eNot sorting\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e15.6%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e5\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eRarely sorting\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e3.1%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e1\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eModerate or inconsistent sorting\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e40.6%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e13\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eRegularly sorting\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e40.6%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e13\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cbr/\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eMotivation for Waste Sorting Behaviour\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eMotivation/Reason\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eNumber of Respondents\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eQuotes\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eSocial Influence (Peer Behaviour, Peer Pressure and workplace culture)\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e10\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e38.46%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e\"I don\u0026rsquo;t feel the need, but one of my colleague pressure me to do it, so I follow along.\"\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e\u0026ldquo;I see that my surrounding environment practices waste sorting, so I feel uncomfortable if I don\u0026rsquo;t do it too.\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eAwareness \u0026amp; Habit (from previous experience)\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e7\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e26.92%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e\u0026ldquo;I have received a lot of information and education about waste sorting since junior high school, so I\u0026rsquo;ve been aware of this behaviour and become my habit from an early age\u0026rdquo;\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eFacilities and availability of Waste Sorting Infrastructure\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e3\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e11.54%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e\"The bins are easily accessible, that\u0026rsquo;s why I sort my waste.\"\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eConvenience and efficiency\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e2\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e7.69%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e\u0026ldquo;I sort waste because when all types of garbage are mixed and left to accumulate, it becomes dirty and difficult to dispose of\u0026rdquo;\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eEnvironmental Concern because Animal lover\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e2\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e7.69%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e\"I believe that sorting waste is a small but meaningful step in preserving our environment.\"\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eSelf-Satisfaction (Feeling Proud)\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e1\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e3.85%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e\u0026ldquo;The action give me a sense of personal pride and self-satisfaction\u0026rdquo;\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eThe need for data and report\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e1\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e3.85%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e\u0026ldquo;I engage in waste sorting because, as the head of the department, I want to ensure that the segregated waste is properly recycled and contributes to the University\u0026rsquo;s performance data.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cbr/\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eMotivation for not Doing Waste Sorting Behaviour\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eMotivation/Reason\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eNumber of Respondents\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eQuotes\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eInconvenience, hassle and time constraints\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e2\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e33.33%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sorting waste feels inconvenient, especially when I\u0026rsquo;m rushing, so I end up discarding it all in one bin.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eLack of trust in the system and skepticism\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e2\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e33.33%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e\"I do not think this activity can make a difference in solving the environmental problem.\"\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eLack of adequate facilities outside the work environment\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e1\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e16.67%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e\"The bins are easily accessible, that\u0026rsquo;s why I sort my waste.\"\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003eNo Formal Rules and Enforcement\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e1\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e16.67%\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"SimplePara\"\u003e\u0026ldquo;When there are clear rules, it feels easier and more natural to follow them, but without rules, the commitment tends to be inconsistent.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cbr/\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Waste Management, Social Practice Theory, Institutional Theory, Socio-Cultural Influences, Waste Sorting Behaviour","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8499309/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8499309/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe rapid growth of waste generation has become one of the most pressing environmental challenges of the 21st century, particularly in developing countries like Indonesia where waste management systems struggle to keep pace with urbanization, consumerism, and population growth. Indonesia is the second-largest contributor of plastic waste in the oceans right now, and poor waste sorting at the source is still a major problem in reaching national sustainability targets. There has been a lot of talk about technical and infrastructural fixes, but not much is known about how socio-cultural values, daily habits, and institutional frameworks affect how people sort their trash in Indonesia. This creates a significant gap in the discourse on waste management, which often overlooks the role of culture and social interaction in sustaining environmental practices. This research addresses that gap by examining waste sorting behaviour in a university setting in Surabaya, Indonesia, through the lens of sociology. By integrating Social Practice Theory and Institutional Theory, the study provides a novel analytical framework for understanding how waste sorting is not merely an individual choice but a socially embedded practice influenced by cultural values, peer influence, and organizational norms. Using a year-long ethnographic observation and semi structured interviews with faculty and staff, the study uncovers the ways in which Indonesian collectivist culture, workplace routines, and institutional support or lack thereof shape both engagement and disengagement in waste segregation. The findings indicate that socio-cultural belonging, peer conformity, institutional legitimacy, and consistency are essential for the maintenance of waste sorting behaviors, whereas infrastructural deficiencies and inadequate enforcement hinder progress. This research contextualizes waste management within Indonesia's distinctive socio-cultural framework, thereby enhancing sociological understandings of environmental practices and offering practical recommendations for policymakers, academic institutions, and organizations aiming to promote sustainable waste management.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Sociological Perspectives on Waste Management: Socio-Cultural, Social Practice and Institutional Factors on Waste Sorting Behaviour in Indonesia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-24 09:48:55","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8499309/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-07T07:32:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"161294625714568790879018233975564755276","date":"2026-02-24T04:03:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"168176118667861639511028424241582916933","date":"2026-02-23T10:26:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-20T03:47:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-14T12:59:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-06T22:25:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-30T12:46:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2026-01-30T11:05:32+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"678d8a0e-376a-4506-8869-f10c90a6e459","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 24th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":63369562,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences"},{"id":63369563,"name":"Social science/Environmental studies"},{"id":63369564,"name":"Scientific community and society/Geography"},{"id":63369565,"name":"Social science/Geography"},{"id":63369566,"name":"Social science/Sociology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-24T09:48:55+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-24 09:48:55","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8499309","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8499309","identity":"rs-8499309","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}