Final - file · Web viewThe purpose of this study was to gain a baseline understanding of...

Running Head: WASTE MANAGEMENT IN BANSAMRAN GAI NA

WASTE MANAGEMENT IN BAN SAMRAN GAI NA

Laura Franke, Alex King, Emily Strome,

Annie Zhang & Liz Hart


Abstract

The purpose of this study was to gain a baseline understanding of common waste disposal

practices within the rural community of Ban Samran Gai Na. Obtaining this information shed

light on where gaps in knowledge or access to waste management occurs among villagers. Semi-

structured interviews were conducted across the village, with an emphasis placed on the disposal

methods of food waste, recyclables, foliage, and toxic waste. Focus groups were conducted with

Village Health Volunteers as well as a group of Meh Bans. In addition, observations served as a

primary tool in measuring the sufficiency of the trash disposal site and prevalence of waste

burning. Finally, we conducted an interview with a municipality employee to gain a better

understanding of their role in the Gai Na waste management system. Data collection revealed a

lack of knowledge and practice of separation of waste along with ongoing frustration with the

timeliness of municipality services. Our intervention aimed to improve solid municipal waste

management in Ban Samran Gai Na by distributing an informative flyer and compostable trash

bags to the residents, generating a report to the municipality, and cleaning the area around the

village waste receptacles. By spreading awareness about separation of waste, we hope that

villagers will be more inclined to separate food waste. In passing our findings on to the

municipality, we hope to improve the information exchange between the community and the

municipality office so that current concerns and future plans for change can be more effectively

addressed.

2


Introduction

“In Thailand, solid waste has been identified as one of the major environmental problems

due to the fact that the waste generation rate has increased drastically together with a lack of

awareness of local citizens” (IGES Policy Report, 2012). In a preliminary scouting trip to the

rural village of Ban Samran Gai Na, we noted environmental concerns relating to overflow of

trash receptacles and burning of trash. Due to community concern, feasibility of the problem,

magnitude, student concern, and severity, further research was conducted to better understand

the municipal solid waste management needs of Ban Samran Gai Na. Our research yielded a

baseline understanding of the common waste disposal practices implemented within the

community. Obtaining this information shed light on gaps in knowledge, in specific regards to

separation of waste and compost disposal, as well as obstacles in the municipality’s services.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted across the village, with emphasis being placed on the

disposal methods of food waste, recyclables, foliage and toxic waste. Observations also served as

a primary tool in measuring trash bin sufficiency along with prevalence of waste burning. Focus

groups were further conducted among both Village Health Volunteers and a group of villagers in

order to gain a more discussion-based perspective of the waste management system within Gai

Na. Finally, we conducted an interview with a municipality employee in order to better

understand their role in the Gai Na waste management system, where problems might stem from

them directly and what the future holds.

The data obtained from the semi-structured interviews and focus groups shed light on the

current waste management system of Gai Na, from both a villager’s and municipality member’s

perspective. With this baseline information, we worked with the community to implement an

intervention that targeted gaps in the system (separation of waste) and aided the municipality in

3


preparing for future change and growth. The intervention consisted of distributing an informative

flyer with compostable bags, cleaning the area around the village waste receptacles, and

compiling our research to give to the municipality directly.

Literature Review

In 2009, the volume of waste generated in Thailand reached approximately 15.1 million

tonnes (a tonne is a unit of mass that is equal to 1000 kilograms or 2,240 lbs.) (Merriam-

Webster, 2014). Per day that is approximately 41,410 tonnes. Of this total waste, 3.3 million

tonnes, or 22%, was separated and sent to recycling centers (Gheewala, Bonnet, & Menikpura

2013). According to the Thai Pollution Control Department, in 2010 approximately 61% of

Thailand’s municipal solid waste (MSW) was generated in Bangkok and the other urban areas

(municipalities’ areas) of Thailand. The remaining 39% was generated in the rural areas of

Thailand. Of this total waste about 64% was organic waste from food, 17% was plastic and 8%

was paper. In 2008 only 11% of MSW was recycled, 9.4% was treated in a sanitary landfill and

78% was disposed of in open, non-regulated, dumps (Cherdsatirkul, 2012).

Thailand’s MSW is managed by three ministries and each area’s local government (PCD,

2012). The first ministry is the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Within this

ministry the Office of Natural resources and Environmental Policy and Planning and the

Pollution Control Department actually engage in MSW management. The second ministry is the

Ministry of Public Health. It controls MSW management through the Department of Health. And

lastly, the Minister of Industry’s Department of Industrial Works manages the licensing of MSW

treatment facilities. These energy projects are provided subsidies in part and with the help of the

Ministry of Energy. Overseen by the Ministry of Interior, the Bangkok Municipality along with

4


each area’s local government, which is involved in implementing waste management operations,

manages MSW treatment and disposal for each area (PCD, 2012).

Integrated Waste Management Systems

Currently there are ninety-three sanitary landfills in operation around Thailand. In

addition eight have never operated and five have ceased operations, while twenty-two are under

construction. Integrated systems for waste management exist in Wieng Fang (Chiang Mai),

Rayong, Chonburi, and in Mae Sai (Chiang Rai) (PCD, 2012). The goal of an integrated waste

management system is to create renewable energy from waste as opposed to a landfill, which

does not separate materials or process them for their potential energy. Integrated waste

management systems reduce landfill mass by utilizing recyclable and compostable materials. In

addition to municipality run waste disposal sites, there are privately operated sectors. Several

hundred private recycling centers operate around Thailand. These centers purchase various types

of materials such as plastics, metals, paper and glass from individuals referred to as

“scavengers”, and use them to create recycled goods (Gheewala, Bonnet, & Menikpura, 2013).

Separation of Food Waste

Composting is another way of waste disposal that has positive results. Diverting food

waste from landfills reduces methane from landfills and improves soil quality where it is

composted by increasing drought resistance and decreasing the need for fertilizers, pesticides or

supplemental water (USEPA, 2014b). The separation of food waste from recycling and other

MSW by the individuals who create it saves manpower down the line during the waste

management process. All of the waste collected by municipal services is taken to a regulated

dump site where compostable waste and recycling is separated out. Even if a household cannot

5


compost their food waste, separating it from other forms of waste saves their country time and

money in the long run, during the separation process at the landfills (Mills & Andrews, 2009).

Waste Disposal and Utilization

In 2011 Thailand’s Ministry of Energy estimated that from biomass, MSW, and biogas a

total potential energy of 3,700 MW could be generated (Salam, Kumar, & Siriwardhana, 2013).

Many provinces and municipalities have made efforts and investments to create MSW anaerobic

digestion (AD) operational sites. AD is described by the American Biogas Council as: “a series

of biological processes in which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the

absence of oxygen” (American Biogas Council, 2010). AD plants are a favorable option for

areas with high quantities of waste and demand for power because of the biogas that results from

the process of AD. Biogas can be combusted to create electricity and heat or further processed to

create fuels for transportation and renewable natural gas (American Biogas Council, 2010).

Due to limited accessibility to regulated landfills, integrated waste management systems,

and municipality waste management services, many Thai citizens and their community’s dispose

of their waste in other ways. The use of non-regulated open dumpsites is one method commonly

used (Chiemchaisri, Juanga, & Visvanathan 2007). These dump sites present health concerns to

surrounding areas through air and water pollution. Dumpsites that are accessed by way of dirt

roads offer concern for properties located downwind. The combination of diesel and dust has

been found to not only be costly economically and aesthetically, but also can be detrimental to a

communities or individuals public health. Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter in

dust presents hazards for individuals suffering from respiratory disease and in some cases

inducing it. As a means to address the issue of dust, landfill owners will often use leachate on

roadways. Leachate is a solution or product obtained by leaching (Merriam-Webster, 2014). The

6


downside of this practice is that surface water pollution often results. Pollution takes place when

precipitation is followed by runoff. The pathogenic organisms and chemical contaminants found

in the leachate make their way into the surface water and become harmful to the environment

(Lee & Jones-Lee, 1993).

In addition to non-regulated open dumpsites the burning of waste is a widely used

method of waste management in Thailand. According to the Saskatchewan Ministry of

Environment 2013 (SME), the practice of burning garbage often occurs at low temperatures,

approximately 250-700 degrees Celsius and in oxygen deprived conditions. Under these

conditions toxic gases such as hydrocarbons, pesticide compounds and chlorinated materials are

generated. These gases are toxic to both humans and the environment. Within these gases there

are dioxins, furans, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter (PM), hydrogen chloride

(HCI), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, and liberate metals such as

antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury,

phosphorus and titanium (SME, 2013).

It is estimated that dioxin and furan emissions resulting from the daily burning of two

households MSW can equate to the average emissions of dioxins and furan from an MSW

combustor that burns 182,000 kg a day of the same kind of waste. Mixed garbage burning has

been estimated by The United States Environmental Protection Agency to be a greater

contributor to dioxins in the environment than coal combustion, ferrous metal smelting,

hazardous waste incineration or bleached pulp mills. MSW burning also has been found to

create greater amounts of ash and debris. Two kinds of ash that result are bottom and fly ash.

Bottom ash is heavier than fly ash and has many useful functions such as snow and ice traction

control, aggregate in lightweight concrete products and feedstock for production of cement

7


(USEPA, 2014a). Fly ash is made of very light, toxic metals, dioxin and furan, and is trafficked

into the environment by combustion gases. Fly ash can travel hundreds of miles before becoming

a part of the food chain, affecting areas within a very large radius (SME, 2013).

Local Government Initiatives

Nationally, many initiatives are taking place in order to address the need for better waste

management in Thailand. Anaerobic Digestion plants and recycling centers are being installed

throughout Thailand to harness energy and create goods from discarded waste. Smaller scale

initiatives are also being mobilized and tested in communities around the country. In a village

near Ban Samran Gai Na, the municipality is conducting a composting initiative. This initiative

is taking place to address the community’s issues with disposing of food waste and foliage. The

overall goal of the Municipality’s initiatives is to decrease waste in villages and increase

education regarding waste management and the environment (Khon Kaen Municipality Office,

2014b). The Municipality that oversees waste management in Ban Samran Gai Na is hopeful that

their composting initiative will prove both effective and successful so that it may be

implemented into other communities waste management systems (Khon Kaen Municipality

Office, 2014a).

Ban Samran Gai Na Community

In the Ban Samran Gai Na community waste management occurs through the use of

municipality provided and serviced dump sites, the selling of recyclable goods, and the burning,

and on rare occasion, composting of foliage and food waste. These dump sites are defined by

four bins that are located around the community. Despite this, many community members

practice alternative methods of waste disposal and management due to the reported unreliability

of the municipality services. According to the municipality, Ban Samran Gai Na is to be serviced

8


on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays of each week. However, due to the overuse of the only

garbage truck available to the municipality, which services thirteen communities including Ban

Samran Gai Na, there are consistent breakdowns, resulting in the inability to service

communities for days at a time. This information proved helpful in understanding the root of the

problem of waste management in the Ban Samran Gai Na community and where to target an

intervention.

Research Goals, Questions, and Objectives

The goal of research in Ban Samran Gai Na was to gain a baseline understanding of

common waste disposal practices within this community. The research question being

investigated was: how do members of the Ban Samran Gai-Na community dispose of the various

aspects of household waste: foliage, construction waste, recyclables, food waste, and toxic

waste? Through this research question, the primary objective is to gain a greater understanding

of common waste disposal practices within the Ban Samran Gai Na community, and determine

where gaps in knowledge or access may occur among community members. Within this

objective it is a goal to understand the role of the municipality and the households in waste

management and what issues the community perceives. For this research project it is

hypothesized that due to gaps in either knowledge or access to proper waste disposal system,

within the Ban Samran Gai Na community, there is minimal to no separation of materials within

waste.

Intervention Goals

Our research demonstrated that villagers are aware that they should separate wet and dry

waste, yet many of them still dispose of everything at the trash collecting. Thus, one goal of our

intervention is to educate villagers about why it is important to separate, and alternatives for how

9


they can dispose of food waste. This will entail spreading awareness about the benefits of

composting- what it can do for an individual household as well as the community at large.

Another goal of our intervention is to improve the information exchange between the community

and the municipality office so that current concerns and future plans for change can be more

effectively addressed. Our final goal of the intervention is to improve the physical condition of

the trash bin sites, which will be carried out through picking up trash/tidying the area

surrounding the collecting points.

Methodology

Sampling Method

There are approximately 160 households and 400 people in Ban Samran Gai Na. For this

project, the data was collected using short semi-structured interviews, in-depth interviews, and

two focus groups . Focus groups attempted to understand both Village Health Volunteers

awareness of issues regarding waste disposal as well as community wide views on the same

topic, short semi-structured interviews focused on household information, and in-depth

interviews were used to gain specific information regarding a narrow topic. The short semi-

structured interviews were a random convenience sampling of community members, with no

more than one individual interviewed per household. In-depth interviews were conducted with

three individuals: the headman’s assistant, the local trash vendor, and a municipality staff

member.

Two focus groups were used to gain a greater understanding of waste management in Ban

Samran Gai Na. One consisted of three Village Health Volunteers (VHVs), the second consisted

of a random convenience sample of 8 community members. These individuals were adults (over

10


the age of 18) living in the community and were chosen based on availability and their ability to

fit the individual focus group criteria listed above.

Study Design and Planning Process

Semi-structured interviews (see Appendix A) were used in order to gain a better

understanding of household waste management and waste disposal in Ban Samran Gai Na, while

focus groups (see Appendix B) were key tools to understanding knowledge and health concerns

(from VHVs), and overall community trends. In-depth interviews allowed us to gain deeper

understanding of three key areas within our research: role of the village headman, role of the

trash vendor in community wide waste disposal, and the role/view of the municipality (see

Appendix C). This study was designed to be descriptive and qualitative. Questions were

designed to gain a better understanding of the communities waste disposal habits and waste

management concerns. The questions hoped to gain both personal information as well as overall

perceptions within the community. Questions were left open ended and follow-up questions were

drafted and used. Pictures of the various forms of waste were also used during semi-structured

interviews to create a standardized definition of foliage, food waste, toxic waste, and recyclables

(see Appendix D).

The topics addressed in the interviews and focus groups were discussed with the

translator in advance in order to eliminate any confusion regarding phrasing or definitions. The

translator also received a copy of the research goals and questions before implementation of the

research tools.

Measurement

During each interview, one member of the research team asked the questions, maintained

eye contact with the interviewee, and interacted with the translator. Other research team

11


members’ roles were split between taking notes on the content of the interview, or taking

observational notes on the surroundings/environment in which the interview was conducted. All

semi-structured interviews contained the same structure of questions, however follow up

questions could be asked if further clarification was needed. Each in-depth interview began with

a list of pre-determined questions (unique to each in-depth interview), however follow-up

questions were asked based on the responses and reported actions of the interviewee.

During each focus group, two members of the research team asked a majority of the

questions, while other team members added follow up questions where appropriate. One research

team member facilitated the discussion space, specifically focusing on interactions between the

translator, research team members, and focus group participants. The remaining two researchers

took notes on the content of the focus group.

Throughout the three research tools, all members of the research team had a notebook

and pen in hand to record notes. Written notes were collected from each interview and focus

group. All tools focused on similar basic questions regarding concerns, knowledge, and methods

of waste disposal, but allowed space for various follow-up questions based on participant

responses and knowledge on the topic.

After conducting focus groups, researchers recorded observations regarding waste

management and disposal around the community, focusing specifically on burning sites, and

municipal waste collection bins.

Data Analysis

Notes from the focus groups and interviews were organized into a single document for

further in-depth analysis of waste management practices and health concerns. This organization

allowed for identification of commonalities among responses from various community members.

12


Data primarily came from written notes during the interviews and focus groups or from research

teams observations. Observations were compared with information obtained during focus groups

and interviews to allow a greater understanding of the current waste disposal system within the

community.

Conceptual Framework (see Appendix E)

This framework was a visual representation of the goals and structures of our proposed

research project and its expected outcomes. It also addresses the key variables affecting waste

disposal and management in Ban Samran Gai Na. In order to answer the research question,

objectives were formed to further focus the research and provide clear goals for the project.

Three key activities were chosen to achieve the research goals and objectives: semi-structured

interviews, focus groups, and observations. Descriptions of these activities are expanded to

include target samples and the specific topics they will address. Expected results of the research

are listed at the bottom of the chart as a result of the activities that were undertaken. These

results are intended to assist in the creation and application of an intervention that addresses

waste management problems and concerns in Ban Samran Gai Na. Researchers will use this

framework to guide the execution of the project and establish future direction for the collected

results.

Changes were made to our research project post-creation of this conceptual framework in

order to more accurately reach our target group and answer our research questions (for more

specifics on the changes made please see the sections titled sampling methods and study

design/planning process). However, this remains a true representation of our original proposed

research plan.

13


Intervention Plan

In our presentation to the Ban Samran Health Promotion Hospital, we shared data from

our research and requested feedback on four possible intervention components. The four

components presented were: fixing broken signs around the community waste receptacles, create

an informative flyer for villagers, and submit our research findings to the municipality. We then

used the feedback from the village health volunteers to narrow our intervention and select the

components we would include to best address waste management issues in Gai Na.

Our intervention to improve solid municipal waste management in Ban Samran Gai Na

included three main aspects: 1) an informative flyer distributed with compostable trash bags, 2) a

comprehensive report to the municipality, and 3) cleaning the area around the village waste

receptacles. The flyer (see Appendix F) is a double-sided quarter sheet, which included

information about waste separation. The front side explains why separating food waste helps the

community and offers suggestions for alternative ways of disposing food waste. The back of the

flyer has the contact information for the municipality, where villagers should direct any waste

management concerns they have. The flyer will help bring awareness to the issues around food

waste and promote a healthier and more environmental option for disposal. The handouts were

given out with two compostable bags, reaching 150 households. On the day that the flyers and

bags were distributed, we also cleaned up the un-bagged trash around each waste bin site in the

village. Additionally, we compiled our findings from our research to submit them to the

municipality to help voice villagers’ concerns and improve communication between the village

and the office (see Appendix G). The goal of our intervention was to educate villagers on the

importance of separating out food waste, improve the information exchange between the village

and municipal office, and improve the physical condition of the bin sites.

14


Budget

Item Estimated cost (Baht)

Actual cost (Baht)

Trash Clean UpPlastic gloves (5 pairs) 200 58Big plastic bags (1box) 50 37FlyersPrinting 800 1805Translation 300 FreePlastic bags (300) 500 555Rubber Bands 10 10Municipality ReportTranslation (3 pages) 1200 PendingPrinting (at CIEE) Free FreePostage 100 PendingTransportationBike Rentals (5) 250 N/ASong Taew 300 250Cab: to and from Tesco 200 123OtherHost family fruit basket 450 450Food: Lunch 400 N/ASnacks 250 N/AContingency (5%) 250

Total: 5,250 Final Total: Pending

Timeline

Date Activity DescriptionFebruary 15th-

16thScouting Trip A group of 5 students traveled to the community and

gained a basic understanding of community background, structure, and demographics. The goal was gain a comprehensive overview of Ban Samran Gai Na.

March 27th-29th

Community Visit 1

Using questionnaires, 41 households were surveyed by two research groups to gain a better understanding of health concerns within the village. The questionnaire focused on basic demographics, diet/exercise/dental

15


habits, waste management, sexual education, traffic safety and tobacco/alcohol use.

April 25th-26th Data Collection Phase 1

The research team was able to complete 18 short semi-structured interviews with community members, a focus group with three VHVs, and two in-depth interviews with the assistant to the village headman and the local trash vendor.

April 29th-30th Data Collection Phase 2

After reviewing the research tools, a second phase of data collection occurred. It consisted of two short semi-structured interviews with community members, a in-depth interview with a municipality staff member, and focus group with 8 community members.

May 2nd Presentation at Ban Samran Gai

Na Health Promoting Hospital

45 Minute Presentation of research findings and intervention ideas to 10 individuals including Village Health Volunteers and HPH staff. Feedback was also received regarding interventions and a final project was then chosen by the research group

May 5th Submit flyers for translation and submit written intervention proposal

May 6th Buy necessary supplies at Tesco, print flyers, and gather all necessary materials for the intervention.

May 7th Intervention Day The research team spent a half day in the community handing out flyers and trash bags to households within the community, as well as spend time picking up waste surrounding the collection bins. (The intervention also includes submitting the findings to the municipality, but this will be completed on a separate day)

May 11th Send in Final report for translationMay 12th Final presentation of research and intervention resultsMay 15th Print and send final report to Municipal office

Ethics

Prior to the start of all interviews and focus groups, we confirmed participant consent,

and informed all participants that responses will be kept strictly confidential. Names were not

used in association with responses. In addition, participants were told that responses were

16


optional for all interview and focus group questions. Those participating in the focus group were

allowed to leave or return at any time during its duration.

During the intervention, we viewed the communities concerns and opinions as our first

priority. We presented all ideas to the VHVs and HPH staff members to gain feedback prior to

implementation. Therefore, the intervention chosen had been approved by the community, and

community participation was optional throughout the process.

Results

In a previous community visit to Ban Samran Gai-Na, a questionnaire was used to gather

baseline information on the health status of the village. Among the various health topics covered

in the questionnaire, solid waste management in the community was repeatedly cited as an issue

for Gai-Na residents. As a result, further information was gathered on the community’s solid

waste management, with a focus on the residents’ waste disposal behaviors for foliage,

recyclables, food waste, and toxic waste. A variety of focus groups and interviews were

conducted, which were 20 semi-structured interviews with a random sampling of residents, two

focus groups - one with three Village Health Volunteers (VHVs) and the other with a random

sampling of Meh Bans all over the age of 50, and three unstructured interviews of the

community’s recycling vendor, headman’s assistant, and municipality employee. From the data

collected, an intervention day occurred to address the gaps found in Gai Na’s waste disposal

system.

Issues with Waste Disposal

While the four municipal collection waste bins have only been newly introduced to the

Gai-Na community, all of the interviewees utilize the bins to dispose their waste. Many of the

interviewees stated that they preferred the current disposal system compared to the previous

17


disposal system. Previously, cauldrons were in front of each household for waste disposal, which

created many problems for the villagers such as dogs regularly scavenging the cauldrons. The

current waste disposal system has improved the waste situation in the community, with 15 of the

20 interviewees satisfied with the changes made to the municipals waste service.

Currently, there are four community waste bins servicing 160 households and are located

near the temple, school, and entrance to the community. The four bins are relatively small in size

for the number of households in the community - three are 32x32x81 (inches) and the fourth was

smaller at 32x32x54 (inches). The bins have a metal wire structure that allows for any loose

waste to seep through the bottom of the bins. Additionally, an ongoing concern for the

community entails the lack of usage of plastic bags when disposing their waste. Rather than

using plastic bags, villagers will put their waste in a bucket and dump the waste directly into the

bins, which creates an accumulation of waste surrounding the bins as well as a putrid smell. The

municipality is aware of this issue and has stated that the use of plastic bags would assist them in

creating a more effective waste disposal system.

Interviewees had suggestions for improving the current waste disposal system. The

overflow of the four collection waste bins is a concern for villagers, which has been further

exacerbated by the municipality’s irregular waste pick-up times. Although the municipality

should be collecting Gai-Na’s waste Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, many of the interviewees

listed inconsistent pick-up times with some stating everyday and others stating once every two

weeks. In an interview with the municipality, an employee confirmed that Gai-Na’s pick-up

times are MWF but there is one truck servicing 13 villages (6 MWF, 7 TTh) that frequently

requires maintenance and cannot be used. However, the municipal employee stated that in the

next fiscal year, the municipality hopes to have a new truck to avoid frequent breakdowns and

18


delayed service. Additionally, the municipal employee stated that the municipality is currently

unable to place additional bins in Gai Na but they might possibly add two additional bins in the

future to address the overflow issue. However, the municipality has expressed interest in

establishing a composting initiative in Gai Na to reduce the amount of waste in bins. There is a

similar initiative implemented by the municipality in a neighboring community. Based on

research conducted by Thai Meteorological Department in 2011, 48% of waste is organic, 27%

recyclable, 5% toxic, and 20% general waste (Khon Kaen Municipality Office, 2014b). By

establishing a composting initiative in Gai Na, there would be less organic waste, which would

subsequently decrease the amount of overall waste in the bins. However, in a focus group with

Meh Bans, many were disinterested in a composting project because there is no space, time, and

interest for such an initiative.

Separation of Waste

Each interviewee for the semi-structured interviews was asked how they separate their

trash and disposed of food waste, recycling, yard waste/foliage, and toxic waste. Of the twenty

interviewed, six villagers said their household separates out food waste and composts it, six said

they put food waste in a separate bag and place it in the bin, and eight said they put it in their

regular trash bag and put the bag in the bin. Regarding recycling, 18 interviewees sell their

recyclables to a vendor within the community, one said they sell their recyclables directly to the

recycling center, and one said they throw recyclables away. For yard waste and foliage: five

interviewees said they composted their waste, two said they put it in trash bags and then in the

bin, eight said they burn foliage, and two said they specifically gather foliage around trees on

their property. 75 percent of individuals interviewed responded that they dispose of toxic waste

by putting it in trash bags with the rest of their trash. Two said they throw it away in a separate

19


bag and then into the bin. One interviewee said she buries her toxic waste, another sells toxic

waste, and another throws it around the yard.

Recycling

For a vast majority of community members interviewed in Gai Na, recycling was linked

directly to a vendor within the community. The vendor pays villagers for their recyclables (by

weight), then separates them and sells them to a middleman. Villagers receive 12B/kilo for

plastic bottles and the vendor receives 14-15B/kilo for plastic bottles from the middle man,

which leaves the vendor with a 2-3B profit for one kilo of plastic bottles. She commented that

there are no scavengers within the community but there are occasional scavengers from outside

the community that will scavenge the waste collection bins in Gai Na.

Burning

A vast majority of villagers burn their foliage because the municipality prohibits it from

being disposed at the waste disposal sites. Villagers are instructed to compost their foliage but

are permitted to burn it away from the village if there is a large quantity. One-fourth of

participants commented that they burn their foliage (along with occasional plastics and paper) on

a monthly basis. Observations from the community visits confirm that burning exists in villagers’

yard and near the waste collection bins and the temple.

Education

Education regarding waste management within the Ban Samran Gai Na community

occurs monthly through the Municipality office. The village headman is informed about any new

regulations, practices, or suggestions that the Municipality has regarding Gai Na’s waste

management. All community members are welcome to attend these educational sessions though

it was reported by the Municipality office that very rarely does anyone besides the village

20


headman attend. Following each educational session the headman informs the village health

volunteers of topics covered so that they may pass-on the information to the rest of the villagers.

Every individual interviewed informed us that they directed all of their questions and concerns

regarding waste management to the Municipality. Community members were all aware of how to

reach the Municipality as well as where the Municipality office was located.

Intervention Day

On May 7th, all members (five people) of the research group carried out the intervention

plan in Ban Samran Gai Na for three hours. The intervention plan consisted of distributing two

26x34 biodegradable trash bags and a waste separation flyer to 150 households as well as

collecting waste along the sides of the Gai Na road and around three waste collection bins. All

150 flyers (attached to two trash bags) were successfully distributed on the intervention day. An

additional 50 flyers were left at the Health Promoting Hospital to reach a wider population in the

Ban Samran district. By the end of the trash collection portion of the intervention, a total of four

30x40 biodegradable trash bags were filled with miscellaneous waste that included exploded

batteries, plastic bags, glass bottles, and styrofoam. Additionally, a summarized report of our

findings on Gai Na’s waste disposal system will be sent to the Khon Kaen Municipality Office to

further their understanding of villagers’ attitude on the current waste situation in the community.

Discussion

The data gathered from our research posed several pathways for intervention but a

presentation to the village health volunteers allowed us to solidify our intervention plan. Our data

showed that villagers were frustrated with the amount of waste, the smell of the waste, and the

inconsistent pickup of waste. Village Health Volunteers, additionally, were frustrated with

villagers not separating out food waste and neglecting to use bags. Data collected from

21


observation noted a broken sign at one of the major waste collection sites and waste strewn

around each bin site. Based on this information we drafted intervention components and allowed

the community members to direct the course of our intervention. Their priorities centered on

food separation, which would ideally decrease the smell of the trash and eliminate some of the

volume in the bins. In our intervention we successfully met our goals of distributing 150 flyers

and compostable bags, cleaning around each waste bin, and compiling research for the

municipality.

During our research and intervention we faced limitations in the quantity and quality of

data we were able to collect. Research took place on weekdays, limiting the amount of

individuals that were available for focus groups, semi-structured interviews, and in-depth

interviews. Additionally, it was difficult to coordinate focus groups on short notice, and the

meeting times were changed more than once, adding to the confusion. Options for interventions

were limited due to limited time and weak relations with the municipality office. We needed to

work with a bottom up approach; addressing villager behavior rather than the waste collection

system itself.

Despite limitations in our research and intervention, there were strengths to our methods

and intervention choices. In our semi-structured and in-depth discussion interviews, we chose

questions carefully to avoid receiving answers people thought they should give. Our questions

were not biased against waste burning and acknowledged a variety of different waste types and

how they might be disposed. Our semi-structured short interviews gave us a broad understanding

of waste management behaviors and problems in Gai Na. Our focus groups and in-depth

interviews with the municipality, headman’s assistant, and recycling vendor gave us a deeper

understanding of their community’s specific approach to waste management. The research we

22


gathered was relatively narrow in scope, therefore allowing us to specifically focus on the issue

of food separation.

Future work in the community should collaborate with the municipality and the village

health volunteers to assist in implementing existing health initiatives. In regards to waste

management, VHVs should prioritize coaching villagers to separate food waste and use it around

their yards, as well as bagging all of their waste that is to be discarded in the bins. The

municipality has begun a village composting initiative in neighboring communities, and should

consider expanding this program to Ban Samran Gai Na. Educating villagers and preparing them

for the initiative could ensure its success. Other areas of future research include villagers’

disposal of toxic waste, such as batteries, and the magnitude and severity of waste burning.

Exploring these areas of research could create interventions that could focus directly on health

concerns related to waste management.

Conclusion

As a result of our research we found that many members of the Ban Samran Gai Na

community separate the various parts of their waste but lack the knowledge of why food waste

should be separated from other kinds of waste. Additionally, we found that many households did

not compost their food waste and instead disposed of it in the community’s bins. Based on these

findings we created an intervention that would target the gaps in knowledge that lie between the

importance of separating compostable waste and how to dispose of it. In order to further assist

both the community and the municipality we bagged loose waste lying outside of the bins and

gathered a total of four 28x36in garbage bags. As a final effort, we will send the municipality

office our data and research in order to improve communications between the municipality and

23


community as well as to provide a foundation for any future initiatives to take place in the Ban

Samran Gai Na community.

24


Acknowledgements

The research team would like to recognize the work of CIEE and Khon Kaen University

staff and faculty. Translation by Nui and Lek throughout the data collection process was

indispensable. The feedback from the VHVs and HPH staff regarding proposed interventions

was greatly appreciated. Valuable information about the community was provided by the

scouting group of Alex King, Mary Clare Rosemeyer, Madi Kenzie, Gen Eng-Surowiec, and

Kelly Parrell. Lastly, we would like to thank the host families in Ban Samran for their

hospitality.

25


References

American Biogas Council. (2013). What is Anaerobic Digestion? Retrieved from

https://www.americanbiogascouncil.org/biogas_what.asp

Chak Cherdsatirkul. (2012). Generation and disposition of municipal solid waste (MSW)

management in Thailand. Columbia University. Retrieved from

http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Thailand_MSW_Chak_essay.pdf

Chiemchaisri, C., Juanga, JP., & Visvanathan, C. (2007). Municipal solid waste

management in Thailand and disposal emission inventory. Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment, 135. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17492361

Gheewala, Shabbir H., Dr. Bonnet, Sebastien., and Miss Menikpura, S.N.M. (2013). Thai

Style Recycling. Waste Management World. Retrieved from http://www.waste-

management-world.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-5/features/thai-style-

recycling.html

Government of Saskatchewan (SME). (2013). Ministry of Environment. Health and

Environmental Effects of Burning Municipal Solid Waste. Retrieved from

http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=753dade6-f2aa-

4fe1-9810-159290fd18d7

IGES Policy Report. (2012). A Guide for Sustainable Urban Organic Waste Management in

Thailand: Combining Food, Energy, and Climate Co-Benefits (2nd ed.). Japan: Author

Khon Kaen Municipality Office. (2014a). Good Environment and Good Life. Khon Kaen:

Thailand Government Printing Office

26


Khon Kaen Municipality Office. (2014b). No Garbage Village. Khon Kaen: Thailand

Government Printing Office

Lee, G.F. and A Jones-Lee. (1994, May). Impact of Municipal and Industrial

Non-Hazardous Waste Landfills on Public Health and the Environment: An

Overview. Prepared for California EPA Comparative Risk Project. Retrieved from

http://www.gfredlee.com/Landfills/cal_risk.pdf

Merriam-Webster. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Mills, C. and Andrews, J. (2009). Final report: Food waste collection. WRAP. Retrieved from

http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/food%20waste%20collection%20guidance%20-

%20amended%20Mar%202010_1.pdf

Salam, P. Abdul., Kumar, S., and Siriwardhana, Manjula. (2010, October). The Status of

Biomass Gasification in Thailand and Cambodia. Asian Institute of Technology.

Retrieved from

http://www.eepmekong.org/_downloads/Biomass_Gasification_report_final-

submitted.pdf

Thai Pollution Control Department. (2012, August). Municipal Waste Management.

Retrieved from Thailand PCD website

http://www.pcd.go.th/info_serv/waste_wastethai48_53.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2014a). Backyard

Burning. Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/backyard/index.htm

27


United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2014b). Reducing

Food Wastes for Businesses. Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/foodwaste/

28


Appendix A

Semi-Structured Interview Questions

Introduction:Hello! We are students from KKU. We are here to learn about the waste disposal system in your community. We’d like to ask you some questions. You are free to answer or not answer accordingly. Semi-Structured Interview Questions:1) How/where do you dispose of your waste?2) How do you dispose of :

a. Food wasteb. Recyclingc. Foliaged. Toxic wastee. Undefined (packaging, etc.)

3) How do you store your trash and how often do you empty it?4) Are you satisfied with the municipals trash service?5) Is there anything you think could be improved?6) Do you have any further concerns?7) If a problem arises, who do you contact?8) Do you know where the closest recycling center is? Have you ever used it?· Headman: What do you see as available resources? (9)Burning/(10)Recycling:a. Where do you burn your waste?b. What type of waste do you burn?c. What percentage of your waste do you burn?d. Under what circumstances do you burn your waste? Scavenging: 11) Are you aware of scavengers in your community and what they do?12) If you are a scavenger:o a. How often do you collect?o b. How much $ do you receive for collecting?o c. Where do you bring it? Education:13) How and where did you become educated about trash disposal in your community?

29


Appendix B

Focus Group Questions

Focus Group 1: Village Health Volunteers

1. What are your future wants/needs concerning waste disposal in this community?2. Do you have an idea about what your community wants/knows concerning this issue?3. Do you provide education programs regarding waste disposal?4. Are you satisfied with the municipal waste services in your community?

a. Why yes/no?5. Is there anything you think that could be improved?6. Do you think the waste management system in your community poses any health

concerns?7. If a problem arises, who do you contact? 8. Do community members pay for this service? How much? How often? Who does it go

to?

Focus Group 2: Community Members

1. Are you satisfied with the municipals trash service?2. Are the size and number of bins sufficient?3. Are the bins appropriately located and convenient?4. Do you feel that the trash collection points have improved the issue of waste disposal

within your community?5. What concerns do you have regarding waste disposal within your community?

a. Do you feel that your concerns are appropriately and effectively addressed?6. What improvements do you think could be made to the waste disposal system in your

community?7. Do you think the waste management system in your community poses any health

concerns?8. Do you know of any education programs regarding waste disposal?9. Are there other options available for disposing of foliage other than burning?10. How do you dispose of your trash - do each of you use plastic bags?11. Where do you dispose of your food waste?

a. are there any issue that accompany that method? (dogs, vermin, smell, etc)

30


Appendix C

In-depth Interview Questions: Khon Kaen Municipality Office

1. How often is garbage supposed to be collected in the Gai Na community?2. What waste do you accept? What waste do you not accept?3. Who in the community do you contact regarding waste collection?4. What are the common concerns that are brought to you from community members?5. Do you offer any education programs regarding waste disposal?6. What are some of your company’s long and short term goals regarding waste

management in the communities you serve?7. If the community were to increase the number of bins in their community would you be

able to service the additional bins?8. What are your regulations regarding disposal of foliage - can it be disposed of via the

waste bins?9. What are some ways that the Gai Na community could help you help them? (Trash bags,

etc.)

31


Appendix D

Picture Chart Used in Semi-Structured Interviews

32


Appendix E

Conceptual Framework

33


Appendix F

Intervention Flyer

Front

Back

34


Appendix G

Municipality Report

Waste Management in Ban Samran Gai Na

Liz Hart, Emily Strome, Annie Zhang, Laura Franke, and Alex King

Khon Kaen University

As American exchange students studying at the Faculty of Public Health at Khon Kaen

University, we have been learning about various public health issues and research methods. The

accumulation of the knowledge acquired in the past four months have culminated into a research

project focused on Ban Samran Gai Na’s waste management system because of a previous

community visit that had villagers repeatedly citing the current waste situation as an issue. As a

result, further information was gathered on the community’s solid waste management, with a

focus on the residents’ waste disposal behaviors for foliage, recyclables, food waste, and toxic

waste. The intention of this report is to provide the municipality with a better understanding of

villagers’ waste disposal behaviors as well as attitudes and opinions on the current waste

management system.

Project Overview

Research on Gai Na’s waste management system consisted of various focus groups and

interviews, which were 20 semi-structured interviews, two focus groups, and three unstructured

interviews with the community’s recycling vendor, headman’s assistant, and municipality

employee. From the data collected, an intervention day occurred to address the gaps found in Gai

Na’s waste disposal system.

Data Collected

Issues with Waste Disposal

While the four municipal collection waste bins have only been newly introduced to the

Gai-Na community, all of the interviewees utilize the bins to dispose their waste. Many of the

interviewees stated that they preferred the current disposal system compared to the previous

disposal system. The current waste disposal system has improved the waste situation in the

community, with 15 of the 20 interviewees satisfied with the changes made to the municipal’s

waste service.

35


Interviewees had suggestions for improving the current waste disposal system. The

overflow of the four collection waste bins is a concern for villagers, which has been further

exacerbated by the irregular waste pick-up times. Many of the interviewees listed inconsistent

pick-up times: some stated waste was picked up everyday, while others stated it was only picked

up once every two weeks.

During an interview with a Municipality staff member, there was expressed interest in

establishing a composting initiative in Gai Na to reduce the amount of waste in bins. By

establishing a composting initiative in Gai Na, there would be less organic waste, which would

subsequently decrease the amount of overall waste in the bins. However, in a focus group with

Meh Bans, many were disinterested in a composting project because there is no space, time, and

interest for such an initiative.

Separation of Waste

Each interviewee for the semi-structured interviews was asked how they separate their

trash and disposed of food waste, recycling, yard waste/foliage, and toxic waste. Of the twenty

community members interviewed, six villagers said their household separates out food waste and

composts it, six said they put food waste in a separate bag and place it in the bin, and eight said

they put it in their regular trash bag and put the bag in the bin. Regarding recycling, 18

interviewees sell their recyclables to a vendor within the community, one said they sell their

recyclables directly to the recycling center, and one said they throw recyclables away. For yard

waste and foliage: five interviewees said they composted their waste, two said they put it in trash

bags and then in the bin, eight said they burn foliage, and two said they specifically gather

foliage around trees on their property. 75 percent of those interviewed responded that they

dispose of toxic waste by putting it in trash bags with the rest of their trash. Two said they throw

it away in a separate bag and then into the bin. One interviewee said she buries her toxic waste,

another sells toxic waste, another throws it around the yard.

Recycling

For a vast majority of community members interviewed in Gai Na, recycling was linked

directly to a vendor within the community. The vendor pays villagers for their recyclables (by

weight), then separates them and sells them to a middleman. There are no scavengers within the

community but there are occasional scavengers from outside the community that will scavenge

the waste collection bins in Gai Na.

36


Burning

A vast majority of villagers (over one-fourth of participants) burn their foliage because

the municipality prohibits it from being disposed at the waste disposal sites. Observations from

the community visits confirm that burning exists in villagers’ yard and near the waste collection

bins and the temple.

Education

Every individual interviewed informed us that they directed all of their questions and

concerns regarding waste management to the Municipality. Community members were all aware

of how to reach the Municipality as well as where the Municipality office was located. Despite

this awareness of municipality educational sessions and programs, and VHV knowledge on

waste disposal, community members remained uneducated about waste management, especially

regarding separation of waste.

Intervention

On May 7th, all members (five people) of the research group carried out the intervention

plan in Ban Samran Gai Na for three hours. The intervention plan consisted of distributing two

26x34 biodegradable trash bags and a waste separation flyer to 150 households as well as

collecting waste along the sides of the Gai Na road and around three waste collection bins. A

total of four 30x40 biodegradable trash bags were filled with miscellaneous waste that included

exploded batteries, plastic bags, glass bottles, and Styrofoam.

In sharing our findings, we hope to improve the understanding and communication between the municipality office and Ban Samran Gai Na.

37

Final - file · Web viewThe purpose of this study was to gain a baseline understanding of...

Documents

Transcript of Final - file · Web viewThe purpose of this study was to gain a baseline understanding of...