Fostering Environmental Awareness: The Effects of Single-Use Plastic Programme (PKPSG) among Secondary School Students

Fostering Environmental Awareness: The Effects of Single-Use Plastic Programme (PKPSG) among Secondary School Students

Hanifah, M¹, Nasir, N², Yazid, S³, Mohammad Azri, A.⁴, N. Khotimah⁵, Nurul Syaidatul Nena, S⁶

^1,2,3,4,6Department of Geography and Environment, Faculty of Human Science, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35900 Tanjong Malim, Malaysia.

⁵Department of Geography Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Kampus Karangmalang, 55281 Yogyakarta, Indonesia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000153

Received: 27 May 2025; Accepted: 03 June 2025; Published: 04 July 2025

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to study the impact of single-use plastic awareness programme on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of lower form students in two schools in Perak. The study used a quantitative approach with a quasi-experimental design and questionnaires, involving 200 students (100 control group, 100 treatment group). Descriptive and inferential analysis (one-way ANOVA, t-test) were used. Before the SUPAP, both groups showed high levels of knowledge (M=3.84, SP=0.42) and attitude (M=4.19, SP=0.42), while practice (M=3.29, SP=0.61) was moderate. Pre-ANOVA showed no significant difference in knowledge (F=1.03, p>0.31), but significant differences in attitude (F=6.01, p<0.02) and practice (F=7.79, p<0.01). After PKPSG, there were significant differences in knowledge (F=71.77, p<0.00), attitude (F=9.68, p<0.002), and practice (F=5.78, p<0.02). Pre-tests showed no significant differences in knowledge (t=1.01, p>0.31), but there were differences in attitude (t=2.45, p<0.02) and practice (t=2.80, p<0.01). Post-tests showed significant differences in knowledge (t=-4.22, p<0.00), attitude (t=-4.22, p<0.00), and practice (t=-2.40, p<0.02). In conclusion, students have good knowledge but lack exposure to the importance of reducing single-use plastics. The study suggests that aspects of knowledge, attitude and practice be strengthened through schools, communities, and NGO programmes.

Keywords: Awareness programmes, single-use plastic, knowledge, attitude, practise

INTRODUCTION

Plastic bags have become a necessity in human life because it has various functions to meet the needs of society. The latest technology produces many disposable plastic bags with numerous variations of designs, sizes, colours, and even patterns that can attract consumers. Along with this, the use of plastic has become a part of their lifestyle as they think it is beneficial for them. This action has raised concern among the activists as it is widely used within the communities. According to the World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) report (2020), Malaysia was recorded as one of the countries that uses the most plastic, comprising 16.78 kilograms of plastic per day compared to other ASEAN countries in 2019. In addition, nine million plastic materials as solid waste after their usage in Nigeria (Chukwu., 2018).

The lightweight characteristic makes it easy to be carried by the wind and easily blown into the ocean, which will indirectly affect marine life. According to Wilcox et al. (2018), 52 percent of the world’s turtles have mistakenly eaten plastic waste. It is because it looks like a source of food for turtles. Apart from that, plastic-based nets and ropes are also a threat to marine life because they can become entangled. According to the World-Wide Fund for Nature, marine life that accidentally gets caught in gillnets will suffocate, starve, or become exhausted and die slowly.

Plastics consist of polymer chains that take hundreds to thousands of years to decompose (Geyer et al. 2017). Therefore, plastics potentially destroy food sources and threaten marine life species, posing a danger to humans. There are various government efforts to move towards zero single-use plastic use so that the environment in Malaysia is cleaner and healthier by 2030 by developing the Malaysia Action Plan Towards Zero Single-Use Plastics 2018-2030: Towards a Sustainable Future (Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology, Environment & Climate Change (MESTECC) Malaysia, 2018). Therefore, the government has taken steps to expand the No Plastic Bag Campaign, which is currently implemented in all permanent premises to all business premises starting from 2022 (Sinar Harian, 2023). The campaign is implemented in phases as an action plan so that it is more effective and the people better understand the purposes of the campaign.

The Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology, Environment & Climate Change (MESTECC) of Malaysia through the Green Foundation of Malaysia has collaborated with the Ministry of Education of Malaysia to hold a series of awareness talks on avoiding single-use plastics as an effort to foster a love of the environment at the school level (MESTECC Malaysia, 2019). The Department of Environment (DOE) has also collaborated with the Ministry of Education to encourage schools in the country to use biodegradable products to replace single-use plastic straws and plates (Berita Harian, 2019). The educational institutions are the best places to educate and in-still a love of the environment. Therefore, these efforts can improve environmental sustainability and can increase the practice of reducing the use of single-use plastics at the school level.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

The single-use plastic with the younger generation

A study by Bahaman et al. (2017) on the awareness and willingness to stop using polystyrene containers among students at Universiti Utara Malaysia, stated that female students were more likely to bring reusable containers than male students. Meanwhile, in Shayla’s (2020) study, 381 students were assessed through an online questionnaire to observe awareness of using and disposing of plastic waste on campus. The study showed a very high level of awareness and knowledge of the use of plastic waste (98.43%) but very few chose to recycle their plastics properly.

From the Haliza Study (2018), it is stated that students who have exposure to environmental education have a high knowledge of efforts to preserve the environment. Mahadi et al. (2017), also stated different findings where the attitudes and practices of students are still at a low level because the actions of students who do not separate plastic waste according to the recycling bins provided, high plastic use makes recycling activities difficult. This shows that there are two different findings among students. In conclusion, through past studies on the use of plastic among the younger generation, there is an opinion that states that the attitudes and practices of the younger generation are high but are not practiced to the maximum level. However, less study focused on the relationship between knowledge influenced the students’ attitudes and behaviours towards the use of single-use plastics.

Environmental Awareness Program

Apart from formal education in the classroom, Environmental Education also occurs informally through co-curricular activities in the form of programs such as the Nature Club and the 3K project (Safety, Happiness and Beauty), quiz competitions, Recycling Campaigns, talks and visits (Mohamad Zohir & Nordin 2007; Hanifah et al. 2013). In line with the National Environmental Policy 2002, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Malaysia has organized various environmental education and awareness programs to in still the values ​​of the environment in the public. In addition, a study by Mohd Saifudin & Summayah (2020) on the positive effects of recycling programs shows that awareness of the use of recycling bins can reduce the amount of solid waste thrown directly into the bin. Schoolchildren have been identified as the main target group for this purpose since this group is the young generation who will lead the future. Additionally, waste management among university students is increasingly lacking due to the limited provision of trash cans and the lack of implementation of waste management practices (Nurain Nabila & Mohd Hairy., 2023).

A study by Afroz et al. (2017) found that Malaysians’ attitudes and awareness towards the Plastic Free Day program are at an unsatisfactory level, and most consumers are willing to change the shopping date to avoid being charged for plastic bags. A study on awareness of sustainable development education through the Sustainable School program by Hanifah et al. (2013) found that the teacher element plays a major role in the success of the Sustainable Development Education program through partnerships with school staff and students. According to Huckle (2013), the role of schools is to disseminate knowledge, develop culture and utilize students’ potential or talent through school programs. Muhd et al. (2016) found that there is no significant relationship between the level of student awareness and environmental education practices.

Knowledge, Attitude, Practice Model (KAP)

This study uses the KAP model approach, namely Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice. The first basis of the KAP model is knowledge. Knowledge is defined as the capacity to acquire, retain, and use information; a mixture of understanding, experience, wisdom, and skills (Ahmad et al., 2011). According to Nor Kalsum (2016), if the individual has high knowledge, it can lead to a change in attitude. Attitude refers to the tendency to react in a certain way to certain situations or to give opinions into a coherent and interconnected structure (Iffah et al., 2020). Practice is the trait embedded in a person’s soul, which with these traits will produce good or bad behaviour, habits and character (Ari & Yilmaz, 2017). The influence of attitude is supported by a study from Lakhan and Sharma (2010), namely that the presence of good practice will lead to ethical actions. Therefore, a change in attitude will lead to a change in a person’s practices. In addition, adequate knowledge, attitudes, and practices among the public are crucial and effective ways of intervention (Puwaneswarry et al., 2020). Based on the KAP model, knowledge is the core factor in determining a person’s attitudes and practices. Therefore, this KAP model helps to explain in detail the interrelationship between the three elements.

In this study, the KAP model was used to see the interrelationship between these elements and practices that can reduce the usage of single-use plastics among junior secondary students at two secondary school locations. A program to measure students’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices needs to be carried out to assess the extent to which knowledge in a person regarding single-use plastics will shape a person’s attitude to avoid the use of single-use plastics. When that attitude exists in an individual, it will influence practices to reduce the use of single-use plastics. Therefore, the knowledge of an individual can create a clean environment in addition to being able to achieve environmental sustainability.

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the Single-Use Plastic Awareness Program (PKPSG) on students’ practices in reducing the use of single-use plastics, with particular attention to the roles of knowledge and attitudes. This study was conducted in two schools implementing the PKPSG program. This study also used a quasi-experimental approach, an experiment that comprised treatment, measurement of findings, and experimental units (control group and treatment group), not random placement (Azizi et al., 2022). Descriptive analysis was used in this study to measure the mean and standard deviation related to the level of knowledge, attitudes, and practices for the treatment group and the control group before the KPSG programme. In addition, the ANOVA method was used to correlate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the treatment group and the control group before and after the KPSG programme. The t-test was also used to examine the differences in knowledge, attitudes, and practices between the treatment group and the control group before and after the PKPSG programme.

The questionnaire developed for this study comprises four sections. Section A collects respondents’ demographic information, while Section B assesses the level of knowledge related to single-use plastics among junior secondary school students. Section C contains items measuring students’ attitudes toward the use of single-use plastics, and Section D examines practices undertaken to reduce or replace the use of single-use plastics among junior secondary school students. Sections B, C, and D employ a five-point Likert scale: 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Somewhat Disagree), 4 (Agree), and 5 (Strongly Agree). The variables, number of items, and Cronbach’s Alpha values from the pilot study for each section of the questionnaire are presented in Table 1.

Table1. Questionnaires of the Information and Reliability Values ​​of the Pilot Study

RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

The study findings are arranged in the correct order and divided into four parts, namely the first part presents an analysis of the respondents’ background. Meanwhile, the second part consists of an analysis related to the level of knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the treatment group and the control group before PKPSG. Next, the third part discusses the analysis of the relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and practices for the treatment group and the control group before and after PKPSG. The fourth part discusses the analysis of the differences in knowledge, attitudes, and practices between the treatment group and the control group before and after PKPSG.

Respondents Background

The data analysis of this study consists of several items such as school name, student name, form, location, gender, and race. The respondents’ background in the quasi-experimental study was split into two groups. In total, the number of respondents was 200 students divided into a control group and a treatment group. The control group was 100 students (100%) from SMK SS involving form two students and the treatment group was 100 students (100%) from SMK DI consisting form three students. The number of male respondents in the control group was 55 (55%) and the female respondents were 45 (45%). Meanwhile, the number of male respondents in the treatment group was 58 (58%) and female respondents were 42 (42%).

Next, the category by race shows that the Malays have the highest number of respondents in both groups, namely 96 people (96%) from the control group and 80 people (80%) from the treatment group. For the Chinese, only the treatment group has Chinese respondents, namely 11 people (11%). The treatment group has a high number of Indian respondents, namely 7 people (7%) compared to the control group, which has only 1 person (1%). There are 3 (3%) Sabah Bumiputera respondents from the control group and 2 (2%) Sarawak Bumiputera respondents from the treatment group.

Table 2: Respondent Profile

Analysis level of knowledge, attitude and practise for treatment group and control group before PKPSG programme.

In this study, each construct consists of five levels, namely 1 is strongly agreed, 2 is disagree, 3 is slightly agree, 4 is agree and 5 is strongly agree. To facilitate the interpretation of the level of each construct, this study has divided the levels into three, namely low level, medium level, and high level. The cut-off points are used to interpret the level. Three level scales were set, namely Low Level (Score 1.00 – 2.33), Medium Level (Score 2.34 – 3.66), and High Level (Score 3.67 – 5.00). The analysis result consists of the level, percentage, mean score, and standard deviation for the control and treatment groups for the pre-test. The study result shows that all levels of constructs in the questionnaires have a mean value between 3.00 to 4.00.

The attitude construct has a high average level, a mean value of 4.19 with a standard deviation of 0.42 followed by the knowledge construct which shows a high average level, a mean value of 3.84 with a standard deviation of 0.42. Meanwhile, the practice construct shows a medium average level. The mean value of the practice construct is 3.29 and the standard deviation of 0.61. The results show that the level of respondents’ knowledge and attitude towards single-use plastics is good and satisfactory. This is due to lower secondary students’ exposure to the use of single-use plastics in their daily lives. According to Haliza (2018), students who learn environmental education will likely have high knowledge in efforts to preserve the environment. Students with good knowledge of the use of single-use plastics have an awareness in themselves on preserves environmental sustainability.

Next, the study’s result on the level of attitudes of junior secondary school students before PKPSG showed an attitude at a high average level (mean= 4.19, SP= 0.42). The high level of attitudes of junior secondary school students is because they have a high level of knowledge regarding the use of single-use plastics. According to Nor Kalsum (2016), if the individual has a high level of knowledge, it can lead to a change in attitude to not use single-use plastics that impact the environment. This study is also not in line with the findings of the study by Shayla (2020), findings from this study explain that although students show a very high level of awareness and knowledge in the use of plastic waste (98.43%), very few choose to recycle their plastics in the right way.

A descriptive analysis was conducted to see the level of practice in reducing the use of single-use plastics among junior secondary school students before PKPSG was implemented. The results of the study showed that the level of practice in using single-use plastics was at a moderate level (mean= 3.29, SP=0.61). Therefore, students are still less likely to apply the practice of using single-use plastics to plastics that can be used many times. This statement was supported by Shayla (2020) and Cyntiya et al. (2021) stated that students’ awareness about the effects of single-use plastic use on the environment is good, but they do not care enough to improve these practices and still need high encouragement.

Table 4. Level of knowledge, attitude dan practise before PKPSG for controlled group and treatment group

Analysis the relationship between the Knowledge, Attitude and Practise for treatment group and controlled group before and after PKPSG programme.

A one-way ANOVA test was conducted to see whether there was a significant relationship or not between the mean knowledge, attitude and practice of the control and treatment groups before and after PKPSG. Therefore, the data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA with Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software.

Table 5 is an ANOVA test before PKPSG which shows that the mean knowledge between the control and treatment groups were not significantly different, F=1.03 and p=0.31. The control group (Mean=3.87, SP=0.40) compared to the treatment group (Mean=3.81, SD=0.45). Based on the Test of Homogeneity of Variances analysis, the results were not significant (p>0.05), which is p greater than 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. The mean attitude between the control and treatment groups is significantly different, F=6.01 and p=0.02. The control group (Mean=4.26, SP=0.39) compared to the treatment group (Mean=4.11, SP=0.44). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Therefore, Haliza’s Study (2018) states that students who have exposure to environmental education have a high knowledge of efforts to preserve the environment. This is generally related because treatment students who must have information during the PKPSG will influence their knowledge and attitudes towards the use of single-use plastics.

Table 5. One Way ANOVA for Knowledge, Attitude and Practise mean based on groups before PKPSG programme.

Based on the Test of Homogeneity of Variances analysis, there is a significant difference (p=<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The mean attitude between the control and treatment groups after the program also has a significant difference, F=9.68 and p=0.002. The control group (Mean=3.13, SD=0.34) compared to the treatment group (Mean=3.28, SD=0.32). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The mean practice between the control and treatment groups after the program shows a significant difference, F=5.78 and p=0.02. The control group (Mean=3.17, SP=0.66) compared to the treatment group (Mean=3.41, SP=0.75). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

Table 6. One way ANOVA for Knowledge, Attitude and Practise mean based on groups after PKPSG programme.

Analysis of the difference between Knowledge, Attitude and Practise for treatment group and controlled group before and after the PKPSG programme.

In this study, t-tests were conducted to see whether there was a significant difference in knowledge, attitude and practice between the control group and the treatment group with the mean of knowledge, attitude and practice between the control and treatment groups before (pre-test) and after (post-test) PKPSG.

Table 7 shows the t-test value of the comparison of knowledge between the pre-test of the control group and the pre-test of the treatment group before the Single-Use Plastic Awareness program is t=1.01 and the significant level p=0.31. This significant level is greater than 0.05 (p<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. The mean score of knowledge in the pre-test of the control group is 3.87 (SD=0.40) and the mean score of knowledge in the pre-treatment test is 3.81 (SD=0.45). The t-test value of the difference in attitude between the pre-test of the control group and the pre-treatment group is t-value=2.45 and the significant level is p=0.02. This significant level is smaller than 0.05 (p<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.

The mean knowledge score in the pre-control test was 4.26 (SD= 0.39) and the mean knowledge score in the pre-treatment test, which was the mean value, was 4.12 (SD=0.44). The difference in practice between the pre-control group test and the pre-treatment group test was t-value=2.79 and the significance level was p=0.01. This significance level was smaller than 0.05 (p<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The mean knowledge score in the pre-control test was 3.41 (SD=0.54) and the mean knowledge score in the pre-treatment test, which was the mean value, was 3.17 (SD=0.66).

Therefore, the knowledge level of the control and treatment groups was the same and there was no significant difference. Adequate knowledge, attitudes, and practices among the public are important for the intervention to be effective (Puwaneswarry et al., 2020). This statement has been supported by other researchers who stated that knowledge is the basis for individual attitudes and behaviour (Kaiser et.al, 1999).

Table 7. Analysis of the t-test result for Knowledge, Attitude and Practise for Pre-controlled test and Pre-treatment test.

Table 8 shows the t-test value of the difference in knowledge between the control group post-test and the treatment group post-test after PKPSG is t=-4.22 and the significance level p=0.00. This significance level is smaller than 0.05 (p<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is a significant difference in knowledge between the control group post-test and the treatment group post-test after PKPSG. The mean score of knowledge in the control post-test is 3.81 (SD=0.45) and the mean score of knowledge in the post-treatment test is 4.07 (SP=0.43).

The t-test value of the difference in attitude between the control group post-test and the treatment group post-test after PKPSG is =-4.22 and the significance level is p=0.002. This significance level is smaller than 0.05 (p<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The mean attitude score in the control post-test is 3.13 (SP=0.34) and the mean attitude score in the post-treatment test is the mean value of 3.28 (SD=0.32). The t-test value of the difference in practice between the control group post-test and the treatment group post-test after PKPSG is t=-2.40 and the significance level is p=0.02. This significance level is smaller than 0.05 (p<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The mean practice score in the control post-test is 3.17 (SP=0.66) and the mean practice score in the post-treatment test is the mean value of 3.41 (SD=0.75).

Table 8. Analysis of t-Test Results for Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices for the Control Post Test and the Treatment Post Test.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this study successfully addressed all of its research questions. The findings revealed that students’ knowledge regarding single-use plastics was at a high level, while their attitudes and practices toward reducing the use of single-use plastics remained at a moderate level. A quantitative study conducted with 200 lower secondary students — comprising a control group from SMKSS and a treatment group from SMKDI — found that knowledge about single-use plastics was high across both groups. A one-way ANOVA test indicated a significant relationship between the control and treatment groups in terms of knowledge and attitudes before and after the program was implemented. Furthermore, an independent samples t-test showed no significant difference between the control and treatment groups in pre-test knowledge levels before the implementation of the PKPSG program.

This study carries important implications for the younger generation and the broader community by highlighting the necessity of creating and enhancing awareness around reducing single-use plastics in a sustainable manner. Single-use plastics have been identified as a major contributor to environmental degradation, particularly through pollution of marine ecosystems, soil contamination, and harm to wildlife due to ingestion and entanglement. Studies have shown that plastics take hundreds of years to decompose, leading to long-term environmental consequences and the accumulation of microplastics in natural ecosystems, which can enter food chains and pose risks to both ecological and human. Therefore, efforts such as the PKPSG program are vital in fostering environmental responsibility and sustainable practices among students from a young age. This study also underscores the critical role of environmental education programs in schools in cultivating awareness, enthusiasm, and proactive attitudes among the younger generation, ultimately contributing to broader efforts in reducing plastic waste and promoting the use of biodegradable alternatives.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Our deepest appreciation and gratitude to (Persatuan Konservasi Samudera 9 Perak (OCEAN 9) for the donation of consulting funds (Consultation Code 2023-0151-PP-02)

REFERENCE

1. Afroz, R., Rahman, A., Masud, M. M. & Akhtar, R. 2017. The knowledge, awareness, attitude and motivational analysis of plastic waste and household perspective in Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(3), 2304-2315.
2. Ahmad, J., Mustafa, H., Hamid, H. A., & Wahad, J. A. (2011). Pengetahuan, Sikap dan Amalan Masyarakat Malaysia terhadap Isu Alam Sekitar. Academica, 81(3), 103-115. [In Malay]
3. Ari, E. & Yilmaz, V. 2017. Consumer attitudes on the use of plastic and cloth bags. environment, development and sustainability. Practice of sustainability, 19(4), 1219-1234. [In Malay]
4. Azizi Y, Shahrin H, Jamaludin R, Yusof B, Abdul Rahim H. & Syed Mohamed. (2006). Menguasai Penyelidikan dalam Pendidikan. PTS Professional Publishing Sdn. Bhd. [In Malay]
5. Bahaman, Elvy, N., Zahari, M., & Fadhilah. (2017). Kesedaran dan kesediaan untuk menghentikan amalan penggunaan bekas makanan yang diperbuat daripada polisterin di kalangan pelajar Universiti Utara Malaysia. (STML- Go Green) 2016, 6th_ 7ih December, University Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia. [In Malay]
6. Chukwu, K. E. (2018). Converting Discarded Water Sachets and Other Plastic Wastes into Wealth. International Journal of Academic Research in Environment and Geopgraphy, 5(1), 70–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.46886/IJAREG/v5-i1/4409
7. Cyntiya, R., Baiq L. N, Mardiyah, W., & Alvi, K. W. (2021). Penyuluhan pengelolaan sampah plastik menuju “Zero Waste Kampus Ummat. Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Berkemajuan, 3 (2), 196-198. [In Malay]
8. Fuad, M. B. (2017). Metodologi penyelidikan: Panduan menulis tesis. Kedah: Penerbit Universiti Utara Malaysia. [In Malay]
9. Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R. & Law, K.L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), 25-29.
10. Haliza A. R. (2018). Usaha dan cabaran dalam mengaplikasikan Pendidikan alam sekitar dalam sistem persekolahan Di Malaysia. Asian Journal of Environment and Heritage, 1(2), 61-70.
11. Haliza Abdul Rahman. (2023, Mei 25). Tingkatkan kesedaran rakyat isu impak negatif plastik. Berita Harian Online. [In Malay]
12. Hanifah M, Shahrudin I & Mohamad Suhaily. (2013).  Kesedaran Pendidikan Pembangunan Lestari Menerusi Program Sekolah Lestari Dalam Kalangan Pelajar. Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. [In Malay]
13. Hanifah, M., Mohamad Suhaily Yusri, C. N. & Shaharudin, I. (2013). Satu kajian pentingnya pengetahuan guru dalam pelaksanaan program sekolah lestari di Malaysia. Perspektif: Jurnal Sains Sosial dan Kemanusiaan, 5(2), 75-92. https://ejournal.upsi.edu.my/index.php/PERS/article/view/1638
14. Hanifah, M., Mohamad Suhaily, C. N., & Shaharuddin, I. (2013). Kesedaran pendidikan pembangunan lestari menerusi program Sekolah Lestari dalam kalangan pelajar sekolah di Malaysia. Geografi, 1(2), 44–58. [In Malay]
15. Huckle, J. (2013). Eco-schooling and sustainability citizenship: Exploring issues raised by corporate sponsorship. Curriculum Journal, 24(2), 206-223.
16. Iffah Hanifah, Anisa Yuri, Rofel Wahyudi & Akhmad Arif Rifan, (2020). Analisis Knowledge, Attitude, And Practice (KAP) Terhadap Manajemen Keuangan Masjid Di di Yogyakarta. Ecoplan, 3(1), 17-21.
17. Kaiser, F.G, Wolfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 1-19.
18. Kementerian Pendidikan. Kempen “Pelan Hala Tuju Malaysia Ke Arah Sifar Penggunaan Plastik Sekali Guna 2018-2030”. Diperoleh daripada https://www.moe.gov.my/pemberitahuan/pengumuman/kempen-pelan-hala-tuju-malaysia-ke-arah-sifar-penggunaan-plastik-sekali-guna-2018-2030
19. Mahadi, Z., Mohamad, R. J. & Sino, H. (2017). Public development sustainability values: a case study in Sepang Malaysia. Akademika, 87(2), 31-44.
20. Mohammad Zohir & Nordin A., R. (2007). Pendidikan alam sekitar di sekolah: Komitmen guru. Pendidikan Lestari, 7(2), 74-81.
21. Mohd Saifudin, M. & Summayah Aimi, N. (2020). Pendidikan amalan kitar semula sisa pepejal kepada masyarakat. Geografi, 8(1), 43-69. https://doi.org/10.37134/geografi.vol8.1.3.2020
22. Muhammad Ibrahim. (2016). Tahap kesedaran dan amalan pendidikan alam sekitar dalam kalangan pelajar tingkatan 4 Aliran Sains di Daerah Hulu Selangor. Diakses daripada https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310598500_Tahap_kesedaran_dan_amalan_pendidikan_alam_sekitar_dalam_kalangan_pelajar_Tingkatan_4_aliran_sains_di_Daearah_ Hulu_Selangor
23. Nor Kalsum, M.I. (2016). Pengetahuan, sikap dan tingkah laku pelajar UPSI Terhadap prinsip-prinsip kampus lestari. Perspektif Jurnal Sains Sosial dan Kemanusiaan, 8(1), 29-41. [In Malay]
24. Nurain Nabila, H. & Mohd Hairy, I. (2023). Perbandingan amalan pendidikan sisa pepejal antara mahasiswa Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) dan Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM). Geografi, 11(2), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.37134/geografi.vol11.2.5.2023
25. Puwaneswarry, M., Nathratul Ayeshah, Z., Gaaitheri, K., Lim, K. Q., Tang, S. L. Ng, C. G., & Wong, Y. H. (2020). Development of knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) towards COVID-19 Pandemic in Malaysia. Medicine & Health, 15(2), 30-35.
26. Sahabat Alam Malaysia. (2022). Lebih banyak plastik daripada ikan di laut menjelang tahun 2050?. https://foe-malaysia.org/my/articles/lebih-banyak-plastik-daripada-ikan-di-laut-menjelang-tahun-2050/.[In Malay]
27. Shayla A. (2020). Living in the plastic crisis: a study of student awareness & behaviour regarding single-use plastic of Lakehaed university campus (Tesis Ijazah). Universiti Thunder Bay, Ontario.
28. Wilcox, C., Puckridge, M., & Schuyler, Q.A. (2018).  A quantitative analysis linking sea turtle mortality and plastic debris ingestion. Sci Rep, 8 (12536).
29. World Wildlife Fund. (2020). WWF releases report proposing effective solution to mitigate plastic pollution in Malaysia. Press Release (September)