Keywords

1 Introduction

Electronic waste (e-waste) or a waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) has become a significant concern in the modern world. Previous studies reported that every year, 73 million tons of e-waste is accumulated around the world in 2017 (Ni et al. 2010). The rapid annual increase of e-waste is due to the fast-technological growths, rapid changes in information and communication skills, and economic growth. Consequently, e-waste is becoming a significant constituent of the day-to-day life, increasing the versatility of most electronic devices, and the descending trend in charges (Umair et al. 2015; Ylä-Mella et al. 2015; Yoshida et al. 2016). E-waste is the fastest growing waste on the planet, with an annual growth rate of 3–4%. It is estimated to reach 52.2 million tons per annum by 2021. At present, only 15% of e-waste is recycled. One of the most significant constituents of e-waste is plastics, accounting for almost 20% of it. Despite several technological developments, e-waste recycling is hindered mainly due to the presence of flammable retardants (Kumar et al. 2018). Special attention must be paid when dealing with e-waste because of the toxic materials it contains. If treated improperly, the disposal of e-waste can impose severe environmental and human health challenges. Environmental regulatory agencies (e.g., electronic equipment manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers), environmental nongovernmental organizations, and several related entities are interested in up-to-date statistics about how much e-waste is generated, stored, recycled, and disposed of. In developed countries, the extended producer responsibility (EPR) policy is introduced to reduce the number of electronic products and promote resource recovery from e-waste (Cao et al. 2016).

The management of e-waste has become a significant issue of concern for stable waste communities due to the high volumes of waste being generated and the potential environmental impacts associated with the toxic chemicals found in most electronic devices. As managing e-waste becomes a priority, countries are being forced to develop worldwide, new, environmentally friendly methods of e-waste collection and disposal. There are over 41.8 million tons of e-waste generated all over the world (Baldé et al. 2014). The tremendous amount of waste that was produced and the demands of managing it are the unforeseen dimensions in the ecosystem of continuous production and consumption of current society. The high toxicity of the component materials in WEEE, especially when burned or recycled in an uncontrolled manner, may lead to several socioeconomic problems. Lack of proper waste management leads to a risk for both human health and the environment (Gallardo et al. 2016). To contribute to an efficient waste management system, the design and implementation of new tools are needed to allow users to reduce the amount of e-waste generated and improve e-waste management practices considering that e-waste became obsolete within a short period, creating a large surplus of unwanted electronic gadgets. Concerns arise not just from the large volume of e-waste imported worldwide but also with the full range of toxic chemicals associated with this e-waste. Grant (insert year) and others summarized tabulated data for typical e-waste components, sources, and routes of exposure (Grant et al. 2013). For example, the average 14-inch monitor uses a tube that contains an estimated 2.5–4 kg of lead. The lead can seep into the groundwater from landfills, thereby contaminating it. If the tube is crushed and burned, it emits toxic fumes into the air. The hazardous content of these materials poses serious environmental and health threats. The second concern is that the lifespan of many electronic goods has been substantially shortened due to advancements in electronics, attractive consumer designs, and marketing and compatibility issues. For example, the average lifespan of a new computer has decreased from 4.5 years in 1992 to an estimated 2 years in 2005 and is further decreasing (Widmer et al. 2005).

Nowadays, universities can be considered as small cities, as they have several campuses and buildings where technological innovation is used to facilitate knowledge transmission among its students. Tools such as computers, iPad, mobile phones, and batteries have an influence on the daily activity of most, if not all, of its students, faculty, and staff. Furthermore, when they are terminated, they generate several direct and indirect impacts on the in-campus environment and sustainable development. For this reason, universities should commit to their sustainable institutional responsibility (Zanzi et al. 2001). In any case, these impacts could be minimized by spreading awareness among students as well as by promoting appropriate technical and organizational measures (Zhang et al. 2011).

For this reason, many universities have conducted studies to implement measures to reduce the impact generated in their facilities. One of these measures is environmentally friendly waste management. The design of university e-waste management systems (UEWMS) in the industrialized countries was started 20 years ago, and there are both voluntary as well as institutional programs (De Vega et al. 2008). Some of the initiatives implemented to recycle and reduce e-waste have been very successful. In the USA, recycling programs are one of the most popular measures, where 80% of schools and universities have institutional programs (Feng et al. 1999). Currently, many U.S. universities have extensive recycling and waste reduction programs, some of them with over a decade old (Gallardo et al. 2016). Besides, the implementation of waste reduction and recycling strategies in colleges and universities is mandatory in the USA (Lounsbury 2001).

2 Significance of the Study

This paper reports on the findings of a survey conducted on students in a federal higher education institution in the UAE, which may help in designing customized awareness programmers for addressing e-waste more effectively. The study aims to explore students’ willingness and involvement in environmental sustainability programs with a particular focus on their e-waste management awareness and respective practice.

3 Methodology

This paper is part of a large-scale study on exploring the involvement of members of federal higher education institutions in the UAE in environmental sustainability, focusing on their electronic waste management awareness and respective practice. For this purpose, a questionnaire was developed through the Select Survey and sent electronically to 562 potential undergraduate students. Three hundred eight responses were received from the targeted undergraduate students. Participants’ profile is provided in Tables 1, 2 and 3 according to gender, age and major.

Table 1 Participants’ profile—gender
Full size table
Table 2 Participants’ profile—age
Full size table
Table 3 Participants’ profile—major
Full size table

Before data collection and tool distribution, the questionnaire was piloted with five participants to ensure clarity of questions and allow modification to increase accuracy and meet the study focus and purpose. The final questionnaire incorporated three main parts; the first focused on the factual data of the participants (e.g., age, gender, and major); the second identified participants’ e-waste disposal methods; the third explored their awareness of, and perception toward; applying e-management techniques.

4 Results

4.1 Annual Electronic Gadget Expenditures

This section asked questions about the amount of money typical undergraduate students spend annually. As shown in Fig. 1, almost half of the students (43%) annually spend between AED 1000 and AED 5000, and less than one-third (29%) of the students responded that their annual average expenditures of electronic devices range between AED 500 and less than AED 1000. Only 15% spend less than AED 500. What is striking in Fig. 1 is that approximately 13% of the surveyed students spend at least AED 5000 a year for electronic purchases and particularly around 3% of the 13% even spend AED 10000 and more. In addition, students commented that earphones, batteries, and mobile phones are the most purchased gadgets.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Annual electronic devices expenditure by the students

Full size image

The options in the figure should be: Less than AED 500; AED 500 to less than 1000; AED 1000 to less than 5000, AED 5000 to less than 10,000, 10,000 or more.

4.2 Students’ Awareness About Sustainable Development

Investigating students’ preliminary awareness on e-waste management may give some perspective into the extent to which a university and its students are involved in sustainable practices. Therefore, students’ knowledge about e-waste definition and its effects on the environment was explored. Consequently, results can be grouped into three main categories; zero or minimum knowledge (26%), moderate knowledge (57%), and advanced knowledge (15%) of e-waste management and its environmental effects. First, approximately 12% of the surveyed students indicated that they know nothing and a slightly higher percentage (14%) indicated that they do not know much (see Fig. 2). Second, one-third (31%) of the students believed they know some, and almost the same percentage (28%) expressed more than common knowledge. This means that together, nearly 57% of the respondents do have some knowledge of e-waste. In other words, approximately four out of every seven students are knowledgeable of e-waste and its effects on the environment. Finally, 14% and 1% indicated that they have a great deal of knowledge or they are even experts, respectively. Moreover, students acknowledged the resources from where they became familiar with e-waste management and its environmental effects, included their first-year general education courses; Introduction to Information Technology and English Composition I course.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Students’ awareness about e-waste definition and its environmental impact

Full size image

Figures 3 and 4 depict surveyed students’ decisions toward their unwanted electronic gadgets. Students were asked to choose whether they would repair, donate to a secondhand user, sell to a secondhand user, sell to a scrap dealer, or put with other household electronic devices, i.e., mobile phones, laptops, tablets, earphones/headphones, MP3/MP4 players/iPods, speakers, printers/scanners, or batteries. All the practices are considered as sustainable except for the fifth one.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Students’ practices against unwanted mobile phones, laptops, and tablets

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Students’ practices upon unwanted or old earphones/headphones, MP3/MP4 Players or iPods, speakers, printers/scanners, and batteries

Full size image

As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, most of the surveyed students proved to be relatively sustainable when it comes to disposing of mobile phones, laptops, and tablets. As Fig. 3 shows 34–38% of the students repair their aforementioned electronic gadgets, between 20 and 21.5% donate them to a secondhand user, 14–16% sell them to a secondhand user, and 9–11% sell them to scrap dealers. Results in this portion of the survey are promising, and they show a real, sustainable practice toward disposing of unwanted mobile phones, laptops, and tablets. However, between 6 and 9% of the students put their unwanted mobile phones, laptops, and tablets with other household trash (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Factors affecting students’ decisions to repair unwanted devices Discussion

Full size image

Figure 4 shows surveyed students’ practices concerning unwanted earphones/headphones, MP3/MP4 players/iPods, speakers, printers/scanners, and batteries. A common trend is observed for these five electronic gadgets when students chose between the same five practices above of disposal in Fig. 3. A significant finding in this portion of the survey is that.

The relatively high percentage of the students deal with these devices unsustainably. Specifically, they leave such unwanted electronic gadgets with other household devices; earphones and batteries recorded 50% of the students followed by speakers (28%) and finally by MP3/MP4 players/iPods and speakers (19.5% and 18%, respectively). Other practices showed various percentages; 15% to 30% of the surveyed students repair such unwanted gadgets, 12% to 24% donate them to a secondhand user, 6% to 12% sell them to a secondhand user, and 5% to 10% sell them to scrap dealers.

In order to understand the rationale affecting students’ decisions to repair unwanted devices, students had to choose between seven factors as follows; price of repair compared to the price of replacement; privacy reasons; warranty of the product; availability of spare parts; knowledge of needed skills to repair; emotional attachment to the product; or needing to disassemble the products. Recorded results from highest to lowest frequency of responses are as follows: 64% of the students voted for the price of repairing compared to the price of replacing; 40% voted for privacy reasons; 38% voted for warranty of the product; 29% equally voted for emotional attachment to the product and knowledge of skills need to repair while only 12% voted for lack of skills needed to disassemble the product.

5 Discussion

The surveyed undergraduate students were randomly invited to participate in this case study as evident from their age groups as well as studying majors. Figure 1 indicates that government undergraduate students assign a relatively significant amount of annual budget only for purchasing new electronic gadgets. This may be attributed to the various continually evolving advancements in electronics and attractive consumer designs, which shorten the lifespan of old electronic devices. Since every upgrade of an electronic device is a downgrade of an old one, a bulk surplus of unwanted electronic devices, or “e-waste”, is continuously created which imposes severe environmental crisis and raises an urgent need for individuals’ awareness toward its harmful effects.

The highest category in Fig. 2, which displayed students’ awareness about e-waste definition and its environmental impact, is the second one, where over half of the students (57%) indicated they have a moderate knowledge of e-waste and its impact on the environment. These results are in-line with another study by a Saudi research group (Abubakar et al. 2016). This means that a large proportion of students are aware of the negative e-waste impact on the environment and, therefore, are expected to reveal some knowledge and curiosity about environmentally friendly methods of e-waste management and disposal. Nevertheless, it should be noted that students’ theoretical knowledge should also be supported with frequent e-waste management practices, for example, experiencing the availability of visible in-campus electronic, plastic, paper, and other substantial waste disposal container. This highlights the vital role of the university’s e-waste management system to support resolving the current unsustainable practice by embedding green environmental tools into their campuses. Moreover, the emerged statistics suggest a pressing need to adopt the current curricula of the bachelor degrees offered by federal and nonfederal higher education institutions to focus more on sustainability and e-waste disposal methods. This can, possibly, be achieved by allowing students to take elective classes on sustainability, inviting guest lecturers to deliver sessions on sustainability and e-waste related topics, fostering the link between the natural and the social sciences, and providing planned and systematic sustainability education to educators (Utama et al. 2018).

Depending on the technology of fabrication and the choice of the provider, mobile phones contain between 500 and 1000 components; many of which are toxic and hazardous if inappropriately disposed of (Nnorom et al. 2009). Mostly, a typical mobile phone is composed of a keyboard, a battery, a screen (a liquid crystal display LCD), and a printed wiring board (PWB). The two dominant types of batteries in use today in mobile phones are nickel–metal hydride batteries (NIMH) and lithium-ion batteries (Li-ion); both of which contain flammable, toxic chemicals. Similar compositions of mobile phones are tablets and laptops. Survey results revealed that personal electronic devices, such as mobile phones, laptops, and tablets, are more likely to be repaired (36%) than be put with other household devices (7.5%). Since photos, social media accounts, bank accounts, and other private data may be saved on such devices, and users might be reluctant not only to sell or denote them to secondhand users but also to put them with other household devices. This is attributed to the confidentiality which these devices hold especially that many customers doubt that such data can be permanently deleted from their devices (Karlson et al. 2009).

On the other hand, other gadgets, such as the ones in Fig. 4; earphones/headphones, MP3/MP4 Players or iPods, speakers, printers/scanners, and batteries; are less personal and are more classified into electronic accessories. Results show that such devices are often disposed of in an unsustainable manner. About 50% of the unwanted batteries, earphones, and headphones are disposed of with other household trash. This high percentage, which is 50% of the total respondents, is quite elevated if it is generalized to the public. According to a recycling center in Singapore, such devices include harmful substances such as mercury, cadmium, and lead that can leach from landfills and contaminate groundwater (Terazono et al. 2006).

The majority of respondents articulated that they would exchange their old devices for newer ones every time they wanted to upgrade. This was especially true in the case of mobile phones. The components of mobile phones and computers are so costly that customers prefer to buy new products; for example, the cost of a battery for mobile phones and laptops, and the cost of print cartridges in case of printers. After that, customers do not consider buying a component, but to replace it with a new product.

6 Conclusions and Suggestions

This study aimed to assess students’ perceptions and involvement in e-waste management and sustainability system in a federal institution in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The noteworthy finding is that while there are great concerns and substantial knowledge about environmental sustainability among the respondents, survey results showed lack of motivation and willingness to effectively and responsibly engage in initiatives toward achieving sustainability. Suggested recommendations for further in-campus sustainable hands-on practices could be the following: first, Emarati universities may ensure the visibility of in-campus suitable facilities to students such as electronic, plastic, paper, and other reliable waste disposal centers. Second, institutions may arrange for in-campus donation for unwanted electronic devices to charities, which can involve the students and demonstrate to them sustainable methods of e-waste disposal. Third, UAE universities’ curriculum should be restructured implementing innovation of sustainable cities throughout end-of-courses’ projects and field trips to well established sustainable sites such as Abu Dhabi Clean Energy Company (MASDAR). Finally, at the Ministry of Education level, set unified standards and policies should be established, applied, and followed by all UAE universities. In conclusion, while this study showcases only preliminary e-waste management and reveals the level of awareness of students in one federal university in the UAE, it can still be considered as a first stepping-stone along a path for further sustainable environmental development. Further research is needed on related topics such as investing innovative teaching on improving students’ sustainable practices and empowering the role of faculty and staff in delivering active advising strategies in extending sustainability companions among Emarati students.