# Study on the Method of Household Waste Collection: Case Study
## 3 Results
A significantly high share was collected in dumpsters in rural areas, with the lowest share (0.96%) pertaining to collection regarding garbage cans in the rural areas. From the studied parameters, the location of the respondents, and the method of collecting household waste, had a Chi value of Chi\({}^{2}\) (Table 4). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Location of** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Waste Collection Method/Contribution [\%]**} & \\ \cline{2-5}
**Respondent** & **Garbage Bags** & **Dumpsters** & **Garbage Cans** & **Total** \\ \hline Urban & _79.01_\% & _15.23_\% & _5.76_\% & _70.03_\% \\ Rural & _25.96_\% & _73.08_\% & _0.96_\% & _29.97_\% \\ Total & 63.11_\% & _32.56_\% & _4.32_\% & _100.00_\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Italic value of statistics means that quantity of cells > 10.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of multi-partition table of method of waste collection taking into account the location of respondents. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Age** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Waste Collection Method/Contribution [\%]**} & \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Garbage Bags** & **Dumpsters** & **Garbage Cans** & **Total** \\ \hline
18-29 years & 54.40\% & 41.21\% & 4.40\% & 52.45\% \\
30-39 years & 73.08\% & 23.08\% & 3.85\% & 29.97\% \\
40-49 years & 74.29\% & 17.14\% & 8.57\% & 10.09\% \\
50–59 years & 71.43\% & 28.57\% & 0.00\% & 4.03\% \\
15–17 years & 33.33\% & 66.67\% & 0.00\% & 1.73\% \\
60–64 years & 100.00\% & 0.00\% & 0.00\% & 1.44\% \\ below 65 years & 100.00\% & 0.00\% & 0.00\% & 0.29\% \\ Total & 63.11\% & 32.56\% & 4.32\% & 100.00\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Multi-partition table of method of method of waste collection taking into account respondents’ age. The statistically significant values for the Pearson and ML square had the same \(p=0.000\), which confirmed the significant influence of the respondents' locations on waste collection methods. According to the analysis of the results, respondents between the ages of 40 and 49 collected the most waste into bags at 74.29%. In this mode of collecting, those aged 30-39 had a significantly lower 1.01%, and also the lowest percentage regarding use of dumpsters for waste collection. The data from this group was subjected to analysis determining the value of the chi-square parameter (Table 5). Statistically significant values occurred when the Pearson Chi-square value did not exceed \(p=0.05\), which confirmed the influence of age on the collection method. Next, we aimed to identify cluster correlations between the study input parameters and the output parameters. In the beginning, a cluster analysis was performed using [PERSON]'s method. The result of this analysis is presented in Figure 3.  
Based on the analysis of the two indicated clusters using [PERSON]'s method and the percentage of non-compliance matrix, it should be noted that the first cluster was dominated by rural respondents, men aged 18-29, with higher education, collecting waste, mainly in dumpsters. On the other hand, in the second group, the majority of respondents from the urban area, who also were men in the above-mentioned age group with the same level of education, collected garbage in bags. Following this analysis, the next conclusions could be drawn:  
* The highest share of used bags for segregation (79.01%) was in the urban area which underlined the importance of larger settlements in the efficiency of waste management;
* The significant influence on garbage collection method was age, which was confirmed by the highest share of 74.29% of respondents being aged 40-49 aged collecting in garbage bags;
* Men from the city and rural areas with higher education in the 18-29 age group have a significant impact on waste collection in Bacau County. Figure 4 shows a Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. Cluster analysis was used to explain the detection of the structure in the data, taking into account the hierarchical grouping.