Municipal Solid Waste Generation
-
Upload
proleceo11 -
Category
Documents
-
view
57 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Municipal Solid Waste Generation
This article was downloaded by: [Tanmoy Karak]On: 19 June 2012, At: 14:49Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Critical Reviews in EnvironmentalScience and TechnologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/best20
Municipal Solid Waste Generation,Composition, and Management: TheWorld ScenarioTanmoy Karak a , R. M. Bhagat a & Pradip Bhattacharyya ba Tocklai Experimental Station, Tea Research Association, Assam,Indiab 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 WasteGeneration, Composition, and Management: The World Scenario, Critical Reviews in EnvironmentalScience 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. Anysubstantial 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 representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 42:1509–1630, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1064-3389 print / 1547-6537 onlineDOI: 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
1Tocklai Experimental Station, Tea Research Association, Assam, India2Department of Renewable Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the abridgment of the waste gen-erated from domestic, commercial, and construction activities bynatural persons that is collected and treated by municipalities. Ex-ponential growth of population and urbanization, and the devel-opment of social economy, coupled with the improvement of livingstandard, have resulted in an increase in the amount of MSW gen-eration throughout the world. On average the developed countriestypically generate 521.95–759.2 kg per person per year (kpc) and109.5–525.6 kpc typically by developing countries. Recent estimatessuggest that the MSW generation globally exceeds 2 billion tons peryear, which is a potential threat to environmental dilapidation.Therefore, MSW management (MSWM) seems to be one of the keytopics for environmental protection in present days and also in thefuture. The authors have illustrated MSW generation and composi-tion analysis and have provided a comprehensive review of MSWMin different countries throughout the world based on the availableliteratures. Some of the important aspects of waste management,such as composting, landfilling, and incineration, are illustrated.
KEY WORDS: landfilling, composting, incineration, MSW, MSWcomposition, MSW generation rate, MSW management, recycling
Address correspondence to Tanmoy Karak, Tocklai Experimental Station, Tea ResearchAssociation, Jorhat-8, Assam, India. E-mail: [email protected]
1509
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1510 T. Karak et al.
INTRODUCTION
It is well documented that humans are the principal factor for breaking theecological diversity in the environment and that subsequently comes as anend of environmental pollution. Population growth and increasing consumerchoices have resulted in a large production showing worldwide. Most pro-duction facilitates lack environmental control in industrial processes, and alsoinadequate or insufficient facilities for waste management and treatment. In-crease in urban growth has further resulted in an increase in the generationof waste from residential sites, private and public service facilities, and con-struction and demolition activities as new subdivisions are established. Asthe population density in urban areas is generally very high throughout theworld, therefore the daily consumption pattern is also high. Besides this,the quantity of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation is also associatedwith the economic status of a society (Shekdar, 2009). A large percentageof trash that is generated now is the result of the products that are used orbrought, which become wastes after use. This is considered as municipalsolid waste or prevalently MSW and its final disposal is the last phase of theurban sanitation system of any city. It is closely related to the preservation ofthe environment as well as of the public health. Therefore, the control andtreatment of MSW must be done through an intelligent system that minimizesits negative impacts on the ecosystem. Increased generation of householdwaste, which surpasses the assimilation capacity of the ecosystem and theinsufficient installed capacity of disposed yards for its handling, promotesthe proliferation of open air dumps, with an increased threat to the publichealth, ecosystem, and quality of life. Based on the population estimatesby the Population Division of the United Nations and the gross domesticproduct (GDP) predicted by the World Bank, it is likely to be expected thattotal solid waste will be increased to 27 billion tons in 2050 from 13 billiontons in the year 1990 (Beede and Bloom, 1995). At present, the annual to-tal solid waste generation is approximately 17 billion tons (Chattopadhyayet al., 2009). Global generation of MSW in 1997 was 0.49 billion tons with anestimated annual growth rate of 3.2–4.5% in developed nations and 2–3% indeveloping nations (Suocheng et al., 2001).
Quantification and characterization of MSW is one of the vital formula-tions of its management strategy. In the developed economies, reliable dataon MSW generation and management are updated and are available in theliterature. These data are normally collected on a daily basis, which providesa rational basis for planning and executing waste management operations.On the other hand, in developing economies the data on MSW generationhave a short history and insufficient national data or data of a large urban orperiurban population center (Shekdar, 2009). However, anthology of MSWstudy throughout the world is scant. Therefore, in the present article weassess worldwide situation of MSW generation and composition to identify
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1511
issues relevant to MSW management (MSWM), and formulate a strategy forimproving sustainable management of MSW.
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF MSW THROUGHOUTTHE WORLD
Generally, in European countries and Organization for Economic Coopera-tion and Development (OECD) countries, MSW covers waste from house-holds (82% of total MSW) including bulky waste, waste from commerceand trade, office buildings, institutions and small businesses, yard and gar-den waste, street sweepings, the contents of litter containers, and marketcleansing waste (Eurostat, 2003). The definition of MSW excludes wastefrom municipal sewage networks and treatment, as well as municipal con-struction and demolition waste. However, national definitions of MSW maydiffer (OECD, 2007a). In a developing economy, MSW is generally definedas the waste produced in a municipality. Most of the MSWs generated indeveloping countries are nonsegregated and, therefore, it may be either haz-ardous or nonhazardous. In general, whatsoever be the source of MSW, itsimpact on environment and quality of life is mainly related to air, water,and soil contaminations. It is also related to space consumption, odors, andesthetic 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, Den-mark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, Nether-lands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The total MSWgeneration in million tons and the generation rate in kilograms per personper 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 theEU-15 by 4.6% from 540 to 565 kpc. Among the EU-15 countries, Denmarkreported considerably higher amounts of MSW generation rate (i.e., 802 kpc[equivalent to 3.77 million tons]) for the year 2008 (Eurostat, 2009). On theother 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 forits proper management. Nationwide MSW composition pattern in some se-lected cities among the countries of EU-15 are tabulated in Table 1. Besides,throughout the documentation for MSW composition, the whole MSW is
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1512 T. Karak et al.
classified as organic material (including vegetables, food, and garden waste),paper and paperboard (including paper, wrapper, cardboard, and packag-ing paper), plastics (including plastic bags, plastic bottles, and packagingmaterial), glass/ceramics (including glass bottles, broken glass, pottery itemsand earthen pot), metals (cables, foils, ferrous and nonferrous material), andothers (including textiles).
FIGURE 1. Total MSW generation and generation rate in the year 1998–2008 for EU-15(Eurostat, 2009; DEFRA, 2008). (Continued)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1513
The percentage wise contributions of organic material in MSW, gen-erated in the year 2005 in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, and France wererecorded 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 organicmatter 27%, paper and paperboard 18.7%, plastics 6.1%, glass 11.5%, metals3.9%, and textiles and others 32.9% (Vehlow, 1996). Presently Germany hasmore or less implemented different multibin or bag collection systems all
FIGURE 1. (Continued)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1514 T. Karak et al.
FIGURE 1. (Continued)
over the country, through different types of wastes being separated in thehouseholds. The present organic matter content in MSW is only 14% (OECD,2007a).
According to the National Waste Management Planning of Greece, MSWconsisted of 47.0% organic material, 20.0% paper and paperboard, 8.5% plas-tics, 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 recy-clable materials (potentially available for separate collection) was estimatedas 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, Lux-embourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain was recorded as 25%, 29%,45%, 35%, 34%, and 49%, respectively. However, in these countries, paperand paperboard contributes 31%, 28%, 22%, 26%, 21%, and 21% of the totalMSW, respectively. Among the different composition in MSW, paper and pa-perboard contributes a higher percentage, which was 68% for the year 2005,however it was 74% for the year 2000 (OECD, 2007a).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
1.
Per
centa
geofphys
ical
com
posi
tion
ofM
SWge
ner
ated
from
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dim
portan
tci
ties
ofEU
-15
Pap
erTex
tiles
Org
anic
and
Gla
ss/
&Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
ater
ial
pap
erboar
dPla
stic
sCer
amic
Met
als
oth
ers
Ref
eren
ce
Aust
ria
Nat
ionw
ide
1999
30.0
27.0
13.0
11.0
7.0
12.0
OECD
,20
07a
Nat
ionw
ide
2004
35.0
22.0
11.0
8.0
5.0
19.0
OECD
,20
07a
Vie
nna
NA
24.0
35.0
6.0
9.0
10.0
16.0
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89V
ienna
1997
37.0
22.0
4.0
16.0
5.0
16.0
Salh
ofe
ret
al.,
1999
Bel
gium
Nat
ionw
ide
1995
41.0
16.0
5.0
6.0
3.0
29.0
OECD
,20
07a
Nat
ionw
ide
2003
39.0
17.0
5.0
7.0
3.0
29.0
OECD
,20
07a
Den
mar
kN
atio
nw
ide
1979
34.0
34.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
14.0
OECD
,20
07a
Nat
ionw
ide
2003
29.0
27.0
0.8
5.0
6.0
32.2
OECD
,20
07a
Finla
nd
Nat
ionw
ide
1990
30.0
51.0
5.0
6.0
2.0
6.0
Sokk
aet
al.,
2007
Nat
ionw
ide
2000
33.0
40.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
OECD
,20
07a
Esp
oo,H
elsi
nki
,K
aunia
inen
and
Van
taa
1995
28.0
30.0
7.0
4.0
4.0
27.0
Tan
skan
en,20
00
Fran
ceN
atio
nw
ide
2002
32.0
20.0
9.0
10.0
3.0
26.0
OECD
,20
07a
Men
de
inth
edis
tric
tof
Loze
re20
0529
.423
.314
.84.
25.
422
.9B
ayar
det
al.,
2010
Par
isN
A40
.916
.38.
49.
43.
221
.8Sc
har
ffan
dV
oge
l,19
94G
erm
any
Nat
ionw
ide
1983
43.1
18.7
6.1
11.5
3.9
16.7
Veh
low
,19
96N
atio
nw
ide
2005
30.0
24.0
13.0
10.0
1.0
22.0
Muhle
etal
.,20
10B
erlin
2003
15.0
20.0
23.0
7.0
2.0
33.0
Zhan
get
al.,
2010
aB
onn
NA
21.0
20.0
2.0
10.0
5.0
42.0
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89M
unic
hN
A40
.023
.06.
012
.04.
015
.0Sc
har
ffan
dV
oge
l,19
94G
reec
eN
atio
nw
ide
2001
47.0
20.0
8.5
4.5
4.5
15.5
Erk
utet
al.,
2008
Ath
ens
1984
59.0
19.5
7.0
2.5
4.0
8.0
Gid
arak
os
etal
.,20
06Chan
ia19
9055
.019
.08.
04.
03.
011
.0Par
isak
iset
al.,
1990
Her
aklio
n19
8752
.517
.214
.31.
42 .
512
.1G
idar
akos
etal
.,20
06K
alam
ata
1992
47.0
25.0
7.5
3.0
3.0
14.5
Par
isak
iset
al.,
1992
Kom
otin
i19
9367
.09.
06.
02.
03.
013
.0G
idar
akos
etal
.,20
06K
os
1989
37.0
25.0
11.0
12.0
3.0
12.0
Par
isak
iset
al.,
1991
Pyl
aia
1998
41.0
23.0
4.0
3.0
13.0
16.0
Gid
arak
os
etal
.,20
06Rhodes
1988
42.0
14.0
12.0
2.0
10.0
20.0
Gid
arak
os
etal
.,20
06Sa
lonic
a19
9826
.629
.018
.04.
03.
419
.0G
idar
akos
etal
.,20
06X
anth
i19
9362
.015
.07.
02.
03.
011
.0G
idar
akos
etal
.,20
06
(Con
tin
ued
onn
ext
page
)
1515
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
1.
Per
centa
geofphys
ical
com
posi
tion
ofM
SWge
ner
ated
from
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dim
portan
tci
ties
ofEU
-15
(Con
tin
ued
)
Pap
erTex
tiles
Org
anic
and
Gla
ss/
&Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
ater
ial
pap
erboar
dPla
stic
sCer
amic
Met
als
oth
ers
Ref
eren
ce
Ital
yN
atio
nw
ide
2005
29.0
28.0
5.0
13.0
2.0
22.0
OECD
,20
07a
Rom
eN
A50
.018
.04.
04.
03.
021
.0A
liK
han
and
Burn
ey,19
89Si
cily
2004
27.5
33.5
17.0
4.5
3.0
14.5
Mes
sineo
and
Pan
no,20
08Ir
elan
dN
atio
nw
ide
2005
25.0
31.0
11.0
5.0
4.0
23.0
OECD
,20
07a
Dublin
1992
45.6
21.1
8.8
5.0
3.7
15.8
Den
nis
on
etal
.,19
96Lu
xem
bourg
Nat
ionw
ide
1995
35.0
24.0
2.0
16.0
7.0
16.0
OECD
,20
07a
Nat
ionw
ide
2003
45.0
22.0
0.8
12.0
4.0
16.2
OECD
,20
07a
Net
her
lands
Nat
ionw
ide
1996
30.0
32.7
4.2
3.4
5.5
24.2
Saka
iet
al.,
1996
Am
ster
dam
NA
50.0
23.0
5.0
13.0
3.0
6.0
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89Portuga
lN
atio
nw
ide
1994
34.0
23.0
12.0
5.0
3.0
23.0
OECD
,20
07a
Nat
ionw
ide
2001
35.5
25.9
11.4
5.4
2.6
19.2
Mag
rinho
etal
.,20
06Sp
ain
Nat
ionw
ide
2002
48.0
21.0
12.0
8.0
4.0
7.0
OECD
,20
07a
Cas
tello
n20
02(p
redic
ted)
57.1
15.2
10.1
7.1
3.8
6.7
Vid
alet
al.,
2001
Cas
tello
nde
laPla
na
2007
57.0
15.0
10.0
7.0
4.0
7.0
Bove
aet
al.,
2010
Churr
iana
de
laVeg
ain
Gra
nad
a20
0855
.520
.016
.58.
0N
RN
RZam
ora
no
etal
.,20
09
Gip
uzk
oa
2016
(pre
dic
ted)
70.5
16.3
3 .8
4.9
1.9
2.6
Munoz
etal
.,20
04M
adrid
1985
45.0
21.0
NR
4.0
3.0
27.0
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89Pam
plo
na
1995
43.0
23.0
6.0
10.0
3.0
15.0
Wils
on,20
02Sw
eden
Nat
ionw
ide
2002
39.0
40.0
6.8
6.2
4.9
3.1
OECD
,20
07a
Stock
holm
NA
NA
68.0
2.0
11.0
2.0
17.0
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89U
nite
dK
ingd
om
Nat
ionw
ide
1996
33.5
26.4
8.9
5.7
8.8
16.9
Das
kalo
poulo
set
al.,
1998
Nat
ionw
ide
2005
32.7
23.3
23.7
4.3
6.2
9.8
Muhle
etal
.,20
10N
atio
nw
ide
2009
41.0
18.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
19.0
DEFR
A,20
10Lo
ndon
and
Bed
ford
2004
17. 0
45.0
9.0
7.0
6.0
16.0
Poll,
2004
Luto
n19
9344
.822
.310
.46.
23.
612
.7B
urn
ley,
2007
Mid
lands
1993
30.9
25.1
15.3
7.3
13.2
8.2
Burn
ley
etal
.,20
07Rhondda
Cyn
on
Taf
County
Boro
ugh
Counci
l20
0227
.045
.010
.04.
06.
08.
0Em
ery
etal
.,20
07
Wal
es20
0333
.722
.710
.06.
64.
322
.7B
urn
ley
etal
.,20
07
Not
e.N
A=
notav
aila
ble
;N
R=
notre
ported
.
1516
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 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 theEU-15. Most of these countries are considered as developed countries exceptAlbania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova,Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey. Therefore, data of nationwide MSW gener-ation 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 generationin the year 2005 in a different prefecture such as Berat (World Heritagedesignated 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 theWorld Heritage designated place), Korce (city in southeastern Albania andsurrounded by the Morava Mountains), Kukes (town city in Albania and setamong the mountains of northern Albania), Lezhe (city in northwest Albania),Shkoder (lake city in northwestern Albania and one of the oldest and mosthistoric 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 as0.02, 0.01, 0.04, 0.03, 0.04, 0.01, 0.02, 0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.12, and 0.03 milliontons, 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 ofurban waste (Karaj et al., 2010). Presently MSW productions in Tirana are280 kpc on average in urban areas and 110 kpc in rural areas.
In Azerbaijan, MSW generated was approximately 182.5 kpc. Exact dataon the quantities of waste generated in Bosnia and Herzegovina are notavailable. However, according to the Regional Environmental Center (2000),Bosnia and Herzegovina generated 1.5 million kg of MSW for the year 2000with respect to 3.8 million population, of which the urban population hadgenerated 1.2 million kg per year (population 3.04 million) and the ruralpopulation had generated 0.3 million kg of MSW per year (population 0.76million). Quantification of MSW in Kosovo is not in a good state due to thelack of completed legislation for waste management, and lack of infrastruc-ture for waste collection services and waste treatment. According to GTZdata, 2.3 million urban people in Kosovo produced 0.25 million tons MSW,which means 109.5 kpc in the year 2004 (GTZ, 2004).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1518 T. Karak et al.
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
Bera
t
Dib
er
Du
rres
Elb
asan
Fie
r
Gjiro
kaste
r
Ko
rce
Ku
kes
Lezh
e
Sh
ko
der
Tir
an
e
Vlo
re
Location
To
tal M
SW
gen
era
tio
n (
millio
n t
on
s)
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
MS
W g
en
era
tio
n r
ate
(kp
c)
Total MSW generation
MSW (kpc)
FIGURE 2. Total MSW production in Albania per prefecture for the year 2005 (Data extractedfrom Karaj et al., 2010).
In the mid-nineties of the last century, Kruger International Consult ofDenmark (1999), in cooperation with VKI, Denmark, and Symonds Group,United Kingdom, conducted a study on the National Solid Waste Manage-ment System (NSWMS) in Macedonia, funded by the Phare Program of theEU. It was found that the daily generation rate of solid waste in Macedoniawas about 300 kpc and 150 kpc for the urban and rural areas, respectively. AnEnvironmental Performance Review for Macedonia conducted by the UnitedNations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE; 2002), in which it wasestimated 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 thesummer of 2002) by Hristovski et al. (2007) was conducted in the municipal-ity 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 inMoldova remains at the same stage of situation as 20 years ago (Gavrilita,2006). Total MSW generation in Moldova for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003was 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 tothe collapse of the Soviet Union. As a result the drop of waste generation in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1519
Moldova may be ascribed as the fall in the demand, consequently reducedindustrial 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 businessesabout 20%. Generally, solid waste is collected only from urban centers, whichis about 60–70% of the total collected MSW (2.2 million tons annually) andthere is no organized waste collection and treatment in rural areas.
In Turkey, there are 3,215 municipalities, and 16 of them are metropoli-tan municipalities. A total of 2,984 municipalities have solid waste man-agement services. In summer and winter seasons of 2002, 12.70 and 12.67million tons of solid waste were generated by the municipalities that hadsolid waste management services (Agdag, 2009). In Turkey, the solid wastegeneration rates in summer and in winter were 481.8 and 489.1 kpc, re-spectively. According to Turan et al. (2009), the rate of waste generationin Turkey in the areas with the lowest population (<100,000) is 616.9 kpc,whereas in the areas with the highest 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 0.18million tons in 2006, because of increasing population and economic devel-opment. A very recent study reported that the amount of MSW generatedfrom other locations in Turkey, such as Canakkale (a town and seaport inTurkey; population in 2009: 96588), Kusadasi-Aydin (seaside district and aresort town in Turkey; population in 2000: 65,764), Manisa (a large city inTurkey; population in 2009: 0.29 million), Izmir (second largest port city inTurkey; population in 2009: 2.72 million), Balikesir (population in 2009: 0.26million), 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 themunicipality of Corlu Town (417′30′′ eastern longitude and 274′ northernlatitude; population in 2007: 0.21 million), 170 tons of waste are collecteddaily and the waste generation rate is 419.8 kpc (Tinmaz and Demir, 2006).The present MSW production in Gumushane (in the Eastern Black Sea Re-gion of Turkey; population in 2009: 39,290) is approximately 365 kpc or 70tons per day (tpd) (Nas and Bayram, 2008). Presently metropolitan Istanbul(largest city in Turkey; population in 2009: 12.78 million) in Turkey producesabout 5.11 million tons of solid waste per year (Kanat, 2010). A significantchange of overall MSW generation from 1998 to 2008 was also observed inthis country (Figure 3).
According to the Environmental Department of Andorran Government,the MSW generation rate in the Balearic Islands (Spain) was recorded as547.5 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 generationrate in Dalmatia (having four counties: Zadar, Sibenik-Knin, Split-Dalmatia,and Dubrovnik, covering a land area of 12.990 km2) in Croatia was found tobe 292 kpc due to inhabitants and 365 kpc due to tourists. There, the rate of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1520 T. Karak et al.
waste generation was highly influenced by the population type as the rateof waste generation in rural areas being around 109.5 kpc, while in urbanareas it is 310.3 kpc. Therefore, it can be estimated that Dalmatia annuallygenerates 0.27 million tons of MSW, most of which is from urban areas alongthe Adriatic coast.
MSW generation for the year 2001 in different cities of Cyprus suchas Nicosia (the capital and largest city of Cyprus), Limassol (second largest
FIGURE 3. Generation of MSW in other EU countries.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 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 solidwaste generated by the municipalities (Eleftheriou, 2002). More than 750 kpcwas generated in 2007 in Cyprus. In the same year Malta had generated600–750 kpc and Sweden generated between 500 and 600 kpc. The memberstates Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia, and Lithuania were with values between
FIGURE 3. (Continued)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1522 T. Karak et al.
FIGURE 3. (Continued)
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 byDanube Region of Bulgaria, having 20 municipalities, is 0.33 million tonsper year. The average amount of MSW production in the Czech Republic in2001 was 273 kpc (Sauer 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 mixedresidual waste. MSW generation rate in Malta for the year 2000 was 0.48tons per capita per year (Pipatti et al., 2006). MSW generation in Icelandwas recorded only 0.02 million tons for the year 1995 (Eurostat, 1996). MSWgeneration 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 2.9million tons with 596 kpc (OECD, 2002) and in the year 2008 it was recordedonly 490 kpc. In Poland, the amount of municipal wastes has been increasingcontinuously since 1992. Since 1975 its weights has almost got doubled, andin the years 1985–1998 it got by almost 8%, reaching 12.28 million tons in1998 (Grodzinska-Jurczak, 2001). It is expected that for next few years theamount of waste (mostly MSW) generated in Poland will continue to rise(Grodzinska-Jurczak, 2001). The generation of total MSW in Poland for the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1523
year 2003 has been reported as 260 kpc (European Commission, 2003). Theamount of MSW varies from region to region in Poland and is proportional tothe population density. The largest amount of municipal wastes is generatedin the Lower Silesia province (historical region in Poland; 14.9 million tons),the Kujawy-Pomorze province (historical and ethnographic region in thecenter of Poland; 6.3 million tons), and the Lublin province (the ninth largestcity in Poland; 5.6 million tons; Pauli-Wilga, 1996). MSW generation in Polandfor the year 2008 was recorded as 12.2 million tons (Figure 3), which isequal to 320 kpc (Eurostat, 2009a, 2009b). Besides this, extensive studies areavailable on solid waste composition and quantities in Poland by den Boeret al. (2010). In these literatures the municipal waste in Warsaw (capital ofPoland) is also frequently monitored for quantity and quality, in accordancewith the methods as prescribed by Polish Standard of MSW (Skalmowski,2001, 2005). These results conclude that the quantity of waste per capitashowed a steady increase in the early 1990s and this value has decreased byapproximately 10% since 1996.
The Soviet economy produced an average of only 56–57 million tons ofdomestic 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 theUSSR from all sources were approximately 9 billion tons annually, equaling195 kpc (Pirogov, 1988). In the year 1989, the Russian (population about145 million) economy produced 27 million tons of trash (about 48% of theSoviet total), or 186 kilograms per inhabitant (Hunsicker et al., 1996). In1991, the USSR created about 163 million tons of MSW annually, equalingabout 655 kpc (U.S. Census Bureau, 1991). In the year 2000, the RussianFederation generated 50 million tons of MSW, equaling 340 kpc, which isa 112% increase since the year 1980 (Twardowska and Allen, 2004). How-ever, no details of present survey data on MSW generation in these countriesare available. Amount of total residential waste generation in Ukraine forthe 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, Slo-vakia, 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 milliontons, respectively (Eurostat, 2009a, 2009b).
In a nutshell, among the all EU countries (i.e., EU-15 and other Europeancountries), on average 522 kpc of municipal waste was generated in 2008,where MSW generated per person varied from 294 kg in the Czech Republicto 801 kg in Denmark.
Composition of MSW in Other European Countries
A typical data from the European countries (other than EU-15) are tabu-lated in Table 2. Among these countries, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
2.
Per
centa
geofphys
ical
com
posi
tion
ofM
SWge
ner
ated
from
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dm
ajor
citie
sofEU
oth
erth
anEU
-15
Pap
erTex
tiles
Org
anic
and
Gla
ss/
&Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
ater
ial
pap
erboar
dPla
stic
sCer
amic
Met
als
oth
ers
Ref
eren
ce
Bulg
aria
Nat
ionw
ide
1990
41.0
14.2
4.4
3.3
4.5
32.6
Andre
evsk
a,19
90Cze
chRep
ublic
Nat
ionw
ide
1995
18.0
8.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
63.0
OECD
,20
07a
Cyp
rus
Nat
ionw
ide
2005
39.0
24.0
5.0
1.5
2.0
28.5
Ele
fther
iou,20
07Paf
os
2007
40.6
29.6
12.3
1.4
1.4
14.7
Ath
anas
siou
and
Zab
anio
tou,20
08K
oso
voN
atio
nw
ide
2004
30.5
25.7
7.3
11.3
15.5
9.7
GTZ,20
04Li
thuan
iaN
atio
nw
ide
2005
43.0
9.0
9.0
7.0
4.0
28.0
Mili
ute
and
Stan
iski
s,20
10N
atio
nw
ide
2010
36.0
15.0
12.0
8.0
2.0
27.0
Mili
ute
and
Stan
iski
s,20
10H
unga
ryN
atio
nw
ide
2005
29.0
15.0
17.0
2.0
2.0
35.0
OECD
,20
07a
Mold
ova
Nat
ionw
ide
2003
68.5
5.1
9.7
4.1
3.1
9.5
Gav
rilit
a,20
06Pola
nd
Nat
ionw
ide
1998
31.0
19.0
4.0
8.0
4.0
34.0
Gro
dzi
nsk
a-Ju
rcza
k,20
01City
ofJa
slo
1998
53.0
19.0
4.0
8.0
3.0
13.0
Gro
dzi
nsk
a-Ju
rcza
ket
al.,
2003
War
saw
2003
32.2
18.4
16.5
11.3
3.0
18.6
den
Boer
etal
.,20
10K
rako
w20
0340
.510
.212
.110
.11.
825
.3den
Boer
etal
.,20
10Turk
eyN
atio
nw
ide
2000
53.9
14.3
10.1
4.0
2.9
14.9
Met
inet
al.,
2003
Bal
ikes
irN
A67
.08.
03.
03.
05.
014
.0M
etin
etal
.,20
03B
eylik
duzu
2005
48.8
10.6
24.2
5.5
2.4
8.5
Kan
at,20
10B
urs
aN
A53
.118
.411
.63.
43.
010
.5M
etin
etal
.,20
03Can
akka
le19
9980
.07.
03.
02.
01.
07.
0K
irki
tsos
etal
.,20
00Cat
alca
2005
35.1
15.7
20.4
3.6
2.3
22.9
Kan
at,20
10Corlu
Tow
n20
0254
.211
.35.
83.
21.
524
.1Tin
maz
and
Dem
ir,20
06
1524
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
Den
izli
city
1995
65.6
8.4
9.4
3.3
5.2
8.1
Agd
ag,20
09D
eniz
lici
ty20
0443
.710
.319
.33.
2N
A23
.5Agd
ag,20
09D
eniz
lici
ty20
0542
.012
.017
.54.
01.
523
.0Agd
ag,20
09Em
inonu
2005
47.5
18.5
16.9
6.0
1.7
9.3
Kan
at,20
10Fa
tih20
0540
.77.
723
.24.
21.
722
.5K
anat
,20
10G
um
ush
ane
2005
29.8
9.8
7.9
3.3
1.6
47.6
Nas
and
Bay
ram
,20
08Is
tanbul
1980
60.8
10.2
3.1
0.7
1.4
23.9
Koca
soy,
1996
Ista
nbul
1999
48.0
8.4
11.0
4.6
2.3
25.7
Ber
kun
etal
.,20
05Is
tanbul
2005
60.5
9.8
11.9
6.1
1.5
10.2
Kan
at,20
10Iz
mir
NA
46.0
12.0
12.0
4.0
3.0
23.0
Met
inet
al.,
2003
Kusa
das
i-ay
dın
1998
14.8
5.8
1.9
2.3
3.7
71.9
Kirki
tsos
etal
.,20
00M
anis
aN
A62
.61.
54.
51.
12.
128
.2M
etin
etal
.,20
03M
ugl
aN
A20
.04.
02.
02.
03.
069
.0M
etin
etal
.,20
03Sa
riye
r20
0555
.615
.315
.09.
41.
03.
7K
anat
,20
10Si
livri
2005
55.8
9.4
19.6
5.8
0.3
9.2
Kan
at,20
10Tra
bzo
nN
A1.
028
.036
.011
.011
.013
.0Ers
oy
etal
.,20
08Y
akuplu
2005
49.3
10.6
14.4
4.1
3.5
18.5
Kan
at,20
10Sw
itzer
land
Gen
eva
1989
29.5
32.0
8.0
8.5
2.5
19.5
Lero
yet
al.,
1992
Not
e.N
A=
notav
aila
ble
.
1525
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1526 T. Karak et al.
Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, and Serbia, thereare 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 organicsand paper, compared with the lower amounts of plastics, glass, and metalsreported so far. On the basis of the selected MSW data in some prefecture ofAlbania, it has been observed that the components of MSW are mainly pa-per, cardboard, plastics, wood, and other combustible materials (Karaj et al.,2010). Metals, glass, and other noncombustible materials are included in asmall quantity. About 80% of MSW composition is biodegradable (Ministry ofEnvironment, 2005). Adana city in Turkey generated high amounts of organicmatter (64%) in MSW, followed by Mersin (63%), Bursa (53%), Izmir (43%),and Istanbul (46%). A high organic fraction of MSW has also been reportedin many cities of Turkey (43–64%; Metin et al., 2003). The present typicalrange 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 foodproducts, despite perennial food shortages. This phenomenon can be at-tributed to two factors: a smaller volume of plastics, paper, and metal dis-carded (a function, in part, of modest packaging practices) and a large shareof 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%), pa-per 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 matterpresent 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 ac-count for most of the municipal solid waste management budget. Despitethis high expenditure, only a small fraction of the waste generated is col-lected (Eawag, 2008). On the basis of the available literature, the picture ofMSW generation in Southeast Asian countries and in their important citiesis shown in Table 3. Among 0.38 million total population in Brunei, about59.0% stay in the urban region and produce 54.45 million tons solid wasteper 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 79.18million tons per year (i.e., 346.8 kpc; Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). In the year1995, the total amount of MSW generated in Cambodia was 1.29 million tons
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
3.
MSW
gener
atio
nin
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dse
lect
edci
ties
ofSo
uth
east
Asi
a
Annual
MSW
MSW
Popula
tion
gener
atio
nge
ner
atio
n(in
(in
mill
ion
(in
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
illio
ns)
tons)
kpc)
Rem
arks
Ref
eren
ce
Bru
nei
Nat
ionw
ide
1999
0.39
0.09
240.
9B
runei
isone
ofth
edev
eloped
country
inSo
uth
east
Asi
aN
goc
and
Schnitz
er,20
09
Cam
bodia
Nat
ionw
ide
1999
14.1
72.
6918
9.8
Cam
bodia
isa
country
inSo
uth
east
Asi
a.Fo
rth
epas
t20
year
sth
isco
untry
has
bee
ncl
assi
fied
asone
ofth
epoore
stco
untrie
sin
the
world
Ngo
can
dSc
hnitz
er,20
09
Phnom
Pen
h20
042.
610.
6223
7.3
Phnom
Pen
his
the
capita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Cam
bodia
.N
origo
rous
estim
ate
ofth
ew
aste
gener
atio
nav
aila
ble
Kum
etal
.,20
05
Indones
iaN
atio
nw
ide
2005
107.
2531
.32
292.
0In
dones
iais
aco
untry
inSo
uth
east
Asi
aan
dO
cean
ia.It
isth
ew
orld’s
fourth
most
populo
us
country.
Popula
tion
was
consi
der
edfo
rth
een
tire
country.
Shek
dar
,20
09
Ban
dung
2005
2.62
0.55
209.
0B
andung
isth
ese
cond
larg
estm
etro
polit
anar
eain
Indones
ia.66
%ofth
eto
talM
SWis
origi
nat
ing
from
house
hold
s.
Dam
anhuri
etal
.,20
09
Jaka
rta
1986
7.00
1.28
182.
5Ja
karta
isth
eca
pita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Indones
ia.
Man
iatis
etal
.,19
87
Sem
aran
g19
951.
300.
1813
4.8
Sem
aran
g,th
eca
pita
lci
tyofth
eCen
tral
Java
Pro
vince
,In
dones
ia.M
SWge
ner
atio
ndat
ain
Sem
aran
gm
unic
ipal
ityw
asca
lcula
ted
on
the
bas
isofM
SWge
ner
atio
nofth
esu
bdis
tric
tof
Ped
uru
nga
nas
this
dis
tric
tis
repre
senta
tive
ofth
eSe
mar
ang
munic
ipal
ity.
Supriya
diet
al.,
2000
Laos
Nat
ionw
ide
2005
5.75
1.15
200.
8La
os
isa
landlo
cked
country
inSo
uth
east
Asi
a.Tro
schin
etz
and
Mih
elci
c,20
09V
ientia
ne
1998
0.18
0.04
211.
7V
ientia
ne
isth
eca
pita
lci
tyofLa
os.
This
city
islit
eral
lykn
ow
nas
the
City
ofSa
ndal
wood.
Hoorn
weg
and
Laura
,19
99
(Con
tin
ued
onn
ext
page
)
1527
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
3.
MSW
gener
atio
nin
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dse
lect
edci
ties
ofSo
uth
east
Asi
a(C
onti
nu
ed)
Annual
MSW
MSW
Popula
tion
gener
atio
nge
ner
atio
n(in
(in
mill
ion
(in
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
illio
ns)
tons)
kpc)
Rem
arks
Ref
eren
ce
Mal
aysi
aN
atio
nw
ide
1995
37.4
33.
1985
.3M
alay
sia
isa
feder
alco
nst
itutio
nal
monar
chy
inSo
uth
east
Asi
aPer
iath
amby
etal
.,20
09
Nat
ionw
ide
2008
38.1
96.
9718
2.5
—Per
iath
amby
etal
.,20
09K
ual
aLu
mpur
1989
0.92
0.43
470.
9K
ual
aLu
mpur
isth
eca
pita
lan
dth
ese
cond
larg
estci
tyofM
alay
sia.
Hoorn
weg
and
Laura
,19
99
Kual
aLu
mpur
1998
1.45
0.82
569.
4—
Man
afet
al.,
2009
Kual
aLu
mpur
2008
2.34
1.38
591.
3—
Saee
det
al.,
2009
Mya
nm
arN
atio
nw
ide
1999
1.48
1.13
766.
9M
yanm
ar(f
orm
erly
know
nas
Burm
a)is
the
seco
nd
larg
estco
untry
by
geogr
aphic
alar
eain
South
east
Asi
a.
Ngo
can
dSc
hnitz
er,20
09
Yan
gon
1993
2.51
0.41
164.
3Y
ango
n(a
lso
know
nas
Ran
goon),
isa
form
erca
pita
lofM
yanm
ar.
Hoorn
weg
and
Laura
,19
99
Phili
ppin
esN
atio
nw
ide
2000
57.2
99.
4116
4.3
Phili
ppin
esis
the
world’s
12th
most
populo
us
country
World
Ban
k,20
00
Nat
ionw
ide
2010
76.5
010
.67
139.
5—
World
Ban
k,20
00M
etro
Man
ila19
959.
451.
8319
3.5
Man
ilais
the
capita
lofth
ePhili
ppin
es.M
anila
isco
nsi
der
edth
ePhili
ppin
es’g
atew
ayto
the
world.
Hoorn
weg
and
Laura
,19
99
Met
roM
anila
2004
9.93
1.58
158.
7O
nly
urb
anpopula
tion
in20
00D
iaz
etal
.,20
07Q
uez
on
City
2010
2.86
0.74
257.
0Q
uez
on
City
,a
form
erca
pita
l(1
948
to19
76)
ofth
ePhili
ppin
esis
loca
ted
on
the
isla
nd
ofLu
zon.
UN
-HA
BIT
AT,20
10
1528
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
Singa
pore
Nat
ionw
ide
1980
1.58
0.23
146.
0Si
nga
pore
isth
ew
orld’s
fourth
lead
ing
finan
cial
cente
ran
da
cosm
opolit
anw
orld
city
.This
country
has
the
bes
tqual
ityoflif
ein
Asi
a.
Bai
and
Suta
nto
,20
02
Nat
ionw
ide
1999
2.41
0.64
265.
6—
Bai
and
Suta
nto
,20
02N
atio
nw
ide
2008
3.89
1.36
349.
6—
Zhan
get
al.,
2010
aThai
land
Nat
ionw
ide
1995
11.6
44.
6740
1.5
Thai
land
isth
ew
orld’s
50th
larg
estco
untry
inte
rms
ofto
talar
eaan
dlie
sin
the
hea
rtof
South
east
Asi
a.
Hoorn
weg
and
Laura
,19
99
Nat
ionw
ide
2002
63.1
914
.30
226.
3—
Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
bB
angk
ok
1998
4.70
1.10
233.
1B
angk
ok
isth
eca
pita
lan
dla
rges
turb
anar
eaofThai
land.This
city
isal
sokn
ow
nas
“city
ofan
gels
.”Popula
tion
in19
80.
BM
A,20
02
Ban
gkok
2005
5.88
2.14
365.
0—
Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
bV
ietn
amN
atio
nw
ide
1995
15.2
93.
0720
0.7
Vie
tnam
isth
eea
ster
nm
ost
country
on
the
Indoch
ina
Pen
insu
lain
South
east
Asi
a.N
goc
and
Schnitz
er,20
09
Can
Tho
city
2008
1.16
0.12
104.
0Can
Tho
city
,th
eca
pita
lci
tyofth
eM
ekong
Del
tare
gion,in
Vie
tnam
.M
SWdat
aw
asca
lcula
ted
from
the
1-m
onth
surv
eyof13
0house
hold
s.
Than
het
al.,
2010
a
Mek
ong
Del
taci
ty20
081.
120.
1610
2.7
One-
month
surv
eyfr
om
24Fe
bru
ary
to25
Mar
ch,20
09,an
dfr
om
17to
31O
ctober
,20
09
Than
het
al.,
2010
b
1529
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1530 T. Karak et al.
per year, which is equivalent to 189.8 kpc (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). Forthe year 2000, a normal Cambodian generated 365 kpc MSW (Yem, 2001). Inthe year 2004, 124.1 kpc MSW was generated on average in Siem Reap (thegateway to the archaeological ruins of Angkor Wat; Parizeau et al., 2006).The predicted amount of MSW generation in this country for the year 2025will be 2.74 million tons per year, which is 401.5 kpc.
The estimated total MSW generation in the year 2000 in Indonesia wasreported between 292 and 365 kpc (Mukawi, 2001). On average, every In-donesian generated 277.4 kpc of solid waste for the year 2006. Thus, withtotal 246.5 million populations, Indonesia would generate 68.39 million tonsper year of MSW, which is administratively distributed into 33 provinces(Helmy et al., 2006). The MSW generation in Indonesia is directly related tothe contributing population. Figure 4 represents the waste generation in themajor cities in Indonesia in the year 2000. It has been reported that from87.1% to 94.5% of the total generated wastes been collected by the collect-ing authorities. MSW generation for the year 2007 in kpc was 292 having theGDP of US$5096 (Shekdar, 2009). According to Shekdar (2009) the estimatedamount of MSW generation for the year 2030 will be the 114.15 million tonsin response to the urban population of 186.72 million people.
In Laos, the average urban waste production was 200.8 kpc in the year1998 (Hoornweg and Laura, 1999). However, the generation rate increased to273.8 kpc in the year 2001 (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). In the year 2008,
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
Su
rab
aya
Ban
du
ng
Med
an
Sem
aran
g
Mak
assa
r
Pad
ang
Yo
gya
kart
a
Location
To
tal M
SW
gen
erat
ion
( m
illio
n t
on
s)
230
250
270
290
310
330
350
MS
W g
ener
atio
n r
ate
(kp
c)
Annual MSW generation (million tons)
MSW generation rate (kpc)
FIGURE 4. MSW generated in major cities in Indonesia (Source: Helmy et al., 2006).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1531
waste generation was 255.5 kpc (Shekdar, 2009). The expected generationrate 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 (populationin 2000: 24.82 million), the solid waste management is relatively poor andhaphazard (Hassan et al., 2000). However, on the basis of the availableliterature, the Malaysian people generated an estimated 5.48 million tons ofsolid waste in 2001, which is about 295.65 kpc (Hassan et al., 2001). This ismuch lower than the waste generation rate of 803 kpc in the United States and547.5 kpc in European countries. The waste generation rate in Kuala Lumpur(population in 2009: 1.81 million) has been continuously rising every yeardue to the uncontrolled consumption owing to the increasing population,the attitude toward shopping, and the high living standard. It is expected thatthe amount of solid waste generated in Kuala Lumpur would get doubledin the next 20 years: from 3.2 million tons a year today to 7.7 million tonsa year (Hassan, 2002; Hassan et al., 2000). The quantity of waste generationper year in Kuala Lumpur alone was projected to increase from 0.96 milliontons in 1995 up to 1.12 million tons in 2000 (Mansor, 1999). In Kuala Lumpuralone, the estimated solid waste generation was 1.27 million tons in the year2005 (Murad and Siwar, 2007). Among the major urban cities in Malaysia, theamount of MSW generation for the year 2007 has been reported as 182.5 to357.7 kpc (Asian Productivity Organization, 2007; Shekdar, 2009). Among allthe metropolitan cities in Malaysia, Penang City (population in 2010 estimate:1.77 million) generates highest amount (357.7 kpc) of MSW. Recent data onpredicted MSW generation in Kuala Lumpur by Saeed et al. (2009) indicatedthat if the current waste generation trends continue to increase at 6.26% rateper year, then the waste generation would reach 1.38 million tons in theyear 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% fromlandscape (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 equiv-alent to 164.25 kpc (Tin et al., 1995). Presently in Myanmar, 10,526 tonsof 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 2025will be 8.36 million tons.
According to the report given by Kah (1993), the daily output of refusein Singapore (population in 2010: 5.08 million) had increased from 0.58million tons in 1972 to 2.26 million tons in 1992. The quantity of wastegenerated in Singapore in the year 2001 was 5.04 million tons, which is about401.5 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
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1532 T. Karak et al.
was recorded as 1.73 million tons, which was equivalent to 401.5 kpc. Theprojected amount of MSW that will be generated in the year 2025 and 2030are 1.77 and 2.1 million tons, respectively (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009).
Solid waste has been becoming a major problem in Thailand, particu-larly the Bangkok metropolis and other major cities in regional areas. Eachyear more than 7 million tons of solid wastes are generated in urban areas(Bangkok metropolis, municipalities) where more than 22 million peoplereside. Nuntapodidech and Puncharoen (1993) reported that MSW genera-tion rate in the Bangkok metropolitan region is in the range from 233.6 to1018.35 kpc for the year 1992 and daily production is about 5,400 tons ofwhich 4,230 tons are collected. In Thailand, 401.5 kpc MSW was formedin the year 1998 (Hoornweg and Laura, 1999). The quantity of waste pro-duced 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 prioryear (Hiramatsu et al., 2009). The urban waste generation in Thailand forthe year 2002 was reported to be 365–584 kpc (National Research Institute,2003a, 2003b). In 2003, approximately 14.32 million tons per year of solidwaste was generated across the country, of which 24% was from BangkokMetropolitan Administration (BMA), 31% from municipalities, and the re-maining 45% was from rural areas (outside municipalities; Thailand Environ-ment Monitor, 2003). In the year 2005, the generation of MSW in the urbanareas of the Bangkok metropolitan region (population in 2010: 9.1 million)rapidly increased and was measured at 474.5 kpc, which was almost twicethe 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), showedthat among the nonfarming households, food shops generated the most;401.5 kpc in Thailand. Townhouses, which were the most numerous house-hold types in their survey area, disposed of 0.54 kg wet weight per day perperson on average, with organic waste accounting for 78% by weight of thetotal waste. Waste generation from apartment houses was 153.3 kpc, whichwas about 36.5 kpc less than that of the urban detached houses. Amongthe Asian countries, Thailand acquired second position on the basis of MSWgeneration rate, which is 526.7 kpc (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009).
In the Philippines, an average of 36,172.50 tons of waste was generatedfor the year 1999 (World Bank, 2001), and the waste generation rate was189.8 kpc (in urban areas) and 109.5 kpc (in rural areas). According to AsianProductivity Organization (APO) survey report, Philippines citizen generated240.9 kpc MSW for the year 2003–2004 (APO, 2007). Figure 5 shows status ofwaste 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., MetroManila; population in 2007: 1.66 million) has the highest waste generation(23%), almost a quarter of the country’s generated waste as a whole. Onthe other hand, the Cordillera region (the largest mountain range in thePhilippines, having a population of about 1.52 million for the year 2007) has
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1533
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
ARMM Bicol CagayanValley
Caraga CentralLuzon
CordilleraAR
Ilocos MetroManila
Visayas WesternMindanao
Locations
To
tal M
SW
gen
erat
ion
( m
illio
n t
on
s)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
MS
W g
ener
atio
n r
ate
(kp
c)
Annual MSW generation (million tons)
MSW generation rate (kpc)
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 WorldHealth Organization (WHO; 1999), the Philippines will be producing 292 kpcMSW for the year 2025. According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB;2004) reports, Metro Manila generates 2.45 million tons of solid waste peryear where 9.9 million people are residing. As per the World Bank (2001)report, the predicted waste generation in the Philippines for the year 2025will go to 18.8 million tons per year, which is equivalent to 292 kpc wastegeneration.
The average quantity of solid waste generated from towns and cities inVietnam (population in 2009: 85.85) increased from 5.93 million tons per yearin 1996 to 8.11 million tons per yea in 1998 (Shekdar, 2009). The generationrates of MSW depend on the category of urban area and ranges from 127.8to 292 kpc (Hoornweg, 1999). In the year 2000, Vietnam generated 49.13million tons per year (about 222.7 kpc). Urban data by Consulting DataGroup survey of Vietnam reported that the MSW generation rate in differentcities 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 theyear 2008 from various sources. Urban areas contained only 24 percentof the population of the country, but produces over 6 million tons of thecountry’s municipal waste. This is due to the more affluent lifestyles, larger
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
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 urbanareas. These activities also increase the proportion of hazardous waste (suchas batteries and household solvents) and nonbiodegradable waste (such asplastics, metal, and glass) in urban waste. On the contrary, people in ruralareas (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 years1997–2009 and predicted MSW in the year 2010 are presented in Figure 6.Urbanization in Vietnam is rapid and is expected to increase from the currentlevel of 24% to 33% in 2010, resulting in 10 million more people in urbanareas.
Composition of MSW in Southeast Asia
A percentage analysis of different composition of MSW in Southeast Asiais presented in Table 4. Waste composition in Brunei was as follows: or-ganic 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 for66.3% of waste by weight in Cambodia. Other components such as stonesand 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 In-donesia includes compostable organic matter 63%, paper 13%, plastics 11%,and metal/glass/textiles and others are 1% each (Helmy et al., 2006). MSWcomposition in Laos includes biodegradable fraction 54.3%, paper and paper-board 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 tothat of the most developing countries. According to APO (2007), the presentstatus of different components of MSW in Malaysia includes organic (51%),
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
4.
Per
centa
geofphys
ical
com
posi
tion
inM
SWge
ner
ated
from
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dm
ajor
citie
sofSo
uth
east
Asi
a
Pap
erTex
tiles
Org
anic
and
Gla
ss/
&Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
ater
ial
pap
erboar
dPla
stic
sCer
amic
Met
als
oth
ers
Ref
eren
ce
Bru
nei
Nat
ionw
ide
2000
44.0
22.0
12.0
4.0
5.0
13.0
Ngo
can
dSc
hnitz
er,20
09Cam
bodia
Nat
ionw
ide
2005
55.0
3.0
10.0
8.0
7.0
17.0
Ngo
can
dSc
hnitz
er,20
09Si
emRea
p20
0566
.03.
014
.01.
01.
015
.0Par
izea
uet
al.,
2006
Indones
iaN
atio
nw
ide
NA
74.0
10.0
8.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
Shek
dar
,20
09B
andung
1978
71.6
9.6
5.5
0.4
2.2
10.7
Man
iatis
etal
.,19
87B
andung
2005
51.9
9.8
12.1
3.6
1.3
21.3
Dam
anhuri
etal
.,20
09Bogo
r19
8480
.06.
04.
0N
AN
A10
.0Cim
ahi
2005
50.0
13.2
18.0
0.6
0.6
17.7
Dam
anhuri
etal
.,20
09Ja
karta
NA
82.0
2.0
3.0
0.5
4.0
8.5
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89Ja
karta
1981
79.5
8.0
3.7
0.4
1.4
7.0
Man
iatis
etal
.,19
87Sa
rim
ukt
i20
0551
.49.
315
.70.
70.
322
.6D
aman
huri
etal
.,20
09Se
mar
ang
1995
70.7
10.2
10.6
1.9
1.0
5.6
Supriya
diet
al.,
2000
Sura
bay
a(f
orm
erly
Soer
abaj
a)19
8294
.02.
02.
01.
00.
50.
5M
ania
tiset
al.,
1987
Laos
Nat
ionw
ide
NA
54.3
3.3
7.8
8.5
3.8
22.3
Shek
dar
,20
09M
alay
sia
Nat
ionw
ide
1975
63.7
7.0
2.5
2.5
6.4
17.9
Per
iath
amby
etal
.,20
09N
atio
nw
ide
1985
48.3
23.6
9.4
4.0
5.9
8.8
Per
iath
amby
etal
.,20
09N
atio
nw
ide
1995
45.7
9.0
3.9
3.9
5.1
32.4
Per
iath
amby
etal
.,20
09N
atio
nw
ide
2005
44.8
16.0
15.0
3.0
3.3
17.9
Per
iath
amby
etal
.,20
09N
atio
nw
ide
NA
40.0
15.0
15.0
4.0
3.0
23.0
Shek
dar
,20
09K
ual
aLu
mpur
1982
63.7
11.7
7.0
2.5
6.4
8.7
Man
iatis
etal
.,19
87Sh
ahAla
m20
0546
.917
.920
.32.
64.
38.
0Sh
arifah
etal
.,20
08M
yanm
ar(f
orm
erly
know
nas
Burm
a)Ran
goon
(als
okn
ow
nas
Yan
gon)
NA
80.0
1.0
4.0
6.0
3.0
6.0
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89
Phili
ppin
esN
atio
nw
ide
NA
41.6
19.5
13.8
2.5
4.8
17.8
Shek
dar
,20
09B
aguio
NA
52.5
13.6
6.4
2.4
3.9
21.3
World
Ban
k,20
00B
atan
gas
NA
53.8
9.5
13.2
2.4
3.3
17.7
World
Ban
k,20
00D
inal
upih
anN
A25
.56.
59.
03.
07.
049
.0W
orld
Ban
k,20
00Iloilo
NA
38.1
9.4
20.0
1.3
6.1
25.1
World
Ban
k,20
00M
anill
a19
8543
.017
.04.
05.
02.
029
.0A
liK
han
and
Burn
ey,19
89O
longa
po
NA
45.1
12.6
12.4
2.9
5.5
21.5
World
Ban
k,20
00Tac
loban
NA
52.1
12.1
11.0
2.7
3.0
19.1
World
Ban
k,20
00
(Con
tin
ued
onn
ext
page
)
1535
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
4.
Per
centa
geofphys
ical
com
posi
tion
inM
SWge
ner
ated
from
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dm
ajor
citie
sofSo
uth
east
Asi
a(C
onti
nu
ed)
Pap
erTex
tiles
Org
anic
and
Gla
ss/
&Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
ater
ial
pap
erboar
dPla
stic
sCer
amic
Met
als
oth
ers
Ref
eren
ce
Singa
pore
Nat
ionw
ide
2000
41.5
20.6
5.8
1.1
3.2
27.8
Bai
and
Suta
nto
,20
02N
atio
nw
ide
2008
27.2
21.2
11.5
1.0
14.6
24.5
NEA,20
08Thai
land
Nat
ionw
ide
1995
21.1
40.1
8.8
3.6
11.5
15.0
Bre
reto
n,19
96N
atio
nw
ide
2001
35.9
20.7
15.9
9.9
3.8
13.8
Chay
aan
dG
hee
wal
a,20
07N
atio
nw
ide
NA
48.6
14.6
13.9
5.1
3.6
14.2
Shek
dar
,20
09A
ngt
hong
2003
65.0
3.8
13.2
4.9
1.0
12.1
Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
bBan
gkok
1985
49.9
12.1
10.9
6.6
3.5
17.0
Man
iatis
etal
.,19
87Ban
gkok
2003
51.8
13.5
12.4
4.0
3.5
14.8
Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
bChia
ngm
ai20
0344
.024
.67.
01.
01.
022
.4Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
bChia
ngr
ai20
0355
.211
.015
.19.
62.
17.
0Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
bK
anch
anab
uri
2003
55.0
10.0
12.0
10.0
5.0
8.0
Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
bN
akhonpat
hom
2001
–200
361
.55.
026
.21.
71.
14.
5Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
aN
akorn
ratc
has
ima
2003
54.6
17.7
19.7
2.4
2.0
3.5
Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
bN
akorn
saw
an20
0345
.620
.121
.06.
42.
64.
3Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
bN
onth
aburi
2003
68.7
13.2
13.7
0.3
0.4
3.8
Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
bN
onth
aburi
2007
53.3
6.8
28.4
4.3
0.6
6.6
Hiram
atsu
etal
.,20
09Pat
taya
2003
68.6
5.7
9.6
1.7
0.6
13.8
Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
bPet
chburi
2003
47.0
25.0
17.6
4.5
1.3
4.6
Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
bPhits
anulo
k20
0357
.611
.319
.30.
63.
97.
3Chie
mch
aisr
iet
al.,
2007
bPhuke
t20
0464
.88.
917
.12.
62.
73.
9Li
amsa
ngu
anan
dG
hee
wal
a,20
08V
ietn
amN
atio
nw
ide
NA
49.4
14.7
15.1
9.7
3.4
7.7
Shek
dar
,20
09Can
Tho
City
2008
86.1
4.9
6.1
1.1
0.7
1.1
Than
het
al.,
2010
aH
aLo
ng
NA
49.2
4.6
3.2
0.4
0.4
42.6
NEA,20
02Tay
Nin
hN
A63
.05.
38.
71.
32.
819
.6N
EA,20
02Thai
Ngu
yen
NA
55.0
3.0
3.0
0.1
3.0
36.0
NEA,20
02Vie
tTri
NA
55.5
7.5
4.5
0.6
0.2
32.1
NEA,20
02
Not
e.N
A=
notav
aila
ble
.
1536
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1537
paper and paperboard (15%), plastics (14%), glass (3%), metals (4%), andtextiles and other (13%). This indicates that organic waste forms the biggestcomponent, with paper and plastics (including rubber) at the second andthird positions, respectively.
There are, however, variations in the composition of waste among dif-ferent areas in this country. A detailed study in 2000 in and around KualaLumpur showed that there were differences in the percentages of differenttypes of wastes according to building use and the socioeconomic backgroundof the residents. Figure 7 shows the change of solid waste composition inKuala Lumpur from 1975 to 2000. No significant changes in organic matterwere observed in Kuala Lumpur MSW except for the year 1985.
According to an APO (2007) report, there is also a difference in wastecomposition between the bigger cities and smaller towns. In Kuala Lumpur,the organic waste accounted for about 48.4% while in Muar, an average-sizemunicipality of about 0.5 million people, it was 63.7% for recent years.
The physical composition of MSW in Yangon in Myanmar as given byYangon 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 composi-tion 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 per-centage of organic waste (25.5–55.0%).
According to Shekdar (2009), the MSW composition in Singapore withrespect to percentage wet basis was found to be as biodegradable fraction
FIGURE 7. Solid waste composition in Kuala Lumpur (Data extracted from Nasir, 2007).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
5.
Per
centa
geofw
aste
com
posi
tion
indiffe
rentlo
calG
ove
rnm
entunits
inPhili
ppin
es(S
ourc
e:W
orld
Ban
k,20
00a)
Loca
lgo
vern
men
tunits
inth
ePhili
ppin
es
San
Was
teco
mposi
tion
Bat
anga
sO
longa
po
Bag
uio
Iloilo
Tac
loban
Fern
ando
Din
alupih
an
Org
anic
mat
eria
l53
.845
.152
.538
.152
.155
.025
.5Pap
eran
dpap
erboar
d9.
512
.613
.69.
412
.10.
06.
5Pla
stic
s13
.212
.46.
420
.011
.0N
A9.
0G
lass
/Cer
amic
2.4
2.9
2.4
1.3
2.7
NA
3.0
Met
als
3.3
5.5
3.9
6.1
3.0
NA
7.0
Tex
tiles
and
oth
ers
17.7
21.5
21.3
25.1
19.1
45.0
49.0
Not
e.N
A=
notav
aila
ble
.
1538
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1539
44.4%, paper 28.3%, plastics 11.8%, glass 4.1%, metal 4.8%, and inert frac-tion 6.6%. A survey study of MSW composition in Oboto Bang Maenangin Nonthaburi Province, adjoining Bangkok in Thailand, was performed byHiramatsu et al. (2009). This survey concluded that waste composition wasdirectly influenced by economic status of the community and the householdpattern. Among the waste composition the percentage of kitchen wastesranged from 27.7 (in a farmer’s house) to 84.9 (in food shops); for papersfrom 1.6 (food shops) to 8.8 (in a townhouse); for can from 0 to 0.4 (in foodshops); 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 (inapartment) to 55.7 (in a farmer’s house); for wood from 0 (urban detachedhouse) 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 (inapartment). The MSW composition in Phuket (a province in the southern partof Thailand) for the year 2007 was cloth (2.07%), food waste (44.13%), gar-den waste (5.26%), glass (9.67%), metals (3.44%), paper (14.74%), plastics(15.08%), rubber/leather (2.28%), and stone/ceramic (1.39%; Liamsanguanand Gheewala, 2008).
The composition of solid waste in Hanoi, Vietnam, consisted of organicsubstances, paper, cartons, plastics, glass, ceramic waste, metal, and bones.Table 6 shows the changing characteristics of solid waste in Hanoi City from1995 to 1998.
According to the report of the State of the Environment in Vietnam(National Environment Agency, 2002), the organic substances present inMSW from different locations of this country contributed to more than 50%of the total weight. MSW composition in different major cities of Vietnamis shown in Table 7. From the Table 7 it is apparent that organic wasteaccounted for the largest part (49.2–63%) of the total generated MSW. Thanhet al. (2010a) also reported that about 84.18–85.10% of household solidwaste (the main discharge source of MSW) was organic part when wastewas collected from Can Tho city, the capital city of the Mekong Delta regionin Vietnam, in the year 2009.
TABLE 6. Changing composition (%) of MSW in Hanoi from 1995 to 1998 (Source: Vietnam-State of the Environment Report, 1998)
Year
Composition 1995 1996 1997 1998
Organic material 45.9 50.4 53.0 50.1Paper and paperboard 2.2 2.9 2.3 4.2Plastics 1.7 3.2 4.1 5.5Glass/Ceramic 1.4 2.6 3.8 1.8Metals 1.2 1.8 5.5 2.5Textiles and other 47.6 39.1 31.3 35.9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
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 Ha Long Hanoi Tay Ninh Thai Nguyen Viet Tri
Organic material 49.20 53.0 63.0 55.00 55.50Paper and paperboard 4.60 1.09 4.7–6.0 3.00 7.52Plastics 3.23 9.66 7.7–11.6 3.00 4.52Glass/Ceramic 3.70 3.27 1.7–2.7 0.70 0.63Metals 0.40 5.15 1.0–3.4 3.00 0.22Textiles and others 38.87 27.90 21.9–13.3 35.30 32.13
MSW Generation From Other Asian Nations
Most Asian nations (except Japan, South Korea, and Singapore) lack wellformulated guidelines and policy structure regarding waste managementservices, in the absence of which the municipal agencies have not beenperforming their duties satisfactorily in this aspect. Though, few rules arethere within the various municipal acts, which govern the day-to-day run-ning of these agencies, the same, however, due to lack of enforcement, havenot served the purpose much. Besides this fact, the weakness of the esti-mated total current MSW generation in the Asian countries is due to the lackof complete source of data on the major waste streams. Therefore, numerousstatistical gaps on MSW generation database are frequently observed amongAsian nations.
Table 8 is a reflection of MSW generation in different countries anddifferent cities of Asian nations based on the available literature. From Table8, a wide variation in the quantity of MSW has been observed in Asiancountries. Among the eight Asian countries, Afghanistan is categorized asthe least developed country (LDC) by the World Bank in terms of its lowincome, human resource weakness, and economic vulnerability. Reliabledata of MSW generation in this country is scanty due to lack of quantificationof MSW. According to Glawe et al. (2005), the estimated amount of MSW was146 kpc in Kabul (capital and largest city of Afghanistan) in 2003. BetweenOctober 2002 and May 2004, over 120,000 m3 of solid wastes were collectedin Kabul. Similar to Afghanistan, the data regarding waste generation inArmenia is quite inexact and nonreliable. Nonetheless, according to the datafor the period of 1985–1990 about 1.5 million tons of MSW was generatedper 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 for1996–1997 was in the range of 247–285 kg. The municipal waste containsabout 85% of household and the rest was nonhazardous industrial waste.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
8.
MSW
gener
atio
nin
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dse
lect
edci
ties
ofA
sia
oth
erth
anSo
uth
east
Asi
a
Annual
Ave
rage
MSW
MSW
Popula
tion
gener
atio
nge
ner
atio
n(in
(in
mill
ion
(in
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
illio
ns)
tons)
kpc)
Rem
arks
Ref
eren
ce
Afg
han
ista
nK
abul
NA
NA
NA
146.
0K
abulis
the
capita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Afg
han
ista
n.
Gla
we
etal
.,20
05
Bah
rain
Nat
ionw
ide
2000
0.35
0.16
459.
9B
ahra
in,a
smal
lis
land
country
inth
ePer
sian
Gulf.
Alh
um
oud,20
05
Ban
glad
esh
Nat
ionw
ide
NA
17.5
02.
8116
0.4
Ban
glad
esh
isa
country
inSo
uth
Asi
aan
dth
eei
ghth
most
populo
us
country
and
isam
ong
the
most
den
sely
popula
ted
countrie
sin
the
world.Fo
rM
SWge
ner
atio
n,dat
aw
ere
colle
cted
from
21M
ayto
30Ju
ne,
2004
,of
seas
on
1,fr
om
1Ju
lyto
29A
ugu
st,20
04,of
seas
on
2,an
dfr
om
3N
ove
mber
2004
to5
Januar
y20
05ofse
ason
3fr
om
the
six
citie
s(D
hak
a,Chitt
agong,
Khuln
a,Raj
shah
i,Bar
isal
,an
dSy
lhet
)in
Ban
glad
esh.
Ala
mgi
ran
dA
hsa
n,20
07
Nat
ionw
ide
1991
20.8
73.
7317
8.9
Urb
anpopula
tion
isth
e20
.15%
ofto
tal
popula
tion
ofBan
glad
esh.
AD
B,20
00
Nat
ionw
ide
2001
28.8
15.
2618
2.5
Urb
anpopula
tion
is23
.39%
ofto
talpopula
tion
ofBan
glad
esh.
Zurb
rugg
,20
02
Nat
ionw
ide
2005
32.7
64.
8714
9.6
—Enay
etulla
han
dH
ashim
i,20
06N
atio
nw
ide
2025
78.4
417
.18
219.
0Pro
ject
eddat
a(w
her
eurb
anpopula
tion
is40
%ofto
talpopula
tion
ofB
angl
ades
h)
AD
B,20
00
Chitt
agong
2006
3.65
0.33
91.3
Chitt
agong
isa
maj
or
com
mer
cial
and
indust
rial
cente
rin
Ban
glad
esh.
MSW
dat
afr
om
are
connai
ssan
cesu
rvey
inM
arch
2006
.
Suja
uddin
etal
.,20
08
Dhak
a20
036.
501.
2819
6.5
Dhak
a(f
orm
erly
know
nas
Dac
ca,an
dJa
han
girn
agar
)is
the
capita
lofB
angl
ades
h.
Dhak
ais
also
know
nas
the
“Ric
kshaw
Cap
italofth
eW
orld.”
Zurb
rugg
etal
.,20
05
Dhak
a20
055.
730.
7112
4.3
Pro
ject
eddat
aJI
CA
,20
05a
(Con
tin
ued
onn
ext
page
)
1541
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
8.
MSW
gener
atio
nin
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dse
lect
edci
ties
ofA
sia
oth
erth
anSo
uth
east
Asi
a(C
onti
nu
ed)
Annual
Ave
rage
MSW
MSW
Popula
tion
gener
atio
nge
ner
atio
n(in
(in
mill
ion
(in
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
illio
ns)
tons)
kpc)
Rem
arks
Ref
eren
ce
Bhuta
nN
atio
nw
ide
2008
0.67
0.04
193.
5B
huta
nis
asm
allla
ndlo
cked
country
inSo
uth
Asi
a,lo
cate
dat
the
east
ern
end
ofth
eH
imal
ayas
.A
surv
eyw
asco
nduct
edduring
Nove
mber
2007
and
Januar
y20
08w
her
eurb
anpopula
tion
was
found
tobe
30%
of
the
country’
sto
talpopula
tion.
Phunts
ho
etal
.,20
10
Chin
aN
atio
nw
ide
1981
144.
0026
.28
182.
5Chin
aal
sokn
ow
nas
Peo
ple
’sRep
ublic
of
Chin
a(P
RC).
This
country
islo
cate
din
Eas
tAsi
aan
dw
hic
his
the
most
populo
us
country
inth
ew
orld.
Dat
aofM
SWpro
duce
din
som
eci
ties
wer
enotre
ported
asth
eyar
enotco
llect
edor
tran
sported
.
Huan
get
al.,
2006
Nat
ionw
ide
1990
325.
3067
.68
208.
1M
SWpro
duce
din
som
eci
ties
was
notre
ported
asth
eyar
enotco
llect
edor
tran
sported
.Su
och
eng
etal
.,20
01
Nat
ionw
ide
2000
388.
2411
7.62
303.
0M
SWpro
duce
din
som
eci
ties
was
notre
ported
asth
eyar
enotco
llect
edor
tran
sported
.H
uan
get
al.,
2006
Nat
ionw
ide
2002
352.
2013
6.27
386.
9M
SWpro
duce
din
som
eci
ties
was
notre
ported
asth
eyar
enotco
llect
edor
tran
sported
.H
uan
get
al.,
2006
Nat
ionw
ide
2006
592.
6821
2.00
357.
7—
Zhan
get
al.,
2010
bB
eijin
g19
928.
192.
4730
1.6
Bei
jing
isth
em
etro
polis
innorther
nChin
aan
dca
pita
lofChin
a.Li
ang
etal
.,20
03
Bei
jing
2000
10.5
72.
9628
0.0
—Zhen
-shan
etal
.,20
09B
eijin
g20
0613
.33
4.14
310.
3—
NB
SC,20
07Chongq
ing
1996
3.23
1.12
346.
8Chongq
ing
isa
maj
or
city
inso
uth
wes
tern
mai
nla
nd
Chin
aan
done
ofth
efive
nat
ional
central
citie
sofChin
a.
Lian
dG
u,20
01
Chongq
ing
2001
2.94
1.16
394.
2—
Yuan
etal
.,20
06H
ong
Kong
1980
5.06
1.59
313 .
6H
ong
Kong
isone
ofth
em
ost
den
sely
popula
ted
area
sin
the
world
and
isone
of
two
spec
ialad
min
istrat
ive
regi
ons
(SARs)
of
Chin
a
Ko
and
Poon,20
09
Hong
Kong
1990
5.70
2.59
454.
3—
Ko
and
Poon,20
09
1542
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
Hong
Kong
2000
6.67
3.41
511.
5—
Ko
and
Poon,20
09H
ong
Kong
2007
6.93
6.25
901.
6—
Shan
,20
10Jian
gmen
2001
4.21
1.23
292.
0Jian
gmen
isa
pre
fect
ure
-lev
elci
tyin
Guan
gdong
pro
vince
inso
uth
ern
Chin
a.Popula
tion
for
the
year
2000
and
MSW
colle
ctio
nra
teis
only
85%
.
Chung
and
Lo,20
04
Kunm
ing
2010
3.50
1.00
286.
0K
unm
ing
isa
pre
fect
ure
-lev
elci
tyan
dca
pita
lofY
unnan
pro
vince
,in
south
wes
tern
Chin
a.U
N-H
AB
ITA
T,20
10
Mac
ao20
030.
450.
2555
4.8
Mac
aois
aSp
ecia
lAdm
inis
trat
ive
Reg
ion
(SAR)
ofChin
aw
ithlim
ited
amounts
ofnat
ura
lre
sourc
es.
Jin
etal
.,20
06
Shan
ghai
1990
12.8
32.
7921
7.1
Shan
ghai
isth
em
ost
populo
us
city
and
larg
est
cente
rofco
mm
erce
and
finan
cein
mai
nla
nd
Chin
a.
Liu
and
Yu,20
07
Shan
ghai
2000
13.2
25.
2439
6.4
—Li
uan
dY
u,20
07Sh
angh
ai20
0313
.42
5.85
436.
2—
Liu
and
Yu,20
07Tia
njin
2007
10.7
51.
6415
2.8
Tia
njin
isa
met
ropolis
inN
orth
Chin
aan
done
ofth
efive
nat
ional
central
citie
sofChin
a.Zhao
etal
.,20
09a
Tib
et20
062.
681.
0438
6.5
Tib
etis
apla
teau
regi
on
inAsi
aan
dlo
cate
din
the
north
ofth
eH
imal
ayas
.Cal
cula
tion
ofan
nual
MSW
gener
atio
nw
asper
form
edon
the
bas
isofM
SWge
ner
atio
nin
the
urb
anar
eas
ofLh
asa
city
,Sh
igat
se,
Ned
ong
ofLh
oka
,an
dB
ayiofN
yingt
riin
Tib
et.
Jian
get
al.,
2009
Zhongs
han
2001
2.36
0.73
123.
7Zhongs
han
county
isa
county
ofG
uan
gxi,
Chin
a.Popula
tion
for
the
year
2000
and
MSW
colle
ctio
nra
tew
asonly
85.6
%
Chung
and
Lo,20
04
India
Nat
ionw
ide
1991
217.
0023
. 86
110.
0In
dia
isa
country
inSo
uth
Asi
aan
dis
the
seve
nth
-lar
gest
country
by
geogr
aphic
alar
eaan
dth
ese
cond
most
populo
us
country
inth
ew
orld.
Shar
holy
etal
.,20
08
North
India
2006
316.
9457
.84
182.
5N
orther
nIn
dia
consi
sts
ofst
ates
ofRaj
asth
an,
Uttar
Pra
des
h,U
ttar
akhan
d,D
elhi,
Har
iyan
a,Punja
b,H
imac
hal
Pra
des
h,an
dJa
mm
uan
dK
ashm
ir,as
wel
las
the
Unio
nTer
rito
ryof
Chan
dig
arh.Popula
tion
on
the
bas
isIn
dia
nce
nsu
sre
port,20
01
Ojh
a,20
10
Ahm
edab
ad20
063.
520.
6117
1.9
Ahm
edab
adis
the
larg
estci
tyin
Guja
rat,
India
.It
isth
ese
venth
larg
estci
tyan
dei
ghth
larg
estm
etro
polit
anar
eaofIn
dia
.
Raw
atet
al.,
2008
(Con
tin
ued
onn
ext
page
)
1543
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
8.
MSW
gener
atio
nin
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dse
lect
edci
ties
ofA
sia
oth
erth
anSo
uth
east
Asi
a(C
onti
nu
ed)
Annual
Ave
rage
MSW
MSW
Popula
tion
gener
atio
nge
ner
atio
n(in
(in
mill
ion
(in
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
illio
ns)
tons)
kpc)
Rem
arks
Ref
eren
ce
Bal
lyM
unic
ipal
ity20
061.
310.
2821
0.9
Inth
eG
ange
ticpla
inofW
estBen
galin
the
dis
tric
tofH
ow
rah.Popula
tion
in20
01Sa
rkhel
and
Ban
erje
e,20
10
Ban
galo
re20
064.
300.
9020
9.3
Ban
galo
reis
loca
ted
on
the
Dec
can
Pla
teau
,ca
pita
lofth
eIn
dia
nst
ate
ofK
arnat
aka
and
also
know
nas
the
Gar
den
City
.
Raw
atet
al.,
2008
Chen
nai
2000
4.62
1.01
219.
0Chen
nai
(form
erly
know
nas
Mad
ras)
isth
eca
pita
lci
tyofth
eIn
dia
nst
ate
ofTam
ilN
adu.
This
city
isChen
nai
isth
efo
urth
most
populo
us
met
ropolit
anar
eaan
dth
efifth
most
populo
us
city
inIn
dia
.
Esa
kku
etal
.,20
07
Chen
nai
2006
5.80
1.46
251.
7—
Ela
ngo
etal
.,20
09D
ehra
dun
2006
4.62
1.01
219.
0D
ehra
dun
isth
eca
pita
lci
tyofth
eU
ttar
akhan
dst
ate
and
about24
6km
North
ofIn
dia
’sca
pita
lN
ewD
elhi.
Raw
atet
al.,
2008
Del
hi
1995
5.80
1.46
251.
7D
elhiis
the
capita
lofIn
dia
,an
dal
soth
ela
rges
tm
etro
polis
by
area
and
the
seco
nd-lar
gest
met
ropolis
by
popula
tion
inIn
dia
.It
isth
eei
ghth
-lar
gest
met
ropolis
inth
ew
orld
by
popula
tion.
Aga
rwal
etal
.,20
05
Del
hi
2006
9.88
2.19
158.
7—
Mor
etal
.,20
06H
arid
war
2001
0.50
0.07
138.
7O
ne
ofth
eholie
stpla
ces
inIn
dia
Jain
and
Shar
ma,
2010
Hyd
erab
ad20
0610
.00
2.19
219.
0H
yder
abad
isth
eca
pita
lofth
est
ate
Andhra
Pra
des
h,In
dia
.This
city
isth
esi
xth
most
populo
us
and
sixt
hm
ost
populo
us
urb
anag
glom
erat
ion
inIn
dia
.
Shar
holy
etal
.,20
07
Kolk
ata
2008
8.00
1.10
138.
7K
olk
ata
(form
erly
know
nas
Cal
cutta)
isth
eca
pita
lofth
eIn
dia
nst
ate
ofW
estBen
gal.
This
city
isth
eth
ird
most
populo
us
met
ropolit
anar
eain
India
and
one
ofth
em
ost
populo
us
urb
anar
eas
inth
ew
orld.
MSW
dat
are
flec
ted
only
60%
house
-to-h
ouse
colle
ctio
nan
d50
–55%
open
vats
colle
ctio
nsy
stem
.
Chat
topad
hya
yet
al.,
2009
1544
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
Mum
bai
2006
13.8
02.
9221
1.6
Mum
bai
(form
erly
know
nas
know
nas
Bom
bay
)is
the
capita
lofth
eIn
dia
nst
ate
of
Mah
aras
htra.
Mum
bai
isth
em
ost
populo
us
city
inIn
dia
,an
dth
ese
cond
most
populo
us
city
inth
ew
orld.
Chat
topad
hya
yet
al.,
2009
Iran
Nat
ionw
ide
2004
44.2
213
.61
307.
7Ir
anis
aco
untry
inCen
tral
Eura
sia
and
Wes
tern
Asi
a.Tro
schin
etz
and
Mih
elci
c,20
09Teh
ran
1996
5.54
1.07
193.
6Teh
ran
isIr
an’s
larg
esturb
anar
eaan
dth
eca
pita
lci
ty.
MSW
dat
aam
ong
22urb
anre
gions
of
Teh
ran.
OW
RC,20
06
Teh
ran
2004
8.20
2.63
320.
3—
Dam
ghan
iet
al.,
2008
Iraq
Bag
hdad
2006
5.79
1.33
230.
0B
aghdad
isth
eca
pita
lofIr
aq.
Als
amaw
iet
al.,
2009
Bag
hdad
2010
7.67
2.50
326.
1Pro
ject
eddat
a,popula
tion
grow
thra
tes
has
bee
nta
ken
as3%
incr
ease
per
year
ove
rth
eye
ar20
06.
Als
amaw
iet
al.,
2009
Isra
elN
atio
nw
ide
2006
8.20
2.63
320.
3Is
rael
isa
par
liam
enta
ryre
public
inth
eM
iddle
Eas
t.Popula
tion
asper
2009
censu
s.M
EP,20
10
Jeru
sale
m20
065.
791.
3323
0.0
Jeru
sale
mis
the
capita
lofIs
rael
.Popula
tion
asper
2009
censu
sM
EP,20
10
Japan
Nat
ionw
ide
1985
0.78
0.36
459.
9Ja
pan
(als
okn
ow
asLa
nd
ofth
eRis
ing
Sun)
isan
isla
nd
nat
ion
inEas
tAsi
aan
dlo
cate
din
the
Pac
ific
Oce
an.This
country
has
the
world’s
seco
nd-lar
gest
econom
y.M
SWdat
ain
cludes
resi
den
tialan
dco
mm
erci
also
lidw
aste
and
excl
udes
indust
rial
solid
was
te.
Tan
aka,
1992
Nat
ionw
ide
1992
7.03
1.90
270.
1Y
ear-
wis
esu
rvey
Saka
i,19
96N
atio
nw
ide
2001
7.12
4.20
590.
0Y
ear–
wis
esu
rvey
Tan
aka,
2007
Kaw
asak
i20
061.
370 .
4443
8.0
Kaw
asak
ith
enin
thm
ost
popula
ted
city
inJa
pan
.G
eng
etal
.,20
10
Yoko
ham
a20
063.
601.
6545
8.3
Yoko
ham
ath
ese
cond
larg
estci
tyin
Japan
by
popula
tion
afte
rToky
o.
Contrer
aset
al.,
2010
Jord
anAm
man
1998
1.37
0.60
438.
0A
mm
anis
the
capita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyofth
eH
ashem
iteK
ingd
om
ofJo
rdan
.Abu-Q
udai
san
dA
bu-Q
udai
s,20
00Zar
qa
City
2000
2.16
0.37
169.
1Zar
qa
isa
city
inJo
rdan
loca
ted
toth
enorthea
stofA
mm
anan
dit
isth
eco
untry’
sth
ird
larg
estci
ty.M
SWdat
afr
om
eigh
tre
gions
from
Zar
qa
Gove
rnora
te.
Mra
yyan
and
Ham
di,
2006
(Con
tin
ued
onn
ext
page
)
1545
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
8.
MSW
gener
atio
nin
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dse
lect
edci
ties
ofA
sia
oth
erth
anSo
uth
east
Asi
a(C
onti
nu
ed)
Annual
Ave
rage
MSW
MSW
Popula
tion
gener
atio
nge
ner
atio
n(in
(in
mill
ion
(in
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
illio
ns)
tons)
kpc)
Rem
arks
Ref
eren
ce
Kaz
akhst
anN
atio
nw
ide
NA
6.32
1.34
211.
9K
azak
hst
anis
atran
scontin
enta
lco
untry
loca
ted
inCen
tral
Asi
aan
dEas
tern
Euro
pe.
Ran
ked
asth
enin
thla
rges
tco
untry
inth
ew
orld
and
the
world’s
larg
estla
ndlo
cked
country.
EI-Fa
del
and
Sbay
ti,20
00
Kuw
ait
Nat
ionw
ide
2000
2.23
1.14
511.
0K
uw
aitis
aso
vere
ign
Ara
bnat
ion
situ
ated
inth
enorthea
stofth
eAra
bia
nPen
insu
lain
Wes
tern
Asi
a.
Alh
um
oud,20
05
Kyr
gyzs
tan
Nat
ionw
ide
NA
1.92
0.60
310.
3K
yrgy
zsta
nis
aco
untry
loca
ted
inCen
tral
Asi
a.Tro
schin
etz
and
Mih
elci
c,20
09Le
ban
on
Nat
ionw
ide
1994
1.10
0.18
160.
6Le
ban
on
isa
country
inW
este
rnAsi
a.EI-Fa
del
and
Sbay
ti,20
00N
atio
nw
ide
2015
2.23
1.14
511.
0Pro
ject
eddat
aEI-Fa
del
and
Sbay
ti,20
00M
auritiu
sN
atio
nw
ide
NA
3.73
1.09
292.
0M
auritiu
sis
anis
land
nat
ion
off
the
south
east
coas
tofth
eAfric
anco
ntin
entin
the
south
wes
tIn
dia
nO
cean
.Popula
tion
in20
00
Tro
schin
etz
and
Mih
elci
c,20
09
Cure
ppip
e20
100.
080.
0228
4.0
Mau
ritiu
sis
tourist
des
tinat
ion
inM
auritiu
sU
N-H
ABIT
AT,20
10M
ongo
liaN
atio
nw
ide
NA
4.39
1.51
343.
1M
ongo
liais
ala
ndlo
cked
country
inEas
tan
dCen
tral
Asi
a.Popula
tion
in20
00ce
nsu
sTro
schin
etz
and
Mih
elci
c,20
09N
agorn
o-K
arab
akh
Nat
ionw
ide
NA
5.09
2.08
408.
8N
agorn
o-K
arab
akh
isa
landlo
cked
regi
on
inth
eSo
uth
Cau
casu
s.Tro
schin
etz
and
Mih
elci
c,20
09N
epal
Kat
hm
andu
1986
0.28
0.03
107.
1K
athm
andu
isth
eca
pita
lan
dla
rges
tm
etro
polit
anci
tyofN
epal
.Ala
met
al.,
2008
Kat
hm
andu
1990
0.32
0.03
107.
3—
Ala
met
al.,
2008
Kat
hm
andu
1999
0.59
0.07
125.
9—
Ala
met
al.,
2008
Kat
hm
andu
2000
0.63
0.08
123.
1—
Ala
met
al.,
2008
Kat
hm
andu
2001
0.67
0.08
116.
0—
Ala
met
al.,
2008
Kat
hm
andu
2002
0.71
0.08
113.
2—
Ala
met
al.,
2008
Kat
hm
andu
2003
0.74
0.08
112.
1—
Ala
met
al.,
2008
Kat
hm
andu
2004
0.30
0.27
905.
2M
SWdat
age
ner
ated
from
40house
hold
sex
amin
edin
April20
04(t
he
dry
seas
on).
Dan
giet
al.,
2011
Kat
hm
andu
2006
1.18
0.56
474.
5Cal
cula
tion
bas
edon
ove
rall
94%
colle
ctio
nef
fici
ency
.Ala
met
al.,
2008
Ghora
hi
2010
0.06
0.01
167.
0G
hora
hiis
the
mai
nci
tyofD
ang
Val
ley,
inso
uth
wes
tern
Nep
al.
UN
-HA
BIT
AT,20
10
1546
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
Om
anN
atio
nw
ide
2000
2.00
0.53
266.
5The
Sulta
nat
eofO
man
isan
arid
country
loca
ted
inth
eAra
bia
nPen
insu
la.
Alh
um
oud,20
05
Nat
ionw
ide
2004
2.40
0.90
375.
0—
Tah
aet
al.,
2004
Pak
ista
nK
arac
hi
1985
2.00
0.53
266.
5K
arac
hiis
the
larg
estci
ty,m
ain
seap
ort
and
finan
cial
cente
rofPak
ista
n.
Khat
ibet
al.,
1990
Lahore
2005
1.62
0.50
306.
6La
hore
isth
ese
cond
larg
estci
tyin
Pak
ista
n.
Ave
rage
dat
afr
om
the
per
iod
of19
80–2
005
Bat
oolet
al.,
2009
Pal
estin
eN
ablu
sdis
tric
t20
050.
300.
1136
5.0
Nab
lus
isa
Pal
estin
ian
city
inth
enorther
nW
est
Ban
k.Al-K
hat
ibet
al.,
2010
Pal
estin
ian
Ter
rito
ry20
055.
991.
1619
4.6
The
refe
rence
per
iod
was
April20
05A
l-K
hat
iban
dA
rafa
t,20
10W
estB
ank
2000
6.92
1.35
194.
6The
Wes
tBan
kis
ala
ndlo
cked
terr
itory
and
isth
eea
ster
npar
tofth
ePal
estin
ian
terr
itories
.The
amountofso
lidw
aste
gener
ated
dai
lyra
nge
sfr
om
328.
5to
438.
0kp
cin
the
Wes
tB
ank
urb
anar
eaan
dfr
om
182.
5to
292.
0kp
cin
rura
lar
eas.
Al-H
mai
di,
2002
Wes
tBan
kan
dG
aza
Strip
2002
7.20
1.97
273.
8G
aza
Strip
lies
on
the
Eas
tern
coas
tofth
eM
edite
rran
ean
Sea.
MSW
dat
abas
edon
the
2001
–200
2su
rvey
Khat
iban
dA
l-K
hat
eeb,20
09
Qat
arN
atio
nw
ide
2000
0.44
0.21
474.
5Q
atar
isan
Ara
bco
untry
loca
ted
inth
eM
iddle
Eas
tA
lhum
oud,20
05
SaudiA
rabia
Nat
ionw
ide
2000
20.1
09.
1745
6.3
SaudiAra
bia
isth
ela
rges
tA
rab
country
ofth
eM
iddle
Eas
t.A
lhum
oud,20
05
Eas
tern
Pro
vince
1988
0.44
0.35
785.
5Fi
veci
ties
inth
eEas
tern
Pro
vince
ofSa
udi
Ara
bia
are
A1-
Khobar
,Abqai
q,D
amm
am,
Dhah
ran,an
dRah
ima
Khan
etal
.,19
87
South
Kore
aN
atio
nw
ide
1994
42.0
321
.17
503.
7So
uth
Kore
ais
aco
untry
inEas
tA
sia,
loca
ted
on
the
south
ern
portio
nofth
eK
ore
anPen
insu
laM
SWdat
aon
year
-wis
esu
rvey
Kim
,20
02
Nat
ionw
ide
1996
48.5
418
.25
376.
0M
SWdat
aon
year
-wis
esu
rvey
Hong,
1999
Nat
ionw
ide
1997
47.0
317
.34
368.
7M
SWdat
aon
year
-wis
esu
rvey
Shek
dar
,20
09N
atio
nw
ide
1998
49.1
716
.15
328.
5M
SWdat
aon
year
-wis
esu
rvey
Kim
,20
02N
atio
nw
ide
1999
49.4
616
.61
335.
8M
SWdat
aon
year
-wis
esu
rvey
Hong,
1999
Nat
ionw
ide
2000
46.7
517
.06
365.
0M
SWdat
aon
year
-wis
esu
rvey
Shek
dar
,20
09K
wan
gmyo
ng
2006
0.05
0.04
313.
4M
SWdat
aon
year
-wis
esu
rvey
Kim
,20
02
(Con
tin
ued
onn
ext
page
)
1547
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
8.
MSW
gener
atio
nin
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dse
lect
edci
ties
ofA
sia
oth
erth
anSo
uth
east
Asi
a(C
onti
nu
ed)
Annual
Ave
rage
MSW
MSW
Popula
tion
gener
atio
nge
ner
atio
n(in
(in
mill
ion
(in
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
illio
ns)
tons)
kpc)
Rem
arks
Ref
eren
ce
SriLa
nka
Nat
ionw
ide
1995
47.0
216
.65
354.
1A
nis
land
nat
ion
inSo
uth
Asi
a,su
rrounded
by
the
India
nO
cean
.Sr
iLa
nka
was
form
erly
know
nas
Cey
lon
until
1972
.U
rban
popula
tion
was
22%
ofth
eto
talpopula
tion.
Vid
anaa
rach
chiet
al.,
2006
Colo
mbo
1994
0.62
0.22
357.
7Colo
mbo
isth
ela
rges
tci
tyan
dfo
rmer
capita
lofSr
iLa
nka
.H
oorn
weg
and
Laura
,19
99
Kan
dy
1994
0.10
0.02
211.
7K
andy
isth
ew
orld
her
itage
city
inth
ece
nte
rof
SriLa
nka
.H
oorn
weg
and
Laura
,19
99
Syria
Dam
ascu
sCity
2002
2.00
0.46
230.
0D
amas
cus
isth
eca
pita
lofSy
ria
(aco
untry
of
Wes
tern
Asi
a)al
sokn
ow
nas
the
“City
of
Jasm
ine.
”M
ore
than
90%
ofth
ein
hab
itants
are
serv
edby
regu
lar
was
teco
llect
ion
man
aged
by
the
munic
ipal
ity.The
rem
ainin
gin
hab
itants
(100
,000
–150
,000
)liv
ein
the
shan
tyto
wns
ofth
eci
ty,w
hic
hdo
notye
thav
ean
yorg
aniz
edw
aste
man
agem
entsy
stem
.
Alb
oukh
ari,
2004
Tai
wan
Nat
ionw
ide
2000
21.9
17.
8535
8.5
Tai
wan
,lo
cate
din
the
south
east
ern
rim
of
mai
nla
nd
Chin
aw
itha
hig
hpopula
tion
den
sity
.
Tsa
ian
dChou,20
06
Nat
ionw
ide
2005
22.7
17.
8334
4.9
—Tsa
iet
al.,
2007
Tai
pei
2008
5.20
3.70
711.
5Tai
pei
isTai
wan
’sec
onom
icga
tew
ayto
the
world
Tse
ng,
2010
Taj
ikis
tan
Nat
ionw
ide
NA
0.41
0.21
519.
3Taj
ikis
tan
isa
mounta
inous
landlo
cked
country
inCen
tral
Asi
aan
dlie
sad
jace
ntto
Pak
ista
n.
Tro
schin
etz
and
Mih
elci
c,20
09
1548
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
Tim
or-
Lest
eN
atio
nw
ide
NA
0.43
0.24
565.
3Tim
or-
Lest
eis
asm
allco
untry
inA
sia
and
loca
ted
about64
0km
northw
estofD
arw
in,
Aust
ralia
.
Tro
schin
etz
and
Mih
elci
c,20
09
Turk
men
ista
nN
atio
nw
ide
2004
1.09
0.37
338.
5Turk
men
ista
nis
also
know
nas
Turk
men
ia.
This
country
isone
ofth
eTurk
icst
ates
inCen
tral
Asi
a.
Tro
schin
etz
and
Mih
elci
c,20
09
Unite
dA
rab
Em
irat
esN
atio
nw
ide
2000
2.00
0.86
430.
7U
nite
dA
rab
Em
irat
es(o
rU
AE)
isa
feder
atio
nsi
tuat
edin
the
south
east
ofth
eAra
bia
nPen
insu
lain
South
wes
tA
sia.
This
country
has
the
world’s
seve
nth
larg
est
oil
rese
rves
and
the
most
dev
eloped
econom
ies
inW
estA
sia.
Alh
um
oud,20
05
Abu
Dhab
i19
950.
900.
5864
2.4
Abu
Dhab
iis
the
capita
lan
dth
ese
cond
larg
est
city
inth
eU
nite
dAra
bEm
irat
es.
40house
sw
ithdiffe
rentso
cioec
onom
icle
vels
and
tota
led
840
sam
ple
sw
ere
sam
ple
dfo
rth
isst
udy.
Abu
Qdai
set
al.,
1997
Not
e.N
A=
notav
aila
ble
.
1549
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1550 T. Karak et al.
According to the statistics available, 5.99 million tons of wastes areproduced in Bangladesh per year (Enayetullah et al., 2005; Hasan andChowdhury, 2005; Sujauddin et al., 2008). Dhaka (capital city of Bangladesh;population in 2008: 7.0 million), generates approximately 1.64 million tons ofwastes 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 es-timated to increase to 0.6 kg (i.e., 17.16 million tons per year; Enayetullahand Hashimi, 2006) with the estimated urban population of 78.44 million by2025 (Ray, 2008). According to the World Bank (1999), the residential wastegeneration rate in all the metropolitan cities of Bangladesh was 54.75 kpc.But, on the contrary, Hoornweg (1999) reported that metropolitan cities ofBangladesh generated 182.5 kpc MSW in 1998. The estimated data of theper capita waste generation rate in the year 2004 in six major urban ar-eas of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Chittagong, Rajshahi, Khulna, Sylhet, and Barisalwas 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 generatedyearly in the seven major cities (Dhaka; Chittagong, population in 2008: 2.58million; Rajshahi, population in 2008 estimated: 0.78 million; Khulna, popu-lation in 2008 estimated: 0.86 million; Barisal, population in 2008 estimated:0.21 million; Sylhet, population in 2008: 0.46 million) of Bangladesh (Alamgirand Ahsan, 2007). The per capita generation of MSW ranged from 118.6 to177 kpc in the country while the average rate was 141.3 kpc as measuredin the six major cities (Ahsan, 2005). According to Sujauddin et al. (2008),the solid waste generation at Rahman Nagar residential area (population in2006: 3500) of Chittagong district in Bangladesh was 91.25 kpc in the year2006. However, these findings varied from the value (54.75 kpc) that wasrecorded by the World Bank (1999). Sujauddin et al. (2008) further reportedthat different socioeconomic groups have an influence on MSW generationin Bangladesh. For example, low socioeconomic groups (monthly income< BDT 5000 where US$1 = BDT 70) generate 29.2 kpc MSW; however, thelower middle (monthly income between BDT 5000 and BDT 10,000), mid-dle (monthly income between BDT 10,000 and BDT 20,000), upper middle(monthly income between BDT 20,000 and BDT 50,000), and high socioeco-nomic 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 sourcesin Thimphu (capital city of Bhutan; population in 2005: 0.08 million) was547.5–730 kpc from households, 182.5–365 kpc form tourists, 401.5 kpcfrom commercial institutions, and 51.1 kpc from office employees (UrbanSector Programme Support Secretariat, 2000). On the basis of the one-weekperiod (October 29–November 4, 2007) of MSW generation rate survey inPhuntsholing city of Bhutan, Norbu et al. (2010) reported that the waste
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1551
generation rate was 146 kpc, which indicated waste generation of 1.19 milliontons per year. The waste generation rate has increased from 113.2 kpc in 2000(National Environment Commission, 2000) to 146 kpc in 2007, indicating a3.8% increase per year.
In the year 1986, the People’s Republic of China (population in 2010estimate: 1.34 billion) produced 408.8 kpc of MSW (Zhang, 1998). A recentstudy 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’sRepublic of China (1991), 45 Chinese cities generate 28.77 million tons MSWand among them in rank, Beijing city (capital of China; population in 2010:22 million) was the highest one (3.45 million tons) and Weihai (populationin 2004: 2.6 million) province generated lowest amount (only 52,000 metrictons). The total generated MSW in China for the year 1995 was 106.71 milliontons, which is equivalent to 576.7 kpc (Environmental Protection Bureau ofChina, 1995). The amount of MSW generated in China for the year 1997 was109.82 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). Between1995 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 toBie et al. (2007) the quantity of MSW generated in China has increased at arate between 8% and 10% per year over the past decades. Figure 8A depictsthe amount of MSW in Beijing city over the last decades. It can be seenthat the amount of MSW has increased steadily over the 14 years, from 2.23million 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 showedthe 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 beenidentified to be the strongest explanatory factor for the growth of the totalsolid waste amount in Beijing, indicating that the environment has beenpaying the price for the economic growth. According to the EnvironmentalProtection Department of Wuhan City (population in 2007:6.66 million), MSWquantities was increased from 1.19 million tons in 1985 to 1.50 million tonsin 1993 (Wei et al, 1997).
MSW generation and generation rate in Hong Kong (population in2010: 7.06 million) for the year 1995 was recorded as 10.9 million tonsand 1850.6 kpc, which is higher than any other Asian countries on the basisof per-day waste generation. The predicted MSW generation and genera-tion rate will be decreased to 9.42 million tons with 1642.5 kpc by the year2025 (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
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1552 T. Karak et al.
FIGURE 8. Generation of MSW (A) in Beijing city between 1990 and 2003 and (B) in Taipeicity from the year 1993 to 2002.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1553
tons in 1998 to 0.25 million tons in 2003, increasing at an average annualrate of 2.49% (Jin et al., 2006). This could be attributed to the increase inthe population and economic development. The average per capita rate ofsolid waste generated in Macao was 514.7 kpc in 1998 and 554.8 kpc in2003, with an average annual rate of increase of 1.56% (Statistics and CensusDepartment, 2000, 2003). The quantity of solid waste generated in Pudong(eastern part of Shanghai and one of the China’s most economically activecities; population in 2005: 1.85 million) increased from 0.88 million tons peryear 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 milliontons per year (about 405.2 kpc), approximately one fifth of the total amountproduced in Shanghai (population in 2009: 19.21 million). Based on the cur-rent population growth trend, the solid waste quantity generated in Pudongwill continue to be increased with the city’s development according to theprojected municipal waste generation for China (World Bank, 2005).
The quantity of MSW generated in Taiwan (population in 2009: 23.05million) has greatly increased during the past decade. In 1990, the daily MSWgeneration was 18750 tons, which represented an increase of 115% in the10 years following 1980 (Liu, 1991). A 10% increase of MSW was reportedfor 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 and1991, respectively (Chien, 1991). It was estimated that 397.9 kpc of MSW wasgenerated in 1992 in the Taiwan area, 467.2 kpc in Taipei city (population in2010: 7.16 million); and 412.45 kpc in Kaohsiung city (population in 2009: 3million; Yang, 1995). However, Taiwan introduced a unit pricing system ofMSW generation and has resulted in a reduction of waste generation from414.3 kpc in 1996 to 243.5 kpc in 2005 (Lu et al., 2006). Figure 8B shows thevariations in annual waste volume over the last decade in Taipei. Comparingthis 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, whichreflected the per-bag trash collection fee strategy implementation to achievethe goal of waste reduction and resource recycling in this city (APO, 2007).
In 1947, Indian cities, towns, and municipalities generated 6 million tonsof MSW (Sharholy et al., 2007). The urban population in India generatedabout 4.15 million tons of MSW in the year 1996, which is predicted toincrease in fourfold to about 16.6 million tons by the year 2026 (Hoornwegand Laura, 1999), which is equivalent to 255.5 kpc (World Bank, 2006). Percapita solid waste generation rates for Indian towns and cities were foundin the range of 80.3–240.9 kpc in 1998 (International Bank of Reconstructionand Development, 1999). According to Central Pollution Control Board ofIndia (CPCB; 2004) prediction data, the expected generation rate of MSW willbe supposed to increase to 299.3 million tons by the year 2047, consideringthat the urban population of India is expected to grow to 45% in totalfrom the prevailing 28% (CPCB, 2004; Sharholy et al., 2007).This tremendous
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1554 T. Karak et al.
increase in the amount of MSW generation is due to changing lifestyles, foodhabits, 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 householdsgenerated approximately 2.56 million tons per year of MSW at the rate of182.5 kpc in the year 2001 (Delhi Urban Environment and InfrastructureImprovement Project, 2001). The planning department of Delhi projectedthat the present population is likely to increase to 22.4 million and the wastegeneration 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, 388class 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 countryagainst the other 3,955 urban centers producing only 17.5% of the totalwaste (Zia and Devadas, 2008). The quantity of MSW generated in Chennai(formerly Madras; population in 2010: 4.62 million) metropolitan city wasaround 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% andforecasted that the quantity of MSW will be changed from 0.15 million tons inthe 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; populationin 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 totalMSW generated in Kharagpur (a district of West Medinipur of West Bengal;population in 2001: 0.21 million), famous for having the longest railwayplatform in the world (i.e., 1.0725 km long), was 95 tpd, but the wastecollected by the municipality is about 50 tpd, which implies that almost 45 tpdof the solid waste generated remained uncollected for the year 2008 (Kumarand Goel, 2009).
The quantity of MSW generated in different states in India for the yearof 2004 are shown in Figure 9.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has 28 provinces comprising of 950 citiesand 68,000 villages. The size and population of the cities are somethingdifferent. About 45% of the citizens live in the eight big cities of Tehran,Mashhad, Esfahan, Tabriz, Karag, Ghom, Shiraz, and Kermanshah. The other55% of the citizens live in the other 942 cities. The history of MSWM systemsin the Islamic Republic of Iran goes back to 1911, when the first municipalitywas established (Kreith, 1994). More than 45% of the MSW is generatedfrom these eight big cities. The population is divided as 33% in rural and67% in urban areas. According to the research carried out by the Ministryof Interior in 1993, the yearly average generation rates of municipal wastein 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 of8.2 million and containing 2.4 million households, generated 2.56 million
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1555
1.44
0.07
0.54
0.07
1.46
1.39
0.23
0.01
0.45
0.83
3.14
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.37
0.65
1.83
0.01
1.63
1.14
2.01
0.24
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
AP
AS B
CH
DH G
HR HI
KR
KE
MP
MH
MA
ME
MZ
OR
PO
PN
RA
TN
TR
UP
WB
State code
To
tal M
SW
gen
erat
ion
( m
illio
n t
on
s)
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
MS
W g
ener
atio
n r
ate
(kp
c)
Annual MSW generation (million tons)
MSW generation rate (kpc)
FIGURE 9. MSW generation rates in different states in India for the year 2004. AP = AndhraPradesh; 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 = UttarPradesh: 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 wastegeneration rate was estimated to be as 292 kpc for Rasht city in Iran for theyear 2007 and the total amount of MSW is currently about 0.15 million tonsper year (Moghadam et al., 2009). This generation rate is similar to that of theTehran province (Abdoli, 1995). Presently, the amount of municipal wastegenerated in Iran is 17.58 million tons per year. However, this figure doesnot include demolition and construction of waste generated in the urban andrural area of Iran (Moghadam et al., 2009). According to Baghdad MayoraltyReports, Baghdad (capital city of Iraq) produced 230 kpc MSW for the year2006. MSW generation rate for the year 2007, 2008, and 2009 in Baghdadcity was recorded as 241, 248.2, and 259.2 kpc, respectively. The estimatedamount of MSW in Baghdad city for the year 2010 is 270 kpc (Alsamawiet al., 2009).
Studies conducted in the mid-1990s estimated that the amount of MSWgenerated daily ranges from 328.5 to 438 kpc in the Palestinian urban areasand from 182.5 to 292 kpc in rural areas. On the same time the total annualamount of MSW produced in West Bank and Gaza Strip alone exceeded0.5 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
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1556 T. Karak et al.
average solid waste generated was 155.3 kpc with the range between 117.2and 307.3 kpc (Khatib and Al-Khateeb, 2009). According to the PalestinianCentral Bureau of Statistics (PCBS; 2002), it was estimated that the total dailysolid waste produced in the Gaza Strip for the year 2005 was 0.37 milliontons per year, which is equivalent to 255.5 to 365 kpc.
The per capita MSW generation rate (in kpc) in major cities of Israelfor the year 2006 was ranged between 376 and 1237.35 (Central Bureau ofStatistics, 2007). Data on MSW quantities, which were compiled by the SolidWaste Division in the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Israel, revealedthat in 2006, on average each person in Israel generated 560 kpc.
From 1960 onward, rapid economic growth began in Japan. The rateof economic growth was more than 10% in those years, and it broughtprosperity to Japan. However, it also brought serous public nuisance andan increase in the municipal solid waste. Before 1960, the changes in thewaste and the population showed almost same trends, but after that year,the waste increased very rapidly although the population had been relativelydecreasing. This increase was appeared in all the cities and towns in Japan(Yamamoto, 2002). The rate of MSW generation in Japan for the year 1970was 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 tonsper year, which is equal to 357.7 kpc (NREL, 1993). In 1990 the generation ofMSW 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 year1991. Out of this amount, 36,106 tons were imported from three neighboringmunicipalities such as Cayuga, Hiragana, and Nakagawa. In this year annualper capita MSW generation rate for Fukuoka city, exclusive of these othercommunities was 540 kpc. Total MSW generation and generation rate inJapan for the year 1992 was 51.18 million tons and 408.8 kpc, respectively(World Bank, 1997). The significant increase of MSW generation in Japanwas 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 forthe year 2007 with the GDP of US$33,010. According to Shekdar (2009), thepredicated MSW that will be generated in this country by the year 2030 is 49million tons with the urban population of 122 million.
According a World Bank (2000) report, Jordanian citizens produced1.3 million tons (i.e., 284 kpc) of MSW for the year 1998. The generation rateof per capita solid waste in Jordan for the year 2002 was 292 kpc. however, itvaried in cities and rural areas. The generation rate may be as high as 365 kpcin big cities, whereas in small cities and rural areas it might be as low as219 kpc for each person (Agamuthu, 2003). On the basis of the incrementof the waste generation data, World Bank (2000) speculated that the wastegeneration for the year 2010 would go to 2.0 million tons which is equivalentto 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
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1557
expected to reach about 2.5 million tons. This increase is mainly attributedto increase in population and changes in living standards and consumptionpatterns in the country.
The amounts of MSW generated in Kuwait in 1995, 2000, and 2005were 864, 984, and 1117 million tons per year, respectively (Al-Salem andAl-Shaman, 2007; Koushki and Al-Humoud, 2002). In a past study, it wasfound that an average household in Kuwait generates 2.2 times (8.4 kg) asmuch as waste generated by a German household per day for the year 1996(Koushki and Al-Khaleefi, 1998). The average citizen in Kuwait produced511 kpc of MSW in the year 2008 (Al-Salem and Lettieri, 2009). Accordingto Al-Salem and Lettieri (2009), the projected total MSW in Kuwait will bedouble by the year 2020 (1,661 tons) with respect to the total amount ofMSW generated in the year 1995. As nearly 98% of Kuwait’s populationresides within the metropolitan area and contributes the comparatively highgeneration rate of MSW in the country, even though population density islower (Koushki and Al-Humid, 2002).
According the previously mentioned World Bank (2000) report, the es-timated solid waste generation in Lebanon for the year 1998 was 1.4 milliontons, equaling 337 kpc. The projected solid waste generation for the year2010 is 1.8 million tons, which is equivalent to 363 kpc. This reflects the8% increase of waste generation per year over the year from 1998 to 2010.Presently Lebanese citizens each generate 182.5 kpc MSW (Troschinetz andMihelcic, 2009).
Maldives has the highest MSW generation rate (905.2 kpc) among thedeveloped Southeast Asian countries as its greatest economic activity beingtourism (United Nations Environmental Programme [UNEP], 2002), making itan 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 acquiredthe third position, just after Thailand, providing 474.5 kpc MSW.
There have been very few studies on MSW generation rates and man-agement practices in Nepal and most of these have been confined to Kath-mandu city. Households are the main source of municipal waste in Nepal.Based on the study by Mishra and Kayastha (1998), it was estimated thatthe average MSW generation rate in municipalities of Nepal ranges from91.3 to 182.5 kpc, depending on the size of the municipality. The MSWgenerated 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 themunicipalities in Nepal was estimated as 427 tpd (83% of all waste gener-ated in Nepal). Table 8 shows a generation rate of solid waste over timein Kathmandu, the capital city of Nepal. This clearly revealed that the totalamount of waste rose by a factor of three during a period of about fourdecades, from 1952–1954 to 1991. From 1991 to 2001, the average rise of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1558 T. Karak et al.
total amount of MSW in Kathmandu was 5.2% per year; however, it was20% in 2001 and 2002 (Alam et al., 2008; Dangi et al., 2011). The annualper capita production of MSW in the year 1987 in Kathmandu, Nepal hasbeen estimated at 109 kpc (Rushbrook and Finney, 1988). A study in 1991showed the average amount of MSW generated by people of the Kathmanduvalley varied from 91.3 to 182.5 kpc (Pokhrel and Viraraghavan, 2005). Inanother study in 1997, the amount of solid waste generated in Kathmanduvalley was estimated as 206 kpc (Mishra and Kayastha, 1998). A survey bySolid Waste Management and Resource Mobilization Center (SWMRMC) inall 58 municipalities in Nepal was conducted in 2003 and found that theMSW 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 (Tahaet al., 2004). Pakistan has a population of 160 million, with 35% people liv-ing in urban areas. According to the World Wildlife Fund (2001), Pakistangenerated about 219–292 kpc MSW in the year 2000. Solid waste generatedin urban areas of Pakistan was estimated to be 20.08 million tons per year inthe year 2004 (Japan International Cooperation Agency and Pakistan Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, 2005b). Presently the total waste generated inLahore 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 ofMSW in the year 2000 decreased than the year 1994 and this is due to SouthKorea introduced a volume-based fee system in 1995 (Hong, 1999). Theinitiative was based on the polluter pays principle, and promotes a reductionof waste generation at the source. The system has played a significant rolein reducing the volumes of waste generated by promoting recycling, whileit has also helped to cut the municipal waste management costs. In the year2003, 46.8 million urban populations had generated 17 million tons of solidwaste, which is equal to 379.6 kpc (Shekdar, 2009). According to Shekdar(2009), the projected amount of solid waste generation in this country forthe year 2030 will raise up to 18 million tons from the population of 49.2million.
The per capita waste generation in different local authorities of munici-pal councils, urban councils, and Pradeshiya Sabhas (smallest administrativeunit of local authorities in Sri Lanka) in Sri Lanka for the year 2000 werearound 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 Lankawas 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 3.29million tons per year (Asian Institute of Technology, 2004). According toShekdar (2009) the waste generation rate of Sri Lanka for the year 2007 was73.0–328.5 kpc with the GDP of $US5,047.
MSW generation in Syria for the year 1998 was 3.4 million tons andthe projected MSW generation for the year 2010 is 5.7 million tons (World
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1559
Bank, 2000a). The per capita per person waste generation for the year 1998was recorded 0.56 kg; however, the estimated per capita per person wastegeneration for the year 2010 is 0.67 kg.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is located in Arabian peninsula withseven emirates and a population 2.4 million. The generated MSW in the year1996 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 ratesin the world; that is 750 kpc per year for the year 2001 (Elshorbagy andMohamed, 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 inTurkmenistan is recorded as 145.6 kpc (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009).According to UNEP (2000a), MSW generation rate by Yemeni citizens for theyear 2000 was 292 kpc.
In a nutshell, urban areas in Asia produced approximately 0.76 milliontons of MSW per day in 1998, which is expected to rise to 1.8 milliontons by 2025 (Jin et al., 2006). Besides this fact, the quantity of solid wastegeneration is also mostly associated with the economic status of a society.Accordingly, Figure 10 shows GDP, together with waste generation rates andcomposition for some of the largest Asian countries. It can readily be seenthat the waste generation rates are lower in developing economies havinglower GDP (Shekdar, 2009).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
Jap
an
Sin
gap
ore
Tai
wan
So
uth
Ko
rea
Mal
aysi
a
Th
aila
nd
Ch
ina
Ph
ilip
pin
es
Ind
on
esia
Sri
Lan
ka
Ind
ia
Vie
tnam
Lao
PD
R
Nep
al
Asian countries
Was
te g
ener
atio
n (
kpc)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
GD
P p
er c
apit
a fo
r 20
07 (
US
D)Waste GDP
FIGURE 10. Graphical presentation of MSW generation in relation to the GDP for the year2007 in some Asian countries (Source: Shekdar, 2009).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1560 T. Karak et al.
The information of MSW generation in other Asian countries such asGeorgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nagorno-Karabakh, North Ko-rea, Northern Cyprus, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, and Uzbekistan is scanty andno presentable data were found for this review.
MSW Composition in Other Asian Nations
Data on average (wet) composition of MSW in Asian nations along withmajor cities of different countries have been tabulated in Table 9. Organicfractions (≥69%) were found to be the largest contributors of MSW in thesix major cities of Bangladesh, namely Barisal, Chittagong, Dhaka, Khulna,Rajshahi, and Sylhet, as estimated in the year 2005 (Ahsan, 2005). The overallsocioeconomic condition of the country is probably responsible for the veryhigh percentage of organic matter.
The total organic fraction of the waste composition in Phuntsholing cityof 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 peryear), and other miscellaneous materials, which constituted 5.1% (167 tonsper year; Norbu et al., 2010).
MSW in China is composed of resident refuse, street refuse, and grouprefuse where resident refuse is the key factor affecting MSW quantity andcomposition (Nie and Dong, 1998; Zhang, 1998). The composition of MSWin China cities varied with their scale, situation, and the seasons. The inor-ganic components of MSW in China were more than organic ones exceptin Hong Kong. The MSW composition in Hong Kong is composed of 38%biodegradable, 26% paper, 19% plastics, 2% metal, 9% inert fraction and tex-tiles contributes 2% each. In China, the ranges of inorganic, organic, andutilizable 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 organicsubstances (food waste, paper, plastics, wood, and fiber) in Beijing city in-creased gradually, and accounted for 86% in 2003. Meanwhile, the proportionof recycling waste (plastics, glass, paper, fiber and metal) also got increasedfrom 15% in 1990 to 45% in 2000 (Sun et al., 2006). However, it decreasedin 2003 due to the increase of food waste. According to the Ningbo Statis-tics Bureau (2003), organic components (food scrap), which weigh the mostamong the total MSW produced in the area, accounted for approximately65%; inorganic components (e.g., furnace ash, brick, tiles, stones, dust, ash,glass, metal) accounted for the remaining 35% from 1998 to 2002. Accord-ing to a recent report, the composition found in Taiwan’s MSW was paper21.88–26.24%, 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). Therespective physical composition of the MSW over time (from 1998 to 2004)in Macao revealed that a considerable quantity of waste, including paperand cardboard, plastics, metal, and glass that can be recycled, recovered, or
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
9.
Per
centa
geofphys
ical
com
posi
tion
inM
SWge
ner
ated
from
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dm
ajor
citie
sfr
om
Asi
aoth
erth
anSo
uth
east
Asi
a
Org
anic
Pap
eran
dG
lass
/Tex
tiles
and
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
ater
ial
pap
erboar
dPla
stic
sCer
amic
Met
als
oth
erRef
eren
ce
Arm
enia
Yer
evan
Bef
ore
1990
65.5
11.6
2.0
5.4
3.1
12.4
Arz
um
anya
n,20
04Y
erev
anA
fter
1990
61.5
18.0
2.0
4.0
0.3
14.2
Arz
um
anya
n,20
04Ban
glad
esh
Bar
isal
2005
81.1
7.2
3.5
0.5
1.2
6.5
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89Chitt
agong
2005
73.6
9.9
2.8
1.0
2.2
10.5
Ahm
edan
dRah
man
,20
00D
hak
a(f
orm
erly
know
nas
Dac
ca)
1885
40.0
2.0
1.0
9.0
1.0
47.0
Yousu
fan
dRah
man
,20
07
Dhak
a20
0070
.04.
05.
00.
30.
120
.6A
lam
gir
and
Ahsa
n,20
07D
hak
a20
0479
.99.
44.
51.
71.
03.
6A
lam
gir
and
Ahsa
n,20
07D
hak
a20
0568
.310
.74.
30.
72.
014
.0A
lam
gir
and
Ahsa
n,20
07K
huln
a20
0578
.99.
53.
10.
51.
16.
9A
lam
gir
and
Ahsa
n,20
07Raj
shah
i20
0571
.18.
94.
01.
11.
113
.8A
lam
gir
and
Ahsa
n,20
07Sy
lhet
2005
73.5
8.6
3.5
0.7
1.1
12.6
Ala
mgi
ran
dA
hsa
n,20
07B
huta
nN
atio
nw
ide
2008
58.3
15.9
12.6
4.1
0.9
8.2
Phunts
ho
etal
.,20
10Chin
aN
atio
nw
ide
1996
62.0
6.0
8.0
2.0
1.0
21.0
Wan
gan
dN
ie,20
01N
atio
nw
ide
2000
57.0
8.0
10.0
2.0
1.0
22.0
Chen
etal
.,20
10N
atio
nw
ide
2002
59.0
8.0
10.0
3.0
1.0
19.0
Huan
get
al.,
2006
Bay
i20
0655
.018
.017
.0N
R1.
09.
0Jian
get
al.,
2009
Bei
jing
1989
33.8
6.0
1.9
3.8
0.8
53.9
Rong
etal
.,20
04B
eijin
g19
9544
.316
.210
.410
.23.
016
.0W
ang
and
Wu,20
01B
eijin
g20
0051
.614
.313
.66.
31.
213
.0Rong
etal
.,20
04B
eijin
g20
0665
.211
.112
.71.
80.
39.
0Zhen
-shan
etal
.,200
9B
eijin
g20
0869
.310
.39.
80.
80.
69.
2Q
uet
al.,
2009
Chongq
ing
2005
63.4
10.1
15.7
NR
NR
10.8
Li’a
oet
al.,
2009
Chongq
ing
2006
59.2
10.1
15.7
3.4
1.1
10.5
Yuan
etal
.,20
06G
uan
ghan
1998
50.7
8.8
6.1
0.6
0.2
33.6
Hu
etal
.,19
98G
uan
gzhou
1999
58.1
6.3
14.5
2.0
0.6
18.5
Jian
get
al.,
2009
Han
gzhou
2009
57.0
15.0
3.0
8.0
3.0
14.0
Zhao
etal
.,20
09b
Hong
Kong
1985
9.0
32.0
11.0
10.0
2.0
36.0
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89H
ong
Kong
2006
44.0
26.0
18.0
3.0
2.0
7.0
Ko
and
Poon,20
09Lh
asa
city
2006
71.0
6.0
12.0
NR
1.0
10.0
Jian
get
al.,
2009
Mac
ao19
988.
812
.39.
74.
93.
161
.2Jin
etal
.,20
06M
acao
2001
35.2
15.0
15.2
10.5
2.7
21.4
Jin
etal
.,20
06M
acao
2004
16.9
16.9
22.2
5 .1
7.8
31.1
Jin
etal
.,20
06N
edong
2006
57.0
5.0
24.0
NR
1.0
13.0
Jian
get
al.,
2009
Nin
gbo
1998
53.7
5.4
7.9
2.4
1.0
29.6
Liu
etal
.,20
06
(Con
tin
ued
onn
ext
page
)
1561
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
9.
Per
centa
geof
phys
ical
com
posi
tion
inM
SWge
ner
ated
from
diffe
rent
countrie
san
dm
ajor
citie
sfr
om
Asi
aoth
erth
anSo
uth
east
Asi
a(C
onti
nu
ed)
Org
anic
Pap
eran
dG
lass
/Tex
tiles
and
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
ater
ial
pap
erboar
dPla
stic
sCer
amic
Met
als
oth
erRef
eren
ce
Qin
gdao
1998
42.2
4.0
11.2
2.2
1.1
39.3
Liu
etal
.,20
06Sh
angh
ai20
0851
.016
.020
.1N
RN
R12
.9Chen
etal
.,20
10Sh
angh
ai20
0966
.74.
520
.02.
70.
35.
9H
ong
etal
.,200
6Sh
enY
ang
2007
73.7
7.6
5.2
2.4
0.3
10.8
Ran
inge
r,20
09Sh
enzh
en19
9840
.017
.013
.05.
03.
022
.0Li
uet
al.,
2006
Shig
atse
2006
63.0
5.0
13.0
NR
1.0
18.0
Jian
get
al.,
2009
Tai
pei
1984
25.0
8.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
61.0
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89Tia
njin
2007
56.9
8.7
12.1
1.3
0.4
20.6
Zhao
etal
.,20
09a
Tib
et20
0972
.06 .
012
.00.
01.
09.
0Jian
get
al.,
2009
India
Nat
ionw
ide
2008
40.0
10.0
2.0
0.2
NR
47.8
Unnik
rish
nan
and
Singh
,20
10A
hm
edab
ad19
9740
.06.
03.
0N
RN
R51
.0CPCB
,19
98A
hm
adab
ad20
0772
.05.
76.
71.
40.
813
.4Si
ngh
etal
.,20
08B
anga
lore
1985
65.0
3.0
0.5
0.2
0.4
30.9
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89B
anga
lore
1996
45.0
8.0
6.0
6.0
3.0
32.0
CPCB
,19
98B
anga
lore
2000
72.0
11.0
6.2
1.4
1.0
8.4
Chan
akya
etal
.,20
07B
hopal
1995
45.0
10.0
2.0
1.0
NR
42.0
CPCB
,19
98Chen
nai
(form
erly
know
nas
Mad
ras)
1973
48.0
7.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
41.5
Jha
etal
.,20
08
Chen
nai
1997
44.0
10.0
3.0
NR
NR
43.0
CPCB
,19
98Chen
nai
2002
47.2
6.5
7.0
NR
NR
39.2
Jha
etal
.,20
08D
elhi
1973
35.0
5.0
1.0
NR
NR
59.0
Jha
etal
.,20
08D
elhi
1997
35.4
6.3
0.9
0.6
1.2
55.7
CPCB
,19
98H
arK
iPau
ri,
Har
idw
ar20
0431
.86.
61.
51.
22.
556
.1G
angw
aran
dJo
shi,
2008
Hyd
erab
ad19
9751
.84.
56.
49.
31.
426
.6CPCB
,19
98In
dore
1997
40.0
7.0
1.3
NR
NR
51.7
CPCB
,19
98Ja
ipur
1997
43.0
5.0
1.0
NR
NR
51.0
CPCB
,19
98K
anpur
1997
42.0
6.0
1.0
2.0
NR
49.0
CPCB
,19
98K
anpur
2007
40.0
5.0
1.5
NR
NR
58.5
Zia
and
Dev
adas
,20
08K
och
i19
9744
.34.
05.
40.
00.
046
.3CPCB
,19
98K
ohim
a20
0858
.04.
91.
1N
RN
R36
.0Chat
terjee
,20
09K
olk
ata
(form
erly
know
nas
Cal
cutta)
1973
46.6
NR
1.5
0.2
0.7
51.0
Jha
etal
.,20
08
Kolk
ata
1995
70.5
7.6
5.2
3.2
3.1
11.0
NEERI,
2005
Kolk
ata
1997
40.0
10.0
8.0
3.0
NR
39.0
CPCB
,19
98K
olk
ata
2002
55.1
6.1
4.9
0.3
0.2
33.5
Jha
etal
.,20
08
1562
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
Kolk
ata
2005
55.9
4.6
3.2
1.7
0.4
34.1
NEERI,
2005
Luck
now
1997
40.4
3.2
0.7
0.4
0.7
54.8
CPCB
,19
98M
adura
i19
9740
.04.
04.
0N
R1.
051
.0CPCB
,19
98M
um
bai
(form
erly
know
nas
Bom
bay
)19
9640
.03.
03.
0N
RN
R35
.0CPCB
,19
98
Nag
pur
1997
45.0
5.0
3.0
NR
NR
47.0
CPCB
,19
98Pat
na
1997
30.0
4.5
1.3
1.2
0.4
62.3
CPCB
,19
98Puduch
erry
2008
38.4
30.0
10.4
5.0
4.5
11.7
Pat
tnai
kan
dRed
dy,
2010
Pune
1997
44.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
41.8
CPCB
,19
98Sa
nga
mner
city
2006
45.0
4.0
6 .0
2.0
1.0
42.0
Thita
me
etal
.,20
10Su
rat
1997
55.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
NR
15.0
CPCB
,19
98V
adodar
a19
9742
.26.
16.
02.
05.
038
.7CPCB
,19
98V
aran
asi
1997
40.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
NR
50.0
CPCB
,19
98V
ishak
apat
nam
1997
40.0
4.0
7.0
NR
NR
49.0
CPCB
,19
98Ir
anTeh
ran
1980
48.0
3.0
10.0
NR
NR
39.0
Choko
uhm
and,19
82Teh
ran
1983
85.6
4.7
3.6
0.5
2.1
3.5
Abduli,
1995
Teh
ran
1992
64.8
17.2
3.8
2.1
1.1
4.1
Abduli,
1997
Teh
ran
2008
73.6
8.3
4.8
2.7
1.3
9.3
Abduli
etal
.,20
10Ja
pan
Nat
ionw
ide
1992
42.3
25.0
11.2
2.9
5.1
13.5
Saka
i,19
96N
atio
nw
ide
2003
42.6
22.3
11.4
1.6
9.0
13.0
OECD
,200
5K
awas
aki
1979
23.7
35.8
14.4
7.3
3.7
15.1
Yam
amura
,19
83K
awas
aki
2006
34.0
33.0
13.0
5.0
3.0
12.0
Gen
get
al.,
2010
Kyo
to19
9268
.88.
19.
72.
41.
89.
2Sa
kaiet
al.,
1996
Osa
ka19
8031
.838
.315
.91.
11.
111
.9Y
amam
ura
,19
83O
saka
1989
6.5
35.7
20.3
9.8
5.3
22.4
Saka
i,19
96Sa
pporo
1989
46.6
25.2
12.5
7.1
3.7
4 .9
Saka
i,19
96Toky
oN
A42
.325
.011
.22.
95.
113
.5A
liK
han
and
Burn
ey,19
89Toky
o19
8931
.344
.57.
81.
21.
214
.0Sa
kai,
1996
Yoko
ham
a19
899.
840
.014
.813
.25.
716
.5Sa
kai,
1996
Yoko
ham
a19
9011
.056
.216
.81.
62.
012
.5Tak
anas
hiet
al.,
1998
Yoko
ham
a20
0423
.038
.011
.07.
04.
017
.0Contrer
aset
al.,
2010
Jord
anN
atio
nw
ide
1979
77.5
14.0
3.4
4.1
1.0
NR
Haw
skle
y,19
80N
atio
nw
ide
1986
71.5
15.2
2.4
2.0
2.1
6.9
Abu
Qdai
set
al.,
1997
Nat
ionw
ide
1995
63.0
11.0
16.0
2.0
2.0
6.0
Abu-Q
udai
san
dA
bu-Q
dai
s,20
00A
mm
an20
0054
.414
.013
.22.
82.
413
.2A
bu
Qdai
s,20
07Ir
bid
1999
77.5
14.9
2.5
2.6
1.3
1.2
Abu
Qdai
s,20
07Zar
qa
city
2001
62.6
11.5
16.2
2.1
2.1
5.6
Mra
yyan
and
Ham
di,2
006
Kaz
akhst
anN
atio
nw
ide
NA
54.4
14.0
13.2
2.8
2.4
13.2
Abu
Qdai
s,20
07K
uw
ait
Nat
ionw
ide
1995
37.5
35.0
5.0
3.5
5.5
13.5
Abu
Qdai
set
al.,
1997
Nat
ionw
ide
2005
50.0
20.7
12.6
3.3
2.6
10.8
Al-Sa
lem
and
Lettie
ri,20
09Sa
fwa
1984
30.0
40.0
6.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
Khan
etal
.,19
87
(Con
tin
ued
onn
ext
page
)
1563
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
9.
Per
centa
geof
phys
ical
com
posi
tion
inM
SWge
ner
ated
from
diffe
rent
countrie
san
dm
ajor
citie
sfr
om
Asi
aoth
erth
anSo
uth
east
Asi
a(C
onti
nu
ed)
Org
anic
Pap
eran
dG
lass
/Tex
tiles
and
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
ater
ial
pap
erboar
dPla
stic
sCer
amic
Met
als
oth
erRef
eren
ce
Leban
on
Nat
ionw
ide
NA
37.5
35.0
5.0
3.5
5.5
13.5
EI-Fa
del
and
Sbay
ti,20
00M
auritiu
sN
atio
nw
ide
NA
62.4
11.3
11.0
5.6
2.9
6.8
Shek
dar
,20
09N
epal
Nat
ionw
ide
NA
80.0
7.0
2.5
3.0
0.5
7.0
Shek
dar
,20
09K
athm
andu
1976
52.2
6.0
5.4
3.6
4.8
28.0
Tab
asar
an,19
76;U
NEP
(200
1a)
Kat
hm
andu
1988
57.7
6.2
2.0
1.6
0.4
32.2
Ala
met
al.,
2008
Kat
hm
andu
1995
52.2
6.0
5.4
3.6
2.3
30.5
Pokh
relan
dV
irar
aghav
an,20
05K
athm
andu
2001
57.8
6.2
2.0
1.6
0.4
32.0
Ala
met
al.,
2008
Kat
hm
andu
2004
69.8
8.5
9.2
2.5
0.9
9.1
Dan
giet
al.,
2011
Kat
hm
andu
2007
67.8
6.5
0.3
1.3
4.9
19.2
Dan
giet
al.,
2011
Om
anN
atio
nw
ide
NA
53.0
13.0
12.5
6.5
6.0
9.0
Tah
aet
al.,
2004
Pak
ista
nLa
hore
NA
71.0
7.5
12.0
1.3
0.5
7.7
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89D
ata
Gan
jBukh
shTow
n(D
GB
T)
inLa
hore
2005
67.0
5.0
18.5
2.2
0.5
6.8
Bat
oolan
dChuad
hry
,20
09
Kar
achi
NA
49.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
38.0
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89K
arac
hi
1985
54.5
10.1
9.9
1.2
0.7
23.6
Khat
ibet
al.,
1990
Kar
achi
1988
67.0
5.0
18.5
2.2
0.5
6.8
Khat
ibet
al.,
1990
Pal
estin
eN
ablu
s20
0556
.00.
50 .
50.
50.
542
.0A
l-K
hat
ibet
al.,
2010
Wes
tBan
kan
dG
aza
Strip
2002
74.0
5.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
Khat
iban
dA
l-K
hat
eeb,20
09
Qat
arN
atio
nw
ide
NA
53.3
17.7
15.0
3.1
4.3
6.6
Abu
Qdai
set
al.,
1997
SaudiAra
bia
Nat
ionw
ide
NA
35.0
34.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
24.0
Abu
Qdai
set
al.,
1997
Nat
ionw
ide
2006
53.3
17.7
15.0
3.1
4.3
6.6
Kw
aket
al.,
2006
Dam
mam
1987
61.0
15.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
Khan
etal
.,19
87Je
ddah
1987
73.7
15.6
2.7
1.2
2.1
4.7
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89K
hobar
1986
57.0
17.0
10.0
7.0
7.0
2.0
Khar
ajia
net
al.,
1985
SriLa
nka
Nat
ionw
ide
1997
66.0
13.0
8.0
2.0
3.0
8.0
Vid
anaa
rach
chiet
al.,
2006
Nat
ionw
ide
2004
58.9
6.5
5.9
2.0
2.8
23.9
Men
ikpura
and
Bas
nay
ake,
2009
Mora
tuw
a20
0552
.816
.421
.1N
R2.
47.
3B
andar
aet
al.,
2007
Syria
Nat
ionw
ide
NA
66.0
13.0
8.0
2.0
3.0
8.0
Abu
Qdai
set
al.,
1997
Taj
ikis
tan
Nat
ionw
ide
NA
71.3
6.5
5.9
2.0
2.8
11.5
Abu
Qdai
set
al.,
1997
Unite
dA
rab
Em
irat
esA
bu
Dhab
i19
9549
.06.
012
.09.
08.
016
.0A
bu
Qdai
set
al.,
1997
Al-A
in19
8721
.039
.05.
05.
015
.015
.0K
han
etal
.,19
87Y
emen
Sanaa
NA
56.0
6.0
1.0
2.0
8.0
27. 0
Khan
etal
.,19
87
Not
e.N
A=
notav
aila
ble
;N
R=
notre
ported
.
1564
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1565
reused (Jin et al., 2006). Table 9 shows the physical composition of MSW indifferent metro cities in India for the year 2000. From the data it is clear thatthough the larger (30–72%) proportion of organic matters present in IndianMSW, recyclable items also contribute a significant amount.
The characteristics of the waste generated in Iran vary from one city toanother, but as a general rule, compared with the industrial nations, the per-centage 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 inIran is very low. The major component of MSW in Iran for the year 2000 wasfound as organic fraction, contributing 63% of the total MSW (Abduli, 2000).
According to a recent survey of solid waste composition in Israel, con-ducted in 2005, organic materials are the main components of the wastestream, in terms of weight, constituting 40% of Israel’s solid waste, fol-lowed 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). Or-ganic solid waste is the most abundant type of waste in Palestinian Authorityareas, including the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as it forms 74% (equaling0.27 million tons per year) by weight of the solid waste generated (Khatiband Al-Khateeb, 2009). Besides organic solids, plastics contribute 3% (10,038tons 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 tonsper 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 theremaining 4–7% are other materials (Alfayez, 2003; Qdais, 2007). Therefore,the composition of MSW showed that the largest proportion of solid wastein 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 ofMSW were reported as 13%, 6%, 10%, and 1%, respectively.
Similar to Singapore, most often the MSW is characterized by high paperand plastics content, particularly in Japan. The physical composition of MSWin Japan is paper and carton 37%, plastics 11%, glass 7%, metals 6%, textiles7%, and biodegradable 32% (Moqsud and Hayashi, 2006). The compositionof the MSW generated in the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal shows that therehas been a change in the solid waste composition over time (Table 9). Thequantity of the plastic waste has increased compared to the previous years.Among the all compositions, biodegradable fraction in generated waste indifferent location of Pakistan was found to be higher, similar to other Asiancountries.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
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, av-erage MSW composition in Sri Lanka is biodegradable 76.4%, paper andpaperboard 10.6%, plastics 5.7%, glass and metals are 1.3% each, and inertand other is 4.7% (Shekdar, 2009). Biodegradable fraction in other Asiancountries such as Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste,Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Yemen contributed64.8–78.3% of total MSW (APO, 2007).
In general, Figure 11 gives weighted average of the MSW compositionin Asian countries on the basis of economic status for the year 1995 andalso the forecasted data of MSW composition for the year 2025. From thefigures it is clear that in the countries having high income, paper is the majorcontributor, followed by organic matter and plastics; in the countries havingmiddle and lower income, organic matter is the major contributor, followedby paper and plastics (WHO, 1999).
MSW Generation in African Countries
Even though MSW problems were identified several decades ago in de-veloped countries, the ills of appropriate quantification of MSW and thelack of reliable information systems are the critical aspects of its manage-ment in African countries. Furthermore, the quantification of MSW in Africancountries is mainly focused on the metropolitan areas, and few cases are na-tionwide. Therefore, a part of the data and information on MSW for Africancountries are estimated, provided by different literatures. Hence, some in-consistencies could appear eventually with regard to the figures (Table 10).
The estimated solid waste generation in Algeria for the year 1998 was5.2 million tons, equaling 173 kpc. The projected solid waste generation inthe year 2010 is 7.4 million tons, equaling 192 kpc. The percentage increasein waste generation and the percentage increase in per capita waste gener-ation of solid waste from 1998 to 2010 was projected to be 41% and 11%,respectively (World Bank, 2000b). According to Guermoud et al. (2009), Al-geria produces 8.5 million tons of MSW, a rate of 328.5 kpc for urban zonesand 219 kpc for rural zones each year. The overall MSW generation rate inBotswana is recorded as 120.5 kpc (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). Urbanwaste generation in Gabarone, Botswana, was also found as 120.5 kpc forthe year 2003 (Bolaane and Ali, 2004). The literature concerning on MSWgeneration aspect in Cameroon is scarce. Generation of domestic MSW inYaounde, the capital of Cameroon, between 2002 and 2005 was 288.92 kpc(Parrot et al., 2009). The domestic waste generation rate in Yaounde is linkedto population growth as the population has increased by over 6 million in16 years (National Institute of Statistics, 2004). Municipal waste generationin Limbe (a coastal town in Cameroon located in the Gulf of Guinea) wasestimated as about 7,300 tons per year (i.e., 20 tpd; Awum et al., 2001). The
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1567
FIGURE 11. Comparison of MSW composition between 1995 (A–C) and 2025 (D–F; pre-dicted). (A) and (D) for low-income (Bangladesh, China, India, Lao PDR, Mongolia, Myan-mar, 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 ofKorea, and Singapore) countries (WHO, 1999).
smaller waste volumes for Limbe can be attributed to a relatively smallerpopulation where populations consist of about 100,000 inhabitants (Mangaet al., 2008).
In the year 1999, 24.75 million urban people in Egypt generated6.53 million tons of MSW per year, equaling 219–292 kpc (Arab Republicof Egypt, National Environmental Action Plan, Cairo, 1992). World Bank
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
10
.M
SWge
ner
atio
nin
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dm
ajor
citie
sfr
om
Afr
ica
Annual
MSW
MSW
Popula
tion
gener
atio
nge
ner
atio
n(in
(in
mill
ion
(in
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
illio
ns)
tons)
kpc)
Rem
arks
Ref
eren
ce
Alg
eria
Alg
iers
2001
3.35
1.22
365.
0A
lgie
rsis
the
capita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Alg
eria
Popula
tion
for
1998
.K
ehila
,20
05
Most
agan
em20
060.
720.
1622
6.3
Most
agan
emis
aport
city
inan
dca
pita
lofM
ost
agan
empro
vince
,in
the
northw
estofA
lger
ia.
Guer
moud
etal
.,20
09
Bots
wan
aN
atio
nw
ide
2000
1.50
0.33
216.
7B
ots
wan
ais
asu
b-S
ahar
anco
untry
loca
ted
inSo
uth
ern
Afric
a.M
SWdat
abas
edon
60%
ofhouse
hold
sin
larg
eto
wns
and
only
7%in
smal
lto
wns.
Kga
thian
dB
ola
ane,
2001
Burk
ina
Faso
Bobo
Dio
ula
sso
NA
0.44
0.09
200.
8B
obo
Dio
ula
sso
the
seco
nd
big
gest
city
inBurk
ina
Faso
.D
esse
au,19
99
Ouag
adougo
uN
A1.
730.
3922
6.3
Ouag
adougo
uis
the
capita
lofB
urk
ina
Faso
.Popula
tion
for
2001
.Tez
anou
etal
.,20
01
Cam
eroon
Baf
ouss
amN
A0.
240.
0313
5.1
Baf
ouss
amis
the
capita
lofth
eW
est
Pro
vince
ofCam
eroon.
Ngn
ikam
e,20
00
Yao
unde
2005
1.72
0.53
310.
3Y
aounde
isth
eca
pita
lofCam
eroon
and
seco
nd
larg
estci
ty.P
opula
tion
for20
01.
Par
rotet
al.,
2009
Ghan
aA
ccra
1992
1.31
0.25
186.
7A
ccra
isth
eca
pita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyin
Ghan
a.K
ram
eret
al.,
1994
Acc
ra19
951.
470.
2919
7.1
—M
elis
saPro
ject
,20
00A
ccra
2005
3.60
0.53
146.
0—
Fobil
etal
.,20
08A
ccra
2010
4.00
0.73
183.
5Pro
ject
eddat
a.B
oad
i,an
dK
uitu
nen
,20
03K
um
asi
2006
1 .61
0.35
219.
0K
um
asiis
aci
tyin
south
ern
central
Ghan
a.Asa
seet
al.,
2009
Kum
asi
2010
1.89
0.48
254.
0Pro
ject
edge
ner
atio
n.
Asa
seet
al.,
2009
Ken
yaN
airo
bi
2006
2.75
0.72
260.
0N
airo
biis
the
capita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Ken
ya.
Munia
faan
dO
tiato
,20
08
Mal
iBam
ako
1996
0.56
0.20
357.
1B
amak
ois
the
capita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Mal
i.Sa
mak
eet
al.,
2009
Bam
ako
2008
1.50
0.33
220.
0—
Sam
ake
etal
.,20
09
1568
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
Mau
rita
nia
Nouak
chott
2002
0.88
0.07
76.7
Nouak
chott
isth
eca
pita
lan
dby
far
the
larg
estci
tyofM
aurita
nia
.It
isone
of
the
larg
estci
ties
inth
eSa
har
aPopula
tion
for
1999
.
Alo
uei
min
e,20
06
Mar
occ
oRab
at19
960.
650.
1421
9.0
Rab
atis
the
capita
lan
dse
cond
larg
est
city
ofth
eK
ingd
om
ofM
oro
cco.
ON
EM
,200
1
Moza
mbiq
ue
Map
uto
2006
1.24
0.23
182.
0M
aputo
isth
eca
pita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Moza
mbiq
ue.
Hunge
ran
dSt
retz
,20
06
Nig
eria
Nat
ionw
ide
2007
15.1
210
.98
726.
2B
ased
on
the
surv
eydat
afr
om
Aprilto
Oct
ober
,20
07from
nin
em
ajor
citie
s.O
gwuel
eka,
2009
Lago
s19
9510
.00
0.40
401.
5—
Kofo
woro
la,20
07O
yo20
080.
430.
0246
.9Est
imat
edw
aste
gener
atio
nin
2008
.A
fon
and
Oke
wole
,20
07So
mal
iland
Har
geis
aN
A0.
650.
0812
5.2
Surv
eydat
afr
om
April20
05to
Septe
mber
2008
.H
oeh
ne,
2008
South
Afr
ica
Nat
ionw
ide
1996
40.5
81.
0425
.6W
aste
pro
duce
dper
capita
per
year
isnot
routin
ely
colle
cted
.D
WA
F,19
98
Nat
ionw
ide
2010
49.9
949
.99
249.
3Pro
vinci
alge
ner
alw
aste
pre
dic
ted
for
the
year
2010
.K
aran
ian
dJe
was
ikie
witz
,20
07Tan
zania
Dar
esSa
laam
1995
2.50
0.33
120.
5D
ares
Sala
amis
the
capita
lofTan
zania
.80
house
hold
sat
two
settle
men
tsin
Dar
esSa
laam
city
nam
ely
Kim
ara
Mat
angi
nian
dSi
nza
Bfo
rone
wee
k.
Kas
eva
etal
.,20
02
Mosh
i20
100.
180.
0633
8.0
Mosh
iis
aTan
zania
nto
wn
inK
ilim
anja
roReg
ion.
UN
-HA
BIT
AT,20
10
Mounta
inK
ilim
anja
ro20
030.
150.
0321
9.0
—K
asev
aan
dM
oiran
a,20
10M
ounta
inK
ilim
anja
ro20
060.
210.
0521
9.0
—K
asev
aan
dM
oiran
a,20
10Tunis
iaSo
uss
e20
080.
170.
0739
4.0
Souss
eis
loca
ted
on
the
coas
tofth
eM
edite
rran
ean
Sea,
and
the
old
par
tof
the
city
inTunis
ia.
UN
-HA
BIT
AT,20
10
Tunis
1999
9.80
2.86
292.
0Tunis
isth
eca
pita
lofTunis
ia.
METAP,20
02Zam
bia
Lusa
ka20
101.
500.
3020
1.0
Lusa
kais
the
capita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Zam
bia
.U
N-H
AB
ITA
T,20
10
Not
e.N
A=
notav
aila
ble
.
1569
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1570 T. Karak et al.
(2000b) reported that 14.5 million tons of solid waste was generated inEgypt, equaling 219 kpc. According to Bushra (2000), Egypt is annually gen-erating 10 million tons of MSW. Approximately 60% of the 10 million tons isgenerated in urban areas. Industry produces 3–5 million tons per year andapproximately 0.05 million tons of these wastes are considered hazardouswaste. The rate of waste generation is highly influenced by the populationtype. This is evident as the rate of waste generation in rural areas is only11 kpc while in urban areas it is 292 kpc. In tourist regions and hotels, theamount of waste generation is as high as 547.5 kpc (Bushra, 2000). Theprojected solid waste generation for the year 2010 is 20.1 million tons, whichis equivalent to 247 kpc. The projected percentage increase of waste gen-eration from 1998 to 2010 will be 39% (World Bank, 2000b). The projectin the development and the environment comparing health risks in Cairo(the capital of Egypt, the largest city in Africa and the Arab world), reportedthat the percentage contribution of the different sources of MSW generatedin Cairo is household (64.3%), street sweeping and green refuse (12.3%),commercial (14.9%), industrial (2.3%), institutional educational (0.9%), ho-tels (0.7%), hospitals (0.09%), and others (4.15%). Badran and El-Haggar(2006) reported that Port Said (located in the northwest of Egypt) generates0.15 million tons of waste per year, which is equivalent to 422 tons perday. Residential waste is the major source and accounts for about 55.7% ofthe total quantity generated per day in Port Said. Per capita waste genera-tion in Mekelle (city in Northern Ethiopia) was estimated to vary between109.5 and 120.5 kpc between 2004 and 2006 (Tadesse et al., 2008), of whichonly one third of the total MSW has been collected and disposed of on av-erage. MSW generation rate in Banjul (the capital city of Gambia) for theyear 2000 was 109.5 kpc (Achankeng, 2003). The specific waste generationrate in Accra (capital of Ghana) was low, at 146 kpc, in the lower-incomearea, the middle-income areas showed a specific waste generation rate of248 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), Accragenerated 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 totalMSW generation but no change was observed on the rate of MSW gener-ation, which remained constant during this period (200.8 kpc). Accordingto this estimate and different population estimates, MSW generated in Accra(capital of Ghana) was between 0.38 million tons per year and 0.70 milliontons per year in the year 1999 (Awal, 1999). On average, about 1,800 tonsof MSW (household/market waste) were produced daily in Accra (Dansoet al., 2006). The estimated daily municipal waste generation rate in Kumasi(capital of Ashanti region, Ghana) was 219 kpc. The estimated annual wastegeneration in Accra for the year 2010 was 734,174 tons per year (MelissaProject, 2000). The information published by Henry et al. (2006) for Nairobi
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1571
gave a typical situation of MSW in most local authorities in Kenya over theyears. 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) concludedthat estimated population of1.3 million and 182.5 kpc per capita generationrate gave a total domestic type waste generation in Monrovia (the capital cityof Liberia) and its environs as 0.24 million tons per year for 2004.
In Bamako (capital city of Mali), waste volume was estimated between0.04 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 was40.2–284.7 kpc, with an average of 178.9 kpc (Federal Ministry of Housing& Environment, 1982). In the year 2003, solid waste generation and wastecharacteristics in the Makurdi urban area in Nigeria was reported by Sha’Atoet al. (2007) over a 10-day survey period. The amount of waste genera-tion (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 inNigeria in 2004 was between 201 and 212 kpc (Igoni et al., 2007; Sha’Atoet al., 2007). Figure 12 represents the waste generation rates for urban areasin Nigeria based on the three steps of waste collection from April to October
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
Abuja Ibadan Kaduna Kano Lagos Makurdi Nsukka Onitsha PortHarcourt
Location
To
tal M
SW
gen
erat
ion
( m
illio
n t
on
s)
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
MS
W g
ener
atio
n r
ate
(kp
c)
Annual MSW generation(million tons)
MSW generation rate (kpc)
FIGURE 12. MSW generation in different city of Nigeria for the year 2007 (Source:Ogwueleka, 2009).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1572 T. Karak et al.
2007 (Ogwueleka, 2009). The density of the solid waste in Nigeria rangedfrom 250–370 kg m−3, which was higher than solid waste densities found indeveloped countries. According to Adeyemi et al. (2001), the magnitude ofthe total wastes in Ilorin city (capital of Kwara State, Nigeria) was estimatedas 0.04–0.23 million tons per year for the year 2000.
According to the Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resourcesof Sudan (2003), the MSW generation rate for the year 2000 was 0.29 tonsper capita per year. According to the data provided by Hoehne (2008),Hargeisa (capital city of Somaliland) produced 223 tons of MSW per dayduring 2006–2008. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA; 1997) as-serted that the weighted average yearly generation rate of MSW in Dar esSalaam city in Tanzania was 0.65 million tons. The specific generation ratewas 249.3, 258.1, and 275.6 kpc in suburban unplanned areas, suburbanplanned areas, and urban areas, respectively. In Tunisia, the relative urbanpopulation growth was 61% in 1994 and the amount of MSW in the sameyear was 182.5–365 kpc (Hamdi et al., 2003). The estimated solid wastegeneration in Tunisia for 1998 was 1.8 million tons, equaling 193 kpc. Theprojected solid waste generation in the year 2010 is 2.3 million tons, equal-ing 211 kpc. The percentage increase in waste generation and the per centincrease in per capita waste generation of solid waste from 1998 to 2010 was26% and 9%, respectively (World Bank, 2000b). According to Kamya et al.(2002), the accumulation of garbage solid waste in the city of Kampala (thelargest and capital city of Uganda) in Uganda increased tremendously, from0.11 million tons in 1972 to 0.44 million tons in 2004. The waste generationrate 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-densitysuburb city in Zimbabwe) was 292 kpc and the total amount of waste pro-duced 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 threatto the public environment if properly managed. According to the Departmentof Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT; 2006), South Africa generatedaround 2.7 million tons of domestic wastes per year. This translates to about255.5 kpc (Austin et al., 2006). The generation of waste in South Africa willprobably increase due to the expected population and economic growth(DEAT, 1999). Von Blottnitz et al. (2006) stated that the six largest SouthAfrican metropolitan municipalities (Johannesburg, city of Tshwane, NelsonMandela 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 Africais 400 kpc. In 2004, 2.3 million tons of solid waste was collected from
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1573
Cape Town municipality of South Africa, of which 0.12 million tons waspure green waste (Morkel, 2005). MSW generation rate in other cities ofAfrican 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 inUganda 219 kpc; Kinshasa in Congo (Democratic Republic) 438 kpc; Lomein Togo 693.5 kpc; Niamey in Niger 365 kpc; Nouakchott in Mauritania328.5 kpc; Novo in Benin Porto 182.5 kpc; Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso255.5 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 sayconclusively how much waste the African’s economies produce, how it istreated, or where it is disposed. In this relation, overall MSW generation datain different countries of African continents such as Angola, Benin, BurkinaFaso, Burundi, Canary Islands, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo,Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,Lesotho, Mauritania, Melilla, Marocco, Mozambique, Republic of the Congo,Rwanda, Sao Tome and Prıncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swazi-land, and Zambia are scant.
MSW Composition in African Countries
The immediate impression at a glance from Table 11 is that organic wasteconstitutes a very large part of MSW streams of all the countries and citiesin 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 constructionand demolition debris and hazardous wastes. Organic waste is the maincomponent of MSW, although the quantities of the organic matter in thesolid waste are much less in rural areas as it is fed to animals or used as soilconditioner or as fuel for ovens. It should be noted that rural areas comprisesabout 60% of the Egyptian population but they contribute only 30% of thetotal amount of MSW. Therefore, as a typical or an average composition ofMSW, the organic waste is a major component (Bushra, 2000).
A household solid waste characterization study carried out in differentincome groups in Accra in 1999 showed that the proportion of organic wastefrom high-income households was higher (approximately 70%) than that ofwaste from medium (60%) and low-income (49%) household groups (Fobiland Atuguba, 2004). The average proportion of organic, paper, textile, plas-tics, 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 consider-ably, from 3.5% to 8%, during the period of 1995–1999. The composition of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
11
.Per
centofphys
ical
com
posi
tion
ofM
SWge
ner
ated
from
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dm
ajor
citie
sin
Afr
ica
Org
anic
Pap
eran
dG
lass
/Tex
tiles
and
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
ater
ial
pap
erboar
dPla
stic
sCer
amic
Met
als
oth
ers
Ref
eren
ce
Alg
eria
Most
agan
em20
0464
.615
.910
.52.
81.
94.
3G
uer
moud
etal
.,20
09Bej
aia
2004
69.4
11.1
12.3
0.7
2.7
3.8
Guer
moud
etal
.,20
09A
nnab
a20
0468
.212
.611
.21.
13.
73.
2G
uer
moud
etal
.,20
09Tle
mce
n20
0471
.011
.011
.01.
03.
03.
0G
uer
moud
etal
.,20
09D
jelfa
2004
83.5
7.9
2.4
1.2
1.7
3.3
Guer
moud
etal
.,20
09B
ots
wan
aG
aboro
ne
1996
59.3
0.6
0.6
0.2
1.5
37.8
Kga
thian
dB
ola
ane,
2001
Gab
oro
ne
2001
67.9
12.5
4.5
6.4
6.2
2.5
Bola
ane
and
Ali,
2004
Cam
eroon
Lim
be
2004
54.8
12.5
12.4
1.6
2.4
16.3
Man
gaet
al.,
2008
Egy
pt
Nat
ionw
ide
1998
60.0
10.0
12.0
3.0
2.0
13.0
Bush
ra,20
00Equat
orial
Guin
eaLa
be
1989
69.0
4.1
22.8
0.3
1.4
2.0
Mat
ejka
etal
.,20
01G
han
aA
ccra
1994
73.1
6.6
3.3
1.5
2.1
13.4
Boad
i,an
dK
uitu
nen
,20
03K
um
asi
2006
64.0
3.0
4.0
NR
1.0
28.0
Asa
seet
al.,
2009
Ken
yaN
atio
nw
ide
NA
58.2
17.3
11.8
2.3
2.6
7.8
Couth
and
Tro
is,20
10N
airo
bi
1999
58.6
16.8
12.6
2.1
2.2
7.8
Hen
ry,et
al.,
2006
Liber
iaM
onro
via
2004
47.6
10.0
13.0
1.2
2.0
26.2
Men
sah,20
06M
ali
Bam
ako
2007
36.2
12.8
16.0
12.0
14.0
23.0
Sam
ake,
2009
Mau
rita
nia
Nouak
chott
NA
48.0
6.3
20.0
4.0
4.2
17.5
META
P,20
02M
oza
mbiq
ue
Nat
ionw
ide
NA
67.0
13.0
10.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
Couth
and
Tro
is,20
10N
amib
iaW
indhoek
NA
36.0
20.0
16.0
13.0
5.0
10.0
Couth
and
Tro
is,20
10
1574
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
Nig
eria
Lago
s19
8760
.014
.0N
R3.
04.
019
.0A
liK
han
and
Burn
ey,19
89La
gos
NA
59.0
17.0
12.0
2.0
8.0
2.0
Ikem
etal
.,20
02La
gos
2000
68.0
10.0
7.0
4.0
3.0
8.0
Kofo
woro
la,20
07K
ano
1987
43.0
17.0
4.0
2.0
5.0
29.0
Ali
Khan
and
Burn
ey,19
89Ib
adan
2005
57.5
7.1
7.9
11.3
2.6
13.6
Ayi
nin
uola
and
Muib
i,20
08Ib
adan
NA
78.0
10.0
3.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
Ikem
etal
.,20
02O
yo20
0456
.714
.418
.83.
12.
84.
2A
fon
and
Oke
wole
,20
07Ilorin
1986
61.0
7.0
NR
NR
NR
32.0
Olo
runfe
mian
dO
dita
,19
98So
mal
iland
Har
geis
aN
A21
.219
.916
.05.
22.
535
.2H
oeh
ne,
2008
South
Afr
ica
Nat
ionw
ide
2007
22.3
24.8
31.5
7.0
6.1
8.3
Tro
isan
dSi
mel
ane,
2010
Sow
eto
1996
9.0
9.0
3.0
12.0
3.0
64.0
Blig
htet
al.,
1999
Durb
an20
0142
.519
.317
.47.
16.
96.
8Tro
iset
al.,
2010
Tan
zania
MountK
ilim
anja
ro20
0655
.09.
024
.01.
08.
03.
0K
asev
aan
dM
oiran
a,20
10Tunis
iaTunis
NA
68.0
11.0
7.0
2.0
4.0
8.0
Hafi
det
al.,
2002
Uga
nda
Kam
pal
aN
A81
.85.
41.
60.
93.
17.
2Couth
and
Tro
is,20
10Zim
bab
we
Mas
vingo
city
2003
15.0
30.0
40.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Man
gizv
o,20
08Sa
kubva
NA
32.0
27.0
23.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Man
yanhai
reet
al.,
2009
Not
e.N
A=
notav
aila
ble
;N
R=
notre
ported
.
1575
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1576 T. Karak et al.
waste in Kumasi (in Ghana) is predominantly made of biodegradable materi-als (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 totalMSW.
A one-day waste composition analysis was carried out in July 2004 byMensah (2006), based on the samples from five different locations (marketsand residential areas) in Monrovia (capital of Liberia), which gave the fol-lowing results: organic 47.6%, paper and paperboard 10%, plastics 13.2%,glass 1.2%, metals 2%, and others contributed 26%. MSW produced in a dif-ferent 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 Nige-ria in the year 2003 revealed that organic fraction contributed 74% followedby 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 (Parrotet 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 esSalaam city. Chaggu et al. (1998) estimated that the organic fraction of house-hold solid waste was to be 78% of the total waste, however, the same insti-tutional solid waste constituted 56–64% (Mbuligwe, 2002) in Dar es Salaamcity. On the contrary, Mbuligwe and Kassenga (1998) estimated the total or-ganic fraction of MSW in Dar es Salaam city to be 71%. A similar figure wasreported by Kaseva and Gupta (1996). The MSW in Tunisia were character-ized 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 generationfrom one country to another and even from one city to another in Americancontinent (Table 12).
Total collected MSW in Brazil was 0.08 million tons per year (Barreiraet al., 2008) and generation rate varied form 182.5 to 474.5 kpc (Mahleret al., 2002). In 1992 it was estimated that the Canadians used to manageapproximately 33.76 million tons of MSW (Sawell et al., 1996). This volumerepresents an average waste generation rate of 1233.7 kpc. The distribu-tion pattern of MSW for this year was residential waste (10.54 million tonsor 31.2%), industrial/commercial/institutional waste (12.66 million tons or37.5%), 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 to383 kpc in 2002 (Statistics Canada, 2005). The total amount of MSW gener-ated 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
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
12
.M
SWge
ner
atio
nin
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dse
lect
edci
ties
ofA
mer
ica
Annual
MSW
MSW
Popula
tion
gener
atio
nge
ner
atio
n(in
(in
mill
ion
(in
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
illio
ns)
tons)
kpc)
Rem
arks
Ref
eren
ce
Arg
entin
aB
uen
os
Aires
1989
12.0
03.
5029
2.0
Buen
os
Aires
isth
eca
pita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Arg
entin
a,an
dth
ese
cond-lar
gest
met
ropolit
anar
eain
South
Am
eric
a.M
SWdat
are
pre
sentonly
inFe
der
alD
istric
tex
cludin
g19
munic
ipal
ities
.
Bar
tone
etal
.,19
91
Buen
os
Aires
1996
12.0
03.
8331
9.4
Popula
tion
inm
etro
polit
anar
eaonly
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98Rosa
rio
1996
1.10
0.26
232.
3Rosa
rio
isth
ela
rges
tci
tyin
the
pro
vince
of
Santa
FeofArg
entin
a.PA
HO
,19
96
Boliv
iaLa
Paz
1996
0.75
0.14
184.
9La
Paz
isth
ead
min
istrat
ive
capita
lofBoliv
ia.
PAH
O,19
95c
Bra
zil
Nat
ionw
ide
NA
191.
8059
.78
311.
7Popula
tion
for
2009
Tro
schin
etz
and
Mih
elci
c,20
09B
elo
Horizo
nte
1996
3.90
1.17
299.
5Bel
oH
orizo
nte
isth
eca
pita
lofan
dla
rges
tci
tyin
the
stat
eofM
inas
Ger
ais,
loca
ted
inth
eso
uth
east
ern
regi
on
ofBra
zil.
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98
Bel
oH
orizo
nte
2007
2.45
1.30
529.
0—
UN
-HA
BIT
AT,20
10Bra
silia
1996
1.80
0.58
324.
4B
rasi
liais
the
capita
lofB
razi
l.Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98Curitib
a19
952.
100.
4722
6.0
Curitib
ahas
the
larg
estpopula
tion
and
the
larg
estec
onom
yin
the
Bra
zilia
nst
ate
of
Par
ana
inso
uth
ern
Bra
zil.
Curitib
ais
the
capita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyofPar
ana.
Men
dez
etal
.,20
08
Rio
de
Janei
ro19
895.
502.
0136
5.0
Rio
de
Janei
rois
the
capita
lci
tyofth
eSt
ate
ofRio
de
Janei
ro,th
ese
cond
larg
estci
tyofBra
zil.
MSW
dat
are
pre
sentth
ew
aste
gener
ated
from
28A
dm
inis
trat
ive
Reg
ions
inth
eM
unic
ipal
ityofRio
de
Janei
ro.
Bar
tone
etal
.,19
91
Rio
de
Janei
ro19
969.
903.
6136
5.0
Popula
tion
inm
etro
polit
anar
eaonly
Men
dez
etal
.,20
08Sa
lvad
or
1996
2.80
1.02
365.
0Sa
lvad
or
isth
ela
rges
tci
tyon
the
northea
stco
astofB
razi
lan
dth
eca
pita
lofth
eN
orthea
ster
nBra
zilia
nst
ate
ofBah
ia.
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98
Sao
Pau
lo19
8911
.00
4.02
365.
0W
aste
dat
afrom
33Adm
inis
trat
ive
Reg
ions.
This
city
isth
eca
pita
lofth
est
ate
ofSa
oPau
lo.
Bar
tone
etal
.,19
91
Sao
Pau
lo19
9616
.40
8.07
491.
9Popula
tion
inm
etro
polit
anar
eaonly
PA
HO
,19
95b
Uber
landia
NA
0.44
0.08
186.
2U
ber
landia
isth
eco
reci
tyin
Bra
zil.
Fehr
etal
.,20
00
(Con
tin
ued
onn
ext
page
)
1577
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
12
.M
SWge
ner
atio
nin
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dse
lect
edci
ties
ofA
mer
ica
(Con
tin
ued
)
Annual
MSW
MSW
Popula
tion
gener
atio
nge
ner
atio
n(in
(in
mill
ion
(in
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
illio
ns)
tons)
kpc)
Rem
arks
Ref
eren
ce
Chile
Santia
go19
893.
901.
0025
5.5
Was
tedat
afrom
23m
unic
ipal
ities
(com
munes
)in
the
Pro
vince
ofSa
ntia
goB
arto
ne
etal
.,19
91
Santia
go19
955.
301.
6831
6.8
Santia
gois
the
capita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Chile
.M
endez
etal
.,20
08
Colo
mbia
Bar
ranquill
a19
961.
000.
3332
8.5
Bar
ranquill
ait
isth
ela
rges
tin
dust
rial
city
and
port
inColo
mbia
.Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98
Bogo
ta19
965.
601.
5327
3.8
Bogo
tais
the
capita
lci
tyofColo
mbia
.Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98Cal
i19
961.
850.
4926
6.4
Cal
iis
aci
tyin
wes
tern
Colo
mbia
and
this
city
isth
efa
stes
tgr
ow
ing
econom
ies
inColo
mbia
.
PA
HO
,19
95c
Car
tage
na
1996
0.60
0.20
340.
7Car
tage
na
isa
popula
rto
urist
des
tinat
ion
asw
ellas
the
fifth
larg
esturb
anar
eain
Colo
mbia
.This
city
isth
ece
nte
rof
econom
icac
tivity
inth
eCar
ibbea
nre
gion
ofColo
mbia
.
Men
dez
etal
.,20
08
Med
ellın
1987
1.50
0.27
182.
5M
edel
lınis
the
seco
nd
larg
estci
tyin
Colo
mbia
.JI
CA
,19
94
Cost
aRic
aSa
nJo
se19
951.
000.
3535
0.4
San
Jose
isth
eca
pita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Cost
aRic
a.Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98
Dom
inic
anRep
ublic
Santo
Dom
ingo
1994
2.80
0.62
221.
6Sa
nto
Dom
ingo
isth
eca
pita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyin
the
Dom
inic
anRep
ublic
.M
endez
etal
.,20
08
ElSa
lvad
or
San
Salv
ador
1992
1 .30
0.26
196.
5Sa
nSa
lvad
or
isth
eca
pita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
the
nat
ion
ofElSa
lvad
or.
Itis
the
seco
nd
most
populo
us
city
inCen
tral
Am
eric
a.
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98
Ecu
ador
Guay
aquil
1996
2.30
0.58
253.
9G
uay
aquil
isth
eca
pita
lofth
eEcu
adorian
pro
vince
ofG
uay
as.A
lso
know
nas
the
larg
estan
dth
em
ost
populo
us
city
inEcu
ador.
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98
Quito
city
1994
1.30
0.33
252.
7Q
uito
city
isth
eca
pita
lci
tyofEcu
ador.
PAH
O,19
96G
uat
emal
aG
uat
emal
aci
ty19
932.
200.
4419
9.1
Guat
emal
aci
tyis
the
capita
las
wel
las
the
larg
estci
tyofth
eRep
ublic
ofG
uat
emal
a.Popula
tion
indic
ate
inth
em
etro
polit
anar
eaonly
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98
1578
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
Hondura
sTeg
uci
galp
a19
951.
000.
2423
7.3
Teg
uci
galp
ais
the
capita
lci
tyan
dth
ela
rges
tci
tyofH
ondura
s.M
endez
etal
.,20
08
Hai
tiPort-a
u-P
rince
2.50
0.64
255.
5The
Gre
ater
Port-a
u-P
rince
isth
ela
rges
turb
anag
glom
erat
ion
ofth
eRep
ublic
of
Hai
ti.
Bra
set
al.,
2009
Jam
aica
Nat
ionw
ide
2003
2.85
1.04
364.
9Ja
mai
ca,a
country
inth
eCar
ibbea
nse
a,w
hic
his
about14
5km
south
ofCuba.
Popula
tion
men
tioned
her
eis
for
July
2010
(est
imat
eddat
a).
Tro
schin
etz
and
Mih
elci
c,20
09
Mex
ico
Nat
ionw
ide
2001
97.3
630
.74
315.
7M
exic
ois
the
14th
larg
estco
untry
inth
ew
orld
and
isth
efifth
larg
estco
untry
inth
eAm
eric
as.
Oje
da-
Ben
ıtez
and
Ber
aud-L
oza
no,20
03
Guad
alaj
ara
1996
6.12
1.14
186.
2G
uad
alaj
ara
isth
ese
cond
larg
esturb
anar
eain
Mex
ico
Ber
nac
he-
Per
ezet
al.,
2001
Mex
ico
city
1994
15.6
06.
8343
7.5
Mex
ico
city
isth
eca
pita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Mex
ico.This
city
isal
sokn
ow
nas
and
the
world’s
third
big
gest
met
ropolit
anar
eaby
popula
tion.Popula
tion
indic
ated
her
eis
from
met
ropolit
anar
eaonly
.
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98
Mex
ico
city
2001
22.5
09.
4942
1.8
—Rosa
etal
.,20
06M
exic
oci
ty20
05—
2.19
——
Dia
zet
al.,
2007
Monte
rrey
1996
2.80
1.10
391.
1Popula
tion
inm
etro
polit
anar
eaonly
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98N
icar
agua
Man
agua
1988
1.00
0.22
219.
0M
anag
ua
isth
ela
rges
tan
dth
eca
pita
lci
tyof
Nic
arag
ua.
JICA
,19
94
Man
agua
2007
1.00
0.42
420.
0—
UN
-HA
BIT
AT,20
10Par
aguay
Asu
nci
on
1996
1.20
0.40
334.
6A
sunci
on
isth
eca
pita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Par
aguay
.Popula
tion
only
for
met
ropolit
anar
ea
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98
Asu
nci
on
2006
0.68
0.11
168.
0Popula
tion
in20
09.
Dia
zet
al.,
2007
Per
uLi
ma
1996
7.50
1.53
204.
4Li
ma
isth
eca
pita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyofPer
u.
Popula
tion
only
for
met
ropolit
anar
ea.
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98
San
Vic
ente
de
Can
ete
NA
0.05
0.03
246.
0Sa
nVic
ente
de
Can
ete
dis
tric
tis
the
capita
lofCan
ete
Pro
vince
and
islo
cate
don
the
central
coas
tofPer
u,14
0km
south
of
Lim
aci
ty.
UN
-HA
BIT
AT,20
10
Pan
ama
Pan
ama
1995
0.80
0.28
351.
3Pan
ama
isth
eso
uth
ernm
ost
country
of
Cen
tral
Am
eric
a.PA
HO
,19
96
Trinid
adan
dTobag
oPort-o
f-Sp
ain
1993
0.50
0.22
438.
0Port-o
f-Sp
ain
isth
eca
pita
lofth
eRep
ublic
of
Trinid
adan
dTobag
oan
dth
eco
untry’
sth
ird-lar
gest
munic
ipal
ity.
PA
HO
,19
96
(Con
tin
ued
onn
ext
page
)
1579
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
12
.M
SWge
ner
atio
nin
diffe
rentco
untrie
san
dse
lect
edci
ties
ofA
mer
ica
(Con
tin
ued
)
Annual
MSW
MSW
Popula
tion
gener
atio
nge
ner
atio
n(in
(in
mill
ion
(in
Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
illio
ns)
tons)
kpc)
Rem
arks
Ref
eren
ce
Uru
guay
Monte
video
1995
1.40
0.46
328.
5M
onte
video
isth
eca
pita
l,la
rges
tci
tyan
dch
iefport
ofU
rugu
ay.
JICA
,19
94
USA
Nat
ionw
ide
1960
179.
9888
.10
444.
1The
Unite
dSt
ates
ofA
mer
ica
isa
feder
alco
nst
itutio
nal
republic
,lie
bet
wee
nth
ePac
ific
and
Atla
ntic
Oce
ans
with
aca
pita
listm
ixed
econom
y,w
ell-dev
eloped
infras
truct
ure
,an
dhig
hpro
duct
ivity
EPA
,20
08
Nat
ionw
ide
1970
203.
9812
1.10
538.
6—
EPA
,20
08N
atio
nw
ide
1980
227.
2615
1.60
606.
5—
EPA
,20
08N
atio
nw
ide
1990
249.
9120
5.20
745.
7—
EPA
,20
08N
atio
nw
ide
2000
281.
4223
9.10
770.
6—
EPA
,20
08N
atio
nw
ide
2004
293.
6624
9.80
772.
2—
EPA
,20
08N
atio
nw
ide
2005
296.
4125
0.40
767.
2—
EPA
,20
08N
atio
nw
ide
2006
299.
4025
4.20
770.
6—
EPA
,20
08N
atio
nw
ide
2007
301.
6225
4.10
765.
6—
EPA
,20
08Ven
ezuel
aCar
acas
1989
3.60
1.32
366.
0Car
acas
isth
eca
pita
lan
dla
rges
tci
tyof
Ven
ezuel
a.B
arto
ne
etal
.,19
91
Car
acas
1995
3.00
1.28
425.
8—
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98Cuba
Nat
ionw
ide
1960
7.00
0.99
141.
4Cuba
isth
em
ost
populo
us
isla
nd
nat
ion
inth
eCar
ibbea
n.
Korn
eret
al.,
2008
Nat
ionw
ide
2004
11.0
02.
1519
5.5
—K
orn
eret
al.,
2008
Hav
ana
1991
2.00
0.51
255.
5H
avan
ais
the
capita
lci
ty,m
ajor
port,an
dle
adin
gco
mm
erci
alce
nte
rofCuba.
This
city
isal
soth
ese
cond
larg
estin
the
Car
ibbea
nre
gion.
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98
Not
e.N
A=
notav
aila
ble
.
1580
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1581
in south east Ontario, Canada; Asase et al., 2009). In 2006, Canadians pro-duced 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 Manage-ment Plan in 1991, Costa Rica generated approximately 4.29 million tonsper year. Since the beginning of the socialist regime, the Cuban popula-tion has substantially increased, from 7 to 11 million today. This contributedto an increase in MSW generation from 0.99 million tons in 1960 to 2.15million tons in 2004 (Korner et al., 2008). Of the total MSW, Havana cityalone produced approximately 20% of the total MSW generated in Cuba.The waste generation rate in Cuba determined in the 1970s revealed that thewaste produced in different communities varied between 54.8 kpc (SantaClara) and 223 kpc (Guantanamo; Schleenstein, 2002). Generation of MSWfor the year 1996 in different Cuban provinces such as Camaguey, CiegoAvila, Cienfuegos, Granma, Guantanamo, Havana city, Holguin, Isla de laJuventud, 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(Korner et al., 2008). The average amount of waste generated in Santiago deCuba (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 was95.3, 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 ofthe State of Chihuahua and located in the northern region of Mexico) in 2006was 246.7 kpc (Gomez et al., 2008). On average Mexico generated approx-imately 109.5 kpc MSW (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). In the year 2000,Guadalajara (city in west Mexico and capital of Jalisco) and Morelia (city incentral Mexico and capital of Michoacan) produced 186.2 and 230 kpc, MSWrespectively (Bernache-Perez et al., 2001; Buenrostro et al., 2001). A surveyduring May and June of 1999 and March and April of 2000 (a total of 16weeks) for the household solid wastes (as a part of MSW in Mexico) in Mex-icali of Baja California in Mexico reported that the average daily productionof waste per resident was 216 kpc (Ojeda-Benitez et al., 2003). In 2004, Mix-iuhca and Balbuena (neighborhoods of Venustiano Carranza Delegacion—ademarcation and a smaller political division of Mexico city) reported that0.46 million tons of waste were generated per year. Out of this, 50% camefrom households (Delegacion Venustiano Carranza, 2005). An estimated rateof 0.37 million tons (8.3%) of urban solid waste was produced per year inthe streets of Mexico city (PAOT, 2005). This percentage would represent0.04 million tons of urban street solid waste in the Demarcation VenustianoCarranza (Munoz-Cadena et al., 2009) per year. Presently, Guyanese and Ja-maican citizens generates 198.9 and 365 kpc MSW, respectively (Troschinetzand Mihelcic, 2009). The Haitian Ministry of the Environment has estimated
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1582 T. Karak et al.
that approximately 0.58 million tons of waste were produced yearly in Port-au-Prince (United Nations, 2002).The population growth rate in the city ofCap-Haıtien (capital of Republic of Haiti) was about 5.1% (IHSI, 2007) andin the similar conditions, waste generation increased quickly in such a waythat the city authorities were overwhelmed. Presently MSW generation ratein this place is 76.7 kpc (Philippe and Culot, 2009).
During the past 4 decades, the United States has witnessed an extraordi-nary generation of MSW. The overall MSW generation rate during 1960–2007is presented in Table 12. In 1960, 180 million Americans produced 88 milliontons 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 1990was 741 kpc. In 1997, 266 million Americans produced nearly 217 milliontons of waste. Since 2000, MSW generation had remained fairly steady. In2003, 236 million tons of MSW were produced in the United States, roughly745 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 producedapproximately 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 (Troschinetzand Mihelcic, 2009).
The generation of MSW in different locations of Latin American countriesvaried from 109.5 to 292 kpc (Acurio et al., 1998). Where household wastesinclude other wastes such as residues from stores, markets, institutions, smallindustries, sweeping, and others, this quantity increased from 25% to 50%.The daily generation was from 182.5 to 438 kpc with a regional average of0.92. Table 12 represents the MSW generation and generation rate in differentlocations in Latin America, which is based on the information collected fromdifferent sources and mainly from Pan American Health Organization (PAHO;1995a) and Acurio et al. (1998). The values of MSW show that in metropolitanareas and in the cities of 2 million people (sample of 16 cities), the averagegeneration was 354 kpc; in other 16 large cities of 0.5–2 millions peoplethe average generation was 270 kpc; and in a sample of 24 medium andsmall cities of less than 0.5 million people, the average generation was201 kpc. With an average generation of 335.8 kpc, it is estimated that theurban population (360 million) in Latin American countries producing 120.45million tons of MSW per year. This confirms that the size of the cities and percapita income are factors that determine the increment of per capita wastegeneration. In addition, the application of policies to reduce MSW generationis still weak and these values are increasing. Studies of JICA in Guatemala cityand Asuncion carried out between 1992 and 1993, respectively, showed anannual increase of 1–3% in waste generation linked to a per capita increasein income. On the other hand, the following MSW generation has beenobserved in relation to income. Colombia produced 10.59 million tons ofMSW per day (Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1583
[MAVDT], 2005). Finally, Table 12 has few surprises. Developed countriessuch as the United States and Canada have higher generation than developingones. However, MSW generation rate in some parts of America seems ratherhigh, which may be a general characteristic in the Americas.
MSW Composition in American Countries
The waste composition in different countries of Latin America is presentedin Table 13. Organic matter is the major contributing ingredient in MSWcomposition for most of the Latin American countries, which ranges be-tween 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 naturalorganic, paper and paperboard, plastics, glass/ceramic, metals, and othersincluding textiles in different parts of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, was found tobe between 39% and 64%, 11% and 28%, 16% and 24%, 2% and 9%, 1% and3%, and 1.65% and 3.97%, respectively.
Organic waste comprises a significant portion of MSW stream in theUnited States. The U.S. EPA (2002) estimated that the nation’s MSW contained85.7 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 theyear 1999. This composition adding up to 66% of the total waste streamproduced in the year 1999 (U.S. EPA, 2002). Among 254 million tons ofMSW in the United States for the year 2007, organic materials continued tobe the largest component of MSW. Paper and paperboard accounted for 33%,with yard trimmings and food scraps accounting for 25%. Plastics comprised12%, metals made up to 8%, and rubber, leather, and textiles accountedfor approximately 8%. Wood followed at around 6% and glass at 5%. Othermiscellaneous wastes made up approximately 3% of the MSW generated in2007 (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 compositionvariation between 1983 and 1994 in Costa Rica, which reveals a significantchange in plastics composition during these years (Guzman, 1998).
According to McBean et al. (2007a), the composition of MSW in Ar-gentina 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 andothers. On average, the composition of waste from the city of Havana in Cubais as follows: organic materials (65.9%), paper and paperboard (13.3%), plas-tics (11.0%), glass (2.5%), metals (1.8%), and others including textiles (5.7%;JICA, 2004). MSW composition in Cap-Haıtien showed a higher content of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
TA
BLE
13
.Per
centa
geofav
erag
eM
SWco
mposi
tion
indiffe
rentco
untrie
san
dse
lect
edci
ties
ofA
mer
ica
Pap
erTex
tiles
Org
anic
and
Gla
ss/
&Country
Loca
tion
Yea
rm
ater
ial
pap
erboar
dPla
stic
sCer
amic
Met
als
oth
ers
Ref
eren
ce
Arg
entin
aN
atio
nw
ide
1996
53.2
20.3
8.2
8.1
3.9
6.3
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98N
atio
nw
ide
NA
69.0
13.0
NR
NR
NR
18.0
Fehr,
2002
Tucu
man
2001
64.1
12.2
7.1
3.1
2.1
11.4
McB
ean
etal
.,20
07b
Boliv
iaN
atio
nw
ide
1994
59.5
6.2
4.3
3.5
2.3
24.2
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98B
razi
lN
atio
nw
ide
1996
NR
25.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
65.0
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98N
atio
nw
ide
NA
72.0
6.0
NR
NR
NR
22.0
Fehr,
2002
Nat
ionw
ide
2007
36.1
17.1
23.3
3.5
2.4
17.6
Mac
had
oet
al.,
2009
Bar
ra20
0140
.225
.024
.46.
92.
11.
4M
unnic
het
al.,
2006
Cam
pin
as20
0946
.020
.015
.02 .
04.
013
.0Li
no
etal
.,20
10Est
rela
2000
71.0
3.9
5.8
1.6
2.3
15.4
Konra
d,20
02Le
blo
n20
0139
.628
.118
.69.
12.
32.
4M
unnic
het
al.,
2006
Uber
landia
NA
68.0
9.0
10.0
4.0
2.0
7.0
Fehr
etal
.,20
00Pav
una
2001
58.8
14.6
16.5
3.2
3.0
4.0
Munnic
het
al.,
2006
Roci
nha
2001
64.7
11.6
19.3
2.3
2.1
0.1
Munnic
het
al.,
2006
Sao
Pau
lo19
9849
.520
.123
.51.
52.
82.
6M
endes
etal
.,20
03Chile
Nat
ionw
ide
1992
49.3
18.8
10.3
1.6
2 .3
17.7
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98Conce
pci
on
2001
86.0
2.0
11.0
NR
NR
1.0
Agu
ayo,20
01Colo
mbia
Nat
ionw
ide
1996
52.3
18.3
14.2
4.6
1.6
9.0
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98M
edel
lin19
8556
.022
.05.
02.
01.
014
.0A
liK
han
and
Burn
ey,19
89Cost
aRic
aN
atio
nw
ide
1983
62.1
17.9
5.6
7.0
1.4
6.0
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98N
atio
nw
ide
1994
57.9
19.1
11.3
2.1
1.9
7.7
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98ElSa
lvad
or
Nat
ionw
ide
NA
43.0
18.0
6.1
0.8
0.8
31.3
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98Ecu
ador
Nat
ionw
ide
1994
71.4
10.5
4.5
2.2
1.6
9.8
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98G
uat
emal
aN
atio
nw
ide
1991
63.3
13.9
8.1
3.2
1.8
9.7
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98H
aiti
Cap
eH
aitia
n20
0865
.59.
09.
25.
82.
67.
9Phili
ppe
and
Culo
t,20
09Port-a
u-P
rince
1989
75.0
3.0
7.0
2.0
3.0
10.0
Bra
set
al.,
2009
Mex
ico
Nat
ionw
ide
1992
75.0
3.0
7.0
2.0
3.0
10.0
Buen
rost
roan
dB
occ
o,20
03N
atio
nw
ide
1995
43.0
20.0
6.1
8.2
3.2
19.5
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98N
atio
nw
ide
1998
68.7
20.0
4.3
1.6
3.2
2.2
Buen
rost
roan
dB
occ
o,20
03N
atio
nw
ide
2000
52.4
14.1
4.4
5.9
2.9
20.3
Fehr,
2002
Nat
ionw
ide
April,1
996
toD
ec,1
997
61.0
14.0
NR
NR
NR
25.0
Buen
rost
roet
al.,
2001
Chih
uah
ua
2006
76.8
8.8
6.8
3.5
1.9
2 .5
Gom
ezet
al.,
2008
Chih
uah
ua
Aprilan
dA
ugu
st,20
06an
dJa
nuar
y,20
07N
R13
.074
.01.
011
.01.
0G
om
ezet
al.,
2009
1584
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
City
ofM
exic
ali,
Baj
aCal
iforn
iaM
ayan
dJu
ne
of19
99an
dM
arch
and
Aprilof20
0062
.010
.68.
94.
01.
513
.0O
jeda-
Ben
itez
etal
.,20
02
Cuitz
eoB
asin
2003
48.0
16.1
11.9
5.6
2.4
16.0
Del
gado
etal
.,20
07ElSo
cavo
n20
0326
.85.
334
.55.
216
.012
.2H
ernan
dez
-Ber
riel
etal
.,20
08Fe
der
alD
istric
tof
Mex
ico
1985
NR
18.5
72.0
1.0
8.0
0.5
Milk
ean
dA
ceve
s,19
89
Guad
alaj
ara
1997
52.9
10.5
9.2
4.1
1.5
21.8
Ber
nac
he-
Per
ezet
al.,
2001
Guad
alaj
ara
2000
50.6
13.1
23.4
4.7
1.9
6.3
Ber
nac
he,
2003
Jard
ınB
albuen
aSu
r20
0660
.62.
911
.34.
52.
518
.3M
unoz-
Cad
ena
etal
.,20
09M
agdal
ena
Mix
iuhca
2006
57.1
11.0
7.9
4.7
1.8
17.5
Munoz-
Cad
ena
etal
.,20
09
Par
aguay
Nat
ionw
ide
1995
56.6
10.2
4.2
3.5
1.3
24.2
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98Per
uN
atio
nw
ide
NA
50.0
10.0
3.2
1.3
2.1
33.4
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98Trinid
ad&
Tobag
oN
atio
nw
ide
NA
27.0
20.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
13.0
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98U
rugu
ayN
atio
nw
ide
1996
56.0
8.0
13.0
4.0
7.0
12.0
Acu
rio
etal
.,19
98U
SAN
atio
nw
ide
1960
13.8
34.0
0.4
7.6
12.3
31.9
EPA
,20
08N
atio
nw
ide
1970
10.6
36.6
2.4
10.5
11.4
28.5
EPA
,20
08N
atio
nw
ide
1980
8.6
36.4
4.5
10.0
10.2
30.3
EPA
,20
08N
atio
nw
ide
1990
10.1
35.4
8.3
6.4
8.1
31.7
EPA
,20
08N
atio
nw
ide
2000
11.2
36.7
10.7
5.3
7.9
28.2
EPA
,20
08N
atio
nw
ide
2008
12.7
31.0
12.0
4.9
8.4
31.0
EPA
,20
08Can
ada
Nat
ionw
ide
1992
28.7
37.7
8.0
4.4
10.4
10.8
Saka
iet
al.,
1996
Toro
nto
NA
30.2
29.6
20.3
2.0
2.1
15.8
Vogt
etal
.,20
02V
anco
uve
r19
9837
.427
.213
.33.
13.
415
.6M
cBea
net
al.,
2007
aCuba
Nat
ionw
ide
1973
51.0
24.0
1.0
NR
NR
24.0
Korn
eret
al.,
2008
Nat
ionw
ide
1983
37.0
27.0
4.0
NR
NR
32.0
Korn
eret
al.,
2008
Nat
ionw
ide
2004
49.0
19.0
4.0
NR
NR
28.0
Korn
eret
al.,
2008
Hav
ana
2004
63.0
10.0
8.0
NR
NR
19.0
Korn
eret
al.,
2008
Santia
gode
Cuba
2004
34.0
11.0
11.0
22.0
17.0
5.0
Mosl
eret
al.,
2006
Not
e.N
A=
notav
aila
ble
;N
R=
notre
ported
.
1585
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1586 T. Karak et al.
FIGURE 13. Comparison of MSW composition for 1983 and 1994 in Costa Rica (Source:Guzman, 1998).
organic matter, and by weight it was 65.5%, which is similar to that in severalcities in developing countries (Philippe and Culot, 2009).
MSW Generation in Oceania Countries
The continent which is centered in the islands of the tropical Pacific Oceanis known as Oceania region. Australia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mi-cronesia, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, SolomonIslands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu are the sovereign states that are usuallyconsidered to be Oceanian, all having their capital city in Oceania. Amongthem, main continental landmass of Oceania is Australia, with the secondlargest 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 OECDreports, Australia was a higher producer of municipal waste of the OECDcountries (OECD, 2004). Waste statistics in Australia for 1997, 2003, and 2007are depicted in Figure 14. In 1996–97, Australians generated 22.75 milliontons of MSW, which is approximately 1200 kpc (ABS, 2010; Twardowska andAllen, 2004). Australians generated approximately 32.4 million tons of solidwaste or approximately 1,629 kpc in 2002–03. Of this amount, approximately27% of Australia’s solid waste came from municipal source, which is equal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1587
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
700230027991
Year
To
tal M
SW
gen
erat
ion
(m
illio
n t
on
s)
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
MS
W g
ener
atio
n r
ate
(kp
c)
Annual MSW generation (million tons)
MSW generation rate (kpc)
FIGURE 14. Waste statistics in Australia for 1997, 2003, and 2007.
to 8.9 million tons (ABS, 2010). The statewise MSW generation for the year2003 in Australia was 3.33, 2.29, 1.74, 0.83, 0.60, and 0.11 million tons forNew South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia,and Australian Capital Territory (ACT), respectively. This is also equal to1820, 1751, 1046, 1804, 2248, and 2087 kpc for respective states. Therefore,the increasing trend of MSW generation by Australians from 1996 to 2003 isabout 42%. By 2006–2007, Australians generated approximately 2,100 kg ofwaste per person. Therefore, between 1996–97 and 2006–07, the volume ofwaste produced per person in Australia grew at an average annual rate of5.4%. (ABS, 2010).
In 1999, 1.27 million tons of MSW was generated from New Zealand(Twardowska and Allen, 2004). In 2003–2004, Christchurch people generated1.67 tons of MSW per capita per annum where the total population was320,000 (Street and Zydenbos, 2004). According to Christchurch City Council,Christchurch people generated 0.78 tons of MSW per capita per annum in2005; 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 contributionin composition is 47%, 23%, 4%, 7%, 5%, 3%, 1%, and 12%, respectively
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1588 T. Karak et al.
(ABS, 2010). In the year 2006, MSW of New Zealand consisted of on averagerubble and concrete (88.8%), timber (9.3%), organic waste (1.6%), and othermaterials, which includes small amount of paper, metals, and rubber (WasteNot Consulting, 2006). According to the Ministry for the Environment (2008)of New Zealand, the waste composition proportions for the national indicatorsites for 2007–2008 were potentially hazardous (14%), paper (7%), nappiesand sanitary (3%), plastics (8%), organic (28%), glass (4%), rubble (16%),timber (11%), textiles (4%), rubber (1%), ferrous metal (4%), and nonferrousmetal (0.5%). Between 2002 and 2004 and 2007 and 2008, organic waste hadthe largest increase in proportion to the overall waste stream in New Zealand,increasing from 21% to 28%. Varying economic production and consumptionpatterns are likely to have influenced the change of this composition inMSW. Rubble waste had the largest decrease in proportion between 2002and 2004 and 2007 and 2008, dropping from 23% to 16% of the overall wastestream. Paper waste decreased from 11% to 7%, and metal from 6% to 4%.The proportion of paper waste in the waste stream decreased consistentlybetween 1995 and 2007 and 2008 from 19% to 10% of the overall wastestream. Metal waste decreased from 6% to 4%, with most of this decreaseoccurring in the past four years.
MSW Generation in Eight South Pacific Countries
The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) carried outthe solid waste characterization and management plans project in eight Pa-cific countries including Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands,Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Western Samoa. On the basis of the available lit-erature, the status of MSW among these countries is discussed subsequently.
The Ministry of Health (MoH) in Tonga undertook a solid waste man-agement 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 wastegenerated was about 0.5 l per person or 255.5 kpc. In 1999, the amount ofwaste generation per person per year was 299.3. Waste generation rate inNuku’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 rateof MSW in Lautoka and Nadi Town (a regional center in Fiji) was 168 and153.3 kpc, respectively (Davetanivalu et al., 2009). According to the AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB) study for the year 1996, approximate mean yearlywaste generation in Kiribati was 120.5 kpc (ADB, 1998). South Tarawa (cap-ital of Kiribati) generated 120.5 kpc in 2009 (Davetanivalu et al., 2009). In1985, the Department of Environment and Conservation carried out a 30-daydomestic solid waste survey at the Baruni Dump of Papua New Guinea. Thissurvey estimated that the average yearly waste generated by the domestic,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1589
commercial, and industrial sectors varied between 76.7 to 142.4 kpc. Themean yearly generation of MSW in Papua New Guinea for the year 2000 wasestimated as 149.7 kpc (Raj, 2000). The Solomon Islands comprise a scatteredarchipelago of mountainous islands and coral atolls with a total land area of27,566 km2. According to the WHO Mission Report (1991), it was estimatedthat the average daily waste generation in the Solomon Islands by the do-mestic sector was 138.7 kpc and its bulk density was 270 kg m−3. There wasno data on generation of commercial and industrial wastes. Port Vila (capitaland largest city of Vanuatu) generated 193.5 kpc MSW in 2009 (Davetanivaluet al., 2009). Tuvalu consists of nine low-lying coral islands with Funafutibeing the capital. Tuvalu has a land area of approximately 2,500 ha and thecapital Funafuti is only 254 ha in size. The waste generation rate in Tuvaluwas approximately 438 kpc for the year 1997 (Grano et al., 1997). In Funa-futi, the waste generation rate for 1999 was 157 kpc (Raj, 2000). According tothe ADB Report (1998), Vanuatu people generated 219 kpc in 1998. A wastecharacterization study conducted in Apia (capital city of Western Samoa) in1993 by the SPREP had a waste generation rate of 189.8 kpc with a bulkdensity of 350 kg per cubic meter (Henson, 1993). MSW generation rate inApia 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 Tongafor the year 1994. Among the different compositions, wood, grass, and yardwaste contributed about 65% of total waste generated. Figure 15B providesand indicates the waste composition in Fiji but is based on a short periodof time (four days only) so it does not allow for weekly or seasonal varia-tions. The analysis should be repeated in the future at regular intervals togive more accuracy to the data and to allow trends to be identified. Figure15B shows paper, including cardboard boxes, magazines, newspaper, office,tetrapak, packaging, and sanitary; plastics, including polyethylene terephtha-late (PET), rigid high-density polyethylene (HDPE), flexible HDPE, and otherplastics; and all textiles, including clothing, carpets, and curtains. Accordingto Raj (2000), organic fraction in MSW of Lautoka and Nadi Town of Fijicontributed 71.2 to 74.5% of total waste. Figure 15C reflects the MSW com-position in Kiribati on MSW for 1996. From the Figure 15C it is clear thatbiodegradable waste in generated MSW contributes more than 50%. Figure15D depicts the waste composition in Papua New Guinea for the year 1998(Raj, 1998), of which over 53% was biodegradable. Figure 15E depicts thewaste composition in the Solomon Islands for the year 1998 (WHO 1991).The data in Figure 15E show that there is approximately 83% organic wastein the domestic waste stream. The Figure 15F shows the waste compositiononly on the basis of the existing data available in Tuvalu (Grano et al., 1997).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1590 T. Karak et al.
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).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1591
The percentage (v/v) MSW composition in Port Vila (capital of Vanuatu, onthe island of Efate) for the year 1990 is presented in Figure 15G. The MSWcomposition for 1993 in Western Samoa is presented in Figure 15H.
MANAGEMENT OF MSW
Management of MSW is not only environmental issue, but also a sociopoliti-cal problem. Increased MSW generation throughout the world creates moreenvironmental problems in different countries, particularly in developingcountries where the cities are not able to manage wastes due to lack of insti-tutional, 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 wastehas significant adverse effect on atmosphere, including (a) contamination ofsurface and groundwater through leachate (Xiaoli et al., 2007); (b) soil con-tamination through direct waste contact or leachate (Prechthai et al., 2008);(c) air pollution through burning of wastes (McKay, 2002); (d) spreadingof diseases by different vectors such as birds, insects, and rodents (Pahrenand Clark, 1987); (e) adverse effects on the environment and human health(Giusti, 2009); (f) odor in landfills (Nie and Dong, 1998), and (g) uncon-trolled release of methane by anaerobic decomposition of wastes (Erkutet al., 2008). Therefore, there is no denial the fact that the proper disposalof MSW is a necessity and an integral part of the urban environment, degra-dation of land resources, and planning of the urban infrastructure to ensurea safe and healthy human environment while considering the promotion ofsustainable economic growth. MSW management practices employed in thedifferent 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 ofMSW is landfilling. Developed countries carry out it in a systematic manner,however, developing countries usually throw out MSW in open dumps in anunscientific 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 ac-counted for 3% in Japan in 2003, 18% in Germany in 2004, and in 2005was 36% in France, 54% in Italy and the United States, and 64% in theUnited Kingdom (Shekdar, 2009). In 2007, the member states of the EU withthe highest share of municipal waste landfilled were Bulgaria (100% of wastetreated), Romania (99%), Lithuania (92%), Malta (93%), Poland (90%), Cyprus(87%), Latvia (85%), Czech Republic and Turkey (both 83%), Slovakia and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
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 year2007 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 (only1%) of the total generated MSW. The landfilling rate in these countries wascomparatively lower than other European countries, as governments intro-duced a ban on landfilling of waste. Disposal of wastes in the United Statesto a land had decreased from 89% of the total amount generated in 1980 to54% of MSW in 2007 (U.S. EPA, 2008). In the former USSR landfilling was96.5% for the year 1989 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1991). During 2005, around53 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 MSWlandfilled in South Korea decreased from 68.3% to 41.5% due to the intro-duction 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 ofenvironmental concerns (Xiaoli et al., 2007). In 2002, China sanitary landfillwas 27.93% (APO, 2007) and total landfilling accounted for more than 80%of MSW disposal (Xiaoli et al., 2007). With the rising landfill costs, severescarcity of landfill sites, and enhancement of people’s environmental con-sciousness, 44% of MSW was landfilled (OECD, 2007b) in 2004. In 2008,China dealt with 103.07 million tons of MSW by innocuous disposal. In theyear 2004, Beijing (China) disposed 94% of MSW in sanitary landfill as it wasthe main treatment strategy to MSW. However, this treatment configurationposes challenge to the land availability surrounding Beijing and environmen-tal pollution through greenhouse gases. Therefore, presently only 33.3% ofMSW being sanitary landfilling in Beijing (Xiao et al., 2007).
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore have been aggressively im-proving their MSW management systems with the ultimate aim of eliminat-ing landfills from their systems. For this reason these countries are movingthrough 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 Tai-wan, 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 disposedby landfilling (Poon, 2006). Australia has also a strong dependence on land-fill for waste management, with more than 17 million tons deposited in2002–03, of this, 70% was municipal waste. This equates to approximately6.2 million tons of MSW. In Australia 21.22 million tons of solid waste wasused to landfill in 1996–97. This indicates a 19% decrease of landfilled wastethrough MSW over the 6 years till 2003 (ABS, 2010). In the year 2003, NewSouth Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 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 ofwaste to landfill in 2006 (Waste Not Consulting, 2006). Presently 3.4 milliontons of waste ends up in landfills, of which the quantity of waste per persondumped every year in Auckland has increased by almost 75% since 1983.
Improper management of MSW is a common practice in Cameroondue to short of funds, deficient in institutional organization and interest,poor equipment for waste collection and lack of urban planning (Henryet al., 2006). The collection rate of MSW in this country is only 70%, ofwhich 73.6% of collected waste is being disposed in open landsite and24.7% is thrown away in rivers, forests, and roadsides (Parrot et al., 2009).Approximately 74% of all MSW in Canada was disposed in landfills for theyear 1995 (Sawell et al., 1996). In 2000 and 2002, Canada disposed 9.07and 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’ssolid 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 cityand has been used for waste landfilling for more than 40 years (Damghaniet al., 2008). However only 28.81% generated MSW is being landfilled inRasht, Iran (Moghadam et al. 2009). Unsanitary crude dumping practice isvery common in Bangladesh. Presently the average collection efficiency ofgenerated MSW in Bangladesh is 56% (Sujauddin et al., 2008) and for thispurpose 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 theyear 2025 (Sinha, 2006). Only 60% of the MSW generated is actually collectedin most of the Pakistani cities and disposed in open dumps, while 40% is notcollected and lies along roadsides, street railway lines, depressions, vacantplots, drains, storm drains, and open sewers (Batool and Ch, 2009). Thecollection efficiency of MSW ranges between 70% and 90% in the major metrocities in India, whereas several smaller cities’ collection efficiency is below50% (Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization,2000). When the disposal method for the waste is considered, it has beenobserved that Indian cities dispose their waste in open dumps located inthe outskirts of the city without any concern of environmental degradationor impact on human health (Talyan et al., 2008). Further, the financial andinfrastructural constraints, including nonavailability of land for safe disposalof generated waste and the lack of awareness and apathy at all levels, alsoinhibit progress leading to efficient, safe management of urban solid waste(Government of India, 1995). In India, it is estimated that around 50 milliontons of MSW is collected from urban areas each year (Shekdar, 2009). Morethan 90% of MSW in India is directly disposed to the land in an unsatisfactorymanner (Sharholy et al., 2007). The targets set for treatment of MSW for2005–2024 in India are shown in Table 14. To meet the targets, the treatmentcapacity of selected technologies will be enhanced in phases.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
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 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024
MSW for treatment(%)
9 22 33 39 42
MSW for sanitarylandfilling (%)
91 78 67 61 58
The share of open dumping through MSW in Sri Lanka and Thailandcontributed 85 and 65%, respectively. The collection rate of the generatedMSW amount was estimated to be 45.5–51.1% of the total generation in Thai-land (Hiramatsu et al., 2009). In Thailand, the main methods for treatmentof MSW are open dumping and unsanitary landfills (65%; Prechthai et al.,2008). However, limited area of landfill site in this country makes the landfill-ing operation compounded. Therefore, a fresh look should be taken at theMSW management strategy (Liamsanguan and Gheewala, 2008). Althoughthe national government tries to promote sanitary landfills, many regionsstill do not have sufficient funds, technology, and human resources to im-prove MSW management (Hiramatsu et al., 2009). The traditional practice ofmanaging MSW in most of the municipalities of Nepal includes open dumpsin abandoned fields or on the bank of the rivers or streams (65–100% ofthe MSW depending on the municipalities). Prior to 1979, all solid wastecollected in Singapore was used to dispose by dumping on sanitary landfills.
According to MoE (1997), the total landfills in Indonesia number 450, ofwhich six are sanitary landfills, 57 are controlled landfills, and 387 are opendump sites.
In Bhutan MSW collection rate is only 71%, of which approximately40% of MSW was informally disposed in open dump sites in 2000 (UrbanSector Programme Support Secretariat, 2000). However, presently the rateof landfilling in Bhutan is in decreasing trend and only 20% of generatedMSW is being disposed in the year 2010 (Norbu et al., 2010). Uncontrolledwaste dumps and nonsanitary landfills through MSW was also very often inAlbania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia, and these countries wereusing 100% of generated MSW for open dumping (Regional EnvironmentalCenter, 2000). According to Simonetto and Borenstein (2007), about 95% ofMSW was disposed in open dump site or in environmentally sensitive areain Brazil in the year 2006, most of which are frequented by scavengers in-cluding children. A major portion of MSW (75%) is being managed throughopen landfilled in South Africa till date (Nahman and Godfrey, 2010). Chiledisposed of 80% of MSW through landfilling from 2002 to 2006 (ComisionNacional del Medio Ambiente, 2006). In Colombia, 45% of the total generated
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1595
MSW was deposited to landfills (Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desar-rollo Territorial, 2005). Landfilling is the dominant option for MSW disposalin Dalmatia in Croatia. According to a national landfill database (Croatian En-vironment Agency, 2006), there are over 55 landfills in the Dalmatian region,49 of which are presently active. Only 16 have all of the necessary certifica-tions as sanitary landfills, with five more undergoing approval procedures;17 landfills are not certified in any way, and 11 are totally illegal (Vegoet al., 2008). Landfills (dumps) are the primary municipal waste disposalmethod in Serbia. Around 180 registered landfills are present in this country.Despite the aggressive economic development in Malaysia, the solid wastemanagement is relatively poor and haphazard and major portion of MSW ismanaged through landfillings (Saeed et al., 2009). Typical examples of self-disposal methods of MSW in Tanzania are burying of waste in pits and illegaldumping, which implies that the waste generated by a source is dumped inthe vicinity of the source or in a place where such a practice is prohibitedsuch 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 (Mbuligweand Kassenga, 2004). The percentage of waste disposed to landfills in SouthPacific countries ranged from 20% to over 90% (Skinner, 1998). During the19th century, Mexico collected only 70% (for the year 1992) to 85% (for theyear 1998) of total generated MSW, of which 24.5% (for the year 1994) to61.4% (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 insanitary 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, whichmostly managed by landfilling (Parizeau et al., 2006). The percentage ofMSW collection rate in some other African cities is 30–40% in Abidjan (Coted’Ivoire), 30–40% in Dakar (Senegal), 48% in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), 42.1%in Lome (Togo), 15–20% in Ndjamena (Chad), 30–58% in Nairobi (Kenya),20–30% in Nouakchott (Mauritania), and 43% in Yaounde (Cameroon), andmost 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 rapidlydeclining with depleting available cheap land resources and the wasteful na-ture of disposing useful resources in the landfill operation. Due to the limitedeconomic benefits of separation and recycling, resource recovery in the formof heat and power production has gained favor in the past 20 years (McKay,2002). According to Brunner (1994) and Chimenos et al. (1999), during thisperiod incineration of MSW has seen turbulent in terms of popularity, but
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
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 ofenergy recovery; (b) the waste reduction is immediate and not dependent onlong biological breakdown reaction times; (c) incineration facilities can beconstructed closer to the MSW sources or collection points, reducing trans-portation costs; (d) using heat recovery technology, the cost of the operationcan be offset by energy sales; and (e) air discharges can be controlled tomeet environmental legislative limit values. Despite the beneficial effect ofincineration, it would not be a suitable option in developing countries dueto the extreme moisture content and accordingly a low calorific value, toolow for a self-sustaining incineration.
In 2000, 21 incinerators disposed 1.1 million tons of solid waste, only5% of the total amount of waste disposed in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2000).Among the European countries, the highest shares of incinerated MSW wereobserved in Denmark (53%), followed by Sweden (46%), France (36%), Lux-embourg (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 Hun-gary (8%) for the year 2007. However, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Ire-land, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, andTurkey had no incineration at all. By the late 1970s, landfilling was progres-sively replaced by incineration, as incineration is the main method of wastedisposal in Singapore. There are presently four refused incineration plantsin 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 doneby incineration and the refused incineration is handled by three modernincinerators with the combined capacity of 2.19 million tons per year (Tinet al., 1995). In 2003, about 2.3 million tons of waste was incinerated inSingapore. Presently Singapore disposes 90% of the burnable waste at fourincineration facilities (MoE, 2006).
Incineration would not be a suitable option in other low-income Asiancountries due to its cost and the high organic material (40–60%) andamenable to biodegradation, extreme moisture content (40–60%), high inertcontent (30–50%), and accordingly low calorific value (800–1100 kcal kg−1),too low for a self-sustaining incineration (Kansal, 2002). In 1963, the Japangovernment set up the first Five-Year Plan for Development of Living Envi-ronment Facilities, presenting the principles of its new urban waste disposalpolicy involving incineration, with residues disposed in landfills. However,incineration technology, suitable for use under Japanese conditions are onlyduring 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 incin-eration as its predominant means of waste disposal; nearly 70% of MSWis incinerated. Kamikatsu-cho and Tokushima prefecture of Japan Promotes
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1597
zero waste (e.g., by declaring that the town will reduce the amount of land-fill and incineration waste to zero by 2020; MoE, 2006). In the former USSRincineration was 2.2% in the year 1989 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1991).
The first large-scale MSW incineration plant in India was constructed atTimarpur, 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 ofDelhi was forced to shut down the plant due to its poor performance (MCD,2004; Sharholy et al., 2007). Another incineration plant was constructed atBARC, Trombay (near Mumbai), for burning only the institutional waste,which includes mostly paper. In many cities of India, hazardous wastes suchas hospital wastes are being incinerated at a small scale (Sharholy et al.,2007).
Incinerators are also not commonly used by the municipalities in In-donesia. Only Surabaya, Bogor, and Padang used an incinerator to treatMSW. An incinerator in Surabaya was developed through public–privatepartnership in 1989. The 200 tpd incineration facility became operational in1991. 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 maintainthe combustion process. The Surabaya plant incinerated only 170 tpd due tothe spatial requirements for the air drying system (Silas, 2002).
In 2002, the waste treatment percentages of general waste with methodsof 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 wasteincineration has been given a top priority over other waste disposal methods,although it is much more expensive. In the last decade, more than 80% ofthe 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 thoughsignificant quantities of organic residue in MSW can be used as alternativemanner. Therefore, increased attention has been given to alternative wastemanagement options such as source separation into organic and inorganicfractions followed by either composting or anaerobic digestion with accom-panying biogas production. MSW composting is a controlled bioprocess thathas been proposed as an alternative to landfilling and the incineration ofMSW (Wolkowski, 2003). Composting is a waste management practice thatallows 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 andtransformed into 0.64 million tons of compost (Noyon, 1992). The numberof composting facilities and the amount of source-separated and compostedMSW has been increasing in many countries of Europe (Barth and Kroeger,1998; Evans, 2004) and in the United States (Goldstein, 2003). The European
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1598 T. Karak et al.
Community has initiated a consultative process that will assist in the creationof new policies for waste prevention and recycling. Composting and anaero-bic digestion of MSW are strategies that are likely to be employed to reducewaste generation and to recycle nutrients. About 34% of the produced MSWwas managed by composting and recycling procedure in United Kingdom forthe year 2007 and 2008 (DEFRA, 2008), and 33% of the total generated MSWacross the United Kingdom has been planned for recycling and compost-ing by 2015, although DEFRA (2006) explored a proposed increase of 45%by 2015, rising to 50% by 2020. Increasing demand of composting in otherEuropean countries has also been shown. For example, the increasing rateof 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. How-ever, decreasing trend was observed over 1995–2007 in Malta (78.26%), theNetherlands (4.17%), Portugal (23.08%), and Turkey (100%). In 2007, com-posting of municipal waste was most common in Austria (41%), Italy (37%),the Netherlands (23%), Belgium (22%), and Luxembourg (21%), followed byDenmark/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 doneat all in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Iceland, and Romania.
The composition of the MSW generated in Asia and other developingcountries is around 40–80% of MSW comprises organic waste (Visvanathanet al., 2004), while in Europe and developed American continents an averageof 30–40% of MSW consists of food and garden wastes (European Environ-ment Agency, 1999). This clearly shows that developing countries generatehigher organic contents of MSW than European countries. However, it isexpected that the waste composition will be likely to be similar in the futuredue to the strong Asian economic development. The amount of MSW com-post 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 consecutiveyears shows that compost production in Tehran showed a 3.6% growth in2005. Centralized composting facilities in Canada have become more com-mon since the early 1990s. In 2002, 1.2 million tons of organic waste wascomposted at centralized composting facilities (Statistics Canada, 2002). Inthe year 2002, the general MSW treatment rate in China was 96.11% of whichcomposting contributed only 0.03% (APO, 2007). In 2004, 5% was composted(OECD, 2007b). About 70–80% of generated MSW in New Delhi (India) iscollected 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 thetotal MSW, is being composted throughout India (Saha et al., 2009).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1599
Management of MSW Through Recycles
Recycling means the waste generated by a source is sold or given awayfor reuse. A common item for recycling includes paper, metal, and glass.Developed countries typically utilize curbside recycling programs to collectand sort wastes for recycling processing. Conversely, developing countriesutilize the social sector known as scavengers to handle such activities. Scav-engers are citizens with low- to no-income group that collect materials thatare dispersed throughout the city or concentrated at dumpsites. The recy-cling rate in 2006 was 51%, 2% more from 2005 in Singapore; 15% of thetotal generated waste in Dhaka (mainly inorganic; amounting to 475 tons perday) is recycled daily. In 2002–03, approximately 30% of Australia’s munici-pal waste was recycled (2.7 million tons). Australian municipal recycling iscomparable to the average recycling rate in Europe (36.4%). Despite beingan excellent alternative for the reduction of waste destined to landfills, only4.7% of wastes are reused or recycled in Brazilian cities on average, accord-ing to Non-Governmental Organization Company Commitment (CEMPRE).Recycling has gained an important role in nearly all EU-15 countries, andaccounts for the treatment of up to 33% (Germany) of the total municipalwaste. In South Africa the recycled materials from MSW have increased from0.49 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 amountreached 8.01 million tons per year (WHO, 2004). The reuse rate of glassbeverage bottles in Tanzania is very high (99%) because of the deposit sys-tem and the total amount of recycled waste at Dar es Salaam is estimatedto 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 collectedMSW (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 MSWby weight. Thus, if a recycling program for MSW is well conducted, it notonly could potentially recover, reuse, and/or regenerate useful resources,but also could reduce the amount of waste to be disposed. Approximately50% or more of the waste items in urban waste in Taiwan are found to bevaluable and worth recycling. Recycling is has great implications in Taiwanbecause of its lack of natural resources (Yang, 1995). Mongolia has signifi-cant recycling activities, as evidenced by scavengers comprising 10% of thecapital city’s population and a women’s federation that operates householdcollection 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 Eu-ropean countries, Germany recycled higher amount of MSW, equaling 45%
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
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 ratesof plastics and glass packaging have increased between 2002 and 2008 inNew Zealand. Plastic recycling rates are presently the lowest among all ofthe recyclable materials, which reflects the difficulties of collecting, sortingand processing plastics (Environment New Zealand, 2007). The Singaporegovernment has been initiated the recycling of waste in the country from2000 through a variety of public awareness programs. From 2000 to 2005,the recycling rate was increased from 40% to 49%, and waste (domesticand nondomestic) generation was reduced by 8% (Shekdar, 2009). In 2002and 2003, China recycled 15.60% and 22.39%, respectively, of the total MSW(APO, 2007). In 2003, the total amount of recycled materials from MSWstream was 1.38 million tons. A typical composition of the wastebasket ofwaste collectors or pickers from MSW dumpsite in New Delhi, India, wasfound as plastics 12 kg per day, polythene 7.8 kg per day, paper 6.4 kgper day, metals 4.7 kg per day, bottles (unbroken) 1.9 kg per day, brokenglass 1.7 kg per day, and rubber 0.9 kg per day (Hayami et al., 2006). WhileMSW generation in the United States had increased from 445.3 to 766.5 kpcbetween 1960 and 2007, the recycling rate had also increased, from less than6.4% 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 thevolume 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 asdioxins and furans (McKay, 2002).
CONCLUSION
With an ever-increasing population and economic development coupledwith increasing consumption pattern, there is no sign that MSW generationin the world will dwindle. The generation of MSW per capita of populationhas been increased in most of the countries throughout the world and insome cases the increase is quite significant. The huge amount of MSW gen-eration is not only an environmental threat, but also a cause of major socialhandicap. Therefore, proper management of MSW is of primary concern.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1601
MSWM encompasses the functions of collection, transfer, resource recovery,recycling, and treatment. The primary target of MSWM is to protect the healthof the population, to promote environmental quality, to develop sustainabil-ity, and to provide support to economic productivity. To meet these goals,sustainable solid waste management systems must be embraced fully by localauthorities in collaboration with both the public and private sectors. Althoughin developing countries the quantity of solid waste generated in urban ar-eas is low compared with industrialized countries, the MSWM still remainsinadequate. Therefore, the following factors should be highly emphasized:promulgation of the Waste Management Bill, which will create an enablingenvironment for enforcement and will provide a legal framework withinwhich environmental impact can be implemented; political motivation (wastemanagement must be seen as a priority at all levels of government); educa-tion and awareness (waste management must be taken as a priority amongbusinesses and communities, to encourage waste minimization and recyclingto enable acceptance of instruments); development of capacity at all levels ofgovernment (for administration, monitoring and enforcement of instrumentsand of illegal dumping, billing for services to enable cost recovery); increasedaccess to resources for waste management departments (to allow develop-ment of capacity, recovery of costs, and improved waste management ser-vices); waste licensing and managing data (e.g., through a waste informationsystem); infrastructure for extension of basic waste services, improvement inexisting services, and enhancement and convenience of recycling (e.g., drop-off centers, possibility of curbside pickup); and enforcement of basic wastemanagement practices, including cost recovery, and existing command andcontrol instruments, such as the minimum requirements for landfill designand operation, which would result in an increase in landfill charges, mak-ing recycling a more attractive option. Furthermore, respondents expressedconcern with the lack of monitoring and enforcement capacity at the mu-nicipal level, especially for the billing of waste services and the monitoringof illegal dumping in the case of quantity-based waste collection charges.Research is therefore required concerning how environmental impact canbe selected, designed, and implemented in a way that takes into accountcircumstances of developing countries (including institutional limitations,such as the lack of monitoring and enforcement capacity at the municipallevel).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewer for insightful commentsthat have improved the manuscript. Grateful thanks is also due for use-ful discussions with Dr. Sudripta Das (biotechnologist, TRA) whenever weneeded. The authors are also thankful to Dr. S. Debnath (microbiologist) and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1602 T. Karak et al.
Mr. Shyamal Chakravorty of Tocklai Experimental Station (Jorhat, Assam, In-dia) 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 inIran Municipal Organizations, Tehran, Iran. Iran Municipalities & Rural Manage-ment 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 compostingplus 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 wastemanagement in Jordan. Waste Manage. 27, 1666.
Abu Qdais, H.A., Hamoda, M.F., and Newham, J. (1997). Analysis of residential solidwaste at generation sites. Waste Manage. Res. 15, 395.
Abu-Qudais, M., and Abu-Qdais, H.A. (2000). Energy content of municipal solidwaste in Jordan and its potential utilization. Energy Convers. Manage. 41, 983.
Achankeng, E. (2003). Globalization, urbanization and municipal solid waste man-agement in Africa. African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific:2003 Conference Proceedings, Africa on a Global Stage. October 1–3, FlindersUniversity, Adelaide, Australia.
Acurio, G., Rossin, A., Teixeira, P.F., and Zepeda, F. (1998). Diagnosis of municipalsolid waste management in Latin America and the Carribbea, Joint publica-tion of the Inter-American Development Bank and the Pan American HealthOrganization, Second edition, Serie Ambiental No. 18, Pan American HealthOrganization/World Health Organization.
Adeyemi, A.S., Olorunfemi, J.F., and Adewoye, T.O. (2001). Waste scavenging inthird 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 generationin Oyo, Nigeria. Waste Manage. Res. 25, 371.
Agamuthu, P. (2003). Solid waste management in developing economies-need for aparadigm shift. Waste Manage. Res. 21, 487.
Agarwal, A., Singhmar, A., Kulshrestha, M., and Mittal, A.K. (2005). Municipal solidwaste recycling and associated markets in Delhi, India. Resour. Conserv. Rec.44, 73.
Agdag, O.N. (2009). Comparison of old and new municipal solid waste managementsystems in Denizli, Turkey. Waste Manag. 29, 456.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1603
Aguayo, P. (2001). Reciclaje y tratamiento mecanico biologico de residuos solidosurbanos [Recycling and mechanical-biological treatment of municipal solidwastes]. BS thesis, Chemical Engineering Department, University of Concepcion,Chile.
Ahmed, M.F., and Rahman, M.M. (2000). Water supply and sanitation: Rural andlow income urban communities. Dhaka, Bangladesh: ITN.
Ahsan, A. (2005). Generation, composition and characteristics of municipal solidwaste in some major cities of Bangladesh. Master’s thesis, Department of CivilEngineering, Khulna University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh.
Asian Development Bank. (1998). Environmental improvement for sanitation andpublic 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 disposalof waste negotiations support unit. Negotiation Affairs Department, PalestinianAuthority.
Al-Khatib, I.A., and Arafat, H.A. (2010). A review of residential solid waste manage-ment in the occupied Palestinian Territory: a window for improvement? WasteManage. 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 devel-oping 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 thestate of Kuwait. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 26, 3.
Al-Salem, S.M., and Lettieri, P. (2009). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of municipal solidwaste 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 stateof 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: Acase 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-operationCouncil states. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 45, 142.
Ali Khan, M.Z., and Burney, F.A. (1989). Forecasting solid waste composition-animportant consideration in resource recovery and recycling. Resour. Conserv.Recycl. 3, 1.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1604 T. Karak et al.
Allahabad Municipal Corporation. (2003). Municipal solid waste inAllahabad, Allahabad Nagar Nigam, Uttar Pradesh, India. Unpublishedraw data.
Aloueimine, S.O. (2006). MSW Characterization Methodology in Nouakchott,Mauriatnia. Dechets Sciences et technigues (in French).
Alsamawi, A.A., Zboon, A.R.T., and Alnakeeb, A. (2009). Estimation of Baghdadmunicipal solid waste generation rate. J. Technol. Eng. 27(1), 1.
Andreevska, S. (1990). Municipal solid waste management by composting in Bul-garia: 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: Currenttrends and steps forward. Master’s thesis, International Institute for IndustrialEnvironmental Economics, Lund, Sweden.
Asase, M., Yanful, E.K., Mensah, M., Stanford, J., and Amponsah, S. (2009). Compar-ison of municipal solid waste management systems in Canada and Ghana: Acase study of the cities of London, Ontario, and Kumasi, Ghana. Waste Manage.29, 2779.
Asian Productivity Organization. (2007). Solid waste management: Issues and chal-lenges 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 recy-cling 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). Energyrecovery from municipal solid waste in South Africa, A pre-feasibility study forthe Department of Science and Technology. Pretoria, South Africa: Departmentof 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 sus-
tainable development in Limbe Urban Municipality, Yaounde, Camaroon. Re-trieved from http://ww2.unhabitat.org/offices/roaas/france/limbe.pdf
Ayininuola, G.M., and Muibi, M.A. (2008). An engineering approach to solid wastecollection system: Ibadan North as case study. Waste Manage. 28, 1681.
Badran, M.F., and El-Haggar, S.M. (2006). Optimization of municipal solid wastemanagement in Port Said-Egypt. Waste Manage, 26, 534.
Bai, R., and Sutanto, M. (2002). The practice and challenges of solid waste manage-ment in Singapore. Waste Manage. 22, 557.
Bandara, N.J.G.J., Hettiaratchi, J.P.A., Wirasinghe, S.C., and Pilapiiya, S. (2007). Re-lation of waste generation and composition to socio-economic factors: A casestudy. 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 Tenorio, J.A.S. (2008). Physi-cal 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.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1605
Bartone, C.R., and Bernstein, J.D. (1993). Improving municipal solid waste manage-ment in third world countries. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 8, 43.
Bartone, C.R., Leite, L., Triche, T., and Schertenleib, R. (1991). Private sector partic-ipation in municipal solid waste service: experiences in Latin America. WasteManage. Res. 9, 495.
Batool, S.A., and Chuadhry, M.N. (2009). The impact of municipal solid waste treat-ment 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 citydistrict, Pakistan. Waste Manage. 29, 1971.
Batool, S.A., Chaudhry, N., and Majeed, K. (2008). Economic potential of recyclingbusiness 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 mechanical-biological 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 Istanbuland 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-Perez, G., Sanchez-Colon, S., Garmendia, A., Davila-Villarreal, A., andSanchez-Salazar, M.E. (2001). Solid waste characterization study in the Guadala-jara metropolitan zone, Mexico. Waste Manage. Res. 19, 413.
Bie, R.S., Li, S.Y., and Wang, H. (2007). Characterization of PCDD/Fs and heavymetals from MSWincineration plant in Harbin. Waste Manage. 27, 1860.
Binder, C.R., and Mosler, H. (2007). Waste-resource flows of short lived goods inhouseholds 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). Theeffect 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 theAccra metropolitan area, Ghana. The Environmentalist, 23, 211.
Bolaane, B., and Ali, M. (2004). Sampling household waste at source: Lessons learntin Gaborone. Waste Manage. Res. 22, 142.
Bovea, M.D., Ibanez-Fores, V., Gallardo, A., and Colomer-Mendoza, F.J. (2010).Environmental assessment of alternative municipal solid waste managementstrategies. A Spanish case study. Waste Manage, 30, 2383.
Bradley, J.D., Stephens, C., Harpham, T., and Cairncross, S. (1992). A review ofenvironmental health impacts in developing country cities, Washington, DC:Urban Management and the Environment, Urban Management Program, TheWorld Bank.
Bras, A., Berdier, C., Emmanuel, E., and Zimmerman, M. (2009). Problems andcurrent practices of solid waste management in Port-au-Prince (Haiti). WasteManage. 29, 2907.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1606 T. Karak et al.
Brereton, C. (1996). Municipal solid waste-incineration, air pollution control and ashmanagement. 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 inMexico: Goals and perspectives. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 39, 251.
Buenrostro, O., Bocco, G., and Bernache, G. (2001). Urban solid waste generationand disposal in Mexico: a case study. Waste Manage. Res. 19, 169.
Burnley, S.J. (2007). A review of municipal solid waste composition in the UnitedKingdom. Waste Manage, 27, 1274.
Burnley, S.J., Ellis, J.C., Flowerdew, R., Poll, A.J., and Prosser, H. (2007). Assessingthe composition of municipal solid waste in Wales. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 49,264.
Bushra, M. (2000). Regional study on policies and institutional assessment of solidwaste management in Egypt. Sophia Anitpolis, France: Blue Plan Regional Ac-tivity Centre.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Solid Waste Management in Israel: Facts andFigures 2006. Jerusalem, Israel: Solid Waste Management Division, Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection.
Central Pollution Control Board of India. (1998). Status of solid waste managementin metro cities. Report. India. New Delhi, India: Central Pollution Control Board.
Central Pollution Control Board of India. (2004). Management of municipal solidwaste in India, New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization. (2000). Man-ual on municipal solid waste management. New Delhi: Central Public Healthand Environmental Engineering Organization, Ministry of Urban Development,Government of India.
CEVKO. (2000). Solid waste management practices and review of recoveryand 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). Researchand pilot scale demonstration project on composting of domestic solid waste,Case Study Sinza, Dar es Salaam. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Department of En-vironmental Engineering, University College of Lands and Architectural Studies(UCLAS).
Chanakya, H.N., Ramachandra, T.V., and Vijayachamundeeswari, M. (2007). Re-source recovery potential from secondary components of segregated municipalsolid 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 managementin Kolkata, India: A review. Waste Manage. 29, 1449.
Chaya, W., and Gheewala, S.H. (2007). Life cycle assessment of MSW-to-energyschemes in Thailand. J. Cleaner Prod. 15, 1463.
Chen, D., Guan, Z., Liu, G., Zhou, G., and Zhu, T. (2010). Recycling combustiblesfrom aged municipal solid wastes (MSW) to improve fresh MSW incineration in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 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 wastemanagement in China. Waste Manage. 30, 716.
Chiemchaisri, C., Chiemchaisri, W., Kumar, S., and Hettiaratchi, J.P.A. (2007a). Solidwaste 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 wastemanagement in Thailand and disposal emission inventory. Environ. Monit. As-sess. 135, 13.
Chien, E. (1991). Working toward environmental quality in the 21st century. ROCEPA Code No. 34082790054.
Chimenos, J.M., Segarra, M., Fernandez, M.A., and Espiell, F. (1999). Characterizationof 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 urbanareas 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 municipalsolid waste and its air pollution effects. Energy Convers. Manage. 22, 231.
Chung, S., and Lo, C.W.H. (2004). Waste management in Guangdong cities: Thewaste management literacy and waste reduction preferences of domestic wastegenerators. Environ. Manage. 33, 692.
Comision Nacional del Medio Ambiente. (2002). Agenda ambiental paıs: Por undesarrollo limpio y sustentable 2002–2006. Santiago de Chile: CONAMA.
Contreras, F., Ishii, S., Aramaki, T., Hanaki, K., and Connors, S. (2010). Driversin current and future municipal solid waste management systems: Cases inYokohama and Boston. Waste Manage. Res. 28, 76.
Couth, R., and Trois, C., Carbon emissions reduction strategies in Africa from im-proved waste management: A review. Waste Manage. 30, 2336 (2010).
Croatian Environment Agency. (2006). Cadastre of landfills in Croatia. Zagreb, Croa-tia: Croatian Environment Agency.
Damanhuri, E., Wahyu, I.M., Ramang, R., and Padmi, T. (2009). Evaluation of mu-nicipal 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 solidwaste 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 demandfor municipal waste compost via farmers ‘willingness-to-pay’ in Ghana. WasteManage. 26, 1400.
Daskalopoulos, E., Badr, O., and Probert, S.D. (1998). An integrated approach tomunicipal solid waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 24, 33.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1608 T. Karak et al.
Davetanivalu, J., Serau, S., and Lewawere, E. (2009). Secretariat of the Pacific regionalenvironment programme strategy for solid waste management in Pacific Islandcountries and territories. Adopted on 15 September 2005 by: American Samoa,Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, French Poly-nesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand,Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, SolomonIslands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America, Vanuatu, Wallis andFutuna.
Delegacion Venustiano Carranza. (2005). Residuos solidos [Solid residues]. Retrievedfrom http://www.vcarranza.df.gob.mx
Delgado, O.B., Ojeda-Benıtez, S., and Marquez-Benavides, L. (2007). Comparativeanalysis of hazardous household waste in two Mexican regions. Waste Manage.27, 792.
Delhi Urban Environment and Infrastructure Improvement Project. (2001). Enviro-mental Infrastructure. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi andGovernment of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), New Delhi,India.
Den Boer, E., Jedrczak, A., Kowalski, Z., Kulczycka, J., and Szpadt, R. (2010). A
review of municipal solid waste composition and quantities in Poland. WasteManage. 30, 369.
Dennison, G.J., Dodd, V.A., and Whelan, B. (1996). A socio-economic based sur-vey of household waste characteristics in the city of Dublin, Ireland. I. Wastecomposition. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 17, 227.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. (1999). State of the en-vironment, South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.za/soer/nsoer/index.htm
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. (2006). South Africa environ-ment 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: Re-search 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). Environ-ment statistics service. Retrieved from http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (1998). Waste management series: Mini-mum 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 wastesin 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 inAsia and Pacific Islands, Kitakyushu, Japan, November 23–24.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1609
Dong, S.S., Tong, K.W., and Wu, Y.P. (2001). Municipal solid waste managementin China: Using commercial management to solve a growing problem. UtilitiesPolicy, 10, 7.
Dong, T.T.T., and Lee, B. (2009). Analysis of potential RDF resources from solidwaste and their energy values in the largest industrial city of Korea. WasteManage. 29, 1725.
El-Fadel, M., and Sbayti, H. (2000). Economics of mitigating greenhouse gas emis-sions from solid waste in Lebanon. Waste Manage. Res. 18, 329.
Elango, D., Thinakaran, N., Panneerselvam, P., and Sivanesan, S. (2009). Ther-mophilic composting of municipal solid waste. Appl. Energ. 86, 663.
Eleftheriou, P. (2002). Energy from wastes: A possible alternative energy source forCyprus’ municipalities? Energy Convers. Manage. 43, 1969.
Eleftheriou, P. (2007). Energy from waste: A possible alternative energy source forlarge size municipalities. Waste Manage. Res. 25, 483.
Elshorbagy, W.A., and Mohamed, A.M.O. (2000). Evaluation of using municipal solidwaste compost in landfill closure caps in arid areas. Waste Manage. 20, 499.
Emery, A., Davies, A., Griffiths, A., and Williams, K. (2007). Environmental and eco-nomic modelling: A case study of municipal solid waste management scenariosin Wales. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 49, 244.
Enayetullah, I., and Hashimi, Q.S.I. (2006). Community based solid waste man-agement through public-private-community partnerships: experience of wasteconcern in Bangladesh. Paper presented at 3R Asia Conference, Tokyo, JapanOctober 30–November 1.
Enayetullah, I., Sinha, A.H.M.M., and Khan, S.S.A. (2005). Urban solid waste man-agement scenario of Bangladesh: Problems and prospects. Dhaka, Bangladesh:Waste Concern Technical Documentation.
Environment New Zealand. (2007). National Waste Data Report. Wellington, NewZealand: 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 pro-tection in the 21st century. Beijing, China: China Environmental Science Press.
Erkut, E., Karagiannidis, A., Perkoulidis, G., and Tjandra, S.A. (2008). A multicriteriafacility location model for municipal solid waste management in North Greece.Eur. J. Operational Res. 187, 1402.
Ersoy, H., Bulut, F., Ersoy, A.F., and Berkun, M. (2008). Municipal solid wastemanagement and practices in coastal cities of the Eastern Black Sea: A casestudy 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 atEleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, October2007, Santa Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
European Commission. (2003). Waste generated and treated in Europe. Luxem-bourg: European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1610 T. Karak et al.
European Environment Agency. (1999). Environment in the European Union at theturn of the century. Environmental Assessment Report No. 2. Copenhagen,European Environment Agency.
European Environment Agency. (2007). Europe’s environment: The fourth assess-ment. 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 Publica-tions of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Eurostat. (2009a). Municipal waste generation and treatment, by type of treat-ment 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 fromhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY OFFPUB/KS-69-05-755/EN/KS-69-05-755-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 pre-
sented 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 ongeographical location. The Environmentalist, 22, 319.
Fehr, M., Castro, M.S.M.V., and Calcado, M.D.R. (2000). A practical solution to theproblem 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 ofinstitutions and organizations on urban waste collection systems: An analysis ofwaste 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 inslum communities. Int. J. Environ. Policy Law 34, 206.
Forum for Environmental Management and Research, Nepal. (2000). Database of en-vironmental education related organizations among Asian countries. Retrievedfrom http://www.jeef.or.jp/EAST ASIA/?job cat=nepal
Gangwar, K.K., and Joshi, B.D. (2008). A preliminary study on solid waste generationat Har Ki Pauri, Haridwar, around the Ardh-Kumbh period of sacred bathing inthe river Ganga in 2004. Environmentalist 28, 297.
Gavrilita, P. (2006). Environmental systems analysis of municipal solid waste man-agement in Chisinau, Moldova: Current situation and future perspectives.Master’s thesis, Industrial Ecology, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,Sweden.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1611
Geng, Y., Tsuyoshi, F., and Chen, X. (2010). Evaluation of innovative municipalsolid 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 managementproject (Volume I).: Solid Waste Management Resource Mobilization Center andDeutshe 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 theisland of Crete. Waste Manage. 26, 668.
Giusti, L. (2009). A review of waste management practices and their impact onhuman health. Waste Manage. 29, 2227.
Glawe, U., Visvanathan, C., and Alamgir, M. (2005). Solid waste management inleast developed Asian countries e a comparative analysis. Paper presented atInternational Conference on Integrated Solid Waste Management in SoutheastAsian Cities, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Goldstein, N. (2003). Solid waste composting trends in the United States. Biocycle44, 38.
Gomez, G., Meneses, M., Ballinas, L., and Castells, F. (2008). Characterization ofurban solid waste in Chihuahua, Mexico. Waste Manage. 28, 2465.
Gomez, G., Meneses, M., Ballinas, L., and Castells, F. (2009). Seasonal characteriza-tion of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the city of Chihuahua, Mexico. WasteManage. 29, 2018.
Government of India. (1995). Urban solid waste management in India. Report of theHigh Power Committee. New Delhi, India: Planning Commission, Governmentof India.
Grano, S, Sharp, R., and Henson, B. (1997). Tuvalu national environmental man-agement strategy (NEMS). SPREP report.
Greek Government. (2003, December 22). Ministerial Act 50910/2727: Measuresand terms for the management of solid waste, National and regional solid wasteplanning. Official Government Gazette 1909, Issue B.
Grodzinska-Jurczak, M. (2001). Management of industrial and municipal solid wastesin Poland. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 32, 85.
Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., Tarabuła, M., and Read, A.D. (2003). Increasing participationin 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). Mu-nicipal solid waste in Mostaganem city (Western Algeria). Waste Manage. 29,896.
Guzman, A.T. (1998). Urban municipal solid waste management in Costa Rica.Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil andEnvironmental Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Hafid, N., Hadek, E., Elguitari, M., and Bouamrane, A. (2002). Evaluation of a sim-plified option for compost production from MSW. Wastes 25, 7.
Hamdi, H., Jedidi, N., Ayari, F., Yoshida, M., and Ghrabi, A. (2003). Valuation ofmunicipal solid waste compost of Tunis (Tunisia): Agronomic aspect. Proc.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
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 andenvironmental 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. Universityof Putra, Malaysia.
Hassan, M.N., Chong, T.L., Rahman, M.M., Salleh, M.N., Zakariah, Z., Awang, M., andYunus, 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 futurestrategies? Paper presented at the International Conference on EnvironmentalManagement: 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. Biore-source Technol. 80, 217.
Hawskley, W. (1980). Solid waste management and disposal system for the greaterAmman region, Final Report. Municipality of Amman, The Hashemite Kingdomof Jordan.
Hayami, Y., Dikshit, A.K., and Mishra, S.N. (2006). Waste pickers and collectors inDelhi: Poverty and environment in urban sector. J. Dev. Studies 42(1), 41.
Hazra, T., and Goel, S. (2009). Solid waste management in Kolkata, India: Practicesand 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 managementchallenges in developing countries: Kenyan case study. Waste Manage. 26, 92.
Henson, B. (1993). Samoa. National Environment and Development Strategies(NEMS), Report for SPREP.
Hernandez-Berriel, M.C., Marquez-Benavides, L., Gonzalez-Perez, D.J., andBuenrostro-Delgado, O. (2008). The effect of moisture regimes on the anaerobicdegradation of municipal solid waste from Metepec (Mexico). Waste Manage.28, S14.
Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources, Sudan. (2003). Sudan’s FirstNational Communications Report, Ministry of Environment and Physical De-velopment, Sudan’s First National Communications under the United NationsFramework 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 urban-rural fringe area in Thailand. Waste Manage. Res. 27, 951.
Hoehne, M.V. (2008). Somalia: Update on the current situation (2006–2008). Bern,Switzerland: Schweizerische Fluchtlingshilfe.
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 wastemanagement: Case study in Pudong, China. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 49, 129.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1613
Hong, S. (1999). The effects of unit pricing system upon household solid wastemanagement: The Korean experience. J. Environ. Manage. 57, 1.
Hoornweg, D.T.L. (1999). What a waste: Solid waste management in Asia. Washing-ton, 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 andPacific Region, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Hristovski, K., Olson, L., Hild, N., Peterson, D., and Burge, S. (2007). The municipalsolid 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 engineer-ing project for municipal solid waste reduction, disinfection, regeneration andindustrialization in Guanghan city, China. Ecol. Eng. 11, 129.
Huang, Q., Wang, Q., Dong, L., Xi, B., and Zhou, B. (2006). The current situation ofsolid waste management in China. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 8, 63.
Hunger, G., and Stretz, J. (2006). Proof of Service: An innovative multifunctionaltool for sustainable solid waste management strategies in developing countries.Paper presented at WasteCon 2006, 18th Waste Management Conference andExhibition, October, Cape Town, South Africa.
Hunsicker, M.D., Crockett, T.R., and Labod, B.M.A. (1996). An overview of themunicipal 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). Municipalsolid-waste in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Appl. Energy 84, 664.
IHSI. (2007). IVeme recensement (RGPH): Resultats definitifs, ensemble du pays. Port-au-Prince, Haiti: IHSI.
Ikem, A., Osibanjo, O., Sridhar, M.K.C., and Sobande, A. (2002). Evaluation ofgroundwater 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 wastemanagement 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: Afeasibility study. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev.
Japan International Cooperation Agency. (1997). The study on solid waste manage-ment for Dar es Salaam city. Unpublished report.
Japan International Cooperation Agency. (2004). Study on integrated managementplan of municipal solid waste in Havana city. Progress Report, Part 1, Cuba.
Japan International Cooperation Agency. (2005a). The study on solid waste manage-ment in Dhaka city. Clean Dhaka Master Plan, Final Report, Japan InternationalCooperation Agency, Pacific Consultants International, Yachiyo Engineering Co.
Japan International Cooperation Agency and Pakistan Environmental ProtectionAgency. (2005b). Guidelines for solid waste management. Lahore, Pakistan:Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
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 Indianmega-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 solidwaste management situation in Tibet. Waste Manage. 29, 1186.
Jin, J., Wang, Z., and Ran, S. (2006). Solid waste management in Macao: Practicesand challenges. Waste Manage. 26, 1045.
Kah, O.L. (1993). Development of solid waste management in Singapore. Paper pre-sented 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 residuespotential for electrical energy generation in Albania. Renew. Sust. Energ Rev. 14,493.
Karani, P., and Jewasikiewitz, S.M. (2007). Waste management and sustainable de-velopment in South Africa. Environ. Dev. Sustainability 9, 163.
Kaseva, M.E., and Gupta, S.K. (1996). Recycling: An environmentally friendly andincome generating activity toward sustainable solid waste management. Casestudy: Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 17, 299.
Kaseva, M.E., Mbuligwe, S.E., and Kassenga, G. (2002). Recycling inorganic domesticsolid 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 onMount Kilimanjaro: A challenge to tourism. Waste Manage. Res. 28, 695.
Kehila, Y. (2005). The landfill in Alger and the use of geosynthetic material to pro-tect the environment, Paper presented at the 7th International Conference inGeosynthetic.
Kgathi, D.L., and Bolaane, B. (2001). Instruments for sustainable solid waste man-agement in Botswana. Waste Manage. Res. 19, 342.
Khan, H.U., Husain, T., and Khan, S.M. (1987). Solid waste management practicesin the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Environ. Manage. 11, 729.
Kharajian, H., Bader, T., and Ahmed, M. (1985). Solid waste studies in tri-cities ofDammam-Khobar-Dhahran, Prepared for King Abdul Aziz City for Science andTechnology under Project No. AR-4-049, 359.
Khatib, I., and Al-Khateeb, N. (2009). Solid waste treatment opportunities in thePalestinian authority areas. Waste Manage. 29, 1680.
Khatib, R., Usmani, N.F., and Husain, S.S. (1990). Evaluation of Recyclable Materialsin Municipal Waste from Karachi. Biol. Wastes 31, 113.
Kim, S. (2002). Korean waste management and eco-efficient symbiosis-a case studyof Kwangmyong city. Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 3, 371.
Kirkitsos, P., Dalamagas, A., Toksoz, F., Erozturk, A., Loutsi, P., Metin, E., and Hop-kins, T. (2000). Strategic planning for the implementation of an integrated solidwaste management and recycling program of large coastal cities of Turkey in theAegean. Appropriate Environmental & Solid Waste Management & Technologiesfor Developing Countries 1, 1.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1615
Ko, P.S., and Poon, C.S. (2009). Domestic waste management and recovery in HongKong. 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 wastemanagement in Lagos, Nigeria. Waste Manage. 27, 1139.
Konrad, O. (2002). Modellversuch ESTRELA zur Sammlung, Trennung und Behand-lung von Hausmull in Brasilien [Pilot project ESTRELA for the collection, selec-tion and treatment of municipal solid waste in Brazil]. PhD thesis, University ofLeoben, Germany.
Korner, I., Saborit-Sanchez, I., and Aguilera-Corrales, Y. (2008). Proposal for theintegration of decentralised composting of the organic fraction of municipalsolid 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 measuredcompositions of household solid waste in Kuwait. Period. Hazard. Toxic Ra-dioact. Waste Manage. 6, 204.
Koushki, P.A., and Al-Khaleefi, A. (1998). An analysis of household solid waste inKuwait: Magnitude, type, and forecasting models. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.48, 256.
Kramer, H., Jechimer, K., Lengsfeld, S., and Nartey-Tokoll, I.B. (1994). Determinationof 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: McGrawHill.
Kruger International Consult of Denmark. (1999). Project 98-0377.00: Waste water,water quality and solid waste management FYR of Macedonia: National solidwaste management system: Part B1. Brussels, Belgium: EU.
Kum, V., Sharp, A., and Harnpornchai, N. (2005). Improving the solid waste man-agement 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 ofmunicipal 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 determinea household waste composition variance. Waste Manage. Res. 10, 3.
Li, D., and Gu, H.Y. (2001). Investigation and analysis of municipal solid waste statusin Chongqing. Chongqing Environ. Sci. 23, 67.
Li’ao, W., Ting’quan, P., Chuan, H., and Hui, Y. (2009). Management of municipalsolid waste in the Three Gorges region. Waste Manage. 29, 2203.
Liamsanguan, C., and Gheewala, S.H. (2008). The holistic impact of integrated solidwaste 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 ofproduction of urban refuse in Beijing from 2002 to 2007. Res. Environ. Sci. 16,48.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1616 T. Karak et al.
Lino, F.A.M., Bizzo, W.A., da Silva, E.P., and Ismail, K.A.R. (2010). Energy impact ofwaste recyclable in a Brazilian metropolitan. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 916.
Liu, G., and Yu, J. (2007). Gray correlation analysis and prediction models of livingrefuse generation in Shanghai city. Waste Manage. 27, 345.
Liu, K.S. (1991). The current status and its perspective of the waste recovery andrecycling in the Taiwan area, In Yang, G.C.C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the workshopon 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 ofmunicipal 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 wasteminimization 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 fieldresults. Waste Manage. 29, 153.
Magrinho, A., Didelet, F., and Semiao, V. (2006). Municipal solid waste disposal inPortugal. Waste Manage. 26, 1477.
Mahler, C.F., Araujo, F., and Paranhos, R. (2002). Solid waste management and com-posting. 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 man-agement 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 wastedisposal site in Masvingo city, in Zimbabwe. J. Sustainable Dev. Afr. 10, 147.
Maniatis, K., Vanhille, S., and Martawijaya, A. (1987). Solid waste management inIndonesia: Status and potential. Resour. Conserv. 15, 277.
Mansor, W.G. (1999). Waste prevention: A consumerist approach to waste man-agement. Paper presented in EPSM Seminar on Local Communities and theEnvironment, 46740 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
Manyanhaire, I.O., Sigauke, E., and Munasirei, D. (2009). Analysis of domestic solidwaste management system: A case of Sakubva high density surburb in the cityof 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 andagronomic development, Paper presented at Eighth International Waste Man-agement and Landfill Symposium, Cagliari, Italy.
Mbuligwe, S.E. (2002). Institutional solid waste management practices in develop-ing 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 anaerobicdigestion 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 opportunitiesinfluencing recycling rates in some developing countries. J. Solid Waste Technol.Manage. 33, 16.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1617
McBean, E.A., Syed-Ritchie, S., and Rovers, F.A. (2007b). Performance results fromthe Tucuman solid waste bioreactor. Waste Manage. 27, 1783.
McKay, G. (2000). Dioxin characterisation, formation and minimisation during mu-nicipal solid waste (MSW) incineration: Review. Chem. Eng. J. 86, 343.
Melissa Project. (2000). Improving solid waste management in Accra and four sec-ondary cities of Ghana, LEAP pilot operation in Ghana. Pretoria, South Africa:Melissa.
Mendes, M.R., Aramaki, T., and Hanaki, K. (2003). Assessment of the environmentalimpact of management measures for the biodegradable fraction of municipalsolid waste in Sao Paulo city. Waste Manage. 23, 403.
Mendez, A.P., Ridao, A.R., and Toro, M.Z. (2008). Environmental diagnosis and plan-ning actions for municipal waste landfills in Estado Lara (Venezuela). RenewableSustainable 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 solidwastes in the Sri Lankan context. Renewable Energy 34, 1587.
Mensah, A. (2006). People and their waste in an emergency context: The case ofMonrovia, Liberia. Habitat Int. 30, 754.
Messineo, A., and Panno, D. (2008). Municipal waste management in Sicily: Practicesand challenges. Waste Manage. 28, 1201.
Metin, E., Eroozturk, A., and Neyim, C. (2003). Solid waste management practicesand 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 optimi-sation of municipal waste management systems: the case of Lithuania. WasteManage. Res. 28, 298.
Milke, M.W., and Aceves, F.J. (1989). Systems analysis of recycling in the DistritoFederal 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 Min-istry of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Ministry of Environmentand Sustainable Development, Republica de Colombia.
Ministry for the Environment. (2008). Solid waste audits for the Ministryfor the Environment Waste Data Programme 2007/08. Wellington, NewZealand: 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 sus-tainable development. Indonesian Ministry of Environment report, MoE andUNEP.
Ministry of Environment. (2005). Residues and Their Management, 2003-2004. Min-istry of Environment, Albania.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1618 T. Karak et al.
Ministry of Environment. (2006). Sweeping policy reforms toward ‘Sound material cy-cle society’ starting from Japan and spreading over the entire globe. Governmentof Japan.
Mishra, S.B., and Kayastha, R.P. (1998). Solid waste management, In A Compendiumon Environmental Statistics. Kathmandu, Nepal: HMGN, NPCS, Central Bureauof Statistics, pp. 307–319.
Moghadam, M.R.A., Mokhtarani, N., and Mokhtarani, B. (2009). Municipal solid wastemanagement in Rasht city, Iran. Waste Manage. 29, 485.
Moqsud, M.A., and Hayashi, S. (2006). An evaluation of solid waste managementpractice 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). Municipalsolid 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., Zurbrugg, C., Rodrıguez, T.C., and Miranda, O.G. (2006).Formulating waste management strategies based on waste management prac-tices of households in Santiago de Cuba, Cuba. Habitat Int. 30, 849.
Mrayyan, B., and Hamdi, M.R. (2006). Management approaches to integrated solidwaste in industrialized zones in Jordan: A case of Zarqa city. Waste Manage.26, 195.
Muhle, S., Balsam, I., and Cheeseman, C.R. (2010). Comparison of carbon emissionsassociated 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 theAsia 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 casefor emerging economics. Paper presented at WasteCon 2008, 19th Waste Man-agement Conference and Exhibition, October 2008, Cape Town, South Africa.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (2004). Feasibility study and master plan report foroptimal solid waste treatment and disposal for the entire state of Delhi based onpublic and private partnership solution. Delhi, India: Municipal Corporation ofDelhi.
Municipality of Corlu Town. (2000). Generation and Composition of Municipal SolidWaste in Corlu: Records of municipality. Corlu, Turkey.
Munnich, K., Mahler, C.F., and Fricke, K. (2006). Pilot project of mechanical-biological treatment of waste in Brazil. Waste Manage. 26, 150.
Munoz, I., Rieradevall, J., Domtnech, X., and Milfi, L. (2004). LCA application tointegrated waste management planning in Gipuzkoa (Spain). Int. J. LCA. 9, 272.
Munoz-Cadena, C.E., Arenas-Huertero, F.J., and Ramon-Gallegos, E. (2009). Com-parative 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 ofthe urban poor: A case study in Kuala Lumpur city, Malaysia. Waste Manage.Res. 25, 3.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1619
Nahman, A., and Godfrey, L. (2010). Economic instruments for solid waste manage-ment in South Africa: Opportunities and constraints. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 54,521.
Nas, S.S., and Bayram, A. (2008). Municipal solid waste characteristics and manage-ment in Gumushane, Turkey. Waste Manage. 28, 2435.
Nasir, A.A. (2007). Institutionalizing solid waste management in Malaysia. KualaLumpur, Malaysia: Department of National Solid Waste Management; Ministryof Housing and Local Government Malaysia.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2007). China statistics yearbook, 2007. Bei-jing, China: China Statistics Press.
National Environment Agency. (2002). Annual reports on environmental quality fromregional 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 char-acterization of municipal solid waste at Calcutta, India. Annual Report. NehruMarg, Nagpur-440020, India.
National Research Institute. (2003a). Municipal solid waste management in Thailand.Country report.
National Research Institute. (2003b). Municipal solid waste management in SriLanka. Country report.
Ngnikame, E. (2000). Environmental assessment and economic management sys-tems, 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 manage-ment in Southeast Asian countries. Waste Manage. 29, 1982.
Nie, Y.F., and Dong, B.C. (1998). Solid waste management and minimization inChina. Environ. Prot. 2, 6.
Ningbo Statistics Bureau. (2003). Ningbo statistics almanac, Beijing, China: ChinaStatistics Press.
Norbu, D.S., Uyasatian, U., and Saguanwong, P. (2010). Municipal solid waste man-agement in Phuntsholing city, Bhutan. Environ. Asia 3, 111.
Noyon, N. (1992). Objectives for the development of composting in France: A strategicapproach, in composting and compost quality Assurance criteria. EUR 14254 EN.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). (1993). Integrated solid waste man-agement in Japan. CSI Resource Systems, Incorporated Boston, Massachusetts.National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado80401–3393.
Nuntapodidech, A., and Puncharoen, S. (1993). Strategies of solid waste management,in Thailand. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Regional Seminar on SolidWaste Management, Singapore.
Ogwueleka, T.C. (2009). Municipal solid waste characteristics and management inNigeria. Iran. J. Environ. Health. Sci. Eng. 6, 173.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1620 T. Karak et al.
Ojeda-Benıtez, S., Armijo-de-Vega, C., and Ramırez-Barreto, M.E. (2002). Formaland informal recovery of recyclables in Mexicali, Mexico: handling alternatives.Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 34, 273.
Ojeda-Benıtez, S., and Beraud-Lozano, J.L. (2003). The municipal solid waste cyclein Mexico: Final disposal. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 39, 239.
Ojeda-Benıtez, S., Vega, C.A. de, Ramırez-Barreto M.E. (2003). Characterization andquantification 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 municipalcapacity for strategic waste management planning. Paper presented at ISWAAnnual 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). EnvironmentState in Morocco, Chapter 4: Wastes and urban areas. 2, rue Oum Er’ Rbia,Adgal-Rabat, Maroc.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2002). OECD environ-mental data, compendium 2002. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2004). Environmentaldata compendium. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007a). OECD envi-ronmental data, compendium 2006–2008. Paris, France: Organisation for Eco-nomic Cooperation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007b). OECD environ-mental performance reviews: China. Paris, France: Organisation for EconomicCooperation 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 andpublic 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 solidos munici-pales en Ainerica Latina y el Caribe, Serie Ambiental 15. [The municipal solidwaste management in Latin America and the Caribbean, Environmental Series].Area of Sustainable Development and Environmental Health, PAHO, Washing-ton, DC.
Pan American Health Organization. (1995b). Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnologicas,Lixo municipal, manual de gerenciamento integrado, Sao Paulo [TechnologyResearch Institute, Municipal waste, integrated management manual, Sao Paulo].Cempre, Rua Bento de Andrade, 126 Jd. Paulista, Sao Paulo.
Pan American Health Organization. (1995c). El manejo de residuos solidos inunic-ipales en America Latina y el Caribe. [The municipal solid waste management
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1621
in Latin America and the Caribbean]. Area of Sustainable Development andEnvironmental Health, PAHO, Washington, DC.
Pan American Health Organization. (1996). Analisis sectoriales de residuos solfdos[Analisis sectoriales solid waste]. Area of Sustainable Development and Envi-ronmental Health, PAHO, Washington, DC.
PAOT (Procuradurıa Ambiental y del Ordenamiento Territorial). (2005). Instructivode llenado de la forma SMA-PMRS. Plan de manejo de residuos solidos parageneradores no sujetos a la LAUDF [Plan of managing of solid residues forgenerators not subject to the LAUDF]. Mexico City, Mexico: Gobierno del DistritoFederal. 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., Tsom-panidis, X., and Lolos, G. (1990). Qualitative and quantitative estimation ofdomestic waste of Chania, NTUA Laboratory of Analytic and Inorganic Chem-istry, Athens.
Parisakis, G., Skordilis, A., Andrianopoulos, A., Lolos, C., Andrianopoulos, J., Tsom-panidis, X., and Lolos, G. (1991). Qualitative and quantitative estimation of do-mestic waste of the Island of Kos, NTUA Laboratory of Analytic and InorganicChemistry, Athens.
Parisakis, G., Skordilis, A., Andrianopoulos, A., Lolos, C., Andrianopoulos, J., Tsom-panidis, X., and Lolos, G. (1992). Physicochemical characterisation of municipalsolid 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 anelement of waste management planning: Lessons learned from a study in SiemReap, Cambodia. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 49(2), 110.
Parrot, L., Sotamenou, J., and Dia, B.K. (2009). Municipal solid waste managementin Africa: Strategies and livelihoods in Yaounde, Cameroon. Waste Manage. 29,986.
Pattnaik, S., and Reddy, M.V. (2010). Assessment of municipal solid waste manage-ment in Puducherry (Pondicherry), India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 512.
Pauli-Wilga, J. (1996). Zagospodarowanie odpadow z rejonu Krakowa, 16–17 maja6, Osieczany, ‘SAVE’ Grzegorz Ciszewski, Krakow.
Periathamby, A., Hamid, F.S., and Khidzir, K. (2009). Evolution of solid waste man-agement 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 charac-teristics 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 Vi-gneswaran, S. (2010). Studying municipal solid waste generation and composi-tion 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. IPCCGuidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Waste 5, 1.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
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 inNepal: 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 inAsia and Paci.c Islands in Kitakyushsu, Japan, November 23–24.
Prechthai, P., Parkpian, T., and Visvanathan, C. (2008). Assessment of heavy metalcontamination and its mobilization from municipal solid waste open dumpingsite. J. Hazard. Mater. 156, 86.
Qdais, A.H.A. (2007). Techno-economic assessment of municipal solid waste man-agement in Jordan. Waste Manage. 27 (11), 1666.
Qu, X., Li, Z., Xie, X., Sui, Y., Yang, L., and Chen, Y. (2009). Survey of compositionand 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 RPR584 (REG/7714/000), Unpublished report.
Raj, S.C. (2000). Solid waste education and awareness in Pacific Island Coun-tries, Pacific Regional Waste Awareness and Education Programme, SPREP,Apia.
Raninger, B. (2009). Management and Utilization of Municipal and Agricultural Bioor-ganic Waste in Europe and China, Workshop in School of Civil EnvironmentalEngineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, March 25.
Rawat, M., Singh, U.K., Mishra, A.K., and Subramanian, V. (2008). Methane emissionand 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 cooperationhelp?. J. Environ. Develop. 17(1), 3.
Regional Environmental Center. (2000). Country report for Bosnia & Herzegovinawithin strategic environmental analysis of Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina,Kosovo and Macedonia. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina: Regional Environ-ment Center.
Rong, B., Wei, P., Li, Y., and Li, Y. (2004). Composition analysis to Beijing’s domesticrefuse and corresponding treatment countermeasure. Environ. Prot. 10, 30.
Rosa, D.A. de la., Velasco, A., Rosas, A., and Volke-Sepulveda, T. (2006). Totalgaseous mercury and volatile organic compounds measurements at five munic-ipal 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 managementoperations in developing countries. Waste Manage. Res. 6(1), 1.
Saeed, M.O., Hassan, M.N., and Mujeebu, M.A. (2009). Assessment of municipal solidwaste generation and recyclable materials potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Waste Manage. 29, 2209.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1623
Saha, J.K., Panwar, N.R., and Singh, M.V. (2009). Determination of lead and cad-mium concentration limits in agricultural soil and municipal solid waste com-post 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 derSloot, H.A., Hartlen, J., and Hjelmar, O. (1996). World trends in municipal solidwaste management. Waste Manage, 16, 341.
Salequzzaman, M., Murtaza, M.G., and Saroar, M. (1998). Evaluation Study on Mu-nicipal Solid Waste Management Project in Khulna City, PRODIPAN, ShahebBari Road, Khulna 9203, Bangladesh.
Salhofer, S., Graggaber, M., Grassinger, D., and Lebersorger, S. (1999). Fallbeispielezur Vermeidung kommunaler Abfalle (Case studies for the prevention of mu-nicipal 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 ofsolid wastes in Mali: Case study of Bamako. Environ. Res. J. 3, 81.
Sarkhel, P., and Banerjee, S. (2010). Municipal solid waste management, source-separated waste and stakeholder’s attitude: a contingent valuation study. Envi-ron. Dev. Sustain. 12, 611.
Sauer, P., Parjızkova, L., and Hadrabova, A. (2008). Charging systems for municipalsolid waste: Experience from the Czech Republic. Waste Manage, 28, 2772.
Sawell, S.E., Hetherington, S.A., and Chandler, A.J. (1996). An overview of municipalsolid waste management in Canada. Waste Manage. 16(5/6), 351.
Scharff, C., and Vogel, G. (1994). A Comparison of collection systems in Europeancities. Waste Manage. Res. 12, 387.
Schleenstein, G. (2002). Gestion de Residuos Solidos Urbanos en Cuba conun Enfoque al Municipio Minero de Moa, Programa ASA 2002 de laCarl-Duisberg-Gesellschaft e.V. http://rzserv1sud.fhnon.de/ sud16407/projectpages/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 urbanarea 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 solidwaste management in Indian cities-A review. Waste Manage. 28, 459.
Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Vaishya, R.C., and Gupta, R.D. (2007). Municipal solidwaste 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 predictionsof air flow in a rotary kiln incinerator. J. Mater. Cycles Waste. Manage. 10,116.
Shekdar, A.V. (2009). Sustainable solid waste management: An integrated approachfor Asian countries. Waste Manage. 29(4), 1438.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1624 T. Karak et al.
Silas, J.F. (2002). Solid waste management in Surabaya. Paper presented at the SolidWaste Management Seminar, Kitakyushu, Japan.
Simonetto, E. de O., and Borenstein, D. (2007). A decision support system for theoperational 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 casestudy of the Pirana site in western India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 141, 309.
Sinha, A.H.M.M. (2006). Community based solid waste management through public-private 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 managementin Thailand, In: Proc. of the 2nd Expert Meeting on Solid Waste Managementin Asia and Pacific Islands, Kitakyushu, Japan.
Skalmowski, K. (2001). Composting of municipal waste, Model of technological solu-tions. Warsaw, Poland: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej.
Skalmowski, K. (2005). Technological properties of municipal waste in Warszawa.Poznan, Poland: Mat. VI Mi
edz. Forum Gospodarki Odpadami.
Skinner, J.H. (1998). International Progress in solid waste management in Solid Wastein the Pacific, Proceedings 6th Annual Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Sokka, L., Antikainen, R., and Kauppi, P.E. (2007). Municipal solid waste productionand composition in Finland-Changes in the period 1960–2002 and prospectsuntil 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 re-port on the state of solid-waste management in the municipalities of Nepal, Lalit-pur. 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 Statisti-cal 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 Statisti-cal 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 andCensus Department.
Statistics and Census Department. (2003). Yearbook of statistics. Macao: Statistics andCensus Department.
Statistics Canada. (2000). Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Govern-ment Sectors.
Statistics Canada. (2002). Waste management industry survey: Business and govern-ment sectors. Montreal, Canada: Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada. (2004). Waste management industry survey: Business and govern-ment sectors, 2002. Catalog no. 16F0023XIE, Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada. (2005). Solid waste in Canada human activity and the environ-ment. Montreal, Canada: Statistics Canada.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1625
Street, A., and Zydenbos, S. (2004). Analysis of the Christchurch mixed municipalwaste stream 1 July to 30 June 2004. Christchurch, New Zealand: ChristchurchCity Council.
Sujauddin, M., Huda, S.M.S., and Hoque, A.T.M.R. (2008). Household solid wastecharacteristics 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 Beijingmunicipal solid waste. Chin. J. Urban Environ. Sanitation, 2, 33.
Suocheng, D., Tong, K.W., and Yuping, W. (2001). Municipal solid waste manage-ment 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 solutionsfor Semarang, Indonesia. Waste Manage. Res. 18, 557.
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology. (2008). Global wastechallenge situation in developing countries. Eawag, Uber-Landstrasse 133, P.O.Box 611, 8600 Dubendorf, Switzerland.
Tabasaran, O. (1976). Experts report on the reorganization of solid waste disposalin the Kathmandu valley especially in the cities of Kathmandu, Patan andBhaktapur. Stuttgart, Germany: GTZ.
Tadesse, T., Ruijs, A., and Hagos, F. (2008). Household waste disposal in Mekellecity, 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 inYokohama. J. Jpn. Waste Manage. Assoc. 51, 140.
Talyan, V., Dahiya, R.P., and Sreekrishnan, T.R. (2008). State of municipal solid wastemanagement in Delhi, the capital of India. Waste Manage. 28, 1276.
Tanaka, M. (1992). Reduction of and resource recovery from municipal solid wastein Japan. Waste Manage. Res. 10, 453.
Tanaka, M. (2007). Waste management for a sustainable society. J. Mater. CyclesWaste Manage. 9, 2.
Tanaka, N., Tojo, Y., and Matsuto, T. (2005). Past, present, and future of MSWlandfills 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 manage-ment: Engineering principles and management issues. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Teo, V. (2007). Integrated thinking-solid waste management in Singapore. WasteManagement World by ISWA 95–99.
Tezanou, J., Koulidiati, J., Proust, M., Sougoti, M., Goudeau, J.C., Kafandou, P., andProgaume, T. (2001). Characterization of MSW in Ouagadougou city (BurkinaFaso), Ouagadougou University, Burkina Faso.
Thailand Environment Monitor. (2003). A joint publication of the Pollution ControlDepartment (PCD) of Thailand’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1626 T. Karak et al.
(MoNRE), the World Bank (WB), the United States-Asia Environmental Partner-ship (USAEP), and Japan Bank for International cooperation (JBIC). Retrievedfrom http://go.worldbank.org/VUVHIV3OL0
Thanh, N.P., Matsui, Y., and Fujiwara, T. (2010a) Assessment of plastic waste gen-eration 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 generationand 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 com-position of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in Sangamner city, DistrictAhmednagar, Maharashtra, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 170, 1.
Tin, A.M., Wise, D.L., Su, W., Reutergardh, L., and Lee, S. (1995). Cost-benefit analysisof 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: Toimprove existing situation in Corlu Town of Turkey, Waste Manage. 26, 307.
Trois, C., and Simelane, O.T. (2010). Implementing separate waste collection andmechanical biological waste treatment in South Africa: A comparison with Aus-tria and England. Waste Manage. 30, 1457.
Troschinetz, A.M., and Mihelcic, J.R. (2009). Sustainable recycling of municipal solidwaste in developing countries. Waste Manage. 29, 915.
Tsai, W.T., and Chou, Y.H. (2006). An overview of renewable energy utilization frommunicipal solid waste (MSW) incineration in Taiwan. Renewable SustainableEnergy Rev. 10, 491.
Tsai, W.T., Chou, Y., Lin, C., Hsu, H., Lin, K., and Chiu, C. (2007). Perspectives onresource recycling from municipal solid waste in Taiwan. Resour. Policy 32, 69.
Tseng, M.L. (2010). Importance-performance analysis of municipal solid waste man-agement in uncertainty. Environ. Monit. Assess. 172, 171–187.
Turan, N.G., Coruh, S., Akdemir, A., and Ergun, O.N. (2009). Municipal solid wastemanagement 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. Washing-ton, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Success story: Turning garbage intogold, 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. EPA530-F-05-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). The nature and extent of unautho-rised waste activity in Ireland. Greenwich, CT: Wexford.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). National waste report 2004. Green-wich, CT: Wexford.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 1627
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Municipal solid waste generation,recycling, and disposal in the United States: Facts and figures for 2007. EPA-530-F-08-018, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
German Federal Environment Agency (UBA). (2006). Municipal solid waste manage-ment in Germany. Federal Environment Agency. Umweltbundesamt, Postfach1406, 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, Pop-ulation Division.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2000). Environmental perfor-mance review, Armenia. Economic Commission for Europe, Committee on En-vironmental Policy, Environmental Performance Reviews Series No. 10.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2002). Environmental perfor-mance review: The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. New York, NY:United Nations.
United Nations Environmental Programme. (2000). State of the environment of West-ern Asia: Urban areas. United Nations Environment Programme, United NationsAvenue, Gigiri, Nairobi, Kenya.
United Nations Environmental Programme. (2001a). Nepal: State of the environment2001, New York, NY: UNEP.
United Nations Environmental Programme. (2001b). State of the environment: SriLanka. New York, NY: UNEP.
United Nations Environmental Programme. (2002). Global environmental outlook2000. New York, NY: Earthscan.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (2010). Solid waste management inthe 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 manage-ment through CDM in India and other countries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54,630.
Urban Sector Programme Support Secretariat. (2000). Solid waste management planfor Thimphu city, Bhutan. Draft version. Bhutan: Urban Sector ProgrammeSupport Secretariat.
Vego, G., Kucar-Dragicevic, S., and Koprivanac, N. (2008). Application of multi-criteria decision-making on strategic municipal solid waste management in Dal-matia, 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 andwaste collection schemes implemented in Spanish cities. Waste Manage. Res.19,380.
Vidanaarachchi, C.K., Yuen, S.T.S., and Pilapitiya, S. (2006). Municipal solid wastemanagement in the Southern Province of Sri Lanka: Problems, issues and chal-lenges. Waste Manage. 26, 920.
All Russian Institute of Scientific and Technical Information (VINITI). (1989). USSRGoskompriroda, Sostoyanie prirodnoi sredy v SSSR v 1988 g., p. 66; USSR Goskom-priroda, Sostoyanie prirodnoi sredy i prirodookhrannaya deyatel’nost’ v SSSR v
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1628 T. Karak et al.
1989 godu [USSR Goskompriroda, Environmental Condition in USSR in the year1988., p.66; USSR Environmental Condition in USSR and Nature Protection inUSSR 1989]. Moscow, Russia: Institut Molodezhi.
Visvanathan, C., Trankler, J., Joseph, K., Basnayake, B.F., Chiemchaisri, A., andGongming, Z. (2004). Municipal solid waste management in Asia. Asian Instituteof Technology, Klong Luang, Pathumthani, Thailand.
Vogt, G.M., Liu, H.M., Kennedy, K.J., Vogt, H.S., and Holbein, B.E. (2002). Superblue boxrecycling (SUBBOR) enhanced two-stage anaerobic digestion processfor 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 BiennialCongress and Exhibition. Somerset West, South Africa.
Wang, H.T., and Nie, Y.F. (2001). Municipal solid waste characteristics and manage-ment in China. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 51(2), 250.
Wang, W., and Wu, Y. (2001). Succession of contemporary city waste policy andnecessity of greeting the waste industry. Ecol. Econ. 10, 34.
Waste Not Consulting (2006). Waste composition and construction waste Data, Pre-pared 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 applica-tion 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 mu-nicipal 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 andMaghreb Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2001). Philippines environmental monitor. Washington, DC: WorldBank.
World Bank. (2004). Mongolia environment monitor 2004, World Bank Mongoliaoffice, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
World Bank. (2005). East Asia infrastructure department, Waste managementin China: issues and recommendations, Urban development working paperno. 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.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
MSW Generation, Composition, and Management 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 countryprofile. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
World Wildlife Fund. (2001, July). Pakistan country report. Paper presented at theWaste-Not-Asia Conference, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Tai-wan.
Xiao, Y., Bai, X., Ouyang, Z., Zheng, H., and Xing, F. (2007). The composition, trendand 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). Contin-uous thermophilic composting (CTC) for rapid biodegradation and maturationof organic municipal solid waste. Bioresource Technol. 100, 4807.
Xiaoli, C., Shimaoka, T., Xianyan, C., Qiang, G., and Youcai, Z. (2007). Characteristicsand mobility of heavy metals in an MSW landfill: Implications in risk assessmentand reclamation. J. Hazard. Mater. 144, 485.
Yamamoto, O. (2002). Solid waste treatment and disposal experiences in Japan. Paperpresented at the International Symposium on Environmental Pollution Controland 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 theAsia Pacific Regional Workshop on Sustainable Waste Management, GermanSingapore Environmental Technology Agency.
Yousuf, T.B., and Rahman, M. (2007). Monitoring quantity and characteristics ofmunicipal solid waste in Dhaka city. Environ. Monit. Assess. 135, 3.
Yuan, H., Wang, L., Su, F., and Hu, G. (2006). Urban solid waste management inChongqing: challenge and opportunities. Waste Manage. 26,1052.
Zamorano, M., Molero, E., Grindlay, A., Rodrıguez, M.L., Hurtado, A., and Calvo,F.J. (2009). A planning scenario for the application of geographical informationsystems 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 munic-ipal 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 man-agement 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.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2
1630 T. Karak et al.
Zhao, W., Voet, E., Zhang, Y., and Huppes, G. (2009a). Life cycle assessment ofmunicipal 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 municipalsolid 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 wastemanagement in Beijing city. Waste Manage. 29, 2596.
Zia, H., and Devadas, V. (2008). Urban solid waste management in Kanpur: Oppor-tunities and perspectives. Habitat Int. 32, 58.
Zurbrugg, C. (2002, November). Urban solid waste management in low-income coun-tries of Asia: How to cope with the garbage crisis. Paper presented at the ScientificCommittee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) Urban Solid Waste Man-agement Review Session, Durban, South Africa.
Zurbrugg, C., Drescher, S., Rytz, I., Sinha, A.H.M.M., and Enayetullah, I. (2005). De-centralised composting in Bangladesh, a win-win situation for all stakeholders.Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 43, 281.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tan
moy
Kar
ak]
at 1
4:49
19
June
201
2