1. INTRODUCTION:

The global issue of air pollution is significantly exacerbated by the open burning of municipal solid waste, which discharges particulate matter, harmful gases, and greenhouse^1,2,3. Astonishingly, over 40% of the world's waste is incinerated in open fires, resulting in the emission of polluting gases into our atmosphere^2,4,5.

In the context of Malaysia, open burning is partially blamed for escalating the transboundary haze pollution problem⁶. This practice has been a major environmental health concern in Malaysia, significantly contributing to haze episodes since 1997. To combat this, the Department of Environment has enacted stringent measures, including a ban on open-burning activities. As per Section 29A of the Environmental Quality Act 1974, those found guilty can face stiff penalties, including a fine up to RM 500,000, imprisonment for a maximum of five years, or both. This Act is a key instrument in controlling environmental pollution and is crucial for enforcing environmental policy regulations^7,8. The bulk of open burning incidents since 2013 have predominantly resulted from activities like waste burning in residential zones and adjacent to roads⁹. Although they don't represent the main source, open burning and forest fires contribute significantly to air pollution in Malaysia. These activities account for roughly 3-5% of the country's atmospheric pollution¹⁰. Strategic actions to combat open burning often fall short due to a combination of community apathy, insufficient waste collection infrastructure, and the absence of regulations mandating waste separation^1,11. Additionally, there's a significant knowledge gap among the populace regarding the health hazards linked to open burning of solid waste materials. A change in perspective towards laws, their enforcement, and the importance of compliance is also necessary¹². Previous studies in Malaysia have largely concentrated on the environmental and health impacts of open burning, with little emphasis on public understanding and attitudes towards this issue. Assessing the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) within communities is crucial to pinpoint misunderstandings and obstacles that hinder positive actions^13,14. The objective of this study was to explore the KAP concerning open burning among inhabitants of certain regions in Kedah and Penang, which could inform the creation of targeted strategies to curb open burning incidents.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS:

2.1. Study design and participants:

This was a cross-sectional survey of 165 participants comprising medical students, their family and friends from some parts of Kedah and Penang, conducted from December 2021 to January 2022 using convenience sampling. The study was approved by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee.

2.2 Survey instrument, Scoring and categories:

A validated questionnaire adapted from prior KAP studies related to open burning was distributed online via Google Forms⁹. It contained four sections: 1) Sociodemographic information 2) Knowledge (10 questions) 3) Attitudes (8 questions) 4) Practice (6 questions on waste disposal methods), scored on a 3-point Likert scale (Agree=3, Not sure=2, Disagree=1). Two questions were negative statements and reverse coded. Knowledge questions were scored with a total score range of 0-30. For negative attitude statements, Likert scale scores were reversed during analysis. Total attitude scores ranged from 8-24. Practice questions were with total scores of 0-18. The median score was computed for each KAP domain. Participants scoring median and above the median were categorized as having “good” KAP, while those below the median had “poor” KAP regarding open burning.

2.3. Data analysis:

Data was analyzed using SPSS software. Descriptive analysis was conducted and a chi-square test was used to determine associations between variables with a significance level of p<0.05. A correlation test was performed between knowledge, attitude, and practice.

3. RESULTS:

3.1. Sociodemographic profile:

Among the 165 participants, females (n=94, 57%) exceeded the number of males (n=71, 43%). In term of ethnicity, majority were Chinese (n=83, 50.3%) followed by Indians (n=58, 35.2%), Malays (n=14, 8.5%) and other ethnicities (n=10, 6.1%). Almost all were Malaysians (n=163, 98.8%) with few non-Malaysians (n=2, 1.2%). Sixty percent (n=100) were married or in relationships while 39.4% (n=65) were single/divorced/widowed/separated. In the aspects of occupation, 51.5% (n=85) were employed or self-employed and 48.5% (n=80) were unemployed, housewives, retired or not applicable. Monthly household income was equally distributed between up to RM5000 (n=81, 49.1%) and greater than RM5000 (n=84, 50.9%). Notably, majority lived in urban regions (n=114, 69.1%) compared to rural/suburban areas (n=51, 30.9%). Most had tertiary education (n=97, 58.8%) while 41.2% (n=68) attained primary to secondary education.

3.2. Knowledge about open burning and its impacts:

There is high awareness of the various health and environmental impacts of open burning. Over 75% of respondents agreed that open burning causes health problems, triggers asthma, is hazardous to ecosystems, contributes to haze, etc. However, awareness that open burning is illegal is lower. Only 57% agree it is an offense in Malaysia, and 57.6% recognize burning leaves/rubbish is illegal. There is some uncertainty on certain aspects; for instance, 19.4% are unsure if open burning causes crop/vegetation damage from smog and 18.2% are uncertain if open burning is an offense, etc. Approximately, 20-25% disagreed about the various health and ecosystem impacts of open burning. This minority may lack awareness or be conducting open burning activities themselves (Table1).

1.1 Attitude on open burning:

A substantial majority (75-78%) concur on several points as follows. The responsibility to curtail open burning extends beyond the government; there is a pressing need for heightened awareness about its risks; and immediate enforcement of regulations is necessary. Protecting the environment from the impacts of open burning should be prioritized. There is also significant agreement (75.8%) that community-led recycling and composting initiatives can contribute to solving the problem. A small fraction (21.2%) believe that the government alone can tackle this issue. However, the vast majority (75.2%) disagree with this sentiment, indicating a general consensus that the government's efforts need to be complemented by broader societal action and participation as summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Attitude on open burning

Items	Agree (%)	Not sure (%)	Disagree (%)
1. Everyone is responsible for protecting the environment.	77.6	1.2	21.2
2. We should all do our part to reduce open burning incidences.	77.6	1.2	21.2
3. Community should recycle their household waste instead of burning them.	75.8	2.4	21.8
4. People should be made aware of the danger of open burning.	78.2	0.6	21.2
5. Government should be more stringent in enforcing environmental rules and regulation on open burning.	75.8	2.4	21.8
6. Let the government handles the open burning problem alone. *	21.2	3.6	75.2
7. Immediate action to tackle open burning is necessary.	76.4	1.8	21.8
8. Protecting the environment from open burning should be one of our priorities.	77.0	1.2	21.8

*Negative response

1.2 Practices in addressing open burning:

While most respondents (67.9%) claim not to engage in open burning themselves, there is a gap between attitudes and actual behaviors when it comes to mitigating this practice. Even though 74.5% claimed they would not dispose of rubbish by burning, only 33-45% are actively advising peers, discussing alternatives, or composting organic waste. Additionally, 29.1% admitted in conducting open burning, indicating it is still occurring illegally despite awareness of health and environmental risks. Willingness to execute direct action against open burning also appears to be mixed, with only 33% indicating they would report illegal incidents in their area while 42% denied doing it (Table 3).

Table 3. Practices on addressing open burning

Items	Agree/Done (%)	Not sure (%)	Disagree/ Not Done (%)
1. I have advised people to avoid committing open burning.	44.8	3.6	51.5
2. I have done open burning activities. *	29.1	3.0	67.9
3. I talks to my friends about the things that they can do to dispose their garden wastes rather than burning them.	35.8	10.9	53.3
4. I will not dispose my rubbish by burning them.	74.5	1.2	24.2
5. I usually compost organic material including leaves, grass clippings, vegetable and others.	37.0	7.3	55.8
6. I will report any illegal open burning activities in my areas to the authority.	33.3	24.2	42.4

*Negative response

1.3 Prevalence of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice:

In terms of knowledge regarding open burning, 37.6% (n=62) of participants demonstrated good knowledge, while the remaining 62.4% (n=103) had poor knowledge. Only 21.2% (n=35) were found to have an overall positive attitude towards open burning practices, compared to 78.8% (n=130) showing a negative attitude. With regards to self-reported practices, 40.0% (n=66) engaged in appropriate waste disposal practices categorizing them as having good practice levels. However, the majority, 60.0% (n=99) respondents reported inappropriate practices reflecting poor practice about open burning.

3.6 Correlation between Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Scores:

Correlation analysis showed a strong positive relationship between knowledge and attitude scores (r=0.648, r2=0.419, p<0.001), indicating that higher knowledge was associated with more positive attitudes related to open burning. A moderate positive correlation was found between knowledge and practice scores (r=0.547, r2=0.299, p<0.001), where better knowledge correlated with self-reported appropriate environmental practices. Though relatively weaker, attitude and practice scores also demonstrated a positive correlation (r=0.481, r2=0.231, p<0.001).

3.7 Associations between Knowledge, Attitude, Practice and sociodemographic factors:

The understanding of open burning was found to be significantly influenced by factors such as residential area and monthly household income. Urban dwellers (67.5%) exhibited a greater understanding compared to those living in rural or suburban areas (51.0%) (p< 0.05). Moreover, individuals with a monthly household income exceeding RM5000 (75.0%) had higher knowledge of open burning compared to those from lower income brackets (49.4%) (p<0.001). When it comes to attitudes towards open burning, employment status made a significant difference. Those not currently in employment, including housewives and retirees, expressed more positive attitudes (86.2%) than those who were employed (71.8%) (p<0.05). Monthly income also mattered, with individuals earning above RM5000 showing a more favourable attitude (88.1%) compared to those earning RM5000 or below (69.1%) (p=0.003). Lastly, education level had an impact, where participants with secondary education or lower demonstrated more positive attitudes (86.8%) compared to those with tertiary education (73.2%) (p=0.036). However, there were no significant association between good practice and social demographic factors such as gender, ethnicity, marital status, employment status, monthly household income, residential area, and education status of the respondents (Table 4).

Table 4. Relationship of sociodemographic characteristics of respondents and their KAP

Sociodemographic variables	Sub-variables	Good knowledge	p-value	Good attitude	p-value	Good practice	p-value
Gender	Male	66.2%	.384	76.1%	.456	66.2%	.158
Gender	Female	59.6%	.384	80.9%	.456	55.3%	.158
Ethnicity	Malay	42.9%	.285	85.7%	.665	57.1%	.063
	Chinese	67.5%		75.9%		59.0%
	Indian	58.6%		79.3%		55.2%
	Others	70.0%		90.0%		100.0%
Current marital status	Single/divorced/widow/separated	56.9%	.239	73.8%	.211	55.4%	.329
Current marital status	married/in relationships	66.0%	.239	82.0%	.211	63.0%	.329
Employment status	Unemployed/housewife/retired/NA	62.5%	.984	86.2%	.023	53.8%	.112
Employment status	self-employed/full-time/part-time	62.4%	.984	71.8%	.023	65.9%	.112
Monthly household income	Income up to RM5000	49.4%	.001	69.1%	.003	54.3%	.144
Monthly household income	Income > RM5000	75.0%	.001	88.1%	.003	65.5%	.144
Residential area	Urban area	67.5%	.042	79.8%	.626	63.2%	.216
Residential area	Rural/suburban area	51.0%	.042	76.5%	.626	52.9%	.216
Highest education status	Primary to secondary education	66.2%	.405	86.8%	.036	66.2%	.175
Highest education status	Tertiary education (Diploma/Degree/Master/PhD)	59.8%	.405	73.2%	.036	55.7%	.175

4. DISCUSSION:

This research offers critical insights into the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) concerning open burning among residents of Malaysia, indicating subpar results across all three areas. Similar sociodemographic trends were noted in another study carried out in Terengganu, although the majority of our respondents were of Chinese descent. Regarding knowledge of open burning, 37.6% (n=62) of participants displayed notable awareness (ranging from 57% to 78%), while the remaining 62.4% (n=103) demonstrated insufficient knowledge. This was in contrast to another study where respondents were aware of and expressed worry about the issue (awareness ranging from 70% to 97%). The level of awareness among our respondents was lower compared to that population in terms of ⁹.

While environmental knowledge is undeniably important, numerous studies have shown that intentions do not always translate into actions due to practical constraints^15,5. In conclusion, the majority of respondents are conscious of the dangers associated with open burning, but there seems to be a lack of understanding regarding its legal status and specific effects like those of smog. This gap could potentially be bridged through targeted education on the illegality of open burning, coupled with outreach efforts directed at the minority who remain unconvinced about its health and environmental risks. The levels of uncertainty also indicate a need for increased public awareness. Apparently, in the context of attitude, a mere 21.2% (n=35) of participants showed a favorable attitude towards open burning practices, whereas the overwhelming majority, 78.8% (n=130), held negative views. The proportion of positive sentiments toward open burning (ranging from 75% to 78%) was less compared to another study reported 93% to 97% of participants expressing positive attitudes⁹.

Numerous research projects conducted both globally and specifically in Malaysia have underscored the connections between health behaviors and waste management. This is seen in studies from the United States¹⁶, the United Kingdom¹⁷, and Malaysia¹⁸. There is a significantly high level of acknowledgment (75-78%) that open burning is a pressing issue that calls for immediate, collective action involving diverse stakeholders such as the government and local communities. It's not a problem that the government can tackle single-handedly. Therefore, there is not only a high level of awareness about the risks but also a strong base of attitudes in favor of taking action against open burning from all sides. This presents a favorable environment for developing campaigns, mobilizing communities, and enhancing policy enforcement.

Having said about self-reported behaviors, 40.0% (n=66) of respondents claim to dispose of waste appropriately, indicating commendable practices. However, a larger proportion, 60.0% (n=99), reported improper waste disposal habits, signifying poor practices related to open burning. The frequency with which the respondents partake in open burning activities is lower than that observed in previous studies, with rates of 29% compared to 56%. It's encouraging to find that most respondents claim not to participate in open burning. However, there are significantly fewer people taking action to promote alternative methods or influence their peers. There may also be a hesitation to report those who violate the rules. Hence, there seems to be an "action gap" between the high level of awareness of the problem and the implementation of practical measures to mitigate it at an individual level. Simply altering attitudes might not necessarily lead to changes in behavior. There could be a need to stimulate a more active response from individuals and communities¹⁹.

This current study research revealed a robust positive relationship between knowledge and positive attitudes, a moderate positive correlation between knowledge and good practices, and a weaker yet still positive link between attitudes and practices. These results are consistent with previous Malaysian studies that identified strong positive connections between knowledge, attitudes, and practices^{9,10,13,20,21,22}. However, the existence of these correlations does not necessarily suggest a direct cause-and-effect relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Thus, community-based social marketing regarding regulations on open burning should be presented to rural populations¹⁵. Regardless, enhancing public awareness and comprehension remains a vital initial step to positively influencing perceptions and practices related to sustainability issues such as open burning.

In Malaysia, despite a general prohibition, the Environmental Quality Act 1974 permits certain forms of open burning. Some examples include incinerating paddy stalks before replanting, burning plants during land clearing for crop cultivation, and burning leaves or tree branches in rural agricultural environments⁹.In regions such as Kedah, where there is extensive paddy farming and rural areas, sanctioned burning of paddy stalks and foliage takes place regularly. Therefore, beyond simply complying with regulations, rural smallholders voluntarily adopting practices such as waste segregation, composting, and responsible waste disposal could potentially curb open burning in areas where exceptions are applicable. In some regions, there may be inadequate communication between the municipality and residents, leading to low participation in waste separation²³. Individuals must comprehend how open burning can have detrimental effects on their health over a prolonged period. Armed with knowledge about the long-term impacts, they can opt to adhere to environmental health best practices when conducting any authorized burning.

Moreover, the findings of this study revealed significant correlations between higher knowledge levels, positive attitudes towards open burning, and improved socioeconomic indicators such as income level and urban residency. Urban areas often provide more opportunities for information exposure via policies and media communications compared to remote rural regions. Additionally, superior waste management infrastructure in cities encourages adoption by simplifying the transition. Therefore, upgrading facilities for responsible disposal alternatives in rural communities and enhancing public education campaigns can assist bridge these gaps. Targeted outreach that tailors messages and channels based on socioeconomic factors may resonate better across different groups^{24,25, 26}.

The limitations of this study include the non-probability sampling method and a small, localized sample size. As this was an exploratory study, future investigations should aim to survey representative states or national populations to establish generalizable patterns. It would also be beneficial to delve into the underlying factors influencing attitudes and practices through qualitative research.

5. CONCLUSION:

In a nutshell, residents from selected regions in Kedah and Penang displayed insufficient knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the open burning of municipal waste. Knowledge is a critical skill that allows an individual to acquire, remember, and utilize information in executing health behaviours. Since knowledge and attitude influence practice, there's a need to underscore educational programs, interventions, and communication to improve these behavioural activities. This survey offers a fundamental understanding of how the region's communities grapple with complex environmental, legal, and socioeconomic sustainability issues. Establishing these waste management systems can facilitate people to cease burning and instead, responsibly dispose of their waste. Further research and appropriate waste disposal services can gradually diminish open burning. In addition to knowledge, attitude, and practice, it's also crucial to stress communication and the enforcement of the Environmental Quality Act 1974. This study does have certain limitations, as the data gathered relied on a questionnaire survey, which carries a risk of recall bias. Additionally, the small sample size prevents us from generalizing our findings to other populations within Malaysia.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the communities of Kedah and Penang for their participation in this study.

7. REFERENCES:

1. Kristanto GA, Koven W. Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from municipal solid waste management in Depok, Indonesia. City Environ Interact. 2019; 4: 100027.

2. Wiedinmyer C, Yokelson RJ, Gullett BK. Global emissions of trace gases, particulate matter, and hazardous air pollutants from open burning of domestic waste. Environ Sci Technol. 2014; 48(16): 9523-9530.

3. Sivajothi R, K. Karthikeyan. Analysis of Monthly Rainfall Data Prediction for Change of Economic Environment in Pampadumpara Using Gamma distribution. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2016; 9(9): 1477-1482.

4. Bayader F. Abbas, Wessal M. Khamis Al-Jubori, Ahmed M. Abdullah, HananKd. Sha`aban, Mustafa Taha Mohammed. Environmental Pollution with the Heavy Metal Compound. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2018; 11(9): 4035-4041.

5. M. Krishnaveni, M. Saran Kumar, G. Anithasri, S. Nanthini, K .Gowsalya, P. Devayani, P. Karuppuchamy, V. Vijay. Air Pollution Tolerence Index, Anticipated Performance Index of plants studied near selected sites at Salem, Dharmapuri District. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2021; 14(11): 5931-6.

6. Forsyth T. Public concerns about transboundary haze: A comparison of Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia. Global Environ Change. 2014; 25: 76-86.

7. Mustafa M. The Environmental Quality Act 1974: A significant legal instrument for implementing environmental policy directives of Malaysia. IIUMLJ. 2011; 19: 1

8. K.R. Vasantha Kohila, V. Tamizh Kodi, V. Hemavathy. Occupational Health versus Occupational Hazards. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 8(4): April, 2015; 486-489.

9. Ariffin M, Wan Yacoob WNA. Assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice of solid waste open burning in Terengganu, Malaysia. EnvironmentAsia. 2017; 10(2).

10. Afroz R, Hassan MN, Ibrahim NA. Review of air pollution and health impacts in Malaysia. Environ Res. 2003; 92(2): 71-77.

11. N.T.Mary Rosana, K.L.Vincent Joseph, S. Sowmiya. Health Care Waste Management in India - Towards a Healthier Environment. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2018; 11(12): 5687-5690.

12. Saplala-Yaptenco SL. Open Burning of Solid Waste in the Philippines: Regulations, Compliance and Initiatives. J Manage Dev Stud. 2015; 4: 35-48.

13. Besar TA, Hassan MS, Bolong J, Abdullah R. Exploring the levels of knowledge, attitudes and environment-friendly practices among young civil servants in Malaysia. Pertanika J Soc Sci Hum (Malaysia). 2013; 21: 21-38.

14. Kalpana P, Krishnamurthy Balasubramanian, R A Kalaivani. Evaluation of Heavy Metals in Selected Medicinal Plants and their Corresponding Soils collected from Environmentally Diverse Locations of India. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2018; 11(8): 3489-3493.

15. Kennedy AL. Using community-based social marketing techniques to enhance environmental regulation. Sustainability. 2010; 2(4): 1138-1160.

16. Largo-Wight E, Bian H, Lange L. An empirical test of an expanded version of the theory of planned behavior in predicting recycling behavior on campus. Am J Health Educ. 2012; 43(2): 66-73.

17. Davis G, Morgan A. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to determine recycling and waste minimisation behaviours: A case study of Bristol City, UK. Spec Ed Papers. 2008; 20(1): 105-118.

18. Ramayah T, Lee JWC, Lim S. Sustaining the environment through recycling: An empirical study. J Environ Manage. 2012; 102: 141-147.

19. S. Sripradha, Saravana Kumar. To Study the Awareness on Hygiene Issues-A Survey. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2018; 11(5): 1784-1787.

20. De Pretto L, Acreman S, Ashfold MJ, Mohankumar SK, Campos-Arceiz A. The link between knowledge, attitudes and practices in relation to atmospheric haze pollution in Peninsular Malaysia. PLoS One. 2015; 10(12): e0143655.

21. Haron SA, Paim L, Yahaya N. Towards sustainable consumption: an examination of environmental knowledge among Malaysians. Int J Consum Stud. 2005; 29(5): 426-436.

22. Salwani Ismail, Noor Zarina Abd Wahab, Norhidayah Badya, Nor Iza A. Rahman, Chew Chieng Yeo, Ahmad Zubaidi A. Latif, Mainul Haque. A Study on the Presence of Pathogenic Leptospira spp. in Environmental Water Samples Obtained from Selected Recreational Areas in Terengganu, Malaysia. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2014: 7(10): 1153-1157.

23. Yukalang N, Clarke B, Ross K. Barriers to effective municipal solid waste management in a rapidly urbanizing area in Thailand. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017; 14(9): 1013.

24. Rajakumari. K, Ridhanya. J. Algae- Pollution Indicator and Control. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2021; 14(1): 523-526

25. S. Sripradha, Saravana Kumar. To Study the Awareness on Hygiene Issues-A Survey. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2018; 11(5): 1784-1787.

26. Thangavel.K. A Study of Sustainable Energy and Indoor Air Pollution. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2017; 10(9): 3181-3184. doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2017.00565.0

27. M. Krishnaveni, R. Sanjana, C. Harinathan, M. Sathyapriya, A. Yazhini, K. Prakash. Analysis on Air Pollution Tolerence Index of Plants Located at selected Sites at Salem and Namakkal District. Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2020; 13(6): 2752-2758.

28. M. Krishnaveni, M . Saran Kumar, G. Anithasri, S. Nanthini, K .Gowsalya, P. Devayani, P. Karuppuchamy, V. Vijay. Air Pollution Tolerence Index, Anticipated Performance Index of plants studied near selected sites at Salem, Dharmapuri District. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2021; 14(11): 5931-6.

29. Thangavel.K. A Study of Sustainable Energy and Indoor Air Pollution. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2017; 10(9): 3181-3184. doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2017.00565.0

30. Rajakumari. K, Ridhanya. J. Algae- Pollution Indicator and Control. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2021; 14(1): 523-526.

Received on 23.05.2024 Revised on 13.12.2024

Accepted on 10.06.2025 Published on 08.11.2025

Available online from November 13, 2025

Research J. Pharmacy and Technology. 2025;18(11):5177-5182.

DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2025.00747

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.

Items	Agree /Yes (%)	Not sure (%)	Disagree/No (%)
1. Open burning causes health problems to human.	77.6	0.6	21.8
2. Open burning can trigger asthma attacks and other respiratory problems.	76.4	2.4	21.2
3. Open burning can form smog which damage crops and other vegetation.	60.6	19.4	20.0
4. Open burning exposes surrounding properties to fire hazard.	77.0	2.4	20.6
5. Open burning is hazardous to ecosystem.	78.2	0.6	21.2
6. Open burning contributes to acid rain.	67.3	10.3	22.4
7. Open burning can worsen haze problem.	78.8	0	21.2
8. Open burning refers to any fire, combustion or smouldering that occurs in the open air and which is not directed out through a stack or chimney.	69.7	9.1	21.2
9. Open burning is an offence in Malaysia.	57.0	18.2	24.8
10. Burnings of leaves and rubbish are illegal open burning activities.	57.6	18.2	24.2