Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Composition, and ...

This article was downloaded by: [Tanmoy Karak] On: 19 June 2012, At: 14:49 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/best20

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Composition, and Management: The World Scenario a

a

Tanmoy Karak , R. M. Bhagat & Pradip Bhattacharyya

b

a

Tocklai Experimental Station, Tea Research Association, Assam, India b

Department of Renewable Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA Available online: 30 Aug 2011

To cite this article: Tanmoy Karak, R. M. Bhagat & Pradip Bhattacharyya (2012): Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Composition, and Management: The World Scenario, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 42:15, 1509-1630 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2011.569871

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 42:1509–1630, 2012 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1064-3389 print / 1547-6537 online DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2011.569871

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Composition, and Management: The World Scenario TANMOY KARAK,1 R. M. BHAGAT,1 and PRADIP BHATTACHARYYA2 1

Downloaded by [Tanmoy Karak] at 14:49 19 June 2012

2

Tocklai Experimental Station, Tea Research Association, Assam, India Department of Renewable Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the abridgment of the waste generated from domestic, commercial, and construction activities by natural persons that is collected and treated by municipalities. Exponential growth of population and urbanization, and the development of social economy, coupled with the improvement of living standard, have resulted in an increase in the amount of MSW generation throughout the world. On average the developed countries typically generate 521.95–759.2 kg per person per year (kpc) and 109.5–525.6 kpc typically by developing countries. Recent estimates suggest that the MSW generation globally exceeds 2 billion tons per year, which is a potential threat to environmental dilapidation. Therefore, MSW management (MSWM) seems to be one of the key topics for environmental protection in present days and also in the future. The authors have illustrated MSW generation and composition analysis and have provided a comprehensive review of MSWM in different countries throughout the world based on the available literatures. Some of the important aspects of waste management, such as composting, landfilling, and incineration, are illustrated. KEY WORDS: landfilling, composting, incineration, MSW, MSW composition, MSW generation rate, MSW management, recycling

Address correspondence to Tanmoy Karak, Tocklai Experimental Station, Tea Research Association, Jorhat-8, Assam, India. E-mail: [email protected] 1509

1510

T. Karak et al.


INTRODUCTION It is well documented that humans are the principal factor for breaking the ecological diversity in the environment and that subsequently comes as an end of environmental pollution. Population growth and increasing consumer choices have resulted in a large production showing worldwide. Most production facilitates lack environmental control in industrial processes, and also inadequate or insufficient facilities for waste management and treatment. Increase in urban growth has further resulted in an increase in the generation of waste from residential sites, private and public service facilities, and construction and demolition activities as new subdivisions are established. As the population density in urban areas is generally very high throughout the world, therefore the daily consumption pattern is also high. Besides this, the quantity of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation is also associated with the economic status of a society (Shekdar, 2009). A large percentage of trash that is generated now is the result of the products that are used or brought, which become wastes after use. This is considered as municipal solid waste or prevalently MSW and its final disposal is the last phase of the urban sanitation system of any city. It is closely related to the preservation of the environment as well as of the public health. Therefore, the control and treatment of MSW must be done through an intelligent system that minimizes its negative impacts on the ecosystem. Increased generation of household waste, which surpasses the assimilation capacity of the ecosystem and the insufficient installed capacity of disposed yards for its handling, promotes the proliferation of open air dumps, with an increased threat to the public health, ecosystem, and quality of life. Based on the population estimates by the Population Division of the United Nations and the gross domestic product (GDP) predicted by the World Bank, it is likely to be expected that total solid waste will be increased to 27 billion tons in 2050 from 13 billion tons in the year 1990 (Beede and Bloom, 1995). At present, the annual total solid waste generation is approximately 17 billion tons (Chattopadhyay et al., 2009). Global generation of MSW in 1997 was 0.49 billion tons with an estimated annual growth rate of 3.2–4.5% in developed nations and 2–3% in developing nations (Suocheng et al., 2001). Quantification and characterization of MSW is one of the vital formulations of its management strategy. In the developed economies, reliable data on MSW generation and management are updated and are available in the literature. These data are normally collected on a daily basis, which provides a rational basis for planning and executing waste management operations. On the other hand, in developing economies the data on MSW generation have a short history and insufficient national data or data of a large urban or periurban population center (Shekdar, 2009). However, anthology of MSW study throughout the world is scant. Therefore, in the present article we assess worldwide situation of MSW generation and composition to identify

MSW Generation, Composition, and Management

1511

issues relevant to MSW management (MSWM), and formulate a strategy for improving sustainable management of MSW.


GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF MSW THROUGHOUT THE WORLD Generally, in European countries and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, MSW covers waste from households (82% of total MSW) including bulky waste, waste from commerce and trade, office buildings, institutions and small businesses, yard and garden waste, street sweepings, the contents of litter containers, and market cleansing waste (Eurostat, 2003). The definition of MSW excludes waste from municipal sewage networks and treatment, as well as municipal construction and demolition waste. However, national definitions of MSW may differ (OECD, 2007a). In a developing economy, MSW is generally defined as the waste produced in a municipality. Most of the MSWs generated in developing countries are nonsegregated and, therefore, it may be either hazardous or nonhazardous. In general, whatsoever be the source of MSW, its impact on environment and quality of life is mainly related to air, water, and soil contaminations. It is also related to space consumption, odors, and esthetic prejudice.

Generation of MSW in 15 Countries of the European Union (EU-15) The 15 countries of the European Union (EU-15) are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The total MSW generation in million tons and the generation rate in kilograms per person per year (or kpc) for EU-15 from 1998 to 2008 are depicted in Figure 1. Within this reference period, on average MSW generation increased in the EU-15 by 4.6% from 540 to 565 kpc. Among the EU-15 countries, Denmark reported considerably higher amounts of MSW generation rate (i.e., 802 kpc [equivalent to 3.77 million tons]) for the year 2008 (Eurostat, 2009). On the other hand, Greece continued to be somewhat lower generation rate (i.e., 453 kpc) among the EU-15 countries in the year 2008 (Erkut et al., 2008; Eurostat, 2009).

Composition of MSW in 15 Countries of the European Union (EU-15) Physical composition is important to characterize and classify the MSW for its proper management. Nationwide MSW composition pattern in some selected cities among the countries of EU-15 are tabulated in Table 1. Besides, throughout the documentation for MSW composition, the whole MSW is

1512

T. Karak et al.


classified as organic material (including vegetables, food, and garden waste), paper and paperboard (including paper, wrapper, cardboard, and packaging paper), plastics (including plastic bags, plastic bottles, and packaging material), glass/ceramics (including glass bottles, broken glass, pottery items and earthen pot), metals (cables, foils, ferrous and nonferrous material), and others (including textiles).

FIGURE 1. Total MSW generation and generation rate in the year 1998–2008 for EU-15 (Eurostat, 2009; DEFRA, 2008). (Continued)


1513


The percentage wise contributions of organic material in MSW, generated in the year 2005 in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, and France were recorded as 35, 39, 29, and 32 of the total MSW, respectively (OECD, 2007a). MSW composition in Germany from 1983 to 1985 was found to be organic matter 27%, paper and paperboard 18.7%, plastics 6.1%, glass 11.5%, metals 3.9%, and textiles and others 32.9% (Vehlow, 1996). Presently Germany has more or less implemented different multibin or bag collection systems all

FIGURE 1. (Continued)


1514

T. Karak et al.


over the country, through different types of wastes being separated in the households. The present organic matter content in MSW is only 14% (OECD, 2007a). According to the National Waste Management Planning of Greece, MSW consisted of 47.0% organic material, 20.0% paper and paperboard, 8.5% plastics, 4.5% glass, 4.5% metal, and 15.5% other waste in 2000 (National & Regional Solid Waste Planning, 2003). In the same year, the quantity of recyclable materials (potentially available for separate collection) was estimated as 1.5 million tons, corresponding to 37.5% of weight of the total MSW, 21% of which (i.e., ∼975 tons) was packaging material (Greek Government, 2003). In the year 2005, the percent of organic matter in Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain was recorded as 25%, 29%, 45%, 35%, 34%, and 49%, respectively. However, in these countries, paper and paperboard contributes 31%, 28%, 22%, 26%, 21%, and 21% of the total MSW, respectively. Among the different composition in MSW, paper and paperboard contributes a higher percentage, which was 68% for the year 2005, however it was 74% for the year 2000 (OECD, 2007a).

1515

Nationwide Nationwide Vienna Vienna Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Espoo, Helsinki, Kauniainen and Vantaa Nationwide Mende in the district of Lozère Paris Nationwide Nationwide Berlin Bonn Munich Nationwide Athens Chania Heraklion Kalamata Komotini Kos Pylaia Rhodes Salonica Xanthi

Austria

Greece

Germany

France

Finland

Denmark

Belgium

Location

Country

32.0 29.4 40.9 43.1 30.0 15.0 21.0 40.0 47.0 59.0 55.0 52.5 47.0 67.0 37.0 41.0 42.0 26.6 62.0

NA 1983 2005 2003 NA NA 2001 1984 1990 1987 1992 1993 1989 1998 1988 1998 1993

30.0 35.0 24.0 37.0 41.0 39.0 34.0 29.0 30.0 33.0 28.0

2002 2005

1999 2004 NA 1997 1995 2003 1979 2003 1990 2000 1995

Year

Organic material

16.3 18.7 24.0 20.0 20.0 23.0 20.0 19.5 19.0 17.2 25.0 9.0 25.0 23.0 14.0 29.0 15.0

20.0 23.3

27.0 22.0 35.0 22.0 16.0 17.0 34.0 27.0 51.0 40.0 30.0

Paper and paperboard

8.4 6.1 13.0 23.0 2.0 6.0 8.5 7.0 8.0 14.3 7.5 6.0 11.0 4.0 12.0 18.0 7.0

9.0 14.8

13.0 11.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 0.8 5.0 10.0 7.0

Plastics

9.4 11.5 10.0 7.0 10.0 12.0 4.5 2.5 4.0 1.4 3.0 2.0 12.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0

10.0 4.2

11.0 8.0 9.0 16.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.0

Glass/ Ceramic

3.2 3.9 1.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 10.0 3.4 3.0

3.0 5.4

7.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 2.0 5.0 4.0

Metals

21.8 16.7 22.0 33.0 42.0 15.0 15.5 8.0 11.0 12.1 14.5 13.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 19.0 11.0

26.0 22.9

12.0 19.0 16.0 16.0 29.0 29.0 14.0 32.2 6.0 7.0 27.0

Textiles & others

TABLE 1. Percentage of physical composition of MSW generated from different countries and important cities of EU-15


(Continued on next page)

Scharff and Vogel, 1994 Vehlow, 1996 Mühle et al., 2010 Zhang et al., 2010a Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Scharff and Vogel, 1994 Erkut et al., 2008 Gidarakos et al., 2006 Parisakis et al., 1990 Gidarakos et al., 2006 Parisakis et al., 1992 Gidarakos et al., 2006 Parisakis et al., 1991 Gidarakos et al., 2006 Gidarakos et al., 2006 Gidarakos et al., 2006 Gidarakos et al., 2006

OECD, 2007a Bayard et al., 2010

OECD, 2007a OECD, 2007a Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Salhofer et al., 1999 OECD, 2007a OECD, 2007a OECD, 2007a OECD, 2007a Sokka et al., 2007 OECD, 2007a Tanskanen, 2000

Reference

1516

Nationwide Rome Sicily Nationwide Dublin Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Amsterdam Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Castellón Castellón de la Plana Churriana de la Vega in Granada Gipuzkoa Madrid Pamplona Nationwide Stockholm Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide London and Bedford Luton Midlands Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council Wales

Location

Note. NA = not available; NR = not reported.

United Kingdom

Sweden

Spain

Portugal

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Ireland

Italy

Country 29.0 50.0 27.5 25.0 45.6 35.0 45.0 30.0 50.0 34.0 35.5 48.0 57.1 57.0 55.5 70.5 45.0 43.0 39.0 NA 33.5 32.7 41.0 17.0 44.8 30.9 27.0 33.7

2005 NA 2004 2005 1992 1995 2003 1996 NA 1994 2001 2002 2002 (predicted) 2007 2008 2016 (predicted) 1985 1995 2002 NA 1996 2005 2009 2004 1993 1993 2002 2003

Year

Organic material

22.7

16.3 21.0 23.0 40.0 68.0 26.4 23.3 18.0 45.0 22.3 25.1 45.0

28.0 18.0 33.5 31.0 21.1 24.0 22.0 32.7 23.0 23.0 25.9 21.0 15.2 15.0 20.0


10.0

3.8 NR 6.0 6.8 2.0 8.9 23.7 7.0 9.0 10.4 15.3 10.0

5.0 4.0 17.0 11.0 8.8 2.0 0.8 4.2 5.0 12.0 11.4 12.0 10.1 10.0 16.5

Plastics

6.6

4.9 4.0 10.0 6.2 11.0 5.7 4.3 7.0 7.0 6.2 7.3 4.0

13.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 16.0 12.0 3.4 13.0 5.0 5.4 8.0 7.1 7.0 8.0

Glass/ Ceramic

4.3

1.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 2.0 8.8 6.2 8.0 6.0 3.6 13.2 6.0

2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 7.0 4.0 5.5 3.0 3.0 2.6 4.0 3.8 4.0 NR

Metals

22.7

2.6 27.0 15.0 3.1 17.0 16.9 9.8 19.0 16.0 12.7 8.2 8.0

22.0 21.0 14.5 23.0 15.8 16.0 16.2 24.2 6.0 23.0 19.2 7.0 6.7 7.0 NR

Textiles & others

Burnley et al., 2007

Muñoz et al., 2004 Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Wilson, 2002 OECD, 2007a Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Daskalopoulos et al., 1998 Mühle et al., 2010 DEFRA, 2010 Poll, 2004 Burnley, 2007 Burnley et al., 2007 Emery et al., 2007

OECD, 2007a Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Messineo and Panno, 2008 OECD, 2007a Dennison et al., 1996 OECD, 2007a OECD, 2007a Sakai et al., 1996 Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 OECD, 2007a Magrinho et al., 2006 OECD, 2007a Vidal et al., 2001 Bovea et al., 2010 Zamorano et al., 2009

Reference

TABLE 1. Percentage of physical composition of MSW generated from different countries and important cities of EU-15 (Continued)



1517


Generation of MSW in Other European Countries Albania, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Kosovo, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vatican City are the major European countries other than the EU-15. Most of these countries are considered as developed countries except Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey. Therefore, data of nationwide MSW generation in these countries are scan, except Turkey. Albania (southeastern Europe, in the west of the Balkan Peninsula) had a sustainable MSW production of 0.36 million tons in the year 2005, which contributes about 7.5% of the total annual biomass production (i.e., 4.8 million tons; Karaj et al., 2010). The distribution of MSW generation in the year 2005 in a different prefecture such as Berat (World Heritage designated place in Albania), Diber, Durres (second largest city of Albania), Elbasan (city in central Albania and one of the largest cities in Albania), Fier (city in southwest Albania), Gjrokaster (city in southern Albania and the World Heritage designated place), Korce (city in southeastern Albania and surrounded by the Morava Mountains), Kukes (town city in Albania and set among the mountains of northern Albania), Lezhe (city in northwest Albania), Shkoder (lake city in northwestern Albania and one of the oldest and most historic towns in Albania), Tirana (the capital and the largest city of Albania), and Vlore (the second largest port city of Albania) in Albania was recorded as 0.02, 0.01, 0.04, 0.03, 0.04, 0.01, 0.02, 0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.12, and 0.03 million tons, respectively (Figure 2). Therefore, among the entire prefecture, Tirana (capital city of Albania) generated highest amount (0.12 million tons) of MSW. At present Albanian citizens are generating approximately 219–307 kpc of urban waste (Karaj et al., 2010). Presently MSW productions in Tirana are 280 kpc on average in urban areas and 110 kpc in rural areas. In Azerbaijan, MSW generated was approximately 182.5 kpc. Exact data on the quantities of waste generated in Bosnia and Herzegovina are not available. However, according to the Regional Environmental Center (2000), Bosnia and Herzegovina generated 1.5 million kg of MSW for the year 2000 with respect to 3.8 million population, of which the urban population had generated 1.2 million kg per year (population 3.04 million) and the rural population had generated 0.3 million kg of MSW per year (population 0.76 million). Quantification of MSW in Kosovo is not in a good state due to the lack of completed legislation for waste management, and lack of infrastructure for waste collection services and waste treatment. According to GTZ data, 2.3 million urban people in Kosovo produced 0.25 million tons MSW, which means 109.5 kpc in the year 2004 (GTZ, 2004).

T. Karak et al. 230

Total MSW generation

0.12

210

MSW (kpc)

90 Vlore

0.00

Tirane

110

Shkoder

0.02

Lezhe

130

Kukes

0.04

Korce

150

Gjirokaster

0.06

Fier

170

Elbasan

0.08

Durres

190

Diber

0.10

MSW generation rate (kpc)

0.14

Berat


Total MSW generation ( million tons)

1518

Location

FIGURE 2. Total MSW production in Albania per prefecture for the year 2005 (Data extracted from Karaj et al., 2010).

In the mid-nineties of the last century, Krüger International Consult of Denmark (1999), in cooperation with VKI, Denmark, and Symonds Group, United Kingdom, conducted a study on the National Solid Waste Management System (NSWMS) in Macedonia, funded by the Phare Program of the EU. It was found that the daily generation rate of solid waste in Macedonia was about 300 kpc and 150 kpc for the urban and rural areas, respectively. An Environmental Performance Review for Macedonia conducted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE; 2002), in which it was estimated that the urban and rural areas generated 360 kpc and 120 kpc, respectively, for the year 2002. A short-term study (one-week period in the summer of 2002) by Hristovski et al. (2007) was conducted in the municipality of Veles (approximately 50 km south of the capital, Skopje), Macedonia. This study revealed that MSW generation rate was 386.9 kpc. Due to the social and political condition, the waste management in Moldova remains at the same stage of situation as 20 years ago (Gavrilita, 2006). Total MSW generation in Moldova for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 was 2.04, 2.75, and 2.54 million tons per year, respectively (Gavrilita, 2006). The considerable decrease of MSW generation from 2002 to 2003 was due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. As a result the drop of waste generation in



1519

Moldova may be ascribed as the fall in the demand, consequently reduced industrial activities and the transition to market economy. It is estimated that average annual waste generation in Serbia is 290 kpc. Households generate about 63% of the municipal waste, and businesses about 20%. Generally, solid waste is collected only from urban centers, which is about 60–70% of the total collected MSW (2.2 million tons annually) and there is no organized waste collection and treatment in rural areas. In Turkey, there are 3,215 municipalities, and 16 of them are metropolitan municipalities. A total of 2,984 municipalities have solid waste management services. In summer and winter seasons of 2002, 12.70 and 12.67 million tons of solid waste were generated by the municipalities that had solid waste management services (A˘gda˘g, 2009). In Turkey, the solid waste generation rates in summer and in winter were 481.8 and 489.1 kpc, respectively. According to Turan et al. (2009), the rate of waste generation in Turkey in the areas with the lowest population (2,000,000) it is 456.3 kpc. The amount of solid waste generated in Denizli (city in southwest Turkey) has increased steadily over time, from 0.11 million tons in 1993 to 0.18 million tons in 2006, because of increasing population and economic development. A very recent study reported that the amount of MSW generated from other locations in Turkey, such as Canakkale (a town and seaport in Turkey; population in 2009: 96588), Kusadasi-Aydin (seaside district and a resort town in Turkey; population in 2000: 65,764), Manisa (a large city in Turkey; population in 2009: 0.29 million), Izmir (second largest port city in Turkey; population in 2009: 2.72 million), Balikesir (population in 2009: 0.26 million), and Mugla (population in 2007: 94,207) was 408.8, 839.5, 711.8, 350.4, 324.9, and 365 kpc, respectively. According to the records of the municipality of Corlu Town (41◦ 7 30 eastern longitude and 27◦ 4 northern latitude; population in 2007: 0.21 million), 170 tons of waste are collected daily and the waste generation rate is 419.8 kpc (Tinmaz and Demir, 2006). The present MSW production in Gümüs¸hane (in the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey; population in 2009: 39,290) is approximately 365 kpc or 70 tons per day (tpd) (Nas and Bayram, 2008). Presently metropolitan Istanbul (largest city in Turkey; population in 2009: 12.78 million) in Turkey produces about 5.11 million tons of solid waste per year (Kanat, 2010). A significant change of overall MSW generation from 1998 to 2008 was also observed in this country (Figure 3). According to the Environmental Department of Andorran Government, the MSW generation rate in the Balearic Islands (Spain) was recorded as 547.5 kpc in winter season; however, in summer it was 912.5 kpc in 2008. According to the data obtained from Vego et al. (2008), the MSW generation rate in Dalmatia (having four counties: Zadar, Sibenik-Knin, Split-Dalmatia, and Dubrovnik, covering a land area of 12.990 km2) in Croatia was found to be 292 kpc due to inhabitants and 365 kpc due to tourists. There, the rate of

1520

T. Karak et al.


waste generation was highly influenced by the population type as the rate of waste generation in rural areas being around 109.5 kpc, while in urban areas it is 310.3 kpc. Therefore, it can be estimated that Dalmatia annually generates 0.27 million tons of MSW, most of which is from urban areas along the Adriatic coast. MSW generation for the year 2001 in different cities of Cyprus such as Nicosia (the capital and largest city of Cyprus), Limassol (second largest

FIGURE 3. Generation of MSW in other EU countries.


1521


city in Cyprus), Larnaca (city on the southern coast of Cyprus), and Paphos (a coastal city in the southwest of Cyprus) were recorded as 68,500, 77,800, 37,500, and 37,000 tons, respectively, per year by daily weighting of the solid waste generated by the municipalities (Eleftheriou, 2002). More than 750 kpc was generated in 2007 in Cyprus. In the same year Malta had generated 600–750 kpc and Sweden generated between 500 and 600 kpc. The member states Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia, and Lithuania were with values between



1522

T. Karak et al.


400 and 500 kpc (Figure 3). The lowest values, which are below 400 kpc, were found in Romania, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic (Eurostat, 2009a, 2009b). The present total amount of waste generated by Danube Region of Bulgaria, having 20 municipalities, is 0.33 million tons per year. The average amount of MSW production in the Czech Republic in 2001 was 273 kpc (Sˇauer et al., 2008) and among the total MSW generation, 20 kpc (i.e., 8.2%) was separated waste and 253 kpc (i.e., 91.8%) was mixed residual waste. MSW generation rate in Malta for the year 2000 was 0.48 tons per capita per year (Pipatti et al., 2006). MSW generation in Iceland was recorded only 0.02 million tons for the year 1995 (Eurostat, 1996). MSW generation in Norway was recorded only 0.27 million tons for the year 1995 (Eurostat, 1996). In the year 1999, the recorded MSW in this country was 2.9 million tons with 596 kpc (OECD, 2002) and in the year 2008 it was recorded only 490 kpc. In Poland, the amount of municipal wastes has been increasing continuously since 1992. Since 1975 its weights has almost got doubled, and in the years 1985–1998 it got by almost 8%, reaching 12.28 million tons in ´ 1998 (Grodzinska-Jurczak, 2001). It is expected that for next few years the amount of waste (mostly MSW) generated in Poland will continue to rise ´ (Grodzinska-Jurczak, 2001). The generation of total MSW in Poland for the



1523

year 2003 has been reported as 260 kpc (European Commission, 2003). The amount of MSW varies from region to region in Poland and is proportional to the population density. The largest amount of municipal wastes is generated in the Lower Silesia province (historical region in Poland; 14.9 million tons), the Kujawy-Pomorze province (historical and ethnographic region in the center of Poland; 6.3 million tons), and the Lublin province (the ninth largest city in Poland; 5.6 million tons; Pauli-Wilga, 1996). MSW generation in Poland for the year 2008 was recorded as 12.2 million tons (Figure 3), which is equal to 320 kpc (Eurostat, 2009a, 2009b). Besides this, extensive studies are available on solid waste composition and quantities in Poland by den Boer et al. (2010). In these literatures the municipal waste in Warsaw (capital of Poland) is also frequently monitored for quantity and quality, in accordance with the methods as prescribed by Polish Standard of MSW (Skalmowski, 2001, 2005). These results conclude that the quantity of waste per capita showed a steady increase in the early 1990s and this value has decreased by approximately 10% since 1996. The Soviet economy produced an average of only 56–57 million tons of domestic and commercial waste, or about 195 kpc a year, in the late 1980s. According to estimated data of 1988, the generation of solid wastes in the USSR from all sources were approximately 9 billion tons annually, equaling 195 kpc (Pirogov, 1988). In the year 1989, the Russian (population about 145 million) economy produced 27 million tons of trash (about 48% of the Soviet total), or 186 kilograms per inhabitant (Hunsicker et al., 1996). In 1991, the USSR created about 163 million tons of MSW annually, equaling about 655 kpc (U.S. Census Bureau, 1991). In the year 2000, the Russian Federation generated 50 million tons of MSW, equaling 340 kpc, which is a 112% increase since the year 1980 (Twardowska and Allen, 2004). However, no details of present survey data on MSW generation in these countries are available. Amount of total residential waste generation in Ukraine for the year 1985 was estimated as 11 million tons (Hunsicker et al., 1996). MSW generation for the year 2007 in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Turkey, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland was 3.59, 3.03, 0.72, 0.59, 0.86, 1.35, 4.59, 0.27, 12.26, 8.18, 0.89, 1.67, 3.00, 0.17, 3.86, and 5.46 million tons, respectively (Eurostat, 2009a, 2009b). In a nutshell, among the all EU countries (i.e., EU-15 and other European countries), on average 522 kpc of municipal waste was generated in 2008, where MSW generated per person varied from 294 kg in the Czech Republic to 801 kg in Denmark.

Composition of MSW in Other European Countries A typical data from the European countries (other than EU-15) are tabulated in Table 2. Among these countries, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and

1524 2003 2003 2000 NA 2005 NA 1999 2005 2002

Warsaw Krakow Nationwide Balikesir Beylikduzu Bursa Çanakkale Catalca Çorlu Town

Turkey

Hungary Moldova Poland

2004 2005 2010 2005 2003 1998 1998

Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide City of Jaslo

Kosovo Lithuania

1990 1995 2005 2007

Year

Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Pafos

Location

Bulgaria Czech Republic Cyprus

Country

32.2 40.5 53.9 67.0 48.8 53.1 80.0 35.1 54.2

30.5 43.0 36.0 29.0 68.5 31.0 53.0

41.0 18.0 39.0 40.6

Organic material

18.4 10.2 14.3 8.0 10.6 18.4 7.0 15.7 11.3

25.7 9.0 15.0 15.0 5.1 19.0 19.0

14.2 8.0 24.0 29.6


16.5 12.1 10.1 3.0 24.2 11.6 3.0 20.4 5.8

7.3 9.0 12.0 17.0 9.7 4.0 4.0

4.4 4.0 5.0 12.3

Plastics

11.3 10.1 4.0 3.0 5.5 3.4 2.0 3.6 3.2

11.3 7.0 8.0 2.0 4.1 8.0 8.0

3.3 4.0 1.5 1.4

Glass/ Ceramic

3.0 1.8 2.9 5.0 2.4 3.0 1.0 2.3 1.5

15.5 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.1 4.0 3.0

4.5 2.0 2.0 1.4

Metals

18.6 25.3 14.9 14.0 8.5 10.5 7.0 22.9 24.1

9.7 28.0 27.0 35.0 9.5 34.0 13.0

32.6 63.0 28.5 14.7

Textiles & others

Andreevska, 1990 OECD, 2007a Eleftheriou, 2007 Athanassiou and Zabaniotou, 2008 GTZ, 2004 Miliute and Staniskis, 2010 Miliute and Staniskis, 2010 OECD, 2007a Gavrilita, 2006 Grodzińska-Jurczak, 2001 Grodzińska-Jurczak et al., 2003 den Boer et al., 2010 den Boer et al., 2010 Metin et al., 2003 Metin et al., 2003 Kanat, 2010 Metin et al., 2003 Kirkitsos et al., 2000 Kanat, 2010 Tinmaz and Demir, 2006

Reference

TABLE 2. Percentage of physical composition of MSW generated from different countries and major cities of EU other than EU-15


1525

Note. NA = not available.

Switzerland

Denizli city Denizli city Denizli city Eminonu Fatih Gümüs¸hane Istanbul Istanbul Istanbul Izmir Kus¸adasi-aydın Manisa Mugla Sariyer Silivri Trabzon Yakuplu Geneva

1995 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 1980 1999 2005 NA 1998 NA NA 2005 2005 NA 2005 1989

65.6 43.7 42.0 47.5 40.7 29.8 60.8 48.0 60.5 46.0 14.8 62.6 20.0 55.6 55.8 1.0 49.3 29.5

8.4 10.3 12.0 18.5 7.7 9.8 10.2 8.4 9.8 12.0 5.8 1.5 4.0 15.3 9.4 28.0 10.6 32.0

9.4 19.3 17.5 16.9 23.2 7.9 3.1 11.0 11.9 12.0 1.9 4.5 2.0 15.0 19.6 36.0 14.4 8.0

3.3 3.2 4.0 6.0 4.2 3.3 0.7 4.6 6.1 4.0 2.3 1.1 2.0 9.4 5.8 11.0 4.1 8.5

5.2 NA 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.4 2.3 1.5 3.0 3.7 2.1 3.0 1.0 0.3 11.0 3.5 2.5


8.1 23.5 23.0 9.3 22.5 47.6 23.9 25.7 10.2 23.0 71.9 28.2 69.0 3.7 9.2 13.0 18.5 19.5

A˘gda˘g, 2009 A˘gda˘g, 2009 A˘gda˘g, 2009 Kanat, 2010 Kanat, 2010 Nas and Bayram, 2008 Kocasoy, 1996 Berkun et al., 2005 Kanat, 2010 Metin et al., 2003 Kirkitsos et al., 2000 Metin et al., 2003 Metin et al., 2003 Kanat, 2010 Kanat, 2010 Ersoy et al., 2008 Kanat, 2010 Leroy et al., 1992


1526

T. Karak et al.

Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, and Serbia, there are almost no organized solid waste quantification data as stated earlier. Consequently, there are no systematic official MSW compositions. However, in general, most of the generated MSW contains high fractions of organics and paper, compared with the lower amounts of plastics, glass, and metals reported so far. On the basis of the selected MSW data in some prefecture of Albania, it has been observed that the components of MSW are mainly paper, cardboard, plastics, wood, and other combustible materials (Karaj et al., 2010). Metals, glass, and other noncombustible materials are included in a small quantity. About 80% of MSW composition is biodegradable (Ministry of Environment, 2005). Adana city in Turkey generated high amounts of organic matter (64%) in MSW, followed by Mersin (63%), Bursa (53%), Izmir (43%), and Istanbul (46%). A high organic fraction of MSW has also been reported in many cities of Turkey (43–64%; Metin et al., 2003). The present typical range of composition (percentage by weight) in MSW in Turkey is organics: 40–65; paper and paper board: 7–18; plastics: 5–14; metal: 1–6; glass: 2–6; and others: 7–24 (Turan et al., 2009). Of particular interest, the large share of Soviet waste classified as food products, despite perennial food shortages. This phenomenon can be attributed to two factors: a smaller volume of plastics, paper, and metal discarded (a function, in part, of modest packaging practices) and a large share of food wasted in the processing and transport phase of the food chain. MSW composition in 1989 data for the Soviet Union is organic (20–38%), paper and paperboard (20–36%), plastics (3–5%), glass (5–7%), metals (2–3%), and textiles and others (14–40.5%; VINITI, 1989). The percent organic matter present in MSW for the year 2005 in Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Slovakia, and Switzerland was recorded as 17%, 17%, 9%, 7%, and 15%, respectively (OECD, 2007a).

MSW Generation in Southeast Asia Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam belong to Southeast Asian Nations. In general, in most of the developing countries, collection and transport activities account for most of the municipal solid waste management budget. Despite this high expenditure, only a small fraction of the waste generated is collected (Eawag, 2008). On the basis of the available literature, the picture of MSW generation in Southeast Asian countries and in their important cities is shown in Table 3. Among 0.38 million total population in Brunei, about 59.0% stay in the urban region and produce 54.45 million tons solid waste per year, which is equivalent to 240.9 kpc waste generation in the year 2001. The predicted amount of waste generation in this country would be 79.18 million tons per year (i.e., 346.8 kpc; Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). In the year 1995, the total amount of MSW generated in Cambodia was 1.29 million tons

1527

2004

Phnom Penh

Laos

Indonesia

1999

Nationwide

Cambodia

1998

1995

Semarang

Vientiane

1986

Jakarta

2005

2005

Bandung

Nationwide

2005

Nationwide

1999

Nationwide

Brunei

Year

Location

Country

0.18

5.75

1.30

7.00

2.62

107.25

2.61

14.17

0.39

Population (in millions)

0.04

1.15

0.18

1.28

0.55

31.32

0.62

2.69

0.09

Annual MSW generation (in million tons)

211.7

200.8

134.8

182.5

209.0

292.0

237.3

189.8

240.9

MSW generation (in kpc) Remarks

Vientiane is the capital city of Laos. This city is literally known as the City of Sandalwood.

Brunei is one of the developed country in Southeast Asia Cambodia is a country in Southeast Asia. For the past 20 years this country has been classified as one of the poorest countries in the world Phnom Penh is the capital and largest city of Cambodia. No rigorous estimate of the waste generation available Indonesia is a country in Southeast Asia and Oceania. It is the world’s fourth most populous country. Population was considered for the entire country. Bandung is the second largest metropolitan area in Indonesia. 66% of the total MSW is originating from households. Jakarta is the capital and largest city of Indonesia. Semarang, the capital city of the Central Java Province, Indonesia. MSW generation data in Semarang municipality was calculated on the basis of MSW generation of the subdistrict of Pedurungan as this district is representative of the Semarang municipality. Laos is a landlocked country in Southeast Asia.

TABLE 3. MSW generation in different countries and selected cities of Southeast Asia



Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009 Hoornweg and Laura, 1999

Supriyadi et al., 2000

Maniatis et al., 1987

Damanhuri et al., 2009

Shekdar, 2009

Kum et al., 2005

Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009

Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009

Reference

1528

Philippines

2010 1995

2004 2010

Nationwide Metro Manila

Metro Manila Quezon City

1993

Yangon

2000

1998 2008 1999

Kuala Lumpur Kuala Lumpur Nationwide

Nationwide

2008 1989

Nationwide Kuala Lumpur

Myanmar

1995

Nationwide

Malaysia

Year

Location

Country

9.93 2.86

76.50 9.45

57.29

2.51

1.45 2.34 1.48

38.19 0.92

37.43


1.58 0.74

10.67 1.83

9.41

0.41

0.82 1.38 1.13

6.97 0.43

3.19


158.7 257.0

139.5 193.5

164.3

164.3

569.4 591.3 766.9

182.5 470.9

85.3

MSW generation (in kpc) Malaysia is a federal constitutional monarchy in Southeast Asia — Kuala Lumpur is the capital and the second largest city of Malaysia. — — Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) is the second largest country by geographical area in Southeast Asia. Yangon (also known as Rangoon), is a former capital of Myanmar. Philippines is the world’s 12th most populous country — Manila is the capital of the Philippines. Manila is considered the Philippines’ gateway to the world. Only urban population in 2000 Quezon City, a former capital (1948 to 1976) of the Philippines is located on the island of Luzon.

Remarks

TABLE 3. MSW generation in different countries and selected cities of Southeast Asia (Continued)


Diaz et al., 2007 UN-HABITAT, 2010

World Bank, 2000 Hoornweg and Laura, 1999

World Bank, 2000

Hoornweg and Laura, 1999

Manaf et al., 2009 Saeed et al., 2009 Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009

Periathamby et al., 2009 Hoornweg and Laura, 1999

Periathamby et al., 2009

Reference

1529

1999 2008 1995 2002 1998 2005 1995 2008

2008

Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide

Nationwide Bangkok

Bangkok Nationwide

Can Tho city

Mekong Delta city

Thailand

Vietnam

1980

Nationwide

Singapore

1.12

1.16

5.88 15.29

63.19 4.70

2.41 3.89 11.64

1.58

0.16

0.12

2.14 3.07

14.30 1.10

0.64 1.36 4.67

0.23

102.7

104.0

365.0 200.7

226.3 233.1

265.6 349.6 401.5

146.0

Singapore is the world’s fourth leading financial center and a cosmopolitan world city. This country has the best quality of life in Asia. — — Thailand is the world’s 50th largest country in terms of total area and lies in the heart of Southeast Asia. — Bangkok is the capital and largest urban area of Thailand. This city is also known as “city of angels.” Population in 1980. — Vietnam is the easternmost country on the Indochina Peninsula in Southeast Asia. Can Tho city, the capital city of the Mekong Delta region, in Vietnam. MSW data was calculated from the 1-month survey of 130 households. One-month survey from 24 February to 25 March, 2009, and from 17 to 31 October, 2009


Thanh et al., 2010b

Thanh et al., 2010a

Chiemchaisri et al., 2007b Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009

Chiemchaisri et al., 2007b BMA, 2002

Bai and Sutanto, 2002 Zhang et al., 2010a Hoornweg and Laura, 1999

Bai and Sutanto, 2002

T. Karak et al.

per year, which is equivalent to 189.8 kpc (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). For the year 2000, a normal Cambodian generated 365 kpc MSW (Yem, 2001). In the year 2004, 124.1 kpc MSW was generated on average in Siem Reap (the gateway to the archaeological ruins of Angkor Wat; Parizeau et al., 2006). The predicted amount of MSW generation in this country for the year 2025 will be 2.74 million tons per year, which is 401.5 kpc. The estimated total MSW generation in the year 2000 in Indonesia was reported between 292 and 365 kpc (Mukawi, 2001). On average, every Indonesian generated 277.4 kpc of solid waste for the year 2006. Thus, with total 246.5 million populations, Indonesia would generate 68.39 million tons per year of MSW, which is administratively distributed into 33 provinces (Helmy et al., 2006). The MSW generation in Indonesia is directly related to the contributing population. Figure 4 represents the waste generation in the major cities in Indonesia in the year 2000. It has been reported that from 87.1% to 94.5% of the total generated wastes been collected by the collecting authorities. MSW generation for the year 2007 in kpc was 292 having the GDP of US$5096 (Shekdar, 2009). According to Shekdar (2009) the estimated amount of MSW generation for the year 2030 will be the 114.15 million tons in response to the urban population of 186.72 million people. In Laos, the average urban waste production was 200.8 kpc in the year 1998 (Hoornweg and Laura, 1999). However, the generation rate increased to 273.8 kpc in the year 2001 (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). In the year 2008, 0.70

350

Annual MSW generation (million tons) MSW generation rate (kpc)

0.60 0.50

310 0.40 290 0.30 270 0.20

Yogyakarta

Padang

Makassar

230 Semarang

0.00 Medan

250

Bandung

0.10

Location

FIGURE 4. MSW generated in major cities in Indonesia (Source: Helmy et al., 2006).


330

Surabaya



1530



1531

waste generation was 255.5 kpc (Shekdar, 2009). The expected generation rate for the year 2025 will be 328.5 kpc, totaling of 0.82 million tons per year (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). Despite the aggressive economic development in Malaysia (population in 2000: 24.82 million), the solid waste management is relatively poor and haphazard (Hassan et al., 2000). However, on the basis of the available literature, the Malaysian people generated an estimated 5.48 million tons of solid waste in 2001, which is about 295.65 kpc (Hassan et al., 2001). This is much lower than the waste generation rate of 803 kpc in the United States and 547.5 kpc in European countries. The waste generation rate in Kuala Lumpur (population in 2009: 1.81 million) has been continuously rising every year due to the uncontrolled consumption owing to the increasing population, the attitude toward shopping, and the high living standard. It is expected that the amount of solid waste generated in Kuala Lumpur would get doubled in the next 20 years: from 3.2 million tons a year today to 7.7 million tons a year (Hassan, 2002; Hassan et al., 2000). The quantity of waste generation per year in Kuala Lumpur alone was projected to increase from 0.96 million tons in 1995 up to 1.12 million tons in 2000 (Mansor, 1999). In Kuala Lumpur alone, the estimated solid waste generation was 1.27 million tons in the year 2005 (Murad and Siwar, 2007). Among the major urban cities in Malaysia, the amount of MSW generation for the year 2007 has been reported as 182.5 to 357.7 kpc (Asian Productivity Organization, 2007; Shekdar, 2009). Among all the metropolitan cities in Malaysia, Penang City (population in 2010 estimate: 1.77 million) generates highest amount (357.7 kpc) of MSW. Recent data on predicted MSW generation in Kuala Lumpur by Saeed et al. (2009) indicated that if the current waste generation trends continue to increase at 6.26% rate per year, then the waste generation would reach 1.38 million tons in the year 2008 to 3.57 million tons (or 813.95 kpc) in the year 2024. In general, MSW generated in Malaysia consisting 48% residential, 11% street cleansing, 24% commercial, 6% institutional, 4% construction & industry, and 7% from landscape (Tchobanoglous et al., 2005). In the Union of Myanmar (population in 2009 estimate: 50.02 million), formerly known as Burma, Yangon (formerly Rangoon; population in 2010: 4.35 million) produced 0.55 million tons per year of MSW, which was equivalent to 164.25 kpc (Tin et al., 1995). Presently in Myanmar, 10,526 tons of waste is generated per year and the waste generation rate is 164.25 kpc (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). The predicted amount of MSW for the year 2025 will be 8.36 million tons. According to the report given by Kah (1993), the daily output of refuse in Singapore (population in 2010: 5.08 million) had increased from 0.58 million tons in 1972 to 2.26 million tons in 1992. The quantity of waste generated in Singapore in the year 2001 was 5.04 million tons, which is about 401.5 kpc against a population of only 4.48 million (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). The amount of solid waste generated in Singapore in the year 2005


1532

T. Karak et al.

was recorded as 1.73 million tons, which was equivalent to 401.5 kpc. The projected amount of MSW that will be generated in the year 2025 and 2030 are 1.77 and 2.1 million tons, respectively (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). Solid waste has been becoming a major problem in Thailand, particularly the Bangkok metropolis and other major cities in regional areas. Each year more than 7 million tons of solid wastes are generated in urban areas (Bangkok metropolis, municipalities) where more than 22 million people reside. Nuntapodidech and Puncharoen (1993) reported that MSW generation rate in the Bangkok metropolitan region is in the range from 233.6 to 1018.35 kpc for the year 1992 and daily production is about 5,400 tons of which 4,230 tons are collected. In Thailand, 401.5 kpc MSW was formed in the year 1998 (Hoornweg and Laura, 1999). The quantity of waste produced by Thailand in 2001 was 14.1 million tons per year (about 233.6 kpc), an increase of about 0.17 million tons per year compared with the prior year (Hiramatsu et al., 2009). The urban waste generation in Thailand for the year 2002 was reported to be 365–584 kpc (National Research Institute, 2003a, 2003b). In 2003, approximately 14.32 million tons per year of solid waste was generated across the country, of which 24% was from Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA), 31% from municipalities, and the remaining 45% was from rural areas (outside municipalities; Thailand Environment Monitor, 2003). In the year 2005, the generation of MSW in the urban areas of the Bangkok metropolitan region (population in 2010: 9.1 million) rapidly increased and was measured at 474.5 kpc, which was almost twice the average for the country (Thailand) as a whole (233.6 kpc; Siriratpiriya, 2006). A survey report for the year 2009 by Hiramatsu et al. (2009), showed that among the nonfarming households, food shops generated the most; 401.5 kpc in Thailand. Townhouses, which were the most numerous household types in their survey area, disposed of 0.54 kg wet weight per day per person on average, with organic waste accounting for 78% by weight of the total waste. Waste generation from apartment houses was 153.3 kpc, which was about 36.5 kpc less than that of the urban detached houses. Among the Asian countries, Thailand acquired second position on the basis of MSW generation rate, which is 526.7 kpc (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). In the Philippines, an average of 36,172.50 tons of waste was generated for the year 1999 (World Bank, 2001), and the waste generation rate was 189.8 kpc (in urban areas) and 109.5 kpc (in rural areas). According to Asian Productivity Organization (APO) survey report, Philippines citizen generated 240.9 kpc MSW for the year 2003–2004 (APO, 2007). Figure 5 shows status of waste generation in the Philippines for the year 2000 as per the World Bank (2001). From these data, it is clear that the National Capital Region (i.e., Metro Manila; population in 2007: 1.66 million) has the highest waste generation (23%), almost a quarter of the country’s generated waste as a whole. On the other hand, the Cordillera region (the largest mountain range in the Philippines, having a population of about 1.52 million for the year 2007) has

1533


600

2.5

Annual MSW generation (million tons) 2.3

550

MSW generation rate (kpc) 500 450

1.8

400

1.5

350

1.3

300

1.0

250 200

0.8 150 0.5 100 0.3




2.0

50

0.0

0 ARMM

Bicol

Cagayan Caraga Valley

Central Cordillera Ilocos Luzon AR

Metro Manila

Visayas Western Mindanao

Locations

FIGURE 5. MSW generation in different major metropolitans in Philippines for the year 2000 (Source: World Bank, 2000).

the lowest generation (1.6%). According to the forecasted data of the World Health Organization (WHO; 1999), the Philippines will be producing 292 kpc MSW for the year 2025. According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB; 2004) reports, Metro Manila generates 2.45 million tons of solid waste per year where 9.9 million people are residing. As per the World Bank (2001) report, the predicted waste generation in the Philippines for the year 2025 will go to 18.8 million tons per year, which is equivalent to 292 kpc waste generation. The average quantity of solid waste generated from towns and cities in Vietnam (population in 2009: 85.85) increased from 5.93 million tons per year in 1996 to 8.11 million tons per yea in 1998 (Shekdar, 2009). The generation rates of MSW depend on the category of urban area and ranges from 127.8 to 292 kpc (Hoornweg, 1999). In the year 2000, Vietnam generated 49.13 million tons per year (about 222.7 kpc). Urban data by Consulting Data Group survey of Vietnam reported that the MSW generation rate in different cities of Vietnam like Ho Chi Minh City (population in 2009: 7.16 million), Hanoi (population in 2009: 6.5 million) and Da Nang (population in 2009: 0.89 million) in the year 2003 was 474.5, 365 and 328.5 kpc, respectively (Doberstein, 2003). Vietnam produced over 15 million tons of MSW in the year 2008 from various sources. Urban areas contained only 24 percent of the population of the country, but produces over 6 million tons of the country’s municipal waste. This is due to the more affluent lifestyles, larger

1534

T. Karak et al.


FIGURE 6. MSW generation in Vietnam from 1997 to 2010 (Source: World Bank, 2004).

quantity of commercial activities, and more intense industrialization in urban areas. These activities also increase the proportion of hazardous waste (such as batteries and household solvents) and nonbiodegradable waste (such as plastics, metal, and glass) in urban waste. On the contrary, people in rural areas (109.5 kpc) produce less than half of the rate of those in urban areas (255.5 kpc) municipal waste. MSW generation in this country from the years 1997–2009 and predicted MSW in the year 2010 are presented in Figure 6. Urbanization in Vietnam is rapid and is expected to increase from the current level of 24% to 33% in 2010, resulting in 10 million more people in urban areas.

Composition of MSW in Southeast Asia A percentage analysis of different composition of MSW in Southeast Asia is presented in Table 4. Waste composition in Brunei was as follows: organic waste (44%), paper and paperboard (22%), plastics (12%), glass (4%), metal (5%), and others (13%; Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). Kitchen wastes, yard waste, wood, coconut shells, and bones collectively accounted for 66.3% of waste by weight in Cambodia. Other components such as stones and dirts were 14%, plastics were 14%, paper and paperboard were 3%, metal and glass were 1% each, and others including textiles were 15% (Parizeau et. al., 2006). The typical physical composition of MSW in Indonesia includes compostable organic matter 63%, paper 13%, plastics 11%, and metal/glass/textiles and others are 1% each (Helmy et al., 2006). MSW composition in Laos includes biodegradable fraction 54.3%, paper and paperboard 3.3%, plastics 7.8%, glass 8.5%, metals 3.8%, and inert fraction 22.5% (Shekdar, 2009). The composition of solid waste in Malaysia was similar to that of the most developing countries. According to APO (2007), the present status of different components of MSW in Malaysia includes organic (51%),

1535

Nationwide Nationwide Siem Reap Nationwide Bandung Bandung Bogor Cimahi Jakarta Jakarta Sarimukti Semarang Surabaya (formerly Soerabaja) Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Kuala Lumpur Shah Alam Rangoon (also known as Yangon) Nationwide Baguio Batangas Dinalupihan Iloilo Manilla Olongapo Tacloban

Brunei Cambodia

Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) Philippines

Laos Malaysia

Indonesia

Location

Country

54.3 63.7 48.3 45.7 44.8 40.0 63.7 46.9 80.0 41.6 52.5 53.8 25.5 38.1 43.0 45.1 52.1

NA NA NA NA NA 1985 NA NA

44.0 55.0 66.0 74.0 71.6 51.9 80.0 50.0 82.0 79.5 51.4 70.7 94.0

NA 1975 1985 1995 2005 NA 1982 2005 NA

2000 2005 2005 NA 1978 2005 1984 2005 NA 1981 2005 1995 1982

Year

Organic material

19.5 13.6 9.5 6.5 9.4 17.0 12.6 12.1

3.3 7.0 23.6 9.0 16.0 15.0 11.7 17.9 1.0

22.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 9.6 9.8 6.0 13.2 2.0 8.0 9.3 10.2 2.0


13.8 6.4 13.2 9.0 20.0 4.0 12.4 11.0

7.8 2.5 9.4 3.9 15.0 15.0 7.0 20.3 4.0

12.0 10.0 14.0 8.0 5.5 12.1 4.0 18.0 3.0 3.7 15.7 10.6 2.0

Plastics

2.5 2.4 2.4 3.0 1.3 5.0 2.9 2.7

8.5 2.5 4.0 3.9 3.0 4.0 2.5 2.6 6.0

4.0 8.0 1.0 2.0 0.4 3.6 NA 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 1.9 1.0

Glass/ Ceramic

4.8 3.9 3.3 7.0 6.1 2.0 5.5 3.0

3.8 6.4 5.9 5.1 3.3 3.0 6.4 4.3 3.0

5.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 2.2 1.3 NA 0.6 4.0 1.4 0.3 1.0 0.5

Metals

17.8 21.3 17.7 49.0 25.1 29.0 21.5 19.1

22.3 17.9 8.8 32.4 17.9 23.0 8.7 8.0 6.0

13.0 17.0 15.0 4.0 10.7 21.3 10.0 17.7 8.5 7.0 22.6 5.6 0.5

Textiles & others Reference

Shekdar, 2009 World Bank, 2000 World Bank, 2000 World Bank, 2000 World Bank, 2000 Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 World Bank, 2000 World Bank, 2000 (Continued on next page)

Shekdar, 2009 Periathamby et al., 2009 Periathamby et al., 2009 Periathamby et al., 2009 Periathamby et al., 2009 Shekdar, 2009 Maniatis et al., 1987 Sharifah et al., 2008 Ali Khan and Burney, 1989

Damanhuri et al., 2009 Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Maniatis et al., 1987 Damanhuri et al., 2009 Supriyadi et al., 2000 Maniatis et al., 1987

Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009 Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009 Parizeau et al., 2006 Shekdar, 2009 Maniatis et al., 1987 Damanhuri et al., 2009

TABLE 4. Percentage of physical composition in MSW generated from different countries and major cities of Southeast Asia


1536

Location

Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Angthong Bangkok Bangkok Chiangmai Chiangrai Kanchanaburi Nakhonpathom Nakornratchasima Nakornsawan Nonthaburi Nonthaburi Pattaya Petchburi Phitsanulok Phuket Nationwide Can Tho City Ha Long Tay Ninh Thai Nguyen Viet Tri


Vietnam

Thailand

Singapore

Country 2000 2008 1995 2001 NA 2003 1985 2003 2003 2003 2003 2001–2003 2003 2003 2003 2007 2003 2003 2003 2004 NA 2008 NA NA NA NA

Year 41.5 27.2 21.1 35.9 48.6 65.0 49.9 51.8 44.0 55.2 55.0 61.5 54.6 45.6 68.7 53.3 68.6 47.0 57.6 64.8 49.4 86.1 49.2 63.0 55.0 55.5

20.6 21.2 40.1 20.7 14.6 3.8 12.1 13.5 24.6 11.0 10.0 5.0 17.7 20.1 13.2 6.8 5.7 25.0 11.3 8.9 14.7 4.9 4.6 5.3 3.0 7.5

5.8 11.5 8.8 15.9 13.9 13.2 10.9 12.4 7.0 15.1 12.0 26.2 19.7 21.0 13.7 28.4 9.6 17.6 19.3 17.1 15.1 6.1 3.2 8.7 3.0 4.5

1.1 1.0 3.6 9.9 5.1 4.9 6.6 4.0 1.0 9.6 10.0 1.7 2.4 6.4 0.3 4.3 1.7 4.5 0.6 2.6 9.7 1.1 0.4 1.3 0.1 0.6

3.2 14.6 11.5 3.8 3.6 1.0 3.5 3.5 1.0 2.1 5.0 1.1 2.0 2.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.3 3.9 2.7 3.4 0.7 0.4 2.8 3.0 0.2

27.8 24.5 15.0 13.8 14.2 12.1 17.0 14.8 22.4 7.0 8.0 4.5 3.5 4.3 3.8 6.6 13.8 4.6 7.3 3.9 7.7 1.1 42.6 19.6 36.0 32.1

Paper Textiles Organic and Glass/ & material paperboard Plastics Ceramic Metals others

Bai and Sutanto, 2002 NEA, 2008 Brereton, 1996 Chaya and Gheewala, 2007 Shekdar, 2009 Chiemchaisri et al., 2007b Maniatis et al., 1987 Chiemchaisri et al., 2007b Chiemchaisri et al., 2007b Chiemchaisri et al., 2007b Chiemchaisri et al., 2007b Chiemchaisri et al., 2007a Chiemchaisri et al., 2007b Chiemchaisri et al., 2007b Chiemchaisri et al., 2007b Hiramatsu et al., 2009 Chiemchaisri et al., 2007b Chiemchaisri et al., 2007b Chiemchaisri et al., 2007b Liamsanguan and Gheewala, 2008 Shekdar, 2009 Thanh et al., 2010a NEA, 2002 NEA, 2002 NEA, 2002 NEA, 2002

Reference

TABLE 4. Percentage of physical composition in MSW generated from different countries and major cities of Southeast Asia (Continued)




1537

paper and paperboard (15%), plastics (14%), glass (3%), metals (4%), and textiles and other (13%). This indicates that organic waste forms the biggest component, with paper and plastics (including rubber) at the second and third positions, respectively. There are, however, variations in the composition of waste among different areas in this country. A detailed study in 2000 in and around Kuala Lumpur showed that there were differences in the percentages of different types of wastes according to building use and the socioeconomic background of the residents. Figure 7 shows the change of solid waste composition in Kuala Lumpur from 1975 to 2000. No significant changes in organic matter were observed in Kuala Lumpur MSW except for the year 1985. According to an APO (2007) report, there is also a difference in waste composition between the bigger cities and smaller towns. In Kuala Lumpur, the organic waste accounted for about 48.4% while in Muar, an average-size municipality of about 0.5 million people, it was 63.7% for recent years. The physical composition of MSW in Yangon in Myanmar as given by Yangon City Development Committee (1993) includes vegetable waste 75%, paper 4%, plastics 2%, leather and rubber 2%, textile 3%, bone waste 1%, bamboo and wood products 5% and miscellaneous 5%. The waste composition for several cities outside Metro Manila of Philippines is shown in Table 5 (World Bank, 2000a). From these data, it is evident that there was more percentage of organic waste (25.5–55.0%). According to Shekdar (2009), the MSW composition in Singapore with respect to percentage wet basis was found to be as biodegradable fraction

FIGURE 7. Solid waste composition in Kuala Lumpur (Data extracted from Nasir, 2007).

1538


Organic material Paper and paperboard Plastics Glass/Ceramic Metals Textiles and others

Waste composition 53.8 9.5 13.2 2.4 3.3 17.7

Batangas 45.1 12.6 12.4 2.9 5.5 21.5

Olongapo 52.5 13.6 6.4 2.4 3.9 21.3

Baguio 38.1 9.4 20.0 1.3 6.1 25.1

Iloilo 52.1 12.1 11.0 2.7 3.0 19.1

Tacloban

Local government units in the Philippines

55.0 0.0 NA NA NA 45.0

San Fernando

TABLE 5. Percentage of waste composition in different local Government units in Philippines (Source: World Bank, 2000a)


25.5 6.5 9.0 3.0 7.0 49.0

Dinalupihan

1539



44.4%, paper 28.3%, plastics 11.8%, glass 4.1%, metal 4.8%, and inert fraction 6.6%. A survey study of MSW composition in Oboto Bang Maenang in Nonthaburi Province, adjoining Bangkok in Thailand, was performed by Hiramatsu et al. (2009). This survey concluded that waste composition was directly influenced by economic status of the community and the household pattern. Among the waste composition the percentage of kitchen wastes ranged from 27.7 (in a farmer’s house) to 84.9 (in food shops); for papers from 1.6 (food shops) to 8.8 (in a townhouse); for can from 0 to 0.4 (in food shops); for glass from 0 (in a farmer’s house) to 11.3 (in temporary houses); for plastics from 6.4 to 20.4 (in temporary houses); for yard waste from 0 (in apartment) to 55.7 (in a farmer’s house); for wood from 0 (urban detached house) to 1.3 (in temporary houses); for metal from 0.2 (in apartment) to 2.2 (in temporary houses); and for fabric from 0 (in farmers house) to 2.8 (in apartment). The MSW composition in Phuket (a province in the southern part of Thailand) for the year 2007 was cloth (2.07%), food waste (44.13%), garden waste (5.26%), glass (9.67%), metals (3.44%), paper (14.74%), plastics (15.08%), rubber/leather (2.28%), and stone/ceramic (1.39%; Liamsanguan and Gheewala, 2008). The composition of solid waste in Hanoi, Vietnam, consisted of organic substances, paper, cartons, plastics, glass, ceramic waste, metal, and bones. Table 6 shows the changing characteristics of solid waste in Hanoi City from 1995 to 1998. According to the report of the State of the Environment in Vietnam (National Environment Agency, 2002), the organic substances present in MSW from different locations of this country contributed to more than 50% of the total weight. MSW composition in different major cities of Vietnam is shown in Table 7. From the Table 7 it is apparent that organic waste accounted for the largest part (49.2–63%) of the total generated MSW. Thanh et al. (2010a) also reported that about 84.18–85.10% of household solid waste (the main discharge source of MSW) was organic part when waste was collected from Can Tho city, the capital city of the Mekong Delta region in Vietnam, in the year 2009. TABLE 6. Changing composition (%) of MSW in Hanoi from 1995 to 1998 (Source: VietnamState of the Environment Report, 1998) Year Composition

1995

1996

1997

1998

Organic material Paper and paperboard Plastics Glass/Ceramic Metals Textiles and other

45.9 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.2 47.6

50.4 2.9 3.2 2.6 1.8 39.1

53.0 2.3 4.1 3.8 5.5 31.3

50.1 4.2 5.5 1.8 2.5 35.9

1540

T. Karak et al.

TABLE 7. MSW composition (percentage of weight) of different locations in Vietnam (Source: NEA, 2002) Different location in Vietnam Waste composition Organic material Paper and paperboard Plastics Glass/Ceramic Metals Textiles and others

Ha Long

Hanoi

Tay Ninh

Thai Nguyen

Viet Tri

49.20 4.60 3.23 3.70 0.40 38.87

53.0 1.09 9.66 3.27 5.15 27.90

63.0 4.7–6.0 7.7–11.6 1.7–2.7 1.0–3.4 21.9–13.3

55.00 3.00 3.00 0.70 3.00 35.30

55.50 7.52 4.52 0.63 0.22 32.13


MSW Generation From Other Asian Nations Most Asian nations (except Japan, South Korea, and Singapore) lack well formulated guidelines and policy structure regarding waste management services, in the absence of which the municipal agencies have not been performing their duties satisfactorily in this aspect. Though, few rules are there within the various municipal acts, which govern the day-to-day running of these agencies, the same, however, due to lack of enforcement, have not served the purpose much. Besides this fact, the weakness of the estimated total current MSW generation in the Asian countries is due to the lack of complete source of data on the major waste streams. Therefore, numerous statistical gaps on MSW generation database are frequently observed among Asian nations. Table 8 is a reflection of MSW generation in different countries and different cities of Asian nations based on the available literature. From Table 8, a wide variation in the quantity of MSW has been observed in Asian countries. Among the eight Asian countries, Afghanistan is categorized as the least developed country (LDC) by the World Bank in terms of its low income, human resource weakness, and economic vulnerability. Reliable data of MSW generation in this country is scanty due to lack of quantification of MSW. According to Glawe et al. (2005), the estimated amount of MSW was 146 kpc in Kabul (capital and largest city of Afghanistan) in 2003. Between October 2002 and May 2004, over 120,000 m3 of solid wastes were collected in Kabul. Similar to Afghanistan, the data regarding waste generation in Armenia is quite inexact and nonreliable. Nonetheless, according to the data for the period of 1985–1990 about 1.5 million tons of MSW was generated per year (UNECE, 2000). This is equal to 370–430 kpc. On the other hand, according to UNECE data, the amount of waste per capita per person for 1996–1997 was in the range of 247–285 kg. The municipal waste contains about 85% of household and the rest was nonhazardous industrial waste.

1541

NA

1991

2001

2005

2025

2006

2003

2005

Nationwide

Nationwide

Nationwide

Nationwide

Nationwide

Chittagong

Dhaka

Dhaka

Bangladesh

2000

Nationwide

Bahrain

NA

Year

Kabul

Location

Afghanistan

Country

5.73

6.50

3.65

78.44

32.76

28.81

20.87

17.50

0.35

NA


0.71

1.28

0.33

17.18

4.87

5.26

3.73

2.81

0.16

NA


124.3

196.5

91.3

219.0

149.6

182.5

178.9

160.4

459.9

146.0

Average MSW generation (in kpc)

Projected data (where urban population is 40% of total population of Bangladesh) Chittagong is a major commercial and industrial center in Bangladesh. MSW data from a reconnaissance survey in March 2006. Dhaka (formerly known as Dacca, and Jahangirnagar) is the capital of Bangladesh. Dhaka is also known as the “Rickshaw Capital of the World.” Projected data

Kabul is the capital and largest city of Afghanistan. Bahrain, a small island country in the Persian Gulf. Bangladesh is a country in South Asia and the eighth most populous country and is among the most densely populated countries in the world. For MSW generation, data were collected from 21 May to 30 June, 2004, of season 1, from 1 July to 29 August, 2004, of season 2, and from 3 November 2004 to 5 January 2005 of season 3 from the six cities (Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna, Rajshahi, Barisal, and Sylhet) in Bangladesh. Urban population is the 20.15% of total population of Bangladesh. Urban population is 23.39% of total population of Bangladesh. —

Remarks

TABLE 8. MSW generation in different countries and selected cities of Asia other than Southeast Asia


JICA, 2005a (Continued on next page)

Zurbrugg et al., 2005

Sujauddin et al., 2008

Enayetullah and Hashimi, 2006 ADB, 2000

Zurbrugg, 2002

ADB, 2000

Alamgir and Ahsan, 2007

Alhumoud, 2005

Glawe et al., 2005

Reference

1542

1981

1990

2000

2002

2006 1992

2000 2006 1996

2001 1980

1990

Nationwide

Nationwide

Nationwide

Nationwide

Nationwide Beijing

Beijing Beijing Chongqing

Chongqing Hong Kong

Hong Kong

China

2008

Nationwide

Bhutan

Year

Location

Country

5.70

2.94 5.06

10.57 13.33 3.23

592.68 8.19

352.20

388.24

325.30

144.00

0.67


2.59

1.16 1.59

2.96 4.14 1.12

212.00 2.47

136.27

117.62

67.68

26.28

0.04


454.3

394.2 313.6

280.0 310.3 346.8

357.7 301.6

386.9

303.0

208.1

182.5

193.5

Average MSW generation (in kpc) Bhutan is a small landlocked country in South Asia, located at the eastern end of the Himalayas. A survey was conducted during November 2007 and January 2008 where urban population was found to be 30% of the country’s total population. China also known as People’s Republic of China (PRC). This country is located in East Asia and which is the most populous country in the world. Data of MSW produced in some cities were not reported as they are not collected or transported. MSW produced in some cities was not reported as they are not collected or transported. MSW produced in some cities was not reported as they are not collected or transported. MSW produced in some cities was not reported as they are not collected or transported. — Beijing is the metropolis in northern China and capital of China. — — Chongqing is a major city in southwestern mainland China and one of the five national central cities of China. — Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and is one of two special administrative regions (SARs) of China —

Remarks

TABLE 8. MSW generation in different countries and selected cities of Asia other than Southeast Asia (Continued)


Ko and Poon, 2009

Yuan et al., 2006 Ko and Poon, 2009

Zhen-shan et al., 2009 NBSC, 2007 Li and Gu, 2001

Zhang et al., 2010b Liang et al., 2003

Huang et al., 2006

Huang et al., 2006

Suocheng et al., 2001

Huang et al., 2006

Phuntsho et al., 2010

Reference

1543

India

2001

Zhongshan

2006

2006

Tibet

Ahmedabad

2000 2003 2007

Shanghai Shanghai Tianjin

2006

1990

Shanghai

North India

2003

Macao

1991

2010

Kunming

Nationwide

2000 2007 2001

Hong Kong Hong Kong Jiangmen

3.52

316.94

217.00

2.36

2.68

13.22 13.42 10.75

12.83

0.45

3.50

6.67 6.93 4.21

0.61

57.84

23.86

0.73

1.04

5.24 5.85 1.64

2.79

0.25

1.00

3.41 6.25 1.23

171.9

182.5

110.0

123.7

386.5

396.4 436.2 152.8

217.1

554.8

286.0

511.5 901.6 292.0

— — Jiangmen is a prefecture-level city in Guangdong province in southern China. Population for the year 2000 and MSW collection rate is only 85%. Kunming is a prefecture-level city and capital of Yunnan province, in southwestern China. Macao is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China with limited amounts of natural resources. Shanghai is the most populous city and largest center of commerce and finance in mainland China. — — Tianjin is a metropolis in North China and one of the five national central cities of China. Tibet is a plateau region in Asia and located in the north of the Himalayas. Calculation of annual MSW generation was performed on the basis of MSW generation in the urban areas of Lhasa city, Shigatse, Nedong of Lhoka, and Bayi of Nyingtri in Tibet. Zhongshan county is a county of Guangxi, China. Population for the year 2000 and MSW collection rate was only 85.6% India is a country in South Asia and is the seventh-largest country by geographical area and the second most populous country in the world. Northern India consists of states of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Delhi, Hariyana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Population on the basis Indian census report, 2001 Ahmedabad is the largest city in Gujarat, India. It is the seventh largest city and eighth largest metropolitan area of India.



Rawat et al., 2008

Ojha, 2010

Sharholy et al., 2008

Chung and Lo, 2004

Jiang et al., 2009

Liu and Yu, 2007 Liu and Yu, 2007 Zhao et al., 2009a

Liu and Yu, 2007

Jin et al., 2006

UN-HABITAT, 2010

Ko and Poon, 2009 Shan, 2010 Chung and Lo, 2004

1544

Country

Year

2006

2006

2000

2006 2006

1995

2006 2001 2006

2008

Location

Bally Municipality

Bangalore

Chennai

Chennai Dehradun

Delhi

Delhi Haridwar Hyderabad

Kolkata

8.00

9.88 0.50 10.00

5.80

5.80 4.62

4.62

4.30

1.31


1.10

2.19 0.07 2.19

1.46

1.46 1.01

1.01

0.90

0.28


138.7

158.7 138.7 219.0

251.7

251.7 219.0

219.0

209.3

210.9

Average MSW generation (in kpc) In the Gangetic plain of West Bengal in the district of Howrah. Population in 2001 Bangalore is located on the Deccan Plateau, capital of the Indian state of Karnataka and also known as the Garden City. Chennai (formerly known as Madras) is the capital city of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. This city is Chennai is the fourth most populous metropolitan area and the fifth most populous city in India. — Dehradun is the capital city of the Uttarakhand state and about 246 km North of India’s capital New Delhi. Delhi is the capital of India, and also the largest metropolis by area and the second-largest metropolis by population in India. It is the eighth-largest metropolis in the world by population. — One of the holiest places in India Hyderabad is the capital of the state Andhra Pradesh, India. This city is the sixth most populous and sixth most populous urban agglomeration in India. Kolkata (formerly known as Calcutta) is the capital of the Indian state of West Bengal. This city is the third most populous metropolitan area in India and one of the most populous urban areas in the world. MSW data reflected only 60% house-to-house collection and 50–55% open vats collection system.

Remarks



Chattopadhyay et al., 2009

Mor et al., 2006 Jain and Sharma, 2010 Sharholy et al., 2007

Agarwal et al., 2005

Elango et al., 2009 Rawat et al., 2008

Esakku et al., 2007

Rawat et al., 2008

Sarkhel and Banerjee, 2010

Reference

1545

Jordan

1998

2000

Zarqa City

2006

Yokohama

Amman

1992 2001 2006

2006

Jerusalem

Nationwide Nationwide Kawasaki

2006

Nationwide

Israel

1985

2004 2006 2010

Tehran Baghdad Baghdad

Iraq

Nationwide

1996

Tehran

Japan

2004

2006

Nationwide

Iran

Mumbai

2.16

1.37

3.60

7.03 7.12 1.37

0.78

5.79

8.20

8.20 5.79 7.67

5.54

44.22

13.80

0.37

0.60

1.65

1.90 4.20 0.44

0.36

1.33

2.63

2.63 1.33 2.50

1.07

13.61

2.92

169.1

438.0

458.3

270.1 590.0 438.0

459.9

230.0

320.3

320.3 230.0 326.1

193.6

307.7

211.6

Mumbai (formerly known as known as Bombay) is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. Mumbai is the most populous city in India, and the second most populous city in the world. Iran is a country in Central Eurasia and Western Asia. Tehran is Iran’s largest urban area and the capital city. MSW data among 22 urban regions of Tehran. — Baghdad is the capital of Iraq. Projected data, population growth rates has been taken as 3% increase per year over the year 2006. Israel is a parliamentary republic in the Middle East. Population as per 2009 census. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Population as per 2009 census Japan (also know as Land of the Rising Sun) is an island nation in East Asia and located in the Pacific Ocean. This country has the world’s second-largest economy. MSW data includes residential and commercial solid waste and excludes industrial solid waste. Year-wise survey Year–wise survey Kawasaki the ninth most populated city in Japan. Yokohama the second largest city in Japan by population after Tokyo. Amman is the capital and largest city of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Zarqa is a city in Jordan located to the northeast of Amman and it is the country’s third largest city. MSW data from eight regions from Zarqa Governorate.



Abu-Qudais and Abu-Qudais, 2000 Mrayyan and Hamdi, 2006

Contreras et al., 2010

Sakai, 1996 Tanaka, 2007 Geng et al., 2010

Tanaka, 1992

MEP, 2010

MEP, 2010

Damghani et al., 2008 Alsamawi et al., 2009 Alsamawi et al., 2009

Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009 OWRC, 2006

Chattopadhyay et al., 2009

1546

1994 2015 NA

2010 NA

1986

1990 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

2006

2010

Nationwide

Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide

Cureppipe Nationwide

Nationwide

Kathmandu

Kathmandu Kathmandu Kathmandu Kathmandu Kathmandu Kathmandu Kathmandu

Kathmandu

Ghorahi

Kyrgyzstan

Lebanon

Mauritius

Mongolia

Nagorno-Karabakh

Nepal

NA

NA

2000

Nationwide

Kuwait

NA

Year

Nationwide

Location

Kazakhstan

Country

0.06

1.18

0.32 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.74 0.30

0.28

5.09

0.08 4.39

1.10 2.23 3.73

1.92

2.23

6.32


0.01

0.56

0.03 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.27

0.03

2.08

0.02 1.51

0.18 1.14 1.09

0.60

1.14

1.34


167.0

474.5

107.3 125.9 123.1 116.0 113.2 112.1 905.2

107.1

408.8

284.0 343.1

160.6 511.0 292.0

310.3

511.0

211.9

Average MSW generation (in kpc)

Lebanon is a country in Western Asia. Projected data Mauritius is an island nation off the southeast coast of the African continent in the southwest Indian Ocean. Population in 2000 Mauritius is tourist destination in Mauritius Mongolia is a landlocked country in East and Central Asia. Population in 2000 census Nagorno-Karabakh is a landlocked region in the South Caucasus. Kathmandu is the capital and largest metropolitan city of Nepal. — — — — — — MSW data generated from 40 households examined in April 2004 (the dry season). Calculation based on overall 94% collection efficiency. Ghorahi is the main city of Dang Valley, in southwestern Nepal.

Kazakhstan is a transcontinental country located in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Ranked as the ninth largest country in the world and the world’s largest landlocked country. Kuwait is a sovereign Arab nation situated in the northeast of the Arabian Peninsula in Western Asia. Kyrgyzstan is a country located in Central Asia.

Remarks



UN-HABITAT, 2010

Alam et al., 2008

Alam et al., 2008 Alam et al., 2008 Alam et al., 2008 Alam et al., 2008 Alam et al., 2008 Alam et al., 2008 Dangi et al., 2011

UN-HABITAT, 2010 Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009 Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009 Alam et al., 2008

Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009 EI-Fadel and Sbayti, 2000 EI-Fadel and Sbayti, 2000 Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009

Alhumoud, 2005

EI-Fadel and Sbayti, 2000

Reference

1547

1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2006

Nationwide

Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Kwangmyong

1988

Eastern Province

South Korea

2000

Nationwide

Saudi Arabia

2000

2002

West Bank and Gaza Strip

Nationwide

2005 2000

Palestinian Territory West Bank

Qatar

2005

2005

Lahore

Nablus district

2004 1985

Nationwide Karachi

Pakistan

Palestine

2000

Nationwide

Oman

48.54 47.03 49.17 49.46 46.75 0.05

42.03

0.44

20.10

0.44

7.20

5.99 6.92

0.30

1.62

2.40 2.00

2.00

18.25 17.34 16.15 16.61 17.06 0.04

21.17

0.35

9.17

0.21

1.97

1.16 1.35

0.11

0.50

0.90 0.53

0.53

376.0 368.7 328.5 335.8 365.0 313.4

503.7

785.5

456.3

474.5

273.8

194.6 194.6

365.0

306.6

375.0 266.5

266.5

The Sultanate of Oman is an arid country located in the Arabian Peninsula. — Karachi is the largest city, main seaport and financial center of Pakistan. Lahore is the second largest city in Pakistan. Average data from the period of 1980–2005 Nablus is a Palestinian city in the northern West Bank. The reference period was April 2005 The West Bank is a landlocked territory and is the eastern part of the Palestinian territories. The amount of solid waste generated daily ranges from 328.5 to 438.0 kpc in the West Bank urban area and from 182.5 to 292.0 kpc in rural areas. Gaza Strip lies on the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. MSW data based on the 2001–2002 survey Qatar is an Arab country located in the Middle East Saudi Arabia is the largest Arab country of the Middle East. Five cities in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia are A1-Khobar, Abqaiq, Dammam, Dhahran, and Rahima South Korea is a country in East Asia, located on the southern portion of the Korean Peninsula MSW data on year-wise survey MSW data on year-wise survey MSW data on year-wise survey MSW data on year-wise survey MSW data on year-wise survey MSW data on year-wise survey MSW data on year-wise survey



Hong, 1999 Shekdar, 2009 Kim, 2002 Hong, 1999 Shekdar, 2009 Kim, 2002

Kim, 2002

Khan et al., 1987

Alhumoud, 2005

Alhumoud, 2005

Khatib and Al-Khateeb, 2009

Al-Khatib and Arafat, 2010 Al-Hmaidi, 2002

Al-Khatib et al., 2010

Batool et al., 2009

Taha et al., 2004 Khatib et al., 1990

Alhumoud, 2005

1548

Nationwide

NA

2005 2008

Nationwide Taipei

Tajikistan

2000

Nationwide

Taiwan

1994

Kandy

2002

1994

Colombo

Damascus City

1995

Year

Nationwide

Location

Syria

Sri Lanka

Country

0.41

22.71 5.20

21.91

2.00

0.10

0.62

47.02


0.21

7.83 3.70

7.85

0.46

0.02

0.22

16.65


519.3

344.9 711.5

358.5

230.0

211.7

357.7

354.1

Average MSW generation (in kpc) An island nation in South Asia, surrounded by the Indian Ocean. Sri Lanka was formerly known as Ceylon until 1972. Urban population was 22% of the total population. Colombo is the largest city and former capital of Sri Lanka. Kandy is the world heritage city in the center of Sri Lanka. Damascus is the capital of Syria (a country of Western Asia) also known as the “City of Jasmine.” More than 90% of the inhabitants are served by regular waste collection managed by the municipality. The remaining inhabitants (100,000–150,000) live in the shanty towns of the city, which do not yet have any organized waste management system. Taiwan, located in the southeastern rim of mainland China with a high population density. — Taipei is Taiwan’s economic gateway to the world Tajikistan is a mountainous landlocked country in Central Asia and lies adjacent to Pakistan.

Remarks



Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009

Tsai et al., 2007 Tseng, 2010

Tsai and Chou, 2006

Alboukhari, 2004



Vidanaarachchi et al., 2006

Reference

1549

1995

Abu Dhabi


2000

Nationwide

United Arab Emirates

2004

Nationwide

Turkmenistan

NA

Nationwide

Timor-Leste

0.90

2.00

1.09

0.43

0.58

0.86

0.37

0.24

642.4

430.7

338.5

565.3

Timor-Leste is a small country in Asia and located about 640 km northwest of Darwin, Australia. Turkmenistan is also known as Turkmenia. This country is one of the Turkic states in Central Asia. United Arab Emirates (or UAE) is a federation situated in the southeast of the Arabian Peninsula in Southwest Asia. This country has the world’s seventh largest oil reserves and the most developed economies in West Asia. Abu Dhabi is the capital and the second largest city in the United Arab Emirates. 40 houses with different socioeconomic levels and totaled 840 samples were sampled for this study.


Abu Qdais et al., 1997

Alhumoud, 2005




1550

T. Karak et al.

According to the statistics available, 5.99 million tons of wastes are produced in Bangladesh per year (Enayetullah et al., 2005; Hasan and Chowdhury, 2005; Sujauddin et al., 2008). Dhaka (capital city of Bangladesh; population in 2008: 7.0 million), generates approximately 1.64 million tons of wastes per year (Hasan and Chowdhury, 2005), but Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) can pick up and dispose off only 42% of the total waste generated (Salequzzaman et al., 1998). In 1991, urban Bangladesh generated 113.2 kpc, totaling 2.37 million tons per year against 20.8 million people, which is estimated to increase to 0.6 kg (i.e., 17.16 million tons per year; Enayetullah and Hashimi, 2006) with the estimated urban population of 78.44 million by 2025 (Ray, 2008). According to the World Bank (1999), the residential waste generation rate in all the metropolitan cities of Bangladesh was 54.75 kpc. But, on the contrary, Hoornweg (1999) reported that metropolitan cities of Bangladesh generated 182.5 kpc MSW in 1998. The estimated data of the per capita waste generation rate in the year 2004 in six major urban areas of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Chittagong, Rajshahi, Khulna, Sylhet, and Barisal was 0.56, 0.48, 0.30, 0.27, 0.30, and 0.25 kg, respectively (Enayetullah et al., 2005). In the year 2005, a total of 4.25 million tons of MSW was generated yearly in the seven major cities (Dhaka; Chittagong, population in 2008: 2.58 million; Rajshahi, population in 2008 estimated: 0.78 million; Khulna, population in 2008 estimated: 0.86 million; Barisal, population in 2008 estimated: 0.21 million; Sylhet, population in 2008: 0.46 million) of Bangladesh (Alamgir and Ahsan, 2007). The per capita generation of MSW ranged from 118.6 to 177 kpc in the country while the average rate was 141.3 kpc as measured in the six major cities (Ahsan, 2005). According to Sujauddin et al. (2008), the solid waste generation at Rahman Nagar residential area (population in 2006: 3500) of Chittagong district in Bangladesh was 91.25 kpc in the year 2006. However, these findings varied from the value (54.75 kpc) that was recorded by the World Bank (1999). Sujauddin et al. (2008) further reported that different socioeconomic groups have an influence on MSW generation in Bangladesh. For example, low socioeconomic groups (monthly income < BDT 5000 where US$1 = BDT 70) generate 29.2 kpc MSW; however, the lower middle (monthly income between BDT 5000 and BDT 10,000), middle (monthly income between BDT 10,000 and BDT 20,000), upper middle (monthly income between BDT 20,000 and BDT 50,000), and high socioeconomic groups (monthly income above BDT 50,000) generate 73, 62.1, 65.7, and 200.8 kpc MSW, respectively. The average MSW generation for the year 2000 from different sources in Thimphu (capital city of Bhutan; population in 2005: 0.08 million) was 547.5–730 kpc from households, 182.5–365 kpc form tourists, 401.5 kpc from commercial institutions, and 51.1 kpc from office employees (Urban Sector Programme Support Secretariat, 2000). On the basis of the one-week period (October 29–November 4, 2007) of MSW generation rate survey in Phuntsholing city of Bhutan, Norbu et al. (2010) reported that the waste



1551

generation rate was 146 kpc, which indicated waste generation of 1.19 million tons per year. The waste generation rate has increased from 113.2 kpc in 2000 (National Environment Commission, 2000) to 146 kpc in 2007, indicating a 3.8% increase per year. In the year 1986, the People’s Republic of China (population in 2010 estimate: 1.34 billion) produced 408.8 kpc of MSW (Zhang, 1998). A recent study revealed that this country produced 29% of the world’s MSW each year (Dong et al., 2001). According to the State Statistical Bureau of the People’s Republic of China (1991), 45 Chinese cities generate 28.77 million tons MSW and among them in rank, Beijing city (capital of China; population in 2010: 22 million) was the highest one (3.45 million tons) and Weihai (population in 2004: 2.6 million) province generated lowest amount (only 52,000 metric tons). The total generated MSW in China for the year 1995 was 106.71 million tons, which is equivalent to 576.7 kpc (Environmental Protection Bureau of China, 1995). The amount of MSW generated in China for the year 1997 was 109.82 million tons (State Statistical Bureau of the People’s Republic of China, 1999). It was 140 million tons in the year 2000 (Wei et al., 2000). Between 1995 and 2004, MSW generation in China grew by 45% (OECD, 2007b). About 180 million tons of MSW were generated in the year 2007 (Xiao et al., 2009), the highest amount generated by any single country. According to Bie et al. (2007) the quantity of MSW generated in China has increased at a rate between 8% and 10% per year over the past decades. Figure 8A depicts the amount of MSW in Beijing city over the last decades. It can be seen that the amount of MSW has increased steadily over the 14 years, from 2.23 million tons in 1990 to 3.73 million tons in 2003, with an increase of 67.3% during this period (Beijing Statistics Bureau, 2003). The generation of MSW during 1990–2003 in the Beijing suburb showed the significant correlations with the GDP (r = .96, p < .01), per capita income (r = .92, p < .01), and the population (r = .93, p < .01; Xiao et al., 2007). A multiregression analysis showed that, among these three, GDP has been identified to be the strongest explanatory factor for the growth of the total solid waste amount in Beijing, indicating that the environment has been paying the price for the economic growth. According to the Environmental Protection Department of Wuhan City (population in 2007:6.66 million), MSW quantities was increased from 1.19 million tons in 1985 to 1.50 million tons in 1993 (Wei et al, 1997). MSW generation and generation rate in Hong Kong (population in 2010: 7.06 million) for the year 1995 was recorded as 10.9 million tons and 1850.6 kpc, which is higher than any other Asian countries on the basis of per-day waste generation. The predicted MSW generation and generation rate will be decreased to 9.42 million tons with 1642.5 kpc by the year 2025 (World Bank, 1997). The amount of solid waste generated in Macao (located at the southeast coast of China; population in 2001: 0.45 million) over the last decade has increased steadily over the years, from 0.21 million

T. Karak et al.


1552

FIGURE 8. Generation of MSW (A) in Beijing city between 1990 and 2003 and (B) in Taipei city from the year 1993 to 2002.



1553

tons in 1998 to 0.25 million tons in 2003, increasing at an average annual rate of 2.49% (Jin et al., 2006). This could be attributed to the increase in the population and economic development. The average per capita rate of solid waste generated in Macao was 514.7 kpc in 1998 and 554.8 kpc in 2003, with an average annual rate of increase of 1.56% (Statistics and Census Department, 2000, 2003). The quantity of solid waste generated in Pudong (eastern part of Shanghai and one of the China’s most economically active cities; population in 2005: 1.85 million) increased from 0.88 million tons per year in 2004 to 1.04 million tons per year in 2005 (Minghua et al., 2009). In 2006, the amount of MSW generated in Pudong was about 1.13 million tons per year (about 405.2 kpc), approximately one fifth of the total amount produced in Shanghai (population in 2009: 19.21 million). Based on the current population growth trend, the solid waste quantity generated in Pudong will continue to be increased with the city’s development according to the projected municipal waste generation for China (World Bank, 2005). The quantity of MSW generated in Taiwan (population in 2009: 23.05 million) has greatly increased during the past decade. In 1990, the daily MSW generation was 18750 tons, which represented an increase of 115% in the 10 years following 1980 (Liu, 1991). A 10% increase of MSW was reported for 1992 compared with that of 1991 (Yang, 1995). On per capita basis, the MSW generation rates were 284.7, 299.3 and 365 kpc in 1987, 1988 and 1991, respectively (Chien, 1991). It was estimated that 397.9 kpc of MSW was generated in 1992 in the Taiwan area, 467.2 kpc in Taipei city (population in 2010: 7.16 million); and 412.45 kpc in Kaohsiung city (population in 2009: 3 million; Yang, 1995). However, Taiwan introduced a unit pricing system of MSW generation and has resulted in a reduction of waste generation from 414.3 kpc in 1996 to 243.5 kpc in 2005 (Lu et al., 2006). Figure 8B shows the variations in annual waste volume over the last decade in Taipei. Comparing this with the 2002 data, the annual total waste volume was 0.9 million tons, or an average of 346.8 kpc, representing a 33.1% reduction from 1991, which reflected the per-bag trash collection fee strategy implementation to achieve the goal of waste reduction and resource recycling in this city (APO, 2007). In 1947, Indian cities, towns, and municipalities generated 6 million tons of MSW (Sharholy et al., 2007). The urban population in India generated about 4.15 million tons of MSW in the year 1996, which is predicted to increase in fourfold to about 16.6 million tons by the year 2026 (Hoornweg and Laura, 1999), which is equivalent to 255.5 kpc (World Bank, 2006). Per capita solid waste generation rates for Indian towns and cities were found in the range of 80.3–240.9 kpc in 1998 (International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, 1999). According to Central Pollution Control Board of India (CPCB; 2004) prediction data, the expected generation rate of MSW will be supposed to increase to 299.3 million tons by the year 2047, considering that the urban population of India is expected to grow to 45% in total from the prevailing 28% (CPCB, 2004; Sharholy et al., 2007).This tremendous


1554

T. Karak et al.

increase in the amount of MSW generation is due to changing lifestyles, food habits, and living standards of the urban population in India. In New Delhi (capital city of India), 13.9 million residents living in 2.96 million households generated approximately 2.56 million tons per year of MSW at the rate of 182.5 kpc in the year 2001 (Delhi Urban Environment and Infrastructure Improvement Project, 2001). The planning department of Delhi projected that the present population is likely to increase to 22.4 million and the waste generation to 6.21–9.13 million tons per year by the year 2021 (Talyan et al., 2008). Presently, with India having seven megacities, 28 metro cities, 388 class I cities, and another 3,955 urban centers (populations less than 100,000) have produced 7.70, 7.17, 15.56, and 7.35 million tons of MSW per year, respectively. These contribute 72.5% of the waste generated in the country against the other 3,955 urban centers producing only 17.5% of the total waste (Zia and Devadas, 2008). The quantity of MSW generated in Chennai (formerly Madras; population in 2010: 4.62 million) metropolitan city was around 1.28–1.75 million tons per year (or 146–219 kpc; Elango et al., 2009). Allahabad Municipal Corporation (AMC; population in 2001: 1.22 million) estimated the annual per capita growth rate for MSW generation as 1.33% and forecasted that the quantity of MSW will be changed from 0.15 million tons in the year 1997 to 0.51 million tons in the year 2026 (AMC, 2003). Kolkata city (capital of West Bengal state in India, formerly known as Calcutta; population in 2010: 5.14 million) generated approximately 1.07 million tons per year (i.e., 230.7 kpc of MSW in the year 2008; Hazra and Goel, 2009). The total MSW generated in Kharagpur (a district of West Medinipur of West Bengal; population in 2001: 0.21 million), famous for having the longest railway platform in the world (i.e., 1.0725 km long), was 95 tpd, but the waste collected by the municipality is about 50 tpd, which implies that almost 45 tpd of the solid waste generated remained uncollected for the year 2008 (Kumar and Goel, 2009). The quantity of MSW generated in different states in India for the year of 2004 are shown in Figure 9. The Islamic Republic of Iran has 28 provinces comprising of 950 cities and 68,000 villages. The size and population of the cities are something different. About 45% of the citizens live in the eight big cities of Tehran, Mashhad, Esfahan, Tabriz, Karag, Ghom, Shiraz, and Kermanshah. The other 55% of the citizens live in the other 942 cities. The history of MSWM systems in the Islamic Republic of Iran goes back to 1911, when the first municipality was established (Kreith, 1994). More than 45% of the MSW is generated from these eight big cities. The population is divided as 33% in rural and 67% in urban areas. According to the research carried out by the Ministry of Interior in 1993, the yearly average generation rates of municipal waste in the urban area of the Islamic Republic of Iran was 292 kpc (Abdoli, 1995). Tehran, the capital city of Iran and a metropolis with a population of 8.2 million and containing 2.4 million households, generated 2.56 million

1555

MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 3.5

190 3.14

Annual MSW generation (million tons) MSW generation rate (kpc)

0.83

0.65

0.24

0.37

70

WB

TR

50 UP

TN

RA

PN

0.01

0.02 PO

0.02 MZ

OR

0.02

0.01 ME

MA

MH

KE

MP

KR

0.23

0.01 HI

HR

G

DH

CH

90

0.45

0.54 0.07

0.07 B

0.0 AS

1.63

1.14

110

1.0

AP

130

1.39

1.5

1.46

2.0


1.83

2.01

150

0.5


170

2.5

1.44


3.0

State code

FIGURE 9. MSW generation rates in different states in India for the year 2004. AP = Andhra Pradesh; AS = Assam; B = Bihar; CH = Chandigarh; DH = Delhi; G = Gujrat; HR = Haryana; HI = Himachal Pradesh; KR = Karnataka; KE = Kerala; MP = Madhya Pradesh; MH = Maharashtra; MA = Manipur; ME = Meghalaya; MZ = Mizoram; OR = Orissa; PO = Pondicherry; PN = Punjab; RA = Rajasthan; TN = Tamil Nadu; TR = Tripura; UP = Uttar Pradesh: WB = West Bengal. Source: CPCB (2004).

tons of MSW in 2004 and in 2005, it was 2.57 million tons (Damghani et al., 2008). According to the data collected by the local authorities, the waste generation rate was estimated to be as 292 kpc for Rasht city in Iran for the year 2007 and the total amount of MSW is currently about 0.15 million tons per year (Moghadam et al., 2009). This generation rate is similar to that of the Tehran province (Abdoli, 1995). Presently, the amount of municipal waste generated in Iran is 17.58 million tons per year. However, this figure does not include demolition and construction of waste generated in the urban and rural area of Iran (Moghadam et al., 2009). According to Baghdad Mayoralty Reports, Baghdad (capital city of Iraq) produced 230 kpc MSW for the year 2006. MSW generation rate for the year 2007, 2008, and 2009 in Baghdad city was recorded as 241, 248.2, and 259.2 kpc, respectively. The estimated amount of MSW in Baghdad city for the year 2010 is 270 kpc (Alsamawi et al., 2009). Studies conducted in the mid-1990s estimated that the amount of MSW generated daily ranges from 328.5 to 438 kpc in the Palestinian urban areas and from 182.5 to 292 kpc in rural areas. On the same time the total annual amount of MSW produced in West Bank and Gaza Strip alone exceeded 0.5 million tons (Al-Hmaidi, 2002). The study was executed between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2003, in Palestinian authority areas and concluded that the


1556

T. Karak et al.

average solid waste generated was 155.3 kpc with the range between 117.2 and 307.3 kpc (Khatib and Al-Khateeb, 2009). According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS; 2002), it was estimated that the total daily solid waste produced in the Gaza Strip for the year 2005 was 0.37 million tons per year, which is equivalent to 255.5 to 365 kpc. The per capita MSW generation rate (in kpc) in major cities of Israel for the year 2006 was ranged between 376 and 1237.35 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2007). Data on MSW quantities, which were compiled by the Solid Waste Division in the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Israel, revealed that in 2006, on average each person in Israel generated 560 kpc. From 1960 onward, rapid economic growth began in Japan. The rate of economic growth was more than 10% in those years, and it brought prosperity to Japan. However, it also brought serous public nuisance and an increase in the municipal solid waste. Before 1960, the changes in the waste and the population showed almost same trends, but after that year, the waste increased very rapidly although the population had been relatively decreasing. This increase was appeared in all the cities and towns in Japan (Yamamoto, 2002). The rate of MSW generation in Japan for the year 1970 was recorded to be 357.7 kpc. It was 401.5 kpc for the year 1975 and 1980. On average, from 1983 to 1989, Japanese people generated 43.78 million tons per year, which is equal to 357.7 kpc (NREL, 1993). In 1990 the generation of MSW was 365 kpc. A survey data from Environmental Bureau of Fukuoka city (1992) reported that this city managed 0.71 million tons of MSW for the year 1991. Out of this amount, 36,106 tons were imported from three neighboring municipalities such as Cayuga, Hiragana, and Nakagawa. In this year annual per capita MSW generation rate for Fukuoka city, exclusive of these other communities was 540 kpc. Total MSW generation and generation rate in Japan for the year 1992 was 51.18 million tons and 408.8 kpc, respectively (World Bank, 1997). The significant increase of MSW generation in Japan was observed in 2005 (693.5 kpc; Tanaka et al., 2005). According to Shekdar (2009), the per capita per year waste generation in Japan was 401.5 kg for the year 2007 with the GDP of US$33,010. According to Shekdar (2009), the predicated MSW that will be generated in this country by the year 2030 is 49 million tons with the urban population of 122 million. According a World Bank (2000) report, Jordanian citizens produced 1.3 million tons (i.e., 284 kpc) of MSW for the year 1998. The generation rate of per capita solid waste in Jordan for the year 2002 was 292 kpc. however, it varied in cities and rural areas. The generation rate may be as high as 365 kpc in big cities, whereas in small cities and rural areas it might be as low as 219 kpc for each person (Agamuthu, 2003). On the basis of the increment of the waste generation data, World Bank (2000) speculated that the waste generation for the year 2010 would go to 2.0 million tons which is equivalent to 349 kpc (i.e., percentage increase in per capita waste generation is 1.91). Abu Qdais (2007) reported that the amount of MSW in Jordan for the 2020 is



1557

expected to reach about 2.5 million tons. This increase is mainly attributed to increase in population and changes in living standards and consumption patterns in the country. The amounts of MSW generated in Kuwait in 1995, 2000, and 2005 were 864, 984, and 1117 million tons per year, respectively (Al-Salem and Al-Shaman, 2007; Koushki and Al-Humoud, 2002). In a past study, it was found that an average household in Kuwait generates 2.2 times (8.4 kg) as much as waste generated by a German household per day for the year 1996 (Koushki and Al-Khaleefi, 1998). The average citizen in Kuwait produced 511 kpc of MSW in the year 2008 (Al-Salem and Lettieri, 2009). According to Al-Salem and Lettieri (2009), the projected total MSW in Kuwait will be double by the year 2020 (1,661 tons) with respect to the total amount of MSW generated in the year 1995. As nearly 98% of Kuwait’s population resides within the metropolitan area and contributes the comparatively high generation rate of MSW in the country, even though population density is lower (Koushki and Al-Humid, 2002). According the previously mentioned World Bank (2000) report, the estimated solid waste generation in Lebanon for the year 1998 was 1.4 million tons, equaling 337 kpc. The projected solid waste generation for the year 2010 is 1.8 million tons, which is equivalent to 363 kpc. This reflects the 8% increase of waste generation per year over the year from 1998 to 2010. Presently Lebanese citizens each generate 182.5 kpc MSW (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). Maldives has the highest MSW generation rate (905.2 kpc) among the developed Southeast Asian countries as its greatest economic activity being tourism (United Nations Environmental Programme [UNEP], 2002), making it an exception to the range of 109.5–525.6 kpc typical of developing countries (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). Among the Asian countries, MSW generation rate in Mauritius acquired the third position, just after Thailand, providing 474.5 kpc MSW. There have been very few studies on MSW generation rates and management practices in Nepal and most of these have been confined to Kathmandu city. Households are the main source of municipal waste in Nepal. Based on the study by Mishra and Kayastha (1998), it was estimated that the average MSW generation rate in municipalities of Nepal ranges from 91.3 to 182.5 kpc, depending on the size of the municipality. The MSW generated among 58 municipalities in Nepal varied by approximately 1.3– 123 tpd according to the estimate made in 1999. According to UNEP (2001a), the total amount of solid waste generated in the year 2000 by all of the municipalities in Nepal was estimated as 427 tpd (83% of all waste generated in Nepal). Table 8 shows a generation rate of solid waste over time in Kathmandu, the capital city of Nepal. This clearly revealed that the total amount of waste rose by a factor of three during a period of about four decades, from 1952–1954 to 1991. From 1991 to 2001, the average rise of


1558

T. Karak et al.

total amount of MSW in Kathmandu was 5.2% per year; however, it was 20% in 2001 and 2002 (Alam et al., 2008; Dangi et al., 2011). The annual per capita production of MSW in the year 1987 in Kathmandu, Nepal has been estimated at 109 kpc (Rushbrook and Finney, 1988). A study in 1991 showed the average amount of MSW generated by people of the Kathmandu valley varied from 91.3 to 182.5 kpc (Pokhrel and Viraraghavan, 2005). In another study in 1997, the amount of solid waste generated in Kathmandu valley was estimated as 206 kpc (Mishra and Kayastha, 1998). A survey by Solid Waste Management and Resource Mobilization Center (SWMRMC) in all 58 municipalities in Nepal was conducted in 2003 and found that the MSW generation rate in the municipalities varied from 92.2 (in Putali Bazar) to 255.5 (in Birgunj) kpc, with the average being 91.3 kpc (SWMRMC, 2004). Oman’s annual production of solid waste was about 0.9 million tons (Taha et al., 2004). Pakistan has a population of 160 million, with 35% people living in urban areas. According to the World Wildlife Fund (2001), Pakistan generated about 219–292 kpc MSW in the year 2000. Solid waste generated in urban areas of Pakistan was estimated to be 20.08 million tons per year in the year 2004 (Japan International Cooperation Agency and Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency, 2005b). Presently the total waste generated in Lahore city per year is 0.5 million tons, or 306.6 kpc (Batool and Ch, 2009). From the data shown in Table 8 it can be concluded that generation of MSW in the year 2000 decreased than the year 1994 and this is due to South Korea introduced a volume-based fee system in 1995 (Hong, 1999). The initiative was based on the polluter pays principle, and promotes a reduction of waste generation at the source. The system has played a significant role in reducing the volumes of waste generated by promoting recycling, while it has also helped to cut the municipal waste management costs. In the year 2003, 46.8 million urban populations had generated 17 million tons of solid waste, which is equal to 379.6 kpc (Shekdar, 2009). According to Shekdar (2009), the projected amount of solid waste generation in this country for the year 2030 will raise up to 18 million tons from the population of 49.2 million. The per capita waste generation in different local authorities of municipal councils, urban councils, and Pradeshiya Sabhas (smallest administrative unit of local authorities in Sri Lanka) in Sri Lanka for the year 2000 were around 237.3–310.3, 164.3–237.3, and 73.0–164.3 kpc, respectively (UNEP, 2001b). The per capita generation of solid waste in the year 2002 in Sri Lanka was within the range of 146.0–328.5 kpc (National Research Institute, 2003). The total MSW generation in this country for the year 2003 was around 3.29 million tons per year (Asian Institute of Technology, 2004). According to Shekdar (2009) the waste generation rate of Sri Lanka for the year 2007 was 73.0–328.5 kpc with the GDP of $US5,047. MSW generation in Syria for the year 1998 was 3.4 million tons and the projected MSW generation for the year 2010 is 5.7 million tons (World

1559

900

Waste

40,000

GDP

800

35,000

700

30,000

600

25,000

500

20,000

400

15,000

300 200

10,000

100

5,000 Nepal

Lao PDR

Vietnam

India

Sri Lanka

Indonesia

Philippines

China

Thailand

Malaysia

South Korea

Taiwan

Singapore

Japan

0 Hong Kong

0

GDP per capita for 2007 (USD)

Bank, 2000a). The per capita per person waste generation for the year 1998 was recorded 0.56 kg; however, the estimated per capita per person waste generation for the year 2010 is 0.67 kg. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is located in Arabian peninsula with seven emirates and a population 2.4 million. The generated MSW in the year 1996 in Abu Dhabi city, the UAE was 1.76 kpc (Abu Qdais et al., 1997). However, the country had one of the highest solid waste generation rates in the world; that is 750 kpc per year for the year 2001 (Elshorbagy and Mohamed, 2000). In Mongolia, total MSW generation was 0.33 million tons (i.e., 219 kpc) but the projected MSW generation will go to 0.95 million tons (i.e., 328.5 kpc) by 2025 (United Nations, 1995). Presently the generation rate of MSW in Turkmenistan is recorded as 145.6 kpc (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). According to UNEP (2000a), MSW generation rate by Yemeni citizens for the year 2000 was 292 kpc. In a nutshell, urban areas in Asia produced approximately 0.76 million tons of MSW per day in 1998, which is expected to rise to 1.8 million tons by 2025 (Jin et al., 2006). Besides this fact, the quantity of solid waste generation is also mostly associated with the economic status of a society. Accordingly, Figure 10 shows GDP, together with waste generation rates and composition for some of the largest Asian countries. It can readily be seen that the waste generation rates are lower in developing economies having lower GDP (Shekdar, 2009).

Waste generation (kpc)



Asian countries FIGURE 10. Graphical presentation of MSW generation in relation to the GDP for the year 2007 in some Asian countries (Source: Shekdar, 2009).

1560

T. Karak et al.

The information of MSW generation in other Asian countries such as Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nagorno-Karabakh, North Korea, Northern Cyprus, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, and Uzbekistan is scanty and no presentable data were found for this review.


MSW Composition in Other Asian Nations Data on average (wet) composition of MSW in Asian nations along with major cities of different countries have been tabulated in Table 9. Organic fractions (≥69%) were found to be the largest contributors of MSW in the six major cities of Bangladesh, namely Barisal, Chittagong, Dhaka, Khulna, Rajshahi, and Sylhet, as estimated in the year 2005 (Ahsan, 2005). The overall socioeconomic condition of the country is probably responsible for the very high percentage of organic matter. The total organic fraction of the waste composition in Phuntsholing city of Bhutan made up the largest fraction, which is 70.9% (2,320 tons per year), followed by total inorganic materials, which comprised 24.0% (784 tons per year), and other miscellaneous materials, which constituted 5.1% (167 tons per year; Norbu et al., 2010). MSW in China is composed of resident refuse, street refuse, and group refuse where resident refuse is the key factor affecting MSW quantity and composition (Nie and Dong, 1998; Zhang, 1998). The composition of MSW in China cities varied with their scale, situation, and the seasons. The inorganic components of MSW in China were more than organic ones except in Hong Kong. The MSW composition in Hong Kong is composed of 38% biodegradable, 26% paper, 19% plastics, 2% metal, 9% inert fraction and textiles contributes 2% each. In China, the ranges of inorganic, organic, and utilizable ingredients were 17.12–77.61%, 13.20–60.17%, and 2.40–22.92%, respectively (Wei et al., 2000). From 1990 to 2003, the proportion of organic substances (food waste, paper, plastics, wood, and fiber) in Beijing city increased gradually, and accounted for 86% in 2003. Meanwhile, the proportion of recycling waste (plastics, glass, paper, fiber and metal) also got increased from 15% in 1990 to 45% in 2000 (Sun et al., 2006). However, it decreased in 2003 due to the increase of food waste. According to the Ningbo Statistics Bureau (2003), organic components (food scrap), which weigh the most among the total MSW produced in the area, accounted for approximately 65%; inorganic components (e.g., furnace ash, brick, tiles, stones, dust, ash, glass, metal) accounted for the remaining 35% from 1998 to 2002. According to a recent report, the composition found in Taiwan’s MSW was paper 21.88–26.24%, plastics 19.72–22.79%, rubber 0.11–1.37%, glass 4.82–6.22%, metals 7.12–8.08%, and about 44–46% are organic matters (Yang, 1995). The respective physical composition of the MSW over time (from 1998 to 2004) in Macao revealed that a considerable quantity of waste, including paper and cardboard, plastics, metal, and glass that can be recycled, recovered, or

1561

Yerevan Yerevan Barisal Chittagong Dhaka (formerly known as Dacca) Dhaka Dhaka Dhaka Khulna Rajshahi Sylhet Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Bayi Beijing Beijing Beijing Beijing Beijing Chongqing Chongqing Guanghan Guangzhou Hangzhou Hong Kong Hong Kong Lhasa city Macao Macao Macao Nedong Ningbo

Armenia

Bhutan China

Bangladesh

Location

Country 65.5 61.5 81.1 73.6 40.0 70.0 79.9 68.3 78.9 71.1 73.5 58.3 62.0 57.0 59.0 55.0 33.8 44.3 51.6 65.2 69.3 63.4 59.2 50.7 58.1 57.0 9.0 44.0 71.0 8.8 35.2 16.9 57.0 53.7

2000 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2008 1996 2000 2002 2006 1989 1995 2000 2006 2008 2005 2006 1998 1999 2009 1985 2006 2006 1998 2001 2004 2006 1998

Organic material

Before 1990 After 1990 2005 2005 1885

Year

4.0 9.4 10.7 9.5 8.9 8.6 15.9 6.0 8.0 8.0 18.0 6.0 16.2 14.3 11.1 10.3 10.1 10.1 8.8 6.3 15.0 32.0 26.0 6.0 12.3 15.0 16.9 5.0 5.4

11.6 18.0 7.2 9.9 2.0


5.0 4.5 4.3 3.1 4.0 3.5 12.6 8.0 10.0 10.0 17.0 1.9 10.4 13.6 12.7 9.8 15.7 15.7 6.1 14.5 3.0 11.0 18.0 12.0 9.7 15.2 22.2 24.0 7.9

2.0 2.0 3.5 2.8 1.0

Plastics

0.3 1.7 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.7 4.1 2.0 2.0 3.0 NR 3.8 10.2 6.3 1.8 0.8 NR 3.4 0.6 2.0 8.0 10.0 3.0 NR 4.9 10.5 5.1 NR 2.4

5.4 4.0 0.5 1.0 9.0

Glass/ Ceramic

0.1 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 3.0 1.2 0.3 0.6 NR 1.1 0.2 0.6 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.1 2.7 7.8 1.0 1.0

3.1 0.3 1.2 2.2 1.0

Metals

20.6 3.6 14.0 6.9 13.8 12.6 8.2 21.0 22.0 19.0 9.0 53.9 16.0 13.0 9.0 9.2 10.8 10.5 33.6 18.5 14.0 36.0 7.0 10.0 61.2 21.4 31.1 13.0 29.6

12.4 14.2 6.5 10.5 47.0

Textiles and other


Alamgir and Ahsan, 2007 Alamgir and Ahsan, 2007 Alamgir and Ahsan, 2007 Alamgir and Ahsan, 2007 Alamgir and Ahsan, 2007 Alamgir and Ahsan, 2007 Phuntsho et al., 2010 Wang and Nie, 2001 Chen et al., 2010 Huang et al., 2006 Jiang et al., 2009 Rong et al., 2004 Wang and Wu, 2001 Rong et al., 2004 Zhen-shan et al.,2009 Qu et al., 2009 Li’ao et al., 2009 Yuan et al., 2006 Hu et al., 1998 Jiang et al., 2009 Zhao et al., 2009b Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Ko and Poon, 2009 Jiang et al., 2009 Jin et al., 2006 Jin et al., 2006 Jin et al., 2006 Jiang et al., 2009 Liu et al., 2006

Arzumanyan, 2004 Arzumanyan, 2004 Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Ahmed and Rahman, 2000 Yousuf and Rahman, 2007

Reference

TABLE 9. Percentage of physical composition in MSW generated from different countries and major cities from Asia other than Southeast Asia


1562

India

Country 42.2 51.0 66.7 73.7 40.0 63.0 25.0 56.9 72.0 40.0 40.0 72.0 65.0 45.0 72.0 45.0 48.0 44.0 47.2 35.0 35.4 31.8 51.8 40.0 43.0 42.0 40.0 44.3 58.0 46.6 70.5 40.0 55.1

Year 1998 2008 2009 2007 1998 2006 1984 2007 2009 2008 1997 2007 1985 1996 2000 1995 1973 1997 2002 1973 1997 2004 1997 1997 1997 1997 2007 1997 2008 1973 1995 1997 2002

Location

Qingdao Shanghai Shanghai Shen Yang Shenzhen Shigatse Taipei Tianjin Tibet Nationwide Ahmedabad Ahmadabad Bangalore Bangalore Bangalore Bhopal Chennai (formerly known as Madras) Chennai Chennai Delhi Delhi Har Ki Pauri, Haridwar Hyderabad Indore Jaipur Kanpur Kanpur Kochi Kohima Kolkata (formerly known as Calcutta) Kolkata Kolkata Kolkata

Organic material

NR 7.6 10.0 6.1

4.5 7.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 4.9

10.0 6.5 5.0 6.3 6.6

4.0 16.0 4.5 7.6 17.0 5.0 8.0 8.7 6.0 10.0 6.0 5.7 3.0 8.0 11.0 10.0 7.8


5.2 8.0 4.9

6.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.5 5.4 1.1 1.5

3.0 7.0 1.0 0.9 1.5

11.2 20.1 20.0 5.2 13.0 13.0 2.0 12.1 12.0 2.0 3.0 6.7 0.5 6.0 6.2 2.0 0.9

Plastics

3.2 3.0 0.3

9.3 NR NR 2.0 NR 0.0 NR 0.2

NR NR NR 0.6 1.2

2.2 NR 2.7 2.4 5.0 NR 3.0 1.3 0.0 0.2 NR 1.4 0.2 6.0 1.4 1.0 1.0

Glass/ Ceramic

3.1 NR 0.2

1.4 NR NR NR NR 0.0 NR 0.7

NR NR NR 1.2 2.5

1.1 NR 0.3 0.3 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.0 NR NR 0.8 0.4 3.0 1.0 NR 1.0

Metals

11.0 39.0 33.5

26.6 51.7 51.0 49.0 58.5 46.3 36.0 51.0

43.0 39.2 59.0 55.7 56.1

39.3 12.9 5.9 10.8 22.0 18.0 61.0 20.6 9.0 47.8 51.0 13.4 30.9 32.0 8.4 42.0 41.5

Textiles and other

NEERI, 2005 CPCB, 1998 Jha et al., 2008

CPCB, 1998 CPCB, 1998 CPCB, 1998 CPCB, 1998 Zia and Devadas, 2008 CPCB, 1998 Chatterjee, 2009 Jha et al., 2008

CPCB, 1998 Jha et al., 2008 Jha et al., 2008 CPCB, 1998 Gangwar and Joshi, 2008

Liu et al., 2006 Chen et al., 2010 Hong et al.,2006 Raninger, 2009 Liu et al., 2006 Jiang et al., 2009 Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Zhao et al., 2009a Jiang et al., 2009 Unnikrishnan and Singh, 2010 CPCB, 1998 Singh et al., 2008 Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 CPCB, 1998 Chanakya et al., 2007 CPCB, 1998 Jha et al., 2008

Reference

TABLE 9. Percentage of physical composition in MSW generated from different countries and major cities from Asia other than Southeast Asia (Continued)


1563

Kazakhstan Kuwait

Jordan

Japan

Iran

Kolkata Lucknow Madurai Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay) Nagpur Patna Puducherry Pune Sangamner city Surat Vadodara Varanasi Vishakapatnam Tehran Tehran Tehran Tehran Nationwide Nationwide Kawasaki Kawasaki Kyoto Osaka Osaka Sapporo Tokyo Tokyo Yokohama Yokohama Yokohama Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Amman Irbid Zarqa city Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Safwa

55.9 40.4 40.0 40.0 45.0 30.0 38.4 44.0 45.0 55.0 42.2 40.0 40.0 48.0 85.6 64.8 73.6 42.3 42.6 23.7 34.0 68.8 31.8 6.5 46.6 42.3 31.3 9.8 11.0 23.0 77.5 71.5 63.0 54.4 77.5 62.6 54.4 37.5 50.0 30.0

2005 1997 1997 1996 1997 1997 2008 1997 2006 1997 1997 1997 1997 1980 1983 1992 2008 1992 2003 1979 2006 1992 1980 1989 1989 NA 1989 1989 1990 2004 1979 1986 1995 2000 1999 2001 NA 1995 2005 1984

5.0 4.5 30.0 0.8 4.0 5.0 6.1 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.7 17.2 8.3 25.0 22.3 35.8 33.0 8.1 38.3 35.7 25.2 25.0 44.5 40.0 56.2 38.0 14.0 15.2 11.0 14.0 14.9 11.5 14.0 35.0 20.7 40.0

4.6 3.2 4.0 3.0 3.0 1.3 10.4 0.6 6.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 7.0 10.0 3.6 3.8 4.8 11.2 11.4 14.4 13.0 9.7 15.9 20.3 12.5 11.2 7.8 14.8 16.8 11.0 3.4 2.4 16.0 13.2 2.5 16.2 13.2 5.0 12.6 6.0

3.2 0.7 4.0 3.0 NR 1.2 5.0 0.4 2.0 10.0 2.0 3.0 NR NR 0.5 2.1 2.7 2.9 1.6 7.3 5.0 2.4 1.1 9.8 7.1 2.9 1.2 13.2 1.6 7.0 4.1 2.0 2.0 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.8 3.5 3.3 2.0

1.7 0.4 NR NR NR 0.4 4.5 0.6 1.0 NR 5.0 NR NR NR 2.1 1.1 1.3 5.1 9.0 3.7 3.0 1.8 1.1 5.3 3.7 5.1 1.2 5.7 2.0 4.0 1.0 2.1 2.0 2.4 1.3 2.1 2.4 5.5 2.6 2.0

0.4 0.7 1.0 NR 47.0 62.3 11.7 41.8 42.0 15.0 38.7 50.0 49.0 39.0 3.5 4.1 9.3 13.5 13.0 15.1 12.0 9.2 11.9 22.4 4.9 13.5 14.0 16.5 12.5 17.0 NR 6.9 6.0 13.2 1.2 5.6 13.2 13.5 10.8 20.0

34.1 54.8 51.0 35.0



CPCB, 1998 CPCB, 1998 Pattnaik and Reddy, 2010 CPCB, 1998 Thitame et al., 2010 CPCB, 1998 CPCB, 1998 CPCB, 1998 CPCB, 1998 Chokouhmand, 1982 Abduli, 1995 Abduli, 1997 Abduli et al., 2010 Sakai, 1996 OECD,2005 Yamamura, 1983 Geng et al., 2010 Sakai et al., 1996 Yamamura, 1983 Sakai, 1996 Sakai, 1996 Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Sakai, 1996 Sakai, 1996 Takanashi et al., 1998 Contreras et al., 2010 Hawskley, 1980 Abu Qdais et al., 1997 Abu-Qudais and Abu-Qdais, 2000 Abu Qdais, 2007 Abu Qdais, 2007 Mrayyan and Hamdi,2006 Abu Qdais, 2007 Abu Qdais et al., 1997 Al-Salem and Lettieri, 2009 Khan et al., 1987

NEERI, 2005 CPCB, 1998 CPCB, 1998 CPCB, 1998

1564

Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Kathmandu Kathmandu Kathmandu Kathmandu Kathmandu Kathmandu Nationwide Lahore Data Ganj Bukhsh Town (DGBT) in Lahore Karachi Karachi Karachi Nablus West Bank and Gaza Strip Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Dammam Jeddah Khobar Nationwide Nationwide Moratuwa Nationwide Nationwide Abu Dhabi Al-Ain Sanaa

Lebanon Mauritius Nepal


Yemen

Syria Tajikistan United Arab Emirates

Sri Lanka

Qatar Saudi Arabia

Palestine

Oman Pakistan

Location

Country

53.3 35.0 53.3 61.0 73.7 57.0 66.0 58.9 52.8 66.0 71.3 49.0 21.0 56.0

49.0 54.5 67.0 56.0 74.0

NA 1985 1988 2005 2002 NA NA 2006 1987 1987 1986 1997 2004 2005 NA NA 1995 1987 NA

37.5 62.4 80.0 52.2 57.7 52.2 57.8 69.8 67.8 53.0 71.0 67.0

Organic material

NA NA NA 1976 1988 1995 2001 2004 2007 NA NA 2005

Year

17.7 34.0 17.7 15.0 15.6 17.0 13.0 6.5 16.4 13.0 6.5 6.0 39.0 6.0

4.0 10.1 5.0 0.5 5.0

35.0 11.3 7.0 6.0 6.2 6.0 6.2 8.5 6.5 13.0 7.5 5.0


15.0 1.0 15.0 5.0 2.7 10.0 8.0 5.9 21.1 8.0 5.9 12.0 5.0 1.0

2.0 9.9 18.5 0.5 3.0

5.0 11.0 2.5 5.4 2.0 5.4 2.0 9.2 0.3 12.5 12.0 18.5

Plastics

3.1 1.0 3.1 5.0 1.2 7.0 2.0 2.0 NR 2.0 2.0 9.0 5.0 2.0

3.0 1.2 2.2 0.5 1.0

3.5 5.6 3.0 3.6 1.6 3.6 1.6 2.5 1.3 6.5 1.3 2.2

Glass/ Ceramic

4.3 5.0 4.3 7.0 2.1 7.0 3.0 2.8 2.4 3.0 2.8 8.0 15.0 8.0

4.0 0.7 0.5 0.5 2.0

5.5 2.9 0.5 4.8 0.4 2.3 0.4 0.9 4.9 6.0 0.5 0.5

Metals

6.6 24.0 6.6 7.0 4.7 2.0 8.0 23.9 7.3 8.0 11.5 16.0 15.0 27.0

38.0 23.6 6.8 42.0 5.0

13.5 6.8 7.0 28.0 32.2 30.5 32.0 9.1 19.2 9.0 7.7 6.8

Textiles and other

Abu Qdais et al., 1997 Abu Qdais et al., 1997 Kwak et al., 2006 Khan et al., 1987 Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Kharajian et al., 1985 Vidanaarachchi et al., 2006 Menikpura and Basnayake, 2009 Bandara et al., 2007 Abu Qdais et al., 1997 Abu Qdais et al., 1997 Abu Qdais et al., 1997 Khan et al., 1987 Khan et al., 1987

Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Khatib et al., 1990 Khatib et al., 1990 Al-Khatib et al., 2010 Khatib and Al-Khateeb, 2009

EI-Fadel and Sbayti, 2000 Shekdar, 2009 Shekdar, 2009 Tabasaran, 1976; UNEP (2001a) Alam et al., 2008 Pokhrel and Viraraghavan, 2005 Alam et al., 2008 Dangi et al., 2011 Dangi et al., 2011 Taha et al., 2004 Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Batool and Chuadhry, 2009

Reference

TABLE 9. Percentage of physical composition in MSW generated from different countries and major cities from Asia other than Southeast Asia (Continued)




1565

reused (Jin et al., 2006). Table 9 shows the physical composition of MSW in different metro cities in India for the year 2000. From the data it is clear that though the larger (30–72%) proportion of organic matters present in Indian MSW, recyclable items also contribute a significant amount. The characteristics of the waste generated in Iran vary from one city to another, but as a general rule, compared with the industrial nations, the percentage of putrefiable materials in municipal waste is very high. Therefore, the density and moisture content of municipal waste as it delivered is high. On the other hand, the percentage of recoverable materials such as paper, plastics, PET, and textiles is low. Consequently, the heat value of MSW in Iran is very low. The major component of MSW in Iran for the year 2000 was found as organic fraction, contributing 63% of the total MSW (Abduli, 2000). According to a recent survey of solid waste composition in Israel, conducted in 2005, organic materials are the main components of the waste stream, in terms of weight, constituting 40% of Israel’s solid waste, followed by paper (17%) and plastics (13%). Plastics waste constitutes 46% of the country’s waste volume (up from 34% in 1995), followed by paper (15%) and cardboard (13%; Solid Waste Management Division, 2008). Organic solid waste is the most abundant type of waste in Palestinian Authority areas, including the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as it forms 74% (equaling 0.27 million tons per year) by weight of the solid waste generated (Khatib and Al-Khateeb, 2009). Besides organic solids, plastics contribute 3% (10,038 tons per year), glass 1% (4,506 tons per year), metal 2% (7,547 tons per year), writing paper 3% (11,401 tons per year), and toilet paper 12% (45,604 tons per year). Municipal solid wastes in Jordan contain 55–70% kitchen garbage, 5–17% plastics, 11–17% paper and cardboard, 2–2.5% glass, 2–2.5% metals, and the remaining 4–7% are other materials (Alfayez, 2003; Qdais, 2007). Therefore, the composition of MSW showed that the largest proportion of solid waste in Jordan is kitchen wastes (organic material). Al-Meshan and Mahros (2001) published the fractions of MSW in Kuwait, in which organics and paper were reported to be 49% and 21%, respectively. Plastics, glass, and metal, wood and fibers, and other miscellaneous types of MSW were reported as 13%, 6%, 10%, and 1%, respectively. Similar to Singapore, most often the MSW is characterized by high paper and plastics content, particularly in Japan. The physical composition of MSW in Japan is paper and carton 37%, plastics 11%, glass 7%, metals 6%, textiles 7%, and biodegradable 32% (Moqsud and Hayashi, 2006). The composition of the MSW generated in the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal shows that there has been a change in the solid waste composition over time (Table 9). The quantity of the plastic waste has increased compared to the previous years. Among the all compositions, biodegradable fraction in generated waste in different location of Pakistan was found to be higher, similar to other Asian countries.


1566

T. Karak et al.

MSW in South Korea consists of 25% biodegradable, 26% paper, 7% plastics, 4% glass, 9% metal, and 29% textile and leather. However, average MSW composition in Sri Lanka is biodegradable 76.4%, paper and paperboard 10.6%, plastics 5.7%, glass and metals are 1.3% each, and inert and other is 4.7% (Shekdar, 2009). Biodegradable fraction in other Asian countries such as Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Yemen contributed 64.8–78.3% of total MSW (APO, 2007). In general, Figure 11 gives weighted average of the MSW composition in Asian countries on the basis of economic status for the year 1995 and also the forecasted data of MSW composition for the year 2025. From the figures it is clear that in the countries having high income, paper is the major contributor, followed by organic matter and plastics; in the countries having middle and lower income, organic matter is the major contributor, followed by paper and plastics (WHO, 1999).

MSW Generation in African Countries Even though MSW problems were identified several decades ago in developed countries, the ills of appropriate quantification of MSW and the lack of reliable information systems are the critical aspects of its management in African countries. Furthermore, the quantification of MSW in African countries is mainly focused on the metropolitan areas, and few cases are nationwide. Therefore, a part of the data and information on MSW for African countries are estimated, provided by different literatures. Hence, some inconsistencies could appear eventually with regard to the figures (Table 10). The estimated solid waste generation in Algeria for the year 1998 was 5.2 million tons, equaling 173 kpc. The projected solid waste generation in the year 2010 is 7.4 million tons, equaling 192 kpc. The percentage increase in waste generation and the percentage increase in per capita waste generation of solid waste from 1998 to 2010 was projected to be 41% and 11%, respectively (World Bank, 2000b). According to Guermoud et al. (2009), Algeria produces 8.5 million tons of MSW, a rate of 328.5 kpc for urban zones and 219 kpc for rural zones each year. The overall MSW generation rate in Botswana is recorded as 120.5 kpc (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). Urban waste generation in Gabarone, Botswana, was also found as 120.5 kpc for the year 2003 (Bolaane and Ali, 2004). The literature concerning on MSW generation aspect in Cameroon is scarce. Generation of domestic MSW in Yaoundé, the capital of Cameroon, between 2002 and 2005 was 288.92 kpc (Parrot et al., 2009). The domestic waste generation rate in Yaoundé is linked to population growth as the population has increased by over 6 million in 16 years (National Institute of Statistics, 2004). Municipal waste generation in Limbe (a coastal town in Cameroon located in the Gulf of Guinea) was estimated as about 7,300 tons per year (i.e., 20 tpd; Awum et al., 2001). The

1567



FIGURE 11. Comparison of MSW composition between 1995 (A–C) and 2025 (D–F; predicted). (A) and (D) for low-income (Bangladesh, China, India, Lao PDR, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Vietnam); (B) and (E) for middle-income (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand), and (C) and (F) for high-income (Hong Kong, Japan, Republic of Korea, and Singapore) countries (WHO, 1999).

smaller waste volumes for Limbe can be attributed to a relatively smaller population where populations consist of about 100,000 inhabitants (Manga et al., 2008). In the year 1999, 24.75 million urban people in Egypt generated 6.53 million tons of MSW per year, equaling 219–292 kpc (Arab Republic of Egypt, National Environmental Action Plan, Cairo, 1992). World Bank

1568 1992 1995 2005 2010 2006 2010 2006 1996 2008

Accra Accra Accra

Kumasi

Kumasi Nairobi

Bamako

Bamako

Kenya

Mali

2005

Yaoundé

Accra

Ghana

NA

Bafoussam

NA

Ouagadougou

Cameroon

NA

Bobo Dioulasso

Burkina Faso

2000

2006

Mostaganem

Nationwide

2001

Year

Algiers

Location

Botswana

Algeria

Country

1.50

0.56

1.89 2.75

1.61

1.47 3.60 4.00

1.31

1.72

0.24

1.73

0.44

1.50

0.72

3.35


0.33

0.20

0.48 0.72

0.35

0.29 0.53 0.73

0.25

0.53

0.03

0.39

0.09

0.33

0.16

1.22


220.0

357.1

254.0 260.0

219.0

197.1 146.0 183.5

186.7

310.3

135.1

226.3

200.8

216.7

226.3

365.0

MSW generation (in kpc)

TABLE 10. MSW generation in different countries and major cities from Africa

Kumasi is a city in southern central Ghana. Projected generation. Nairobi is the capital and largest city of Kenya. Bamako is the capital and largest city of Mali. —

Algiers is the capital and largest city of Algeria Population for 1998. Mostaganem is a port city in and capital of Mostaganem province, in the northwest of Algeria. Botswana is a sub-Saharan country located in Southern Africa. MSW data based on 60% of house holds in large towns and only 7% in small towns. Bobo Dioulasso the second biggest city in Burkina Faso. Ouagadougou is the capital of Burkina Faso. Population for 2001. Bafoussam is the capital of the West Province of Cameroon. Yaoundé is the capital of Cameroon and second largest city. Population for 2001. Accra is the capital and largest city in Ghana. — — Projected data.

Remarks


Samake et al., 2009

Samake et al., 2009

Asase et al., 2009 Muniafa and Otiato, 2008

Melissa Project, 2000 Fobil et al., 2008 Boadi, and Kuitunen, 2003 Asase et al., 2009

Kramer et al., 1994

Parrot et al., 2009

Ngnikame, 2000

Tezanou et al., 2001

Desseau, 1999

Kgathi and Bolaane, 2001

Guermoud et al., 2009

Kehila, 2005

Reference

1569

1995 2008 NA 1996 2010

Nationwide

Lagos Oyo Hargeisa

Nationwide

Nationwide

Nigeria

Somaliland

South Africa

2010 2003 2006 2008 1999 2010

Moshi

Mountain Kilimanjaro Mountain Kilimanjaro Sousse

Tunis Lusaka

Tunisia

Zambia


1995

2006

Dar es Salaam

Tanzania

2007

Maputo

Mozambique

1996

Rabat

Marocco

2002

Nouakchott

Mauritania

9.80 1.50

0.15 0.21 0.17

0.18

2.50

49.99

40.58

10.00 0.43 0.65

15.12

1.24

0.65

0.88

2.86 0.30

0.03 0.05 0.07

0.06

0.33

49.99

1.04

0.40 0.02 0.08

10.98

0.23

0.14

0.07

292.0 201.0

219.0 219.0 394.0

338.0

120.5

249.3

25.6

401.5 46.9 125.2

726.2

182.0

219.0

76.7

Nouakchott is the capital and by far the largest city of Mauritania. It is one of the largest cities in the Sahara Population for 1999. Rabat is the capital and second largest city of the Kingdom of Morocco. Maputo is the capital and largest city of Mozambique. Based on the survey data from April to October, 2007 from nine major cities. — Estimated waste generation in 2008. Survey data from April 2005 to September 2008. Waste produced per capita per year is not routinely collected. Provincial general waste predicted for the year 2010. Dar es Salaam is the capital of Tanzania. 80 households at two settlements in Dar es Salaam city namely Kimara Matangini and Sinza B for one week. Moshi is a Tanzanian town in Kilimanjaro Region. — — Sousse is located on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, and the old part of the city in Tunisia. Tunis is the capital of Tunisia. Lusaka is the capital and largest city of Zambia.


METAP, 2002 UN-HABITAT, 2010

Kaseva and Moirana, 2010 Kaseva and Moirana, 2010 UN-HABITAT, 2010

UN-HABITAT, 2010

Karani and Jewasikiewitz, 2007 Kaseva et al., 2002

DWAF, 1998

Kofoworola, 2007 Afon and Okewole, 2007 Hoehne, 2008

Ogwueleka, 2009

Hunger and Stretz, 2006

ONEM,2001

Aloueimine, 2006


1570

T. Karak et al.

(2000b) reported that 14.5 million tons of solid waste was generated in Egypt, equaling 219 kpc. According to Bushra (2000), Egypt is annually generating 10 million tons of MSW. Approximately 60% of the 10 million tons is generated in urban areas. Industry produces 3–5 million tons per year and approximately 0.05 million tons of these wastes are considered hazardous waste. The rate of waste generation is highly influenced by the population type. This is evident as the rate of waste generation in rural areas is only 11 kpc while in urban areas it is 292 kpc. In tourist regions and hotels, the amount of waste generation is as high as 547.5 kpc (Bushra, 2000). The projected solid waste generation for the year 2010 is 20.1 million tons, which is equivalent to 247 kpc. The projected percentage increase of waste generation from 1998 to 2010 will be 39% (World Bank, 2000b). The project in the development and the environment comparing health risks in Cairo (the capital of Egypt, the largest city in Africa and the Arab world), reported that the percentage contribution of the different sources of MSW generated in Cairo is household (64.3%), street sweeping and green refuse (12.3%), commercial (14.9%), industrial (2.3%), institutional educational (0.9%), hotels (0.7%), hospitals (0.09%), and others (4.15%). Badran and El-Haggar (2006) reported that Port Said (located in the northwest of Egypt) generates 0.15 million tons of waste per year, which is equivalent to 422 tons per day. Residential waste is the major source and accounts for about 55.7% of the total quantity generated per day in Port Said. Per capita waste generation in Mekelle (city in Northern Ethiopia) was estimated to vary between 109.5 and 120.5 kpc between 2004 and 2006 (Tadesse et al., 2008), of which only one third of the total MSW has been collected and disposed of on average. MSW generation rate in Banjul (the capital city of Gambia) for the year 2000 was 109.5 kpc (Achankeng, 2003). The specific waste generation rate in Accra (capital of Ghana) was low, at 146 kpc, in the lower-income area, the middle-income areas showed a specific waste generation rate of 248 kpc, and high-income residential areas showed 226 kpc (Kramer et al., 1994). MSW generation rate in Ghana for 1992–1995 was in stable value (i.e., 186 kpc; Fobil and Atuguba, 2004). According to Fobil et al. (2008), Accra generated 0.31, 0.32, 0.33, and 0.35 million tons of MSW in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2000, respectively. This report revealed that there is the change of total MSW generation but no change was observed on the rate of MSW generation, which remained constant during this period (200.8 kpc). According to this estimate and different population estimates, MSW generated in Accra (capital of Ghana) was between 0.38 million tons per year and 0.70 million tons per year in the year 1999 (Awal, 1999). On average, about 1,800 tons of MSW (household/market waste) were produced daily in Accra (Danso et al., 2006). The estimated daily municipal waste generation rate in Kumasi (capital of Ashanti region, Ghana) was 219 kpc. The estimated annual waste generation in Accra for the year 2010 was 734,174 tons per year (Melissa Project, 2000). The information published by Henry et al. (2006) for Nairobi

1571

gave a typical situation of MSW in most local authorities in Kenya over the years. In the year 1978, 0.23 million tons of MSW was produced in Nairobi. This value was increased up to 0.37 million tons for the year 1990. However, no change was observed on MSW generation up to 1998. In the year 2000, 0.5 million tons of MSW was produced in Nairobi. Mensah (2006) concluded that estimated population of1.3 million and 182.5 kpc per capita generation rate gave a total domestic type waste generation in Monrovia (the capital city of Liberia) and its environs as 0.24 million tons per year for 2004. In Bamako (capital city of Mali), waste volume was estimated between 0.04 and 0.06 million tons per year (Olley et al., 2004; Samake et al., 2009). The amount of waste generated across the city in Nigeria in the year 1982 was 40.2–284.7 kpc, with an average of 178.9 kpc (Federal Ministry of Housing & Environment, 1982). In the year 2003, solid waste generation and waste characteristics in the Makurdi urban area in Nigeria was reported by Sha’Ato et al. (2007) over a 10-day survey period. The amount of waste generation (in kpc) in the high-density area (50 households), medium-density area (30 households), low-density area (15 households), commercial premises, institutional premises, and small- or medium-scale industry were 226, 135, 208, 197, 6.5, and 5.5, respectively. The average MSW generation rate in Nigeria in 2004 was between 201 and 212 kpc (Igoni et al., 2007; Sha’Ato et al., 2007). Figure 12 represents the waste generation rates for urban areas in Nigeria based on the three steps of waste collection from April to October 250

2.3

Annual MSW generation (million tons)

240

2.0


230

1.8

220

1.5

210

1.3

200

1.0

190

0.8

180

0.5

170

0.3

160

0.0


2.5




150 Abuja

Ibadan

Kaduna

Kano

Lagos

Makurdi

Nsukka

Onitsha

Port Harcourt

Location

FIGURE 12. MSW generation in different city of Nigeria for the year 2007 (Source: Ogwueleka, 2009).


1572

T. Karak et al.

2007 (Ogwueleka, 2009). The density of the solid waste in Nigeria ranged from 250–370 kg m−3, which was higher than solid waste densities found in developed countries. According to Adeyemi et al. (2001), the magnitude of the total wastes in Ilorin city (capital of Kwara State, Nigeria) was estimated as 0.04–0.23 million tons per year for the year 2000. According to the Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources of Sudan (2003), the MSW generation rate for the year 2000 was 0.29 tons per capita per year. According to the data provided by Hoehne (2008), Hargeisa (capital city of Somaliland) produced 223 tons of MSW per day during 2006–2008. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA; 1997) asserted that the weighted average yearly generation rate of MSW in Dar es Salaam city in Tanzania was 0.65 million tons. The specific generation rate was 249.3, 258.1, and 275.6 kpc in suburban unplanned areas, suburban planned areas, and urban areas, respectively. In Tunisia, the relative urban population growth was 61% in 1994 and the amount of MSW in the same year was 182.5–365 kpc (Hamdi et al., 2003). The estimated solid waste generation in Tunisia for 1998 was 1.8 million tons, equaling 193 kpc. The projected solid waste generation in the year 2010 is 2.3 million tons, equaling 211 kpc. The percentage increase in waste generation and the per cent increase in per capita waste generation of solid waste from 1998 to 2010 was 26% and 9%, respectively (World Bank, 2000b). According to Kamya et al. (2002), the accumulation of garbage solid waste in the city of Kampala (the largest and capital city of Uganda) in Uganda increased tremendously, from 0.11 million tons in 1972 to 0.44 million tons in 2004. The waste generation rate in Kampala city for the year 2003 was recorded as 219 kpc (Achankeng, 2003). In 1998, Zimbabwe generated 113.5 kpc of MSW (Chimhowu, 1998). The waste generation in Harare for the year 2003 was reported as 255.5 kpc (Achankeng, 2003). The rate of waste generation in Sakubva (a high-density suburb city in Zimbabwe) was 292 kpc and the total amount of waste produced was 49.9 tons per day for the year 2007 (Manyanhaire et al., 2009). In South Africa, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF; 1998), refers to MSW as general waste that does not pose a significant threat to the public environment if properly managed. According to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT; 2006), South Africa generated around 2.7 million tons of domestic wastes per year. This translates to about 255.5 kpc (Austin et al., 2006). The generation of waste in South Africa will probably increase due to the expected population and economic growth (DEAT, 1999). Von Blottnitz et al. (2006) stated that the six largest South African metropolitan municipalities (Johannesburg, city of Tshwane, Nelson Mandela municipality, Ekurhuleni municipality, and eThekwini municipality) were estimated to have disposed of 8.9 million tons of MSW during 2005. Presently the generation rate of MSW in Cape Town city of South Africa is 400 kpc. In 2004, 2.3 million tons of solid waste was collected from



1573

Cape Town municipality of South Africa, of which 0.12 million tons was pure green waste (Morkel, 2005). MSW generation rate in other cities of African continents were the following: Abidjan in Cote d’Ivoire 365 kpc; Brazzaville in Congo Republic 219 kpc; Bujumbura in Burundi 511 kpc; Conakry in Guinea as 255.5 kpc; Dakar in Senegal 255.5 kpc; Kampala in Uganda 219 kpc; Kinshasa in Congo (Democratic Republic) 438 kpc; Lome in Togo 693.5 kpc; Niamey in Niger 365 kpc; Nouakchott in Mauritania 328.5 kpc; Novo in Benin Porto 182.5 kpc; Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso 255.5 kpc; Rabat in Marocco 219 kpc; and Windhoek in Namibia as 255.5 kpc (Achankeng, 2003). Notwithstanding the lack of available data, it remains impossible to say conclusively how much waste the African’s economies produce, how it is treated, or where it is disposed. In this relation, overall MSW generation data in different countries of African continents such as Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canary Islands, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Mauritania, Melilla, Marocco, Mozambique, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, São Tomé and Pr´ıncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, and Zambia are scant.

MSW Composition in African Countries The immediate impression at a glance from Table 11 is that organic waste constitutes a very large part of MSW streams of all the countries and cities in Africa. The typical composition of MSW in Egyptian cities is organic 60%, paper and paperboard 10%, plastics 12%, glass 3%, and metals 2%. Therefore, 13% of the material is denoted as “other,” which mainly includes construction and demolition debris and hazardous wastes. Organic waste is the main component of MSW, although the quantities of the organic matter in the solid waste are much less in rural areas as it is fed to animals or used as soil conditioner or as fuel for ovens. It should be noted that rural areas comprises about 60% of the Egyptian population but they contribute only 30% of the total amount of MSW. Therefore, as a typical or an average composition of MSW, the organic waste is a major component (Bushra, 2000). A household solid waste characterization study carried out in different income groups in Accra in 1999 showed that the proportion of organic waste from high-income households was higher (approximately 70%) than that of waste from medium (60%) and low-income (49%) household groups (Fobil and Atuguba, 2004). The average proportion of organic, paper, textile, plastics, glass, metal, and inert fraction in MSW of Accra was found to be 65%, 6%, 1.7%, 3.5%, 3%, 2.5%, and 18.3% respectively (Fobil and Atuguba, 2004). The proportion of plastics in the waste stream of Accra increased considerably, from 3.5% to 8%, during the period of 1995–1999. The composition of

1574

Mostaganem Bejaia Annaba Tlemcen Djelfa Gaborone Gaborone Limbe Nationwide Labe Accra Kumasi Nationwide Nairobi Monrovia Bamako Nouakchott Nationwide Windhoek

Algeria

Liberia Mali Mauritania Mozambique Namibia

Kenya

Cameroon Egypt Equatorial Guinea Ghana

Botswana

Location

Country 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 1996 2001 2004 1998 1989 1994 2006 NA 1999 2004 2007 NA NA NA

Year 64.6 69.4 68.2 71.0 83.5 59.3 67.9 54.8 60.0 69.0 73.1 64.0 58.2 58.6 47.6 36.2 48.0 67.0 36.0

Organic material 15.9 11.1 12.6 11.0 7.9 0.6 12.5 12.5 10.0 4.1 6.6 3.0 17.3 16.8 10.0 12.8 6.3 13.0 20.0

Paper and paperboard 10.5 12.3 11.2 11.0 2.4 0.6 4.5 12.4 12.0 22.8 3.3 4.0 11.8 12.6 13.0 16.0 20.0 10.0 16.0

Plastics

2.3 2.1 1.2 12.0 4.0 4.0 13.0

NR

2.8 0.7 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.2 6.4 1.6 3.0 0.3 1.5

Glass/ Ceramic 1.9 2.7 3.7 3.0 1.7 1.5 6.2 2.4 2.0 1.4 2.1 1.0 2.6 2.2 2.0 14.0 4.2 2.0 5.0

Metals 4.3 3.8 3.2 3.0 3.3 37.8 2.5 16.3 13.0 2.0 13.4 28.0 7.8 7.8 26.2 23.0 17.5 4.0 10.0

Textiles and others

Reference Guermoud et al., 2009 Guermoud et al., 2009 Guermoud et al., 2009 Guermoud et al., 2009 Guermoud et al., 2009 Kgathi and Bolaane, 2001 Bolaane and Ali, 2004 Manga et al., 2008 Bushra, 2000 Matejka et al., 2001 Boadi, and Kuitunen, 2003 Asase et al., 2009 Couth and Trois, 2010 Henry, et al., 2006 Mensah, 2006 Samake, 2009 METAP, 2002 Couth and Trois, 2010 Couth and Trois, 2010

TABLE 11. Percent of physical composition of MSW generated from different countries and major cities in Africa


1575

Lagos Lagos Lagos Kano Ibadan Ibadan Oyo Ilorin Hargeisa Nationwide Soweto Durban Mount Kilimanjaro Tunis Kampala Masvingo city Sakubva


Tanzania Tunisia Uganda Zimbabwe

Somaliland South Africa

Nigeria

1987 NA 2000 1987 2005 NA 2004 1986 NA 2007 1996 2001 2006 NA NA 2003 NA

60.0 59.0 68.0 43.0 57.5 78.0 56.7 61.0 21.2 22.3 9.0 42.5 55.0 68.0 81.8 15.0 32.0

14.0 17.0 10.0 17.0 7.1 10.0 14.4 7.0 19.9 24.8 9.0 19.3 9.0 11.0 5.4 30.0 27.0

NR 12.0 7.0 4.0 7.9 3.0 18.8 NR 16.0 31.5 3.0 17.4 24.0 7.0 1.6 40.0 23.0

3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 11.3 2.0 3.1 NR 5.2 7.0 12.0 7.1 1.0 2.0 0.9 4.0 5.0

4.0 8.0 3.0 5.0 2.6 5.0 2.8 NR 2.5 6.1 3.0 6.9 8.0 4.0 3.1 5.0 6.0


19.0 2.0 8.0 29.0 13.6 2.0 4.2 32.0 35.2 8.3 64.0 6.8 3.0 8.0 7.2 6.0 7.0

Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Ikem et al., 2002 Kofoworola, 2007 Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Ayininuola and Muibi, 2008 Ikem et al., 2002 Afon and Okewole, 2007 Olorunfemi and Odita, 1998 Hoehne, 2008 Trois and Simelane, 2010 Blight et al., 1999 Trois et al., 2010 Kaseva and Moirana, 2010 Hafid et al., 2002 Couth and Trois, 2010 Mangizvo, 2008 Manyanhaire et al., 2009


1576

T. Karak et al.

waste in Kumasi (in Ghana) is predominantly made of biodegradable materials (64%) and a high percentage of inert materials as well (22%; Asase et al., 2009). The inert material is mostly made of wood ash, sand, and charcoal. Paper, plastics, metals, wood, and textiles contribute only 14% of the total MSW. A one-day waste composition analysis was carried out in July 2004 by Mensah (2006), based on the samples from five different locations (markets and residential areas) in Monrovia (capital of Liberia), which gave the following results: organic 47.6%, paper and paperboard 10%, plastics 13.2%, glass 1.2%, metals 2%, and others contributed 26%. MSW produced in a different city of Nigeria contents 52–65% of organic matter (Imam et al., 2008). A typical average composition of solid waste in Makurdi urban area in Nigeria in the year 2003 revealed that organic fraction contributed 74% followed by plastics (7%), paper (5%), and glass and metals (2% each; Sha’Ato et al., 2007). The organic fraction accounts for 75% of the MSW in Cameroon (Parrot et al., 2009). Studies carried out by JICA (1997) and Chaggu et al. (1998) indicate that organic waste constituted the major portion of MSW in Dar es Salaam city. Chaggu et al. (1998) estimated that the organic fraction of household solid waste was to be 78% of the total waste, however, the same institutional solid waste constituted 56–64% (Mbuligwe, 2002) in Dar es Salaam city. On the contrary, Mbuligwe and Kassenga (1998) estimated the total organic fraction of MSW in Dar es Salaam city to be 71%. A similar figure was reported by Kaseva and Gupta (1996). The MSW in Tunisia were characterized by a large fermentable fraction, which is around 70% (Hassen et al., 2001).

MSW Generation in American Countries The study of the relevant literature reveals the diversities in waste generation from one country to another and even from one city to another in American continent (Table 12). Total collected MSW in Brazil was 0.08 million tons per year (Barreira et al., 2008) and generation rate varied form 182.5 to 474.5 kpc (Mahler et al., 2002). In 1992 it was estimated that the Canadians used to manage approximately 33.76 million tons of MSW (Sawell et al., 1996). This volume represents an average waste generation rate of 1233.7 kpc. The distribution pattern of MSW for this year was residential waste (10.54 million tons or 31.2%), industrial/commercial/institutional waste (12.66 million tons or 37.5%), and construction and demolition waste (10.56 million tons or 31.3%). Canada reported a 5% increase in MSW generation from 365 kpc in 2000 to 383 kpc in 2002 (Statistics Canada, 2005). The total amount of MSW generated in the year 2004 was 13.38 million tons (OECD, 2007a). On the average, 438 kpc of household solid waste was generated in the city of London (city

1577

1996 NA

1996

2007 1996 1995

1989

1996 1996

1989

1996 NA

La Paz Nationwide

Belo Horizonte

Belo Horizonte Brasilia Curitiba

Rio de Janeiro

Rio de Janeiro Salvador

São Paulo

São Paulo Uberlândia

1996 1996

Buenos Aires Rosario

Bolivia Brazil

1989

Buenos Aires

Argentina

Year

Location

Country

16.40 0.44

11.00

9.90 2.80

5.50

2.45 1.80 2.10

3.90

0.75 191.80

12.00 1.10

12.00


8.07 0.08

4.02

3.61 1.02

2.01

1.30 0.58 0.47

1.17

0.14 59.78

3.83 0.26

3.50


491.9 186.2

365.0

365.0 365.0

365.0

529.0 324.4 226.0

299.5

184.9 311.7

319.4 232.3

292.0

MSW generation (in kpc) Remarks

Belo Horizonte is the capital of and largest city in the state of Minas Gerais, located in the southeastern region of Brazil. — Brasilia is the capital of Brazil. Curitiba has the largest population and the largest economy in the Brazilian state of Paraná in southern Brazil. Curitiba is the capital and largest city of Paraná. Rio de Janeiro is the capital city of the State of Rio de Janeiro, the second largest city of Brazil. MSW data represent the waste generated from 28 Administrative Regions in the Municipality of Rio de Janeiro. Population in metropolitan area only Salvador is the largest city on the northeast coast of Brazil and the capital of the Northeastern Brazilian state of Bahia. Waste data from 33 Administrative Regions. This city is the capital of the state of São Paulo. Population in metropolitan area only Uberlândia is the core city in Brazil.

Buenos Aires is the capital and largest city of Argentina, and the second-largest metropolitan area in South America. MSW data represent only in Federal District excluding 19 municipalities. Population in metropolitan area only Rosario is the largest city in the province of Santa Fe of Argentina. La Paz is the administrative capital of Bolivia. Population for 2009

TABLE 12. MSW generation in different countries and selected cities of America


PAHO, 1995b Fehr et al., 2000 (Continued on next page)

Bartone et al., 1991

Méndez et al., 2008 Acurio et al., 1998


UN-HABITAT, 2010 Acurio et al., 1998 Méndez et al., 2008

PAHO, 1995c Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009 Acurio et al., 1998

Acurio et al., 1998 PAHO, 1996


Reference

1578 1996

1994 1993

San Salvador

Guayaquil

Quito city Guatemala city

El Salvador

Ecuador

Guatemala

1992

1994

Santo Domingo

1987

Medell´ın

Dominican Republic

1996

Cartagena

1995

1996 1996

Bogotá Cali

San José

1996

1995

Santiago

Barranquilla

1989

Year

Santiago

Location

Costa Rica

Colombia

Chile

Country

1.30 2.20

2.30

1.30

2.80

1.00

1.50

0.60

5.60 1.85

1.00

5.30

3.90


0.33 0.44

0.58

0.26

0.62

0.35

0.27

0.20

1.53 0.49

0.33

1.68

1.00


252.7 199.1

253.9

196.5

221.6

350.4

182.5

340.7

273.8 266.4

328.5

316.8

255.5

MSW generation (in kpc) Remarks Waste data from 23 municipalities (communes) in the Province of Santiago Santiago is the capital and largest city of Chile. Barranquilla it is the largest industrial city and port in Colombia. Bogotá is the capital city of Colombia. Cali is a city in western Colombia and this city is the fastest growing economies in Colombia. Cartagena is a popular tourist destination as well as the fifth largest urban area in Colombia. This city is the center of economic activity in the Caribbean region of Colombia. Medell´ın is the second largest city in Colombia. San José is the capital and largest city of Costa Rica. Santo Domingo is the capital and largest city in the Dominican Republic. San Salvador is the capital and largest city of the nation of El Salvador. It is the second most populous city in Central America. Guayaquil is the capital of the Ecuadorian province of Guayas. Also known as the largest and the most populous city in Ecuador. Quito city is the capital city of Ecuador. Guatemala city is the capital as well as the largest city of the Republic of Guatemala. Population indicate in the metropolitan area only

TABLE 12. MSW generation in different countries and selected cities of America (Continued)


PAHO, 1996 Acurio et al., 1998

Acurio et al., 1998

Acurio et al., 1998

Méndez et al., 2008

Acurio et al., 1998

JICA, 1994


Acurio et al., 1998 PAHO, 1995c

Acurio et al., 1998



Reference

1579

2007 1996 2006 1996 NA

Mexico city Mexico city Monterrey Managua

Managua ´ Asuncion

´ Asuncion Lima

San Vicente de Cañete

Nicaragua

Paraguay

Peru

Port-of-Spain

2001 2005 1996 1988

Mexico city

Trinidad and Tobago

1994

Guadalajara

Panama

1996

Nationwide

Mexico

Panama

2001

Nationwide

Jamaica

1993

1995

2003

Port-au-Prince

Haiti

1995

Tegucigalpa

Honduras

0.50

0.80

0.05

0.68 7.50

1.00 1.20

22.50 — 2.80 1.00

15.60

6.12

97.36

2.85

2.50

1.00

0.22

0.28

0.03

0.11 1.53

0.42 0.40

9.49 2.19 1.10 0.22

6.83

1.14

30.74

1.04

0.64

0.24

438.0

351.3

246.0

168.0 204.4

420.0 334.6

421.8 — 391.1 219.0

437.5

186.2

315.7

364.9

255.5

237.3

Tegucigalpa is the capital city and the largest city of Honduras. The Greater Port-au-Prince is the largest urban agglomeration of the Republic of Haiti. Jamaica, a country in the Caribbean sea, which is about 145 km south of Cuba. Population mentioned here is for July 2010 (estimated data). Mexico is the 14th largest country in the world and is the fifth largest country in the Americas. Guadalajara is the second largest urban area in Mexico Mexico city is the capital and largest city of Mexico. This city is also known as and the world’s third biggest metropolitan area by population. Population indicated here is from metropolitan area only. — — Population in metropolitan area only Managua is the largest and the capital city of Nicaragua. — Asunción is the capital and largest city of Paraguay. Population only for metropolitan area Population in 2009. Lima is the capital and largest city of Peru. Population only for metropolitan area. San Vicente de Cañete district is the capital of Cañete Province and is located on the central coast of Peru, 140 km south of Lima city. Panama is the southernmost country of Central America. Port-of-Spain is the capital of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and the country’s third-largest municipality.



PAHO, 1996

PAHO, 1996

UN-HABITAT, 2010

Diaz et al., 2007 Acurio et al., 1998

UN-HABITAT, 2010 Acurio et al., 1998

Rosa et al., 2006 Diaz et al., 2007 Acurio et al., 1998 JICA, 1994

Bernache-Pérez et al., 2001 Acurio et al., 1998

Ojeda-Ben´ıtez and Beraud-Lozano, 2003


Bras et al., 2009


1580

1970 1980 1990 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 1989

1995 1960

2004 1991

Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Caracas

Caracas Nationwide

Nationwide Havana

Venezuela

Cuba


1960

Nationwide

USA

1995

Montevideo

Uruguay

Year

Location

Country

11.00 2.00

3.00 7.00

203.98 227.26 249.91 281.42 293.66 296.41 299.40 301.62 3.60

179.98

1.40


2.15 0.51

1.28 0.99

121.10 151.60 205.20 239.10 249.80 250.40 254.20 254.10 1.32

88.10

0.46


195.5 255.5

425.8 141.4

538.6 606.5 745.7 770.6 772.2 767.2 770.6 765.6 366.0

444.1

328.5

MSW generation (in kpc) Remarks Montevideo is the capital, largest city and chief port of Uruguay. The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic, lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans with a capitalist mixed economy, well-developed infrastructure, and high productivity — — — — — — — — Caracas is the capital and largest city of Venezuela. — Cuba is the most populous island nation in the Caribbean. — Havana is the capital city, major port, and leading commercial center of Cuba. This city is also the second largest in the Caribbean region.

TABLE 12. MSW generation in different countries and selected cities of America (Continued)


Körner et al., 2008 Acurio et al., 1998

Acurio et al., 1998 Körner et al., 2008

EPA, 2008 EPA, 2008 EPA, 2008 EPA, 2008 EPA, 2008 EPA, 2008 EPA, 2008 EPA, 2008 Bartone et al., 1991

EPA, 2008

JICA, 1994

Reference



1581

in south east Ontario, Canada; Asase et al., 2009). In 2006, Canadians produced over 1,000 kg of waste per person, which was 8% more than in 2004 (Statistics Canada, 2006). According to the data provided by the National Solid Waste Management Plan in 1991, Costa Rica generated approximately 4.29 million tons per year. Since the beginning of the socialist regime, the Cuban population has substantially increased, from 7 to 11 million today. This contributed to an increase in MSW generation from 0.99 million tons in 1960 to 2.15 million tons in 2004 (Körner et al., 2008). Of the total MSW, Havana city alone produced approximately 20% of the total MSW generated in Cuba. The waste generation rate in Cuba determined in the 1970s revealed that the waste produced in different communities varied between 54.8 kpc (Santa Clara) and 223 kpc (Guantánamo; Schleenstein, 2002). Generation of MSW for the year 1996 in different Cuban provinces such as Camaguey, Ciego Avila, Cienfuegos, Granma, Guantanamo, Havana city, Holguin, Isla de la Juventud, La Habana, las Tunas, Matanzas, Pinar del Rio, Santiago de Cuba, Santis Spiritus, and Villa Clara was 0.07, 0.05, 0.06, 0.09, 0.04, 0.41, 0.11, 0.01, 0.10, 0.06, 0.90, 0.08, 0.13, 0.06, and 0.16 million tons per year, respectively (Körner et al., 2008). The average amount of waste generated in Santiago de Cuba (seaport in south east Cuba) was 31.39 kpc (Binder and Mosler, 2007; Mosler et al., 2006). MSW generation rates in Mexico during 1992–1998 was 95.3, 119.7, 123.4, 121.9, 125.6, 113.2, and 116.1 kpc (Buenrostro and Bocco, 2003). The average solid waste generation rate of Chihuahua (the capital of the State of Chihuahua and located in the northern region of Mexico) in 2006 was 246.7 kpc (Gomez et al., 2008). On average Mexico generated approximately 109.5 kpc MSW (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). In the year 2000, Guadalajara (city in west Mexico and capital of Jalisco) and Morelia (city in central Mexico and capital of Michoacán) produced 186.2 and 230 kpc, MSW respectively (Bernache-Pérez et al., 2001; Buenrostro et al., 2001). A survey during May and June of 1999 and March and April of 2000 (a total of 16 weeks) for the household solid wastes (as a part of MSW in Mexico) in Mexicali of Baja California in Mexico reported that the average daily production of waste per resident was 216 kpc (Ojeda-Benitez et al., 2003). In 2004, Mix´ iuhca and Balbuena (neighborhoods of Venustiano Carranza Delegacion—a demarcation and a smaller political division of Mexico city) reported that 0.46 million tons of waste were generated per year. Out of this, 50% came ´ Venustiano Carranza, 2005). An estimated rate from households (Delegacion of 0.37 million tons (8.3%) of urban solid waste was produced per year in the streets of Mexico city (PAOT, 2005). This percentage would represent 0.04 million tons of urban street solid waste in the Demarcation Venustiano Carranza (Muñoz-Cadena et al., 2009) per year. Presently, Guyanese and Jamaican citizens generates 198.9 and 365 kpc MSW, respectively (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). The Haitian Ministry of the Environment has estimated


1582

T. Karak et al.

that approximately 0.58 million tons of waste were produced yearly in Portau-Prince (United Nations, 2002).The population growth rate in the city of Cap-Ha¨ıtien (capital of Republic of Haiti) was about 5.1% (IHSI, 2007) and in the similar conditions, waste generation increased quickly in such a way that the city authorities were overwhelmed. Presently MSW generation rate in this place is 76.7 kpc (Philippe and Culot, 2009). During the past 4 decades, the United States has witnessed an extraordinary generation of MSW. The overall MSW generation rate during 1960–2007 is presented in Table 12. In 1960, 180 million Americans produced 88 million tons of waste (or 445.3 kpc). Generation rate of MSW in 1980 was 606 kpc (U.S. EPA, 2008). MSW generation rate in the United States for the year 1990 was 741 kpc. In 1997, 266 million Americans produced nearly 217 million tons of waste. Since 2000, MSW generation had remained fairly steady. In 2003, 236 million tons of MSW were produced in the United States, roughly 745 kpc, which is 50% higher than MSW generated in 1980 (U.S. EPA, 2003). In 2006, the United States produced more than 228 million tons (U.S. EPA, 2008) of MSW, or 750 kpc. In the year 2007, the United States produced approximately 254 million tons of MSW (i.e., 766.5 kpc; U.S. EPA, 2008). Presently MSW generation rate in the United States is 759.2 kpc (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). The generation of MSW in different locations of Latin American countries varied from 109.5 to 292 kpc (Acurio et al., 1998). Where household wastes include other wastes such as residues from stores, markets, institutions, small industries, sweeping, and others, this quantity increased from 25% to 50%. The daily generation was from 182.5 to 438 kpc with a regional average of 0.92. Table 12 represents the MSW generation and generation rate in different locations in Latin America, which is based on the information collected from different sources and mainly from Pan American Health Organization (PAHO; 1995a) and Acurio et al. (1998). The values of MSW show that in metropolitan areas and in the cities of 2 million people (sample of 16 cities), the average generation was 354 kpc; in other 16 large cities of 0.5–2 millions people the average generation was 270 kpc; and in a sample of 24 medium and small cities of less than 0.5 million people, the average generation was 201 kpc. With an average generation of 335.8 kpc, it is estimated that the urban population (360 million) in Latin American countries producing 120.45 million tons of MSW per year. This confirms that the size of the cities and per capita income are factors that determine the increment of per capita waste generation. In addition, the application of policies to reduce MSW generation is still weak and these values are increasing. Studies of JICA in Guatemala city ´ carried out between 1992 and 1993, respectively, showed an and Asuncion annual increase of 1–3% in waste generation linked to a per capita increase in income. On the other hand, the following MSW generation has been observed in relation to income. Colombia produced 10.59 million tons of MSW per day (Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial


1583

[MAVDT], 2005). Finally, Table 12 has few surprises. Developed countries such as the United States and Canada have higher generation than developing ones. However, MSW generation rate in some parts of America seems rather high, which may be a general characteristic in the Americas.


MSW Composition in American Countries The waste composition in different countries of Latin America is presented in Table 13. Organic matter is the major contributing ingredient in MSW composition for most of the Latin American countries, which ranges between 43–72% (Acurio et al., 1998). The percentages of paper and cardboard (6–25%), metal (0.8–7%), glass (0.8–8%), and textiles (1.2–5.5%) are lower, but the amount of plastics (3–14.2%) is similar. According to Mahler et al. (2002), MSW composition such as natural organic, paper and paperboard, plastics, glass/ceramic, metals, and others including textiles in different parts of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, was found to be between 39% and 64%, 11% and 28%, 16% and 24%, 2% and 9%, 1% and 3%, and 1.65% and 3.97%, respectively. Organic waste comprises a significant portion of MSW stream in the United States. The U.S. EPA (2002) estimated that the nation’s MSW contained 85.7 million tons of paper and paperboard, 25.2 million tons of food discards, 27.7 million tons of yard trimmings, and 12.3 million tons of wood in the year 1999. This composition adding up to 66% of the total waste stream produced in the year 1999 (U.S. EPA, 2002). Among 254 million tons of MSW in the United States for the year 2007, organic materials continued to be the largest component of MSW. Paper and paperboard accounted for 33%, with yard trimmings and food scraps accounting for 25%. Plastics comprised 12%, metals made up to 8%, and rubber, leather, and textiles accounted for approximately 8%. Wood followed at around 6% and glass at 5%. Other miscellaneous wastes made up approximately 3% of the MSW generated in 2007 (U.S. EPA, 2008). In the year 1992, the MSW produced in Canada was estimated as 51% paper, 12% organics, 2% inorganic, 7% glass, 2% plastics, and 24% metal (Sawell et al., 1996). Figure 13 depicts the comparative MSW composition variation between 1983 and 1994 in Costa Rica, which reveals a significant change in plastics composition during these years (Guzmán, 1998). According to McBean et al. (2007a), the composition of MSW in Argentina was 79.1% organic, 4.7% paper and paperboard, 11.1% plastics, 4.5% glass/ceramic, 0.4% metals, and with the remaining 1.0% being textiles and others. On average, the composition of waste from the city of Havana in Cuba is as follows: organic materials (65.9%), paper and paperboard (13.3%), plastics (11.0%), glass (2.5%), metals (1.8%), and others including textiles (5.7%; JICA, 2004). MSW composition in Cap-Ha¨ıtien showed a higher content of

1584

Mexico

El Salvador Ecuador Guatemala Haiti

Costa Rica

Colombia

Chile

Bolivia Brazil

Argentina

Country

Nationwide Nationwide Tucumán Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Barra Campinas Estrela Leblon Uberlandia Pavuna Rocinha São Paulo Nationwide ´ Concepcion Nationwide Medellin Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Cape Haitian Port-au-Prince Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Chihuahua Chihuahua

Location 1996 NA 2001 1994 1996 NA 2007 2001 2009 2000 2001 NA 2001 2001 1998 1992 2001 1996 1985 1983 1994 NA 1994 1991 2008 1989 1992 1995 1998 2000 April,1996 to Dec,1997 2006 April and August, 2006 and January, 2007

Year 53.2 69.0 64.1 59.5 NR 72.0 36.1 40.2 46.0 71.0 39.6 68.0 58.8 64.7 49.5 49.3 86.0 52.3 56.0 62.1 57.9 43.0 71.4 63.3 65.5 75.0 75.0 43.0 68.7 52.4 61.0 76.8 NR

Organic material 20.3 13.0 12.2 6.2 25.0 6.0 17.1 25.0 20.0 3.9 28.1 9.0 14.6 11.6 20.1 18.8 2.0 18.3 22.0 17.9 19.1 18.0 10.5 13.9 9.0 3.0 3.0 20.0 20.0 14.1 14.0 8.8 13.0

Paper and paperboard 8.2 NR 7.1 4.3 3.0 NR 23.3 24.4 15.0 5.8 18.6 10.0 16.5 19.3 23.5 10.3 11.0 14.2 5.0 5.6 11.3 6.1 4.5 8.1 9.2 7.0 7.0 6.1 4.3 4.4 NR 6.8 74.0

Plastics 8.1 NR 3.1 3.5 3.0 NR 3.5 6.9 2.0 1.6 9.1 4.0 3.2 2.3 1.5 1.6 NR 4.6 2.0 7.0 2.1 0.8 2.2 3.2 5.8 2.0 2.0 8.2 1.6 5.9 NR 3.5 1.0

Glass/ Ceramic 3.9 NR 2.1 2.3 4.0 NR 2.4 2.1 4.0 2.3 2.3 2.0 3.0 2.1 2.8 2.3 NR 1.6 1.0 1.4 1.9 0.8 1.6 1.8 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.9 NR 1.9 11.0

Metals

TABLE 13. Percentage of average MSW composition in different countries and selected cities of America


6.3 18.0 11.4 24.2 65.0 22.0 17.6 1.4 13.0 15.4 2.4 7.0 4.0 0.1 2.6 17.7 1.0 9.0 14.0 6.0 7.7 31.3 9.8 9.7 7.9 10.0 10.0 19.5 2.2 20.3 25.0 2.5 1.0

Textiles & others

Acurio et al., 1998 Fehr, 2002 McBean et al., 2007b Acurio et al., 1998 Acurio et al., 1998 Fehr, 2002 Machado et al., 2009 Münnich et al., 2006 Lino et al., 2010 Konrad, 2002 Münnich et al., 2006 Fehr et al., 2000 Münnich et al., 2006 Münnich et al., 2006 Mendes et al., 2003 Acurio et al., 1998 Aguayo, 2001 Acurio et al., 1998 Ali Khan and Burney, 1989 Acurio et al., 1998 Acurio et al., 1998 Acurio et al., 1998 Acurio et al., 1998 Acurio et al., 1998 Philippe and Culot, 2009 Bras et al., 2009 Buenrostro and Bocco, 2003 Acurio et al., 1998 Buenrostro and Bocco, 2003 Fehr, 2002 Buenrostro et al., 2001 Gomez et al., 2008 Gómez et al., 2009

Reference

1585


Cuba

Canada

Paraguay Peru Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay USA

City of Mexicali, Baja California Cuitzeo Basin ´ El Socavon Federal District of Mexico Guadalajara Guadalajara Jard´ın Balbuena Sur Magdalena Mixiuhca Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Toronto Vancouver Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Havana Santiago de Cuba 56.6 50.0 27.0 56.0 13.8 10.6 8.6 10.1 11.2 12.7 28.7 30.2 37.4 51.0 37.0 49.0 63.0 34.0

52.9 50.6 60.6 57.1

1997 2000 2006 2006 1995 NA NA 1996 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 1992 NA 1998 1973 1983 2004 2004 2004

16.1 5.3 18.5

48.0 26.8 NR

10.2 10.0 20.0 8.0 34.0 36.6 36.4 35.4 36.7 31.0 37.7 29.6 27.2 24.0 27.0 19.0 10.0 11.0

10.5 13.1 2.9 11.0

10.6

62.0

May and June of 1999 and March and April of 2000 2003 2003 1985

4.2 3.2 20.0 13.0 0.4 2.4 4.5 8.3 10.7 12.0 8.0 20.3 13.3 1.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 11.0

9.2 23.4 11.3 7.9

11.9 34.5 72.0

8.9

3.5 1.3 10.0 4.0 7.6 10.5 10.0 6.4 5.3 4.9 4.4 2.0 3.1 NR NR NR NR 22.0

4.1 4.7 4.5 4.7

5.6 5.2 1.0

4.0


1.3 2.1 10.0 7.0 12.3 11.4 10.2 8.1 7.9 8.4 10.4 2.1 3.4 NR NR NR NR 17.0

1.5 1.9 2.5 1.8

2.4 16.0 8.0

1.5

24.2 33.4 13.0 12.0 31.9 28.5 30.3 31.7 28.2 31.0 10.8 15.8 15.6 24.0 32.0 28.0 19.0 5.0

21.8 6.3 18.3 17.5

16.0 12.2 0.5

13.0

Acurio et al., 1998 Acurio et al., 1998 Acurio et al., 1998 Acurio et al., 1998 EPA, 2008 EPA, 2008 EPA, 2008 EPA, 2008 EPA, 2008 EPA, 2008 Sakai et al., 1996 Vogt et al., 2002 McBean et al., 2007a Körner et al., 2008 Körner et al., 2008 Körner et al., 2008 Körner et al., 2008 Mosler et al., 2006

Bernache-Pérez et al., 2001 Bernache, 2003 Muñoz-Cadena et al., 2009 Muñoz-Cadena et al., 2009

Delgado et al., 2007 Hernández-Berriel et al., 2008 Milke and Aceves, 1989

Ojeda-Benitez et al., 2002


1586

T. Karak et al.

FIGURE 13. Comparison of MSW composition for 1983 and 1994 in Costa Rica (Source: Guzmán, 1998).

organic matter, and by weight it was 65.5%, which is similar to that in several cities in developing countries (Philippe and Culot, 2009).

MSW Generation in Oceania Countries The continent which is centered in the islands of the tropical Pacific Ocean is known as Oceania region. Australia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu are the sovereign states that are usually considered to be Oceanian, all having their capital city in Oceania. Among them, main continental landmass of Oceania is Australia, with the second largest being New Zealand. Others are known as South Pacific countries (discussed in separate section). MSW in Australia includes domestic wastes and other council wastes (e.g., beach, parks and gardens, and street litter bins). According to OECD reports, Australia was a higher producer of municipal waste of the OECD countries (OECD, 2004). Waste statistics in Australia for 1997, 2003, and 2007 are depicted in Figure 14. In 1996–97, Australians generated 22.75 million tons of MSW, which is approximately 1200 kpc (ABS, 2010; Twardowska and Allen, 2004). Australians generated approximately 32.4 million tons of solid waste or approximately 1,629 kpc in 2002–03. Of this amount, approximately 27% of Australia’s solid waste came from municipal source, which is equal


50

Annual MSW generation (million tons)

1587

1700



1600 40 1500

35

30

1400

25


Total MSW generation (million tons)

45

1300 20

15

1200 1997

2003

2007

Year

FIGURE 14. Waste statistics in Australia for 1997, 2003, and 2007.

to 8.9 million tons (ABS, 2010). The statewise MSW generation for the year 2003 in Australia was 3.33, 2.29, 1.74, 0.83, 0.60, and 0.11 million tons for New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, and Australian Capital Territory (ACT), respectively. This is also equal to 1820, 1751, 1046, 1804, 2248, and 2087 kpc for respective states. Therefore, the increasing trend of MSW generation by Australians from 1996 to 2003 is about 42%. By 2006–2007, Australians generated approximately 2,100 kg of waste per person. Therefore, between 1996–97 and 2006–07, the volume of waste produced per person in Australia grew at an average annual rate of 5.4%. (ABS, 2010). In 1999, 1.27 million tons of MSW was generated from New Zealand (Twardowska and Allen, 2004). In 2003–2004, Christchurch people generated 1.67 tons of MSW per capita per annum where the total population was 320,000 (Street and Zydenbos, 2004). According to Christchurch City Council, Christchurch people generated 0.78 tons of MSW per capita per annum in 2005; however, it was 1.15 tons of MSW per capita per annum for 2006.

MSW Composition in Oceania Countries MSW composition in Australia includes organics (food and garden), paper, plastics, glass, metals, concrete, timber, and others and their contribution in composition is 47%, 23%, 4%, 7%, 5%, 3%, 1%, and 12%, respectively


1588

T. Karak et al.

(ABS, 2010). In the year 2006, MSW of New Zealand consisted of on average rubble and concrete (88.8%), timber (9.3%), organic waste (1.6%), and other materials, which includes small amount of paper, metals, and rubber (Waste Not Consulting, 2006). According to the Ministry for the Environment (2008) of New Zealand, the waste composition proportions for the national indicator sites for 2007–2008 were potentially hazardous (14%), paper (7%), nappies and sanitary (3%), plastics (8%), organic (28%), glass (4%), rubble (16%), timber (11%), textiles (4%), rubber (1%), ferrous metal (4%), and nonferrous metal (0.5%). Between 2002 and 2004 and 2007 and 2008, organic waste had the largest increase in proportion to the overall waste stream in New Zealand, increasing from 21% to 28%. Varying economic production and consumption patterns are likely to have influenced the change of this composition in MSW. Rubble waste had the largest decrease in proportion between 2002 and 2004 and 2007 and 2008, dropping from 23% to 16% of the overall waste stream. Paper waste decreased from 11% to 7%, and metal from 6% to 4%. The proportion of paper waste in the waste stream decreased consistently between 1995 and 2007 and 2008 from 19% to 10% of the overall waste stream. Metal waste decreased from 6% to 4%, with most of this decrease occurring in the past four years.

MSW Generation in Eight South Pacific Countries The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) carried out the solid waste characterization and management plans project in eight Pacific countries including Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Western Samoa. On the basis of the available literature, the status of MSW among these countries is discussed subsequently. The Ministry of Health (MoH) in Tonga undertook a solid waste management study in 1994. The study was undertaken over a five-day period. Based on the results of the study it was estimated that the average daily waste generated was about 0.5 l per person or 255.5 kpc. In 1999, the amount of waste generation per person per year was 299.3. Waste generation rate in Nuku’alofa (the capital of Tonga) was 299.3 kpc (Davetanivalu et al., 2009). According to the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) for solid waste management, Fijian people generated 381 tons per week, which is equal to 343 kpc (Grano et al., 1997). In 2009, the generation rate of MSW in Lautoka and Nadi Town (a regional center in Fiji) was 168 and 153.3 kpc, respectively (Davetanivalu et al., 2009). According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) study for the year 1996, approximate mean yearly waste generation in Kiribati was 120.5 kpc (ADB, 1998). South Tarawa (capital of Kiribati) generated 120.5 kpc in 2009 (Davetanivalu et al., 2009). In 1985, the Department of Environment and Conservation carried out a 30-day domestic solid waste survey at the Baruni Dump of Papua New Guinea. This survey estimated that the average yearly waste generated by the domestic,



1589

commercial, and industrial sectors varied between 76.7 to 142.4 kpc. The mean yearly generation of MSW in Papua New Guinea for the year 2000 was estimated as 149.7 kpc (Raj, 2000). The Solomon Islands comprise a scattered archipelago of mountainous islands and coral atolls with a total land area of 27,566 km2. According to the WHO Mission Report (1991), it was estimated that the average daily waste generation in the Solomon Islands by the domestic sector was 138.7 kpc and its bulk density was 270 kg m−3. There was no data on generation of commercial and industrial wastes. Port Vila (capital and largest city of Vanuatu) generated 193.5 kpc MSW in 2009 (Davetanivalu et al., 2009). Tuvalu consists of nine low-lying coral islands with Funafuti being the capital. Tuvalu has a land area of approximately 2,500 ha and the capital Funafuti is only 254 ha in size. The waste generation rate in Tuvalu was approximately 438 kpc for the year 1997 (Grano et al., 1997). In Funafuti, the waste generation rate for 1999 was 157 kpc (Raj, 2000). According to the ADB Report (1998), Vanuatu people generated 219 kpc in 1998. A waste characterization study conducted in Apia (capital city of Western Samoa) in 1993 by the SPREP had a waste generation rate of 189.8 kpc with a bulk density of 350 kg per cubic meter (Henson, 1993). MSW generation rate in Apia for the year 2009 was 401.5 kpc (Davetanivalu et al., 2009).

MSW Composition in Eight South Pacific Countries Figures 15A–H depict the MSW composition in eight South Pacific countries. Figure 15A depict the volume percentage of MSW composition in Tonga for the year 1994. Among the different compositions, wood, grass, and yard waste contributed about 65% of total waste generated. Figure 15B provides and indicates the waste composition in Fiji but is based on a short period of time (four days only) so it does not allow for weekly or seasonal variations. The analysis should be repeated in the future at regular intervals to give more accuracy to the data and to allow trends to be identified. Figure 15B shows paper, including cardboard boxes, magazines, newspaper, office, tetrapak, packaging, and sanitary; plastics, including polyethylene terephthalate (PET), rigid high-density polyethylene (HDPE), flexible HDPE, and other plastics; and all textiles, including clothing, carpets, and curtains. According to Raj (2000), organic fraction in MSW of Lautoka and Nadi Town of Fiji contributed 71.2 to 74.5% of total waste. Figure 15C reflects the MSW composition in Kiribati on MSW for 1996. From the Figure 15C it is clear that biodegradable waste in generated MSW contributes more than 50%. Figure 15D depicts the waste composition in Papua New Guinea for the year 1998 (Raj, 1998), of which over 53% was biodegradable. Figure 15E depicts the waste composition in the Solomon Islands for the year 1998 (WHO 1991). The data in Figure 15E show that there is approximately 83% organic waste in the domestic waste stream. The Figure 15F shows the waste composition only on the basis of the existing data available in Tuvalu (Grano et al., 1997).

T. Karak et al.


1590

FIGURE 15. MSW composition in Eight south specific countries: (A) Tonga, (B) Fiji, (C) Kiribati, (D) Papua New Guinea, (E) Solomon Islands, (F) Tuvalu, (G) Vanuatu, and (H) Western Samoa (Source: Grano et al., 1997; Peturu, 1994).


1591

The percentage (v/v) MSW composition in Port Vila (capital of Vanuatu, on the island of Efate) for the year 1990 is presented in Figure 15G. The MSW composition for 1993 in Western Samoa is presented in Figure 15H.


MANAGEMENT OF MSW Management of MSW is not only environmental issue, but also a sociopolitical problem. Increased MSW generation throughout the world creates more environmental problems in different countries, particularly in developing countries where the cities are not able to manage wastes due to lack of institutional, financial, technical, regulatory, knowledge, and public participation (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). The consequence is environmental degradation, caused by inadequate disposal of wastes. The impact of disposed waste has significant adverse effect on atmosphere, including (a) contamination of surface and groundwater through leachate (Xiaoli et al., 2007); (b) soil contamination through direct waste contact or leachate (Prechthai et al., 2008); (c) air pollution through burning of wastes (McKay, 2002); (d) spreading of diseases by different vectors such as birds, insects, and rodents (Pahren and Clark, 1987); (e) adverse effects on the environment and human health (Giusti, 2009); (f) odor in landfills (Nie and Dong, 1998), and (g) uncontrolled release of methane by anaerobic decomposition of wastes (Erkut et al., 2008). Therefore, there is no denial the fact that the proper disposal of MSW is a necessity and an integral part of the urban environment, degradation of land resources, and planning of the urban infrastructure to ensure a safe and healthy human environment while considering the promotion of sustainable economic growth. MSW management practices employed in the different countries so far are (a) landfilling, (b) incineration, (c) composting, (d) recycling or recovery from waste, and (e) open burning.

Management of MSW Through Landfilling Both in developing and developed countries, the main disposal method of MSW is landfilling. Developed countries carry out it in a systematic manner, however, developing countries usually throw out MSW in open dumps in an unscientific manner (Bartone and Bernstein, 1993). In 1999, 57% of MSW was landfilled (67% in 1995) in Western Europe, and 83.7% in central and Eastern Europe. MSW disposed at landfills accounted for 3% in Japan in 2003, 18% in Germany in 2004, and in 2005 was 36% in France, 54% in Italy and the United States, and 64% in the United Kingdom (Shekdar, 2009). In 2007, the member states of the EU with the highest share of municipal waste landfilled were Bulgaria (100% of waste treated), Romania (99%), Lithuania (92%), Malta (93%), Poland (90%), Cyprus (87%), Latvia (85%), Czech Republic and Turkey (both 83%), Slovakia and


1592

T. Karak et al.

Slovenia (both 78%), Greece (77%), and Hungary (75%; Eurostat, 2009a). The contribution of landfilling of other European countries through the year 2007 recorded as Iceland (67%), Portugal (63%), Spain (60%), Ireland (59%), United Kingdom (57%), Estonia (54%), Italy (52%), Finland (53%), France (34%), Norway (32%), Luxembourg (19%), Austria (14%), Denmark (5%), Belgium and Sweden (both 4%), the Netherlands (2%), and Germany (only 1%) of the total generated MSW. The landfilling rate in these countries was comparatively lower than other European countries, as governments introduced a ban on landfilling of waste. Disposal of wastes in the United States to a land had decreased from 89% of the total amount generated in 1980 to 54% of MSW in 2007 (U.S. EPA, 2008). In the former USSR landfilling was 96.5% for the year 1989 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1991). During 2005, around 53 million tons of MSW was managed in Japan, of which 13% was landfilled (MoE Japan, 2006). During the period of 1995–2005, the proportion of MSW landfilled in South Korea decreased from 68.3% to 41.5% due to the introduction of a volume-based waste fee system (unit pricing system) in 1995 (Dong, 2006). Presently more than 90% of the MSW in China is disposed in landfills; however, China has recently closed more than 1,000 landfills because of environmental concerns (Xiaoli et al., 2007). In 2002, China sanitary landfill was 27.93% (APO, 2007) and total landfilling accounted for more than 80% of MSW disposal (Xiaoli et al., 2007). With the rising landfill costs, severe scarcity of landfill sites, and enhancement of people’s environmental consciousness, 44% of MSW was landfilled (OECD, 2007b) in 2004. In 2008, China dealt with 103.07 million tons of MSW by innocuous disposal. In the year 2004, Beijing (China) disposed 94% of MSW in sanitary landfill as it was the main treatment strategy to MSW. However, this treatment configuration poses challenge to the land availability surrounding Beijing and environmental pollution through greenhouse gases. Therefore, presently only 33.3% of MSW being sanitary landfilling in Beijing (Xiao et al., 2007). Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore have been aggressively improving their MSW management systems with the ultimate aim of eliminating landfills from their systems. For this reason these countries are moving through the campaign articulated the goals of zero landfill and zero waste (Teo, 2007). In 2005, 5.49 million tons of solid waste was produced in Taiwan, of which 21.3% was used to landfill (Lu et al., 2006). During 2005, Hong Kong generated 6 million tons of MSW, of which 57% was disposed by landfilling (Poon, 2006). Australia has also a strong dependence on landfill for waste management, with more than 17 million tons deposited in 2002–03, of this, 70% was municipal waste. This equates to approximately 6.2 million tons of MSW. In Australia 21.22 million tons of solid waste was used to landfill in 1996–97. This indicates a 19% decrease of landfilled waste through MSW over the 6 years till 2003 (ABS, 2010). In the year 2003, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, and



1593

ACT disposed 2.17, 1.55, 1.30, 0.74, 0.37, and 0.08 million tons of MSW, respectively. New Zealand disposed an estimation of 3.156 million tons of waste to landfill in 2006 (Waste Not Consulting, 2006). Presently 3.4 million tons of waste ends up in landfills, of which the quantity of waste per person dumped every year in Auckland has increased by almost 75% since 1983. Improper management of MSW is a common practice in Cameroon due to short of funds, deficient in institutional organization and interest, poor equipment for waste collection and lack of urban planning (Henry et al., 2006). The collection rate of MSW in this country is only 70%, of which 73.6% of collected waste is being disposed in open landsite and 24.7% is thrown away in rivers, forests, and roadsides (Parrot et al., 2009). Approximately 74% of all MSW in Canada was disposed in landfills for the year 1995 (Sawell et al., 1996). In 2000 and 2002, Canada disposed 9.07 and 9.46 million tons, respectively, of solid waste, which is equal to 80.66% and 78.74% of the total waste (Statistics Canada, 2004). Most of Tehran’s solid waste is disposed to landfill in the Aradkuh Center (Kahrizak; OWRC, 2006). This is a 500 ha center and located in the southern part of the city and has been used for waste landfilling for more than 40 years (Damghani et al., 2008). However only 28.81% generated MSW is being landfilled in Rasht, Iran (Moghadam et al. 2009). Unsanitary crude dumping practice is very common in Bangladesh. Presently the average collection efficiency of generated MSW in Bangladesh is 56% (Sujauddin et al., 2008) and for this purpose 140.99 acres of land with 4 m depth will be required each year. However, the land area will be increased to 585 acre with 4 m depth for the year 2025 (Sinha, 2006). Only 60% of the MSW generated is actually collected in most of the Pakistani cities and disposed in open dumps, while 40% is not collected and lies along roadsides, street railway lines, depressions, vacant plots, drains, storm drains, and open sewers (Batool and Ch, 2009). The collection efficiency of MSW ranges between 70% and 90% in the major metro cities in India, whereas several smaller cities’ collection efficiency is below 50% (Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization, 2000). When the disposal method for the waste is considered, it has been observed that Indian cities dispose their waste in open dumps located in the outskirts of the city without any concern of environmental degradation or impact on human health (Talyan et al., 2008). Further, the financial and infrastructural constraints, including nonavailability of land for safe disposal of generated waste and the lack of awareness and apathy at all levels, also inhibit progress leading to efficient, safe management of urban solid waste (Government of India, 1995). In India, it is estimated that around 50 million tons of MSW is collected from urban areas each year (Shekdar, 2009). More than 90% of MSW in India is directly disposed to the land in an unsatisfactory manner (Sharholy et al., 2007). The targets set for treatment of MSW for 2005–2024 in India are shown in Table 14. To meet the targets, the treatment capacity of selected technologies will be enhanced in phases.

1594

T. Karak et al.

TABLE 13. Recommended targets for MSW treatment and disposal for Master Plan (2005–2024) in India (source: MCD, 2004) Year MSW diversion


MSW for treatment (%) MSW for sanitary landfilling (%)

2004

2009

2014

2019

2024

9

22

33

39

42

91

78

67

61

58

The share of open dumping through MSW in Sri Lanka and Thailand contributed 85 and 65%, respectively. The collection rate of the generated MSW amount was estimated to be 45.5–51.1% of the total generation in Thailand (Hiramatsu et al., 2009). In Thailand, the main methods for treatment of MSW are open dumping and unsanitary landfills (65%; Prechthai et al., 2008). However, limited area of landfill site in this country makes the landfilling operation compounded. Therefore, a fresh look should be taken at the MSW management strategy (Liamsanguan and Gheewala, 2008). Although the national government tries to promote sanitary landfills, many regions still do not have sufficient funds, technology, and human resources to improve MSW management (Hiramatsu et al., 2009). The traditional practice of managing MSW in most of the municipalities of Nepal includes open dumps in abandoned fields or on the bank of the rivers or streams (65–100% of the MSW depending on the municipalities). Prior to 1979, all solid waste collected in Singapore was used to dispose by dumping on sanitary landfills. According to MoE (1997), the total landfills in Indonesia number 450, of which six are sanitary landfills, 57 are controlled landfills, and 387 are open dump sites. In Bhutan MSW collection rate is only 71%, of which approximately 40% of MSW was informally disposed in open dump sites in 2000 (Urban Sector Programme Support Secretariat, 2000). However, presently the rate of landfilling in Bhutan is in decreasing trend and only 20% of generated MSW is being disposed in the year 2010 (Norbu et al., 2010). Uncontrolled waste dumps and nonsanitary landfills through MSW was also very often in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia, and these countries were using 100% of generated MSW for open dumping (Regional Environmental Center, 2000). According to Simonetto and Borenstein (2007), about 95% of MSW was disposed in open dump site or in environmentally sensitive area in Brazil in the year 2006, most of which are frequented by scavengers including children. A major portion of MSW (75%) is being managed through open landfilled in South Africa till date (Nahman and Godfrey, 2010). Chile ´ disposed of 80% of MSW through landfilling from 2002 to 2006 (Comision Nacional del Medio Ambiente, 2006). In Colombia, 45% of the total generated



1595

MSW was deposited to landfills (Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial, 2005). Landfilling is the dominant option for MSW disposal in Dalmatia in Croatia. According to a national landfill database (Croatian Environment Agency, 2006), there are over 55 landfills in the Dalmatian region, 49 of which are presently active. Only 16 have all of the necessary certifications as sanitary landfills, with five more undergoing approval procedures; 17 landfills are not certified in any way, and 11 are totally illegal (Vego et al., 2008). Landfills (dumps) are the primary municipal waste disposal method in Serbia. Around 180 registered landfills are present in this country. Despite the aggressive economic development in Malaysia, the solid waste management is relatively poor and haphazard and major portion of MSW is managed through landfillings (Saeed et al., 2009). Typical examples of selfdisposal methods of MSW in Tanzania are burying of waste in pits and illegal dumping, which implies that the waste generated by a source is dumped in the vicinity of the source or in a place where such a practice is prohibited such as at the roadside, in open spaces, in drains, and in valleys. About 90% of generated MSW is being dumped in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (Mbuligwe and Kassenga, 2004). The percentage of waste disposed to landfills in South Pacific countries ranged from 20% to over 90% (Skinner, 1998). During the 19th century, Mexico collected only 70% (for the year 1992) to 85% (for the year 1998) of total generated MSW, of which 24.5% (for the year 1994) to 61.4% (for the year 1998) MSW was used to landfill, 3.9% (for the year 1998) to 17.6% (for the year 1992) was used to landfill with uncontrolled access, and 52.1% (for the year 1998) to 94.1% (for the year 1992) was disposed in sanitary dumping ground (Buenrostro and Bocco, 2003). Percentage contribution of landfilling in Ethiopia is 86% (Tadesse et al., 2008). Cambodian MSW collection is 50% of the total waste generated, which mostly managed by landfilling (Parizeau et al., 2006). The percentage of MSW collection rate in some other African cities is 30–40% in Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire), 30–40% in Dakar (Senegal), 48% in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), 42.1% in Lomé (Togo), 15–20% in Ndjamena (Chad), 30–58% in Nairobi (Kenya), 20–30% in Nouakchott (Mauritania), and 43% in Yaoundé (Cameroon), and most of them are dumped in open dumpsite (Parizeau et al., 2006).

Management of MSW Through Incineration The opportunities for landfilling as a disposal method of MSW are rapidly declining with depleting available cheap land resources and the wasteful nature of disposing useful resources in the landfill operation. Due to the limited economic benefits of separation and recycling, resource recovery in the form of heat and power production has gained favor in the past 20 years (McKay, 2002). According to Brunner (1994) and Chimenos et al. (1999), during this period incineration of MSW has seen turbulent in terms of popularity, but


1596

T. Karak et al.

it is an attractive alternative for disposal and has significant benefits such as (a) the volume and mass of MSW is reduced to a fraction of its original size (by 85–90% by volume), mass reduction (about 70%), and the possibility of energy recovery; (b) the waste reduction is immediate and not dependent on long biological breakdown reaction times; (c) incineration facilities can be constructed closer to the MSW sources or collection points, reducing transportation costs; (d) using heat recovery technology, the cost of the operation can be offset by energy sales; and (e) air discharges can be controlled to meet environmental legislative limit values. Despite the beneficial effect of incineration, it would not be a suitable option in developing countries due to the extreme moisture content and accordingly a low calorific value, too low for a self-sustaining incineration. In 2000, 21 incinerators disposed 1.1 million tons of solid waste, only 5% of the total amount of waste disposed in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2000). Among the European countries, the highest shares of incinerated MSW were observed in Denmark (53%), followed by Sweden (46%), France (36%), Luxembourg (35%), Germany (34%), Belgium (33%), the Netherlands (32%), Austria (30%), Portugal (19%), Norway (16%), Czech Republic/Finland/Italy (12%), Slovakia (11%), Spain (10%), Iceland/United Kingdom (9%), and Hungary (8%) for the year 2007. However, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Turkey had no incineration at all. By the late 1970s, landfilling was progressively replaced by incineration, as incineration is the main method of waste disposal in Singapore. There are presently four refused incineration plants in Singapore with a total capacity of incinerating 8,200 tons of refused a day (APO, 2007). Presently, the disposal of refused in Singapore is mainly done by incineration and the refused incineration is handled by three modern incinerators with the combined capacity of 2.19 million tons per year (Tin et al., 1995). In 2003, about 2.3 million tons of waste was incinerated in Singapore. Presently Singapore disposes 90% of the burnable waste at four incineration facilities (MoE, 2006). Incineration would not be a suitable option in other low-income Asian countries due to its cost and the high organic material (40–60%) and amenable to biodegradation, extreme moisture content (40–60%), high inert content (30–50%), and accordingly low calorific value (800–1100 kcal kg−1), too low for a self-sustaining incineration (Kansal, 2002). In 1963, the Japan government set up the first Five-Year Plan for Development of Living Environment Facilities, presenting the principles of its new urban waste disposal policy involving incineration, with residues disposed in landfills. However, incineration technology, suitable for use under Japanese conditions are only during hot, humid summers and in areas where final disposal sites are scarce, to reduce the volume of waste and kill bacteria. Japan has relied on incineration as its predominant means of waste disposal; nearly 70% of MSW is incinerated. Kamikatsu-cho and Tokushima prefecture of Japan Promotes



1597

zero waste (e.g., by declaring that the town will reduce the amount of landfill and incineration waste to zero by 2020; MoE, 2006). In the former USSR incineration was 2.2% in the year 1989 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1991). The first large-scale MSW incineration plant in India was constructed at Timarpur, New Delhi, in 1987, with a capacity of 300 tons per day. However, this plant was out of operation after six months: the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was forced to shut down the plant due to its poor performance (MCD, 2004; Sharholy et al., 2007). Another incineration plant was constructed at BARC, Trombay (near Mumbai), for burning only the institutional waste, which includes mostly paper. In many cities of India, hazardous wastes such as hospital wastes are being incinerated at a small scale (Sharholy et al., 2007). Incinerators are also not commonly used by the municipalities in Indonesia. Only Surabaya, Bogor, and Padang used an incinerator to treat MSW. An incinerator in Surabaya was developed through public–private partnership in 1989. The 200 tpd incineration facility became operational in 1991. The low calorific value of the waste (between 900 and 1,200 kcal/kg) caused start-up problems, and fuel had to be added constantly to maintain the combustion process. The Surabaya plant incinerated only 170 tpd due to the spatial requirements for the air drying system (Silas, 2002). In 2002, the waste treatment percentages of general waste with methods of incineration in China was 56.62% (APO, 2007). In 2004, 3% was incinerated (OECD, 2007b). Due to Macao’s small geographic area and high cost of land, landfilling has the lowest priority for waste disposal. Therefore, solid waste incineration has been given a top priority over other waste disposal methods, although it is much more expensive. In the last decade, more than 80% of the total waste in Macao was incinerated (Jin et al., 2006).

Management of MSW Through Composting In most parts of the world, MSW is largely incinerated or landfilled though significant quantities of organic residue in MSW can be used as alternative manner. Therefore, increased attention has been given to alternative waste management options such as source separation into organic and inorganic fractions followed by either composting or anaerobic digestion with accompanying biogas production. MSW composting is a controlled bioprocess that has been proposed as an alternative to landfilling and the incineration of MSW (Wolkowski, 2003). Composting is a waste management practice that allows transformation of organic waste into a stabilized product. In France, out of 20.5 million tons of MSW per year, 7% (1.44 million tons) is treated and transformed into 0.64 million tons of compost (Noyon, 1992). The number of composting facilities and the amount of source-separated and composted MSW has been increasing in many countries of Europe (Barth and Kroeger, 1998; Evans, 2004) and in the United States (Goldstein, 2003). The European


1598

T. Karak et al.

Community has initiated a consultative process that will assist in the creation of new policies for waste prevention and recycling. Composting and anaerobic digestion of MSW are strategies that are likely to be employed to reduce waste generation and to recycle nutrients. About 34% of the produced MSW was managed by composting and recycling procedure in United Kingdom for the year 2007 and 2008 (DEFRA, 2008), and 33% of the total generated MSW across the United Kingdom has been planned for recycling and composting by 2015, although DEFRA (2006) explored a proposed increase of 45% by 2015, rising to 50% by 2020. Increasing demand of composting in other European countries has also been shown. For example, the increasing rate of composting from 1995 to 2007 in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Austria, Poland, Sweden, and Switzerland was 175%, 54.55%, 54.55%, 55.56%, 200%, 51.85%, 50%, 100%, and 88.89%, respectively. In Italy, 94.74% increasing rate of composting was observed over 2001–2007. However, decreasing trend was observed over 1995–2007 in Malta (78.26%), the Netherlands (4.17%), Portugal (23.08%), and Turkey (100%). In 2007, composting of municipal waste was most common in Austria (41%), Italy (37%), the Netherlands (23%), Belgium (22%), and Luxembourg (21%), followed by Denmark/Germany/Spain and Switzerland (all are 17% each), France (14%), Sweden and United Kingdom (both 12%), Finland and Portugal (both 10%), Malta and Slovakia (both 5%), Poland (3%), Greece/Ireland/Lithuania (2% each), and Czech Republic/Estonia/Hungary/Latvia (1% each), and not done at all in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Iceland, and Romania. The composition of the MSW generated in Asia and other developing countries is around 40–80% of MSW comprises organic waste (Visvanathan et al., 2004), while in Europe and developed American continents an average of 30–40% of MSW consists of food and garden wastes (European Environment Agency, 1999). This clearly shows that developing countries generate higher organic contents of MSW than European countries. However, it is expected that the waste composition will be likely to be similar in the future due to the strong Asian economic development. The amount of MSW compost produced in Tehran was 25,969 (12.3% of the total MSW) and 6,097 tons (15.9% of the total MSW) in 2004 and 2005, respectively (Damghani et al., 2008). Therefore, a comparison of composting data in the two consecutive years shows that compost production in Tehran showed a 3.6% growth in 2005. Centralized composting facilities in Canada have become more common since the early 1990s. In 2002, 1.2 million tons of organic waste was composted at centralized composting facilities (Statistics Canada, 2002). In the year 2002, the general MSW treatment rate in China was 96.11% of which composting contributed only 0.03% (APO, 2007). In 2004, 5% was composted (OECD, 2007b). About 70–80% of generated MSW in New Delhi (India) is collected and the rest remains unattended on streets or in small open dumps. Only 9% of the collected MSW is treated through composting in New Delhi (Talyan et al., 2008), however, 4.5 million tons of MSW, equaling 10% of the total MSW, is being composted throughout India (Saha et al., 2009).


1599


Management of MSW Through Recycles Recycling means the waste generated by a source is sold or given away for reuse. A common item for recycling includes paper, metal, and glass. Developed countries typically utilize curbside recycling programs to collect and sort wastes for recycling processing. Conversely, developing countries utilize the social sector known as scavengers to handle such activities. Scavengers are citizens with low- to no-income group that collect materials that are dispersed throughout the city or concentrated at dumpsites. The recycling rate in 2006 was 51%, 2% more from 2005 in Singapore; 15% of the total generated waste in Dhaka (mainly inorganic; amounting to 475 tons per day) is recycled daily. In 2002–03, approximately 30% of Australia’s municipal waste was recycled (2.7 million tons). Australian municipal recycling is comparable to the average recycling rate in Europe (36.4%). Despite being an excellent alternative for the reduction of waste destined to landfills, only 4.7% of wastes are reused or recycled in Brazilian cities on average, according to Non-Governmental Organization Company Commitment (CEMPRE). Recycling has gained an important role in nearly all EU-15 countries, and accounts for the treatment of up to 33% (Germany) of the total municipal waste. In South Africa the recycled materials from MSW have increased from 0.49 million tons to 1.47 million tons within the last two decades (Sakai, 1996). In 2003, South Korea recycled 44% of the total MSW and the amount reached 8.01 million tons per year (WHO, 2004). The reuse rate of glass beverage bottles in Tanzania is very high (99%) because of the deposit system and the total amount of recycled waste at Dar es Salaam is estimated to be 1131.5 tons per year for the whole city (Mbuligwe and Kassenga, 2004). Presently recycled rate in Mexico is about 0.68% of the total collected MSW (Buenrostro and Bocco, 2003). According to a recent report (Yang, 1995), the following useful materials were found in Taiwan’s MSW: paper, 21.88–26.24%; plastics, 19.72–22.79%; rubber, 0.11–1.37%; glass, 4.82–6.22%; and metals, 7.12–8.08%. These five waste items totaled over 55% of the MSW by weight. Thus, if a recycling program for MSW is well conducted, it not only could potentially recover, reuse, and/or regenerate useful resources, but also could reduce the amount of waste to be disposed. Approximately 50% or more of the waste items in urban waste in Taiwan are found to be valuable and worth recycling. Recycling is has great implications in Taiwan because of its lack of natural resources (Yang, 1995). Mongolia has significant recycling activities, as evidenced by scavengers comprising 10% of the capital city’s population and a women’s federation that operates household collection of recyclables via their blue bag campaign (World Bank, 2004). The overall recycling rate in different developing countries such as Brazil, China, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam, is 41%, 7–10%, 5%, 13%, 15%, 31%, and 13–20%, respectively (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). The overall recycling rate of MSW in the EU for 2007 was 18%. Among European countries, Germany recycled higher amount of MSW, equaling 45%


1600

T. Karak et al.

of total waste for the year 2007. In the same year Slovenia recycled 40% of the total generated MSW, followed by Belgium (38%), Sweden (37%), Switzerland (34%), Ireland (32%), Estonia (29%), Netherlands (27%), Finland (26%), Luxembourg (25%), Denmark (24%), Austria (23%), United Kingdom (22%), Greece (21%), France (16%), Cyprus (13%), Spain (13%), Italy (12%), Latvia (12%), Hungary (11%), Portugal (8%), Poland (5%). Czech Republic, Lithuania, Malta, and Slovakia are 2%. Both the generation and recovery rates of plastics and glass packaging have increased between 2002 and 2008 in New Zealand. Plastic recycling rates are presently the lowest among all of the recyclable materials, which reflects the difficulties of collecting, sorting and processing plastics (Environment New Zealand, 2007). The Singapore government has been initiated the recycling of waste in the country from 2000 through a variety of public awareness programs. From 2000 to 2005, the recycling rate was increased from 40% to 49%, and waste (domestic and nondomestic) generation was reduced by 8% (Shekdar, 2009). In 2002 and 2003, China recycled 15.60% and 22.39%, respectively, of the total MSW (APO, 2007). In 2003, the total amount of recycled materials from MSW stream was 1.38 million tons. A typical composition of the wastebasket of waste collectors or pickers from MSW dumpsite in New Delhi, India, was found as plastics 12 kg per day, polythene 7.8 kg per day, paper 6.4 kg per day, metals 4.7 kg per day, bottles (unbroken) 1.9 kg per day, broken glass 1.7 kg per day, and rubber 0.9 kg per day (Hayami et al., 2006). While MSW generation in the United States had increased from 445.3 to 766.5 kpc between 1960 and 2007, the recycling rate had also increased, from less than 6.4% of MSW generated in 1960 to 33.4% in 2007 (U.S. EPA, 2008).

Management of MSW through open burning Open burning is still widespread in low-income countries to reduce the volume or odors of dumped or uncollected MSW. For example 25% and 12% of the total MSW are openly burned in Burkina Faso and Nepal, respectively. However, open burning is the major source of toxic gas emission such as dioxins and furans (McKay, 2002).

CONCLUSION With an ever-increasing population and economic development coupled with increasing consumption pattern, there is no sign that MSW generation in the world will dwindle. The generation of MSW per capita of population has been increased in most of the countries throughout the world and in some cases the increase is quite significant. The huge amount of MSW generation is not only an environmental threat, but also a cause of major social handicap. Therefore, proper management of MSW is of primary concern.



1601

MSWM encompasses the functions of collection, transfer, resource recovery, recycling, and treatment. The primary target of MSWM is to protect the health of the population, to promote environmental quality, to develop sustainability, and to provide support to economic productivity. To meet these goals, sustainable solid waste management systems must be embraced fully by local authorities in collaboration with both the public and private sectors. Although in developing countries the quantity of solid waste generated in urban areas is low compared with industrialized countries, the MSWM still remains inadequate. Therefore, the following factors should be highly emphasized: promulgation of the Waste Management Bill, which will create an enabling environment for enforcement and will provide a legal framework within which environmental impact can be implemented; political motivation (waste management must be seen as a priority at all levels of government); education and awareness (waste management must be taken as a priority among businesses and communities, to encourage waste minimization and recycling to enable acceptance of instruments); development of capacity at all levels of government (for administration, monitoring and enforcement of instruments and of illegal dumping, billing for services to enable cost recovery); increased access to resources for waste management departments (to allow development of capacity, recovery of costs, and improved waste management services); waste licensing and managing data (e.g., through a waste information system); infrastructure for extension of basic waste services, improvement in existing services, and enhancement and convenience of recycling (e.g., dropoff centers, possibility of curbside pickup); and enforcement of basic waste management practices, including cost recovery, and existing command and control instruments, such as the minimum requirements for landfill design and operation, which would result in an increase in landfill charges, making recycling a more attractive option. Furthermore, respondents expressed concern with the lack of monitoring and enforcement capacity at the municipal level, especially for the billing of waste services and the monitoring of illegal dumping in the case of quantity-based waste collection charges. Research is therefore required concerning how environmental impact can be selected, designed, and implemented in a way that takes into account circumstances of developing countries (including institutional limitations, such as the lack of monitoring and enforcement capacity at the municipal level).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewer for insightful comments that have improved the manuscript. Grateful thanks is also due for useful discussions with Dr. Sudripta Das (biotechnologist, TRA) whenever we needed. The authors are also thankful to Dr. S. Debnath (microbiologist) and

1602

T. Karak et al.

Mr. Shyamal Chakravorty of Tocklai Experimental Station (Jorhat, Assam, India) and Dr. Sampa Das (Dibrugarh Polytechnic, Dibrugarh, Assam, India) for their valuable suggestions.


REFERENCES Abduli, M.A. (1995). Solid waste management in Tehran. Waste Manage. Res. 13, 519. Abduli, M.A. (1997). Solid-waste management in Guilan province. Iran, J. Environ. Health 59, 19. Abduli, M.A. (2000). Municipal solid-waste recovery and disposal management in Iran Municipal Organizations, Tehran, Iran. Iran Municipalities & Rural Management Organisation, Tehran, Iran. Abduli, M.A., Naghib, A., Yonesi, M., and Akbari, A. (2010). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of solid waste management strategies in Tehran: Landfill and composting plus landfill. Environ. Monit. Assess. 178, 487–498. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Feature article: Solid waste in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs..nsf/Lookup/4613. 0Chapter40Jan+2010 Abu Qdais, H.A. (2007). Techno-economic assessment of municipal solid waste management in Jordan. Waste Manage. 27, 1666. Abu Qdais, H.A., Hamoda, M.F., and Newham, J. (1997). Analysis of residential solid waste at generation sites. Waste Manage. Res. 15, 395. Abu-Qudais, M., and Abu-Qdais, H.A. (2000). Energy content of municipal solid waste in Jordan and its potential utilization. Energy Convers. Manage. 41, 983. Achankeng, E. (2003). Globalization, urbanization and municipal solid waste management in Africa. African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific: 2003 Conference Proceedings, Africa on a Global Stage. October 1–3, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. Acurio, G., Rossin, A., Teixeira, P.F., and Zepeda, F. (1998). Diagnosis of municipal solid waste management in Latin America and the Carribbea, Joint publication of the Inter-American Development Bank and the Pan American Health Organization, Second edition, Serie Ambiental No. 18, Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization. Adeyemi, A.S., Olorunfemi, J.F., and Adewoye, T.O. (2001). Waste scavenging in third world cities: A case study in Ilorin, Nigeria. The Environmentalist 21, 93. Afon, A.O., and Okewole, A. (2007). Estimating the quantity of solid waste generation in Oyo, Nigeria. Waste Manage. Res. 25, 371. Agamuthu, P. (2003). Solid waste management in developing economies-need for a paradigm shift. Waste Manage. Res. 21, 487. Agarwal, A., Singhmar, A., Kulshrestha, M., and Mittal, A.K. (2005). Municipal solid waste recycling and associated markets in Delhi, India. Resour. Conserv. Rec. 44, 73. A˘gda˘g, O.N. (2009). Comparison of old and new municipal solid waste management systems in Denizli, Turkey. Waste Manag. 29, 456.



1603

Aguayo, P. (2001). Reciclaje y tratamiento mecanico biológico de residuos sólidos ´ urbanos [Recycling and mechanical-biological treatment of municipal solid wastes]. BS thesis, Chemical Engineering Department, University of Concepción, Chile. Ahmed, M.F., and Rahman, M.M. (2000). Water supply and sanitation: Rural and low income urban communities. Dhaka, Bangladesh: ITN. Ahsan, A. (2005). Generation, composition and characteristics of municipal solid waste in some major cities of Bangladesh. Master’s thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh. Asian Development Bank. (1998). Environmental improvement for sanitation and public health project on waste survey at Red Beach Dump. Manila, Philippines: ADB. Asian Development Bank. (2000). Partnerships for better municipal management. Manila, Philippines: ADB. Asian Development Bank. (2004). Garbage. Manila, Philippines: ADB. Asian Institute of Technology (2004). Comparative study on municipal solid waste management in Asia. Pathumthani, Thailand: AIT. Al-Hmaidi, M. (2002). The development of a strategic waste management plan for Palestine, Review of the current situation: Handling, transportation and disposal of waste negotiations support unit. Negotiation Affairs Department, Palestinian Authority. Al-Khatib, I.A., and Arafat, H.A. (2010). A review of residential solid waste management in the occupied Palestinian Territory: a window for improvement? Waste Manage. Res. 28, 481. Al-Khatib, I.A., Monou, M., Zahra, A.S.F.A., Shaheen, H.Q., and Kassinos, D. (2010). Solid waste characterization, quantification and management practices in developing countries. A case study: Nablus district-Palestine. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1131. Al-Meshan, A.M., and Mahros, F. (2001). Recycling of municipal solid waste in the state of Kuwait. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 26, 3. Al-Salem, S.M., and Lettieri, P. (2009). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of municipal solid waste management in the state of Kuwait. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 34, 395. Al-Salem, S., and Al-Samhan, M. (2007). Plastic solid waste assessment in the state of Kuwait and proposed methods of recycling. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 4, 354. Alam, R., Chowdhury, M.A.I., Hasan, G.M.J., Karanjit, B., and Shrestha, L.R. (2008). Generation, storage, collection and transportation of municipal solid waste: A case study in the city of Kathmandu, capital of Nepal. Waste Manage. 28, 1088. Alamgir, M., and Ahsan, A. (2007). Municipal solid waste and recovery potential: Bangladesh perspective. Iran. J. Environ. Healt. Sci. Eng. 4(2), 67. Alboukhari, A., 2004, General cleanliness services in Damascus. Damascus, Syria: Damascus Governorate. Alfayez, E. (2003). Biological treatment of municipal solid waste in Jordan. Amman, Jordan: Training-Biogas Project, Ministry of Environment. Alhumoud, J.M. (2005). Municipal solid waste recycling in the Gulf Co-operation Council states. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 45, 142. Ali Khan, M.Z., and Burney, F.A. (1989). Forecasting solid waste composition-an important consideration in resource recovery and recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 3, 1.


1604

T. Karak et al.

Allahabad Municipal Corporation. (2003). Municipal solid waste in Allahabad, Allahabad Nagar Nigam, Uttar Pradesh, India. Unpublished raw data. Aloueimine, S.O. (2006). MSW Characterization Methodology in Nouakchott, Mauriatnia. Déchets Sciences et technigues (in French). Alsamawi, A.A., Zboon, A.R.T., and Alnakeeb, A. (2009). Estimation of Baghdad municipal solid waste generation rate. J. Technol. Eng. 27(1), 1. Andreevska, S. (1990). Municipal solid waste management by composting in Bulgaria: A case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 4, 183. Arab Republic of Egypt. (2007). National environmental action plan. Cairo, Egypt: Arab Republic of Egypt. Arzumanyan, G. (2004). Municipal solid waste management in Armenia: Current trends and steps forward. Master’s thesis, International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund, Sweden. Asase, M., Yanful, E.K., Mensah, M., Stanford, J., and Amponsah, S. (2009). Comparison of municipal solid waste management systems in Canada and Ghana: A case study of the cities of London, Ontario, and Kumasi, Ghana. Waste Manage. 29, 2779. Asian Productivity Organization. (2007). Solid waste management: Issues and challenges in Asia. Report of the APO Survey on Solid-Waste Management 2004–05. Tokyo, Japan: Asian Productivity Organization. Athanassiou, M., and Zabaniotou, A. (2008). Techno-economic assessment of recycling practices of municipal solid wastes in Cyprus. J. Cleaner Prod. 16, 1474. Austin, G., Gets, L.E., Liphoto, C., Nissing, C., and von Blottnitz, H. (2006). Energy recovery from municipal solid waste in South Africa, A pre-feasibility study for the Department of Science and Technology. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Science and Technology. Awal, I. (1999, July 5). Population explosion: The bane of Accra. The Daily Graphic. Awum, D., Kamanda, B., and Ndongo, F. (2001). Mainstreaming potentials for sustainable development in Limbe Urban Municipality, Yaounde, Camaroon. Retrieved from http://ww2.unhabitat.org/offices/roaas/france/limbe.pdf Ayininuola, G.M., and Muibi, M.A. (2008). An engineering approach to solid waste collection system: Ibadan North as case study. Waste Manage. 28, 1681. Badran, M.F., and El-Haggar, S.M. (2006). Optimization of municipal solid waste management in Port Said-Egypt. Waste Manage, 26, 534. Bai, R., and Sutanto, M. (2002). The practice and challenges of solid waste management in Singapore. Waste Manage. 22, 557. Bandara, N.J.G.J., Hettiaratchi, J.P.A., Wirasinghe, S.C., and Pilapiiya, S. (2007). Relation of waste generation and composition to socio-economic factors: A case study. Environ. Monit. Assess. 135, 31. Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. (2002). Statistics of MSW. Bangkok, Thailand: Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Department of Public Cleansing. Barreira, L.P., Philippi, A. Jr., Rodrigues, M.S., and Tenório, J.A.S. (2008). Physical analyses of compost from composting plants in Brazil. Waste Manage. 28, 1417. Barth, J., and Kroeger, B. (1998). Composting progress in Europe. Biocycle 39, 65.



1605

Bartone, C.R., and Bernstein, J.D. (1993). Improving municipal solid waste management in third world countries. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 8, 43. Bartone, C.R., Leite, L., Triche, T., and Schertenleib, R. (1991). Private sector participation in municipal solid waste service: experiences in Latin America. Waste Manage. Res. 9, 495. Batool, S.A., and Chuadhry, M.N. (2009). The impact of municipal solid waste treatment methods on greenhouse gas emissions in Lahore, Pakistan. Waste Manage. 29, 63. Batool, S.A., and Ch, M.N. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in Lahore city district, Pakistan. Waste Manage. 29, 1971. Batool, S.A., Chaudhry, N., and Majeed, K. (2008). Economic potential of recycling business in Lahore, Pakistan. Waste Manage. 28, 294. Bayard, R., Morais, J. de A., Ducom, G., Achour, F., Rouez, M., and Gourdon, R. (2010). Assessment of the effectiveness of an industrial unit of mechanicalbiological treatment of municipal solid waste. J. Hazard. Mater. 175, 23. Beede, D.N., and Bloom, D.E. (1995). The economics of municipal solid waste. World Bank Research Observer 10. Beijing Statistics Bureau. (2003). Beijing statistical yearbook from 1990 to 2003. Beijing, China: China Statistics Press. Berkun, M., Aras, E., and Nemlioglu, S. (2005). Disposal of solid waste in Istanbul and along the Black Sea coast of Turkey. Waste Manage. 25, 847. Bernache, G. (2003). The environmental impact of municipal waste management: The case of Guadalajara metro area. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 39, 223. Bernache-Pérez, G., Sánchez-Colón, S., Garmendia, A., Dávila-Villarreal, A., and Sánchez-Salazar, M.E. (2001). Solid waste characterization study in the Guadalajara metropolitan zone, Mexico. Waste Manage. Res. 19, 413. Bie, R.S., Li, S.Y., and Wang, H. (2007). Characterization of PCDD/Fs and heavy metals from MSWincineration plant in Harbin. Waste Manage. 27, 1860. Binder, C.R., and Mosler, H. (2007). Waste-resource flows of short lived goods in households of Santiago de Cuba. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 51, 265. Blight, G.E., Fourie, A.B., Shamrock, J., Mbande, C., and Morris, J.W.F. (1999). The effect of waste composition on leachate and gas quality: A study in South Africa. Waste Manage. Res. 17, 124. Boadi, K.O., and Kuitunen, M. (2003). Municipal solid waste management in the Accra metropolitan area, Ghana. The Environmentalist, 23, 211. Bolaane, B., and Ali, M. (2004). Sampling household waste at source: Lessons learnt in Gaborone. Waste Manage. Res. 22, 142. Bovea, M.D., Ibán˜ ez-Forés, V., Gallardo, A., and Colomer-Mendoza, F.J. (2010). Environmental assessment of alternative municipal solid waste management strategies. A Spanish case study. Waste Manage, 30, 2383. Bradley, J.D., Stephens, C., Harpham, T., and Cairncross, S. (1992). A review of environmental health impacts in developing country cities, Washington, DC: Urban Management and the Environment, Urban Management Program, The World Bank. Bras, A., Berdier, C., Emmanuel, E., and Zimmerman, M. (2009). Problems and current practices of solid waste management in Port-au-Prince (Haiti). Waste Manage. 29, 2907.


1606

T. Karak et al.

Brereton, C. (1996). Municipal solid waste-incineration, air pollution control and ash management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 16, 227. Brunner, C.R. (1994). Hazardous waste incineration (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Buenrostro, O., and Bocco, G. (2003). Solid waste management in municipalities in Mexico: Goals and perspectives. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 39, 251. Buenrostro, O., Bocco, G., and Bernache, G. (2001). Urban solid waste generation and disposal in Mexico: a case study. Waste Manage. Res. 19, 169. Burnley, S.J. (2007). A review of municipal solid waste composition in the United Kingdom. Waste Manage, 27, 1274. Burnley, S.J., Ellis, J.C., Flowerdew, R., Poll, A.J., and Prosser, H. (2007). Assessing the composition of municipal solid waste in Wales. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 49, 264. Bushra, M. (2000). Regional study on policies and institutional assessment of solid waste management in Egypt. Sophia Anitpolis, France: Blue Plan Regional Activity Centre. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Solid Waste Management in Israel: Facts and Figures 2006. Jerusalem, Israel: Solid Waste Management Division, Ministry of Environmental Protection. Central Pollution Control Board of India. (1998). Status of solid waste management in metro cities. Report. India. New Delhi, India: Central Pollution Control Board. Central Pollution Control Board of India. (2004). Management of municipal solid waste in India, New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forests. Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization. (2000). Manual on municipal solid waste management. New Delhi: Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. CEVKO. (2000). Solid waste management practices and review of recovery and recycling operations in Turkey. Retrieved from http://www.cevko.org. tr/cevko/lc-Sayfa/Yerel-Yonetimler/K-A-T–Yontemleri.aspx Chaggu, E.J., Kaseva, M.E., Kassenga, G.R., and Mbuligwe, S.E. (1998). Research and pilot scale demonstration project on composting of domestic solid waste, Case Study Sinza, Dar es Salaam. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Department of Environmental Engineering, University College of Lands and Architectural Studies (UCLAS). Chanakya, H.N., Ramachandra, T.V., and Vijayachamundeeswari, M. (2007). Resource recovery potential from secondary components of segregated municipal solid wastes. Environ. Monit. Assess. 135, 119. Chatterjee, R. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in Kohima city, Nagaland, India, Waste Manage. 29, 2909. Chattopadhyay, S., Dutta, A., and Ray, S. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in Kolkata, India: A review. Waste Manage. 29, 1449. Chaya, W., and Gheewala, S.H. (2007). Life cycle assessment of MSW-to-energy schemes in Thailand. J. Cleaner Prod. 15, 1463. Chen, D., Guan, Z., Liu, G., Zhou, G., and Zhu, T. (2010). Recycling combustibles from aged municipal solid wastes (MSW) to improve fresh MSW incineration in



1607

Shanghai: Investigation of necessity and feasibility. Front. Environ. Sci. Engin. China 4, 235. Chen, X., Geng, Y., and Fujita, T. (2010). An overview of municipal solid waste management in China. Waste Manage. 30, 716. Chiemchaisri, C., Chiemchaisri, W., Kumar, S., and Hettiaratchi, J.P.A. (2007a). Solid waste characteristics and their relationship to gas production in tropical landfill. Environ. Monit. Assess. 135, 41. Chiemchaisri, C., Juanga, J.P., and Visvanathan, C. (2007b). Municipal solid waste management in Thailand and disposal emission inventory. Environ. Monit. Assess. 135, 13. Chien, E. (1991). Working toward environmental quality in the 21st century. ROC EPA Code No. 34082790054. Chimenos, J.M., Segarra, M., Fernandez, M.A., and Espiell, F. (1999). Characterization of the bottom ash in municipal solid waste incinerator. J. Hazard. Mater. A 64, 211. Chimhowu, A.O. (1998). An overview of solid waste management in selected urban areas in Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe: Division of Policy and Strategic Studies, Zimbabwe Institute of Public Administration and Management. Chokouhmand, H. (1982). Energy recovery from incineration of Tehran municipal solid waste and its air pollution effects. Energy Convers. Manage. 22, 231. Chung, S., and Lo, C.W.H. (2004). Waste management in Guangdong cities: The waste management literacy and waste reduction preferences of domestic waste generators. Environ. Manage. 33, 692. ´ Nacional del Medio Ambiente. (2002). Agenda ambiental pa´ıs: Por un Comision desarrollo limpio y sustentable 2002–2006. Santiago de Chile: CONAMA. Contreras, F., Ishii, S., Aramaki, T., Hanaki, K., and Connors, S. (2010). Drivers in current and future municipal solid waste management systems: Cases in Yokohama and Boston. Waste Manage. Res. 28, 76. Couth, R., and Trois, C., Carbon emissions reduction strategies in Africa from improved waste management: A review. Waste Manage. 30, 2336 (2010). Croatian Environment Agency. (2006). Cadastre of landfills in Croatia. Zagreb, Croatia: Croatian Environment Agency. Damanhuri, E., Wahyu, I.M., Ramang, R., and Padmi, T. (2009). Evaluation of municipal solid waste fl ow in the Bandung metropolitan area, Indonesia. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 11, 270. Damghani, A.M., Savarypour, G., Zand, E., and Deihimfard, R. (2008). Municipal solid waste management in Tehran: Current practices, opportunities and challenges. Waste Manage. 28, 929. Dangi, M.B., Pretz, C.R., Urynowicz, M.A., Gerow, K.G., and Reddy, J.M. (2011). Municipal solid waste generation in Kathmandu, Nepal. J. Environ. Manage. 92, 240. Danso, G., Drechsel, P., Fialor, S., and Giordano, M. (2006). Estimating the demand for municipal waste compost via farmers ‘willingness-to-pay’ in Ghana. Waste Manage. 26, 1400. Daskalopoulos, E., Badr, O., and Probert, S.D. (1998). An integrated approach to municipal solid waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 24, 33.


1608

T. Karak et al.

Davetanivalu, J., Serau, S., and Lewawere, E. (2009). Secretariat of the Pacific regional environment programme strategy for solid waste management in Pacific Island countries and territories. Adopted on 15 September 2005 by: American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna. ´ Venustiano Carranza. (2005). Residuos sólidos [Solid residues]. Retrieved Delegacion from http://www.vcarranza.df.gob.mx Delgado, O.B., Ojeda-Ben´ıtez, S., and Márquez-Benavides, L. (2007). Comparative analysis of hazardous household waste in two Mexican regions. Waste Manage. 27, 792. Delhi Urban Environment and Infrastructure Improvement Project. (2001). Enviromental Infrastructure. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), New Delhi, India. A., Kowalski, Z., Kulczycka, J., and Szpadt, R. (2010). A Den Boer, E., Jedrczak, review of municipal solid waste composition and quantities in Poland. Waste Manage. 30, 369. Dennison, G.J., Dodd, V.A., and Whelan, B. (1996). A socio-economic based survey of household waste characteristics in the city of Dublin, Ireland. I. Waste composition. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 17, 227. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. (1999). State of the environment, South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.za/ soer/nsoer/index.htm Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. (2006). South Africa environment outlook: A report on the state of the environment. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2006). SID 5: Research project final Report. Retrieved from http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/ files/defra-stats-foodfarm-environ-obs-research-intentions-baseline-oct07.pdf Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2008). Environment statistics service. Retrieved from http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ waste Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (1998). Waste management series: Minimum requirements for handling, classification and disposal of hazardous waste. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Diaz, L.F., Savage, G.M., and Eggerth, L.L. (2007). The management of solid wastes in economically developing countries, In Diaz, L.F., Eggerth, L.L., and Savage, G.M. (Eds.), Managing solid wastes in developing countries (pp. 17–29). Padova, Italy: CISA. Doberstein, B. (2003). Environmental capacity-building in a transitional economy: The emergence of EIA capacity in Vietnam. Impact assessment. Dong, J. (2006). Recent activities to enhance waste resources recycling in Korea. Paper presented at the Second Expert Meeting on Solid Waste Management in Asia and Pacific Islands, Kitakyushu, Japan, November 23–24.



1609

Dong, S.S., Tong, K.W., and Wu, Y.P. (2001). Municipal solid waste management in China: Using commercial management to solve a growing problem. Utilities Policy, 10, 7. Dong, T.T.T., and Lee, B. (2009). Analysis of potential RDF resources from solid waste and their energy values in the largest industrial city of Korea. Waste Manage. 29, 1725. El-Fadel, M., and Sbayti, H. (2000). Economics of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from solid waste in Lebanon. Waste Manage. Res. 18, 329. Elango, D., Thinakaran, N., Panneerselvam, P., and Sivanesan, S. (2009). Thermophilic composting of municipal solid waste. Appl. Energ. 86, 663. Eleftheriou, P. (2002). Energy from wastes: A possible alternative energy source for Cyprus’ municipalities? Energy Convers. Manage. 43, 1969. Eleftheriou, P. (2007). Energy from waste: A possible alternative energy source for large size municipalities. Waste Manage. Res. 25, 483. Elshorbagy, W.A., and Mohamed, A.M.O. (2000). Evaluation of using municipal solid waste compost in landfill closure caps in arid areas. Waste Manage. 20, 499. Emery, A., Davies, A., Griffiths, A., and Williams, K. (2007). Environmental and economic modelling: A case study of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Wales. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 49, 244. Enayetullah, I., and Hashimi, Q.S.I. (2006). Community based solid waste management through public-private-community partnerships: experience of waste concern in Bangladesh. Paper presented at 3R Asia Conference, Tokyo, Japan October 30–November 1. Enayetullah, I., Sinha, A.H.M.M., and Khan, S.S.A. (2005). Urban solid waste management scenario of Bangladesh: Problems and prospects. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Waste Concern Technical Documentation. Environment New Zealand. (2007). National Waste Data Report. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment. Environmental Bureau of Fukuoka City. (1992). Survey of operations. Fukuoka City, Japan: Planning Section, Department of Management, Environmental Bureau. Environmental Protection Bureau of China. (1995). Agenda for environmental protection in the 21st century. Beijing, China: China Environmental Science Press. Erkut, E., Karagiannidis, A., Perkoulidis, G., and Tjandra, S.A. (2008). A multicriteria facility location model for municipal solid waste management in North Greece. Eur. J. Operational Res. 187, 1402. Ersoy, H., Bulut, F., Ersoy, A.F., and Berkün, M. (2008). Municipal solid waste management and practices in coastal cities of the Eastern Black Sea: A case study of Trabzon city, NE Turkey. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 67, 321. Esakku, S., Swaminathan, A., Karthikeyan, O.P., Kurian, J., and Palanivelu, K. (2007). Municipal solid waste management in Chennai, India. Paper presented at Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, October 2007, Santa Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy. European Commission. (2003). Waste generated and treated in Europe. Luxembourg: European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.


1610

T. Karak et al.

European Environment Agency. (1999). Environment in the European Union at the turn of the century. Environmental Assessment Report No. 2. Copenhagen, European Environment Agency. European Environment Agency. (2007). Europe’s environment: The fourth assessment. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency. Eurostat. (1996). Waste generated in Europe. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec. europa.eu/cache/ITY OFFPUB/KS-55-03-471/EN/KS-55-03-471-EN.PDF Eurostat. (2003). Waste generated and treated in Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Eurostat. (2009a). Municipal waste generation and treatment, by type of treatment method - kg per capita. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa. eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/sectors/municipal waste Eurostat. (2009b). Waste generation and treatment in Europe. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY OFFPUB/KS-69-05-755/EN/KS-6905-755-EN.PDF. Evans, G.M. (2004). Compost quality and market developments. Biocycle 45, 52. Evas, L.J. (1989). Chemistry of metal retention by soil, Environ. Sci. Technol.. 23(9), 1046. Farouque, A.B., and Mahmood, T. (2007). Gujrat sanitation program. Paper presented at Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, October 2007, Santa Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy. Federal Ministry of Housing & Environment. (1982). The state of the environment. Environmental Planning and Protection Division Monograph Series No. 2. Laos, Nigeria: FMH&E. Fehr, M. (2002). The prospect of municipal waste landfill diversion depends on geographical location. The Environmentalist, 22, 319. Fehr, M., Castro, M.S.M.V., and Calcado, M.D.R. (2000). A practical solution to the problem of household waste management in Brazil. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 30, 245. Fobil, J.N., Armah, N.A., Hogarh, J.N., and Carboo, D. (2008). The influence of institutions and organizations on urban waste collection systems: An analysis of waste collection system in Accra, Ghana (1985–2000). J. Environ. Manage. 86, 262. Fobil, J.N., and Atuguba, R.A. (2004). Ghana: Changing urban environmental ills in slum communities. Int. J. Environ. Policy Law 34, 206. Forum for Environmental Management and Research, Nepal. (2000). Database of environmental education related organizations among Asian countries. Retrieved from http://www.jeef.or.jp/EAST ASIA/?job cat=nepal Gangwar, K.K., and Joshi, B.D. (2008). A preliminary study on solid waste generation at Har Ki Pauri, Haridwar, around the Ardh-Kumbh period of sacred bathing in the river Ganga in 2004. Environmentalist 28, 297. Gavrilita, P. (2006). Environmental systems analysis of municipal solid waste management in Chisinau, Moldova: Current situation and future perspectives. Master’s thesis, Industrial Ecology, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.



1611

Geng, Y., Tsuyoshi, F., and Chen, X. (2010). Evaluation of innovative municipal solid waste management through urban symbiosis: A case study of Kawasaki. J. Cleaner Prod. 18, 993. German Technical Cooperation. (1985). A proposal for the solid waste management project (Volume I).: Solid Waste Management Resource Mobilization Center and Deutshe Gessellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit, Berlin, Germany. German Technical Cooperation. (2004). The state of waste in Kosovo: 2003–2004. Gidarakos, E., Havas, G., and Ntzamilis, P. (2006). Municipal solid waste composition determination supporting the integrated solid waste management system in the island of Crete. Waste Manage. 26, 668. Giusti, L. (2009). A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health. Waste Manage. 29, 2227. Glawe, U., Visvanathan, C., and Alamgir, M. (2005). Solid waste management in least developed Asian countries e a comparative analysis. Paper presented at International Conference on Integrated Solid Waste Management in Southeast Asian Cities, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand. Goldstein, N. (2003). Solid waste composting trends in the United States. Biocycle 44, 38. ´ Gomez, G., Meneses, M., Ballinas, L., and Castells, F. (2008). Characterization of urban solid waste in Chihuahua, Mexico. Waste Manage. 28, 2465. ´ Gomez, G., Meneses, M., Ballinas, L., and Castells, F. (2009). Seasonal characterization of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the city of Chihuahua, Mexico. Waste Manage. 29, 2018. Government of India. (1995). Urban solid waste management in India. Report of the High Power Committee. New Delhi, India: Planning Commission, Government of India. Grano, S, Sharp, R., and Henson, B. (1997). Tuvalu national environmental management strategy (NEMS). SPREP report. Greek Government. (2003, December 22). Ministerial Act 50910/2727: Measures and terms for the management of solid waste, National and regional solid waste planning. Official Government Gazette 1909, Issue B. ´ Grodzinska-Jurczak, M. (2001). Management of industrial and municipal solid wastes in Poland. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 32, 85. ´ Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., Tarabuła, M., and Read, A.D. (2003). Increasing participation in rational municipal waste management-a case study analysis in Jaslo city (Poland). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 38, 67. Guermoud, N., Ouadjnia, F., Abdelmalek, F., Taleb, F., and Addou, A. (2009). Municipal solid waste in Mostaganem city (Western Algeria). Waste Manage. 29, 896. Guzmán, A.T. (1998). Urban municipal solid waste management in Costa Rica. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hafid, N., Hadek, E., Elguitari, M., and Bouamrane, A. (2002). Evaluation of a simplified option for compost production from MSW. Wastes 25, 7. Hamdi, H., Jedidi, N., Ayari, F., Yoshida, M., and Ghrabi, A. (2003). Valuation of municipal solid waste compost of Tunis (Tunisia): Agronomic aspect. Proc.


1612

T. Karak et al.

14th Annual Conference of the Japan Society of Waste Management Experts III, 62–64. Hasan, G.M.J., and Chowdhury, M.A.I. (2005). Municipal waste management and environmental hazards in Bangladesh. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 8, 921. Hassan, M.N., Chong, T.L., Rahman, M., Salleh, M.N., Zakaria, Z., and Awang, M. (2001). Solid waste management with special attention to Malaysia. University of Putra, Malaysia. Hassan, M.N., Chong, T.L., Rahman, M.M., Salleh, M.N., Zakariah, Z., Awang, M., and Yunus, M.N. (2000). Solid waste management: What’s the Malaysian position? Paper presented at Seminar on Waste to Energy, University of Putra, Malaysia. Hassan, M.N. (2002). Solid waste management in Malaysia: Can we charter future strategies? Paper presented at the International Conference on Environmental Management: Ten Years After Rio, Article 8, University Putra, Malaysia Hassen, A., Belguith, K., Jedidi, N., Cherif, A., Cherif, M., and Boudabous, A. (2001). Microbial chracterisation during composting of municipal solid waste. Bioresource Technol. 80, 217. Hawskley, W. (1980). Solid waste management and disposal system for the greater Amman region, Final Report. Municipality of Amman, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Hayami, Y., Dikshit, A.K., and Mishra, S.N. (2006). Waste pickers and collectors in Delhi: Poverty and environment in urban sector. J. Dev. Studies 42(1), 41. Hazra, T., and Goel, S. (2009). Solid waste management in Kolkata, India: Practices and challenges. Waste Manage. 29, 470. Helmy, M., Laksono, T.B., and Gardera, D. (2006). 3R implementation in Indonesia. Paper presented at the Senior Official Meeting on the 3R Initiative, J1CA, Tokyo, Japan. Henry, R.K., Yongsheng, Z., and Jun, D. (2006). Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries: Kenyan case study. Waste Manage. 26, 92. Henson, B. (1993). Samoa. National Environment and Development Strategies (NEMS), Report for SPREP. Hernández-Berriel, M.C., Márquez-Benavides, L., González-Pérez, D.J., and Buenrostro-Delgado, O. (2008). The effect of moisture regimes on the anaerobic degradation of municipal solid waste from Metepec (México). Waste Manage. 28, S14. Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources, Sudan. (2003). Sudan’s First National Communications Report, Ministry of Environment and Physical Development, Sudan’s First National Communications under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Khartoum, Sudan. Hiramatsu, A., Hara, Y., Sekiyama, M., Honda, R., and Chiemchaisri, C. (2009). Municipal solid waste flow and waste generation characteristics in an urbanrural fringe area in Thailand. Waste Manage. Res. 27, 951. Hoehne, M.V. (2008). Somalia: Update on the current situation (2006–2008). Bern, Switzerland: Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe. Hong, R.J., Wang, G.F., Guo, R.Z., Cheng, X., Liu, Q., Zhang, P.J., and Qian, G.R. (2006). Life cycle assessment of BMT-based integrated municipal solid waste management: Case study in Pudong, China. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 49, 129.



1613

Hong, S. (1999). The effects of unit pricing system upon household solid waste management: The Korean experience. J. Environ. Manage. 57, 1. Hoornweg, D.T.L. (1999). What a waste: Solid waste management in Asia. Washington, DC: World Bank. Hoornweg, D.T.L., and Laura, T. (1999). What a waste: Solid management in Asia, Working Paper Series No. 1, Urban Development Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region, World Bank, Washington, DC. Hristovski, K., Olson, L., Hild, N., Peterson, D., and Burge, S. (2007). The municipal solid waste system and solid waste characterization at the municipality of Veles, Macedonia. Waste Manage, 27, 1680. Hu, D., Wang, R., Yan, J., Xu, C., and Wang, Y. (1998). A pilot ecological engineering project for municipal solid waste reduction, disinfection, regeneration and industrialization in Guanghan city, China. Ecol. Eng. 11, 129. Huang, Q., Wang, Q., Dong, L., Xi, B., and Zhou, B. (2006). The current situation of solid waste management in China. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 8, 63. Hunger, G., and Stretz, J. (2006). Proof of Service: An innovative multifunctional tool for sustainable solid waste management strategies in developing countries. Paper presented at WasteCon 2006, 18th Waste Management Conference and Exhibition, October, Cape Town, South Africa. Hunsicker, M.D., Crockett, T.R., and Labod, B.M.A. (1996). An overview of the municipal waste incineration industry in Asia and the former Soviet Union. J. Hazard. Mater. 47, 31. Igoni, A.H., Ayotamuno, M.J., Ogaji, S.O.T., and Probert, S.D. (2007). Municipal solid-waste in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Appl. Energy 84, 664. IHSI. (2007). IVème recensement (RGPH): Résultats définitifs, ensemble du pays. Portau-Prince, Haiti: IHSI. Ikem, A., Osibanjo, O., Sridhar, M.K.C., and Sobande, A. (2002). Evaluation of groundwater quality characteristics near two waste sites in Ibadan and Lagos, Nigeria. Water Air Soil Pollut. 140, 307. Imam, A., Mohammed, B., Wilson, D.C., and Cheeseman, C.R. (2008). Solid waste management in Abuja, Nigeria. Waste Manage. 28(2), 468. International Bank of Reconstruction and Development. (1999). What a waste: Solid waste management in Asia. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank. org/urban/solid wm/erm/CWG%20folder/uwp1.pdf Jain, S., and Sharma, M.P. (2010). Power generation from MSW of Haridwar city: A feasibility study. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. Japan International Cooperation Agency. (1997). The study on solid waste management for Dar es Salaam city. Unpublished report. Japan International Cooperation Agency. (2004). Study on integrated management plan of municipal solid waste in Havana city. Progress Report, Part 1, Cuba. Japan International Cooperation Agency. (2005a). The study on solid waste management in Dhaka city. Clean Dhaka Master Plan, Final Report, Japan International Cooperation Agency, Pacific Consultants International, Yachiyo Engineering Co. Japan International Cooperation Agency and Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency. (2005b). Guidelines for solid waste management. Lahore, Pakistan: Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency.


1614

T. Karak et al.

Jha, A.K., Sharma, C., Singh, N., Ramesh, R., Purvaja, R., and Gupta, P.K. (2008). Greenhouse gas emissions from municipal solid waste management in Indian mega-cities: A case study of Chennai landfill sites. Chemosphere 71, 750. Jiang, J.G., Lou, Z.Y., Ng, S., Ciren, L., and Ji, D. (2009). The current municipal solid waste management situation in Tibet. Waste Manage. 29, 1186. Jin, J., Wang, Z., and Ran, S. (2006). Solid waste management in Macao: Practices and challenges. Waste Manage. 26, 1045. Kah, O.L. (1993). Development of solid waste management in Singapore. Paper presented at Asia-Pacific Regional Seminar on Solid Waste Management, Singapore. Kanat, G. (2010). Municipal solid-waste management in Istanbul. Waste Manage. 30, 1737. Kansal, A. (2002). Solid waste management strategies for India. Ind. J. Environ. Prot. 22, 444. Karaj, S., Rehl, T., Leis, H., and Muller, J. (2010). Analysis of biomass residues potential for electrical energy generation in Albania. Renew. Sust. Energ Rev. 14, 493. Karani, P., and Jewasikiewitz, S.M. (2007). Waste management and sustainable development in South Africa. Environ. Dev. Sustainability 9, 163. Kaseva, M.E., and Gupta, S.K. (1996). Recycling: An environmentally friendly and income generating activity toward sustainable solid waste management. Case study: Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 17, 299. Kaseva, M.E., Mbuligwe, S.E., and Kassenga, G. (2002). Recycling inorganic domestic solid wastes: Results from a pilot study in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 35, 243. Kaseva, M.E., and Moirana, J.L. (2010). Problems of solid waste management on Mount Kilimanjaro: A challenge to tourism. Waste Manage. Res. 28, 695. Kehila, Y. (2005). The landfill in Alger and the use of geosynthetic material to protect the environment, Paper presented at the 7th International Conference in Geosynthetic. Kgathi, D.L., and Bolaane, B. (2001). Instruments for sustainable solid waste management in Botswana. Waste Manage. Res. 19, 342. Khan, H.U., Husain, T., and Khan, S.M. (1987). Solid waste management practices in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Environ. Manage. 11, 729. Kharajian, H., Bader, T., and Ahmed, M. (1985). Solid waste studies in tri-cities of Dammam-Khobar-Dhahran, Prepared for King Abdul Aziz City for Science and Technology under Project No. AR-4-049, 359. Khatib, I., and Al-Khateeb, N. (2009). Solid waste treatment opportunities in the Palestinian authority areas. Waste Manage. 29, 1680. Khatib, R., Usmani, N.F., and Husain, S.S. (1990). Evaluation of Recyclable Materials in Municipal Waste from Karachi. Biol. Wastes 31, 113. Kim, S. (2002). Korean waste management and eco-efficient symbiosis-a case study of Kwangmyong city. Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 3, 371. Kirkitsos, P., Dalamagas, A., Toksöz, F., Eröztürk, A., Loutsi, P., Metin, E., and Hopkins, T. (2000). Strategic planning for the implementation of an integrated solid waste management and recycling program of large coastal cities of Turkey in the Aegean. Appropriate Environmental & Solid Waste Management & Technologies for Developing Countries 1, 1.



1615

Ko, P.S., and Poon, C.S. (2009). Domestic waste management and recovery in Hong Kong. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 11, 104. Kocasoy, G. (1996). Present and future of recycling activities in Izmir and Antalya. Istanbul, Turkey: Bogazici University Press. Kofoworola, O.F. (2007). Recovery and recycling practices in municipal solid waste management in Lagos, Nigeria. Waste Manage. 27, 1139. Konrad, O. (2002). Modellversuch ESTRELA zur Sammlung, Trennung und Behandlung von Hausmull ¨ in Brasilien [Pilot project ESTRELA for the collection, selection and treatment of municipal solid waste in Brazil]. PhD thesis, University of Leoben, Germany. Körner, I., Saborit-Sánchez, I., and Aguilera-Corrales, Y. (2008). Proposal for the integration of decentralised composting of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste into the waste management system of Cuba. Waste Manage. 28, 64. Koushki, P.A., and Al-Humoud, J.M. (2002). Evaluation of reported and measured compositions of household solid waste in Kuwait. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage. 6, 204. Koushki, P.A., and Al-Khaleefi, A. (1998). An analysis of household solid waste in Kuwait: Magnitude, type, and forecasting models. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 48, 256. Kramer, H., Jechimer, K., Lengsfeld, S., and Nartey-Tokoll, I.B. (1994). Determination of major planning data for solid waste management in Accra metropolis. Accra, Ghana: Accra Metropolitan Assembly, Waste Management Department. Kreith, F. (1994). Handbook of wolid-waste management. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Krüger International Consult of Denmark. (1999). Project 98-0377.00: Waste water, water quality and solid waste management FYR of Macedonia: National solid waste management system: Part B1. Brussels, Belgium: EU. Kum, V., Sharp, A., and Harnpornchai, N. (2005). Improving the solid waste management in Phnom Penh city: A strategic approach. Waste Manage. 25, 101. Kumar, K.N., and Goel, S. (2009). Characterization of municipal solid waste (MSW) and a proposed management plan for Kharagpur, West Bengal, India. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 53, 166. Kwak, T., Lee, S., Park, J., Maken, S., Yoo, Y.D., and Lee, S. (2006). Gasification of municipal solid waste in a pilot plant and its impact on environment. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 23, 954. Leroy, D., Giovannoni, J.M., and Maystre, L.Y. (1992). Sampling method to determine a household waste composition variance. Waste Manage. Res. 10, 3. Li, D., and Gu, H.Y. (2001). Investigation and analysis of municipal solid waste status in Chongqing. Chongqing Environ. Sci. 23, 67. Li’ao, W., Ting’quan, P., Chuan, H., and Hui, Y. (2009). Management of municipal solid waste in the Three Gorges region. Waste Manage. 29, 2203. Liamsanguan, C., and Gheewala, S.H. (2008). The holistic impact of integrated solid waste management on greenhouse gas emissions in Phuket. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1865. Liang, G., Wu, W., Zhao, G., Xu, B., and Liu, J. (2003). Prediction and analysis of production of urban refuse in Beijing from 2002 to 2007. Res. Environ. Sci. 16, 48.


1616

T. Karak et al.

Lino, F.A.M., Bizzo, W.A., da Silva, E.P., and Ismail, K.A.R. (2010). Energy impact of waste recyclable in a Brazilian metropolitan. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 916. Liu, G., and Yu, J. (2007). Gray correlation analysis and prediction models of living refuse generation in Shanghai city. Waste Manage. 27, 345. Liu, K.S. (1991). The current status and its perspective of the waste recovery and recycling in the Taiwan area, In Yang, G.C.C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the workshop on solid waste treatment and disposal, Kaohsiung, Taiwan (pp. 39–76). Liu, Z.Q., Liu, Z.H., and Li, X.L. (2006). Status and prospect of the application of municipal solid waste incineration in China. Appl. Therm. Eng. 26, 1193. Lu, T.H., Hsiao, T.Y., Yu, Y.H., and Ma, H.W. (2006). MSW management for waste minimization in Taiwan: the last two decades. Waste Manage. 26, 661. Machado, S.L., Carvalho, M., Gourc, F.J., Vilar, O.M., and do Nascimento, J.C.F. (2009). Methane generation in tropical landfills: Simplified methods and field results. Waste Manage. 29, 153. Magrinho, A., Didelet, F., and Semiao, V. (2006). Municipal solid waste disposal in Portugal. Waste Manage. 26, 1477. Mahler, C.F., Araujo, F., and Paranhos, R. (2002). Solid waste management and composting. In Pollution: Aquatic Pollution and solid waste. Aquarius Publication, Editorial Group: Bio-Rio Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil (in Portuguese). Manaf, L.A., Samah, M.A.A., and Zukki, N.I.M. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: Practices and challenges. Waste Manage. 29, 2902. Manga, V.E., Forton, O.T., and Read, A.D. (2008). Waste management in Cameroon: A new policy perspective? Resour. Conserv. Recy. 52, 592. Mangizvo, R.V. (2008). Management practices at the Mucheke municipal solid waste disposal site in Masvingo city, in Zimbabwe. J. Sustainable Dev. Afr. 10, 147. Maniatis, K., Vanhille, S., and Martawijaya, A. (1987). Solid waste management in Indonesia: Status and potential. Resour. Conserv. 15, 277. Mansor, W.G. (1999). Waste prevention: A consumerist approach to waste management. Paper presented in EPSM Seminar on Local Communities and the Environment, 46740 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Manyanhaire, I.O., Sigauke, E., and Munasirei, D. (2009). Analysis of domestic solid waste management system: A case of Sakubva high density surburb in the city of Mutare, Manicaland Province, Zimbabwe. J. Sustain. Develop. Afr. 11, 126. Matejka, G., Heras, D., Klein, F., Paqueteau, A., Barbier, F., and Keke, J. (2001). Composting of municipal solid wastein Labe (Guinea): process optimisation and agronomic development, Paper presented at Eighth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Cagliari, Italy. Mbuligwe, S.E. (2002). Institutional solid waste management practices in developing countries: A case study of three academic institutions in Tanzania. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 35, 131. Mbuligwe, S.E., and Kassenga, G.R. (2004). Feasibility and strategies for anaerobic digestion of solid waste for energy production in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 42, 183. McBean, E.A., Gondim, F., and Rovers, F. (2007a). Constraints and opportunities influencing recycling rates in some developing countries. J. Solid Waste Technol. Manage. 33, 16.



1617

McBean, E.A., Syed-Ritchie, S., and Rovers, F.A. (2007b). Performance results from the Tucumán solid waste bioreactor. Waste Manage. 27, 1783. McKay, G. (2000). Dioxin characterisation, formation and minimisation during municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration: Review. Chem. Eng. J. 86, 343. Melissa Project. (2000). Improving solid waste management in Accra and four secondary cities of Ghana, LEAP pilot operation in Ghana. Pretoria, South Africa: Melissa. Mendes, M.R., Aramaki, T., and Hanaki, K. (2003). Assessment of the environmental impact of management measures for the biodegradable fraction of municipal solid waste in São Paulo city. Waste Manage. 23, 403. ´ Méndez, A.P., Ridao, A.R., and Toro, M.Z. (2008). Environmental diagnosis and planning actions for municipal waste landfills in Estado Lara (Venezuela). Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 12, 752. Menikpura, S.N.M., and Basnayake, B.F.A. (2009). New applications of ‘Hess Law’ and comparisons with models for determining calorific values of municipal solid wastes in the Sri Lankan context. Renewable Energy 34, 1587. Mensah, A. (2006). People and their waste in an emergency context: The case of Monrovia, Liberia. Habitat Int. 30, 754. Messineo, A., and Panno, D. (2008). Municipal waste management in Sicily: Practices and challenges. Waste Manage. 28, 1201. Metin, E., Eröoztürk, A., and Neyim, C. (2003). Solid waste management practices and review of recovery and recycling operations in Turkey. Waste Manage. 23, 425. Miliute, J., and Staniskis, J.K. (2010). Application of life-cycle assessment in optimisation of municipal waste management systems: the case of Lithuania. Waste Manage. Res. 28, 298. Milke, M.W., and Aceves, F.J. (1989). Systems analysis of recycling in the Distrito Federal of Mexico. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2, 171. Minghua, Z., Xiumin, F., Rovetta, A., Qichang, H., Vicentini, F., Bingkai, L., Giusti, A., and Yi, L. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in Pudong New Area, China. Waste Manage. 29, 1227. Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial. (2005). Mission of the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Ministry of Environment ´ and Sustainable Development, Republica de Colombia. Ministry for the Environment. (2008). Solid waste audits for the Ministry for the Environment Waste Data Programme 2007/08. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment. Retrieved from http://www.mfe.govt. nz/publications/waste/solid-waste-audits-2007-2008/index.html Ministry of Environmental Protection. (2010). Solid waste management in Israel: Facts and figures 2006. Jerusalem, Israel: Solid Waste Management Division, Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection. Retrieved from http://www.sviva. gov.il/bin/en.jsp?enPage=e homePage Ministry of Environment. (1997). Agenda 21: lndonesia: A national strategy for sustainable development. Indonesian Ministry of Environment report, MoE and UNEP. Ministry of Environment. (2005). Residues and Their Management, 2003-2004. Ministry of Environment, Albania.


1618

T. Karak et al.

Ministry of Environment. (2006). Sweeping policy reforms toward ‘Sound material cycle society’ starting from Japan and spreading over the entire globe. Government of Japan. Mishra, S.B., and Kayastha, R.P. (1998). Solid waste management, In A Compendium on Environmental Statistics. Kathmandu, Nepal: HMGN, NPCS, Central Bureau of Statistics, pp. 307–319. Moghadam, M.R.A., Mokhtarani, N., and Mokhtarani, B. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in Rasht city, Iran. Waste Manage. 29, 485. Moqsud, M.A., and Hayashi, S. (2006). An evaluation of solid waste management practice in Japan. Daffodil Int. University J. Sci. Technol. 1(1), 39. Mor, S., Ravindra, K., Visscher, A. De, Dahiya, R.P., and Chandra, A. (2006). Municipal solid waste characterization and its assessment for potential methane generation: A case study. Sci. Total Environ. 371, 1. Morkel, S. (2005). Green waste minimisation in Cape Town, Civil Engineering 13(8), 16. Retrieved from http://www.civils.org.za/pdf/magazine/CivilEngAug05web. pdf Mosler, H.J., Drescher, S., Zurbrügg, C., Rodr´ıguez, T.C., and Miranda, O.G. (2006). Formulating waste management strategies based on waste management practices of households in Santiago de Cuba, Cuba. Habitat Int. 30, 849. Mrayyan, B., and Hamdi, M.R. (2006). Management approaches to integrated solid waste in industrialized zones in Jordan: A case of Zarqa city. Waste Manage. 26, 195. Mühle, S., Balsam, I., and Cheeseman, C.R. (2010). Comparison of carbon emissions associated with municipal solid waste management in Germany and the UK. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 54, 793. Mukawi, T.Y. (2001). Urban solid waste policy in Indonesia. Paper presented at the Asia Pacific Regional Workshop on Sustainable Waste Management, Singapore, German Singapore Environmental Technology Agency (GSETA). Muniafa, M., and Otiato, E. (2008). Solid waste management in Nairobi, Kenya, A case for emerging economics. Paper presented at WasteCon 2008, 19th Waste Management Conference and Exhibition, October 2008, Cape Town, South Africa. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (2004). Feasibility study and master plan report for optimal solid waste treatment and disposal for the entire state of Delhi based on public and private partnership solution. Delhi, India: Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Municipality of Corlu Town. (2000). Generation and Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in Corlu: Records of municipality. Corlu, Turkey. Münnich, K., Mahler, C.F., and Fricke, K. (2006). Pilot project of mechanicalbiological treatment of waste in Brazil. Waste Manage. 26, 150. Muñoz, I., Rieradevall, J., Domtnech, X., and Milfi, L. (2004). LCA application to integrated waste management planning in Gipuzkoa (Spain). Int. J. LCA. 9, 272. Muñoz-Cadena, C.E., Arenas-Huertero, F.J., and Ramón-Gallegos, E. (2009). Comparative analysis of the street generation of inorganic urban solid waste (IUSW) in two neighborhoods of Mexico city. Waste Manage. 29(3), 1167. Murad, M.W., and Siwar, C. (2007). Waste management and recycling practices of the urban poor: A case study in Kuala Lumpur city, Malaysia. Waste Manage. Res. 25, 3.



1619

Nahman, A., and Godfrey, L. (2010). Economic instruments for solid waste management in South Africa: Opportunities and constraints. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 54, 521. Nas, S.S., and Bayram, A. (2008). Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Gümüs¸hane, Turkey. Waste Manage. 28, 2435. Nasir, A.A. (2007). Institutionalizing solid waste management in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Department of National Solid Waste Management; Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia. National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2007). China statistics yearbook, 2007. Beijing, China: China Statistics Press. National Environment Agency. (2002). Annual reports on environmental quality from regional environmental monitoring stations in Vietnam from 1997 to 2002. World Bank, Vietnam. National Environment Agency. (2010). Singapore, 2008. Retrieved from http://www. nea.gov.sg/cms/pcd/EpdAnnualReport2010.pdf National Environment Commission. (2000). Brief report on state of environment. Thimphu, Bhutan: National Environment Commission Secretariat. National Environmental Engineering Research Institute. (2005). Comprehensive characterization of municipal solid waste at Calcutta, India. Annual Report. Nehru Marg, Nagpur-440020, India. National Research Institute. (2003a). Municipal solid waste management in Thailand. Country report. National Research Institute. (2003b). Municipal solid waste management in Sri Lanka. Country report. Ngnikame, E. (2000). Environmental assessment and economic management systems, municipal solid waste: Analysis of the case of Yaounde in Cameroon. Lyon, France: LAEPSI. Ngoc, U.N., and Schnitzer, H. (2009). Sustainable solutions for solid waste management in Southeast Asian countries. Waste Manage. 29, 1982. Nie, Y.F., and Dong, B.C. (1998). Solid waste management and minimization in China. Environ. Prot. 2, 6. Ningbo Statistics Bureau. (2003). Ningbo statistics almanac, Beijing, China: China Statistics Press. Norbu, D.S., Uyasatian, U., and Saguanwong, P. (2010). Municipal solid waste management in Phuntsholing city, Bhutan. Environ. Asia 3, 111. Noyon, N. (1992). Objectives for the development of composting in France: A strategic approach, in composting and compost quality Assurance criteria. EUR 14254 EN. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). (1993). Integrated solid waste management in Japan. CSI Resource Systems, Incorporated Boston, Massachusetts. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401–3393. Nuntapodidech, A., and Puncharoen, S. (1993). Strategies of solid waste management, in Thailand. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Regional Seminar on Solid Waste Management, Singapore. Ogwueleka, T.C. (2009). Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Nigeria. Iran. J. Environ. Health. Sci. Eng. 6, 173.


1620

T. Karak et al.

Ojeda-Ben´ıtez, S., Armijo-de-Vega, C., and Ram´ırez-Barreto, M.E. (2002). Formal and informal recovery of recyclables in Mexicali, Mexico: handling alternatives. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 34, 273. Ojeda-Ben´ıtez, S., and Beraud-Lozano, J.L. (2003). The municipal solid waste cycle in Mexico: Final disposal. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 39, 239. Ojeda-Ben´ıtez, S., Vega, C.A. de, Ram´ırez-Barreto M.E. (2003). Characterization and quantification of household solid wastes in a Mexican city. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 39, 211. Ojha, K. (2010). Status of MSW management system in northern India: An overview. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 203–215. Olley, J.E., Wilson, D.C., Read, A.D., and Vreede, V.D. (2004). Building municipal capacity for strategic waste management planning. Paper presented at ISWA Annual Conference 2004, Rome. Olorunfemi, J.F., Odita, C.O. (1998). Land use and solid waste generation in Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria. The Environmentalist 18, 67. ONEM (Observatoire National de l’Environnement du Maroc). (2001). Environment State in Morocco, Chapter 4: Wastes and urban areas. 2, rue Oum Er’ Rbia, Adgal-Rabat, Maroc. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2002). OECD environmental data, compendium 2002. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2004). Environmental data compendium. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007a). OECD environmental data, compendium 2006–2008. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007b). OECD environmental performance reviews: China. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Organization for Waste Recycling and Composting. (2006). Statistics report on 2005, Tehran Municipality, Tehran, Iran. Pahren, H.R., and Clark, C.S. (1987). Microorganisms in municipal solid waste and public health implications. Crit. Rev. Environ. Contam. 17, 187. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS). (2002). Summary statistics, Gaza Strip (1997–2015), PCBS, Ramallah, Palestine. Pan American Health Organization. (1995a). El manejo de residuos sólidos municipales en Ainérica Latina y el Caribe, Serie Ambiental 15. [The municipal solid waste management in Latin America and the Caribbean, Environmental Series]. Area of Sustainable Development and Environmental Health, PAHO, Washington, DC. Pan American Health Organization. (1995b). Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnologicas, Lixo municipal, manual de gerenciamento integrado, Sao ´ Paulo [Technology Research Institute, Municipal waste, integrated management manual, Sáo Paulo]. Cempre, Rua Bento de Andrade, 126 Jd. Paulista, Sáo Paulo. Pan American Health Organization. (1995c). El manejo de residuos sólidos inunicipales en America Latina y el Caribe. [The municipal solid waste management



1621

in Latin America and the Caribbean]. Area of Sustainable Development and Environmental Health, PAHO, Washington, DC. Pan American Health Organization. (1996). Analisis sectoriales de residuos sólfdos [Analisis sectoriales solid waste]. Area of Sustainable Development and Environmental Health, PAHO, Washington, DC. PAOT (Procuradur´ıa Ambiental y del Ordenamiento Territorial). (2005). Instructivo de llenado de la forma SMA-PMRS. Plan de manejo de residuos sólidos para generadores no sujetos a la LAUDF [Plan of managing of solid residues for generators not subject to the LAUDF]. Mexico City, Mexico: Gobierno del Distrito Federal. Retrieved from http://www.sma.df.gob.mx/sma/modules.php?name= Tramites&op=despliega&id tramite=41 Parisakis, G., Skordilis, A., Andrianopoulos, A., Lolos, C., Andrianopoulos, J., Tsompanidis, X., and Lolos, G. (1990). Qualitative and quantitative estimation of domestic waste of Chania, NTUA Laboratory of Analytic and Inorganic Chemistry, Athens. Parisakis, G., Skordilis, A., Andrianopoulos, A., Lolos, C., Andrianopoulos, J., Tsompanidis, X., and Lolos, G. (1991). Qualitative and quantitative estimation of domestic waste of the Island of Kos, NTUA Laboratory of Analytic and Inorganic Chemistry, Athens. Parisakis, G., Skordilis, A., Andrianopoulos, A., Lolos, C., Andrianopoulos, J., Tsompanidis, X., and Lolos, G. (1992). Physicochemical characterisation of municipal solid waste of Kalamata. Estimation in regard to compost production potential, NTUA Laboratory of Analytic and Inorganic Chemistry, Athens. Parizeau, K., Maclaren, V., and Chanthy, L. (2006). Waste characterization as an element of waste management planning: Lessons learned from a study in Siem Reap, Cambodia. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 49(2), 110. Parrot, L., Sotamenou, J., and Dia, B.K. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in Africa: Strategies and livelihoods in Yaoundé, Cameroon. Waste Manage. 29, 986. Pattnaik, S., and Reddy, M.V. (2010). Assessment of municipal solid waste management in Puducherry (Pondicherry), India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 512. Pauli-Wilga, J. (1996). Zagospodarowanie odpadów z rejonu Krakowa, 16–17 maja 6, Osieczany, ‘SAVE’ Grzegorz Ciszewski, Kraków. Periathamby, A., Hamid, F.S., and Khidzir, K. (2009). Evolution of solid waste management in Malaysia: impacts and implications of the solid waste bill, 2007. J. Mater. Cycles Waste. Manage. 11, 96. Philippe, F., and Culot, M. (2009). Household solid waste generation and characteristics in Cape Haitian city, Republic of Haiti. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 54(2), 73. Phuntsho, S., Dulal, I., Yangden, D., Tenzin, U.M., Herat, S., Shon, H., and Vigneswaran, S. (2010). Studying municipal solid waste generation and composition in the urban areas of Bhutan, Waste Manage. Res. 28, 545. Pipatti, R., Sharma, C., Alves, M.Y.J.W.S., Gao, Q., Koch, G.H.S.G., Cabrera, M., C.L., Mareckova, K., Oonk, H., Scheehle, E., Smith, A., Svardal, P., and Vieira, S.M.M. (2006). Waste generation, composition and management data. Chapter 2. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Waste 5, 1.


1622

T. Karak et al.

Pirogov, N.L. (1988). Chto zhe delat’s otkhodami?. Energ. Ekono. Tekh. Ekol. 12, 23. Pokhrel, D., and Viraraghavan, T. (2005). Municipal solid waste management in Nepal: practices and challenges. Waste Manage. 25, 555. Poll, A.J. (2004). Variations in the composition of household collected waste, AEAT/ENV/R/1839, AEA Technology, Harwell, UK. Poon, C.S. (2006). A few pointers for effective MSW management for Hong Kong. In: Proceedings of the Second Expert Meeting on Solid Waste Management in Asia and Paci.c Islands in Kitakyushsu, Japan, November 23–24. Prechthai, P., Parkpian, T., and Visvanathan, C. (2008). Assessment of heavy metal contamination and its mobilization from municipal solid waste open dumping site. J. Hazard. Mater. 156, 86. Qdais, A.H.A. (2007). Techno-economic assessment of municipal solid waste management in Jordan. Waste Manage. 27 (11), 1666. Qu, X., Li, Z., Xie, X., Sui, Y., Yang, L., and Chen, Y. (2009). Survey of composition and generation rate of household wastes in Beijing, China. Waste Manage. 29, 2618. Raj, S.C. (1998). Duty Travel Report to Papua New Guinea. Project No. 7 ACP RPR 584 (REG/7714/000), Unpublished report. Raj, S.C. (2000). Solid waste education and awareness in Pacific Island Countries, Pacific Regional Waste Awareness and Education Programme, SPREP, Apia. Raninger, B. (2009). Management and Utilization of Municipal and Agricultural Bioorganic Waste in Europe and China, Workshop in School of Civil Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, March 25. Rawat, M., Singh, U.K., Mishra, A.K., and Subramanian, V. (2008). Methane emission and heavy metals quantification from selected landfill areas in India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 137, 67. Ray, A. (2008). Waste management in developing Asia: can trade and cooperation help?. J. Environ. Develop. 17(1), 3. Regional Environmental Center. (2000). Country report for Bosnia & Herzegovina within strategic environmental analysis of Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo and Macedonia. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina: Regional Environment Center. Rong, B., Wei, P., Li, Y., and Li, Y. (2004). Composition analysis to Beijing’s domestic refuse and corresponding treatment countermeasure. Environ. Prot. 10, 30. ´ Rosa, D.A. de la., Velasco, A., Rosas, A., and Volke-Sepulveda, T. (2006). Total gaseous mercury and volatile organic compounds measurements at five municipal solid waste disposal sites surrounding the Mexico city metropolitan area. Atmos. Environ. 40, 2079. Rushbrook, P.E., and Finney, E.E. (1988). Planning for future waste management operations in developing countries. Waste Manage. Res. 6(1), 1. Saeed, M.O., Hassan, M.N., and Mujeebu, M.A. (2009). Assessment of municipal solid waste generation and recyclable materials potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Manage. 29, 2209.



1623

Saha, J.K., Panwar, N.R., and Singh, M.V. (2009). Determination of lead and cadmium concentration limits in agricultural soil and municipal solid waste compost through an approach of zero tolerance to food contamination. Environ. Monit. Assess. 168, 397–406. Sakai, S. (1996). Municipal solid waste management in Japan. Waste Manage, 16, 395. Sakai, S., Sawell, S.E., Chandler, A.J., Eighmy, T.T., Kosson, D.S., Vehlow, J., van der Sloot, H.A., Hartlen, J., and Hjelmar, O. (1996). World trends in municipal solid waste management. Waste Manage, 16, 341. Salequzzaman, M., Murtaza, M.G., and Saroar, M. (1998). Evaluation Study on Municipal Solid Waste Management Project in Khulna City, PRODIPAN, Shaheb Bari Road, Khulna 9203, Bangladesh. Salhofer, S., Graggaber, M., Grassinger, D., and Lebersorger, S. (1999). Fallbeispiele zur Vermeidung kommunaler Abfälle (Case studies for the prevention of municipal solid waste), Study on behalf of the city of Vienna MA 48, Vienna, Austria. Samake, M., Tang, Z., Hlaing, W., and Wang, J. (2009). State and management of solid wastes in Mali: Case study of Bamako. Environ. Res. J. 3, 81. Sarkhel, P., and Banerjee, S. (2010). Municipal solid waste management, sourceseparated waste and stakeholder’s attitude: a contingent valuation study. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 12, 611. Sˇ auer, P., Parj´ızková, L., and Hadrabová, A. (2008). Charging systems for municipal solid waste: Experience from the Czech Republic. Waste Manage, 28, 2772. Sawell, S.E., Hetherington, S.A., and Chandler, A.J. (1996). An overview of municipal solid waste management in Canada. Waste Manage. 16(5/6), 351. Scharff, C., and Vogel, G. (1994). A Comparison of collection systems in European cities. Waste Manage. Res. 12, 387. ´ de Residuos Sólidos Urbanos en Cuba con Schleenstein, G. (2002). Gestion un Enfoque al Municipio Minero de Moa, Programa ASA 2002 de la Carl-Duisberg-Gesellschaft e.V. http://rzserv1sud.fhnon.de/ sud16407/project pages/Schleenstein Gestion de RSU en Cuba.pdf (visited 07.12.2008) Sha’Ato, R., Aboho, S.Y., Oketunde, F.O., Eneji, I.S., Unazi, G., and Agwa, S. (2007). Survey of solid waste generation and composition in a rapidly growing urban area in Central Nigeria. Waste Manage. 27, 352. Shan, C.S. (2010). Projecting municipal solid waste: The case of Hong Kong SAR. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 759. Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., and Trivedi, R.C. (2008). Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities-A review. Waste Manage. 28, 459. Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Vaishya, R.C., and Gupta, R.D. (2007). Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Allahabad, India. Waste Manage. 27, 490. Sharifah, A.S.A.K., Abidin, H. ah Z., Sulaiman, M.R., Khoo, K.H., and Ali, H. (2008). Combustion characteristics of Malaysian municipal solid waste and predictions of air flow in a rotary kiln incinerator. J. Mater. Cycles Waste. Manage. 10, 116. Shekdar, A.V. (2009). Sustainable solid waste management: An integrated approach for Asian countries. Waste Manage. 29(4), 1438.


1624

T. Karak et al.

Silas, J.F. (2002). Solid waste management in Surabaya. Paper presented at the Solid Waste Management Seminar, Kitakyushu, Japan. Simonetto, E. de O., and Borenstein, D. (2007). A decision support system for the operational planning of solid waste collection. Waste Manage. 27, 1286. Singh, U.K., Kumar, M., Chauhan, R., Jha, P.K., Ramanathan, A., and Subramanian, V. (2008). Assessment of the impact of landfill on groundwater quality: A case study of the Pirana site in western India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 141, 309. Sinha, A.H.M.M. (2006). Community based solid waste management through publicprivate community partnerships: Experience of waste concern in Bangladesh, Paper presented in 3R South Asia Expert Workshop, Kathmandu, Nepal. Siriratpiriya, O. (2006). Prospective plan for development on solid waste management in Thailand, In: Proc. of the 2nd Expert Meeting on Solid Waste Management in Asia and Pacific Islands, Kitakyushu, Japan. Skalmowski, K. (2001). Composting of municipal waste, Model of technological solutions. Warsaw, Poland: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej. Skalmowski, K. (2005). Technological properties of municipal waste in Warszawa. ´ Poland: Mat. VI Miedz. Forum Gospodarki Odpadami. Poznan, Skinner, J.H. (1998). International Progress in solid waste management in Solid Waste in the Pacific, Proceedings 6th Annual Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand. Sokka, L., Antikainen, R., and Kauppi, P.E. (2007). Municipal solid waste production and composition in Finland-Changes in the period 1960–2002 and prospects until 2020. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 50, 475. Solid Waste Management Division. (2008). Ministry of environmental protection. Jerusalem, Israel: Solid Waste Management Division. Solid-Waste Management and Resource Mobilization Center. (2004). Diagnostic report on the state of solid-waste management in the municipalities of Nepal, Lalitpur. Environment and Public Health Organisation, Thapagaon, New Baneshwor, GPO Box: 4102, Kathmandu, Nepal. State Statistical Bureau of the People’s Republic of China. (1991). China Statistical Yearbook 1991, China Statistics Press, National Bureau of Statistics, Jia 6, Xisanhuan Nanlu, Fengtai, Beijing 100073, People’s Republic of China. State Statistical Bureau of the People’s Republic of China. (1999). China Statistical Yearbook 1999, China Statistics Press, National Bureau of Statistics, Jia 6, Xisanhuan Nanlu, Fengtai, Beijing 100073, People’s Republic of China. Statistics and Census Department. (2000). Yearbook of statistics. Macao: Statistics and Census Department. Statistics and Census Department. (2003). Yearbook of statistics. Macao: Statistics and Census Department. Statistics Canada. (2000). Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors. Statistics Canada. (2002). Waste management industry survey: Business and government sectors. Montreal, Canada: Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada. (2004). Waste management industry survey: Business and government sectors, 2002. Catalog no. 16F0023XIE, Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada. (2005). Solid waste in Canada human activity and the environment. Montreal, Canada: Statistics Canada.



1625

Street, A., and Zydenbos, S. (2004). Analysis of the Christchurch mixed municipal waste stream 1 July to 30 June 2004. Christchurch, New Zealand: Christchurch City Council. Sujauddin, M., Huda, S.M.S., and Hoque, A.T.M.R. (2008). Household solid waste characteristics and management in Chittagong, Bangladesh. Waste Manage. 28(9), 1688. Sun, J., Lv, Z.Q., Zhang, Y.M., and Liu, X.G. (2006). Treatment strategies of Beijing municipal solid waste. Chin. J. Urban Environ. Sanitation, 2, 33. Suocheng, D., Tong, K.W., and Yuping, W. (2001). Municipal solid waste management in China: using commercial management to solve a growing problem. Util. Policy 10, 7. Supriyadi, S., Kriwoken, L.K., and Birley, I. (2000). Solid waste management solutions for Semarang, Indonesia. Waste Manage. Res. 18, 557. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology. (2008). Global waste ¨ challenge situation in developing countries. Eawag, Uber-Landstrasse 133, P.O. Box 611, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland. Tabasaran, O. (1976). Experts report on the reorganization of solid waste disposal in the Kathmandu valley especially in the cities of Kathmandu, Patan and Bhaktapur. Stuttgart, Germany: GTZ. Tadesse, T., Ruijs, A., and Hagos, F. (2008). Household waste disposal in Mekelle city, Northern Ethiopia. Waste Manage. 28, 2003. Taha, R., Al-Rawas, A., Al-Jabri, K., Al-Harthy, A., Hassan, H., and Al-Oraimi, S. (2004). An overview of waste materials recycling in the Sultanate of Oman. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 41(4), 293. Takanashi, T., Mikami, Y., and Teraoka, Y. (1998). Trend of waste composition in Yokohama. J. Jpn. Waste Manage. Assoc. 51, 140. Talyan, V., Dahiya, R.P., and Sreekrishnan, T.R. (2008). State of municipal solid waste management in Delhi, the capital of India. Waste Manage. 28, 1276. Tanaka, M. (1992). Reduction of and resource recovery from municipal solid waste in Japan. Waste Manage. Res. 10, 453. Tanaka, M. (2007). Waste management for a sustainable society. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 9, 2. Tanaka, N., Tojo, Y., and Matsuto, T. (2005). Past, present, and future of MSW landfills in Japan. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage, 7(2), 104. Tanskanen, J.H. (2000). Strategic planning of municipal solid waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 30, 111. Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., and Vigil, S. (2005). Integrated solid waste management: Engineering principles and management issues. New York, NY: McGrawHill. Teo, V. (2007). Integrated thinking-solid waste management in Singapore. Waste Management World by ISWA 95–99. Tezanou, J., Koulidiati, J., Proust, M., Sougoti, M., Goudeau, J.C., Kafandou, P., and Progaume, T. (2001). Characterization of MSW in Ouagadougou city (Burkina Faso), Ouagadougou University, Burkina Faso. Thailand Environment Monitor. (2003). A joint publication of the Pollution Control Department (PCD) of Thailand’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment


1626

T. Karak et al.

(MoNRE), the World Bank (WB), the United States-Asia Environmental Partnership (USAEP), and Japan Bank for International cooperation (JBIC). Retrieved from http://go.worldbank.org/VUVHIV3OL0 Thanh, N.P., Matsui, Y., and Fujiwara, T. (2010a) Assessment of plastic waste generation and its potential recycling of household solid waste in Can Tho city, Vietnam. Environ. Monit. Assess. 175, 23–35. Thanh, N.P., Matsui, Y., and Fujiwara, T. (2010b). Household solid waste generation and characteristic in a Mekong Delta city, Vietnam. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 2307. Thitame, S.N., Pondhe, G.M., and Meshram, D.C. (2010). Characterisation and composition of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in Sangamner city, District Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 170, 1. Tin, A.M., Wise, D.L., Su, W., Reutergardh, L., and Lee, S. (1995). Cost-benefit analysis of the municipal solid waste collection system in Yangon, Myanmar. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 14, 103. Tinmaz, E., and Demir, I. (2006). Research on solid waste management system: To improve existing situation in Corlu Town of Turkey, Waste Manage. 26, 307. Trois, C., and Simelane, O.T. (2010). Implementing separate waste collection and mechanical biological waste treatment in South Africa: A comparison with Austria and England. Waste Manage. 30, 1457. Troschinetz, A.M., and Mihelcic, J.R. (2009). Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in developing countries. Waste Manage. 29, 915. Tsai, W.T., and Chou, Y.H. (2006). An overview of renewable energy utilization from municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration in Taiwan. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 10, 491. Tsai, W.T., Chou, Y., Lin, C., Hsu, H., Lin, K., and Chiu, C. (2007). Perspectives on resource recycling from municipal solid waste in Taiwan. Resour. Policy 32, 69. Tseng, M.L. (2010). Importance-performance analysis of municipal solid waste management in uncertainty. Environ. Monit. Assess. 172, 171–187. Turan, N.G., Çoruh, S., Akdemir, A., and Ergun, O.N. (2009). Municipal solid waste management strategies in Turkey. Waste Manage. 29, 465. Twardowska, I., and Allen, H.E. (2004). Solid waste origins: sources, trends, quality, quantity. Waste Manage. Ser. 4, 33. U.S. Census Bureau. (1991). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1991. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Success story: Turning garbage into gold, Solid waste and emergency response. EPA 530-F-02-021. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the United States: Facts and figures for 2003. EPA530F-05-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). The nature and extent of unauthorised waste activity in Ireland. Greenwich, CT: Wexford. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). National waste report 2004. Greenwich, CT: Wexford.



1627

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the United States: Facts and figures for 2007. EPA530-F-08-018, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. German Federal Environment Agency (UBA). (2006). Municipal solid waste management in Germany. Federal Environment Agency. Umweltbundesamt, Postfach 1406, 06813 Dessau-Roßlau, Germany. United Nations. (1995). World urbanization prospects: The 1994 revision. New York, NY: Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, Population Division. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2000). Environmental performance review, Armenia. Economic Commission for Europe, Committee on Environmental Policy, Environmental Performance Reviews Series No. 10. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2002). Environmental performance review: The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. New York, NY: United Nations. United Nations Environmental Programme. (2000). State of the environment of Western Asia: Urban areas. United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, Nairobi, Kenya. United Nations Environmental Programme. (2001a). Nepal: State of the environment 2001, New York, NY: UNEP. United Nations Environmental Programme. (2001b). State of the environment: Sri Lanka. New York, NY: UNEP. United Nations Environmental Programme. (2002). Global environmental outlook 2000. New York, NY: Earthscan. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (2010). Solid waste management in the world’s cities: Water and sanitation in the world’s cities. Washington DC: UN-HABITAT. Unnikrishnan, S., and Singh, A. (2010). Energy recovery in solid waste management through CDM in India and other countries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 630. Urban Sector Programme Support Secretariat. (2000). Solid waste management plan for Thimphu city, Bhutan. Draft version. Bhutan: Urban Sector Programme Support Secretariat. Vego, G., Kuˇcar-Dragiˇcević, S., and Koprivanac, N. (2008). Application of multicriteria decision-making on strategic municipal solid waste management in Dalmatia, Croatia. Waste Manage. 28, 2192. Vehlow, J. (1996). Municipal solid waste management in Germany. Waste Manage. 16(5/6), 367. Vidal, R., Gallardo, A., and Ferrer, J. (2001). Integrated analysis for pre-sorting and waste collection schemes implemented in Spanish cities. Waste Manage. Res.19, 380. Vidanaarachchi, C.K., Yuen, S.T.S., and Pilapitiya, S. (2006). Municipal solid waste management in the Southern Province of Sri Lanka: Problems, issues and challenges. Waste Manage. 26, 920. All Russian Institute of Scientific and Technical Information (VINITI). (1989). USSR Goskompriroda, Sostoyanie prirodnoi sredy v SSSR v 1988 g., p. 66; USSR Goskompriroda, Sostoyanie prirodnoi sredy i prirodookhrannaya deyatel’nost’ v SSSR v


1628

T. Karak et al.

1989 godu [USSR Goskompriroda, Environmental Condition in USSR in the year 1988., p.66; USSR Environmental Condition in USSR and Nature Protection in USSR 1989]. Moscow, Russia: Institut Molodezhi. Visvanathan, C., Tränkler, J., Joseph, K., Basnayake, B.F., Chiemchaisri, A., and Gongming, Z. (2004). Municipal solid waste management in Asia. Asian Institute of Technology, Klong Luang, Pathumthani, Thailand. Vogt, G.M., Liu, H.M., Kennedy, K.J., Vogt, H.S., and Holbein, B.E. (2002). Super blue boxrecycling (SUBBOR) enhanced two-stage anaerobic digestion process for recycling municipal solid waste: laboratory pilot studies, Toronto, Canada. Bioresour. Technol. 85, 291. Von Blottnitz, H., Austin, G., Nissing, C., Schmalbein, N., Liphoto, L., Ncwadi, N., Gets, A., and Fedorsky, C. (2006, September). Burn, gasify, pyrolyse or ferment: Making sense of the many possibilities for energy from waste in South Africa. Paper presented at WasteCon 2006, International Waste Management Biennial Congress and Exhibition. Somerset West, South Africa. Wang, H.T., and Nie, Y.F. (2001). Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in China. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 51(2), 250. Wang, W., and Wu, Y. (2001). Succession of contemporary city waste policy and necessity of greeting the waste industry. Ecol. Econ. 10, 34. Waste Not Consulting (2006). Waste composition and construction waste Data, Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand (unpublished). Wei, J., Herbell, J., and Zhang, S. (1997). Solid waste disposal in China: Situation, problems and suggestions. Waste Manage. Res. 15, 573. Wei, Y., Fan, Y., Wang, M., and Wang, J. (2000). Composting and compost application in China. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 30, 277. Wilson, E.J. (2002). Life cycle inventory for municipal solid waste management. Waste Manage. Res. 20, 16. Wolkowski, R. (2003). Nitrogen management considerations for land spreading municipal solid waste compost. J. Environ. Qual. 32, 1844. World Bank. (1997). World development report 1997: The state in a changing world. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (1999). What a waste: Solid waste management in Asia. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (2000a). Solid-waste ecological enhancement project. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (2000b). Solid waste management strategy for METAP Mashreq and Maghreb Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (2001). Philippines environmental monitor. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (2004). Mongolia environment monitor 2004, World Bank Mongolia office, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. World Bank. (2005). East Asia infrastructure department, Waste management in China: issues and recommendations, Urban development working paper no. 9. World Bank. (2006). Improving management of municipal solid waste in India: Overview and Challenges, Environment Unit, South Asia Region: New Delhi, India: World Bank.



1629

World Health Organization. (1991). Mission report, Ref ICP/RUD/001. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. World Health Organization. (1999). What a waste: Solid waste management in Asia. Washington, DC: Urban Development Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region. World Health Organization. (2004). Republic of Korea, environmental health country profile. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. World Wildlife Fund. (2001, July). Pakistan country report. Paper presented at the Waste-Not-Asia Conference, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Taiwan. Xiao, Y., Bai, X., Ouyang, Z., Zheng, H., and Xing, F. (2007). The composition, trend and impact of urban solid waste in Beijing. Environ. Monit. Assess. 135(1–3), 21. Xiao, Y., Zeng, G., Yang, Z., Shi, W., Huang, C., Fan, C., and Xu, Z. (2009). Continuous thermophilic composting (CTC) for rapid biodegradation and maturation of organic municipal solid waste. Bioresource Technol. 100, 4807. Xiaoli, C., Shimaoka, T., Xianyan, C., Qiang, G., and Youcai, Z. (2007). Characteristics and mobility of heavy metals in an MSW landfill: Implications in risk assessment and reclamation. J. Hazard. Mater. 144, 485. Yamamoto, O. (2002). Solid waste treatment and disposal experiences in Japan. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Environmental Pollution Control and Waste Management, Tunis, Tunisia. Yamamura, K. (1983). Current status of waste management in Japan. Waste Manage. Res. 1, 1. Yang, G.C.C. (1995). Urban waste recycling in Taiwan. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 13, 15. Yangon City Development Committee. (1993). Unpublished departmental data, cleaning department. Yangon, Burma: Yangon City Development Committee. Yem, D. (2001). Solid waste management in Cambodia. Paper presented at the Asia Pacific Regional Workshop on Sustainable Waste Management, German Singapore Environmental Technology Agency. Yousuf, T.B., and Rahman, M. (2007). Monitoring quantity and characteristics of municipal solid waste in Dhaka city. Environ. Monit. Assess. 135, 3. Yuan, H., Wang, L., Su, F., and Hu, G. (2006). Urban solid waste management in Chongqing: challenge and opportunities. Waste Manage. 26,1052. Zamorano, M., Molero, E., Grindlay, A., Rodr´ıguez, M.L., Hurtado, A., and Calvo, F.J. (2009). A planning scenario for the application of geographical information systems in municipal waste collection: A case of Churriana de la Vega (Granada, Spain). Resour. Conserv. Recy. 54, 123. Zhang, D.Q., Keat, T.S., and Gersberg, R.M. (2010a). A comparison of municipal solid waste management in Berlin and Singapore. Waste Manage. 30, 921. Zhang, D.Q., Tan, S.K., and Gersberg, R.M. (2010b). Municipal solid waste management in China: Status, problems and challenges. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1623. Zhang, W.C. (1998). Situation and management of urban domestic refuse in China. Environ. Protec. 8, 41.


1630

T. Karak et al.

Zhao, W., Voet, E., Zhang, Y., and Huppes, G. (2009a). Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management with regard to green house gas emissions: Case study of Tianjin, China. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 1517. Zhao, Y., Wang, H.T., and Lu, W.J. (2009b). Life-cycle assessment of the municipal solid waste management system in Hangzhou, China. Waste Manage. Res. 27, 399. Zhen-shan, L., Lei, Y., Xiao-Yan, Q., and Yu-mei, S. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in Beijing city. Waste Manage. 29, 2596. Zia, H., and Devadas, V. (2008). Urban solid waste management in Kanpur: Opportunities and perspectives. Habitat Int. 32, 58. Zurbrugg, C. (2002, November). Urban solid waste management in low-income countries of Asia: How to cope with the garbage crisis. Paper presented at the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) Urban Solid Waste Management Review Session, Durban, South Africa. Zurbrugg, C., Drescher, S., Rytz, I., Sinha, A.H.M.M., and Enayetullah, I. (2005). Decentralised composting in Bangladesh, a win-win situation for all stakeholders. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 43, 281.