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: tanmay.karak@gmail.com

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