marshall rachael 201301 masc

A Systems Approach to Community Engaged Solid Waste Management in Todos Santos Cuchumatán, Guatemala

by

Rachael Marshall

A Thesis

Presented to The University of Guelph

In partial fulfilment of requirements

for the degree of Master of Applied Science

in Environmental Engineering and International Development Studies

Guelph, Ontario, Canada

© Rachael Marshall, January, 2013

ABSTRACT

A systems approach to community engaged solid waste management in Todos Santos Cuchumatán, Guatemala

Rachael Marshall, Advisor:

University of Guelph, 2013 Professor K. Farahbakhsh

Solid waste management (SWM) is a growing problem in developing countries

around the world. In Guatemala, indigenous communities, which are predominantly

rural and remote, are particularly hard hit by a lack of basic SWM services. Todos

Santos, situated in the Cuchumatanes mountain range of northwestern Guatemala, is

one such community. As projects developed, planned, and implemented from 'the

top down' continue to be ineffective, the literature provides little insight about

remote communities' perspectives on exactly what issues SWM creates, influences,

and exacerbates, and how they might respond to these concerns themselves. Using a

participatory systems approach, this study investigated the systemic structures and

behaviours that maintain and exacerbate SWM challenges in Todos Santos, and

where key places (leverage points) to intervene in the system may exist. The study

presents a wide selection of locally appropriate SWM solutions to target these

leverage points in the form of four future scenarios These scenarios act as a step-‐

wise implementation plan for gradual implementation in the community, each

building upon the previous, ultimately reaching a community-‐defined vision for

SWM.

iii

Acknowledgements This work would not have come about without the generous contributions of many

people. The process of undertaking this thesis has been more than a journey – it has

been a learning and growing experience that has changed how I see the world and

also the person I am. I am very grateful for and indebted to a number of wonderful

people that I would like to thank personally.

First, I would like to thank my advisor, Khosrow Farahbakhsh for the guidance and

support you have provided me with over the last two years. Thank you for sharing

many long talks about the workings of the world – your profound perspectives on

science, society, and spirituality have left a lasting impact and helped me in

developing the skills to answer messy questions. But most significantly, I want to

thank you for the important life lessons you helped me face; I never imagined how

much I could grow over just two years. Thank you for the pushes, for your great

generosity, and for your invaluable mentorship.

I also want to thank Karen Morrison for your strength, wisdom, inspiring charisma

and moral support. You are an incredible mentor and a truly kind and caring person.

I am so lucky to have had the opportunity to take in a small piece of your knowledge,

wonderful creativity, and kind words. Your support really has meant the world to

me. Thank you so much.

I’d like to extend a special thanks to the rest of the CoPEH-‐Canada community, from

whom I gained inspiration, hope, and a place to fit in. I would like to thank Margot

Parkes, who first rescued me from a desire to divorce my profession, showed me

that I myself, and my aspirations for the future belonged to something bigger, and

took me under her wing – all over a cup of tea. I would also like to thank Karen

Houle, Martin Bunch, David Waltner-‐Toews, and Rachel Hirsch for sharing your

exceptional insights and for being such welcoming, wonderful people. To Chris

Charles, Phil Chen, Zee Leung, Lindsay Beck, Lindsay Galway, Gillian Wigmore, Anna

iv

Chudyk, and the rest of the gang, thank you for inspiration, fun, crazed late night

talks under pine trees in the rain, and friendship.

I would like to thank my family for the unconditional and constant moral support,

love, advice, long-‐distance hugs, laughter, ideas, and writing rescues. To my parents,

thanks for the many long hours of editing, coaching, and reassuring. To my sister

and brother, you are both hilarious, fantastic people – thank you for reminding me

of what life is about. I love each one of you so dearly, and could never thank you

enough.

This research would have been impossible without the help, collaboration, and

support of the people of Todos Santos. Thank you for welcoming me into your

homes and lives, and for sharing your hopes and your fears; your anger and your

pain; your laughter, intuition, and knowledge; and your passionate aspirations for

the future. To Ingrid, my Guatamalan mother, gracias por las pláticas junto al fuego,

su hospitalidad inconmensurable, y por ser la madre amorosa que necesita cuando

estaba lejos de la mía.

A very, very special thanks must go to Kelly “Carolina” Chauvin, whose friendship

and research help in the field and beyond proved to be utterly invaluable. Thank you

so much for your relentless dedication; for sharing your home, your experiences,

your connections and friends, and your passion for the people of Todos Santos; and

for taking such good care of me. Your kindness got me through this research!

This research also could not have come about without the countless hours and

contributions from faculty and students at EARTH University. Specifically, to Alex

Pacheco, Jane Yeomans, Sofia Montero Vargas, Carlos Alvarez, Karla Cruz, Raoul

Botero, and Yanine Chan – thank you for your guidance, for sharing your research

findings and stories, and for your immeasurable hospitality. To Piero, gracias por

todas las risas y por ser un gran amigo. Liz, gracias por asegurar el tiempo que pasé

en Costa Rica fue lo mejor que podría ser. David, gracias por las conversaciones

nocturnas sobre las aspiraciones y esperanzas para el mundo, por tu pasión por el

v

medio ambiente y los movimientos de la gente, y por tu cuidado. Es tan bueno saber

que tengo casa, finca, familia, y calor sincero cuando lo necesito.

I would like to thank Margaret Hundleby for the wonderful talks, invaluable writing

help, moral support, and refuge.

A warm thanks must go out to many other colleagues and friends for your support

and encouragement: Matthew De Luca, Renata Stanaityte, Jamie Miller, Graham

Aikenhead, Jonathan VanderSteen, Jason McCullough, Nymisha Sridhara, Alia

Ziesman, Megan Thomas, Cam Harris, and Walter Marshall.

To Steph-‐Marie, though you’re a relatively new one, I have to thank you for sing-‐a-‐

longs, empowering talks, face paint, and for being the truly caring, thoughtful person

that you are. You have supported me in ways that will forever indebt me to you. You

are a rare friend, and I’m so glad to have had you in my life.

To Megan Mathieson, thank you as always for the moral support, hilarity, and

endless love you provided me with over the past two years, just as you unfailingly

have over the last 20. You are my personal gift from the universe and I plan to hang

on to you until I can’t hang on to anything at all. May we always meet in the next life.

Finally, to Jeff, thank you for your patient, quiet kindness; for always lending an ear,

a helping hand, a terrible pun, and a brilliant idea. Most of all, thanks for being so

steadfast and grounding.

vi

Table of contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................. iii

Table of contents ....................................................................................................................................................... vi

List of tables .............................................................................................................................................................. xiv

List of figures ............................................................................................................................................................ xvi

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Solid waste management in Todos Santos Cuchumatán, Guatemala ................................. 2

1.2 A systems approach to solid waste management ....................................................................... 3

1.3 Problem statement ................................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Research goal and objectives ............................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Interdisciplinary approach ................................................................................................................... 5

1.6 Thesis organization .................................................................................................................................. 5

1.6.1 Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5

1.6.2 Chapter 2: A systems approach to integrated solid waste management in developing countries – A review ............................................................................................................... 6

1.6.3 Chapter 3: Narrative-‐based participatory model building as a systems approach to integrated solid waste management in Todos Santos Cuchumatán, Guatemala ............. 6

1.6.4 Chapter 4: Developing locally appropriate leverage for change: Integrated solid waste management in rapidly developing rural Guatemala ......................................................... 6

1.6.5 Chapter 5: Local innovation, ownership, and action: Evaluating the systemic impacts of four future scenarios for integrated solid waste management in Todos Santos Cuchumatán, Guatemala ................................................................................................................ 6

1.6.6 Chapter 6: Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................... 7

1.7 References .................................................................................................................................................... 8

2 Literature review ............................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 9

2.2 Solid waste management in high-‐income countries .................................................................. 9

2.2.1 Historical origins of solid waste management .................................................................. 10

vii

2.2.2 Driver 1: Public health – the sanitary revolution ............................................................ 12

2.2.3 Driver 2: Environment – The ‘modernization’ of SWM ................................................. 13

2.2.4 Driver 3: The resource scarcity and value of waste ....................................................... 15

2.2.5 Driver 4: Climate change ............................................................................................................ 17

2.2.6 Driver 5: Public Awareness and Participation – NIMBY and Behavioural Change 17

2.2.7 Integrated solid waste management – the current paradigm .................................... 18

2.3 Solid waste management in developing countries .................................................................. 22

2.3.1 Developing country contexts .................................................................................................... 25

2.3.1.1 Urbanization, inequality, and economic growth ..................................................... 25

2.3.1.2 Cultural and socio-‐economic aspects ........................................................................... 28

2.3.1.3 Political landscapes: Policy, governance, institutional issues ........................... 30

2.3.1.3.1 Policy .................................................................................................................................. 30

2.3.1.3.2 Governance ..................................................................................................................... 31

2.3.1.3.3 Institutions ...................................................................................................................... 32

2.3.1.3.4 International influences ............................................................................................ 35

2.4 The need for a systems approach .................................................................................................... 38

2.4.1 Post-‐Normal Science .................................................................................................................... 39

2.4.1 Systems thinking: the foundations of systems approaches ........................................ 41

2.4.2 Complex, adaptive, eco-‐social systems ................................................................................. 43

2.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 48

2.6 References ................................................................................................................................................. 50

3 Narrative-‐based participatory model building as a systems approach to solid waste management in Todos Santos, Guatemala ................................................................................................... 56

3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 56

3.1.1 Solid Waste Management: Developing Country Trends ............................................... 57

3.1.2 SWM in Guatemala ........................................................................................................................ 58

viii

3.1.2.1 National and international attention ............................................................................ 63

3.1.3 Area of Study: Todos Santos Cuchumatán .......................................................................... 66

3.1.3.1 Solid Waste Management in Todos Santos ................................................................ 68

3.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 70

3.2.1 Theoretical approach ................................................................................................................... 72

3.2.2 Methodological Approach .......................................................................................................... 74

3.2.2.1 Case Study Approach ........................................................................................................... 74

3.2.2.2 Qualitative Methods: Understanding complexity through narrative ............. 74

3.2.2.3 Blended Assessment Methods and Problem-‐Solving Approach ....................... 76

3.2.3 Data collection ................................................................................................................................ 76

3.2.3.1 Snowball and random purposeful sampling methods .......................................... 76

3.2.3.2 Causal mapping ...................................................................................................................... 77

3.2.3.3 Semi-‐structured interview process ............................................................................... 79

3.2.4 Data analysis .................................................................................................................................... 80

3.2.4.1 Group maps .............................................................................................................................. 80

3.2.4.2 Leverage point analysis ...................................................................................................... 81

3.2.4.2.1 Causal Matrices .............................................................................................................. 82

3.2.4.2.2 Causal Grid ....................................................................................................................... 83

3.3 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 84

3.3.1 Group map 1: Men’s perspectives .......................................................................................... 85

3.3.2 Men’s Causal Grid .......................................................................................................................... 87

3.3.3 Group map 2: Women’s perspectives ................................................................................... 89

3.3.4 Women’s Causal Grid ................................................................................................................... 90

3.3.5 Group map 3: Youth’s perspectives ....................................................................................... 92

3.3.6 Youth’s Causal Grid ....................................................................................................................... 94

3.3.7 Group map 4: Community perspectives .............................................................................. 95

ix

3.3.8 Community Causal Grid .............................................................................................................. 96

3.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................................................. 99

3.4.1 Men’s causal map and grid ...................................................................................................... 100

3.4.2 Women’s causal map and grid ............................................................................................... 102

3.4.3 Youth’s causal map and grid ................................................................................................... 104

3.4.4 Community-‐wide causal map and grid .............................................................................. 105

3.4.5 Successes and limitations ........................................................................................................ 109

3.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 111

3.6 References ............................................................................................................................................... 113

4 Developing locally appropriate leverage for change: Integrated solid waste management in rapidly developing rural Guatemala ........................................................................................................ 118

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 118

4.2 Appropriate Technology ................................................................................................................... 120

4.2.1 Defining and redefining appropriate technology .......................................................... 121

4.2.2 Appropriate technology criteria ........................................................................................... 122

4.2.3 Appropriate solid waste technologies ................................................................................ 125

4.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 127

4.3.1 Defining the local context ......................................................................................................... 127

4.3.2 Solid waste audit .......................................................................................................................... 127

4.3.2.1 Snowball and random purposeful sampling methods ........................................ 127

4.3.2.2 Data collection ...................................................................................................................... 127

4.3.3 Building a ‘Bank of Ideas’ ......................................................................................................... 128

4.3.3.1 Data collection ...................................................................................................................... 129

4.3.4 Developing criteria for locally appropriate system levers ........................................ 129

4.3.5 System lever assessment .......................................................................................................... 129

4.4 Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 130

x

4.4.1 Local context: Solid waste in Todos Santos Cuchumatán .......................................... 130

4.4.1.1 Socio-‐economic, cultural, environmental, and political contexts ................... 130

4.4.1.2 Technical context: Waste audit results ...................................................................... 131

4.4.2 A ‘Bank of Ideas’ for Solid Waste Management .............................................................. 135

4.4.3 Selection criteria for Todos Santos Cuchumatán ........................................................... 137

4.4.4 Refining the ‘Bank of Ideas’: System lever assessment ............................................... 139

4.4.4.1 The Foundations Scenario ............................................................................................... 141

4.4.4.2 The Religious Partnerships Scenario .......................................................................... 142

4.4.4.3 The Private Sector Involvement Scenario ................................................................ 143

4.4.4.4 The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario ......................................................................... 145

4.5 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 146

4.5.1 Residential solid waste audit .................................................................................................. 146

4.5.2 Bank of Ideas ................................................................................................................................. 148

4.5.3 System lever assessment .......................................................................................................... 151

4.5.3.1 Foundational system management options ............................................................ 152

4.5.3.2 Foundational waste characterization options ........................................................ 152

4.5.3.3 Foundational waste reduction options ...................................................................... 153

4.5.3.4 Foundational collection, transport, and financing options ............................... 153

4.5.3.5 Foundational resource recovery options ................................................................. 154

4.5.3.6 Foundational disposal options ...................................................................................... 154

4.5.4 The Foundations Scenario ....................................................................................................... 155

4.5.5 The Religious Partnerships Scenario .................................................................................. 157

4.5.6 The Private Sector Involvement Scenario ......................................................................... 158

4.5.7 The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario ................................................................................. 160

4.5.8 Scenario selection ........................................................................................................................ 162

4.5.9 Challenges and setbacks ........................................................................................................... 163

xi

4.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 164

4.7 References ............................................................................................................................................... 166

5 Local innovation, ownership, and action: A systems approach to context-‐specific ‘best’ options for integrated solid waste management in Todos Santos, Guatemala .......................... 170

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 170

5.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 171

5.2.1 Scenario implementation ......................................................................................................... 173

5.2.2 Implementation analysis .......................................................................................................... 173

5.3 Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 174


5.3.1.1 Targeting the five action entry points ........................................................................ 175







5.3.5 New influential relationships ................................................................................................. 182

5.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 183


5.4.1.1 Benefits .................................................................................................................................... 183

5.4.1.2 Drawbacks .............................................................................................................................. 184


5.4.2.1 Benefits .................................................................................................................................... 185

5.4.2.2 Drawbacks .............................................................................................................................. 186


xii

5.4.3.1 Benefits .................................................................................................................................... 187

5.4.3.2 Drawbacks .............................................................................................................................. 187


5.4.4.1 Benefits .................................................................................................................................... 188

5.4.4.2 Drawbacks .............................................................................................................................. 189

5.5 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 190

5.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 192

5.7 References ............................................................................................................................................... 193

6 Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................................... 195

6.1 Research synthesis .............................................................................................................................. 195

6.1.1 Literature review key findings .............................................................................................. 195

6.1.2 Key study findings ....................................................................................................................... 196

6.2 Outstanding issues ............................................................................................................................... 198

6.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 199

6.3.1 Building action momentum ..................................................................................................... 199

6.3.1.1 Short-‐term stage: Capacity development and foundational system elements 201

6.3.1.2 Long-‐term stage: Transitioning to a community-‐owned vision of SWM .... 201

6.4 “Situatedness” and local ownership ............................................................................................. 202

6.5 A new methodology for SWM and engineering inquiry ...................................................... 203

6.6 Final remarks ......................................................................................................................................... 204

6.7 References ............................................................................................................................................... 206

Complete Reference list ..................................................................................................................................... 208

Appendix A: Interview guide ........................................................................................................................... 219

Appendix B: Feedback loop descriptions ................................................................................................... 223

A. Men’s feedback loops ............................................................................................................................ 223

xiii

B. Women’s feedback loops ..................................................................................................................... 224

C. Youth’s feedback loops ......................................................................................................................... 225

Appendix C: Bank of Ideas ................................................................................................................................ 227

Appendix D: System lever assessment ........................................................................................................ 235

xiv

List of tables Table 1. Common solid waste management challenges in developing countries, categorized

by sector ............................................................................................................................................................ 57

Table 2. Example of a causal matrix (adapted from Scholz & Tieje, 2002) ................................... 83

Table 3. Men's causal grid results .................................................................................................................... 88

Table 4. Women's causal grid results ............................................................................................................. 92

Table 5. Youth's causal grid results ................................................................................................................ 94

Table 6. Community-‐wide causal grid results ............................................................................................ 99

Table 7. Common Appropriate Technology criteria .............................................................................. 124

Table 8. Weight and volume of residential solid waste components per capita per day ...... 131

Table 9. Average regional waste composition in Latin America and the Caribbean, and OECD member countries (adapted from Hoornweg and Bhada-‐Tata (2012)) ............................. 131

Table 10. Waste practices by neighbourhood .......................................................................................... 134

Table 11. Bank of Ideas summary of options ............................................................................................ 135

Table 12. Constraints for locally appropriate system levers for use in Todos Santos ............ 137

Table 13. Criteria for locally appropriate system levers for use in Todos Santos .................... 138

Table 14. Framework criteria .......................................................................................................................... 139

Table 15. Scenario Summary ........................................................................................................................... 140

Table 16. Sum of strengths of new relationships influencing action entry points ................... 182

Table 17. Implementation Stage 1: Momentum-‐building projects ................................................. 191

Table 18. Overall system management options ....................................................................................... 227

Table 19. Waste characterization options ................................................................................................. 228

Table 20. Waste Reduction Options .............................................................................................................. 228

Table 21. Collection and transport options ............................................................................................... 230

Table 22. Resource recovery options ........................................................................................................... 232

Table 23. Waste transformation options .................................................................................................... 234

Table 24. Disposal options ................................................................................................................................ 234

xv

Table 25. System lever assessment ............................................................................................................... 235

xvi

List of figures Figure 1. SWM Drivers and Progress ............................................................................................................. 12

Figure 2. Stages in the development of modern SWM policy (from Wilson, (2007)) ............... 14

Figure 4. Integrated Solid Waste Management .......................................................................................... 19

Figure 5. Developing Country SWM Contexts ............................................................................................. 24

Figure 6. Population Living in Slums and Proportion of Urban Population Living in Slums, Developing Regions, 1990-‐2010 (UNFPA, 2011) ............................................................................ 26

Figure 7. Problem Solving Strategies (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993) .................................................. 40

Figure 8. Complex Adaptive Systems: Nested Sets of Four Phase Adaptive Cycles (adapted from Holling (2001)) ................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 9. Conceptual Model of the Dissipative Nature of a Self-‐Organizing System (adapted from Kay et al. (1999)) ............................................................................................................................... 46

Figure 10.Guatemala's SWM Context ............................................................................................................. 59

Figure 11. Environmental and health related SWM impacts in Guatemala ................................... 62

Figure 12. Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 72

Figure 13. Participatory Model Building (adapted from Vennix, 1996) ......................................... 80

Figure 14. Example of a causal grid (adapted from Scholz & Tietje, 2002) ................................... 84

Figure 15. Group map 1: Men's perspectives ............................................................................................. 86

Figure 16. Causal Grid 1: Men's perspectives ............................................................................................. 88

Figure 17. Group map 2: Women's perspectives ...................................................................................... 90

Figure 18. Causal grid 2: Women’s perspectives ...................................................................................... 91

Figure 19. Group map 3: Youth's perspectives .......................................................................................... 93

Figure 20. Causal grid 3: Youth's Perspectives .......................................................................................... 94

Figure 21. Group map 4: Integrated community causal map .............................................................. 96

Figure 22. Causal grid 4: Integrated community perspectives ........................................................... 98

Figure 23. Overlapping perspectives ........................................................................................................... 107

Figure 24. Residential solid waste distribution by weight in Todos Santos ............................... 132

xvii

Figure 25. Residential solid waste distribution by volume in Todos Santos .............................. 133

Figure 26. Conceptual diagram of SWM tasks and stakeholder groups in The Foundations Scenario ........................................................................................................................................................... 142

Figure 27. Conceptual diagram of SWM tasks and stakeholder groups in The Religious Partnerships Scenario ............................................................................................................................... 143

Figure 28. Conceptual diagram of SWM tasks and stakeholder groups in The Private Sector Involvement Scenario ............................................................................................................................... 144

Figure 29. Conceptual diagram of SWM tasks and stakeholder groups in The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario ................................................................................................................................. 146

Figure 30. Conceptual diagram of current SWM service provision in Todos Santos .............. 162

Figure 31. Key places to intervene in the Todos Santos SWM system ......................................... 172

Figure 32. Impacts of The Foundations Scenario system levers on the community-‐wide causal map ...................................................................................................................................................... 175

Figure 33. Impacts of The Religious Partnerships Scenario system levers on the community-‐wide causal map .......................................................................................................................................... 177

Figure 34. Impacts of The Private Sector Involvement Scenario system levers on the community-‐wide causal map ................................................................................................................. 179

Figure 35. Impacts of The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario system levers on the community-‐wide causal map .......................................................................................................................................... 181

Figure 36. Waste Education causes tree ..................................................................................................... 185

Figure 37. The staged implementation process ...................................................................................... 200

Figure 38. Long-‐term stage: Community-‐wide transition through the scenarios .................... 202

1

1 Introduction Solid waste management (SWM) is a critical service for the protection of human

health and the natural environment. Dealing with society’s solid waste is a growing

problem in all countries, and a desperate problem in many developing countries

where solid waste management services can be quite rudimentary (Schübeler, 1996;

Wilson, 2007). Solid waste is inevitably being produced at a rising rate as

developing countries follow the historical, unsustainable Northern model that

emphasizes high production, high consumption, and disposability (Dijkema, Reuter,

& Verhoef, 2000; Duru, 1981; UNEP, 2009). As the North moves towards the

conservation of natural resources through increased recycling and environmentally

conscious production and consumption, accumulating waste in the South continues

to threaten crucial environmental resources, human health, and the quality of life

(UNEP, 2009). It is increasingly evident that the costs of rising consumption trends

do not impact everyone equally; unequal distribution of solid waste services

perpetuates and aggravates inequalities already being experienced by the most

vulnerable populations (Coffey & Coad, 2010; Konteh, 2009). Such is certainly the

case in Central America, which contributes to Latin America’s number one ranking

in the world for inequality by having some of the highest rates of income, health and

education inequality, as measured by the Gini and Human Development indexes

(UNDP, 2010).

In recent years, a variety of factors have caused the volume of household solid waste

in developing countries to increase, and to change in composition from primarily

organics to a mixture of organics and synthetic materials (Yousif & Scott, 2007).

These changes have contributed significantly to the technical and non-‐technical

SWM difficulties that have been experienced in many developing countries;

management and decision-‐making, in particular, have become increasingly complex

(Seadon, 2010).

2

1.1 Solid waste management in Todos Santos Cuchumatán, Guatemala Guatemala has one of Central America’s largest economies (World Bank, 2011), and

solid waste generation per capita is continuously increasing in the country (Yousif &

Scott, 2007). Extremely weak SWM systems have lead to a proliferation of waste

burning and open, unregulated dumping, often near or in water bodies (Mantilla,

2007; Yousif & Scott, 2007). This is especially true in small cities and rural regions,

where the added burdens of geographic isolation, poverty, and limited local

government resources hinder the ability of municipal authorities to cope with

turbulent SWM challenges (Stokoe & Teague, 1995).

In Guatemala, poverty is greatest among the mostly rural indigenous communities,

which constitute nearly half of the population (Cook et al., 2009; Yousif and Scott,

2007). Accordingly, waste management is extremely limited in many of these

communities. The remote Mayan (Mam) village of Todos Santos, tucked in the

Cuchumatanes mountain range in northwestern Guatemala, is no exception. Waste

collection occurs only in the center of town where the wealthiest residents live.

Waste is deposited in an open, unregulated dump that sits directly on the bank of

the Limon River in the center of town. A plethora of vectors (including household

pets) feed at the dump and track waste and contamination through the streets, the

fresh vegetable and meat market, and residents’ homes. Connections between solid

waste mismanagement and community wellbeing are increasingly being recognized.

In 2008, Vets Without Borders identified a need to further investigate waste

management issues in Todos Santos through a program to control the local canine

population (VWB, 2009a). This program brought to light the pivotal need for proper

waste management in the community (VWB, 2009b).

The Guatemalan government has recognized the severity of waste management

issues in the country at large. In 2006, the Guatemalan government signed a

trilateral agreement with the governments of Mexico and Germany to implement an

integrated waste management program in the country (TTSSC, 2010). The program

aimed to create technical capacity in waste management by forming a network of

environmental promoters who could provide technical and advisory assistance to

3

the country’s 2,500 municipalities (TTSSC, 2010). While the program supported the

training and recognition of 70 “experts” offering advisory services to municipalities

by 2009 (TTSSC, 2010), a lack of integrated waste management continues to plague

less fortunate communities throughout the country. Project funding terminated in

2009 (TTSSC, 2010) and further results have not been reported. More recently, the

Inter-‐American Development Bank (IDB) signed a contract to finance the

development of a national plan for solid waste management in the country. The plan

aims to establish concrete goals and objectives for institutional, regulatory,

financing, and legal change in the short-‐ and long-‐term (IDB, 2012).

It becomes rapidly evident that SWM has been recognized as a critical issue of

concern in Guatemala. However, remote communities’ perspectives on the systemic

causes and consequences of waste mismanagement have not been recognized; nor

have means for the community to respond to these concerns themselves. To this

end, this study aims to address Todos Santos’ waste management challenges in an

integrated manner.

1.2 A systems approach to solid waste management The technical, social, economic, and environmental elements and processes that

make up SWM services and activities are part of an interconnected, complex SWM

system. This system interacts and overlaps with several larger social, cultural,

economic, political, and environmental systems. Managing a complex system

requires an understanding of how the system works. However, many SWM

decisions are made without considering the system as an interconnected whole,

increasing the risk of making poor managerial choices and systemic oversights

(Kollikkathara, Feng, & Yu, 2010). Strategies that will function properly within a

complex socio-‐ecological system must be locally appropriate and therefore tailored

to the specific contexts that frame such a system. This necessitates the inclusion of

local stakeholders in not only decision-‐making and strategy building processes, but

also in defining the current structure and functioning of the system, and what a ‘best

fit’ future scenario of that system might look like.

4

In Todos Santos, strategies lacking a locally appropriate systems approach have

failed in the past. In 2007, the European Union funded a project to construct a

wastewater treatment plant in one of the neighbourhoods of Todos Santos. The

plant was subsequently built, but due to a lack of cultural acceptability and

community ownership, it was immediately abandoned.

Clearly, new, locally appropriate approaches that consider the SWM system as the

whole that it is are needed.

1.3 Problem statement The largely indigenous community of Todos Santos Cuchumatán faces severe solid

waste management issues. The community’s perspective of the structure and

functioning of the current SWM system and its impact on the wellbeing of the

community and the surrounding ecosystems is unknown. Standardized ‘cookbook’

solutions, implemented by external entities, have not addressed underlying root

causes in the past. Action-‐oriented change is needed, and thus so is a local

understanding of the structure and functioning of the SWM system in order to

identify key places to intervene in the system. The community needs to be able to

move itself forward with realistic, locally appropriate strategies that confront the

local waste crisis that threatens human health, community wellbeing, and the fragile

ecosystems the residents depend on.

1.4 Research goal and objectives The goal of this study was to use a participatory systems approach to stimulate

‘ground-‐level’ discussions and innovation strategies in the community of Todos

Santos Cuchumatán. The intent was to aid in the creation of an inclusive vision for

solid waste management in the community, and to provide tangible means and

examples to achieve elements of this vision.

The specific objectives of this study were:

1. To identify, from the perspective of the community, the key places to

intervene in the SWM system for long-‐term, successful, and systemically

integrated SWM in Todos Santos.

5

2. To match the perspective of the community to known engineering solutions

for solid waste management systems.

3. To develop a system intervention plan to assist the community to move into

self-‐directed action.

1.5 Interdisciplinary approach The complex solid waste situation in which Todos Santos sits called for a

methodology strongly considerate of context and capable of dealing with

complexity. Such a methodology must consider a wide variety of complex contextual

influences, including social, cultural, political, economic, and ecological. While

conventional SWM approaches tend to be reductionist in nature (Seadon, 2010),

such methods were deemed unfit for this study. Purely technical solutions have

proven to be locally inappropriate in the past. An approach was needed that could

move forward despite high levels of uncertainty and high decision stakes. Therefore,

the approach that was chosen blended quantitative and qualitative methods;

traditional engineering inquiry meets the open-‐ended subjectivity of narrative and

multiple legitimate perspectives. An engineering approach brought a traditional

problem-‐solving mindset, concrete technical solid waste data, and known

engineering solutions to the table, while the subjective system narratives of local

stakeholders brought a particular depth of understanding of the context, structure,

and functioning of the SWM system that could not have been achieved otherwise.

The legitimate perspectives of participants also helped the researcher shape and sift

through known engineering solutions to find those that have a high potential to be

locally appropriate and successful in positively altering the SWM system in the long-‐

term.

1.6 Thesis organization This thesis follows a manuscript style format, and consists of 6 chapters:

1.6.1 Chapter 1: Introduction

The first chapter introduces the rationale and structure of the study.

6

1.6.2 Chapter 2: A systems approach to integrated solid waste management in

developing countries – A review

The second chapter provides a literature review on the historical development of

SWM in industrialized countries, followed by a review of the current SWM

challenges in developing countries. Finally, it examines the need for a systemic

approach by exploring the beneficial perspectives of post-‐normal science and

complex, adaptive systems thinking.

1.6.3 Chapter 3: Narrative-‐based participatory model building as a systems

approach to integrated solid waste management in Todos Santos Cuchumatán,

Guatemala

The third chapter presents the findings of a field study that examines the SWM

challenges in one of Guatemala’s politically and geographically disadvantaged

communities through narrative-‐based participatory model building. Specifically,

local stakeholders conducted causal mapping to depict the system structure from

their perspectives.

1.6.4 Chapter 4: Developing locally appropriate leverage for change: Integrated

solid waste management in rapidly developing rural Guatemala

The fourth chapter presents the findings of a study that explores approaches to

SWM used by a wide variety of communities in Central America and elsewhere that

have the potential to be locally appropriate in rapidly developing rural Todos

Santos. These approaches are tested for local appropriateness with specifically

tailored criteria and constraints in a case study of Todos Santos Cucuchumatán,

Guatemala. Chosen approaches are then assembled into four SWM scenarios that

represent increasingly integrated and effective SWM systems.

1.6.5 Chapter 5: Local innovation, ownership, and action: Evaluating the systemic

impacts of four future scenarios for integrated solid waste management in

Todos Santos Cuchumatán, Guatemala

The fifth chapter presents the findings of a study that examines the impacts of the

four scenarios established in Chapter 4 on the SWM system. Each project within a

given scenario is introduced into the community-‐wide causal map, and the resulting

7

structural impacts are analysed. Recommendations are given about scenario choice

and the initial “momentum-‐building” implementation phase.

1.6.6 Chapter 6: Conclusions and recommendations

The final chapter brings together the findings of the research and provides

recommendations for building action momentum and for future research.

8

1.7 References Coffey, M., & Coad, A. (2010). Collection of Municipal Solid Waste in Developing

Countries. Malta: UN-‐HABITAT. Dijkema, G. P. J., Reuter, M. A., & Verhoef, E. V. (2000). A new paradigm for waste

management. Waste Management, 20(8), 633-‐638. Duru, R. C. (1981). Technological growth and ecological crisis: the Nigerian example.

The Science of the Total Environment, 17(3), 243-‐256. IDB. (2012). GU-‐T1177: National Plan for Solid Waste Management in Guatemala

Retrieved November 2, 2012, from http://www.iadb.org/en/projects/project-‐description-‐title,1303.html?id=GU-‐T1177

Kollikkathara, N., Feng, H., & Yu, D. (2010). A system dynamic modeling approach for evaluating municipal solid waste generation, landfill capacity and related cost management issues. Waste Management, 30(11), 2194-‐2203.

Konteh, F. H. (2009). Urban sanitation and health in the developing world: reminiscing the nineteenth century industrial nations. Health & Place, 15(1), 69-‐78.

Mantilla, J. E. V. (2007). Proyecto cuente con ambiente primer informe sobre desechos solidos (1 ed.): MARN, Universidad Rafael Landivar.

Seadon, J. K. (2010). Sustainable waste management systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(16-‐17), 1639-‐1651.

Stokoe, J., & Teague, E. (1995). Integrated solid waste management for rural areas: A planning tool kit for solid waste managers. Washington, D.C.: USDA Rural Utilities Service.

UNDP. (2010). Regional Human Development Report for Latin America and the Caribbean 2010. Costa Rica: United Nations Development Programme.

UNEP. (2009). Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan: Training Manual (Vol. 1: Waste Characterization and Quantification within Projections for Future). Osaka/Shiga, Japan: United Nations Environment Programme.

VWB. (2009a). Guatemala: Companion animals and community health: Veterinarians Without Borders.

VWB. (2009b). Todos Santos, Guatemala interim report: Implemenation Phase I, January 2009: Veterinarians Without Borders.

World Bank. (2011). Guatemala Overview Retrieved April 6, 2011, from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/guatemala/overview

Yousif, D. F., & Scott, S. (2007). Governing solid waste management in Mazatenango, Guatemala. International Development Planning Review, 29(4), 433-‐450.

9

2 Literature review

2.1 Introduction The primary purposes of solid waste management (SWM) strategies are to address

the health, environmental, aesthetic, land-‐use, resource, and economic concerns

associated with the improper disposal of waste (Henry, Yongsheng, & Jun, 2006a;

Nemerow, 2009; Wilson, 2007). These issues are an ongoing concern for nations,

municipalities, corporations, and individuals around the world (Nemerow, 2009),

and the global community at large (Wilson, 2007). As Wilson (2007) points out,

developing an understanding about what has driven SWM in the past can provide

much needed context and insight for how best to move forward in the future. Thus,

this review begins by examining the historical development of SWM in high-‐income

countries. It then explores the state of SWM systems in developing countries by

examining the challenges presented by economic, social, cultural, political, and

international influences. Finally, it explores the need for a systemic approach by

examining the beneficial perspectives of post-‐normal science and complex, adaptive

systems (CAS) thinking.

It should be noted that the author recognizes that stark situational differences exist

at all levels: between nations, regions, cities, communities, households, and even

individuals. While this paper makes reference to categories of countries (i.e.

developing, developed, industrialized, high-‐, medium-‐, and low-‐income), by no

means does it imply that the problems are the same amongst these groups. Indeed,

“we always pay for generality by sacrificing content, and all we can say about

practically everything is almost nothing” (Boulding, 1956, p. 197); it is for this

reason that systems approaches, which are founded upon specific, locally

appropriate methodologies, are so crucial to the future of SWM practices.

2.2 Solid waste management in high-‐income countries The historical forces and mechanisms that have driven the evolution of solid waste

management (SWM) in high-‐income countries can provide insight about “how best

to move forward in developing sustainable waste management systems around the

10

world” (Wilson, 2007, p. 205). The following sections explore the origins and

principal drivers of SWM development in industrialized countries in order to

provide some context for the changes that are currently taking place in developing

countries.

2.2.1 Historical origins of solid waste management

Humans have been mass-‐producing solid waste since they first formed non-‐nomadic

societies around 10,000 BC (Worrell & Vesilind, 2012). Historically, public health

concerns, security, scarcity of resources, and aesthetics acted as central drivers for

waste management systems (Louis, 2004; Melosi, 1981; Ponting, 1991; Wilson,

2007; Worrell & Vesilind, 2012). Small communities managed to bury solid waste

just outside their settlements or dispose of it in nearby rivers or water bodies, but as

population densities increased, these practices no longer prevented the spread of

foul odours or disease (Seadon, 2006). As waste accumulated in these growing

communities, people simply lived amongst the filth. There were exceptions:

organized SWM processes were implemented in the ancient city of Mahenjo-‐Daro in

the Indus Valley by 2000 BC (Worrell & Vesilind, 2012); the Greeks had both issued

a decree banning waste disposal in the streets and organized the Western world’s

first acknowledged ‘municipal dumps’ by 500 BC (Melosi, 1981); and Chinese cities

had “disposal police” responsible for enforcing disposal laws by 200 BC. However, as

Worrell and Vesilind (2012, p. 1) so aptly describe, “for the most part, people in

cities lived among waste and squalor” (p. 1). In both Athens and Rome, waste was

only relocated well outside city boundaries when defenses were threatened because

opponents could scale up the refuse piles and over the city walls (Worrell &

Vesilind, 2012).

City streets in the Middle Ages were plastered in an odorous mud composed of soil,

stagnant water, household waste, and animal and human excrement (Louis, 2004).

This created very favourable conditions for vectors of disease. Indeed, the Black

Death, which struck Europe in the early 1300s, may have been partially caused by

the littering of organic wastes in the streets (Louis, 2004; Tchobanoglous, Theisen, &

Eliassen, 1977; Worrell & Vesilind, 2012). In colonial America, the urban population

11

lived in similar putrid conditions. Indeed, Melosi (1981) paints an odorous portrait

of early American living conditions:

In Eastern cities, where crowding became a chronic problem as early

as the 1770s, the streets reeked with waste, wells were polluted, and

deaths from epidemic disease mounted rapidly... As late as the 1860s,

Washingtonians dumped garbage and slop into alleys and streets, pigs

roamed freely, slaughterhouses spewed nauseating fumes, and rats

and cockroaches infested most dwellings – including the White House.

No wonder the infant mortality rate was very high in the capital city

(p. 11).

Many initiatives were implemented to clean up the streets, but all were short-‐lived

because the poor were focused on feeding themselves and the rich were opposed to

paying to clean up for the poor (Wilson, 2007). However, scarcity of resources

ensured many items were repaired and reused, and the waste stream was

thoroughly scavenged (Woodward, 1985).

When SWM progress finally began, it was driven by 5 principal factors: public

health, the environment, resource scarcity and the value of waste, climate change,

and public awareness and participation. These driving forces and the progress they

instigated are depicted in Figure 1.

12

Figure 1. SWM Drivers and Progress

2.2.2 Driver 1: Public health – the sanitary revolution

The industrial revolution brought rapid expansion to both European and American

cities. A new era in sanitation began to take shape between 1790 and 1850 in

London, where the high ash content of household waste caused by heating and

Drivers

Relationships dfgdgfdgdfdgf

Progress

Legend

Events

Driver 1:Public Health

EpidemicDiseases

Quality of SWM DuringIndustrialization

Public HealthLegislation

Push forinstitutional

change Collection andRemoval fromMunicipality

++

+

+

+

Poor Sanitation+

+

World Wars

Driver 3:Resourcescarcity

Recycling andReuse

Post-WWIIIncrease in

Consumptionand Waste

Quantity ofMunicipal

Solid Waste

+

TechnologicalInnovation

+

++

-

IndustrialRevolution

Driver 2:EnvironmentalMovement on

Public and PoliticalAgendas

Quality of SWM Post-WWII

+

+

+

-

-

+

+

+

EnvironmentalPolicy andLegislation

+

WasteHierarchy+

+

Shift Awayfrom

Landfilling

+

Driver 4:ClimateChange

+

NIMBY

UnsustainableBehaviour

Driver 5:Public

Awareness andParticipation

+-

-

-

-

Density ofUrban Areas

+

-

Current Quality of SWM

Integrated SWMParadigm

+

+

-

+

13

cooking with coal created a flourishing market for waste collection and use as a raw

material to meet the excess demand for bricks (Wilson, 2007). In the late 1830s the

sanitation revolution began in London with the appointment of the Sanitation

Commission, which established the first clear linkages between disease and poor

sanitary conditions. In 1848 and 1875 Public Health Acts were established, the

latter of which required households to dispose of their waste in a moveable

receptacle, which local authorities were responsible for emptying weekly (see Figure

1). Similar legislation was implemented in other European countries (Wilson, 2007).

In American cities, population density and the reliance on imported goods increased

dramatically between 1790 and 1920 (Louis, 2004). Likewise, the need to export the

waste products of their burgeoning growth beyond immediate city limits increased.

Public concern about sanitation rose as epidemic diseases continued to sweep

through cities regularly. It was during this time that infrastructure for drinking and

wastewater was constructed and institutional measures for public health and solid

waste management developed (Louis, 2004).

Public health legislation continued to drive waste management forward in the

following century. Once personal health issues had been steadied, the proliferation

of landfills, the health-‐impacting air emissions from domestic and industrial

activities, the stench of wastewater treatment plants, and other issues impacting the

health of the larger community gained attention (Seadon, 2006). In the first half of

the century, collection and removal were the primary focus of municipal waste

management practices (Wilson, 2007). During the two world wars, technological

innovation and resource scarcity, which generated a culture of recycling, impacted

waste management practices (see Figure 1). However, disposal by dumping and

burning was largely unregulated and uncontrolled (Wilson, 2007). The focus

remained on waste collection and transportation out of the city (UN-‐HABITAT,

2010).

2.2.3 Driver 2: Environment – The ‘modernization’ of SWM After the Second World War landfilling was still the principal waste disposal

method, and rapid growth in consumption from 1960 onwards resulted in a larger

14

municipal waste stream with a higher plastics content (Wolsink, 2010). The

environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s moved waste disposal onto the

political agenda in industrialized countries (Wilson, 2007; Wolsink, 2010), which

created a significant shift in policymakers’ perspectives on how to approach waste

management (Wolsink, 2010). New legislation addressing water pollution and solid

waste management emerged, initially targeting the elimination of uncontrolled

disposal (see Figure 1). Subsequent SWM legislation increasingly raised

environmental standards to reduce the contamination of land, air, and water (UN-‐

HABITAT, 2010; Wilson, 2007). The environmental movement acted as a primary

driver of the policy stages from the 1970s onwards, depicted in Error! Reference

ource not found. from Wilson (2007).

Figure 2. Stages in the development of modern SWM policy (from Wilson, (2007))

The ‘control’ stage focused on phasing out uncontrolled disposal, and was therefore

characterized by measures such as the daily covering and compacting of landfills,

retrofitting incinerators for dust control, etc. (Wilson, 2007). The ‘technical fix’ stage

that emerged in the 1980s and continues today is characterized by an emphasis on

gradually increasing technical standards, which began with landfill gas and leachate

control, incinerator gas and dioxin reduction, and now spans to odour control for

composting facilities and anaerobic digesters (Wilson, 2007). The ‘integrated policy’

stage came forth in the 1990s when it became evident that advocating for ever-‐

15

increasing environmental protection was not enough; an integrative regulatory

approach was needed that encompassed not only the technical and environmental

but also the political, social, financial, economic, and institutional elements of waste

management if environmental protection were to be realized (McDougall, White,

Franke, & Hindle, 2001; van de Klundert & Anschutz, 2001; Wilson, 2007). The final

policy stage depicted in Figure 2 ‘targets/prevention’, has been characterized by a

series of preventative policy measures, including laws and targets for compost and

recycling goals, diversion from landfill, extended producer responsibility, and

landfill bans for recyclable materials (UN-‐HABITAT, 2010; Wilson, 2007).

2.2.4 Driver 3: The resource scarcity and value of waste

In pre-‐industrial times, resources were relatively scarce. Anything vendible was

scavenged and consumer goods were reused and repaired rather than tossed into

the waste stream (UN-‐HABITAT, 2010; Wilson, 2007). As cities grew in size after the

industrial revolution, the resource value of waste rose again, and ‘rag pickers’ or

‘street buyers’ collected, used, and sold materials from the waste stream; an activity

that continues today in many developing (and developed) countries (see Figure 1)

(UN-‐HABITAT, 2010). The resource value of waste had escalated to such levels by

the 1970s that it sparked the European concept

of the ‘waste hierarchy’, on which current waste

policy in the EU is based (Wilson, 2007; Wolsink,

2010). First introduced in the European Union’s

Second Environment Action Programme in 1977

(CEC, 1977), the waste hierarchy is a model of

waste management priorities based on the

“Ladder of Lansink”, a hierarchy of waste

handling techniques going in order from

prevention to reuse, reduction, recycling, energy

recovery, treatment (such as incineration), and

finally landfill disposal (see Figure 3) (Price &

Joseph, 2000; Wilson, 2007; Wolsink, 2010).

Figure 3. The Waste Hierarchy (Zero Waste SA, 2011)

16

The availability of land and its value as a resource also acted as a driver for the move

away from landfilling. The concept of Landsink’s Ladder originally emerged when

the Dutch government faced a shortage of landfill sites in the 1970s. By 1981 it had

become part of official Dutch policy and appeared in the Environmental

Management Act of 1989 (Wolsink, 2010).

The waste hierarchy sparked a massive transition from end-‐of-‐pipe to preventative

thinking, which emerged with a multitude of new terms and phrases – pollution

prevention, source reduction, waste minimization, waste reduction, toxics use

reduction, clean or cleaner technology, etc. – to replace the old terms that focused

on reaction and control instead of prevention

(Hirschhorn, Jackson, & Baas, 1993).

This policy shift away from landfilling has significantly increased the use of medium

priority waste handling methods, which were historically more prominent due to

resource scarcity but dropped to single digit percentages in Europe during the first

half of the 20th century. Recycling, for example, has risen to 25% or higher in

Europe (Wilson, 2007), reaching rates as high as 60% in Austria and the

Netherlands (Kollikkathara, Feng, & Stern, 2009). However, Wilson (2007) points

out that this is “often driven by statutory targets rather than by the resource value

per se ... recycling is practiced because it is the right thing to do, not because the

value of the recovered materials covers the costs” (p. 200).

Many governments, industry members, educators, environment groups, and

programs have adopted and endorsed the waste management hierarchy (Gertsakis

& Lewis, 2003; Seadon, 2006), which, along with what Seadon (2006) describes as

“an almost mantra-‐like acceptance among waste professionals” (p. 1328), has

sparked a flurry of criticisms. According to Gertsakis and Lewis (2003), the

hierarchy is difficult to implement because solid waste managers in industry and

government have little control over production decisions that could influence

higher-‐level priorities, such as waste prevention and minimization. Additionally,

McDougall et al. (2001) point out that the waste hierarchy does not make room for

17

combinations of techniques, account for costs or specific constraints, lacks scientific

or technical basis, and cannot provide what is fundamentally needed – an

assessment of the context-‐specific system as a whole.

2.2.5 Driver 4: Climate change

Climate change has acted as an environmental driver since the early 1990s, leading

to a shift away from landfilling biodegradable wastes, which is a major source of

methane emissions, and a strengthened focus on energy recovery from waste (see

Figure 1) (UN-‐HABITAT, 2010; Wilson, 2007). The policy stage ‘targets/prevention’,

was driven by both the resource value of waste and concern for climate change

(Wilson, 2007). Policies such as the EU Landfill Directive require reductions in

levels of biodegradable material sent to landfill as a method to recover valuable

materials and reduce methane emissions (Wilson, 2007). This has further increased

recycling and composting rates, which have been on the rise in cities modernizing

their waste systems (UN-‐HABITAT, 2010).

2.2.6 Driver 5: Public Awareness and Participation – NIMBY and Behavioural

Change

Public awareness and participation have also acted as SWM drivers in high-‐income

countries (see Figure 1). Poor practices in the past, such as burning dumps and

polluting incinerators, have left the public with negative perceptions of new SWM

strategies (Wilson, 2007). While the public may recognize the need for SWM

facilities, the common “Not In My Backyard”, or NIMBY, attitude means they would

rather have them located elsewhere (Schübeler, 1996). Wilson (2007, p. 201)

describes how negative perceptions of past facilities “have led to the almost

inevitable NIMBY reaction to proposals for any new waste management facility, no

matter how clean or sustainable that may be”. Unsustainable behaviour also inhibits

movement towards better SWM. Therefore, strategies that include more recycling,

repair, reuse, home composting, sustainable consumption, etc. require behavioural

change (Wilson, 2007). The systems that shape patterns of the public’s activities

create complex barriers to sustainable behaviour. Many people are unable to

exercise deliberate choice because they find themselves locked into unsustainable

18

patterns caused by habits, routines, a lack of knowledge, institutional structures,

inequalities in access, social expectations, and cultural values (Jackson, 2005;

McKenzie-‐Mohr & Smith, 1999). Additionally, each form of sustainable behaviour

has a unique and complex set of barriers that vary amongst social groups

(McKenzie-‐Mohr and Smith, 2008). Even seemingly closely associated sustainable

behaviour, such as composting and recycling, can be prevented by different sets of

obstacles (McKenzie-‐Mohr and Smith, 2008). Therefore, transferring initiatives that

appear successful in a specific context is unlikely to be effective (Southerton,

McMeekin, & Evans, 2011). (Overcoming public attitudes and unsustainable

behaviour requires effective communication, a broad public understanding of the

requirements of SWM, and active participation of all relevant stakeholders

throughout all project stages (Schübeler, 1996). Thus, building public awareness

and participation act as drivers in their own right.

2.2.7 Integrated solid waste management – the current paradigm

Integrated solid waste management (ISWM), the current SWM paradigm that has

been widely accepted throughout the developed world, emerged from the policy

shift away from landfilling and the push for a broader perspective that began in the

1990s. While the ‘modern’ SWM practices that began in the 1970s were defined in

engineering terms – technical problems with technical solutions (van de Klundert &

Anschutz, 2001), the concept of ISWM strives to strike a balance between three

dimensions of waste management: environmental effectiveness, social acceptability,

and economic affordability (see Figure 4) (McDougall et al., 2001; Morrissey &

Browne, 2004; Petts, 2000; Thomas & McDougall, 2005; van de Klundert &

Anschutz, 2001). ISWM also focuses on the integration of the many inter-‐related

processes and entities that make up a waste management system (McDougall et al.,

2001). To reduce environmental impacts and drive costs down, a system should be

integrated (in waste materials, sources of waste, and treatment methods), market

oriented (i.e. energy and materials have end uses), and flexible, allowing for

continual improvement (McDougall et al., 2001). ISWM systems are tailored to

specific community goals by incorporating stakeholders’ perspectives and needs;

19

the local context (from the technical, such as waste characteristics, to the cultural,

political, social, environmental, economic and institutional); and the optimal

combination of available, appropriate methods of prevention, reduction, recovery

and disposal (Kollikkathara et al., 2009; McDougall et al., 2001; van de Klundert &

Anschutz, 2001).

Figure 4. Integrated Solid Waste Management

It has been widely recognized that waste management systems that ignore social

components and priorities are doomed to failure (Carabias, Winistoerfer, &

Integrated Solid Waste Management Paradigm

SocialAcceptability

EnvironmentalEffectiveness

EconomicAffordability

Wastematerials

Sourcesof Waste

OverallContext

PreventionMethods

ReductionMethods

RecoveryMethods

DisposalMethods

SpecificStakeholder

GoalsExternalExpertise

-

Integrated Solid WasteManagement Strategy

Mon

itori

ng

Decisional Arena: Planning, Design, Implementation, Reassessment

EnvironmentalContext

PoliticalContext

InstitutionalContext

Social Context

CulturalContext

TechnicalContext

EconomicContext

20

Stuecheli, 1999; Dijkema et al., 2000; Henry et al., 2006a; Morrissey & Browne,

2004; Petts, 2000). The issues of public acceptance, changing value systems, public

participation in planning and implementation stages, and consumer behaviour are

equally as important as the technical and economic aspects of waste management

(Carabias et al., 1999). Effective waste management must be fully embraced by local

authorities and the public sphere, and go beyond traditional consultative methods

that require the ‘expert’ to outline a solution prior to public involvement (Henry et

al., 2006a; Morrissey & Browne, 2004). Key elements to the success of these

programs are public participation and empowerment, decision transparency,

networking, co-‐operation and collective action, communication, and accessibility of

information (Carabias et al., 1999; Zarate, Slotnick, & Ramos, 2008).

Traditionally, the term ‘waste’ has assumed a negative connotation, but it is a

subjective concept – a label applied to something unwanted by the person

discarding it (Dijkema et al., 2000; van de Klundert & Anschutz, 2001). In the

context of ISWM, ‘waste’ bears a negative connotation only if it cannot be regarded

as a resource that that has not been used to its full potential and can subsequently

be processed to produce useful energy or goods (Dijkema et al., 2000; van de

Klundert & Anschutz, 2001). In this sense, ISWM incorporates elements of the

waste hierarchy “by considering direct impacts (transportation, collection,

treatment and disposal of waste) and indirect impacts (use of waste materials and

energy outside the waste management system)” (Seadon, 2006, p. 1328). However,

unlike the hierarchy, ISWM does not define the ‘best’ system, as there is no universal

best system (McDougall et al., 2001). In reality, ISWM is a theoretical, optimal

outcome – a framework from which new systems can be designed and implemented

and existing ones can be optimized (UNEP, 1996). However, the integrated nature of

ISWM creates a host of variables that may pull a system in different directions.

Clearly, it is difficult to optimize more than one variable, and for this reason there

will always be trade-‐offs (McDougall et al., 2001). No ISWM system design will

achieve either environmental or economic sustainability because “[t]his is a total

quality objective ... it can never be reached, since it will always be possible to reduce

21

environmental impacts further, but it will lead to continual improvements”

(McDougall et al., 2001, p. 19).

Despite the fact that ISWM is a holistic ideal, it has become somewhat of a buzzword

with a different meaning in practice. Often much of what is termed ‘integrated waste

management’ simply incorporates the waste hierarchy and may attempt to engage

with stakeholders early on, but lacks actual integration. Thornloe et al. (1997), for

example, observed that in the United States many ‘ISWM’ programs focused on

individual components making up the system instead of the system as a whole. This

kind of compartmentalization is prevalent throughout all aspects of municipal waste

management. Collection and disposal may be the duty of separate local authorities,

and may be contracted out to different private waste management companies.

Likewise, different operating companies may control recycling, incineration,

composting, and landfill operations (McDougall et al., 2001). Therefore, no one has

control over the whole system, making it difficult to manage on a more holistic level.

Consequentially, the bulk of the effort remains focused on lower-‐level priorities

such as recycling, which are important, but not sufficient (Gertsakis & Lewis, 2003;

UNEP, 2010).

Managing waste on a systemic level is particularly difficult in the absence of

regulation (Gertsakis & Lewis, 2003). This has been recognized by many

governments and other entities, and has sparked a move towards programs and

regulations that encourage closing the loop; “moving from the concept of ‘end-‐of-‐

pipe’ waste management towards a more holistic resource management” (Wilson,

2007, p. 205). Examples of this shift in focus include:

• the push for more ‘sustainable consumption and production’ initiatives and

regulations like the European Ecolabel and the Eco-‐Management and Audit

Scheme (European Commission, 2010);

• European National Waste Prevention Programmes through the Waste

Framework Directive, which extends producer responsibility for waste

generation (BIO Intelligence Service, 2011);

22

• Eco-‐innovation through the Environmental Technologies Action Plan and the

Innovation Union Flagship Initiative (European Commission, 2010); and

• the 2004 Packaging Directive, which requires reductions in packaging waste,

sets targets on recycling and recovery, and aims to prevent and minimize

environmental impacts of packaging waste (BIO Intelligence Service, 2011).

Shifting focus upstream to product design and to ‘decoupling’ waste growth from

economic growth are a step in the right direction, but waste management systems in

developed countries are still far from integrated (Wilson, 2007). Progress is slowed

by barriers to policy and program implementation, such as a lack of infrastructure

and/or capacity to comply; unequal market development (costs, levies, incentives,

etc.) between countries; administrative competency and capacity; enforcement

measures; knowledge barriers (gaps, knowledge-‐sharing, awareness-‐raising); lack

of quantitative targets; and economic ability to comply with targets (BIO

Intelligence Service, 2011). Although considerable efforts are being made by many

governments and entities to confront waste-‐related problems head-‐on, major gaps

still exist in SWM practices in high-‐income countries. A lack of ‘systems thinking’ has

been pinpointed as a major contributor to the inadequacy of these approaches

(McDougall et al., 2001; Seadon, 2010; Turner & Powell, 1991).

2.3 Solid waste management in developing countries For a variety of reasons, poor waste management practices and associated public

health implications remain severely problematic in many developing countries a

century and a half after the European sanitary revolution, despite increasing

globalization (Konteh, 2009). In industrialized nations, the health benefits from

solid waste and sanitation systems are largely taken for granted, and the focus has

moved from sanitation-‐related communicable diseases to ‘diseases of affluence’

(cancer, cardiovascular disease, drug and alcohol abuse) and “sustainability”

(Konteh, 2009; Langeweg, Hilderink, & Maas, 2000; McGranahan, 2001). Meanwhile,

many low-‐income countries are currently affected by the ‘double burden’ of the

combined effects of the diseases of affluence and communicable diseases (Boadi,

23

Kuitunen, Raheem, & Hanninen, 2005; Konteh, 2009). Wilson (2007, p. 204) points

out that “[i]n some countries, simple survival is such a predominant concern, that

waste management does not feature strongly on the list of public concerns”. When

SWM is on the public agenda in lower income countries, it tends to be driven most

strongly by public health; the key priority is still getting the waste out from

underfoot, as it was for the Europe and the US up until the 1960s (Coffey & Coad,

2010; Memon, 2010; Rodic, Scheinberg, & Wilson, 2010; Wilson, 2007).

Environmental protection is still relatively low on the political and public agendas,

although this is starting to change (Wilson, 2007). Though legislation is often in

place requiring closure and phasing out of unregulated disposal, enforcement tends

to be weak (Wilson, 2007). The resource value of waste is an important driver in

many developing countries today; informal recycling provides a livelihood for the

urban poor in many parts of the world (UN-‐HABITAT, 2010; Wilson, 2007). Climate

change is an important driver worldwide – the clean development mechanism under

the Kyoto protocol, in which developed countries can buy ‘carbon credits’ from

developing nations, can provide a key source of income to encourage cities in

developing countries to improve waste management systems (Wilson, 2007).

Many similarities exist between the historical SWM development trajectories of

industrialized countries and the current trajectories of developing countries. Many

cities in lower income nations are experiencing similar conditions to those of the

19th century in high income countries: “high levels of urbanization, degrading

sanitary conditions and unprecedented levels of morbidity and mortality, which

affected mostly the working class population” (Konteh, 2009, p. 70). Indeed,

increasing urbanization and socioeconomic disparities, inadequate provision of

sanitary and environmental amenities, social exclusion and inequalities related to

existing SWM systems, and high levels of morbidity and mortality linked to

inadequate sanitation, waste disposal, and water supply provision were as common

then as they are today, particularly in poorer urban neighbourhoods in lower

income countries (Konteh, 2009).

In spite of the apparent parallels, the contexts in which developing nations are

24

situated are starkly different from the historical contexts of developed countries.

Rapid urbanization, soaring inequality, and the struggle for economic growth;

varying economic, cultural, socio-‐economic, and political landscapes; governance,

institutional, and responsibility issues; and international influences have created

locally specific, technical and non-‐technical challenges of immense complexity (see

Figure 5).

Figure 5. Developing Country SWM Contexts

Urbanization

EconomicGrowth

Inequalities(Income and

Quality of Life)

Concentrationof Resources

Social andJob

OpportunitiesServices andAmenities

Higher LifeExpectancyand Literacy

Solid Waste,Water,

Sanitation,and OtherServices

EconomicActivity

+

High-Income

Low-Income

?

Lack of SWM

Lack ofBasic

Infrastructure

IncreasingFood Prices

Number ofUrban Poor

LandAvailability

Reliance onPurchased

Food-

EconomicCapacity

-

GlobalEconomic

Crisis

+

Vulnerabilityto Shocks

+

+

-

-

Inability toPay Taxes

- +

+

Quality ofSWM

+

+

Ability to Dealwith Waste(Compost,

Recycle, etc.)

Dumping inlanes and

waterways+

+

-

NegativeHealthImpacts

EnvironmentalDegradation

Tourism

+

-

+

+

UnsuitableRoads

-

+

HighConsumption

and WasteProduction

Willingnessto Pay for

SWMServices

+

+

+

Rural-UrbanMigration

NaturalIncrease

++ +

++

+

Civil Unrestand PoliticalInstability

Political Priorities

InadequatePolicy

Formulation andImplementation

+

PoliticalInfluence

+

+

+

PoliticalContext

Government

NGOs

Private Sector

Public Sector

Governance

InstitutionalCapacity

Policy

Degree ofDecentralization

Regulations andEnforcement

InstitutionalStructure

FundingAllocation

Cultural andSocio-Economic

Context

IFIs andMulti/Bi-Lateral

DevelopmentAgencies

-

InappropriateTechnology

DonorBiases

ApproachesLacking

Specificity

FundedProjects

Lack ofhuman

resources

Short-termFunding

--

--

+

-

Poverty ReductionStrategies

International Influence

GreenAgenda

Focu

s on

Gov

erna

nce,

In

stitu

tiona

l Cap

acity

and

Priv

ate

Sect

or

25

The following sections will explore these contextual aspects and the challenges they

present for SWM systems in the developing world.

2.3.1 Developing country contexts

2.3.1.1 Urbanization, inequality, and economic growth

Urbanization has exploded with great speed and scale in recent decades with “more

than half the world’s population now living in urban centres” (Tacoli, 2012, p. 4), as

countries and even individual cities struggle to be competitive in the global

marketplace (Cohen, 2004). While just 16 cities contained at least a million people

at the start of the 20th century – the vast majority of which were in industrial nations

– at the start of the 21st century 400 cities contained over a million people, and

approximately three-‐quarters of these urban centers were in low-‐ and middle-‐

income countries (Cohen, 2004).

The expanding population of urbanites often reflects transformations in national

economies as the city environment provides a disproportionate concentration of

resources, social and job opportunities, and services and amenities, propelling the

rural population to migrate from agriculture towards industry and service sectors,

and natural population increase (see Figure 5) (Boadi et al., 2005; Cohen, 2004;

Tacoli, 2012). In many cases, urbanization is associated with higher life expectancy

and levels of literacy, better provision of water, sanitation, and essential services,

and the promotion of economic activities due to the density of urban settlements

(Tacoli, 2012). It has been seen to go hand in hand with economic development

(Konteh, 2009; Tacoli, 2012). Indeed, in the past half-‐century the countries in which

urbanization has increased the most have also had the best economic performance

(Tacoli, 2012). However, many low-‐income countries have seen an increase in

urbanization over the last few decades with little economic development (Boadi et

al., 2005; Halla & Majani, 1999; Konteh, 2009). Urbanization also does not go hand

in hand with equal wealth distribution; inequalities in income and quality of life are

indeed growing (Tacoli, 2012). Regions like Asia and Latin America, where cities

have experienced growth in gross domestic product (GDP) over previous years, are

26

still experiencing an increase in inequality and in the number of people suffering

from a lack of adequate infrastructure and basic sanitation amenities (Cohen, 2004;

Konteh, 2009; UNDP, 2010). Urban poverty and inequality are likely to be

exacerbated by the recent economic crisis, as the urban poor have little opportunity

to produce their own food, and therefore rely on purchased goods (see Figure 5)

(Tacoli, 2012). Additionally, declines in food prices since the spikes in 2007 and

2008 are unlikely to return to the levels of the early 2000s due to competing

demands for land and water (Tacoli, 2012). These conditions will push more people

into slums, where sanitary conditions are appalling and waste amenities are non-‐

existent; the number of people living in slums is now estimated at some 828 million

and growing in actual numbers even though 200 million slum-‐dwellers have moved

out of slum quality conditions (see Figure 6) (UNFPA, 2011).

Figure 6. Population Living in Slums and Proportion of Urban Population Living in Slums, Developing Regions, 1990-‐2010 (UNFPA, 2011)

Many of these squatter settlements are constructed on floodplains, marshes, or

actual dumpsites at city peripheries (Boadi et al., 2005), because the urban centers

are becoming increasingly expensive as economic growth progresses. The ever-‐

increasing number and proportion of urbanites living in abject poverty in Latin

27

America, South and East Asia, and sub-‐Saharan Africa suffer the most in the areas of

sanitation and health as they live in poorly planned expanding settlements without

access to social, sanitation, and health services (Boadi et al., 2005; Konteh, 2009;

McGranahan, 2001; Shimura, Yokota, & Nitta, 2001; UNFPA, 2011; Zurbruegg,

2003).

The level of economic development of a country, city, or particular neighbourhood

greatly influences the SWM needs and resulting SWM systems. Likewise, the quality

of waste management services can impact the productivity and development of the

urban economy (Schübeler, 1996). The fact that nearly all of the world’s population

growth is projected to occur in urban areas (Cohen, 2004) from now until 2050 –

much of which will take place in the world’s poorer regions – has raised “concerns

about growing urban poverty and the inability of national and city governments to

provide services to the residents of their burgeoning cities” (Tacoli, 2012, p. 5).

Almost invariably, the SWM demands of high-‐density, low-‐income settlements are

inadequately served or neglected altogether even though these areas have the

greatest need for these services since there is no space among the densely packed

housing for waste burial or composting and they are less able to make alternate

arrangements to dispose of waste (Coffey & Coad, 2010). Therefore, waste is

dumped into open spaces, on access roads and in waterways where disease vectors

breed (see Figure 5) (Coffey & Coad, 2010; Konteh, 2009). Waste clogs drains,

creating flooded, stagnant nurseries for mosquitos carrying malaria and dengue

fever. Animals and waste pickers scatter the waste, and leachate from garbage heaps

percolates into soil and waterways. This results in contaminated food, water, and

soil, and serious environmental and health implications, particularly for the most

vulnerable, such as children and the elderly (Coffey & Coad, 2010; Tacoli, 2012).

This kind of environmental degradation can also negatively impact the (sometimes

fragile) economies of those countries that rely heavily on tourism (Henry et al.,

2006a).

Such poor levels of service exist in high-‐density, low-‐income areas because the

28

majority of these communities do not pay municipal taxes, and municipal

authorities allocate their limited resources to the wealthier areas with higher tax

yields where citizens with more political pressure dwell (Coffey & Coad, 2010;

Henry et al., 2006a; Jha, Singh, Singh, & Gupta, 2011; Zurbruegg, 2003). Collection

may not be carried out in these unplanned settlements due to a lack of space for

refuse containers, narrow roadways, steep gradients, and unsurfaced roads that

standard collection vehicles cannot manage (see Figure 5) (Coffey & Coad, 2010;

Henry et al., 2006a). While wealthier residents use part of their income to avoid

direct exposure to wastes close to home, they also produce more waste, meaning

that the associated environmental problems may recede at the household or

neighbourhood level, but remain present or increase city-‐wide (Jha et al., 2011;

Zurbruegg, 2003).

2.3.1.2 Cultural and socio-‐economic aspects

The structure and functioning of SWM systems are founded on the behaviour

patterns and underlying attitudes of the population – factors that are shaped by the

local cultural and social context (Schübeler, 1996). The substantial diversity of

social and ethnic groups that often exists within rapidly expanding cities, even

within individual residential communities, greatly influences municipalities’

capacities to implement SWM strategies (Schübeler, 1996). Public awareness and

attitudes towards waste can impact the entire SWM system, from household storage

to separation, interest in waste reduction, recycling, demand for collection services,

willingness to pay for SWM services, opposition to proposed locations of waste

facilities, the amount of waste in the streets, and ultimately the success or failure of

a SWM system (Henry et al., 2006a; Schübeler, 1996; Yousif & Scott, 2007;

Zurbruegg, 2003). In parts of the Arab world and Latin America, for example,

opportunities to strengthen waste institutions may be limited by the fact that SWM

is not seen as an honourable profession, because waste is viewed as “dirty” (Wilson,

2007).

The cultural and socio-‐economic context also influences the waste composition

generated by a population (Coffey & Coad, 2010; Schübeler, 1996). In some cases,

29

shops sell food that is largely pre-‐prepared, while in others, fresh meat or large

quantities of fresh vegetables and fruit drastically alter the waste composition.

Cooking and heating with solid fuel affects the waste composition by eliminating

items that would otherwise be discarded, such as paper, and contributing hot,

abrasive ashes to the waste stream (Coffey & Coad, 2010). Local architecture, such

as mud brick housing and unpaved floors can mean large quantities of dust and soil

enter the waste stream, while sanitary practices can influence the quantity of

excreta in the waste (Coffey & Coad, 2010). Socio-‐economic status at the

neighbourhood and household level affect waste composition: higher literacy

increases the paper content of waste, and wealthier groups often choose to discard

durable items instead of repairing them (Coffey & Coad, 2010). Recycling and reuse

is affected by differences in how social groups value items that would otherwise

enter the waste stream. Often much of the organic waste is fed to livestock, and

items like food and drink containers are reused in the household (Coffey & Coad,

2010). Informal recycling is carried out by waste pickers, who value much of what

might otherwise enter the waste stream (Coffey & Coad, 2010; Schübeler, 1996; UN-‐

HABITAT, 2010; Wilson, 2007).

Social expectations of waste collection are also dependent on waste composition,

and therefore on cooking and eating habits. If large quantities of odour-‐generating

food (e.g. fish) are consumed, waste collection rates are expected to be more

frequent, particularly in warmer climates (Coffey & Coad, 2010; Jha et al., 2011).

Disposal is also greatly influenced by social attitudes. Some social groups always

dispose of waste in the appropriate containers, while others view the street as an

appropriate disposal location. Householders and city officials alike may have no

interest in whether waste is dumped illegally or sent to a proper disposal facility, as

long as it is removed from the urban zone (Coffey & Coad, 2010). In some urban

areas, the primary focus is still on food, shelter, security and livelihoods; waste will

become a priority only when these more basic needs have been met (Konteh, 2009),

and only becomes an issue when public health or environmental damage impact

these priorities (Wilson, 2007).

30

2.3.1.3 Political landscapes: Policy, governance, institutional issues

Politics inevitably play a large role in SWM systems. The structure, functioning, and

governance of SWM systems are affected by the relationship between central and

local governments, the role of party politics in local government administration, and

the extent that citizens participate democratically in policy making processes

(Schübeler, 1996). In low-‐income countries, the greatest challenge “is to strike the

right balance between policy, governance, institutional mechanisms and resource

provision and allocation” (Konteh, 2009, p. 74).

2.3.1.3.1 Policy

A democratic, public process of SWM goal formulation is essential to determine the

actual needs of the citizens, and therefore to be able to prioritize limited municipal

resources in a just manner. Policy weaknesses are consequently some of the critical

causes of failed SWM systems in many low-‐income countries, as inadequate

formulation and implementation of realistic policies is common (see Figure 5)

(Konteh, 2009). While developed countries addressed their SWM needs by putting

in place effective, functioning policy measures, “[i]n many cities of the developing

world remedial measures have been elusive; efforts are uncoordinated or ad hoc,

and the resources invested in the sector inadequate” (Konteh, 2009, p. 72).

Additionally, civil unrest and political instability has contributed to the growing

SWM problem in low-‐income urban areas by forcing millions of displaced people to

seek refuge in major cities (Boadi et al., 2005; Konteh, 2009).

SWM is also not always a high priority for local and national policy makers and

planners. Other issues with more social and political urgency may take precedence

and leave little budget for waste issues (Memon, 2010; Yousif & Scott, 2007). In

some countries, such as Guatemala, serious SWM project continuity problems arise

because all municipal office workers – including those not involved in elections – are

replaced during any change in government (Yousif & Scott, 2007). This lack of long-‐

term commitment results in the abandonment of work completed in previous terms

(Zarate et al., 2008). Projects can also be shelved due to political fallout between

different political parties and local authorities (Henry et al., 2006a).

31

2.3.1.3.2 Governance

In all urban centres around the world, any form of environmental management “is

an intensely political task, as different interests (including very powerful interests)

compete for the most advantageous locations, for the ownership or use of resources

and waste sinks, and for publicly provided infrastructure and services” (Hardoy,

Mitlin, Satterthwaite, & Hardoy, 2001, p. 19). Many of these conflicting interests

contribute to the degradation of essential resources and urban environmental

health if good environmental management is absent (Hardoy et al., 2001; Konteh,

2009). As these factors have gained recognition, there has been a shift in the urban

development literature from ‘government’, which focuses on the role,

responsibilities and performance of government bodies, to ‘governance’, which

additionally considers the relationship between government and civil society

(Hardoy et al., 2001). Good governance requires the participation and collaboration

of all relevant parties, including government, non-‐governmental organizations

(NGOs), community groups and the private sector (see Figure 5) (Konteh, 2009).

According to the Asian Development Bank, the four principle elements of good

governance are accountability, participation, predictability, and transparency

(Bhuiyan, 2010). OECD identifies the features of good governance as follows

(Bhuiyan, 2010):

• The promotion of democratic and open pluralistic societies;

• The strengthening of efficient, accountable, transparent, and effective

national government;

• The reinforcement of the rule of law, which includes an accessible and just

legal and judicial system;

• The promotion of dissemination of information, including an independent

media; and

• The promotion of anti-‐corruption initiatives and the reduction of excessive

military expenditure.

Good governance allows low-‐income groups to influence policy and resource

allocation (Hardoy et al., 2001), and therefore it is essential for equitable and

32

effective SWM. Indeed, “the effectiveness of SWM in a city is one of the indices for

assessing good governance” (Bhuiyan, 2010, p. 126). Low-‐income countries tend to

lack the appropriate governance institutions and structures typically found in high-‐

income countries, such as public policy research institutions, freedom of

information laws, judicial autonomy, auditors general, police academies, etc.

(Bhuiyan, 2010). This lack of democratic structures and competent, representative

local government creates barriers to proper SWM. Political jostling for power means

that local authorities base decision-‐making on the interests of their parties (Henry

et al., 2006a; Zurbruegg, 2003). Henry describes how “the upgrading of Nairobi

slums has not been implemented because some councilors incite their constituents

to reject such a move out of an unfounded fear of voters who might be moved out

once slum upgrading efforts get underway. There are instances when some

councilors hinder particular projects for political reasons only” (Henry et al., 2006a,

p. 97). Government bodies maintain inflated workforces for political reasons, which

consume much-‐needed funds (Henry et al., 2006a). Petty and high profile corruption

are also rampant in many countries. While “it has been widely recognized that

corruption retards economic growth, distorts the political system, debilitates

administration and undermines the interests and welfare of the community”,

corruption remains one of the most pervasive and least confronted challenges facing

public institutions in developing countries (Bhuiyan, 2010, p. 131).

2.3.1.3.3 Institutions

Effective SWM requires the definition of clear roles and legal responsibilities of

institutions and government bodies to avoid controversies, ineffectiveness, inaction,

and making SWM systems politically unstable (Schübeler, 1996). Even when

regulatory and legislative frameworks exist, governments with weak institutional

structures are easily overwhelmed by increasing demands for SWM as urban

populations explode (Halla & Majani, 1999; Hardoy et al., 2001; Konteh, 2009).

Institutional aspects of SWM include:

33

• the degree of decentralization, i.e. distribution of authority, functions, and

responsibilities between central and local governmental institutions;

• the structure of institutional systems responsible for SWM and how they

interact with other urban management sectors;

• organizational procedures, for planning and management;

• the capacity of responsible institutions; and

• involvement of other sectors, including the private sector and community

groups (Schübeler, 1996).

Institutional aspects also include the current and future legislation, and the extent to

which it is enforced (Zurbruegg, 2003). A straightforward, transparent,

unambiguous legal and regulatory framework, including functioning inspection and

enforcement procedures at the national, provincial, and local levels, is essential to

the proper functioning of a SWM strategy (Coffey & Coad, 2010; Schübeler, 1996).

According to Wilson (2007, p. 203), “there seems to be general consensus that weak

institutions are a major issue in emerging and developing countries (e.g. Asia, Africa,

Latin America, Russia), so that institutional strengthening and capacity building

becomes a major driver” for SWM (see Figure 5). Enforcement of laws governing

regular SWM activities and new project implementation is often poor, resulting in

improperly functioning SWM systems (Coffey & Coad, 2010; Henry et al., 2006a).

For example, the “polluter pays” policy is inappropriate for many countries because

the lack of enforcement causes large waste generators to simply dump illegally

(Coffey & Coad, 2010). Developing effective, efficient municipal SWM plans is

difficult in developing countries because data on waste generation and composition

is largely unreliable and insufficient, seldom capturing system losses or informal

activities (Jha et al., 2011; Shimura et al., 2001; UN-‐HABITAT, 2010).

In developing countries, SWM is often under-‐funded due to a combination of

inadequate resources from municipal tax revenues, insufficient user fees, and the

mismanagement of funds (Coffey & Coad, 2010; Zurbruegg, 2003). This persistent

lack of funds prevents capacity building and the improvement and expansion of

34

SWM handling capacities (Henry et al., 2006a). According to the World Bank and

USAID, it is therefore common for municipalities in developing countries to spend

20 to 50 per cent of their available municipal budget on SWM, which often can only

stretch to serve less than 50 per cent of the population (Henry et al., 2006a; Memon,

2010). In low-‐income countries, 80 to 90 per cent of this budget is spent on

collection while in in high-‐income countries less than 10 per cent is spent on

collection services (Memon, 2010). As the price of land increases, it becomes

increasingly difficult to for municipalities to site landfills close to urban areas, while

transportation costs become a major constraint to constructing landfills at a distant

location (Memon, 2010), exacerbating the problem. Much-‐needed resources are

consumed by inefficiencies, frequently caused by inefficient institutional structures

and organizational procedures, and poor management capacity (Zurbruegg, 2003).

Structural problems often arise when revenue collection and investment decisions

happen at the central government level while operation and maintenance occur at

the local level. Capacity issues are also common. Schübeler (1996, p. 32) states that

“large discrepancies often exist between the job requirements and the actual

qualification of the staff at the managerial and operational levels”. Overstaffed local

authorities find it difficult to meet the large wage payments of poorly trained

workers (Henry et al., 2006a).

One substantial way that funds are mismanaged in developing countries is through

the use of techniques from the “conventional” SWM approach of industrialized

countries (Henry et al., 2006a). Imported, sophisticated vehicles and equipment for

collection, treatment, and disposal are expensive and difficult to maintain and

operate (Coffey & Coad, 2010; Zurbruegg, 2003). Frequently, the waste composition

in developing countries is very different from the waste characteristics they are

designed to handle, causing them to break down rapidly or be of little use in the first

place (Memon, 2010; Zurbruegg, 2003). Typically, within a short period of time only

a small percentage of the vehicle fleet remains in operation (Coffey & Coad, 2010).

These managerial challenges are compounded by the fact that waste quantities are

increasing rapidly in most cities at a greater rate than in high-‐income countries due

35

to increases in wealth and in quantities of waste produced per person, an increase in

the number of people living and working in the city, and rising quantities of waste

produced by businesses (UN-‐HABITAT, 2010).

2.3.1.3.4 International influences

In the absence of strong political or cultural drivers, international financial

institutions (IFIs), such as the World Bank, act as key drivers for SWM development.

IFIs generally have a strong focus on environmental policies (including those related

to climate change), poverty reduction, institutional capacity building, good

governance, and private sector participation (see Figure 5) (Wilson, 2007). While

most of these focus areas are indeed crucial to properly functioning solid waste

systems, the approaches used by IFIs are not always appropriate for the particular

context of their clientele. The World Bank had several unsuccessful SWM projects in

the 1990s (e.g. Philippines, Mexico, Sri Lanka) due in part to weak institutions and

governance issues, but also due to a lack of financial capacity in the receiving

country to sustain the expensive facilities when Bank funding ran out (Wilson,

2007). Unequal funding opportunities within regions but pressure to meet the same

high environmental standards creates affordability issues (Wilson, 2007).

Investments in the social sectors are often made in areas of global concern over

local environmental health problems (Hardoy et al., 2001; Konteh, 2009;

McGranahan, 2001). At the global arena, preoccupation with the ‘green agenda’,

which focuses on reducing human impacts on ecosystems and their natural

resources, is thought to be at the expense of the ‘brown agenda’, which focuses on

environmental threats to health in poor regions, and is therefore undermining SWM

efforts in low-‐income countries (Konteh, 2009). Konteh (2009, p. 72) points out that

“when sanitation and communicable diseases were a serious problem in Europe and

North America, the public health focus was exclusively on those same issues which

today fail to receive adequate attention in the developing world in spite of being a

major threat to public health; green environmental issues were not on the agenda

then”.

36

The rising urgency of urban environmental problems and need for capacity building

at the municipal level has directed the attention of numerous bilateral and

multilateral development agencies to SWM in recent years (Schübeler, 1996; Zarate

et al., 2008). However, these donors may be motivated by bureaucratic procedures

or goals of their home offices rather than an understanding of the local situation.

van de Klundert (1995) makes several observations about this:

• Donor biases exist towards certain technical approaches or insistence on the

use of equipment that supports their own export industries;

• The scale at which donors work is often inappropriate for local conditions;

either too small, without sufficient consideration for various larger contexts,

or too large for a particular situation;

• Coordination issues arise between donors from different countries, which

may be competing for contracts, and within countries as development

agencies work at cross-‐purposes; and

• Donors without the time or political will to produce locally appropriate

results opt for large, technical interventions rather than small-‐scale, context

appropriate approaches, since they are easier to understand, finance, and

monitor.

Coffey and Coad (2010) report that the objective of many foreign aid programs for

SWM in developing countries is to capture markets for supplying sophisticated

machinery and related spare parts, which are more often than not completely

inappropriate for local conditions. Additionally, municipal SWM is often a

component within a wider development program aimed at improving urban

environmental projection and/or urban management capacity, meaning many

bilateral and multilateral development agencies lack the considerable expertise

needed to implement successful SWM programs (Schübeler, 1996).

Such issues have a detrimental effect on the evolution of SWM practices in many

developing countries. Zarate et al. (2008, p. 2543) point out that “in spite of the

million-‐dollar loans and grants that developing countries have received to improve

37

the basic services sector, including SWM, the lack of suitable qualified human

resources contributed to the inability of municipalities and communities to

implement new projects”. Grants or loans for sanitary landfill construction do not

always result in the actual use of this method of disposal; well-‐trained personnel

and sufficient financial support for a reasonable standard of operation are also

necessary (Zurbruegg, 2003). Many SWM projects initially funded through grants or

loans have had problems obtaining continued external funding to operate and

maintain SWM systems (Coffey & Coad, 2010). Overseas consultants often

recommend techniques and equipment developed in counties with extremely

different social and economic conditions, and entirely different waste characteristics

(Coffey & Coad, 2010). For example, numerous cases have been documented in

which expensive, sophisticated composting and recycling plants have failed for a

wide range of reasons: the use of imported, inappropriate technology that is too

expensive or difficult to maintain; limited development of a market for recyclable

materials; absence of technical personnel to with operational or management

capacity; failure to complete the necessary financial and economic appraisals; and

failure to adequately consult significant stakeholders and the public (Yousif & Scott,

2007).

Researchers are calling for multifaceted SWM methods that are considered on a

case-‐to-‐case basis and tailored to each community’s individual needs (Jha et al.,

2011; Yousif & Scott, 2007). Schübeler (1996, p. 19) aptly summarizes the need for a

different approach:

The essential condition of sustainability implies that waste

management systems must be absorbed and carried by the society and

its local communities. These systems must, in other words, be

appropriate to the particular circumstances and problems of the city

and locality, employing and developing the capacities of all

stakeholders, including the households and communities requiring

service, private sector enterprises and workers (both formal and

informal), and government agencies at the local, regional and national

38

levels [original emphasis].

2.4 The need for a systems approach Managing waste is a complex task that requires appropriate technical solutions,

sufficient organizational capacity, and co-‐operation between a wide range of

stakeholders (Zarate et al., 2008). According to Seadon (2010), the interdisciplinary

and multi-‐sectoral considerations needed for the proper management of solid waste

– manufacturing, transportation, urban growth and development, land use patterns,

public health, etc. – highlights “the interaction and complexity between the physical

components of the system and the conceptual components that include the social

and environmental spheres. When waste is seen as part of a ... system, the

relationship of waste to other parts of the system is revealed and thus the potential

for greater sustainability of the operation increases. Conceptually, this broader view

increases the difficulty of managing waste requiring an approach that handles

complexity” (Seadon, 2010, p. 1641). However, the conventional SWM approach is

reductionist, not tailored to handle complexity; interacting systems and their

elements are divided into ever-‐smaller parts. System processes, such as waste

generation, collection, and disposal operations, are considered independently,

though each is interlinked and influenced by the others (Seadon, 2010). This

reductionist approach is even applied to waste, as it is not a single entity that can be

easily managed (Dijkema et al., 2000). It is typically separated into many primary

and many more secondary classifications, and waste streams from different sectors,

such as residential and commercial, are often considered separately (Seadon, 2010).

Techniques therefore tend to focus on dealing with one type of waste at a time,

leading to a focus on single technologies instead of waste management systems.

Consequentially, one waste problem can be solved, but other waste problems are

often generated with each compartmentalized ‘solution’ (Dijkema et al., 2000). This

tendency to analyze things in small, understandable pieces, to trace straight paths

from cause to effect, and to problem solve by attempting to control the system of

concern is increasingly being recognized as problematic (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993;

Meadows, 2008). This is evidenced in the SWM sector by the growing demand for

39

SWM approaches that recognize the social, cultural, political, and environmental

spheres; that engage with a broad community of stakeholders; and that consider the

larger system through a holistic, integrating methodology (Carabias et al., 1999;

Dijkema et al., 2000; Henry et al., 2006a; McDougall et al., 2001; Morrissey &

Browne, 2004; Petts, 2000; Seadon, 2006, 2010; Turner & Powell, 1991; Wilson,

2007; Zarate et al., 2008). Two schools of thought of particular relevance to the

challenges faced in the SWM sector are those of post-‐normal science, and complex,

adaptive, eco-‐social systems. The following sections will explore these areas and

their relevance to future SWM practices.

2.4.1 Post-‐Normal Science

By the mid-‐1980s, there was a growing community of scientists and social scientists interested in major social and environmental concerns characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and high socio-‐ecological risks, such as acid rain, ozone depletion, and climate change (Turnpenny, Jones, & Lorenzoni, 2011). Frustrations were growing with the “normal science” of Kuhn (1962), described by Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993, p. 740) to be the “unexciting, indeed anti-‐intellectual routine puzzle solving by which science advances steadily between its conceptual revolutions”. In response to the increasing challenges at the intersection of policy, risk, and environment, Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) developed a problem-‐solving framework called “post-‐normal science” based on the assumptions of incomplete control, unpredictability, and multiple legitimate perspectives. The post-‐normal science paradigm recognizes the relevance of both process and location, in place and time, and is ‘issue-‐driven’ as opposed to the ‘curiosity-‐motivated’, ‘mission-‐oriented’, or ‘client-‐serving’ goals of core science, applied science, and professional consultancy, respectively (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). The authors viewed this emerging science as a platform from which issues that traditional scientific methodologies fail to handle can be approached. Such issues have either high uncertainties (i.e. the scientific, technical, and managerial complexities of the system being considered, and the array of potential results) or high decision-‐making stakes (possible costs, benefits, and value commitments for stakeholders) (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1991, 1993; Turnpenny et al.,

40

2011). This is demonstrated in the authors’ iconic diagram (see

Figure 7), which provides a zoning system to identify which problem-‐solving

paradigm is appropriate for a particular issue, depending on the level of interaction

of knowledge (uncertainties) and values (decision-‐making stakes) (Funtowicz &

Ravetz, 1993).

Figure 7. Problem Solving Strategies (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993)

41

Post-‐normal science explicitly challenges traditional approaches to science,

recognizing its limitations and the need for unconventional approaches “when

uncertainties are either of the epistemological or the ethical kind, or when decision

stakes reflect conflicting purposes among stakeholders” (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993,

p. 750). It calls for the inclusion of extended peer communities – groups of

legitimate participants – in the process of quality assurance, policy debate, and

participation in research. The extension of legitimate peers is not only founded on

ethical or political reasons; it also enriches the practice of scientific investigation

(Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). Post-‐normal science also recognizes the value of

history and context as essential elements of the scientific process.

SWM systems could benefit from a post-‐normal scientific approach; highly complex

technical, scientific, and especially managerial aspects (and therefore high

uncertainties), and conflicting, often immense costs, benefits, and value

commitments for various stakeholders (i.e. high decision stakes) make SWM

systems ideal for alternative, post-‐normal problem-‐solving approaches. “Indeed, any

of the problems of major technological hazards or large-‐scale pollution belongs to

this class” (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993, p. 750).

2.4.1 Systems thinking: the foundations of systems approaches

‘Systems thinking’, a term in good currency in research across many fields, has only

been explicitly recognized since the 1950s. The concept was borne out of von

Bertalanffy’s mathematical field of a ‘general theory of systems’, which was first

presented in Chicago in 1937 and published in a German journal in 1949 (Drack &

Schwarz, 2010). Von Bertalanffy’s General System Theory (GST) aimed to promote

the ‘Unity of Science’ by providing a language and theory for systemic problem

solving in many different disciplines, which were independently stumbling upon

general system characteristics and principles (von Bertalanffy, 1950). GST struck a

strong chord with researchers ready to part with reductionism across the

disciplines, as it was originally intended to do. In 1956, Kenneth Boulding wrote,

“General System Theory is the skeleton of science in the sense that it aims to provide

a framework or structure of systems on which to hang the flesh and blood of

42

particular disciplines and particular subject matters in an orderly and coherent

corpus of knowledge. It is also, however, something of a skeleton in a cupboard – the

cupboard in this case being the unwillingness of science to admit the very low level

of its successes in systematization, and its tendency to shut the door on problems

and subject matters which do not fit easily into simple mechanical schemes”

(Boulding, 1956, p. 208). While interest in GST peaked during the two decades

before von Bertalanffy’s death in 1972 and the quest for a general theory of systems

subsequently subsided (Drack & Schwarz, 2010), it spawned a plethora of

derivatives and sparked a widespread interest in systemic approaches. New systems

concepts have emerged, and previously existing ones have since been applied in

many subject areas (everything from health care, organizational development, and

family research to international development, physical geography, policy, economic

analysis, and management science (Chai & Yeo, 2012; Checkland, 2000; Patton,

2002)).

According to Checkland (1981), systems thinking is an attempt to escape the

reductionism of normal science (which is, however, highly successful at

investigating natural phenomena). Indeed, a holistic perspective is crucial to

systems thinking (Patton, 2002). Checkland (2000, p. S29) describes “the core

systems image [as] that of the whole entity which can adapt and survive in a

changing environment”. The function and meaning of both a system and its parts are

lost when it is taken apart. A disassembled automobile does not drive and a

disassembled person does not live (Patton, 2002), nor would such a person be

“human” in the usual sense if they were truly isolated from others (Boulding, 1956).

Any system is dependent on its own internal interdependencies. Therefore, systems

thinking is intrinsically focused on relationships (Checkland, 2000), along with

patterns, processes and context (Capra, 2005). It also ensures in any given situation

(at least) three levels are considered: the system (what?), the sub-‐system (how?),

and the wider system (why?) (Checkland, 2000).

Several perspectives on the meaning of a ‘systems approach’ exist among

researchers. While a vast literature about systems theory and applied systems

43

research has developed since von Bertalanffy’s original publication, much of it has

been highly technical and quantitative, involving computer simulations of

specifically defined, “engineered” systems whose goals and objectives have been

made explicit by external ‘experts’ (Checkland, 2000; Patton, 2002). However,

according to Patton (2002, p. 120), “(1) a systems perspective is becoming

increasingly important in dealing with and understanding real-‐world complexities,

viewing things as whole entities embedded in context and still larger wholes; (2)

some approaches to systems research lead directly to and depend heavily on

qualitative inquiry; and (3) a systems orientation can be very helpful in framing

questions and, later, making sense out of qualitative data”. While systems thinking

originated from the ‘hard’ sciences of mathematics and engineering, many

researchers felt that a ‘hard’ systems approach was insufficient to handle complex,

messy, real world problems (i.e. not the technical problems for which it was

developed), and a ‘soft’ systems methodology quickly developed (Checkland, 2000).

This initiated a debate between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ systems methodologies. Essentially,

‘hard’ systems thinking assumes the world is a set of systems that can be engineered

to reach easy-‐to-‐define goals and objectives, and performance can be measured

quantitatively (Chai & Yeo, 2012; Checkland, 2000). On the other hand, ‘soft’

systems thinking uses systems not as representations of the real world but as

intellectual devices, based on declared world-‐views, to explore problematic

situations and desirable changes to them; the entire approach is used as an

organized ‘learning system’ (Checkland, 2000). Therefore, ‘hard’ systems thinking is

ideal for well-‐defined, technical problems, and ‘soft’ systems thinking is appropriate

for poorly defined, messy situations involving social and cultural considerations

(Chai & Yeo, 2012; Checkland, 2000).

2.4.2 Complex, adaptive, eco-‐social systems

Systems theory has provided a baseline from which other innovative perspectives of

the world have drawn upon, including cybernetics, catastrophe theory, chaos

theory, non-‐equilibrium thermodynamics, self-‐organization, and complexity theory

(Kay, Regier, Boyle, & Francis, 1999). Complexity can be defined as the domain

44

between linearly determined order and indeterminate chaos (D. S. Byrne, 1998).

Complexity theory, technically known as nonlinear dynamics, is concerned with

modeling and describing complex, non-‐linear systems and “developing a unified

view of life by integrating life’s biological, cognitive and social dimensions” (Capra,

2005, p. 33). Reality is understood to be composed of complex open systems with

emergent properties and transformational potential (D. Byrne, 2005). These

characteristics are typical of complex, adaptive systems (CAS), of which eco-‐social

systems are a part. Crucial to these systems is the concept of multiple scales, both

spatially and temporally (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Complex Adaptive Systems: Nested Sets of Four Phase Adaptive Cycles (adapted from Holling (2001))

Large, Slow Level

Intermediate Speed and Size (e.g. Forest System)

Small, Fast Level (e.g. Insect Colony in a Forest)

Reorganization Conservation

Exploitation Release

ConservationReorganization


ConservationReorganization


RE

VO

LT

RE

ME

MB

ER

Large, Slow Levels(e.g. Geological Scale)

Intermediate Levels(e.g. Forest Scale)

Small, Fast Levels(e.g. Insect Colony

Scale)

To a New Attractor...



Impact on NextLarger, Slower

Level...

Impact on Next Smaller,Faster Level...

45

While systems are composed of elements, these elements are themselves wholes,

composed of units at a smaller scale. Arthur Koestler (1978) defined this abstract

concept of an entity which is both a whole and a part as a ‘holon’, which exists in a

nested network of other holons called a ‘holarchy’. Holling (2001) described these

‘hierarchical’ structures as semi-‐autonomous levels of similar variables that

communicate information or material to the next higher, slower, and coarser level.

Each level serves two functions: (1) preserving and stabilizing conditions for the

quicker, smaller levels; and (2) functioning as an “adaptive cycle” by producing and

testing innovations (Holling, 2001). Holling’s representation of an adaptive cycle

demonstrates a figure-‐eight movement between four system functions: from

exploitation to conservation, release, and finally reorganization. There are

potentially multiple connections between nested sets of adaptive cycles. The

connection Holling labeled ‘revolt’ occurs when a smaller, faster level causes a

larger, slower level to collapse, demonstrating that changes in quicker, smaller

cycles have the ability to influence the behaviour of slower, larger ones. Holling

labeled another key connection ‘remember’, which demonstrates that slower, larger

levels can buffer smaller, faster ones from disturbances (Holling, 2001).

Self-‐organization is another key attribute of CAS (Kay et al., 1999; Patton, 2002).

Such systems contain a web of positive and negative feedback loops operating over

a range of spatial and temporal scales that “lead both to stable states of self-‐

organization and, in some instances, to surprising outcomes from apparently

straightforward interventions” (Waltner-‐Toews, Kay, Neudoerffer, & Gitau, 2003, p.

25). Kay et al. (1999) describe self-‐organization as a dissipative process that CAS

undergo when high quality energy, known as “exergy”, attempts to push the system

beyond a critical distance from equilibrium. CAS resist the push away from

equilibrium through the spontaneous emergence of new behaviour, which uses the

exergy to organize and maintain the system’s new structure (see Figure 9).

46

Figure 9. Conceptual Model of the Dissipative Nature of a Self-‐Organizing System (adapted from Kay et al. (1999))

Therefore, the more exergy put into the system to shift it from equilibrium, the more

organized structures emerge, in a step-‐wise manner (Kay et al., 1999). The

particular manifestation of these structures is dependent upon the context (i.e. the

history and environment in which the system is embedded), the available exergy

and materials, and information (i.e. the factors within the system that restrict and

guide its self-‐organization). Newly emerging structures provide a new context, in

which new processes manifest, in which new structures emerge yet again (Kay et al.,

1999). Therefore, the contents of the system are the product of the history of the

system itself (Checkland, 2000). Kay et al. (1999) define these systems as self-‐

organizing holarchic open (SOHO) systems: “a nested constellation of self-‐

organizing dissipative process/structures, organized about a particular set of

sources of exergy, materials, and information, embedded in a physical environment,

that give rise to coherent self-‐perpetuating behaviours” (Kay et al., 1999, p. 724).

DissipativeProcess

DissipativeStructure

CONTEXT: History and Environment

ExergyMaterials

Information

COMPLEX,SELF-ORGANIZING

SYSTEM

47

The self-‐organizing tendencies of CAS highlight the challenges humans face in

attempting to ‘manage’ them (or our outright inability to do so). It also highlights

the potential for surprising outcomes due to “time lags, cross-‐scale effects, and what

might have been left out [of a system model]. These types of feedback mean that

prediction of individual outcomes is limited; prediction of overall system behavior is

only possible in broad outline, and then only if we have historical data to suggest the

canon of states available to that system... Such data are rarely available” (Waltner-‐

Toews et al., 2003, p. 25).

Both ecological and human systems exhibit strongly developed self-‐organized

patterns, meaning that linear policies are more likely to produce temporary

solutions and many worsening problems in the future (Holling, 2001). Waltner-‐

Toews, Neudoerffer, Joshi, and Tamang (2005) hold the view that ecological and

social systems are intertwined, and the separation of these systems is both artificial

and arbitrary. ‘Social systems’ encompass a variety of knowledge systems

concerning the dynamics of resource use and the environment, a plethora of

perspectives on the ethics of relationships between humans and the natural world,

and many socio-‐ecological challenges (e.g. property rights and resource access).

‘Ecological systems’ consist of self-‐regulating communities of organisms that

interact with their external environment and with each other (Waltner-‐Toews et al.,

2005); humans clearly fall within this definition. The term ‘eco-‐social systems’

acknowledges these connections. Limits for the possible alternative states of such

systems are set by the accumulated social, cultural, ecological, and economic capital,

in addition to chance innovations (Holling, 2001). As awareness of the complexity of

eco-‐social systems grows, the traditional approach to environmental management

that has considered humans to be external to completely untouched ecological

systems is increasingly being considered unrealistic; both better understanding and

decision-‐making can be achieved by recognizing humans have been and still are an

integral part of the evolution of ecological systems (Waltner-‐Toews et al., 2003).

Central to a systems approach is the essential need to include multiple perspectives.

48

Kay et al. (1999) consider human values and a diversity of views to be crucial to the

process of identifying appropriate methods of investigation necessary to deal with

issues in a systemic context. Issues of social reality, which are “continuously socially

constructed and reconstructed by individuals and groups” (Checkland, 2000, p.

S24), are relevant, as are issues of inclusiveness, mutual trust in the investigation

process, and relative power among stakeholders (Kay et al., 1999). Any action taken

must be feasible in the context of the local history, relationships, culture, and

aspirations of all concerned parties (Checkland, 2000). Waltner-‐Toews et al. (2005)

consider cultural context and historical narratives to be strongly influential on how

public decisions about environment and health are both framed and managed.

2.5 Conclusion While the need for a systems approach to SWM has been both explicitly recognized

(e.g. see Seadon (2010)) and inexplicitly recognized through the many calls for

‘integrated’ methodologies, there is a lack of literature exploring the actual

application of systems thinking to SWM systems in many developing country

contexts. While not a cure-‐all ‘solution’, systems thinking can provide some

understanding and approaches for coping with complexity (Waltner-‐Toews, Kay, &

Lister, 2008). Above all, the next appropriate steps for SWM will need to be

determined for each individual context (Wilson, 2007). Investigation and

management of complex systems demands specificity, meaning there cannot be a

straightforward, standard ‘cook-‐book’ system description (Waltner-‐Toews et al.,

2008). Holling suggests beginning an analysis “of a specific problem with a

historical reconstruction of the events that have occurred, focusing on the surprises

and crises that have arisen as a result of both external influences and internal

instabilities”, in the ecological, social, political, and economic systems, and the

management institutions (Holling, 2001, p. 402). The need for this kind of specificity

certainly applies to SWM systems. It has been widely recognized that it is

counterproductive for developing countries to use strategies and policies developed

for high-‐income countries; approaches should be locally sensitive, critical, creative,

and ‘owned’ by the community of concern (Coffey & Coad, 2010; Henry et al., 2006a;

49

Konteh, 2009; Schübeler, 1996; UN-‐HABITAT, 2010).

It should be noted that while systems thinking is concerned with how patterns of

relationships translate into emergent behaviors (Waltner-‐Toews et al., 2008), these

translations take time and so will any system alterations; delays are inherent in

complex systems (Meadows, 2008). It has taken decades for the management,

efficiency, and reliability of SWM systems in high-‐income countries to evolve to the

far from ideal states they are currently in (Coffey & Coad, 2010). Wilson (2007)

describes the impracticality of current expectations for developing country SWM

systems:

If there is one key lesson that I have learned from 30 years in waste

management, it is that there are no ‘quick fixes’. All developed

countries have evolved their current systems in a series of steps;

developing countries can benefit from that experience, but to expect to

move from uncontrolled dumping to a ‘modern’ waste management

system in one great leap is just not realistic (Wilson, 2007, p. 205).

There is a need for a different approach as the bleak state of SWM systems in the

developing world continues to threaten and degrade the health of the most

vulnerable human populations and the ecosystems they are a part of. While systems

thinking is currently playing a major role in approaches for computer networks, the

organization of global corporations, and some environmental issues (Waltner-‐

Toews et al., 2008), solid waste researchers and decision-‐makers will need to adopt

such a systemic perspective if any real progress is to be made in the SWM practices

of the developing world.

50

2.6 References Bhuiyan, S. H. (2010). A crisis in governance: Urban solid waste management in

Bangladesh. Habitat international, 34(1), 125-‐133.

BIO Intelligence Service. (2011). Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth Final Report prepared for European Commission DG ENV.

Boadi, K., Kuitunen, M., Raheem, K., & Hanninen, K. (2005). Urbanisation Without Development: Environmental and Health Implications in African Cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(4), 465-‐500.

Boulding, K. E. (1956). General Systems Theory -‐ The Skeleton of Science. Management Science, 2(3), 197-‐208.

Byrne, D. (2005). Complexity, Configurations and Cases. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5), 95-‐111.

Byrne, D. S. (1998). Complexity theory and the social sciences : an introduction. London; New York: Routledge.

Capra, F. (2005). Complexity and Life. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5), 33-‐44.

Carabias, W. J. V., Winistoerfer, H., & Stuecheli, A. (1999). Social aspects of public waste management in Switzerland. Waste Management, 19(6), 417-‐425.

CEC. (1977). Second EC Environment Action Programme. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

Chai, K.-‐H., & Yeo, C. (2012). Overcoming energy efficiency barriers through systems approach—A conceptual framework. Energy Policy, 46, 460-‐472.

Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester, England; Toronto: J. Wiley.

Checkland, P. (2000). Soft Systems Methodology: A Thirty Year Retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(S1), S11-‐S58.

Coffey, M., & Coad, A. (2010). Collection of Municipal Solid Waste in Developing Countries. Malta: UN-‐HABITAT.

Cohen, B. (2004). Urban Growth in Developing Countries: A Review of Current Trends and a Caution Regarding Existing Forecasts. World Development, 32(1), 23-‐51.

Dijkema, G. P. J., Reuter, M. A., & Verhoef, E. V. (2000). A new paradigm for waste management. Waste Management, 20(8), 633-‐638.

Drack, M., & Schwarz, G. (2010). Recent developments in general system theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27(6), 601-‐610.

51

European Commission. (2010). 2009 Environment Policy Review. Brussels.

Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-‐normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-‐755.

Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: The sience and management of sustainability (pp. 137-‐152). New York: Columbia University Press.

Gertsakis, J., & Lewis, H. (2003). Sustainability and the Waste Management Hierarchy: A discussion paper on the waste management hierarchy and its relationship to sustainability (pp. 1-‐15). Melbourne: RMIT University.

Halla, F., & Majani, B. (1999). Innovative Ways for Solid Waste Management in Dar-‐Es-‐Salaam: Toward Stakeholder Partnerships. Habitat international, 23(3), 351-‐361.

Hardoy, J. E., Mitlin, D., Satterthwaite, D., & Hardoy, J. E. (2001). Environmental problems in an urbanizing world : finding solutions for cities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.

Henry, R. K., Yongsheng, Z., & Jun, D. (2006). Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries -‐ Kenyan case study. Waste Management, 26(1), 92-‐100.

Hirschhorn, J., Jackson, T., & Baas, L. (1993). Towards Prevention: the emerging environmental management paradigm. In T. Jackson (Ed.), Clean Production Strategies: developing preventative environmental management in the industrial economy. Chelsea, MI: Lewis.

Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390-‐405.

Jha, A. K., Singh, G. P., Singh, G. P., & Gupta, P. K. (2011). Sustainable municipal solid waste management in low income group of cities: a review. Tropical Ecology, 52(1), 123-‐131.

Kay, J. J., Regier, H. A., Boyle, M., & Francis, G. (1999). An ecosystem approach for sustainability: addressing the challenge of complexity. Futures, 31(7), 721-‐742.

Koestler, A. (1978). Janus: a Summing Up (1St American Ed ed.). New York: Random House.

Kollikkathara, N., Feng, H., & Stern, E. (2009). A purview of waste management evolution: special emphasis on USA. Waste Management, 29(2), 974-‐985.

52


Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langeweg, F., Hilderink, H., & Maas, R. (2000). Urbanisation, industrialisation and sustainable development Globo Report Series No. 27: RIVM.

Louis, G. E. (2004). A Historical Context of Municipal Solid Waste Management in the United States. Waste Management & Research, 22(4), 306-‐322.

McDougall, F., White, P. R., Franke, M., & Hindle, P. (2001). Integrated solid waste management: a lifecycle inventory (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.

McGranahan, G. (2001). The citizens at risk: from urban sanitation to sustainable cities. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan: Stockholm Environment Institute.

McKenzie-‐Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (2008). Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-‐Based Social Marketing. Gabriola Island (B.C.): New Society Publishers.

Meadows, D. H., & Wright, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Melosi, M. V. (1981). Garbage in the cities: refuse, reform, and the environment, 1880-‐1980 (1st ed.). College Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University Press.

Memon, M. A. (2010). Integrated solid waste management based on the 3R approach. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 12(1), 30-‐40.

Morrissey, A. J., & Browne, J. (2004). Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management. Waste Management, 24(3), 297-‐308.

Nemerow, N. L. (2009). Environmental engineering: Environmental health and safety for municipal infrastructure, land use and planning, and industry (6th ed.). Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Petts, J. (2000). Municipal waste management: inequities and the role of deliberation. Risk Analysis, 20(6), 821-‐832.

Ponting, C. (1991). A green history of the world: the environment and the collapse of great civilizations. New York: St. Martin's Press.

53

Price, J. L., & Joseph, J. B. (2000). Demand management — a basis for waste policy: a critical review of the applicability of the waste hierarchy in terms of achieving sustainable waste management. Sustainable Development, 8(2), 96-‐105.

Rodic, L., Scheinberg, A., & Wilson, D. C. (2010). Comparing Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities. Paper presented at the ISWA World Congress 2010, Urban Development and Sustainability -‐ a Major Challenge for Waste Management in the 21st Century, Hamburg, Germany.

Schübeler, P. (1996). Conceptual Framework for Municipal Solid Waste Management. In Low-‐Income Countries. In K. Wehrle & J. Christen (Eds.). St. Gallen Switzerland: UNDP/UNCHS/World Bank/SDC Collaborative Programme on Municipal Solid Waste Management in Low-‐Income Countries.

Seadon, J. K. (2006). Integrated waste management -‐ looking beyond the solid waste horizon. [Review]. Waste Management 26(12), 1327-‐1336.


Shimura, S., Yokota, I., & Nitta, Y. (2001). Research for MSW flow analysis in developing nations. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 3(1), 48-‐59.

Southerton, D., McMeekin, A., & Evans, D. (2011). International Review of Behaviour Change Initiatives: Scottish Government Social Research.

Tacoli, C. (2012). Urbanization, gender and urban poverty: paid work and unpaid carework in the city. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development, United Nations Population Fund.

Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., & Eliassen, R. (1977). Solid Wastes: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. New York; Toronto: Mcgraw-‐Hill.

Thomas, B., & McDougall, F. (2005). International expert group on life cycle assessment for integrated waste management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(3), 321-‐326.

Thornloe, S. A., Weitz, K., Nishtala, S., Barlaz, M., Ranjithan, R., & Ham, R. K. (1997). Update on the US study applying life-‐cycle management to compare integrated waste management strategies. In T. H. Christensen, R. Cossu & R. Stegmann (Eds.), International Landfill Symposium. Sardinia, Italy: Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre.

Turner, R. K., & Powell, J. (1991). Towards an integrated waste management strategy. Environmental Management and Health, 2(1), 6-‐12.

54

Turnpenny, J., Jones, M., & Lorenzoni, I. (2011). Where Now for Post-‐Normal Science?: A Critical Review of its Development, Definitions, and Uses. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36(3), 287-‐306.

UN-‐HABITAT. (2010). Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities: Water and Sanitation in the World's Cities 2010. In Earthscan (Series Ed.)


UNEP. (1996). International Source Book on Environmentally Sound Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste Management. International Environmental Technology Centre Technical Publication Series: United Nations Environmental Programme.

UNEP. (2010). Waste and Climate Change: Global Trends and Strategy Framework. Osaka; Shiga: United Nations Environmental Programme.

UNFPA. (2011). State of world population 2011: United Nations Population Fund.

van de Klundert, A. (1995). Community And Private (Formal And Informal) Sector Involvement In Municipal Solid Waste Management In Developing Countries. Paper presented at the UMP workshop, Ittingen.

van de Klundert, A., & Anschutz, J. (2001). Integrated Sustainable Waste Management -‐ the Concept: Tools for Decision-‐makers. Experiences from the Urban Waste Expertise Programme (1995-‐2001). In A. Scheinberg (Ed.). Gouda, Netherlands: Urban Waste Expertise Programme.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An Outline of General System Theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 134-‐165.

Waltner-‐Toews, D., Kay, J., & Lister, N.-‐M. E. (2008). The ecosystem approach: complexity, uncertainty, and managing for sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.

Waltner-‐Toews, D., Kay, J., Neudoerffer, C., & Gitau, T. (2003). Perspective changes everything: managing ecosystems from the inside out. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(1), 23-‐30.

Waltner-‐Toews, D., Neudoerffer, C., Joshi, D. D., & Tamang, M. S. (2005). Agro-‐urban Ecosystem Health Assessment in Kathmandu, Nepal: Epidemiology, Systems, Narratives. EcoHealth, 2(2), 155-‐164.

Wilson, D. C. (2007). Development drivers for waste management. Waste Management & Research, 25(3), 198-‐207.

55

Wolsink, M. (2010). Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-‐political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 302-‐311.

Woodward, D. (1985). Swords into ploughshares: Recycling in Pre-‐Industrial England. The Economic History Review, 38(2), 175-‐191.

Worrell, W. A., & Vesilind, P. A. (2012). Solid waste engineering (2nd ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.


Zarate, M. A., Slotnick, J., & Ramos, M. (2008). Capacity building in rural Guatemala by implementing a solid waste management program. Waste Management, 28(12), 2542-‐2551.

Zero Waste SA. (2011). Waste Management Hierarchy Retrieved May 18, 2012, from http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/About-‐Us/waste-‐management-‐hierarchy

Zurbrugg, C. (2003). Solid waste management in developing countries: A sourcebook for policy makers and practitioners: EAWAG /SANDEC.

56

3 Narrative-‐based participatory model building as a systems approach to solid waste management in Todos Santos, Guatemala

3.1 Introduction Solid waste management (SWM) is critical to the protection of public health, safety,

and the environment (Bhuiyan, 2010). It is therefore no surprise that the impacts

SWM has on health and the environment are issues of global concern: from climate

change to illegal dumping; limiting economic potential; environmental injustice;

inequalities; and health effects associated with mortality, the health and

environmental implications associated with SWM are mounting in urgency,

particularly in the context of developing countries (Ancona et al., 2010; Martuzzi,

Mitis, & Forastiere, 2010; Schübeler, 1996; Wilson, 2007). Rising urbanization levels

are leaving national and regional governments unable to cope with the waste

demands of the world’s burgeoning cities (Tacoli, 2012). As developing countries in

South and Central America follow the historical, unsustainable model developed by

(and for) high-‐income countries that emphasizes high production and high

consumption, solid waste is inevitably produced at a rising rate (Dijkema et al.,

2000; Duru, 1981; UNEP, 2009). Indeed, severe SWM implications are most common

in the developing world, where SWM is inadequate in most cities, and outright

lacking in rural areas (Schübeler, 1996; Zarate et al., 2008). Only a small fraction of

the total waste generated is collected, and even then it commonly ends up in open

dumpsites instead of in technically managed sanitary landfills that contain leachate

and methane gas collection systems (Yousif & Scott, 2007; Zarate et al., 2008).

Unrestrained dumping and the spread of waste in waterways and the streets has

serious health implications, often propagated by pests such as insects and rats

(Bhuiyan, 2010; Yousif & Scott, 2007). It is increasingly evident that the costs of

poor SWM do not impact everyone equally; they are borne by fragile natural

ecosystems and the most susceptible of their dependent communities. The poor, the

geographically vulnerable, the politically weak, and other disadvantaged groups are

most affected by such environmental changes (Parkes et al., 2010).

57

3.1.1 Solid Waste Management: Developing Country Trends

Many SWM strategies that are appropriate in developed countries are unsuitable in

developing regions of the world. Indeed, a plethora of reasons why traditional SWM

systems fail in low-‐ and middle-‐income countries are identified in the literature. A

compilation of such challenges, categorized by traditional sector, is provided in

Table 1.

Table 1. Common solid waste management challenges in developing countries, categorized by sector

Waste Reduction

• Regulatory and legislative measures are low priority1 • Lack of regulatory and legislative enforcement5,6 • Users unable/unwilling to pay collection fees2 • Lack of institutional capacity 3 •

Collection and Transport

• Poorly planned (e.g. narrow, poorly drained, unpaved) roads 4,5,6 • Poor vehicle access to homes, especially in low-‐income areas4,5 • Large distances from homes to communal waste storage7 • Use of expensive, foreign equipment and parts 5,8,9 • Frequent truck breakdowns, parts shortages 5,8,9 • Lowest income groups receive lowest collection priorities5,8,10

Recycling

• Difficulty incorporating informal recyclers into SWM plans8,11 • Lack of public awareness or motivation12 • Lack of local or national markets for recycled materials12 • Lack of financial capital/technical know-‐how to implement large-‐scale centers13 • Unavailability of appropriate land 3 • Lack of institutional capacity 3

Composting • Financially difficult to implement at a centralized, large-‐scale level13 • Lack of understanding or maintenance of biological conditions14 • Poor pre-‐sorting of incoming waste14 • Failure to understand market conditions 13,14 • Lack of institutional capacity 3

1 (UNEP, 1996) 2 (Shukla et al., 2000) 3 (Da Zhu, Asnani, Zurbrugg, Anapolsky, & Mani, 2008) 4 (Konteh, 2009) 5 (Coffey & Coad, 2010) 6 (Henry, Yongsheng, & Jun, 2006b) 7 (Pfammater & Schertenleib, 1996) 8 (Zurbruegg, 2003) 9 (Memon, 2010) 10 (Jha et al., 2011) 11 (Schübeler, 1996) 12 (Wilson, Velis, & Cheeseman, 2006) 13 (Yousif & Scott, 2007) 14 (Zerbock, 2003)

58

Waste Transformation (incineration and burning)

• Most mechanical, thermal, and chemical techniques are out of scope 2 • High moisture content of waste prevents self-‐sustaining combustion2 • High financial start-‐up and operating costs for incineration111 • Lack of technical expertise and skilled personnel1,3 • Slow burning is common in the home, backyard, open spaces, and dumpsites15

Disposal

• Uncontrolled, open dumping is the most common disposal method16 • Dumps use precious space ineffectively 3 • Food sources for vectors of disease4 • Dumps are unlined and have no leachate collection system1 • Waste burial leads to forgotten dumpsites, continually leaching toxins17

Landfilling

• Lack of technical expertise and skilled personnel 3 • Lack of long-‐term financial and physical resources14 • Lack of institutional capacity 3 • Unavailability of appropriate land 3 • Lack of appropriate guidelines for new landfills and dump upgrades8

Environmental and human health risks

• Dumps contain infectious medical and other hazardous wastes11,16 • Toxic decomposition products in water, soil, and air16 • Presence of human and animal fecal matter at dumpsites16 • Explosive methane gas causes toxic smoke, can burn for years at dumpsites16 • Slow burning volatilizes heavy metals, dioxins, acid gases, nitrogen oxides, etc. 1 • High health risks for waste workers and scavengers11,16 • Socio-‐economic damage, threatened livelihoods18 • Waste in streets clogs drains, breeding ground for malarial mosquitos 16

3.1.2 SWM in Guatemala

Many of the aforementioned SWM issues are prevalent in Guatemala. Figure 10

depicts the context for these SWM issues in the country and more specifically in

Todos Santos, the area of study.

15 (Simon, 2008) 16 (Cointreau, 1982) 17 (Halla & Majani, 1999) 18 (Muttamara & Leong, 1997)

59

Figure 10.Guatemala's SWM Context

Guatemala's Socio-Economic Conditions: Lower-Middle Income Transitional Democracy

National and International Attention

Area of Study: Todos Santos Cuchumatán

Guatemala'sSWM

SWM in TodosSantos

TrilateralAgreement

withMexico andGermany

1990sNationalPolicies

Weak PoliticalParties

Weak Authorityof Law

Corruption

ExtremePoverty

IncomeDisparity

Racism

Naturaldisasters

Civil War

90%IllegalDumps


Danger toPublic Health

WasteBurning

Lack ofReporting

/ Data

Increase inSW

Generationper Capita

InappropriateLocation and

InefficientOperation of

LandfillsDistrust in

Institutions

LimitedSWM

Funding

Lack ofPublic

Awareness

Increasein

Littering

2011Integrated

SWMStrategy

PAHO Reports

90% IndigenousPopulation

Rural,RemoteLocation

HighPovertyRates

Wage-LabourMigration to

US

LowTechnicalExpertise

PoorEducation

System

Deeply Scarred byCivil War

Headwatersof Limon

River

HighIlliteracy

Low Confidence inPolitical Institutions

No LocalRecyclingFacilities

Open IllegalDump in

TownCenter

Wastein the

Streets

Dump onRiverbank

Weekly WasteCollection

HouseholdPets Eat at

Dump

EnvironmentalEducation has

Begun

UnsanitaryAbattoir in

TownCenter

NegativeImpacts on

Health

LowPoliticalPriority

CorruptionLimitsSWM

Funding


Invisible

60

Guatemala is a lower middle income (World Bank, 2011), post-‐conflict independent

republic undergoing democratic transition and thus, it faces many difficulties

common to Latin American transitional democracies, including weak political

parties and authority of the law, corruption and organized crime, extreme poverty

and severe income disparity (Guinea, 2009). In 1996, the government and the

Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG) signed Peace Accords, ending a

36-‐year period of internal conflict that had dramatically affected the economy and

infrastructure of the country (Sundberg, 2002). Guatamala now has one of Central

America’s largest economies, and has maintained relatively stable economic growth

over the last few decades (World Bank, 2011). However, despite these factors, little

progression towards the elimination of inequality has been made (Sundberg, 2002).

Indeed, the World Bank (2011) states that, “Guatemala's social indicators often fall

below those of countries with lower per capita incomes. According to the Human

Development Index [a combination of income, education and health indicators]

(2010), Guatemala ranks 116 among 169 ranked countries and in Latin America is

only ahead of Haiti”. The population has grown from 3 million in 1950 to 14 million

in 2010, but remained poor, young, and predominantly rural and indigenous

(Guinea, 2009). Income disparity is severe, as 49% of the 2010 population is rural,

70.5% of the rural population is below the poverty line (World Bank, 2011), and

93% of the country’s extreme poor are rural (Cook et al., 2009). Indigenous peoples,

composed of Mayas, Xincas, and Garífunas, make up 41% of the population (Guinea,

2009). This percentage varies drastically by region, as indigenous peoples are

predominantly rural (and therefore poor) (Cook et al., 2009). Such inequalities have

caused Guatemala to be fraught with corruption, racism, violence, and a deeply

rooted mistrust of judicial systems and political institutions (Sundberg, 2002).

Additionally, natural disasters have recently rocked the country; in 2010, Tropical

Storm Agatha and the eruption of the volcano Pacaya, caused an estimated US$982

million in damages and losses. During the rainy season of 2010, which was one of

the heaviest the country has seen in six decades, landslides and flooding caused

serious damage to the country’s productive and physical infrastructure (World

Bank, 2011), which was already deficient and hindering foreign investment (Guinea,

61

2009). Many of these issues have led to severely weakened solid waste management

systems throughout the country (Zarate et al., 2008), which has in turn caused a

proliferation of illegal dumping and burning of solid wastes. As of 2005, roughly 7.1

million Guatemalans, or 68 percent of all households, bury, burn, or dispose of their

waste inappropriately, particularly in rivers or streams, causing serious

environmental degradation and threatening public health (Yousif and Scott, 2007).

Nearly 90 percent of the country’s landfills are illegal dumps, and approximately 40

percent of them are in close proximity to a water body or aquifer (Mantilla, 2007).

These issues are difficult to address for a variety of reasons, including a lack of data

and reporting. The Ministry of Health reports on very few diseases related to water

source contamination or waste simply because little data is available, and what data

does exist is often outdated (Mantilla, 2007). Illegal dumping is exacerbated by the

fact that solid waste generation per capita, and particularly the percentage of non-‐

biodegradable solid waste, is continually increasing (Yousif and Scott, 2007). Waste

generation is predicted to increase dramatically not only in the large cities but also

in rural areas, as decentralization of the public sector and growth of the private

sector promote the development of the country’s interior.

Where officially recognized landfills do exist, they are inappropriately located and

inefficiently operated. SWM employees are exposed to substandard working

conditions, including a lack of adequate safety equipment and frequently coming

into contact with hazardous materials such as sharp, medical, chemical, and toxic

wastes (Yousif and Scott, 2007). These working conditions expose workers to a host

of physical, psychological, and social hazards (Yousif and Scott, 2007).

As in many other developing countries, urban planning in Guatemala is somewhat

arbitrary, leading to mazes of steep, narrow streets that are inaccessible for

conventional waste collection vehicles (Yousif and Scott, 2007). Many residents are

unable to afford collection fees, or are unwilling to pay for them due to distrust in

the quality of service (Yousif and Scott, 2007). This encourages illegal dumping and

disposal practices in waterways, by roadsides, and in urban areas. Many

neighbourhoods house bodies of stagnant water, especially in the wet season, due to

62

drains clogged with municipal refuse (Yousif and Scott, 2007). This creates breeding

grounds for disease-‐transimitting mosquitos (Cointreau, 1982). These issues are

depicted in a conceptual diagram below (see Figure 11).

Figure 11. Environmental and health related SWM impacts in Guatemala

The literature has identified six principal SWM challenges that plague Guatemala:

• Limited funding for SWM services due to a lack of authoritative interest and

the high cost of such services (Yousif and Scott, 2007);

• The absence of large-‐scale formal recycling programmes (Zarate et al., 2008;

Yousif and Scott, 2007), as the only recycling facilities in the country are

located in Xela and Guatemala city (Zarate et al., 2008);

• A lack of proper sanitary landfills and the inappropriate location of current

dumpsites, which are often too close to residential areas or a considerable

distance from municipal boundaries (Manilla, 2007; Yousif and Scott, 2007;

Environmental Impacts Health Impacts

Unwillingness to pay

Political andinstitutional issues

Weakened SWMsystems

Natural disasters

Steep, narrow streets

Rising solid wastegeneration per capita

Burning, burying,unregulated dumping

Rise innon-biodegradable

solid waste

Unregulated, opendumps near water

bodies

Standing water

Contaminated groundand surface water

Inappropriatelylocated landfills

Sub-standard workingconditions for waste

workers

Zoonoses fromrodents, mosquitos,

etc.

Gastrointestinal illness

Intoxification

Injury and infection

Respiratory illness

Infectious andchronic diseases

Waste inpublic/accessible areas

Contaminated air

Environmental Impacts

Lack of knowledgeabout hygiene

63

Zarate et al, 2008);

• A lack of public awareness about proper SWM (Yousif and Scott, 2007);

• An increase in illegal dumping (Manilla, 2007; Yousif and Scott, 2007); and

• An increase in littering, which is causing considerable drainage and sewer

problems (Yousif and Scott, 2007).

SWM is low on the municipal priority list due to its inability to generate ample

public and private approval when compared with other projects such as housing,

business, and the development of recreational facilities (Yousif and Scott, 2007). In

addition, frequent changes in municipal government and technical managers are a

significant barrier to improved SWM systems in Guatemala (GTZ, 2009). When a

political term comes to close and a new government is elected, all municipal office

workers, even those not involved in elections, are replaced, which generates a lack

in continuity. Any projects started during the tenure of one office that require time

and planning run the risk of being subsequently abandoned in the next term (Yousif

and Scott, 2007). This lack of long-‐term commitment from local authorities,

technical experts and the regional and national government are central challenges

to SMW projects throughout the country (Zarate et al., 2008). Guatemala has been

plagued by a lack of coordination between environmental authorities, limited

technical knowledge, and a lack of homogenous and reliable information on proper

SWM (GTZ, 2009).

3.1.2.1 National and international attention

The Guatemalan government has recognized the severity of SWM issues for some

time. In the 1990s, the government implemented a series of new policies aimed to

promote the protection of the environment and fund natural resource management

projects. Projects to be funded were to focus on pollution problems and on

ameliorating the provision of basic services, including environmental education in

schools and solid waste management (Zarate et al., 2008). The government also

aimed to strengthen institutions and increase citizen participation by decentralizing

administrative, economic and political power to municipalities. However, many

rural municipalities lacked the human and financial resources to implement such

64

policies, and the policy resulted in increased illegal dumping and burning of solid

wastes (Zarate et al., 2008). In 2004, the Ministry of Environmental Protection of

Guatemala, recognizing the need for decentralization and the involvement of

municipal-‐level actors in SWM, signed a trilateral agreement with the governments

of Mexico and Germany to implement an integrated waste management program in

the country similar to that of Mexico’s (UNDP, 2009). The program aimed to create

technical capacity in waste management by forming a network of environmental

promoters who could provide technical and advisory assistance to the country’s 332

municipalities (TTSSC, 2010). By 2008, 42 promoters had been trained through

three sessions over a period of 6 months. These promoters then trained 136

department delegates, 122 environmental inspectors, and 543 municipal employees

throughout the country (GTZ, 2009). However, a lack of integrated waste

management continues to plague less fortunate communities throughout the

country. Despite million-‐dollar loans and grants from bilateral and multilateral

development agencies to build capacity at the municipal level, municipalities lack

the human and financial resources to implement such SWM projects (Zarate et al.,

2008), such as those proposed by RED GIRESOL Guatemala. Project funding from

the German government terminated in 2009 (TTSSC, 2010), and further results have

not been reported. In addition, one of the main Guatemalan organizations involved

in RED GIRESOL Guatemala has been known for non-‐participatory enforcement of

environmental protection that has caused harm to poor, politically disadvantaged

groups in the past (Sundberg, 2002). Sundberg (2002) observes that environmental

decision-‐making is performed at a centralized level in Guatemala, and democratic,

participatory methods are rarely implemented. Authorities feel participatory

methods are too time consuming, or that stakeholders would not agree to proposed

projects. Though local SWM authorities often express support for public and

stakeholder participation, projects have repeatedly failed to allow stakeholder

involvement in decision-‐making processes. If stakeholders do become involved,

SWM authorities often fail to incorporate stakeholder expertise (Yousif and Scott,

2007). But SWM is a complex task that requires not only technical solutions, but the

participation of both the public and the private spheres (Zarate et al., 2008). Indeed,

65

in Guatemala, “the problems of appropriate solid waste management are issues of

governance rather than technical problems” (Yousif and Scott, 2007, p. 441).

More recently, the Guatemalan government collaborated with academics, waste

management businesses and civic organizations to create an ‘integrated waste

management strategy’ in an attempt to manage the 14.5 million tons of waste

produced annually (BNAmericas, 2011). While only 12 of the 332 municipalities

across the country currently have any form of SWM program (Yousif and Scott,

2007; BNAmericas, 2011), the new national strategy calls for SWM service

implementation within each one (BNAmericas, 2011).

The waste crisis has also been recognized by the international community for some

time. In 1998, the Pan American Health Organization (1998, pp. 299-‐300) reported

that “nowhere in Guatemala is there a system for the final disposal of solid waste. In

the urban areas it is estimated that 47% of the population has the benefit of solid

waste collection. The rest of the people burn, bury, or toss out their trash. In rural

areas only 4% of the population has the benefit of trash collection services. The

waste that is collected, in both urban and rural areas, is deposited in dumps with no

further treatment”. By 2007, these numbers had only changed to 58.3% and 4.5%

for urban and rural collection services, respectively (Pan American Health

Organization, 2007). In 2006, a documentary short film produced by Leslie Iwerks

and Mike Glad entitled Recycled Life explored Guatemala City’s 40-‐acre garbage

dump – the largest in Central America – and the community living within it (Iwerks,

2006). The film captured the dire state of the country’s waste crisis and drew

international attention to the issue, winning several international film festival

awards (Iwerks, 2006).

It becomes rapidly evident that SWM has been recognized by the national

government and the outside world as a critical issue of concern in Guatemala,

particularly for the politically and geographically disadvantaged, yet little attention

is paid to these communities’ perspectives on exactly what issues poor SWM creates,

influences, and exacerbates, and what structures prevent change within the

66

communities. To this end, this study aims to examine these SWM challenges in one

of the country’s politically and geographically disadvantaged communities in a

systemic, inclusive manner built on local perspectives.

This chapter is organized as follows: the first section introduces the area of study –

Todos Santos Cuchumatán – emphasizing the complex context in which the town

sits, and why it was chosen for the study. The second section details the

methodology used, which focuses principally on causal mapping through the use of

narratives. The third section examines the resulting causal maps and grids, looking

in particular at the structural elements and feedback loops that arose from the

mapping process. Finally, the fourth section discusses the significance of the

findings and proposes strategies to improve the solid waste situation in Todos

Santos and elsewhere.

3.1.3 Area of Study: Todos Santos Cuchumatán

In Guatemala, poverty is the greatest among the mostly rural indigenous

communities, which constitute nearly half of the population (Cook, Swanson, Eggett,

& Booth, 2009; World Bank, 2005a; Yousif & Scott, 2007). Accordingly, waste

management is extremely limited in many of these communities (Pan American

Health Organization, 1998). One such community is the remote Mam Mayan village

of Todos Santos, tucked in a valley of northwestern Guatemala’s Cuchumatanes

mountain range (Burrell, 2005; Mcclatchie Andrews, 1999). Located at 2,500 m.a.s.l.

on an ancient trade route connecting Mexico to the city of Huehuetenango, Todos

Santos is relatively isolated(Mcclatchie Andrews, 1999). As of 1999, the immediate

population in the village center was only 3,000, but this number escalates to 32,000

if the populations of the surrounding aldeas (hamlets) that line the mountain slopes

are included (Mcclatchie Andrews, 1999). A recent estimate puts the center at a

population of 7,000, and the greater region at a population of 34,000 (Chauvin,

2012). Approximately ninety percent of the population is of Mam Mayan descent

(Chauvin, 2012).

The majority of Todos Santeros are farmers. Poverty is high in this indigenous

community; the average monthly income is 800 Quetzales (approximately 100 USD),

67

and alcoholism and violence are prevalent (Mcclatchie Andrews, 1999). These

modest salaries, in combination with a lack of jobs and increased prices for land and

for construction of new houses, have led to a staggering increase in wage-‐labour

migration to the United States in recent years (Burrell, 2005). Each family has at

least one member living in the United States, approximately one third of the

population (Burrell, 2005). Young men and increasingly, young women, feel the only

way they can secure their family’s future is through work abroad. This large-‐scale

migration puts several socio-‐economic pressures on those who remain in the

village: Increased social differentiation and class stratification between those who

remain and those who migrate; increased prices for land and new houses; increased

local crime; and less technical expertise as these factors encourage the best

educated and most productive members of the community to migrate (Burrell,

2005). In addition, the education system is deteriorating not only at the national

level due to excruciatingly low salaries, a lack of government support, and massive

teachers’ strikes, but also at the local level as the majority of bilingual Mam/Spanish

teachers have gone to the United States and monolingual teachers from

Huehuetenango are replacing them (Burrell, 2005). Therefore, illiteracy rates are

high (Chauvin, 2011).

Todos Santeros were caught in one of the worst locations during the civil war –

between the guerrillas who sought refuge in the mountains and the army

determined to eradicate them (Mcclatchie Andrews, 1999). By 1982, each Todos

Santeros family had been impacted by the war. Those remaining took up arms and

created civil patrol groups to police and protect their own people (Mcclatchie

Andrews, 1999). Clearly, the impacts of the civil war on human resources,

infrastructure (Zarate et al, 2008), and confidence in judicial systems and political

institutions experienced in other parts of the country (Sundberg, 2002) are

prevalent in Todos Santos. These issues lead to severely weakened SWM systems

(Zarate et al., 2008), which subsequently impact local human health and

environmental wellbeing.

68

3.1.3.1 Solid Waste Management in Todos Santos

Connections between waste mismanagement and community wellbeing are

increasingly being recognized. In 2008, Vets Without Borders identified a need to

further investigate waste management issues in Todos Santos through a program to

control the local canine population and prevent the spread of rabies (VWB, 2009b).

This program brought to light the pivotal links between waste management, dog

overpopulation, and the wellbeing of the community (VWB, 2009a).

A field trip to Todos Santos was conducted from August 17, 2011 to September 7,

2011 to further investigate local SWM practices. Preliminary field observations

brought to light the following:

• Todos Santos is one of the municipalities with the highest altitude in the

region and is situated on the banks of the Limon River. Therefore, any

contamination to the Rio Limon affects many communities downstream,

including:

o Union Cantinil, Concepcion Huista, Jacaltenango, Santa Ana Huista,

San Antonio Huista, La Democracia and Nenton in the province of

Huehuetenango; and

o The south of the Mexican state Chiapas (Chauvin, 2011);

• The nearest city with recycling facilities (Xela) is 130km away but due to the

sinuous route through the Cuchamatanes mountain range, the trip takes a

vehicle approximately 5 hours;

• In the town center, solid waste (including animal fecal matter) is present in

the streets, and final disposal takes place in an open dumpsite near the

centre of the town;

• The unregulated dumpsite is located on a steep embankment of the Rio

Limon, directly adjacent to a residential property where household pigs

graze on waste, and directly above a field of corn that grows on the bank of

the river;

• Two street sweepers are employed by the municipality to collect garbage

thrown in the streets and transport it to the dump;

69

• Garbage receptacles exist in the town square and there has been a push to

educate the population to dispose of garbage “where it belongs” (in these

receptacles) but there is no mechanism in place to empty them;

• During the spring of 2011 the municipality hired a bulldozer to bury the

dump site, but the machinery nearly fell into the river and the task could not

be completed (Chauvin, 2011);

• Door-‐to-‐door solid waste collection occurs weekly in the town centre, where

roads are wide enough for trucks, but no collection occurs in communities

outside of the village center;

• Vectors including dogs, cats (some of which are household pets), vultures,

flies, cockroaches and other insects scavenge at the dump;

• Educational programs focusing on environmental issues and recycling have

begun to take place in the local schools;

• Peace Corps has had several volunteers working in the community for a

number of years. One recently initiated the construction of a school that used

water bottles stuffed with waste as bricks. However, no further construction

of this type has occurred;

• The town’s abattoir, located near the center of town, consists of a holding pen

with a dirt floor and a concrete building with a sink and running water. It is a

very unclean facility: garbage and waste litters the pen, and animal remains

from previous slaughters cover the sink, doors, walls, and floor. Animal

remains are disposed of in the drain, which leads directly to the river, and

other scraps are thrown to a large crowd of dogs. Animals are quartered

directly on the floor and meat is thrown into a truck for sale at the market;

• A health survey conducted by the local doctor, identified thousands of health

cases potentially associated with poor SWM. Infections, inflammations, and

gastrointestinal issues may be directly related to contamination brought into

the home and workplace by vectors of disease that breed and live in the town

dump. Certain infections may be related to poor air quality due to waste

burning practices and fires in the dump. Such cases include:

70

o Intestinal bacterial infection: 1,272 cases

o Intestinal parasite: 1,221

o Acute respiratory infection: 721

o Urinary tract infection: 579

o Amebic dysentery: 574

o Diarrhea: 524

o Eye inflammation: 422

o General skin inflammation: 39 (Pablo, 2011);

• Many illnesses go unreported or cannot be properly diagnosed due to a lack

of financial and human medical resources. One doctor in an extremely limited

clinic services approximately 34,000 people (Pablo, 2011), many of whom

live a considerable distance from the town center;

• Local authorities show some interest in waste management issues, but other

projects, such as education or road construction receive priority;

• The national push for SWM in every municipality has resulted in the

allocation of a modest amount of funds for 2012, expanding somewhat in

2013, for SWM in Todos Santos; and

• Corruption limits the success of waste projects in the municipality. Many

projects that are “funded” by the local authorities receive from half to none of

the funding they are initially allotted (Chauvin, 2011).

These issues illustrate some of the ‘symptoms’ that have arisen as a result of the

nature of the SWM system in Todos Santos. The following sections explore these and

other ‘symptoms’, and – more importantly – the structure of the system creating

them from the many perspectives of the local community in order to develop a

better understanding of how best to move forward.

3.2 Methodology Traditional engineering approaches are centered on quantitative analysis and

technology. The ‘traditional engineer’ has been said to hold “a belief in an ability to

lead, based on qualities of technical expertise and rational decision-‐making not held

by the public at large” (Robbins, 2007, p. 99). This elitist perception of mental

71

superiority has lead traditional engineering approaches to become one-‐way

interactions focused on information transfer to the ‘idealistic, imprecise thinkers’ of

the general populace (Robbins, 2007). Such ‘top-‐down’ approaches, from the

government or international entities, have clearly failed to address the SWM issues

in Todos Santos in the past. It becomes increasingly evident that a methodological

approach centered on inclusivity, local ownership, and multiple legitimate

perspectives is essential to initiate change in the community. Qualitative methods

must complement traditional problem-‐solving, and expertise must be recognized as

collective; the knowledge of the engineer or scientist “is no longer the sole arbiter of

some eternal truth” (Waltner-‐Toews et al., 2003, p. 29). It is for these reasons that

this study uses a methodology grounded in complex, adaptive systems theory and

post-‐normal science; both schools of thought are driven by the need to deal with

complexity, and thus require the merging of qualitative methods with traditional

problem solving (see Figure 12 for a graphical representation of the methodology).

72

Figure 12. Methodology

3.2.1 Theoretical approach

This study is first framed by systems thinking, and in particular, complex adaptive

systems theory. It is in cases like that of the waste crisis in Todos Santos that it

becomes so evident that human systems – including political, social, financial, and

cultural – have a profound influence on natural systems. In turn, the degradation of

natural resources, which threatens human health and wellbeing in a number of

Theoretical Approach

Complex,AdaptiveSystems

Methodological Approach

Data Collection

SamplingMethods

Data Analysis

Community -Scale Maps

LeveragePoint

Analysis

Post-NormalScience

CausalMapping

Semi-StructuredInterviews

Quantitativeand

QualitativeAssessment

Case Study

QualitativeMethods

73

ways, makes it unmistakably apparent that ecological systems have enormous

impacts on human health. It is through such observations that researchers have

recognized human and ecological systems as elements of the same system (Berkes &

Folke, 1998; Waltner-‐Toews et al., 2005); any “delineation between them is

arbitrary and artificial” (Waltner-‐Toews et al., 2005, p. 158). It has also been

recognized that sustainable management of these complex, adaptive eco-‐social

systems must incorporate a wide variety of information from multiple, legitimate

perspectives (Checkland, 2000; Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993; Kay et al., 1999; Waltner-‐

Toews et al., 2003). The resulting data multiple perspectives provide are

quantitative and qualitative, subjective and complex.

It is this complexity, generated by a systems perspective, that caused this study to

be founded in the broader theory of ‘post-‐normal’ science. Post-‐normal science,

developed by Funtowics and Ravetz, is a new approach brought about by the

complexity of risk and environment policy issues (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). It

moves away from the reductionism of the traditional problem-‐solving strategies of

classical science, applied science, and professional consultancy, which fail when

systems uncertainties or decision stakes are high. In post-‐normal science, an

“extended peer community” – a plurality of legitimate perspectives – share expert

knowledge (Funtowics & Ravets, 1993). Management is conducted collectively,

through anticipation, action, and adaptation (Waltner-‐Toews et al., 2003). In post-‐

normal science, “the criteria for good quality work do not merely reside in a

particular set of methods and tools, or even in particular successes or failures, but in

the collective learning and improved management that results” (Waltner-‐Toews et

al., 2003, p. 29). Post-‐normal approaches thus require a thorough understanding of

the context, and suggest that the role of the researcher is not to present decision-‐

makers with one single solution but a set of probable scenarios or narratives about

how the future might unfold. The SWM issues in Todos Santos are certainly post-‐

normal: the high complexity of managerial and technical aspects make uncertainties

high, and conflicting costs and benefits for a wide variety of stakeholders elevate

decision stakes.

74

3.2.2 Methodological Approach

3.2.2.1 Case Study Approach

Case studies have been used for decades as teaching and research tools in a variety

of disciplines. The more complex and contextualized the subject of research, the

more valuable this approach can be (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). Thus it has gained

ground in disciplines that must consider historic dynamics and multiple

perspectives of natural and social systems, such as management studies,

engineering, community sociology, environmental sciences and planning sciences

(Scholz & Tietje, 2002). The approach is an empirical enquiry that investigates a

problem within its real-‐life context. Multiple mutually dependent variables must be

synthesized in order to understand the problem or investigate potential solutions.

(Scholz & Tietje, 2002). The approach entails three principal steps (Patton, 2002):

1. Assembling the raw case data, which consists of all the contextual

information specific to the case (interviews, observations, records or files,

media sources, etc.);

2. Constructing a case record, which involves condensing the raw data into an

organized, manageable, and accessible file; and

3. Composing a final case study narrative, which is a holistic, descriptive picture

or story that ensures all the information necessary to develop a thorough

understanding of the uniqueness of the case is accessible to the

reader/viewer.

A case study approach is an appropriate method to examine the SWM issues faced

by rapidly developing communities in Guatemala for a variety of reasons: case

studies aid in understanding real, complex problems that cannot be handled with

known analytical methods; support decision-‐making; and help to organize different

types of knowledge from different disciplinary or stakeholder perspectives (Scholz

& Tietje, 2002).

3.2.2.2 Qualitative Methods: Understanding complexity through narrative

Due to the complex nature of systems research, systems approaches often lead to

75

and rely heavily upon qualitative methods of inquiry. Additionally, having a systems

perspective can aid in both framing qualitative questions and making sense out of

qualitative data (Patton, 2002). Waltner-‐Toews et al. (2008, p. 38) point out that

“one cannot model complexity, but one can approach it using analogy and

narrative”. In the post-‐normal paradigm developed by Funtowicz and Ravetz

(1993), a new role been proposed for the scientist in decision making: no longer

does the scientist make “objective” predictions as the basis of decisions; the new

role requires the scientist to provide the community and decision makers alike with

“an appreciation, through narrative descriptions, of how the future might unfold”

(Kay et al., 1999, p. 728). Thus, researchers using systems approaches have

synthesized locally relevant information into context specific, coherent, collective

narratives, which are better able to capture the richness of possibilities than

traditional, reductionist approaches (see, for example, Kay et al. (1999); Waltner-‐

Toews et al. (2003); Waltner-‐Toews et al. (2005); Waltner-‐Toews et al. (2008)).

According to Zellmer, Allen, and Kesseboehmer (2006, p. 171), “narrative is the key

to dealing with complexity without compromise”. Waltner-‐Toews et al (2008)

believe constructing narratives is crucial to developing a “best understanding” of

complex systems.

Narratives are not concerned with identifying the objective “truth” of a situation.

They are displays of subjectivity; stories that explicitly state what the narrator

views as important (Zellmer et al., 2006). Narratives can provide qualitative and

quantitative understanding of many systemic aspects including the human context;

the structure of the system; feedback and autocatalytic loops; and what might

enable or disable such loops (Kay et al., 1999). In turn, this knowledge can inform

the community and decision makers about the system’s possible future states of

organization; the conditions under which these states might occur; the tradeoffs

that come with each state; suitable approaches that will allow the community to

adapt to new situations; and, “perhaps most importantly, the appropriate level of

confidence that the narrative deserves; that is our degree of uncertainty” (Kay et al.,

1999, p. 729). Essentially, narrative is used as the basis of management and

76

governance to learn, readjust, and adapt human activities while the eco-‐social

system evolves as one self-‐organizing entity (Waltner-‐Toews et al., 2008).

The complex context in which Todos Santos sits demands a methodology both

capable of dealing with complexity and strongly considerate of context and history

in all forms: social, cultural, political, economic, and ecological. The beauty of

narrative is its ability to capture the context of complex situations, often overlooked

in reductionist approaches, through an exploration of history. Many systems

thinkers have identified the importance of history when working with systems (see

Checkland (2000); Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993); Kay et al. (1999); Waltner-‐Toews

et al. (2005)). Indeed, Checkland (2000) has noted that the contents of the system

are the product of the history of the system itself.

The methodology used in this study takes advantage of the flexible nature of

narratives by developing them in semi-‐structured interviews to create a multi-‐

perspective system ‘meta-‐narrative’ rooted in local context and history.

3.2.2.3 Blended Assessment Methods and Problem-‐Solving Approach

While qualitative data is collected through narrative, this study employs an analysis

technique that blends quantitative and qualitative assessment and is founded in the

problem-‐solving approach of classical engineering. Qualitative analysis is used in

the amalgamation of individual participant narratives, and relationships identified

through qualitative data collection are quantified in order to determine key points

to intervene in the overarching system. The use of quantitative analysis was

employed to ensure leverage points that may be counterintuitive to the study

participants and the researcher are identified (see section 3.2.4.1 for details).

3.2.3 Data collection

3.2.3.1 Snowball and random purposeful sampling methods

A field trip to Todos Santos Cuchumatán was conducted in late August, 2011. The

recruitment of community members and waste management employees was

performed through a combination of the snowball method and random purposeful

77

sampling on an open invitation and volunteer basis. Recruitment took place over a

period of one month. A snowball process was initiated through academic and civil

society contacts with existing connections to the community. Random purposeful

sampling recruitment was carried out over the local radio and in the town center

through conversation. The radio announcement and verbal open invitations

informed all potential participants of the purpose of the study and the roles and

responsibilities involved with participation (e.g., participants’ rights, time

commitment, explanation of interview process, project outline). All interested

community members were contacted to arrange an interview. The recruited

participants comprised a geographically and demographically diverse array of

community members working in many areas, including waste management, local

business, municipal government, education, and homemaking. Sixty percent of the

participants were male and forty percent were female. Twenty percent were

considered ‘youth’ (i.e. age sixteen to nineteen). In total, twenty participants were

recruited.

3.2.3.2 Causal mapping

Waltner-‐Toews et al. (2003) have expanded the notion of narrative to include

diagrams and models. Each narrative must have a context in which it is told, and

such a context is provided by models that identify human systems as subsystems

nested within ecological systems (Waltner-‐Toews et al., 2003). Models can be useful

for integrating systemic depictions by local people with other kinds of knowledge

derived in other ways (Waltner-‐Toews et al., 2003). Checkland (2000) has found

that creating systems models as devices to explore a given situation has lead to

insights time after time. This study follows suit by exploring systemic SWM issues in

Todos Santos through narrative model building. Specifically, the main tools used in

this study are causal maps constructed at the individual and community levels.

Causal maps, also known as cognitive maps, are qualitative models of how a given

system functions (Fairweather, 2010; Özesmi & Özesmi, 2004). These maps consist

of variables defined by the mapper as important, which can be physical quantities or

abstract ideas, and the causal relationships between them (Özesmi & Özesmi, 2004).

78

Thus, causal maps visually explore complex cause-‐effect relationships through

discussion of principal issues of concern, in-‐depth brainstorming, and the pursuit of

connections between issues along multiple cause-‐effect chains. The outcome results

in two benefits: the complex relationships in waste management are demonstrated,

and root causes are brought to light. Once identified, root causes can offer potential

leverage points that can act as local action entry points. Actions based on a fuller

understanding of systemic relationships and root causes increase the likelihood of a

sustainable, long-‐term systemic improvement.

The flexible, user-‐defined nature of the causal maps also prohibits a standard

‘cookbook’ approach from developing. Each causal map is a unique representation

of perspective; information is presented as the collaborator prefers. The flexible

nature of the causal map is critical, as no single tool or approach can adequately

accommodate the large diversity of perspectives between individuals or cases. The

causal map approach provides a robust initiating framework while allowing for

adaptation in the field to accommodate ground-‐level realities.

Participatory causal mapping – i.e., cognitive mapping that shows variables and

causal relationships as defined by stakeholders, not the researcher – was first used

by Axelrod in 1976 (Axelrod, 1976). A wide variety of studies have used the

technique since to examine decision-‐making and perceptions of complex social

systems (see Özesmi & Özesmi, (2004) for a review of such studies). Two categories

of causal maps exist: the first depicts relationships in an entirely qualitative manner,

and the second numerically assesses the strength of relationships between variables

(Fairweather, 2010). The former is widely used in group mapping exercises where

numerous people work together to create one large map for problem-‐solving and

goal achievement purposes (Fairweather, 2010). The latter is more commonly

employed in approaches that compare or amalgamate multiple individual causal

maps for decision-‐making purposes and to ensure solutions are acceptable to the

public (Fairweather, 2010; Özesmi & Özesmi, 2004). This study employs the latter

form in order to identify the similarities and differences among the perspectives of

different stakeholder groups, and to obtain the insights of those who might be

79

unable to attend a group meeting or may be less likely to voice an opinion in a larger

group due to power relationships among group members.

3.2.3.3 Semi-‐structured interview process

A narrative style, semi-‐structured interview process was used, which was outlined

in an interview procedure document prior to data collection (see Appendix A).

Interview prompts were based on the themes presented in this document, but

varied in order and wording. The semi-‐structured, narrative style of the interview

targeted SWM issues in Todos Santos, but allowed conversation to flow freely and

be directed by participants to areas within their own comfort zone and interests.

During the interview process, participants constructed individual causal maps from

the discussion. Following the methodology laid out by Özesmi & Özesmi (2004), the

causal mapping process began with participants describing all the variables in the

SWM system, and then identifying the causal connections between variables. This

construction process was conducted roughly according to the methodology laid out

by Vennix (1996) (see Figure 13). Throughout this process, the strength of

relationships between variables was discussed as being weak, medium, or strong.

These qualitative perspectives were then translated into numerical ratings of 1, 2,

and 3, respectively. Causal maps were reviewed with each participant at the end of

the interview process to ensure the information they shared was graphically

depicted according to their perspective. Interviews ranged in length from 30

minutes to 2 hours. With the consent of the individual participants, each interview

was audio-‐recorded for reviewing purposes.

80

Figure 13. Participatory Model Building (adapted from Vennix, 1996)

3.2.4 Data analysis

3.2.4.1 Group maps

Individual causal maps can be augmented and additively superimposed to yield a

group causal map that may be a better representation of the system in question

(Kosko, 1988; Özesmi & Özesmi, 2004). Larger groups of experts provide more

reliable and accurate information, and stakeholder maps can provide information

not captured at the individual scale (Özesmi & Özesmi, 2004); in this case the whole

is greater than the sum of its parts. In addition, a variety of multi-‐stakeholder maps,

amalgamated according to existing social groups, can provide informative

comparative data. Indeed, Özesmi & Özesmi (2004, p. 50) have found that “by

examining the structure of maps we can determine how stakeholders view the

Causes Problem Variable Consequences

Step 1: Identify Problem Variable

Step 2: Adding Causes

Step 3: Adding Consequences

Step 4: Identify feedback loops

X

X

X

OO

OO

OO

OO

O O

O O

O

O O

O O

O

X

OO

OO

O O

O O

O

O O

O O

O

81

system, for example whether they perceive a lot of forcing functions affecting the

system which are out of their control, or whether they see the system as hierarchical

or more democratic... If some groups perceive more relationships, they will have

more options available to change things. Thus these groups may be a catalyst for

change”.

In Todos Santos, women and youth generally play little-‐to-‐no role in SWM affairs,

and it became clear throughout the interview process that the voices of these

marginalized groups could contribute to SWM developments, and should thus be

explicitly heard. Therefore, four synthesized group causal maps depicting the

perspectives of men, women, youth, and the community at large were constructed

after all individual causal maps were completed and reviewed by participants.

These group maps allow for a broader, synthesized perspective of the SWM issues in

Todos Santos, and for differentiation of perceptions of SWM problems, causes,

consequences, system structures, and community needs across existing social

groups.

3.2.4.2 Leverage point analysis

Leverage points are key places to intervene in a system where a small change can

lead to a large shift in system behaviour (Meadows, 2008). The complexity of

systems leads to surprising behaviour, meaning leverage points are often

counterintuitive. Meadows (2008) compiled a ‘work-‐in-‐progress’ list of leverage

points, from the least to the most effective at instigating systemic change:

• Constants and parameters (e.g. subsidies, taxes)

• Buffers

• Stock-‐and-‐flow structures (i.e. physical arrangement of systems)

• Delays

• Balancing feedback loops

• Reinforcing feedback loops

• Information flows (i.e. who does and does not have access to information)

• System rules (e.g. constraints, incentives, punishments)

82

• Self-‐organization (i.e. the power to add or change system structure)

• Goals (i.e. the purpose or function of the system)

• Paradigms

• Transcending paradigms

From first to last, these leverage points are also increasingly difficult to access

(Meadows, 2008).

In this study, the system structure is examined in order to identify key points to

intervene in the system. This examination is carried out by assessing the visual

representation of the system structure depicted in the group maps, and by

numerically categorizing the connectedness of variables in causal matrices.

Additionally, relative importance of variables, identified qualitatively in the

interview process, is quantified in the four group maps by sizing the variables

according to the number of participants that expressed them. This was done in

order to provide the reader with a visual representation of dominant themes of

concern in the community, and in order to aid the researcher in identifying leverage

points that may be able to impact issues affecting a broad spectrum of community

members.

3.2.4.2.1 Causal Matrices

Building a causal matrix, also known as an impact matrix, is a technique that has

been used by a variety of researchers to quantify and synthesize causal mapping

data (see Fairweather, 2010; Özesmi & Özesmi, 2004; Scholz & Tietje, 2002). In this

technique, as described by Scholz and Tietje (2002), the strength of causal

relationships between variables is coded with a number and entered into a variable

matrix. Only direct impacts of one variable on another are considered; indirect

causes are excluded. The impact of each variable on the others is entered and

summed in the last column and row, producing a number that represents the

variable’s activity, (i.e. impact on all other variables), and passivity or sensitivity (i.e.

how much other variables impact it) (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). Table 2 demonstrates

this concept.

83

Table 2. Example of a causal matrix (adapted from Scholz & Tieje, 2002)

Variable A

Variable B

Variable C

Variable D

Activity

Variable A

0 3 0 3

Variable B 0

2 2 4

Variable C 1 0

0 1

Variable D 0 2 0

2

Passivity 1 2 5 2

In this study, the strength of causal relationships, described by participants

qualitatively throughout the interview process, was quantified into three categories:

1 = low strength, 2 = medium strength, and 3 = high strength. Fairweather (2010)

indicates that using a score of three is effective at demonstrating the importance of

variables and connections without overwhelming the reader. Qualitative analysis

was used to determine the strength of each relationship based on importance as

indicated by study participants, and based on the number of participants that

discussed them. Each variable was entered into a matrix whereby the row variable

was assigned to impact the column variable. Activity and passivity values were

calculated for each variable in each of the four group maps.

3.2.4.2.2 Causal Grid

These activity and passivity values are then plotted on a causal grid, which identifies

the variables as active, ambivalent, buffering, or passive (see Figure 14) (Scholz &

Tietje, 2002).

84

Figure 14. Example of a causal grid (adapted from Scholz & Tietje, 2002)

Active variables have a strong influence on the system, receive a low influence from

the system, and therefore act as context or control factors (e.g. Variable A in Figure

14). Ambivalent variables have a strong influence on the system, receive a strong

influence from the system, and are therefore highly embedded and considered

critical or sensitive factors (e.g. Variable B). Buffering variables have a low influence

on the system, receive a low influence from the system, and thus are insignificant

factors (e.g. Variable D). Finally, passive variables have a low influence on the

system, receive a high influence from the system, and are therefore considered

indicator factors (e.g. Variable C). The lines separating the quadrants fall on the

mean activity and passivity values (Scholz & Tietje, 2002).

3.3 Results The group maps represent the SWM system from the perspectives of each group

sampled (men, women, and youth) and from the perspective of the community at

large. The main focus was on the importance of variables, indicated by the number

Active Ambivalent

Buffer Passive

Activity

Sensitivity/Passivity

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

Variable A

Variable B

Variable CVariable D

0

Mean Activity

Mea

n Pa

ssiv

ity

85

of participants considering them to be critical and by the sum of the average weights

given to arrows entering and leaving the variables, and the balancing and

reinforcing feedback loops that make up the system structure. A group map

depicting all variables discussed would be difficult to display and interpret, as many

variables and connections would have a very low importance after the averaging

process. Therefore, variables with very low importance and relationships that

received very low average scores were eliminated. However, some variables and

relationships on the group maps were mentioned by only one participant, yet were

not eliminated in the amalgamation process due to the importance of the variable or

relationship, as described by the participant, or the critical insight they supplied, as

interpreted by the researcher. Inevitably, these system components do not feature

strongly in the system structure, but provide a contextual richness that would

otherwise be lost. Variables depicted on participants’ maps that were worded

slightly differently but represented the same concept were amalgamated. For ease

of interpretation, variables were organized to have the minimum number of

crossing arrows.

3.3.1 Group map 1: Men’s perspectives

Figure 15 shows the SWM system from the perspective of the adult male

participants. This causal map demonstrates the importance of each variable and the

strength of the connections between variables by size. At the core of the map is the

problem variable: the adequacy of SWM. This variable was considered critical by all

participants, and has the strongest connections with other factors.

86

Figure 15. Group map 1: Men's perspectives

Other top variables include health and illness, economic income and economic

capital, environmental systems and degradation, and interest or understanding

about the waste issue. Secondary variables include population growth, land

availability, education, funding for SWM, municipal interest in other things,

preoccupation with other community needs, life support systems, and people

throwing waste in the streets.

Health

EnvironmentalSystems

Funding forSWM

Plastic Quantity

EconomicCapital

Waste Quantity

Health and Interest in SWM Loop

Waste in the Streets Loop

Environment and Population Loop

Waste Quantity Loop

Mexican Contraband

Need to Rely onPre-Packaged GoodsDiabetes

Influx of JunkFood

Plastic is Cheap

Alcoholism andDomestic Violence

Preoccupation withOther Community

Needs

Generation Rate

Preservation ofCulture and Language

PopulationGrowth

Remittances

Tourism

Proximity ofDump andAbattoir to

Town Center

Locations for People toResponsibly Dispose of

Waste

Understanding of Howto Manage Waste

Time Passing withNo Change

Interest in Cultureand Language

Desire forModern Culture

Increase inConsumption

People ThrowWaste in the

Streets

Well-PreparedPolitical Figures

Municipal (andNational) Organization

Coordination withLocal Businesses

WidespreadParticipation

Accessibility ofEducation

Education

Valuing Womenand Youth

Inclusion of Youth inIdea or Solution

Generation

Generations ofSubsistenceFarmers withLittle Money

Projects that are"Owned" By the

Community

People areMaterialistic

Desire to GetAbove the

Poverty Line

Interest in Projects thatdo not Generate Money

Interest/ Understandingabout the Waste Issue

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

-

+

+

-

+

-

Municipal Interestin Other Things

-

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

LandAvailability

Market forRecyclable Material

Adequacy ofSWM

+

-

+

Expenditures

Degradation

Illness +

+

+

-

+

Life SupportSystems

+

-

Recycling

Proper Location toConstruct SWM

Facilities+

-

-

+

-

MunicipalExpenditures

Municipal BudgetContribution

+

+

+

-

-

+

Influx of Plastic

+

+ +

EconomicIncome

+

+

+

+

-

Reduction Rate

+

+

LEGEND

B

B

B

1 participant

2 participants

3-4 participants5-6 participants

Low

RelationshipStrengths:

Medium

High

Variable Sizing:

7-8 participants

9-10 participants

+

STOCKFlow Rate

Reinforcing Feedback Loop

Balancing Feedback Loop

Other Elements:

87

The structure of the system is founded upon one balancing and three reinforcing

feedback loops. The Health and Interest in SWM Loop is strong, while the other

three loops are of medium strength.

While the education variable does not participate in a feedback loop, it greatly

influences several of them. Education influences the variable

‘Interest/Understanding about the Waste Issue’ through a lack of waste education,

and a lack of education about cleanliness and the importance of focusing on health.

It also influences this variable through a string of other variables that impact how

much projects are “owned” by the community. Concerns about saving for an

education preoccupy the community and draw away from the waste issue through

‘Preoccupations with Other Community Needs’. Education about the community’s

traditions impacts the level of interest in the traditional language and practices. As

knowledge of and interest in traditions decreases, the community, and particularly

the youth, are more strongly influenced by and interested in modern culture and

consumerism. This in turn decreases the community’s interest in preserving

traditions and culture, which are large attractions for tourists.

3.3.2 Men’s Causal Grid

Conducting a causal grid analysis resulted in the identification of four variables that may act as critical leverage points or depict the context (active), four variables that may act as indicators (passive), twenty highly sensitive variables (ambivalent), and eighteen negligible factors (buffer) (see

Figure 16 and Table 3).

88

Figure 16. Causal Grid 1: Men's perspectives

Table 3. Men's causal grid results

Active Ambivalent

Buffer Passive

Activity


0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7 8 9 10 16 17

8

9

10

11

12

Accessibility ofEducation

Adequacy of SWM


Coordination withLocal Business

Degradation

Desire forModernCulture

Desire to Get AbovePoverty Line

Diabetes

EconomicCapital

Economic Income

Education


Funding forSWM

Generations ofSubsistence Farmers

Health

Illness

Inclusion ofYouth

Influx ofJunk Food

Influx of Plastic

Interest in Culture/Language

Interest inProjects that

do no GenerateMoney

Interest/Understanding about the

Waste Issue

Life SupportSystems

Market forRecycled Goods

Mexican Contraband


MunicipalOrganization

Need to Rely onPre-Packaged Goods

People are Materialistic

People Throw Wastein the Streets

Plastic is Cheap

Plastic Quantity

Population Growth

Preoccupationwith OtherCommunity

Needs

Preservation of Culture

Projects that are"Owned" by the

Community


Facilities Recycling

Remittances

Time Passing withNo Change

Tourism

UnderstandingHow to Manage

Waste


Waste Generation Rate

Waste Quantity

Waste Reduction Rate

Well-Prepared Leaders

WidespreadParticipation

\/\/\/\/

89

Active Variables Passive Variables Ambivalent Variables

• Education • Remittances • Market for

Recyclable Material

• Projects that are “Owned” by the Community

• Widespread Participation

• Desire for Modern Culture

• Tourism • Plastic Quantity

• Adequacy of SWM • Environmental Systems • Environmental

Degradation • Recycling • Population Growth • Proper Location to

Construct SWM Facilities • Municipal Expenditures • Life Support Systems • Economic Income • Waste Generation Rate • Influx of Plastic • People Throw Waste in the

Streets • Interest in Projects that Do

Not Generate Money • Illness • Funding for SWM • Economic Capital • Waste Quantity • Preoccupation with Other

Community Needs • Health • Interest/Understanding

about the Waste Issue

3.3.3 Group map 2: Women’s perspectives

At the core of the map representing the adult female perspectives of the SWM

system (see Figure 17) is again the problem variable, adequacy of SWM. This variable

was also considered critical by all participants, and has the strongest relationships

with other variables. The other top variables on the women’s map are health and

education, followed by resource access, illness, environmental systems and

degradation, and proximity of the dump and abattoir to the town center. Secondary

variables include other decreases in wellbeing, economic income and capital,

women’s issues, women’s participation, women have to work many jobs and have

little time, plastic influx and quantity, and people throw waste in the streets.

90

Figure 17. Group map 2: Women's perspectives

3.3.4 Women’s Causal Grid

Six reinforcing feedback loops make up the foundation of the system structure, all of

which are of medium strength except the Environment and Health Loop and the

Contamination and Health Loop. Women’s Causal Grid

The results of the women’s causal grid analysis identifies variables that may act as critical leverage points or depict the context (active), six variables that may act as indicators (passive), sixteen variables that are highly sensitive

EconomicCapital

PlasticQuantity


Health

Quantity ofWaste

Youth and Tradition Loop

Education and Poverty Loop

Contamination and Health Loop

Waste in the Streets Loop Proximity ofDump to theTown Center Environment and Health Loop

Economic Income Loop

Adequacy ofSWM

+

-

Town Aesthetics

Tourism

Preoccupation withOther Issues

++

EconomicIncome

Expenditure

+

Illness

ResourceAccess

+

Other Decreases inWellbeing

-

-

Youth DiscussingAnything of Value

Youth are a DifferentGeneration: Interest in

Consumerism andModernization

Location for People toResponsibly Put Waste


Streets

Educated Youth

Poverty

Education

MaintainingTraditions

-

+

-

Generation Rate

Influx ofPlastic

Recycling

-

+

-

+

-

-

Degradation+

+

+

Increasein JunkFood

+

Population Growth

Land Availability

Ability to Survive asSubsistence Farmers

Women Have to WorkMany Jobs and Have

Little Time

-

-

+

+

+

Female Leaders

Patriarchal Society

Women's Issues

Waste as aPolitical Priority

Women'sParticipation

Culture of WasteBurning

-

+

++

+

-

-

-

+

-

-

++

Men Leaving forOther Countries

+

+

+

Preserving Respect

+

-

Increasing Attitudesof "Disposable"

Self-Centeredness

+

+

Contaminationin Schools and

the Home

+

-

LocalBusinessSuccess

The Dumpis Full

+

-

+

+

-

+

LEGEND

B

B

B

1 participant

2 participants

3 participants

4 participants

Low


Medium

High

Variable Sizing:

5 participants

6 participants

Corruption

-

STOCK



Other Elements:

Flow RateReduction Rate

+

91

(ambivalent), and sixteen variables that are negligible (buffer) (see Figure 18 and

Table 4).

Figure 18. Causal grid 2: Women’s perspectives

Active Ambivalent

Buffer Passive

Activity


0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7 8 9 10 15 16

8

9

10

11

\/\/\/\/

11

Ability to Survive asSubsistence Farmers

Adequacy of SWM

Contamination inSchools and the Home

Culture ofBurning Waste

Degradation

Economic Capital

Economic Income

Educated Youth

Education

Environmental Systems

FemaleLeaders

Waste Generation Rate

Health

Illness

Increase in Junk Food

Increasing"Disposable" Attitude

Influx of Plastic

Land AvailabilityLocal Business Success

Location for People toResponsibly Put Waste

Maintaining TraditionsMen Leaving forOther Countries

Other Decreases inWellbeing

Patriarchal Society


Streets

Plastic Quantity

Population Growth

Poverty

Preoccupationwith Other

Issues

Preserving Respect

Proximity of Dump andAbattoir to Town Center

Quantity ofWaste

Recycling

Resource Access

Self-Centeredness

The Dump is Full

Tourism

TownAesthetics

Waste as aPolitical Priority

Women Work ManyJobs, Have Little Time

Women's Issues

Women'sParticipation

Youth's Interest inConsumerism/ Modern

Culture


Corruption

92

Table 4. Women's causal grid results


• Patriarchal Society

• Educated Youth • Youth’s Interest

in Consumerism/ Modern Culture

• Maintaining traditions

• Women’s Issues • Men Leaving for

Other Countries

• Women’s Participation

• Female Leaders • Tourism • Quantity of

Waste • Influx of Plastic • Plastic Quantity

• Adequacy of SWM • Education • Environmental Systems • Environmental

Degradation • Women Work Many Jobs,

Have Little Time • Population Growth • Economic Income • Waste Generation Rate • People Throw Waste in the

Streets • Illness • Economic Capital • Preoccupation with Other

Community Needs • Health • Town Aesthetics • Resource Access • Contamination in Schools

and the Home

3.3.5 Group map 3: Youth’s perspectives

The causal map depicting the perspectives of the youth participants (see Figure 19)

is centered on the adequacy of SWM, which was discussed by all participants and

has the strongest relationships with other variables. The youth identified 4 other

top variables: environmental systems, degradation, family wellbeing, and education.

Secondary variables include health and illness; issues of women and youth;

contamination; youth involvement; predominantly youth throw waste in the streets;

an appropriately located sanitary landfill; and economic income and capital.

93

Figure 19. Group map 3: Youth's perspectives

The SWM system as depicted from the perspectives of youth contains three

reinforcing feedback loops and two balancing feedback loops. The Youth and

Culture Loop and Waste Generation Loop are of low strength, while all other loops

are of medium strength.

Waste Quantity

Adequacy ofSWM

-

Generation

Preservation ofCulture and Language

Youth Valuingthe Town

+

+

-

Predominantly YouthThrow Waste in the

Streets

Youth that are Concernedwith Waste or Conscious of

their Impact

YouthInvolvement

Education

Town Aesthetics(Sight and Smell)


Degradation

Tourism

FamilyWellbeing

Community Wellbeing

AuthoritiesRegulating Waste

Professional,Educated Leaders

Opportunities forChildren/Youth to Study

+

+

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

-

Youth and Culture Loop

+

+

+

Tourism Loop 1

Health and Education Loop

Waste Generation Loop

Contamination-

+

HealthResource Access

Illness+

+

AuthoritiesValuing Youth

+

Corruption

-

EconomicCapital

EconomicIncome

Expenditure

+

+

Youth/Women'sIssues


+

-

Interest in OtherProjects

-

Distant, SanitaryLandfill

LandAvailability

+

+

RecyclingProgram

+

LEGEND

B

B

B

1 participant

2 participants

3 participants

4 participants

Low


Medium

High

Variable Sizing:+

STOCK



Other Elements:

Flow Rate

Tourism Loop 2

94

3.3.6 Youth’s Causal Grid

The results of the leverage point analysis produced a causal grid from the

perspective of youth. This grid identifies six variables the youth participants believe

may act as critical leverage points or depict the context (active), one variable that

may act as an indicator (passive), fourteen that are highly sensitive (ambivalent),

and twelve that are negligible (buffer) (see Figure 20 and Table 5).

Figure 20. Causal grid 3: Youth's Perspectives

Table 5. Youth's causal grid results

Active Ambivalent

Buffer Passive

Activity


0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7

Town Aesthetics EnvironmentalSystems

Degradation

Tourism

Corruption

AuthoritiesRegulating

Waste

ProfessionalEducated Leaders

Predominantly YouthThrow Waste in the Streets

Youth That areConcerned with

Waste or Consciousof their Impact

YouthInvolvement

AuthoritiesValuing Youth

Waste QuantityWaste Generation

Contamination

Illness

Economic Income

Economic Capital

Expenditure

Education

Youth Valuing The Town

Health

Resource Access

FamilyWellbeing

CommunityWellbeing

Preservation ofCulture andLanguageOpportunities for

Children to Study

\/\/\/

13

Adequacy ofSWM

Interest in OtherProjects

Land Availability

RecyclingProgram

Distant Landfill

8 9 14

Issues of Youth/Women

95


• Education • Issues of

Youth/Women • Land Availability • Opportunities for

Children to Study • Economic Capital

• Family Wellbeing

• Adequacy of SWM • Environmental Systems • Environmental

Degradation • Contamination • Youth that are Concerned

with Waste or Conscious of their Impact

• Tourism • Preservation of Culture

and Language • Resource Access • Town Aesthetics • Waste Quantity • Youth Involvement • Authorities Regulating

Waste • Illness • Health

3.3.7 Group map 4: Community perspectives

The three causal maps representing the perspectives of men, women and youth

were amalgamated into an integrated community causal map (see Figure 21).

Adequacy of SWM falls in the center as the most connected variable. The other top

variables are health, environmental systems and degradation, illness/other

decreases in wellbeing, and education. Secondary variables include economic

income and capital, the proximity of the unregulated dump and abattoir to the town

center, interest/understanding about the waste issue, land availability, plastic

quantity, recycling, funding for SWM, tourism, and resource access. The

amalgamated map has five reinforcing and two balancing feedback loops. The

strength of relationships between variables was determined by using weighted

averages of connections depicted by the three perspective groups. Therefore, the

four youth participants had less of an impact on relationship strengths than the six

adult female or ten adult male participants. However, many variables mentioned

specifically in discussions with youth (and women) were maintained in the

amalgamated community-‐wide map to maintain a full spectrum of perspectives.

96

Figure 21. Group map 4: Integrated community causal map

3.3.8 Community Causal Grid

The Tourism; Education and Poverty; Youth and Tradition; and Environment and

Population loops are of low strength. Targeting these loops will have a fairly low

Health


Funding forSWM

PlasticQuantity

EconomicCapital

WasteQuantity



Environment and Population Loop

Waste Quantity Loop

Reliance onPre-Packaged Goods

Influx of JunkFood



Needs

Generation Rate

PopulationGrowth

Remittances

Tourism

Proximity ofUnregulatedDump andAbattoir to

Town Center


WasteKnowledge of

How to ManageWaste

Interest in Cultureand Language

Desire forModern Culture



Streets

Well-PreparedLeaders

Municipal (andNational) Organization


Education

Participation ofWomen and Youth

Projects that are"Owned" By the Whole

Community



+

+

+

+

-

+

+

+

-

Municipal Interestin Other Things

-

-

+

+

LandAvailability


Adequacy ofSWM

+

-

+

Expenditures

Degradation

Illness/Decrease inWellbeing

+

+

+

-

+

Life SupportSystems

+

Recycling


Facilities

+

-

-

+

-



+

+

+

-

-

+

Influx of Plastic

+ +

EconomicIncome

+

+

+

+

Reduction Rate

+

Maintaining Traditions,Culture, and Language


Consumerism and ModernCulture


-

-

+

Youth and Tradition Loop

Educated Youth

Poverty

-Education and Poverty Loop

Women Have to WorkMany Jobs and Have

Little Time

Female Leaders

Issues of Womenand Youth

-

+

-

-

+

+

+

-

ResourceAccess +

Increasing Attitudesof "disposable"

+

+

+ +

Corruption

-

+

+ +

+

LEGEND

B

B

B

1-3 participants4-6 participants7-9 participants

10-12 participants

Low


Medium

High

Variable Sizing:

13-15 participants16-18 participants19-20 participants

TownAesthetics

+-

+


-

+

+

+

+

STOCK

Reinforcing Feedback LoopBalancing Feedback Loop

Other Elements:

FlowRate

Tourism Loop

97

impact on the system. On the other hand, the Waste Quantity; Waste in the Streets;

and Health and Interest in SWM loops are of medium strength. Targeting variables

within these loops will have a larger impact on the system. The leverage point

analysis of the community-‐wide map revealed the aggregated community

perspective on which variables can act as context or critical leverage factors

(active), which can act as indicator factors (passive), which will likely act as

sensitive factors (ambivalent), and which variables are negligible (buffer) (see

Figure 22 and Table 6).

98

Figure 22. Causal grid 4: Integrated community perspectives

Active Ambivalent

Buffer Passive

Activity


0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7 8 9 10 11

8

9

Adequacy of SWM

12 13

Plastic is Cheap

Female Leaders

Increasing Attitudesof "Disposable"

PovertyCorruption



Influx of Junk Food Interest in Cultureand Language

Knowledge of Howto Manage Waste

Need to Rely onPre-Packaged Goods

Waste Reduction Rate



Life Support SystemsMunicipal Expenditures


Community

Resource Access

Locations for People toResponsibly Dispose of Waste

Desire for Modern Culture

Economic Capital

Educated Youth

Funding forSWM


Municipal Organization

PlasticQuantity


Needs

Remittances

Well-Prepared Leaders

Women have to WorkMany Jobs and Have

Little Time

Town Aesthetics

Tourism

Economic IncomeHealth

Issues of Womenand Youth Land Availability

Maintaining Traditions,Culture, and Language Municipal Budget Contribuiton


Streets

Proper Location toConstruct SWM Facilities

Proximity of Dumpand Abattoir toTown Center

RecyclingWaste Quantity




Participation ofWomen and

Youth

Influx of Plastic

Interest/Understandingabout the Waste

IssueMunicipal Interest in

Other Things

Population Growth


WasteGeneration Rate

Illness/ Decrease inWellbeing



Education

10

99

Table 6. Community-‐wide causal grid results


• Education • Population

Growth • Municipal

Interest in Other Things

• Maintaining Traditions, Culture, and Language

• Issues of Women and Youth

• Youth are a Different Generation: Interest in Consumerism and Modern Culture

• Valuing Women and Youth

• Youth Discussing Anything of Value

• Tourism • Funding for SWM • Plastic Quantity • Preoccupation

with Other Community Needs

• Adequacy of SWM • Health • Environmental Systems • Environmental

Degradation • Economic Capital • Interest/Understanding

about the Waste Issue • Influx of Plastic • Participation of Women

and Youth • Proximity of Dump and

Abattoir to Town Center • Proper Location to

Construct SWM Facilities • Municipal Budget

Contribution • Recycling Land Availability • Economic Income • People Throw Waste in the

Streets • Waste Quantity

3.4 Discussion The group causal maps are local representations of a complex, adaptive eco-‐social

system that depict a variety of environmental, economic, and social factors. It is

important to note that these representations do no depict absolute characteristics

and conditions, but rather those that have been experienced or observed by

participants at some point. Therefore, the reader should be aware that these causal

maps act as tools to better understand the functioning of the SWM system, not as

representations of the definitive, “true” structure and inner workings of the system.

In this light, the following sections explore the significance of the systemic aspects

identified through narrative-‐based causal mapping, including the human context;

the functioning of balancing and reinforcing feedback loops; the overall structure of

the system; and what might dampen or disable reinforcing feedback loops and

100

therefore encourage change. For brevity’s sake, only the feedback loops of particular

importance are discussed; see Appendix B for a full discussion of all feedback loops

in each causal map.

3.4.1 Men’s causal map and grid

The adult male participants were primarily focused on economic aspects of the

SWM system, and much less focused on family wellbeing than other groups. This

result is fairly unsurprising as traditional gender roles that place men in the

workplace and women in the home are prevalent in Todos Santos. This result did,

however, provide information on the human context in which these participants

placed themselves.

In the men’s causal map, the feedback loop with the most potential for instigating

change is the reinforcing Health and Interest in SWM Loop, which is fairly strong,

containing strength 3 relationships all along its length. Leverage points impacting

this area of the system may have a greater impact on improving the adequacy of

SWM than leverage points targeting other feedback loops. This loop demonstrates

the reinforcing effects of poor health on poor SWM. Inadequate SWM has caused the

dump and abattoir to be located in close proximity to the center of town. This has

created a contaminated environment in which vectors, including household pets,

can live in the dump and access human spaces. These spaces include not only

households and businesses but also the local market where fresh meat and produce

are sold to people living within a wide radius of town. Resulting poor health causes

inhabitants to be too preoccupied to deal with other problems. Due to a poor health

system, medical attention comes at a cost. Therefore, obtaining funds to pay medical

bills becomes a greater priority, meaning poor health decreases people’s interest in

projects that will not generate a source of income. Since dealing with waste is not

seen as a profitable venture, people have little interest in the issue. Low

understanding of what causes the waste issue and what effects it has on the

population make it a low priority for inhabitants, who then put little pressure on the

municipality to deal with it relative to other issues such as health, education, and

101

construction projects that will increase income. Therefore the municipality has little

budget left to contribute to SWM funding, which decreases the adequacy of SWM.

The adult male participants constructed a system structure containing only one

balancing loop, the Environment and Population Loop, to counteract three

reinforcing ones. While this loop promisingly appears to dampen the ill effects of

population growth on SWM adequacy, its strength is fairly low due to the medium

strength connection between tourism and economic income. In reality, regardless of

increasing environmental degradation, the population has been increasing as a

result of economic income from other sources, such as remittances from migrant

workers in the United States. It therefore can only act as a true balancing loop if

tourism becomes a larger source of local economic income.

Since the only balancing loop is considerably weak, the overall structure of the SWM

system as depicted by the adult male participants is dominated by self-‐enhancing

reinforcing loops that are leading to exponential deterioration and could lead to

runaway collapse over time. Missing or very weak information flows, such as the

effects of throwing waste in the streets or low concern about the waste issue on

commonly shared resources and human health, are negatively impacting the system.

The men’s causal grid identified four active variables that may be points to

intervene or simply contextual factors: education, remittances, market for

recyclable material, and projects that are “owned” by the community. The large

economic contribution to the community in the form of remittances is certainly a

context factor in which the system sits. The lack of a market for recyclable material

is also considered a context factor, as it would be quite challenging to target. The

remaining two active variables, education and projects that are “owned” by the

community, were regarded as “solution” variables by participants, indicating they

may indeed prove to be excellent areas to target for change.

From the men’s perspectives, variables that are likely to act as indicator variables

include widespread participation (i.e. women, youth, and local businesses) in SWM

102

strategies, a decreased desire for modern culture, increased tourism, and a

decreased plastic quantity entering the waste stream.

The majority of variables that were identified as highly embedded in the system and

therefore difficult to target directly were unsurprising, such as environmental

degradation, health, and of course the adequacy of SWM. However, a few variables

that many male participants felt should be targeted directly ended up being too

entwined in the system to truly act as active variables once the system structure

emerged. These variables included funding for SWM, economic capital, and

interest/understanding about the SWM issue.

3.4.2 Women’s causal map and grid

The adult female participants were primarily focused on health, cleanliness, and

family wellbeing. Again, traditional gender roles likely play a part in these concerns.

Women are expected to be the “cleaners” of their realms (homes, workspaces, etc.),

and were therefore more concerned about contamination in the community than

the majority of the male participants. Women also expressed more concern about

other forms of wellbeing, such as spirituality and positive relationships, than the

male participants, and about the wellbeing of younger generations.

The adult female participants constructed a system structure containing only

reinforcing loops, indicating they also perceive the overall structure of the system to

be on a deteriorating spiral that may lead to runaway collapse.

Three feedback loops can potentially be targeted for interventions from the

women’s perspectives. The first is the Environment and Health Loop, which is a

reinforcing feedback loop that demonstrates how environmental degradation, such

as the pollution of water, soil, and air, impacts health by increasing illness and

decreasing other forms of wellbeing. This includes spiritual wellbeing, which is

founded on a strong connection to nature for many Todos Santeros, and a sense of

community wellbeing. As inhabitants become preoccupied with their own health or

the health of their families, they have less time and resources to tackle the adequacy

of SWM. This loop is connected by high-‐strength relationships all along its length.

103

However, all variables within this feedback loop are highly embedded in the system,

and would be difficult to target directly. This loop should therefore be dampened

indirectly by targeting variables that are not in the loop but have a strong influence

on it.

The second loop that can be targeted for systemic interventions is the

Contamination and Health Loop, which shows how the proximity of the dump and

abattoir to the town center causes contamination in the home and in schools, which

increases illness, and has a similar detracting effect on the adequacy of SWM. This

loop shares many variables with the Environment and Health Loop, and must

therefore also be targeted indirectly.

The medium strength Education and Poverty Loop is the third loop ideal for

interventions. While it is not as strong as the others, it feeds into another reinforcing

loop and also directly impacts the adequacy of SWM through education.

It is interesting to note that while the male participants saw the preservation of

culture as something of emotional value and as a means to generate income via

tourism, the female participants perceived it to impact the consumption of items

resulting in plastic waste, which the adult female participants felt was a variable of

relatively high concern. Female participants may have identified more connections

with the behaviour of youth due to the fact that women act as caregivers and

therefore interact more with youth. The women’s causal grid identified two

variables that are distinctly contextual – a patriarchal society, and men leaving for

other countries for work. Youth’s interest in consumerism and modern culture and

women’s issues may be potential leverage points, although likely difficult to target,

and may be contextual elements rather than action entry points. Educated youth

and maintaining traditions, however, seem easier to access as leverage points.

Interestingly enough, education is classified as an ambivalent variable, yet educated

youth falls in the active category. Again, female participants believe youth to be

more strongly connected to the SWM system than male participants, viewing them

as agents of change.

104

It is also interesting that women’s participation, along with female leaders, who

women believe would focus more on SWM due to their concerns about cleanliness

and health, fall into the indicator category instead of the active category. Tourism

and the quantity of plastic in the waste stream fall into the passive category, as they

did in the men’s analysis. Women also perceive the quantity of waste overall to be

an indicator variable. Variables identified as ambivalent by the female group were

similar to those identified as such by the male group. However, plastic influx was

seen to have less influence on the system in the women’s causal map than it did in

the men’s.

3.4.3 Youth’s causal map and grid

The youth perspective differed the most from the other two sampled perspectives.

The youth participants were primarily focused on family wellbeing. Surprisingly,

more participants identified this as a priority than health. New insights were

predominantly about youth behaviour. Particularly, the strong connection between

education and youth behaviour was of particular value. Participants expressed that

youth without education act in ways that negatively impact the system, such as by

throwing waste in the streets or being strongly focused on consumerism, and those

with education positively impact the system by avoiding these behaviours and often

by planning for higher education to return to help the town. However, all youth

participants had been fortunate enough to attend school, and therefore this

perspective may be biased.

The loop with the most potential for instigating changes in the SWM system is the

reinforcing Health and Education Loop, which depicts how decreases in health

caused by poor SWM decrease education rates, which negatively impacts SWM.

Contamination caused by poor SWM increases illness, which prevents children from

going to school due to their own illness or because more economic resources must

be spent on health. This decreases the number of educated children and youth,

preventing them from learning about the waste issue, and therefore developing

concern about it and realizing the impacts of their actions. This decreases youth

involvement in the waste issue and increases the number of people, predominantly

105

youth, who throw waste in the streets, further decreasing the adequacy of SWM.

This loop is of medium strength due to the connections between health,

opportunities for children to study, and education. However, not all variables within

the loop are ambivalent, and therefore it has some promising places for

intervention. The focus of this loop is on the role of youth in SWM practices, which

indicates that the youth participant group, just like the women participant group,

views youth as agents of change. Youth similarly believe the preservation of culture

and language has an impact on waste generation rates, just like the adult female

participants.

While the overall system structure as depicted by the youth participant group

contains two balancing loops and three reinforcing loops, both balancing loops have

less strength and therefore the system is perceived to be dominated by reinforcing

feedback loops that are causing system deterioration, as perceived by the other two

participant groups.

The causal grid analysis identified land availability as a distinct contextual factor.

Economic capital within the community and issues of women and youth may be

action entry points but are most likely too difficult to access. Education and

opportunities for children to study are more likely to be potential action entry

points. Interestingly, the only indicator variable identified by the youth participants

was family wellbeing. Youth may have identified less variables, found more

variables to be negligible, or found variables identified as passive by other groups to

have a stronger impact on the system. Variables identified as passive by other

groups yet ambivalent by youth include: widespread participation (of youth,

women, etc.), tourism, and waste quantity (this variable was only identified as

passive by the female participants).

3.4.4 Community-‐wide causal map and grid

The overall structure of the community-‐wide map is dominated by reinforcing

feedback loops that cause the SWM system to deteriorate. While the community-‐

wide map identified the weighted average perspectives on system structure and on

106

which variables can be considered active, passive, ambivalent, and buffering, it is

important to note that common ground can be a good starting place for action.

Conflicting perspectives on aggregated potential leverage points may cause them to

fail at intervening in the system successfully. Therefore, it is important to consider

the leverage points that are common amongst at least two groups. A Venn Diagram

representing the overlapping group perspectives is depicted in Figure 23. Active

variables are represented in yellow, passive in green, and ambivalent in blue.

Variables that are considered context factors or fall in conflicting causal grid

quadrants amongst all three perspectives are not included.

107

Figure 23. Overlapping perspectives

It appears that education may be a readily targetable leverage point with potential

to make significant changes in the system.

Returning to the twelve places to intervene in a system outlined by Meadows

(2008), leverage points that can have a fairly significant impact on a system yet are

more accessible than some of the upper level leverage points include:

• Balancing feedback loops

• Reinforcing feedback loops

Women Youth

Men

Education

Issues of Womenand Youth

Opportunities forChildren to Study

Family Wellbeing

Adequacy of SWM

AuthoritiesRegulating Waste



Health

Illness

ResourceAccess

Town Aesthetics

Waste Quantity

Youth's Interest inConsumerism andModern Culture

Female Leaders

PlasticQuantity Widespread

Participation

Youth Participation

Youth Interested inWaste/Concerned with

Impact

Contaminationin Schools and

the Home

EconomicCapital

EconomicIncome

PopulationGrowth

Preoccupation withOther Issues

WasteGeneration Rate

Women Work ManyJobs, Have Little Time

Projects that are"Owned' by the

Community


Desire forModern Culture Funding for SWM

Interest in Projects thatDo Not Generate Money

Interest/Understandingabout the Waste IssueMunicipal

Expenditures


Streets

Recycling

Tourism

Active Variables

Passive variables

Ambivalent variables

Legend

108

• Information flows

It is clear that interfering in the balancing feedback loops of the SWM system, which

are relatively weak as it is, will have less impact than attempting to slow down or

alter the reinforcing feedback loops that dominate the system. Education, the least

conflicting active variable, is part of a medium-‐strength reinforcing loop in the

community-‐wide map. However, it also directly influences factors in two other

reinforcing loops, and influences one other reinforcing loop indirectly through the

variable Educated Youth. Solid waste education can also strengthen weak

information flows. In particular, targeting the education of youth may address other

issues raised in the causal mapping process, as two groups identified this group to

be agents of change. Other active variables identified in the mapping process should

also be further investigated as potential points of entry for local action.

Campaigns focused on educational measures have often been criticized for raising

awareness but triggering little or no action (Galli et al., 2011; Mayo et al., 2006;

McKenzie-‐Mohr & Smith, 1999). SWM projects have specifically been criticized for

lacking educational measures before and during the operation of the service, and for

lacking educational material that is suited to the interests or priorities of the

community (Anschütz, 1996). Even when public education is properly targeted and

conducted, on its own it is not enough; in many cases the larger system does not

support the application of knowledge taught in public education programs. While

public education can play a critical role in facilitating action, it cannot spark change

unless the barriers to applying new knowledge are removed and the benefits of its

application outweigh the benefits of other activities (McKenzie-‐Mohr & Smith,

1999). It is in such instances that a systemic perspective is critical; perceived

barriers to successful waste management may lead to projects that exacerbate

current problems or create new ones if the structure of the wider system is not

taken into account. This has already been experienced in Todos Santos, where the

European Union funded the construction of a wastewater treatment plant in 2007

because households had begun installing flush toilets with tubing leading directly to

the Limon River over the previous five years. However, the established system of

109

wastewater management in the community (and likely others) did not support the

use of such a plant, and it was never used. Additionally, the construction of the plant

encouraged further installation of flush toilets, exacerbating the current situation

and contributing to the creation of a public health issue. Without a systemic

approach, the European Union’s wastewater project failed to address the root

causes of poor wastewater management in the community.

It is for such reasons that education, which has been identified through a systems

analysis as the most readily targetable leverage point, should still be a strong focus

in potential SWM solutions despite its inability to foster action on its own. However,

while solid waste education is a necessary element of all SWM programs, the poor

state of the local public education system plays a strong role in the SWM system and

is a central concern for the community. Indeed, education is a much higher priority

than waste management for the municipal authorities and the majority of the

community. Therefore, solutions targeting education must not only focus on solid

waste awareness, but on long-‐term improvements to the public education system.

Solutions should also take on a ‘learning by doing’ approach, targeting other aspects

of the solid waste system as a means for learning, and ensuring that the capacity of

the system to support new SWM activities is developed as they are learned. Other

leverage points identified in this study must also be targeted directly to further

ensure that the application of solid waste knowledge is supported by the larger

system.

3.4.5 Successes and limitations

On the whole, the causal mapping approach was successful. Participants were open-‐

minded to the mapping format of the interviews, even though none were familiar

with it. Even illiterate participants, while not able to write down their own variables,

still generated them and actively participated in organizing and structuring the

system, and drawing in relationships between variables. The technique was also

successful because of the flexible nature of the causal mapping concept. While some

participants wished to arrange their maps according to the general guidelines

suggested by the researcher, most preferred to arrange them in their own individual

110

manners. These arrangements included groupings according to themes, placing

variables vertically from most to least important, structuring them into categories,

such as ‘problems’, ‘solutions’, ‘desired outcomes’, etc. This allowed participants to

explore ideas and display information in a way that made sense to them. While this

meant that virtually no individual maps resembled one another, the information

they provided allowed them to be merged easily.

The limitations of the technique were predominantly related to time. Additional

information would surely have surfaced if the participants had had more time to

develop their models. Additionally, the remoteness of the community meant it was

essentially impossible to re-‐contact these individuals to further explore certain

elements without returning to Todos Santos and knocking on their doors. The fact

that the majority of participants were illiterate was a minor limitation, but the

flexible, visual nature of the causal map allowed this challenge to be overcome quite

readily. Due to the fact that this is an indigenous community that has had plenty of

exposure to racism and has developed a general mistrust in outsiders due to its

tumultuous past, working as a researcher from another country, particularly as a

Caucasian researcher, was certainly a limitation. While the causal mapping process

did indeed produce some insightful results, having time to develop as much of sense

of trust as would be possible with the participants could have improved the results

and exposed new insights about the SWM system.

It should be noted that while other researchers have identified a lack of accuracy in

“lay person” causal maps (e.g. see Fairweather (2010)), this is not considered a

limitation here. The purpose of the narrative-‐based participatory mapping approach

was as much about the process as the results; it was not simply to glean information

from the participants in a one-‐way interaction. Indeed, the mapping approach was a

process of two-‐way learning and sharing in which the participant was encouraged to

explore connections they already knew but hadn’t yet mentally solidified or

synthesized, and the researcher developed new perspectives and a better

understanding of the local SWM system. This exploration process initiated new

thinking and discussion among community members. While the analyses have led to

111

insights that may not have been evident at the individual mapping scale, engaging a

wide range of participants, particularly those who do not currently participate in

SWM decision-‐making, acted as a first-‐step in initiating inclusive local action.

This study demonstrated how a narrative-‐based participatory mapping approach

can lay the groundwork for the exploration of locally appropriate solutions. While

the literature previously identified limited SWM funding, a lack of sanitary landfills,

a lack of public awareness, an increase in illegal dumping, and an increase in

littering as the principal SWM challenges in Guatemala, the causal mapping process

in Todos Santos identified these factors as ambivalent or negligible outputs of

system behaviour, not as root causes or key points to intervene in the system. For

example, simply pumping more funding into SWM, an idea that was considered a

‘solution’ even by study participants prior to the emergence of the system structure,

cannot address the plethora of social and environmental factors that deeply impact

the system. Therefore, it is easy to see how ‘solutions’ are more likely to fail without

an assessment of the system structure and behaviour, and the careful identification

of indicators and goals. Indeed, Meadows (2008, p. 193) points out that “if the

goals... are defined inaccurately or incompletely, the system may obediently work to

produce a result that is not really intended or wanted... Specify indicators and goals

that reflect the real welfare of the system. Be especially careful not to confuse effort

with result or you will end up with a system that is producing effort, not result.” The

methodology used in this study can also provide insight about potential areas in

conflict, an important element to consider in any management process.

3.5 Conclusion SWM in Guatemala is an issue of critical concern, threatening everything from

fragile environmental systems, essential natural resources and human health to

economic potential. In Todos Santos Cuchumatán, poor SWM has put complex

strains on the community that call for a context-‐specific approach that sits within

the jurisdiction of post-‐normal science and is founded upon systems thinking.

Narrative-‐based participatory mapping identified principal areas of concern within

the community from the perspectives of men, women, and youth. The causal

112

mapping approach provided information on the system structure, feedback loops,

potential leverage points at which to intervene in the system, potential indicators of

success, and critically sensitive factors to be aware of. This laid the groundwork

needed to identify ‘best’ solutions that are locally appropriate. This narrative-‐based

participatory mapping approach has the potential to make important contributions

to approaches addressing the challenges of implementing and organizing SWM

processes, and their long-‐term success.

113

3.6 References Ancona, C. et al. (2010). Integrated environmental and health impact assessment of

waste management in Lazio (Italy): INTARESE.

Axelrod. (1976). Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Bhuiyan, S. H. (2010). A crisis in governance: Urban solid waste management in Bangladesh. Habitat international, 34(1), 125-‐133.

BNAmericas. (2011). Govt creates national waste management strategy, Online report, Business News Americas.



Cointreau, S. (1982). Environmental management of urban solid wastes in developing countries: A project guide Urban Development Technical Paper Number 5. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Cook, D. M., Swanson, R. C., Eggett, D. L., & Booth, G. M. (2009). A retrospective analysis of prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites among school children in the Palajunoj Valley of Guatemala. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 27(1), 31-‐40.

Da Zhu, P., Asnani, H., Zurbrugg, C., Anapolsky, S., & Mani, S. (2008). Improving municipal solid waste management in India: A source book for Policy Makers and Practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank.


Duru, R. C. (1981). Technological growth and ecological crisis: the Nigerian example. The Science of the Total Environment, 17(3), 243-‐256.

Fairweather, J. (2010). Farmer models of socio-‐ecologic systems: Application of causal mapping across multiple locations. Ecological Modelling, 221(3), 555-‐562.

Funtowics, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-‐normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-‐755.

114

Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., & Giljum, S. (2011). Integrating ecological, carbon, and water footprint: Defining the "Footprint Family" and its application in tracking human pressure on the planet: One Planet Economy Network.


Henry, R. K., Yongsheng, Z., & Jun, D. (2006). Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries-‐-‐Kenyan case study. Waste Management, 26(1), 92-‐100. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.03.007

Iwerks, L. (Writer). (2006). Recycled Life. In M. Glad (Producer): Leslie-‐Glad.




Kosko, B. (1988). Hidden patterns in combined and adaptive knowledge networks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2(4), 377-‐393.


Martuzzi, M., Mitis, F., & Forastiere, F. (2010). Inequalities, inequities, environmental justice in waste management and health. European Journal of Public Health, 20(1), 21-‐26.

Mayo, E. et al. (2006). I will if you will: Towards sustainable consumption.: National Consumption Roundtable Sustainable Development Commission.


Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan.


115

Muttamara, S., & Leong, S. T. (1997). Environmental Monitoring and Impact Assessment of a Solid Waste Disposal Site. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 48(1), 1-‐24.

Özesmi, U., & Özesmi, S. L. (2004). Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multi-‐step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling, 176(1-‐2), 43-‐64.

Pan American Health Organization. (1998). Health in the Americas (Vol. 2): World Health Organization.

Pan American Health Organization. (2007). Health in the Americas (Vol. 2): World Health Organization.

Parkes, M. W., Morrison, K. E., Bunch, M. J., Hallström, L. K., Neudoerffer, C., Venema, H. D., & Waltner-‐Toews, D. (2010). Towards integrated governance for water, health and social-‐ecological systems: The watershed governance prism. Global Environmental Change, 20, 693-‐704.


Pfammater, R., & Schertenleib, R. (1996). Non-‐Governmental Refuse Collection in Low-‐ Income Urban Areas: Lessons Learned from Selected Schemes in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Duebendorf, Switzerland.

Robbins, P. T. (2007). The reflexive engineer: perceptions of integrated development. Journal of International Development, 19(1), 99-‐110.

Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods : integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Schübeler, P. (1996). Conceptual Framework for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Low-‐Income Countries. In K. Wehrle & J. Christen (Eds.). St. Gallen Switzerland: UNDP/UNCHS/World Bank/SDC Collaborative Programme on Municipal Solid Waste Management in Low-‐Income Countries.

Shukla, S. R., Akolkar, A. B., Bhide, A. D., Dhussa, A. K., Varshney, A. K., Acharya, D. B., . . . Mazumdar, N. B. (2000). Solid Waste Management Manual. New Delhi: Government of India.

Simon, A. M. (2008). Analysis Of Activities Of Community Based Organizations Involved in Solid Waste Management, Investigating Modernized Mixtures Approach: The case of Kinondoni Municipality, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. (MSc), Wageningen University.

116

Tacoli, C. (2012). Urbanization, gender and urban poverty: paid work and unpaid carework in the city. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development

United Nations Population Fund.

TTSSC. (2010). SSC in the context of aid effectiveness: Telling the story of partners in south-‐south and triangular cooperation: Task Team on South-‐South Cooperation.

UNEP. (1996). International Source Book on Environmentally Sound Technologies for Municipal

Solid Waste Management International Environmental Technology Centre Technical Publication Series: United Nations Environmental Programme.


Vennix, J. A. M. (1996). Group model building: facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.







Wilson, D. C., Velis, C., & Cheeseman, C. (2006). Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in developing countries. Habitat international, 30(4), 797-‐808. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.005

World Bank. (2005). Guatemala: Country Economic Memorandum. (Report No. 29145-‐GT). Washington, DC: World Bank.

117

World Bank. (2011). Guatemala Overview. Retrieved April 6, 2011, from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/guatemala/overview



Zellmer, A. J., Allen, T. F. H., & Kesseboehmer, K. (2006). The nature of ecological complexity: A protocol for building the narrative. Ecological Complexity, 3(3), 171-‐182.

Zerbock, O. (2003). Urban Solid Waste Management: Waste Reduction in Developing Nations Written for the Requirements of CE 5993 Field Engineering in the Developing World: Michigan Technological University.

Zurbruegg, C. (2003). Solid waste management in developing countries: A sourcebook for policy makers and practitioners: EAWAG /SANDEC. Retrieved from http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/sandec/publikationen/swm/dl/Zurbruegg_2002_SWM_DC.pdf.

118

4 Developing locally appropriate leverage for change: Integrated

solid waste management in rapidly developing rural Guatemala

4.1 Introduction Solid waste management (SWM) is gaining an increasing amount of attention

globally as environmental degradation, climate change, population growth, and poor

human health continue to cause international concern. In developing countries, the

waste produced by burgeoning cities and rapidly developing rural areas is

overwhelming local authorities and national governments alike (Tacoli, 2012; Yousif

& Scott, 2007). Limited resources result in the perpetuation and aggravation of

inequalities already being experienced by the most vulnerable populations (Konteh,

2009; UNDP, 2010). Such is the case in Latin America, which ranks first in the world

for inequality (UNDP, 2010). Within Latin America, Central America contains some

of the highest rates of inequality as measured by the Gini Index (income inequality),

and even higher rates in terms of the Human Development Index (health and

education inequality) (UNDP, 2010). Inadequate SWM practices plague the region,

severely impacting ecosystems and human health.

Recently, there have been two major changes in the structure of household solid

waste in developing countries: the volume of waste has increased significantly, and

the composition has changed from primarily organics to a mix of both organic and

synthetic materials (Yousif and Scott, 2007). These changes may be attributed to

any number of the following factors: rapid population and economic growth and a

subsequent lack of infrastructure capable of supporting it; a lack of community

participation and/or communication; limited resources for proper planning and

operation; a lack of political will and legal framework for implementation and

enforcement; and a lack of education and/or technical expertise to manage or

prevent these changes (Yousif and Scott, 2007). These changes, and the often non-‐

technical factors they are associated with, play an important role in current SWM

difficulties in many developing regions. Decision-‐making and management are

119

becoming increasingly complex due to these kinds of factors, coupled with the rising

internationality of waste (Seadon, 2010).

Though addressing SWM issues in major city centers is a critical issue of concern,

particularly as the number and size of major urban centers is rapidly growing. Most

urban growth over the next 25 years will occur not in mega cities but in small cities

and towns (Cohen, 2004). Indeed, as of 2009, small to medium sized cities housed

over 60 percent of the world’s population (Matuschke, 2009). In developing

countries, these smaller urban centers often lack basic infrastructure and services to

absorb the increasing number of people they house (Matuschke, 2009). While urban

areas receive some SWM services, in smaller rural communities, SWM is outright

lacking, limited to collection and deposition in open dumps at best (Schübeler,

1996). Rapid growth and development leaves smaller urban centers easily

overwhelmed in the areas of waste management, health services, water, electricity,

and sanitation (Matuschke, 2009). Small cities and towns are less likely to receive

economic support, as mega-‐cities and large urban areas are primary investment

targets. Added burdens of geographic isolation, poverty, limited finances and local

government resources, and other constraints limit the capacity of small cities and

towns to cope with turbulent SWM challenges (Stokoe & Teague, 1995).

While poor Central American SWM practices have been widely recognized (see, for

example, Mantilla (2007); VWB (2009b); Yousif & Scott (2007); Zarate et al. (2008)),

the literature lacks examples of successful approaches for dealing with the solid

waste crisis currently experienced by rapidly developing rural Central American

communities. In this light, this study explores approaches used by a wide variety of

communities in Central America and elsewhere that demonstrate the potential to be

successful and locally appropriate in a rapidly developing rural Central American

town. Considering the extremely context-‐specific nature of a given community’s

SWM challenges and needs, these approaches can only be deemed appropriate on a

case-‐by-‐case basis. Thus, these approaches are tested for local appropriateness with

specifically tailored criteria in a case study of the Guatemalan community of Todos

Santos Cuchumatán.

120

4.2 Appropriate Technology The concept of appropriate technology (AT) was borne out of Schumacher’s

influential book, Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered, in

which he stressed that large-‐scale industry has detrimental effects on rural

unemployment rates in low-‐income countries. Schumacher suggested low-‐income

countries employ what he called an ‘intermediate technology’ – one that lies

between the traditional and the sophisticated, highly capital-‐intensive technologies

designed for use in high-‐income countries – in order to provide jobs, relieve

poverty, and be successfully adopted (Schumacher, 1973). The term ‘intermediate

technology’ was later replaced with the expression ‘appropriate technology’ in order

to include the social and cultural dimensions of innovation (Pellegrini, 1979), and to

avoid the suggestions of inferiority associated with the former term. The concept of

AT created division among economists and practitioners; many argued AT are

inefficient, do not create growth, and do not improve the standards of living of the

poor (Rybczynski, 1980). It was not until the 1980s and 1990s with the rise of non-‐

governmental organizations (NGOs) that AT truly took off; indeed, Smillie (2000, p.

48) reports that “the concepts of intermediate and appropriate technology grew

entirely from the non-‐governmental sector”.

While the concept of AT created dichotomy between those who firmly believed in

the necessity of large-‐scale industry and those who called for a new approach, it also

became part of the division between those who see technology as the solution, and

those who see it as a problem. The latter argue that the benefits of technology are

exaggerated, and the focus on technology is diverting much needed attention away

from very real social, economic, and cultural inequalities (Moodley, 2005). Wajcman

(2002, p. 348) argues that “governments everywhere legitimize much of their policy

in terms of a technological imperative”. However, at large, technology is still

considered to play a strong role in development. Dr. Laksiri Fernando, Director of

the Sri Lankan National Centre for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social

Sciences summarized this well in his address at the 6th Diploma Award Ceremony of

the Sri Lanka Institute of Advanced Technological Education (Asian Tribune, 2009):

121

Whatever the development theory one is employing, neo-‐classical,

Marxist, neo-‐liberal, exogenous or endogenous, there is almost an

agreement that the level of development of a country is related to

the level of technological use... Even for an average person, “the

importance of technology for development” might be common

sense today. We acquire this common sense through experience. If

groundwater is not easily accessible, we know the benefit of an

Artesian-‐Well.

4.2.1 Defining and redefining appropriate technology

While technology remains a strong focus of development strategies, it is agreed that

AT must function within social, cultural, and economic spheres. AT has evolved to be

defined not simply as small-‐scale, low-‐tech devices, but as a body of knowledge and

set of techniques for coping with community development issues. It incorporates

“hard” and “soft” technologies; not only physical tools but also capacity building and

communication methods, knowledge transfer mechanisms, and cultural, social, and

gender considerations (Murphy et al., 2009). Pellegrini (1979, p. 2) defined AT as a

technique that when introduced to a community, “creates a self-‐reinforcing process

internal to the same community, which supports the growth of the local activities

and the development of indigenous capabilities as decided by the community itself".

This adaptable, dynamic nature of AT has been recognized by other AT supporters.

Indeed, Peter Dunn, in his book Appropriate Technology: Technology with a Human

Face, went so far as to call AT “a complete systems approach to development”

(Dunn, 1978, p. 4). While Dunn’s perception of AT’s self-‐adaptive and dynamic

nature is focused on increasing wealth for the eventual use of more expensive

equipment, this study focuses on the philosophy of AT as a catalyst for initiating a

process of development of the capabilities, as defined by a community, that the same

community wishes to develop. In this light, the ‘appropriateness’ of AT is defined by

its ability to impact the structure of local systems (social, cultural, environmental,

political, economic, etc.) in a manner that creates a ‘best fit’ future scenario for a

community, as judged by that community. Thus, a more fitting term for the body of

122

knowledge and techniques that might accomplish these goals is ‘appropriate system

lever’ (ASL).

When it comes to SWM issues, longtime practitioners in the field have made it clear

that the selection of appropriate techniques and the design of sustainable systems is

not only a technical issue (van de Klundert & Anschutz, 1999). However, SWM is

often considered to be a technical issue, which has resulted in many unsustainable,

failed techniques. Examples range from crippling debt incurred by the use of

expensive, imported, poorly suited equipment to locals valuing garbage bins too

much to use them for waste (van de Klundert & Anschutz, 1999). Other systemic

aspects, including social, political, cultural, and financial components, should be

considered in order to ensure the ‘best-‐fit’ SWM scenario can be implemented. This

is particularly true in Central American countries, such as Guatemala, where Yousif

and Scott (2007) observe SWM problems are issues of governance rather than

technological choice.

4.2.2 Appropriate technology criteria

Just as the definition of AT has transformed many times since its emergence in the 1960s, the criteria that deem a given technology or technique as “appropriate” have evolved significantly over time. Many criteria have been extensively criticized for being unachievable, contradictory, and locally inapplicable, including such requirements as low investment cost per workplace, low capital investment per unit of output, use of locally available resources, very low cost of final product, and small-‐scale operations (Ntim, 1988). Criteria have thus ranged from net output maximization or cost minimization (Eckaus, 1977) to cultural and social acceptability (Murphy et al., 2009). A summary of common AT criteria found in the literature is presented in

123

Table 7, which lists these criteria vertically according to economic, cultural/social,

sustainability, and technical considerations.

124

Table 7. Common Appropriate Technology criteria Economic considerations Cultural/Social considerations Sustainability considerations Technical considerations

Criteria Description Criteria Description Criteria Description Criteria Description

Affordability19 20 21 22

Costs match users’ ability and willingness to pay1 2 3 4

Social and cultural viability1 2

Tailored to social and cultural practices and needs1 2

Environmentally sustainable1 3

Innovations do not cause significant harm to long-‐ and short-‐term ecological processes1 3

Soundness of design 3

Functions properly in local conditions, meets local technical needs1 3

Use of local materials/ resources1 3 4

Reduces external economic dependence, locally repairable1 3 4

Meets users’ basic needs1 3

User-‐ identified needs are met1 3

Locally sustainable1 3

Maintenance, reproduction and repair can be conducted at the local level1 3

Risk factor2

Reasonable level of risk of failure within the local system2

Systems independence2

Ability to stand alone without multiple supporting devices2

Appropriate technology transfer mechanisms1

Two-‐way process structured on input of local users in all project stages1

Local participation and ownership1 3

Active involvement of stakeholders in all stages of project1 3

Relatively labour-‐intensive3 4

Extends human labour and skills instead of replacing them3 4

Gender considerations1

Incorporation of women in technology development processes1

Flexibility1 2 3 23 Ability to adapt across scales, locales, and changing circumstances1 2 3 5

Small-‐scale3 Affordable to families or small groups of families3

Single-‐ vs. multi-‐ purpose2

Single or multiple specific purposes and abilities, depending on local needs2

Evolutionary capacity2

Capability to expand in sophistication and ability to accomplish a higher volume of work2

19 Murphy, McBean, and Farahbakhsh (2009) 20 Wicklein (1998) 21 Darrow and Saxenian (1993) 22 Conteh (2003) 23 Vanek (2003)

125

Economic considerations Cultural/Social considerations Sustainability considerations Technical considerations

Not capital-‐intensive3 4

Requires only small amounts of capital to develop, employ, and maintain3 4

Image of modernity2

Socially appealing image, positively impacts social status 2

Capacity building3

Builds on local skills to establish self-‐sustaining/ expanding community capacity3

Economic sustainability3

Has the potential to cushion against external economic change3

While many criteria have been suggested for ensuring technological

appropriateness, they are often competitive as well as complementary, meaning the

pursuit of any one will not necessarily satisfy any of the others (Eckaus, 1977).

Therefore, there is no straightforward means for identifying AT (Murphy et al.,

2009); determining which criteria are appropriate for a given community is

dependent upon that community’s objectives, capabilities, and context. Additionally,

technological choices are made by a host of decision makers with unique objectives

and perspectives on what classifies a technology or technique as ‘appropriate’

(Eckaus, 1977). Decisions must be made under a variety of sources of influence that

often act at cross-‐purposes. It is particularly difficult to establish consistent goals

when considering AT, because the knowledge, interests, and operating methods of

stakeholders is often conflicting (Eckaus, 1977). Therefore, it is important to

establish a baseline of stakeholder concerns, needs, and goals before developing a

set of criteria that will function for a given community.

4.2.3 Appropriate solid waste technologies

Most appropriate solid waste technologies discussed in the literature are focused on

larger cities in developing countries. Many of these cities have extensive informal

“waste economies” comprised of waste pickers, dealers, buyers, transporters, shops,

second-‐hand markets, and recycling industries (Furedy, 1992). As cities develop and

126

waste practices become better regulated, these informal recovery and recycling

systems suffer. Tensions grow as modern consumption by more affluent households

and increased quantities of recyclables in the waste stream makes waste picking

more profitable, but waste picking becomes increasingly hazardous and regulations

discourage informal activities (Furedy, 1992). Therefore, many non-‐conventional

approaches to SWM focus on informal waste economies by, for example, assisting

people whose livelihoods depend on waste to do safer, more acceptable work or

accommodating informal activities in formal waste recovery or recycling systems

(Furedy, 1992; IDB, 2011). Other non-‐conventional technologies and techniques

have ranged from capacity building and education to developing partnerships

between communities, municipalities, and the private sector for waste-‐to-‐energy

plants, waste removal, and methane gas recovery (Furedy, 1992; Joseph, Rajendiran,

Senthilnathan, & Rakesh, 2012; Kojima, 2011). Alternative instruments have been

used to improve formal solid waste systems such as collection and disposal levies,

deposit refund schemes, and product levies (Kgathi & Bolaane, 2001).

Vermicomposting, industrial symbiosis, and community-‐led collection services have

also been employed in larger urban centers (Geng, Tsuyoshi, & Chen, 2010; R. P.

Singh, Singh, & Ibrahim, 2011).

Solid waste AT for use in small urban centers has included such projects as poorly-‐

employed composting facilities funded through carbon credit sales, small-‐scale

anaerobic digesters, community engagement and education, and partnerships

between municipal authorities and representatives of national and international

organizations (R. Singh, Tyagi, Allen, Ibrahim, & Kothari, 2011; United Nations

ESCAP, 2010; Yousif & Scott, 2007; Zarate et al., 2008). While alternative approaches

and technologies have been employed in smaller urban settings, the literature

provides few successful approaches for dealing with the solid waste crisis in rapidly

developing rural Central American communities. With few known options suited to

small, rapidly developing Central American towns and cities, communities are far

less likely to implement appropriate technologies or system levers for far-‐reaching,

positive long-‐term change in SWM practices.

127

4.3 Methodology

4.3.1 Defining the local context

The local context of a community must be explored, particularly from the

perspective of that community, in order to define criteria that can specify local SWM

system levers that are likely to be accepted by the community as appropriate. This

study bases criteria on the socioeconomic, environmental, political, and cultural

SWM contexts of Todos Santos by drawing on key contextual elements identified in

the previous chapter.

4.3.2 Solid waste audit

Certain technical requirements and needs were also identified in the previous

chapter. This chapter supplements these findings with a residential solid waste

audit, which was conducted in the six neighbourhoods of Todos Santos.

4.3.2.1 Snowball and random purposeful sampling methods

A residential solid waste audit was conducted in Todos Santos Cuchumatán during

the month of March, 2012. Participants were recruited through a combination of

snowball sampling method and random purposeful sampling on an open invitation

and volunteer basis. Recruitment took place over a period of one and a half months.

A snowball process was initiated through civil society contacts with existing

connections in the community. Recruitment through random purposeful sampling

was carried out over the local radio and through presentations given at

neighbourhood community meetings. The radio announcement and verbal open

invitations informed all potential participants of the purpose of the study and the

roles and responsibilities participants would have (e.g., participants’ rights, time

commitment, explanation of waste audit process, etc.). In total, 137 geographically

and demographically diverse community members were recruited.

4.3.2.2 Data collection

A meeting was set up with each participating home to carefully review the auditing

process. Six potato bags were given to each family for waste separation, which were

carefully labeled with the following categories: bathroom paper, organics, plastic,

128

paper, metal, and other. While most organics are generally fed to a household pig,

participants were instructed to put any remaining scraps in the organics bag.

Families were informed that they must continue with their regular waste practices,

and no changes whatsoever should be made to their regular routine. This was done

to ensure the samples were representative of regular activity and waste production

in town. Additionally, it was emphasized that all waste must be collected, including

all the paper in the bathroom and waste that is usually burned, buried, or thrown in

the street. This was made very clear to avoid any misunderstandings about what the

auditor wanted to collect, and what was classified as ‘waste’.

Empty sample bags were weighed in order to subtract their weight from the final

sample weight. Families were instructed to place all waste in the separate bags for a

period of one week. The auditor returned to collect and measure the samples at that

time. Between five to eight audits were initiated each day for a period of one month.

The potato bags were compressed as much as possible into rough cylinders, and the

height, circumference and diameter of each one were measured. Sample bags were

weighed using a local scale. Observations about waste practices were made at each

visit. Participants were allowed to keep the sample bags as payment for

participating in the audit.

4.3.3 Building a ‘Bank of Ideas’

The researcher compiled a bank of potentially locally appropriate SWM ideas that

provides useful examples of SWM techniques that have been implemented in other

rural or rapidly developing communities in Latin America and elsewhere. This ‘Bank

of Ideas’ acts as a regional knowledge base, while the community-‐wide causal maps

from the previous chapter act as a local knowledge base, and each can contribute to

and build upon the other. The dynamic relationship between these components will

allow the community to act as knowledge generator, as the causal maps and bank of

ideas provide a solid base for local innovation.

129

4.3.3.1 Data collection

The ‘Bank of Ideas’ was generated and validated using the triangulation method. A

literature review, case study review (including literature, unpublished, civil society,

and media sources) and interviews with experts were conducted.

Expert interviews took place during the months of January to May, 2012. A snowball

recruitment process was initiated through existing connections with academic and

civil society contacts. Experts ranged from academic researchers, students, and

members of local NGOs to Central American community members. Nineteen experts

were interviewed in total.

4.3.4 Developing criteria for locally appropriate system levers

While the ‘Bank of Ideas’ provides useful examples for fostering local innovation and

change, the cultural context must act as a filter in order for locally acceptable,

functioning strategies to be generated. The ‘Bank of Ideas’ must therefore be filtered

with locally tailored criteria, resulting in a set of potentially successful, locally

appropriate system levers. These criteria were developed by triangulating the

contextual results from the previous chapter with data from the waste audit and

criteria cited as important in the literature. Criteria from the literature were cross-‐

examined using results from the causal maps and only included if they matched

local perspectives. This process corroborated findings and developed a set of

criteria tailored specifically to the community of Todos Santos in order to eliminate

SWM examples that are simply not feasible from a technical or economic

perspective, or are environmentally, socially, or culturally inappropriate.

4.3.5 System lever assessment

The criteria were applied to the ‘Bank of Ideas’ in order to generate a set of system

levers that are both locally appropriate and have a strong potential for success in

the community. Each criterion was applied independently of the others, and

examples meeting all or nearly all criteria were included for community

consideration. Three potential SWM ‘scenarios’ were compiled, which contain a

130

system of locally appropriate SWM system levers that act together to meet all

critical criteria.

4.4 Results

4.4.1 Local context: Solid waste in Todos Santos Cuchumatán

The remote Guatemalan Mam Mayan village of Todos Santos is experiencing rapid

development and population growth and cannot cope with burgeoning demands for

SWM services. Thus, the town faces serious environmental and health related

consequences. The previous chapter investigated the community’s perspective on

what issues poor SWM creates, influences, and exacerbates in the community, and

what system structures perpetuate this behaviour and prevent change. The results

of that study provide significant insight into the socio-‐economic, cultural,

environmental and political SWM contexts of Todos Santos. The following sections

summarize these findings, and supplement them with the results of a solid waste

audit, which helps to define the technical context.

4.4.1.1 Socio-‐economic, cultural, environmental, and political contexts

The primary issues caused by poor SWM practices were found to be: poor health

(including death, illness, and decreased overall wellbeing), environmental

degradation (including degradation and contamination of essential common

resources), and negative economic impacts (including decreased opportunities for

tourism). These problems stem predominantly from changes in waste

characteristics, increasing waste quantities due to population growth and the

influence of foreign consumer cultures, a lack of land, behavioural issues, limited

resources, and a poor education system. However, the majority of these issues are

structurally connected through reinforcing feedback loops that exponentially

degrade the adequacy of SWM and also exponentially decrease the local authorities’

ability to improve the SWM system – an issue of critical importance. A systemic

analysis of the narrative-‐based causal maps produced by the community identified

the following potential action entry points:

• Education, particularly that of youth;

131

• Municipal interest in SWM;

• Youth’s interest in consumerism and modern culture;

• Recognizing the value of women and youth, thus ensuring their participation

in the SWM process; and

• Projects that are “owned” by the community.

Establishing the systemic context in which a community sits provides a crucial

foundation for the exploration of locally appropriate, successful approaches. Thus,

these findings should inform and act as the basis for any approach to SWM

improvement employed in this community.

4.4.1.2 Technical context: Waste audit results

The results of the residential solid waste audit can be seen in Table 8, Figure 24, and

Figure 25. Recyclable materials including plastic, metal, paper, and glass make up the

largest portion by weight and volume of solid waste sent to landfill. For comparison

purposes, Table 9 displays the waste generation averages in the whole region of

Latin America and the Caribbean, and in the OECD member countries24.

Table 8. Weight and volume of residential solid waste components per capita per day

Category Weight (kg/capita/day)

Volume (cm3/capita/day)

Paper 0.02 1,540

Plastic 0.03 3,290

Metal 0.04 1,750

Organic 0.01 110

Glass 0.03 530

Other 0.01 220

TOTAL 0.14 7,430

Table 9. Average regional waste composition in Latin America and the Caribbean, and OECD member countries (adapted from Hoornweg and Bhada-‐Tata (2012))

132

Category

Waste Composition in Other Countries

Latin America and the Caribbean average waste weight (kg/capita/day)

OECD member countries24 average waste weight (kg/capita/day)

Paper 0.18 0.70

Plastic 0.13 0.24

Metal 0.02 0.13

Organic 0.59 0.59

Glass 0.04 0.15

Other 0.13 0.37

TOTAL 1.1 2.2

The per capita values range from 0.1 to 14 kg/capita/day in Latin America and the

Caribbean, and 1.1 to 3.7 kg/capita/day in the OECD member countries (Hoornweg

& Bhada-‐Tata, 2012).

Figure 24. Residential solid waste distribution by weight in Todos Santos 24 OECD refers to the countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-‐0peration and Development, which includes Canada and the United States, many European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, and others. For a full list of the 34 member countries refer to OECD (2012).

Paper

Plastic

Metal

Organic

Glass

Other

133

Figure 25. Residential solid waste distribution by volume in Todos Santos

The ‘paper’ category included notebooks, school papers, magazines, newspapers,

and cardboard. The ‘plastic’ category was predominantly composed of plastic bags

and bottles. ‘Metal’ included predominantly aluminum drink cans, rusted metal

parts, and paint cans. The ‘organic’ category was composed of kitchen scraps. The

‘glass’ category was predominantly composed of alcohol bottles, and the category

labeled as ‘other’ included broken household items, such as old appliances, brooms,

accessories, fabric items, etc. While organic materials do not make up a large portion

of the residential waste sent to landfill, the previous chapter identified several

health and environmental concerns instigated by organic material in the dump.

Therefore, in addition to targeting the recyclable materials that make up the largest

percentage of the waste composition, targeting organic material is considered a

technical priority.

The waste practices of different neighbourhoods were brought to light through

discussions with the participants during the waste audit process (see Table 10).

Paper

Plastic

Metal

Organic

Glass

Other

134

Table 10. Waste practices by neighbourhood

Neighbourhood Number of participants

Frequency of collection

Waste practices

Los Pablo 25 Every week, or participants bring waste to the dump every two weeks or monthly (no fee is associated with this activity – dumping is open and unregulated)

• Participants burn what will burn; • Metal is sold; • One participant buries paper but others do

not bury any waste; • Everything else goes to the dump; and • Three participants compost organics.

Los Mendoza 13 Every week • Participants burn what will burn; • Metal is sold; • No waste is buried; and • Everything else goes to the dump.

Anglé 23 Every week, every two weeks, or participants bring it to the dump every 3 months, every 6 months, or once a year

• Participants burn what will burn; • Metal is sold; • One participant composts organics; • No waste is buried; and • Everything else goes to the dump.

Che Cruz 32 Every week, or participants bring it to the dump every two weeks to once every 6 months

• Participants burn what will burn; • Metal is sold; • No waste is buried; • Three participants compost organics; • Two participants bury waste that will not

burn; • Everything else goes to the dump; and • One participant sells metal and sends

everything else to the dump. El Centro 33 Every week or

every two weeks • Participants burn what will burn; • Five participants do not burn waste; • Two participants send everything to the

dump; • Metal is sold; • No waste is buried; and • Everything else goes to the dump.

Tuj Manchun 11 Participants bring waste to the dump once a week to once a month

• Participants burn what will burn; • Metal is sold; • Three participants compost organics; • One participant buries organic waste; • One participant buries what will not burn,

but all others do not bury waste; and • Everything else goes to the dump.

135

4.4.2 A ‘Bank of Ideas’ for Solid Waste Management

The SWM ‘Bank of Ideas’ for use in rapidly developing rural Central American

communities is composed of 55 example projects. There are 6 options for overall

system management; 3 options for waste characterization; 14 for waste reduction;

10 for collection, transportation, and financing; 17 for resource recovery; 1 for

waste transformation; and 4 for disposal. These projects are listed vertically

according to waste management categories in Table 11.

Table 11. Bank of Ideas summary of options

Overall system management options

Waste characterization options

Waste reduction options

Collection, transport, and financing options

Resource recovery options

Waste transformation options

Disposal options

Public-‐private partnerships25, 26

Further waste auditing27

Community-‐wide waste education program28, 29, 30, 31

Mini collection centers34, 35

Women's vermiculture initiative32, 33

Small-‐scale incinerator34

Manual landfill35

Creation of a non-‐profit community-‐based organization: Clean Todos Santos Foundation36, 37

Determine energy potential of solid waste27

Waste separation28 Separate collection days38

Women's recycled craft initiative32

Hazardous waste disposal pit29

Development of SWM micro-‐enterprises39, 40, 26

Hands-‐on waste characterization workshops41

Youth waste education program 42, 28

Secondary and tertiary sorting at Recycling center35

Recycled materials as construction materials28 ,35

Transporting hazardous waste to Huehuetenango

25 Gonzalez and Taborga (2001) 26 Hoornweg and Giannelli (2007) 27 Dubey, B. Personal Communication, February 7, 2012 28 Pacheco, A. Personal Communication, April 19,2012 29 Arguedas, M. Personal Communication, April 24, 2012 30 Kruz, C. Personal Communication, April 27, 2012 31 Coc and Zonso (2011) 32 Rodriguez, M. Personal Communication, May 4, 2012 33 Nesbitt, C. Personal Communication, January 28, 2012 34 Jimenez (2000) 35 Yeomans, J. Personal Communication, April 18, 2012 36 Mendonca (2007) 37 Anschütz (1996) 38 Carmona and Giraldo (1997) 39 Badilla and Suarez (2002) 40 Yousif and Scott (2007) 41 Zarate et al. (2008) 42 Montoya Álvarez, C. Personal Communication, April 26, 2012

136







Disposal options

Coordination with local NGOs for capacity building40

‘Teach the teachers’ program28 30

Tax-‐based collection fee system40, 43

Agricultural uses for recycled materials (substrate, etc.)28

Integrating informal waste pickers26 ,44, 45

Community clean streets initiative35

Collection fee community education program43

Biodigesters for methane use as a cooking fuel28, 46

Motivational training and/or exchange visits for managers and operators37

Youth waste entrepreneurship program35

User pays fee system37

Waste-‐to-‐electricity28, 47

Community SWM committees35

Change in method of payment37

Sustainable alliances between agroindustry, communities, and ecological schools47

SWM planning workshops for local businesses48

Relate operator salaries to performance 37

Organics to paper production28

Pre-‐cycle campaign49

Door-‐to-‐door collection with smaller vehicles in hard-‐to-‐reach neighbourhoods50

Roofing from recycled materials35

Fostering constructive neighbourhood/ household competition37

Installation of waste bins in public areas and incorporation into collection route

Waste crops for livestock production during flooded market51

43 World Bank (2005b) 44 Furedy (1992) 45 World Bank (2009) 46 Echeverria (2009) 47 Sierra and Matute (2010) 48 Calderon and Ventura (2008) 49 UMA Environmental (1995) 50 UN Habitat (1989) 51 Moyaz and Reyes (2002)

137







Disposal options

Compensation for proper separation/ system compliance37

Small-‐scale composting28, 35, 52

Increasing respect for public spaces to keep them clean37

Substrate and fertilizer produced from soap and sugar cane waste53

Religious partnerships54

Waste food products55

Ecotourism Compost pile with aeration tube and fan56

Town beautification project49

Return to point of sale program49

Medium-‐scale composting26

See Appendix C for complete descriptions of each option in the bank. The bank of

ideas will be used to generate four improved SWM scenarios that target key places

to intervene in the current SWM system.

4.4.3 Selection criteria for Todos Santos Cuchumatán

The selection criteria specific to Todos Santos are primarily founded upon results from the

previous chapter, and supplemented with technical data from the waste audit and literature

findings. The complete list of locally sensitive constraints and criteria can be found in Table

12 and Table 13.

Table 12. Constraints for locally appropriate system levers for use in Todos Santos

52 Bigoth (2001) 53 Jacome and Romero (2003) 54 Mohamad, Idris, and Mamat (2012) 55 Chan Blanco, Y. Personal Communication, April 19, 2012 56 Robles and Orejuela (2002)

138

Economic considerations Sustainability considerations Technical considerations

Criteria Description Criteria Description Criteria Description

Affordability19 20 21 22

Costs match users’ ability and willingness to pay19 20 21 22

Environmentally sustainable19 21

Innovations do not cause significant harm to long-‐ and short-‐term ecological processes19 21

Soundness of conceptual/ technological design19 21

Functions properly in local conditions, meets local technical needs 19 21

Low capital cost21 22

Requires only small amounts of capital to develop, employ, and maintain21 22

Locally sustainable19 21

Maintenance, reproduction and repair can be conducted at the local level19 21

Table 13. Criteria for locally appropriate system levers for use in Todos Santos

Economic considerations Cultural/Social/Political

considerations Sustainability considerations Technical considerations

Criteria Description Criteria Description Criteria Description Criteria Description

Use of local materials/ resources19 21 22

Reduces external economic dependence, locally repairable19 21 22

Education-‐centered

Targets education, particularly for youth

Flexibility19 20 21 57

Ability to adapt across scales, users, sites, and changing circumstances19 20 21 57

Targets recyclables

Targets materials that make up the majority of the waste composition: plastic, metal, and paper

Relatively labour-‐intensive21 22

Extends human labour and skills instead of replacing them21 22

Targets youth culture

Targets youth’s interest in consumerism and modern culture

Capacity building21

Builds on local skills to establish self-‐sustaining/ expanding community capacity21

Targets organics

Targets organic material to alleviate community health issues

Socially appealing20

Socially appealing image,

Targets waste reduction

Options considerably reduce waste

57 Vanek (2003)

139

positively impacts social status20

being sent to landfill

Targets remaining waste

Options deal with remaining waste that must be sent to landfill

Certain criteria identified in the literature and by the community can be met

by a wide variety of project options if projects are structured specifically to meet

these goals. Therefore, these project framework criteria will not greatly refine the

‘Bank of Ideas’, but must play a strong role in project planning, development,

implementation and upkeep. These criteria are equally as important as those listed

in Table 13; indeed, the community has considered some as crucial to the functioning

of the SWM system (see Table 14). Each system lever can and should be framed by

such measures.

Table 14. Framework criteria

Cultural/Social/Political considerations Sustainability considerations

Criteria Description Criteria Description

Inclusive of women and youth19

Recognizing the value of women and youth, incorporating them in SWM processes19

Project ownership19 21

Ensuring SWM projects are “owned” by the community, involvement of stakeholders in all project stages19 21

Appropriate technology and information transfer mechanisms19

Information and technology transfer is two-‐way process structured on the input of local users in all project stages19

Municipal buy-‐in Interests/benefits municipal authorities

4.4.4 Refining the ‘Bank of Ideas’: System lever assessment

Each system lever option was assessed with each criterion from Table 13 (see

140

Appendix D for the full analysis). Selected options were assembled into four SWM

scenarios, each complete with several system levers that act together to meet the

locally tailored criteria (see Figure 26, Figure 27, Figure 28, and Figure 29). These

scenarios represent a step-‐wise gradient of improving SWM practices. The

Foundations Scenario represents the most basic SWM scenario, meeting all criteria

but some only to a small degree. The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario lies at the

other end of the spectrum, representing the most integrated SWM scenario in which

all criteria are thoroughly met. The Religious Partnerships Scenario and the Private

Sector Involvement Scenario lie between these extremes. Eighteen system levers are

considered critical to the success of each scenario, and therefore form the base of

each one. Options that are unique to or introduced in a particular scenario are

highlighted in a yellow border. The benefits and drawbacks of each scenario are

summarized below in Table 15.

Table 15. Scenario Summary

The Foundations Scenario The Religious Partnerships Scenario

The Private Sector Involvement Scenario

The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario

Benefits Drawbacks Benefits Drawbacks Benefits Drawbacks Benefits Drawbacks

• All leverage points are targeted

• Easy to implement

• Builds upon current waste practices

• Many “learn-‐by-‐doing” approaches

• “End-‐of-‐pipe” fixes

• Unsustainable in the long-‐term

• Minimal influence on most system levers

• Minimal reuse and recycling

• Further targets youth’s interest in consumerism and modern culture and project ownership

• Easy to implement

• Private sector involvement

• Support from religious partnerships

• Predominantly “end-‐of-‐pipe” fixes

• Minimal influence on most system levers

• Decreased likelihood of success due to lack of compensation for waste practices

• Increased private sector involvement

• Increased project ownership

• Increased reuse and recycling

• Biodigester provides methane as cooking fuel and decreases organics sent to landfill

• More costly to implement

• Decreased organics available for animal consumption

• High level of reuse, recycling, waste prevention

• System is highly integrated

• Innovation and micro-‐enterprise are strongly supported

• Most costly to implement

• Difficult/time consuming to implement

• Too much eco-‐tourism and population growth can damage local systems

141

4.4.4.1 The Foundations Scenario

Figure 26 is a conceptual representation of the SWM system in The Foundations

Scenario. The stakeholder groups involved in SWM practices in this scenario include

a community SWM committee; women’s groups; one or more NGOs; the

municipality; and the private sector in the form of micro-‐enterprises. These groups

are responsible for the implementation and upkeep of several system levers, which

are grouped according to type (education and training programs, entrepreneurial

activities, municipal projects, etc.). The category labeled ‘municipal projects OR

micro-‐enterprise business development’ spans across the municipal and private

sector groups because local micro-‐enterprises can begin to take on a few of the

projects in this area and those that remain can be carried out by the municipality.

While the municipality would have to oversee and coordinate these micro-‐

enterprises, forming some private sector partnerships would remove a significant

financial burden from the municipal SWM budget.

142

Figure 26. Conceptual diagram of SWM tasks and stakeholder groups in The Foundations Scenario

System levers that are newly introduced in The Foundations Scenario include the

formation of a SWM committee; small-‐scale composting; organics-‐to-‐paper

production; a small-‐scale incinerator; and user compensation (monetary or in-‐kind)

for proper waste practices, such as separation, waste minimization, and cleaning

recycled materials before setting them out to be collected.

4.4.4.2 The Religious Partnerships Scenario

Figure 27 is a conceptual model of the SWM system in The Religious Partnerships

Scenario. This scenario also includes a community SWM committee; women’s

groups; one or more NGOs; the municipality; and the private sector in the form of

micro-‐enterprises, but additionally includes religious groups as stakeholders. These

groups would be brought on to initiate and manage a community clean streets

initiative, and to increase community respect for public places. Newly introduced

Community Solid Waste Management Committee(s)Education and training programs Community-wide planning

Wastecharacterization

workshops

Solid wasteauditing

Fee collectioncommunityeducationprogram

'Teach theteachers'program

NGOpartnerships

Municipal government solid waste division Private sector

Developmentof an overallSWM plan

Education and training programsMunicipal Projects OR Micro-Enterprise Business DevelopmentEducation and training programs

Manual Landfill

Motivationaltraining/exchange

visits formanagers and

operators Wasteseparationprogram

Tax-basedcollection fee

system

Collection bysmall vehicles in

outerneighbourhoods

Installation andemptying ofwaste bins inpublic areas

Hazardouswaste

transportationto

Huehuetanango

Women's groups

Community-wide wasteeducationprogram

Youth wasteentrepreneurship

program

Entrepreneurship

Women'srecycled crafts

initiative

Women'svermiculture

initiative

Compensationfor proper

waste practices

Organics topaper

production

Small-scalecomposting

sds

Small-scaleincinerator

sssss

143

system levers in this scenario include a town beautification project; agricultural

uses for recycled materials; and SWM planning workshops for local businesses.

These workshops can allow the private sector to play a stronger role in SWM by

identifying ways to minimize and properly dispose of waste, recover resources, and

share waste materials that could be used as resources by other businesses.

Figure 27. Conceptual diagram of SWM tasks and stakeholder groups in The Religious Partnerships Scenario

4.4.4.3 The Private Sector Involvement Scenario

Figure 28 is a conceptual model of the SWM system in The Private Sector

Involvement Scenario. The stakeholder groups involved in SWM practices in this

scenario are the same as those involved in The Religious Partnerships Scenario: a



workshops

Solid wasteauditing



NGOpartnerships


Development ofan overall SWM

plan


SWM planningworkshops for

local businesses

ManualLandfill



operators Wasteseparationprogram


system

Collection bysmall vehicles

in outerneighbourhoods


Hazardous wastetransportation toHuehuetanango

Women's groups


program

Entrepreneurship


initiative

Women'svermiculture

initiative

Townbeautification

project



Agriculturaluse for recycled

materials

Organics topaper

production

sdfsd

Religious partnershipsEducation and training programs

Communityclean streets

initiative

Increasingrespect for

public places tokeep them clean

dsdsd

144

community SWM committee; women’s groups; one or more NGOs; the municipality;

the private sector in the form of micro-‐enterprises; and religious groups.

Figure 28. Conceptual diagram of SWM tasks and stakeholder groups in The Private Sector Involvement Scenario

Newly introduced system levers in this scenario include an education program for

youth that are not attending school; fostering constructive neighbourhood or

household competition; using recycled materials as construction materials; creating

roofing from recycled materials; initiating a return to point of sale program;

conducting secondary and tertiary separation at a centralized recycling center; and

installing a biodigester for methane use as a cooking fuel in homes and/or

restaurants.

NGOPartnerships

Municipal government solid waste division Private sectorEducation and training programsMunicipal Projects OR Micro-Enterprise Business DevelopmentEducation and training programs


local businesses

Manual Landfill



operators

Wasteseparationprogram


system




Hazardouswaste

transportationto

Huehuetanango

Women's groups


program

Entrepreneurship


initiative

Women'svermiculture

initiative

Fosteringneighbourhood/

householdcompetition

Biodigester formethane use as a

cooking fuel

Secondary andtertiary

separation atrecycling center

Roofing fromrecycledmaterials

d



initiative





workshops Solid wasteauditing


'Teach theteachers'program Development of

an overall SWMplan

Townbeautification

projectCommunity-wide wasteeducationprogram


materials

sdfsd

Youth wasteeducationprogram

Recycledmaterials asconstruction

materials

Return to pointof sale program

dfdfdf

145

4.4.4.4 The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario

Figure 29 is a conceptual model of the SWM system in The Integrated SWM Vision

Scenario. The stakeholder groups involved in this scenario also include women’s

groups; one or more NGOs; the municipality; the private sector in the form of micro-‐

enterprises; and religious groups; however, a non-‐profit SWM organization labeled

here as the Clean Todos Santos Foundation replaces the community SWM

committee present in the previous scenarios. This organization would take on

similar roles to that of the SWM committee, but would additionally be responsible

for securing national and/or international support for SWM activities, integrating

the small number of informal waste workers in the community, and managing

ecotourism activities.

146

Figure 29. Conceptual diagram of SWM tasks and stakeholder groups in The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario

The private sector continues to be more involved in SWM activities through a pre-‐

cycle campaign and the development of value-‐added food products from food

wastes. The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario also includes separate collection days

for waste and recyclable materials in order to promote waste

4.5 Discussion

4.5.1 Residential solid waste audit

The level of participation in the residential solid waste audit in each neighbourhood

was dependent on the amount of time each community leader gave the auditor to

Non-profit Clean Todos Santos FoundationEducation and training programs Community-wide planning


workshops

Solid wasteauditing



NGOPartnerships


Developmentof an overallSWM plan

Ongoingprogram

monitoring



local businesses

Manual Landfill



operators

Wasteseparationprogram


system




Hazardouswaste

transportationto

Huehuetanango

Women's groups

Youth wasteeducationprogram


program

Entrepreneurship


initiative

Women'svermiculture

initiative

Fosteringneighbourhood/

householdcompetition

Pre-cyclecampaign

Biodigester formethane use asa cooking fuel

Secondary andtertiary

separation atrecycling center

Roofing fromrecycledmaterials

d

d

Securingnational/

internationalsupport



initiative



Integratinginformal waste

workers


Separatecollection days

Recycledmaterials asconstruction

materials


materials

Sustainablealliances betweencommunities and

ecologicaluniversities

Return to pointof sale program

Waste foodproducts

dfdfdfd

Ecotourism

147

present to the community, which ranged from five minutes to half an hour, and how

much support each community leader gave the project. The women were more

supportive of and interested in the project on the whole. Proper separation and

participation was inversely proportional to the socio-‐economic status of the

participants. Wealthier households generated more waste than poorer households,

yet tended to do a poorer job at separation, or did not separate their waste at all. No

participants admitted to throwing waste in the streets, which at a minimum

indicates that those who do are aware that it is frowned upon, or those who chose to

participate in the audit are already somewhat waste-‐conscious.

The previous municipal administration issued a solid waste policy to all

neighboorhoods outside of El Centro that required them to burn everything that will

burn, sell anything that will sell, compost organic materials, and to send any

remaining items to the dump. The municipality has also lit fires within the landfill

itself to make room for more waste. Waste collection is sparse and in some cases

unreliable. Due to the fact that the dump is situated in the center of town and is

completely unregulated, community members can access it themselves. Clearly,

collection areas need to expand to include the whole community, and pick up should

be conducted on a more reliable schedule.

The results of the residential solid waste audit demonstrated the community’s

strong need of waste reduction and resource recovery strategies. Large quantities of

recyclable materials, including plastic, metal, and paper, are found in the waste

stream. The residents of Todos Santos produce far less waste than the average value

for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) or the OECD member countries. This is

largely due to the fact that the waste audit only represents residential waste

generated, which typically makes up between 50 to 70% of municipal solid waste.

However, even if the waste audit figures were doubled, waste generation would be

much lower than the average value for the LAC region. This is particularly true for

the organic waste values; however, much of this waste is fed to household pigs, and

the actual amount of organic waste produced is much higher that reported in the

waste audit. Although organics make up a fairly small portion of the residential

148

waste sent to the dump, they are a concern in the community as they attract vectors

of disease and propagate the local dog overpopulation problem. Waste audits of

other sources that contribute organic waste to the dump should be investigated,

such as local restaurants, schools, and businesses.

The waste audit also highlighted waste practices that are habitual in the community,

such as waste burning. All neighbourhoods audited demonstrated a strong culture

of waste burning; therefore, a small-‐scale incinerator to generate electricity or hot

water is likely to have a good chance of adoption. Similarly, several community

members in various neighbourhoods have already adopted composting. Therefore,

small-‐scale composting or vermiculture projects have a better chance of adoption.

These community members can act as ‘technology ambassadors’ in their respective

neighbourhoods, helping other families and small businesses to set up and manage

their composting piles.

4.5.2 Bank of Ideas

The ‘Bank of Ideas’ was assembled with several community-‐identified priorities in

mind. Targeting the inclusion of women and youth and the improvement of local

education were community priorities, so a variety of examples for targeting these

areas were sought. Several successful projects targeting women were identified,

because women’s cooperation has been recognized as essential for the long-‐term

success of any urban service project. Women are the first and foremost users of

urban services, including waste collection. Waste disposal is often part of their daily

routine because they tend to be responsible for keeping the home and its immediate

environment clean (Anschütz, 1996). Women are also the first educators of children,

and their involvement can indirectly facilitate better education for children and

youth. Women tend to consider the improvement of urban services a higher priority

than men, yet their participation in SWM decision-‐making is marginal and their

‘voice’ is rarely heard. However, several projects demonstrated women’s crucial role

in SWM (Anschütz, 1996):

• Women act as SWM project initiators;

149

• Women are skilled at carrying out education campaigns on such topics as

preventative health, environmental issues, and sanitation behaviour;

• Women have worked together to put political pressure on local governments

for the implementation of services in their neighbourhood;

• They have acted as managers and operators of solid waste micro-‐enterprises;

and

• Women often act as watchdogs in the community, ensuring that other

households keep to the agreed rules of behaviour.

Therefore, while many projects listed in the bank may not explicitly call for the

participation of women, they should be targeted as ideal candidates for initiation,

management, and operation of solid waste system levers. However, special

consideration should be given to the challenges that women face, such as lacking

time to take on external projects when they must also manage the home and

sometimes also work the farm, or hostility and/or lack of support from male

community members. These issues can lower women’s participation rates, and limit

project funding because monthly fees are often too high to be paid by women alone.

Youth can be included in many similar ways; however, they lack the same interest in

health and sanitation, and tend to be only interested in participating if it will yield a

material reward (Anschütz, 1996). Therefore, examples targeting the inclusion of

youth generally consist of micro-‐enterprises in which youth act as operators,

managers, collectors, or environmental educators, and receive direct pay for their

work.

Campaigns focused on educational measures have often been criticized for raising

awareness but triggering little or no action (Galli et al., 2011; Mayo et al., 2006;

McKenzie-‐Mohr & Smith, 1999). SWM projects often lack educational measures

before and during the operation of the service, or the educational material provided

is not suited to the interests or priorities of the community, and therefore does not

trigger action (Anschütz, 1996). However, education plays a critical role in project

initiation. The benefits of behavioural change must first be advertised for action to

150

occur. The barriers to its use must then be removed and the benefits of its use must

outweigh the benefits of its non-‐use (McKenzie-‐Mohr & Smith, 2008). Education,

coupled with appropriate incentives, can therefore lead to much-‐needed

behavioural change. Anschütz (1996) reports that in a Guatemalan case study,

educational campaigns helped to establish a ‘spirit of responsibility’ towards

environmental problems and the most appropriate ways of confronting them.

While informing households about their solid waste tasks and responsibilities and

the benefits of proper SWM practices is a necessary element of all SWM programs,

focusing on improving the local education system and targeting the education of

youth and the community at large is a central concern in the community. Indeed,

education is a much higher priority than waste management for the municipal

authorities and the majority of the community. Therefore, example projects

targeting long-‐term educational improvements were sought after and included in

the bank. Projects that target the education system, such as the ‘teach the teachers’

campaign, are particularly critical.

It should also be noted that willingness to pay for SWM services is a crucial issue in

Todos Santos. The municipality cannot get the community to pay for SWM services;

community members believe it is the duty of the government to provide these

services for free. However, the municipal budget cannot support a proper collection

and disposal service without incoming funds in the form of taxes or fees. Willingness

to pay is related to the success of many elements of the SWM system (Anschütz,

1996): the motivation of operators and households; the reliability of the services;

the breadth of collection areas; the quality of services; and the ability to conduct

environmental monitoring and environmentally conscious SWM practices. It is

essential to establish appropriate cost recovery mechanisms, as the economic costs

of SWM tend to be concentrated in the maintenance, not the construction, of

disposal sites (World Bank, 2009). Therefore, projects that tackle willingness to pay

were targeted for inclusion in the bank.

151

4.5.3 System lever assessment

Several considerations were made during the system lever assessment that should

be noted, including the lack of markets for recyclable materials; the participation of

women and youth; and public distrust of the private sector.

• One of the principal barriers to conducting thorough resource recovery in

Todos Santos is the lack of markets for recycled materials. The only recycling

facilities in the country are in Xela and Guatemala City (Zarate et al., 2008),

which are both a considerable distance from Todos Santos; it would not be

cost effective to transport recyclable material to these locations. While

looking for and establishing new markets is an activity that must be done,

the community requires resource recovery and waste reduction methods

that do not depend on these markets in the mean time. Therefore, each

scenario presents resource recovery options that can function in the absence

of recycling markets;

• It should be noted that while certain system levers are directly assigned to

women’s groups or directly concern youth in the conceptual SWM scenario

diagrams, other groups, such as the SWM committee, the Clean Todos Santos

Foundation, and micro-‐enterprises are assumed to be inclusive of female

community members and youth; and

• Public skepticism about privatization and its association with lack of

transparency and corruption are common in Latin America (Hoornweg and

Giannelli, 2007); Todos Santos is no exception. Therefore, privatization

options, other than locally based micro-‐enterprises, were eliminated due to

the longstanding community distrust of the private sector.

Several options in the ‘Bank of Ideas’ were considered critical to the success of any

SWM plan in Todos Santos, and therefore they form the base of each of the three

scenarios. The subsequent sections explore these foundational system levers,

followed by a discussion of each of the four SWM system scenarios.

152

4.5.3.1 Foundational system management options

In the overall system management options, partnerships with local NGOs, micro-‐

enterprise development, and motivational training and exchange visits for managers

and operators are considered foundational for each scenario. The community is

already familiar with civil society projects, as several NGOs have worked in Todos

Santos in the past, and some have already expressed interest in working with waste

management issues in the community. Micro-‐enterprises are considered

foundational because they can accomplish smaller scale tasks within the SWM

system that the municipality cannot manage; they require low capital investment,

are relatively labour intensive, and contribute to the local economy; and they are

“owned” by community members, which may encourage better waste practices.

Training workshops, or charlas, are considered foundational for several reasons.

They are favoured by community members in Todos Santos; those who are invited

take pride in their training and consider the invitation a special occasion.

Workshops can be organized to fit a range of budgets, are education-‐centered, and

can foster a strong sense of project ownership among SWM employees. They can

foster a sense of pride in waste work, and help waste workers gain respect in the

community. Workshops can be tailored to changing circumstances, can build

capacity, and can increase the environmental sustainability of projects and worker

practices. Workshops and visits to other locations with successful waste

management practices can be organized through local NGOs.

4.5.3.2 Foundational waste characterization options

In the waste characterization options, further waste auditing and hands-‐on waste

characterization workshops are considered essential. While the residential waste

audit provided important information on residential waste disposal practices and

waste types and quantities, more information is needed to design a manual landfill

that will have the capacity to remain open for a minimum of 15 years. Waste audits

of local businesses, municipal offices, schools, and restaurants should be conducted

to gain a fuller understanding of the solid waste situation in Todos Santos. An

estimation of the overall waste produced each week should also be carried out.

153

Conducting hands-‐on waste characterization workshops will allow community

members and waste workers to take ownership of waste characterization and

landfill design. Zarate et al. (2008) discuss how these workshops can provide

participants with an understanding of the importance of volume minimization and

waste reduction schemes.

4.5.3.3 Foundational waste reduction options

In the waste reduction options, waste separation; community-‐wide waste education

programs; ‘teach the teachers’ programs; and youth waste entrepreneurship

programs; are considered foundational. Waste separation targets recyclable

materials that make up the largest portion of waste sent to the dump, and also

targets organics, which contribute to serious health issues in the community.

Community education programs are necessary to inform households about their

solid waste tasks and responsibilities, the benefits and tasks associated with waste

separation, collection schedules, and payment methods. These programs should

target women, as they are the main handlers of waste in the home. ‘Teach the

teachers’ programs can act as the foundation of an education system improvement

initiative. These workshops can foster local capacity, and allow the teachers to be

able to pass down important technical, social, economic, and entrepreneurial

information to students. Teacher training can be orchestrated in coordination with a

local NGO. Youth waste entrepreneurship programs can target youth in and out of

school who are interested in starting their own businesses. Teaching

entrepreneurial skills and innovative reuse and resource recovery projects can

foster capacity, environmental and local sustainability, and can provide youth with a

means to gain material rewards for SWM work.

4.5.3.4 Foundational collection, transport, and financing options

In the collection, transport, and financing options, a tax-‐based collection fee system;

collection fee community education programs; collection by small vehicles or

pushcarts in outer neighbourhoods; and the installation and emptying of waste bins

in public areas are considered essential to the proper functioning of the SWM

system. Implementing a tax-‐based collection fee system is crucial to the

154

performance of the overall SWM system. The alternative, which is based on the user

pays principle, would likely lead to illegal dumping and waste burning. A taxation

system should therefore be implemented that charges based on income bracket.

Community collection fee education programs will be essential to get community

members on board for the taxation system. The value and importance of paying for

SWM services and therefore having a functioning SWM system, such as the financial

benefits derived from reductions in expenses associated with health and

environmental services, can be relayed to community members during these

programs. It is essential that the collection area be expanded to include

neighbourhoods outside of El Centro. Smaller motorized vehicles or manual

pushcarts should be used to access steep and narrow streets. The collection route

should also include waste bins in public places, and more of these bins should be

installed to discourage littering.

4.5.3.5 Foundational resource recovery options

In resource recovery options, women’s recycled craft initiatives and a women’s

vermiculture initiative are recommended as foundational elements. These options

directly target resource reduction and the inclusion of women. They also build

capacity and foster entrepreneurial skills among women who may otherwise have

no available source of income. While the largest setback with composting initiatives

is often a lack of markets, a partnership with an NGO, such as Byoearth whose

founder participated in the expert interview process, would ensure that markets

could be reached for the compost produced by the women.

4.5.3.6 Foundational disposal options

Finally, in disposal options, a manual landfill and transporting hazardous waste to

the city of Huehuetenango are considered essential to meet all the technical needs of

the community. Although waste reduction and resource recovery options are highly

emphasized, the construction of a landfill for items that cannot be recovered

remains necessary. This particular landfill design is relatively labour intensive,

inexpensive to build and maintain, and will greatly minimize many of the main

community concerns about the current open dump (odor, aesthetics, attraction of

155

vectors of disease, and environmental contamination). One of the primary barriers

to constructing a new landfill for the community has been a lack of suitable land.

The mountainous terrain that surrounds the town leaves few locations flat enough

for a standard landfill design, particularly since such land is prized for agricultural

use. However, this particular landfill design is flexible in that it consists of a series of

long, narrow trenches that can curve to fit the local shape of the land. Therefore,

locations that were previously deemed inappropriate for landfill construction may

be suitable for this trench style, manual design. Transporting hazardous waste to a

facility in the city of Huehuetenango is an appropriate disposal method because

medical waste is already transported to Huehuetenango; other hazardous wastes

could be included on the truck, minimizing extra transportation costs.

4.5.4 The Foundations Scenario

The Foundations Scenario is the most basic of the four SWM scenarios and requires

the least number of changes to the current system. Organic material is targeted

through:

• Small-‐scale composting;

• A women’s vermiculture initiative; and

• Organics to paper production: Paper made from fruit peels (e.g. banana) and

other fibrous material can be used locally or sold to tourists. Women’s

groups already make and sell woven and other crafted items to tourists;

paper production could easily be added to their established crafting

activities.

Recyclable materials are diverted from landfill through:

• A women’s recycled craft initiative; and

• A small-‐scale incinerator. While incineration is not ideal, particularly since

the suggested small-‐scale, affordable incinerator cannot reach high enough

temperatures for full combustion to occur, a strong culture of waste burning

exists in the community. Therefore, incineration is an easy first step for

volume reduction. Depending on the community’s preference, either a filter

156

can be installed, or plastics and bleached items should not be incinerated to

avoid dioxin production.

The formation of a community SWM committee supports the initiation of many of

the proposed projects in this scenario. A community SWM committee can act as a

space for the development of an overall SWM plan, motivational workshops,

training, project initiation, and progress assessment. The committee should be

composed of a wide range of community members, including citizens; workers from

the ministries of health, environment, and agriculture; municipal authorities; local

businesses; restaurants; local schools; members of the police force, etc. In The

Foundations Scenario, the SWM committee is responsible for carrying out four SWM

education and training programs:

• Waste characterization workshops;

• A ‘teach the teachers’ program;

• A fee collection education program; and

• A general SWM education program for the community at large.

The committee will also be responsible for conducting solid waste auditing and

initiating small-‐scale composting with families or groups of families in the

community.

The municipality is responsible for implementing a tax-‐based fee collection system,

a waste separation program, and for conducting motivational training for waste

managers and operators. If feasible, low-‐cost exchange visits may be coordinated

with a local NGO (such as Byoearth) to spark local innovation. The municipality

should also provide compensation or incentives for proper waste practices, such as

separation, waste minimization, and cleaning recycled materials before setting them

out to be collected. Incentives that will be effective may vary from neighbourhood to

neighbourhood, and should be chosen on a context-‐specific basis.

The private sector is responsible for taking on a few basic SWM tasks for the

municipality, and for implementing a youth waste entrepreneurship program in

conjunction with a local NGO.

157

4.5.5 The Religious Partnerships Scenario

The Religious Partnerships Scenario is a step further towards an integrated SWM

system due to the addition of several SWM tasks and the development partnerships

with religious groups. Religion plays a strong role in the lives of most Todos

Santeros, and religious groups are very active in the community. While a distinct

divide exists between the evangelical Protestants and the Costumbre, a religious

assimilation of Catholicism and ancient Mayan customs into syncretic beliefs and

associated rituals (Wall, 1993), religious respect for the environment is deeply

rooted in the history of the community. Nature and the environment are a part of

spirituality and religion for many Todos Santeros, and several study participants

expressed that the environmental damage caused by poor SWM is a spiritual

concern. Therefore, involving religious groups through projects such as a

community clean streets program and an initiative to increase respect for public

spaces would be an acceptable way to increase community waste involvement and

education. A clean streets program can encourage community members to dispose

of waste in bins instead of throwing it in the streets by fostering a sense of

commitment to the communal good. It can also focus on informing community

members of their buying power, and encouraging them to make purchases that

come with less packaging. An initiative to increase respect for public places can

entail a campaign about the financial, health, and environmental repercussions of

littering (less municipal resources for education, health, etc. and unclean spaces

cause health and environmental issues). Such an initiative can also include the

installation of religious shrines or other symbols of respect in public spaces, for

which public inaugurations are held. This should decrease the likelihood of littering

in public spaces.

The newly introduced system levers that target recyclable materials include:

• Using recycled materials in agriculture: The SWM committee is responsible

for coordinating with local farmers to include recyclable materials as

barriers around beds, as other structures, and as substrate in the soil. When

158

these materials are used as substrate they must be accompanied by activated

charcoal or biochar to prevent contamination; and

• A town beautification project that uses recycled materials to create

structures (fountains, sculptures, garden walls, etc.) that represent the

culture and identity of the community. It is to be initiated by the community

SWM committee, but can be undertaken in partnerships with local schools

and community groups. While the town beautification project is not a

permanent resource recovery strategy in itself, it can act as a demonstration

project for the youth waste entrepreneurship program and the community

waste education programs. If properly partnered with civil society and the

private sector, it can act as an instrument for launching several longer-‐term

resource recovery micro-‐enterprises in the community.

The Religious Partnerships Scenario targets organic material through the same

means as The Foundations Scenario: a women’s vermiculture initiative; organics to

paper production; and small-‐scale composting.

The private sector plays a larger role in SWM tasks in The Religious Partnerships

Scenario. Workshops for SWM planning for local businesses can provide specific

SWM training tailored to the waste types each business or group of businesses

produce. These workshops can increase environmentally friendly practices, foster

local ownership, and in many cases have the potential to save money or generate

new forms of income for the business of concern. These workshops can also allow

businesses to develop partnerships for sharing waste resources. Micro-‐enterprises

focused specifically on solid waste are encouraged to take on some of the SWM

projects for the municipality, just as they are in The Foundations Scenario.

4.5.6 The Private Sector Involvement Scenario

In this scenario, the structure of participating stakeholder groups is the same as in

The Religious Partnerships Scenario, but some of these groups take on additional

system levers to create a more integrated SWM system. The SWM committee is

responsible for implementing an additional waste education program for youth that

cannot benefit from in-‐school programs. The growing interest in consumerism and

159

modern culture among youth is a community concern; these workshops can help

youth to make smarter consumer choices and preserve local culture by focusing on

fostering ethical values, ecological awareness, entrepreneurial thinking, and social

responsibility. The municipality is responsible for fostering constructive

neighbourhood or household competition about having the best waste practices and

maintaining the cleanest streets. Competition can be based on the most reuse

around the house, waste reduction by volume, or simply on following the waste

separation guidelines. An appropriate incentive can be used to start this competition

(e.g. a prize, ‘clean street of the month’ award, etc.), and a celebration or competition

day can be held to encourage families and neighbourhoods to participate.

Other newly introduced system levers are to be taken on by either the municipality

or the private sector, which has the opportunity to play a larger role in SWM tasks

than it did in The Religious Partnerships Scenario. Newly introduced system levers

that target recyclable material include:

• Making roofing out of recycled materials;

• Through the implementation of a return to point of sale program, which

enlists local businesses to accept broken products or empty containers for

repair, reuse, and re-‐sale;

• The construction of a centralized recycling center, where re-‐sorting of waste

that was previously separated in the home can occur. Materials can be

organized for sale or free pick-‐up, depending on demand; and

• Using recycled materials in construction: Community members are quite

familiar with using recyclable material for construction, as an NGO recently

built a school in the community using plastic bottles stuffed with waste as

bricks. Therefore, other similar uses for recyclable materials are likely to be

well accepted in the community.

The newly introduced system lever that targets organic material is a biodigester

that captures methane for use as a cooking fuel in homes and restaurants. The

biodigester is simple and inexpensive to construct. If successfully adopted by the

160

community, these biodigesters can be used to digest wastewater in the future, which

is currently untreated and released directly into the Limon River. Thus, the

biodigesters have evolutionary capacity; they can act as a stepping-‐stone to further

system integration and have the capacity to accomplish more work as the

community progresses.

4.5.7 The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario

The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario represents the most integrated SWM system

option. Recyclable materials are targeted through a women’s recycled crafts

initiative, a pre-‐cycle campaign, using recyclable materials in agriculture and

construction, a return to point of sale program, and making roofing from recycled

materials. Organics are targeted through a women’s vermiculture initiative, waste

food products, and a biodigester for methane use as a cooking fuel in homes or

restaurants.

The most fundamental change to the system’s structure is the introduction of a non-‐

profit organization, labeled in Figure 29 as the ‘Clean Todos Santos Foundation’. The

organization should be founded on the vision of the community at large, and should

include a broad range of stakeholders. An agreement should be signed between the

organization and the municipality on solid waste objectives, targets, and a

comprehensive SWM plan for the town of Todos Santos. The organization conducts

certain SWM tasks (e.g. conducts a thorough waste audit, conducting ongoing

monitoring, etc.) and oversees and manages certain SWM aspects in the community

in conjunction with the municipality (e.g. coordinates with/oversees micro-‐

enterprises). It is responsible for all of the educational and planning tasks that the

SWM committee conducts in the other scenarios, but is also responsible for the

following:

• Searching for and securing national and potentially international support.

• Integrating informal waste workers in to SWM tasks: While Todos Santos is

too small to have a booming waste economy with many informal waste

workers or pickers, a small handful of community members do resort to

161

scavenging at the dump. This activity is likely to increase as the town

expands and the population grows. Therefore, including waste scavengers in

formal SWM activities at this early stage is important.

• Increasing ecotourism in the community: Encouraging ecotourism activities

will provide a local drive to shift to more ecological practices. It will also

bring in revenue that will directly benefit community members and can also

be used to fund SWM services. Innovative waste practices in the community

can act as one of the central pulls for ecotourism. As waste practices improve,

Todos Santos can represent a community on the path to sustainability.

• Developing sustainable alliances between the community and ecological

universities: Creating a three-‐way alliance between the community, a

university and agroindustry was originally considered as a potential

resource recovery option, but there is little agroindustry in the immediate

area. However, an alliance with a university, such as Universidad Rural de

Guatemala or Universidad EARTH in Costa Rica, is still recommended

because it can greatly help the community to improve its waste practices,

foster local innovation, and achieve long-‐term project success.

The private sector is expected to play an even larger role in The Integrated SWM

Vision Scenario. More opportunities exist for micro-‐enterprises to participate in

waste reduction and recycling, including making value-‐added products from

unwanted food waste (e.g. whey can be made into a cream-‐free “cream cheese”;

burnt coffee can be used to make iced coffees or coffee ice-‐cream; etc.). Existing local

businesses can also encourage waste reduction through the ‘pre-‐cycle’ campaign,

which proactively reduces waste by reducing the initial sale of heavily packaged

products. Either the private sector or the municipality is recommended to carry out

separate collection days for waste and recyclable material in The Integrated SWM

Vision Scenario. This strategy aims to reduce waste production or the amount of

recyclable material found in the waste stream by increasing the frequency of

collection for recyclable materials or decreasing the frequency of waste collection.

162

4.5.8 Scenario selection

The scenarios represent an incremental gradient of integration in the SWM system.

While each scenario can stand on its own, one scenario may not be appropriate for

the entire town. Different neighbourhoods may require different, context-‐specific

scenarios. Currently, SWM services are not provided uniformly to all

neighbourhoods. For example, El Centro is the only neighbourhood that receives

consistent waste collection; it is also the wealthiest neighbourhood with the greatest

access to education and health services. The study participants from El Centro

showed less interest in waste separation, and the majority did not separate their

waste during the waste audit. This contrasted with the avid cooperation of

participants living in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Even within each

surrounding neighbourhood, current waste practices and services differ

considerably. Residents living closer to the center of town are more likely to receive

waste collection services and demonstrate similar interests and needs to those

living in El Centro (see Figure 30 for a conceptual representation of SWM service

provision).

= SWM service coverage

Figure 30. Conceptual diagram of current SWM service provision in Todos Santos

Therefore, it is recommended that at a minimum, the surrounding neighbourhoods

implement a different scenario from that implemented in El Centro. Due to the

163

lower socio-‐economic status of the residents and the lack of current SWM services

in the surrounding neighbourhoods, Scenarios 1 or 2 may be better starting points

for these areas, while The Private Sector Involvement Scenario would be better

tailored to El Centro. Of course, the researcher cannot make such a decision; only

the community can make these choices.

It should be noted that the incremental nature of the scenarios allows for easy

transition from one to the next; this evolutionary capacity will allow the community

to continually adjust and improve its solid waste practices, achieving higher and

higher levels of system integration. A strong focus on project ownership and on

developing entrepreneurial skills within the community will help build local

capacity and foster local innovation in the long-‐term.

4.5.9 Challenges and setbacks

Several setbacks and challenges were experienced over the course of the solid waste

audit. Multiple schools were approached to participate in the waste audit process,

but none were interested, and all refused to participate. Additionally, the overall

quantity of waste sent to the dump each week could not be estimated due to

operator coordination issues. The auditor attempted to assess the average quantity

of waste coming in on each truck and the number of trucks entering the site, but was

told to leave the site by the truck operators halfway through the process. Limited

time and resources prohibited this task from being conducted at a later date. Clearly,

communication, trust, and understanding were not successfully established with

these individuals. A third challenge of this nature was encountered during the

participant recruitment phase. Initial recruitment through radio advertisement

brought in very few participants, so the auditor requested to attend the monthly

community meetings of each neighbourhood to ask for study volunteers. Initially, it

was difficult to gain the understanding and cooperation with the community

leaders, and the auditor was generally rejected. However, the auditor responded by

hiring a local translator so the information could be relayed in Mam, the native

tongue of the community at large. The interpreter was carefully briefed before the

leaders were approached for a second time. The presentation was made again in

164

Mam, this time emphasizing the negative health effects that poor waste

management has caused in Todos Santos. The Mam rendition proved to be much

more successful, and the auditor was permitted to present, with the aid of the

translator, at each neighbourhood’s community meeting.

These issues demonstrate the pivotal importance of project ownership, which was

previously identified as a key factor for instigating positive changes in the SWM

system. Clearly, communication, trust, and understanding are extremely pertinent

to project ownership success. These factors form the foundation of what Murphy et

al. (2009) refer to as appropriate technology transfer mechanisms. The challenges

faced in the field demonstrate the absolutely critical nature of appropriate

information and technology transfer mechanisms for any community project.

Identifying and developing local solutions must be a two-‐way process, structured on

the input of local users in all project stages. While time and resource barriers

prevented the auditor from pursuing the participation of schools or the assessment

of the weekly quantity of waste sent to the dump, future work can target these

elements with approaches that focus on clear communication, understanding, and

community project ownership. This study provides the community of Todos Santos

with a strong platform from which context-‐specific SWM choices can be made that

have the potential to build capacity and help the community progress towards an

integrated, appropriate SWM system.

4.6 Conclusion Community identified concerns formed the base of this study. Education; municipal

interest in SWM; youth’s interest in consumerism and modern culture; the

participation of women and youth in the SWM process; and community project

ownership were previously identified as key areas to intervene in the solid waste

system. These targets, supplemented with technical data from the residential waste

audit, helped guide the compilation of 55 potential system levers in the ‘Bank of

Ideas’. Sixteen criteria spanning economic; social, cultural, and political;

sustainability; and technical considerations were used to produce four scenarios,

ranging from low to high SWM system integration. It is recommended that The

165

Private Sector Involvement Scenario be implemented in the neighbourhood of El

Centro, and The Foundations Scenario or 2 be implemented in the surrounding

neighbourhoods. However, the community must judge which SWM scenarios are

most appropriate for local use. This study can aid in guiding this process and in

ensuring the community is able to choose from a broad selection of innovative

approaches with high potential to be locally appropriate.

166

4.7 References Anschütz, J. (1996). Community-‐based solid waste management and water supply

projects: Problems and solutions compared: A survey of the literature. Gouda, The Netherlands: WASTE

Asian Tribune. (2009). The importance of technology for development: A political economy perspective, Asian Tribune.

Badilla, R. A., & Suarez, A. S. (2002). Viabilidad de implementar un sistema integrado de manejo de desechos para pequenas comunidades de la zona Atlantica de Costa Rica a traves de microempresas. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Bigoth, K. S. (2001). Auditoria del manejo de los desechos en la empresa Linda Vista, Cartago, Costa Rica. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Calderon, J. C. S., & Ventura, J. F. Q. (2008). Plan de gestion para el manejo de los residuos solidos en empresas del distrito de guapiles. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Carmona, C., & Giraldo, E. (1997). Analysis del sistema de recoleccion de desechos solidos municipales con previa separacion en al fuente. Bogota, Colombia.

Coc, E. M., & Zonso, J. J. (2011). Elaboracion de una guia basica para la manejo de desechos solidos en una comunidad rural. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.


Conteh, A. (2003). Culture and the transfer of technology. In B. Hazeltine & C. Bull (Eds.), Field guide of appropriate technology. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science.

Darrow, K., & Saxenian, M. (1993). Appropriate technology sourcebook: A guide to practical books for village and small community technology. Stanford, CA: Village Earth.

Dunn, P. (1978). Appropriate technology: Technology with a human face. London: Macmillan.

Echeverria, F. O. (2009). Evaluacion del sistema de tratamiento de aguas residuales del sector central de la Universidad EARTH. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Eckaus, R. S. (1977). Appropriate technologies for developing countries. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

167

Furedy, C. (1992). Garbage: Exploring non-‐conventional options in Asian cities. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 42-‐61.

Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., & Giljum, S. (2011). Integrating ecological, carbon, and water footprint: Defining the “Footprint Family" and its application in tracking human pressure on the planet: One Planet Economy Network.

Geng, Y., Tsuyoshi, F., & Chen, X. (2010). Evaluation of innovative municipal solid waste management through urban symbiosis: A case study of Kawasaki. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(10-‐11), 993-‐1000.

Gonzalez, G. P. B., & Taborga, S. A. T. (2001). Evaluacion economica de la contaminacion por desechos en la zona urbana de Guapiles. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-‐Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: A global review of solid waste management. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Hoornweg, D., & Giannelli, N. (2007). Managing municipal solid waste in Latin America and the Caribbean: Integrating the private sector, harnessing incentives: PPIAF World Bank.

IDB. (2011). Strategic guidelines for the municipal solid waste sector (MSW). Paper presented at the CSD intersessional conference on building partnerships for moving towards zero waste, Tokyo, Japan.

Jacome, A. C., & Romero, F. F. V. (2003). Elaboracion de sustratos y enmiendas agricolas a partir de desechos de la agroindustria azucarera y la industria del jabon. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Jimenez, E. D. S. (2000). Analysis del sistem a de manejo integrado de desechos solidos domesticos de EARTH y su evaluacion desde el punto de vista social interno. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Joseph, K., Rajendiran, S., Senthilnathan, R., & Rakesh, M. (2012). Integrated approach to solid waste management in Chennai: an Indian metro city. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 14(2), 75-‐84.

Kgathi, D., & Bolaane, B. (2001). Instruments for sustainable solid waste management in Botswana. Waste Management and Research, 19(4), 342-‐353.

Kojima, M. (2011, February 16-‐18, 2011). Case from Asia: Expanding role of private sectors in waste management and recycling business towards realizing sound material cycle society. Paper presented at the CSD intersessional conference on building partnerships for moving towards zero waste, Tokyo, Japan.

168



Matuschke, I. (2009). Rapid urbanization and food security: Using food density maps to identify future food security hotspots. Paper presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing, China.

Mayo, E., et al. (2006). I will if you will: Towards sustainable consumption: National Consumption Roundtable Sustainable Development Commission.


Mendonca, A. E. A. (2007). Propuesta de modelo para la gestion de los residuos solidos en el canton de Pococi. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Mohamad, Z. F., Idris, N., & Mamat, Z. (2012). Role of religious communities in enhancing transition experiments: a localised strategy for sustainable solid waste management in Malaysia. Sustainability Science, 7(2), 237-‐251.

Moodley, S. (2005). Deconstructing the South African Government's ICT for Development Discourse. Africa Insight, 35(3), 3-‐11.

Moyaz, M. V., & Reyes, M. F. (2002). Analisis de factibilidad technico-‐economica del engorde de bovinos en semiconfinamiento suplementados con desechos de palmito. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Murphy, H. M., McBean, E. A., & Farahbakhsh, K. (2009). Appropriate technology – A comprehensive approach for water and sanitation in the developing world. Technology in Society, 31(2), 158-‐167.

Ntim, B. (1988). Introduction. In S. Buatsi (Ed.), Technology Transfer -‐ nine case studies. London, UK: IT Publications.

OECD. (2012). Members and partners Retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/

Pellegrini, U. (1979). The problem of appropriate technology. . In A. De Giorgio & C. Roveda (Eds.), Criteria for selecting appropriate technologies under different cultural, technical, and social conditions (pp. 1-‐5). New York: Pergamon Press.

169

Robles, M. B., & Orejuela, F. S. (2002). Evaluacion de manejo dedesechos organicos domesticos en la EARTH. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Rybczynski, W. (1980). Paper Tigers. Charlmington: Prism.


Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered. London: Blond and Briggs, 1974.


Sierra, J. A. P., & Matute, T. D. S. P. (2010). La biodigestion como estrategia en el manejo sostenible de desechos organicos, y para el fomento de alianzas entre la agroindustria, las comunidaded, y redes de escuelas ecologicas. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH.

Singh, R., Tyagi, V. V., Allen, T., Ibrahim, M. H., & Kothari, R. (2011). An overview for exploring the possibilities of energy generation from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Indian scenario. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), 4797-‐4808.

Singh, R. P., Singh, P., Araujo, A. S. F., & Ibrahim, M. H. (2011). Management of urban solid waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 55(7), 719-‐729.

Smillie, I. (2000). Mastering the Machine Revisited: Poverty, Aid and Technology. London: ITDG Publishing.

170

5 Local innovation, ownership, and action: A systems approach to context-‐specific ‘best’ options for integrated solid waste management in Todos Santos, Guatemala

5.1 Introduction The study and management of complex systems, such as SWM systems, requires an

understanding of feedback loops, information flows, and other complex interactions

among system components. However, many policy and planning decisions are made

without consideration of the SWM system as a complex, interconnected whole; this

heightens the risk of making poor choices, errors, and oversights in managerial

activities (Kollikkathara et al., 2010). For these reasons, many researchers have

begun to explore SWM from a systemic perspective. System models, including causal

mapping/loop diagrams and system dynamics models, have been used by a number

of researchers to gain a fuller understanding of SWM systems and sub-‐systems. Such

models have been used to predict municipal solid waste generation and landfill

capacity (Dyson & Chang, 2005; Kollikkathara et al., 2010); as a decision support

tool for SWM financial planning (Kum, Sharp, & Harnpornchai, 2004); to simulate

the composting process (Neves, Gomes, Tarelho, & Matos, 2007); to forecast the

development of SWM systems that include qualitative variables such as voluntary

recycling (Karavezyris, Timpe, & Marzi, 2002); to explore transitioning from

landfilling to other forms of disposal (Mashayekhi, 1993); to explore the

interactions among solid waste system components in a developing country context,

ensuring to include the informal sector (Sudhir, Srinivasan, & Muraleedharan,

1997); to manage healthcare waste (Clipak & Barton, 2012); and to evaluate the

social performance of construction waste management (Yuan, 2012).

While taking a systems approach is crucial for achieving a more integrated solid

waste system, developing a SWM system that is locally appropriate and sustainable

cannot be achieved without the involvement of local stakeholders. However, though

participatory model building has become increasingly popular as a means to

facilitate inclusive decision-‐making and effective community participation in the

management of other resources (e.g. see Mirchi, Madani, Watkins Jr., and Ahmad

171

(2012); Campo, Bousquet, and Villanueva (2010); and Suwarno, Nawir, Julmansyah,

and Kurniawan (2009)), such approaches have received little attention in the field of

SWM. This has limited the success of systems approaches in SWM because locally

appropriate systemic change is dependent upon stakeholder participation; actual

systemic change occurs at multiple levels, “beginning with people’s initial intent to

address a complex problem systemically and by clarifying the end result around

which they are aligned” (Stroh, 2003, p. 7). Locally appropriate change proceeds if

stakeholders are engaged in understanding, building commitment to, and

contributing to the systemic approach (Stroh, 2003). Only then can the system

structure be examined for places to intervene in a locally appropriate, sustainable

manner. The previous chapters lay the groundwork for the development of an

action-‐oriented plan for change through systemic intervention. Such ‘action

planning’ is based on the use of leverage effects, or as Vermaak (2007, p. 184)

describes, “the use of a charming and deep-‐seated notion in systems thinking: the

ability to achieve as much impact as possible with as little effort as possible by

focusing on the right factors”. These leverage points can be identified by examining

causal maps or loop diagrams of the system in question, and, once found, can point

to successful strategies for change (Vermaak, 2007). Such strategies can form the

foundation of a locally tailored system intervention plan.

In order to ensure stakeholders can make an educated decision about which

strategies are “best fit” for their particular system, it is important to understand

how each project or strategy affects the structure of the system: Which leverage

points are targeted, how strongly are they influenced, and how might these changes

affect the structure and behaviour of the system? This chapter explores these

questions through a scenario implementation analysis.

5.2 Methodology Founded on the results of previous chapters, this study explores the impacts of each

of the four SWM scenarios established in Chapter 4 on the structure of the SWM

system, as depicted through the participatory causal mapping process described in

Chapter 3. A simplified version of the community-‐wide causal map depicting only

172

the feedback loops, elements, and relationships that are ideal places to intervene in

the system was used for the scenario impact analysis (see Figure 31). The system

levers identified in chapter 4 are labeled in green.

Figure 31. Key places to intervene in the Todos Santos SWM system

The following sections describe the methodology used to determine the impact of all

four scenarios on the SWM system in Todos Santos.

Health


Funding forSWM

RecyclableMaterialQuantity

EconomicCapital

WasteQuantity




Needs

Generation Rate

Tourism


Waste


Streets


Education



WholeCommunity


-

+

+

MunicipalInterest in SWM

-

-

Adequacy ofSWM-

+

Degradation


+

Life SupportSystems

+

-

-


+

+

Influx ofPlastic

EconomicIncome

+

ReductionRate

Maintaining Traditions,Culture, and Language


Consumerism and ModernCulture-

Educated Youth

+

-

ResourceAccess

+

+

+ ++

TownAesthetics

+


+

+

+

+

-

+

-

+

Recycled andReused

Materials

RecyclableMaterial

Entering theWaste Stream

Recycled MaterialDiversion

173

5.2.1 Scenario implementation

The four SWM scenarios established in Chapter 4 are implemented separately to

display the differing impacts each one would have on the SWM system. Scenarios

are “implemented” by introducing the components that make up each one into the

system structure. New system elements – including relationships, variables, stocks,

and flows – are established to connect the scenario components to the existing

system structure in a logical manner. The strengths of new relationships are rated in

the same way they are in the original causal maps (see Chapter 3): a thin arrow

represents low strength, and is assigned a numerical value of 1; an arrow with

medium thickness has a medium strength and is assigned a numerical value of 2;

and a thick arrow represents a strong relationship with a value of 3. All new system

elements are represented in purple, and newly introduced scenario components are

represented in red to distinguish each one from the existing system structure.

5.2.2 Implementation analysis

The implementation analysis consists of three parts:

• Determining the individual and collective impacts of all projects within a

given scenario. This includes determining which variables are increased or

decreased, which relationships are strengthened, and which system levers,

such as action-‐entry points and reinforcing feedback loops, are altered;

• Verifying which scenarios are most likely to be well-‐suited for immediate

implementation within each neighbourhood of Todos Santos; and

• Identifying which projects within these suggested scenarios should be

implemented during the first “momentum-‐building” phase of the system

intervention plan. It is important to ensure a system intervention plan gains

momentum by identifying a few key changes in processes, procedures, and

perceptions that should be made (Stroh, 2003). The success of this initial

stage is also dependent upon deepening stakeholders’ understanding of the

system as changes are made (Stroh, 2003).

174

It should be noted that implementing a chosen scenario in a series of stages ensures

that change is introduced in small, natural steps, and that the system does not resist

these changes to the extent that implementation fails altogether.

5.3 Results


The systemic impacts of The Foundations Scenario can be seen in Figure 32. System

levers that are newly introduced in this scenario are depicted in red, and newly

added system components are depicted in purple. Grey components receive little to

no impact in this scenario. Blue arrows and black variables, stocks, and flows

represent components that are influenced by the added system levers.

175

Figure 32. Impacts of The Foundations Scenario system levers on the community-‐wide causal map

5.3.1.1 Targeting the five action entry points

The Foundations Scenario targets each of the five primary action entry points

identified in Chapter 3, although some more weakly than others.

• Education, particularly that of youth, is directly targeted through the Teach

the Teachers’ Program, the Youth Waste Entrepreneurship Program, and

other waste education measures;

Health


Funding forSWM


EconomicCapital

WasteQuantity




Needs

Generation Rate

Tourism


Waste

People ThrowWaste in the Streets

PublicEducation

Participationof Womenand Youth


Whole Community

Interest/Understanding about

the Waste Issue

-

-

+


-

-

Adequacy ofSWM-

+


+

Life SupportSystems

+

-



+

+

Influxof

Plastic

EconomicIncome

+

ReductionRate

MaintainingTraditions, Culture,

and Language Youth are a DifferentGeneration: Interest in


-

Educated Youth

+

-

+

+

Town Aesthetics

+

Installation andemptying of waste bins

in public areas

Quantity oforganics in

dump

WasteEducation

+

Vectors ofdisease

Dumpingrate

+

Organicsconsumption

+

RecyclableMaterialsEntering

WasteStream

+

Need fordisposal

Degradation

+

poor wastedisposal

(dumping,burying, slow

burning)

+

-

+

+

methane gasDecomposition

+

Development ofEffective SWM

Plan

RecyclableMaterial

Diverted fromLandfill

LEGEND

<FeeCollectionEducationProgram>

+

+

WasteCharacterization

Workshops

Youth WasteEntrepreneurship

Program

Micro-Enterprise

Development

Compensationfor Proper Waste

Practices

MotivationalTraining forManagers

andOperators

Community- wideWaste Education

Program

CommunitySWM

Committee(s)

'Teach theTeachers'Program

Hazardous WasteTransportation toHuehuetenango

Small-ScaleIncinerator

Manual Landfill

Solid WasteAuditing

Waste SeparationProgram

Women's RecycledCrafts Initiative

FeeCollectionEducationProgram

Tax-basedFee

System

Collection by SmallVehicles in OuterNeighbourhoods

Small-ScaleComposting

Organics to PaperProduction

Women'sVermiculture

Initiative

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

++

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

++


++

+

+

+

+

-

-

+

+

+Resource Access

RecyclableMaterial Diversion

+++

+

-

<Compensation forproper waste practices>

+

176

• Municipal interest in SWM is directly targeted by the tax-‐based fee system,

which will ensure the municipal authorities have enough money to run SWM

programs. It is targeted indirectly through increased citizen interest in SWM,

which will make SWM a higher priority for the municipality;

• Youth’s interest in consumerism and modern culture is indirectly targeted

through increased participation of youth in SWM activities;

• Valuing women and youth is targeted by activities carried out by the

women’s groups. Increasing the participation of women in the SWM process

is directly accomplished through their participation in the community SWM

committee(s); and

• Project ownership is directly targeted through micro-‐enterprise

development, the community SWM committee(s), waste education,

motivational training for managers and operators, and indirectly through

increased participation of women and youth.


The systemic impacts of The Religious Partnerships Scenario can be seen in Figure

33.

177

Figure 33. Impacts of The Religious Partnerships Scenario system levers on the community-‐wide causal map


Newly introduced variables in The Religious Partnerships Scenario further target

two of the five primary action entry points identified in Chapter 3: youth’s interest

Health


Funding forSWM


EconomicCapital

WasteQuantity




Needs

GenerationRate

Tourism


Waste


PublicEducation



Community


the Waste Issue

-

-

+


-

-

Adequacy ofSWM-

+

Illness/Decrease

inWellbeing

+

Life SupportSystems

+-



+

+

Influxof

Plastic

EconomicIncome+

Reduction Rate


and Language




-+

Educated Youth

+

-

+

+

+

Town Aesthetics

+


+

CommunitySWM

Committee(s)


workshops

Solid wasteauditing

Fee collectioneducationprogram

'Teach theteachers' program

Micro-enterprisedevelopment

Manual Landfill

Motivationaltraining for

managers andoperators

Waste separationprogram


system

Collection by smallvehicles in outerneighbourhoods





program

Women's recycledcrafts initiative

Women'svermiculture

initiative

Organics to paperproduction


+


dump

WasteEducation

+

+

+

Vectors ofdisease

Dumpingrate

+ Organicsconsumption

+

-

+

+

++

++

+


WasteStream

+

+

+

+

+

-

+

+

+

Need fordisposal

Degradation

+

-

+

-

poor wastedisposal


burning)

+

+

-

+

+ Developmentof EffectiveSWM Plan

+


+

Coordination withlocal businesses

+

SWMworkshops for

localbusinesses

+

+

Agricultural usesfor recyclable

materials

Recycled andReused

Materials

+++

Town BeautificationProject

+ +

ReligiousPartnerships

Community CleanStreets Program

IncreasingRespect for

Public Places

+

+

--

+

+

+

+

+


+

+

+

-

-

+

+

+

Resource Access+


178

in consumerism and modern culture, and projects that are owned by the

community.

• The former is targeted by religious partnerships, which will predominantly

target the Waste in the Streets Loop, and will encourage maintaining the

deeply rooted respect for the environment that has been part of the Mayan

culture and traditions for centuries; and

• The SWM workshops for local businesses and a town beautification project

indirectly increase local ownership of SWM projects by increasing

coordination with local businesses and helping solid waste micro-‐enterprises

get off the ground.


The systemic impacts of The Private Sector Involvement Scenario can be seen in Figure 34.

179

Figure 34. Impacts of The Private Sector Involvement Scenario system levers on the community-‐wide causal map


In The Private Sector Involvement Scenario, additional system levers further target

four of the five action entry points: The education of youth; the participation of

youth; project ownership; and youth’s interest in modern culture and consumerism.

Health


Funding forSWM


EconomicCapital

WasteQuantity




Needs

GenerationRate

Tourism


Waste


PublicEducation



Community


the Waste Issue

-

-

+


-

-

Adequacy ofSWM-

+

Illness/Decrease

inWellbeing

+

Life SupportSystems

+

-



+

+

Influxof

Plastic

EconomicIncome

+

ReductionRate


and Language




-+

Educated Youth

+

-+

+

+

Town Aesthetics

+


+

CommunitySWM

Committee(s)


workshops

Solid wasteauditing




Manual Landfill

Motivationaltraining formanagers

andoperators


Tax-basedcollectionfee system


Installation andemptying of waste

bins in publicareas




program


Women'svermiculture

initiative

+


dump

WasteEducation

+

++

Vectors ofdisease

Dumpingrate

+

Organicsconsumption

+

+

+

+

+

+


WasteStream

+

+

+

+

+

-

+

+

+

Need fordisposal

Degradation

+

-

+

-

poor wastedisposal


burning)

+

+

-

+

+

Developmentof EffectiveSWM Plan

+


+


SWMworkshops for

localbusinesses

+

+


materials

Recycled andReused

Materials

+ +

+

Town BeautificationProject

+

+


Community CleanStreets Program

IncreasingRespect for

Public Places

+

+

--

+

FosteringNeighbourhood/

HouseholdCompetition

Recycled MaterialsUsed in Construction

Roofing fromRecycled Materials

Biodigester forMethane Use as a

Cooking Fuel

Secondary and TertiarySeparation at Recycling

Center

Return to Point ofSale Progam

Youth WasteEducationProgram

-

+

+

+ ++

+

+

+

+

dgf


+

+

+

+

<Return toPoint of

SaleProgram>

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

Resource Access +

+Recyclable

Material Diversion

180

• Education of youth is targeted through a youth waste education program that

ensures youth not attending school have the opportunity to receive training

and waste education;

• The participation of youth is also targeted through the youth waste education

program;

• Project ownership is targeted by fostering constructive neighbourhood or

household competition and through a return to point of sale program that

increases the participation of local businesses in waste issues; and

• Youth’s interest in modern culture and consumerism is indirectly targeted

through the youth waste education program. The program encourages

ecological awareness; ethical values; entrepreneurial thinking; and social

responsibility, and therefore may foster sustainable behaviour and interest

in preserving the local culture.


The systemic impacts of The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario can be seen in Figure

35.

181

Figure 35. Impacts of The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario system levers on the community-‐wide causal map


In this scenario, newly added system levers further target education and project

ownership.

• Education is targeted by establishing sustainable alliances with ecological

universities, which can foster environmental education through engaged,

hands-‐on SWM projects in the community, and by helping schools develop

Health


Funding forSWM


EconomicCapital

WasteQuantity




Needs

GenerationRate

Tourism


Waste


PublicEducation



Whole Community

Interest/Understandingabout the Waste

Issue

-

-

+


-

-

Adequacy ofSWM

-

+

Illness/Decrease

inWellbeing

+

Life SupportSystems

+

-


MunicipalBudget

Contribution

+

+

Influxof

Plastic

EconomicIncome

+

Reduction Rate


and Language




-

+

Educated Youth

+

-+

+

+

Town Aesthetics

+


+


workshops

Solid wasteauditing


'Teachthe

teachers'program


Manual Landfill

Motivationaltrainingformanagers

andoperators


Tax-basedcollectionfee system


Installationand

emptying ofwaste bins inpublic areas



program


Women'svermiculture

initiative

+


dump

WasteEducation

+

+

Vectors ofdisease

Dumping rate

+ Organicsconsumption

+

+

+

+


WasteStream

+

++

+

+

+

+

Need fordisposal

Degradation

+

-

+

-

poor wastedisposal


burning)

+

+

-

+

+

Developmentof EffectiveSWM Plan

+


+

dgf


SWMworkshops for

localbusinesses

+

+


materials

Recycled andReused

Materials

++

+


Community CleanStreets Program Increasing

Respect forPublic Places

+

+

--

+

FosteringNeighbourhood/

HouseholdCompetition

Recycled MaterialsUsed in Construction

Roofing fromRecycled Materials

Biodigester forMethane Use as a

Cooking Fuel

Secondary and TertiarySeparation at Recycling

Center

Return to Point ofSale Progam

Youth WasteEducationProgram

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

SeparateCollection Days

Pre-cycleCampaign

Waste FoodProducts

SustainableAlliances with

EcologicalUniversities

SecuringNational/

InternationalSupport

Ecotourism

IntegratingInformal Waste

Workers

Non-ProfitClean Todos

SantosFoundation

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

<Pre-cycleCampaign>

+

+

+

+


<Return toPoint of

SaleProgram>

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

+


Resource Access+

182

programs and curriculums. The relationship between these variables has a

strength of 2. University partnerships can also play a strong role in the youth

entrepreneurship program, ensuring youth both in and out of the public

education system have the opportunity to improve their education; and

• Project ownership is targeted by increased coordination with local

businesses in the form of a pre-‐cycle campaign and waste food products. The

pre-‐cycle campaign will engage local businesses in positive waste practices.

5.3.5 New influential relationships

The sum of the strengths of new relationships supporting the five action entry

points in each scenario is summarized in Table 16. These figures quantitatively

represent the cumulative influence of system levers on existing variables that have

the ability to significantly impact the structure of the local SWM system. Numbers

that have been added to in a given scenario are marked in red.

Table 16. Sum of strengths of new relationships influencing action entry points

Action entry point

The Foundations Scenario The Religious Partnerships Scenario

The Private Sector Involvement Scenario

The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario

Sum of strengths of direct

relationships

Sum of strengths of indirect

relationships


relationships


relationships


relationships


relationships


relationships


relationships

Education 4 1 4 1 4 2 6 3

Municipal interest in SWM

2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4

Youth’s interest in consumerism and modern culture

0 3 0 4 0 5 0 5

Participation of/Valuing women and youth

5 0 5 0 7 0 7 0

Projects that are “owned” by the whole community

7 3 7 5 9 5 11 5

TOTAL 16 11 16 14 22 16 26 17

183

5.4 Discussion


The Foundations Scenario has the least impact on the SWM system. This basic SWM

scenario targets both key reinforcing feedback loops, with most projects targeting

the Health and Interest in SWM Loop. Project ownership and the participation of

women and youth are the most strongly targeted action entry points. This scenario

represents the first step in a series of increasingly improved SWM system scenarios,

and has some benefits and drawbacks, accordingly.

5.4.1.1 Benefits

The benefits of this scenario are primarily associated with its ease of

implementation. Most measures are simple, require little capital to start up, and

build off of current SWM practices in Todos Santos. For example, there is a strong

culture of waste burning in Todos Santos, which occurs in the home or the backyard,

releasing toxins into the air. The installation of a simple, small-‐scale incinerator

would minimize these environmental and health threats while also having a high

chance of adoption. Likewise, community committees already exist in each

neighbourhood in town; SWM can either become part of the responsibility of these

committees, or they can act as a launching platform for stand-‐alone SWM

committees. The SWM committees are vital to the functioning of this scenario,

because they are in charge of running most of the waste education measures,

strongly contributing to project ownership, and increasing the overall participation

of women and youth by including them on the committee and in waste projects. The

existing social structure makes it likely that these committees will be adopted.

Another benefit of this scenario is the number of projects based on “learning by

doing” principles, which will help to ensure new solid waste knowledge can be

applied outside the classroom. Projects like the waste characterization workshops,

motivational training workshops for waste workers, and the youth waste

entrepreneurship program help build the SWM system as community members

learn, promoting the SWM system’s ability to support knew waste knowledge once

184

it has been learned. Waste education also contributes to project ownership –

community members can gain skills, take on projects themselves, and take pride in

their work.

5.4.1.2 Drawbacks

The primary drawbacks that come with The Foundations Scenario are associated

with its minimalistic nature; most projects are “end-‐of-‐pipe” type fixes, which may

be easier to implement but will not be sustainable in the long-‐term as the

population continues to grow. Reducing waste generation is only minimally targeted

through indirect measures. Additionally, few The Foundations Scenario projects

promote reuse and recycling. Due to the lack of a market for recyclable materials,

this may mean that a large portion of recyclables will still be sent to the landfill,

reducing its lifespan. There is also very little private sector involvement in this

scenario, and few opportunities to create value-‐added products. The lack of

opportunities to turn a profit from waste reclamation may make it difficult to raise

interest in SWM and establish other projects within this scenario.

Financially, the primary drawback with The Foundations Scenario is the need to

provide community members with compensation for proper waste practices.

Depending on what kind of compensation is needed to bolster proper participation,

this measure could get costly. More projects with the potential to generate financial

gains for community members are required to avoid the need for such measures.

This scenario contributes minimally to the improvement of the public education

system, which is one of the community’s largest concerns. The ‘Teach the Teachers’

program is the only program that directly targets it. All other educational measures

are concerned with waste education (see Figure 36).

185

Figure 36. Waste Education causes tree

These measures may increase the community’s understanding of SWM, but not

necessarily their interest in it. As previously discussed in Chapter 3, education

cannot bring about behavioural change on its own. Therefore, the causal

relationship between Waste Education and Interest/Understanding about the Waste

Issue is weak. These measures are certainly needed, but their impact on the system

may prove to be minimal without the support of other systemic elements.


The Religious Partnerships Scenario is a relatively small step up from The

Foundations Scenario. Of the five action entry points, youth’s interest in

consumerism and modern culture and project ownership are targeted slightly more

than in the previous scenario. Two new projects directly target the Waste in the

Streets Loop, and two indirectly target the Health and Interest in SWM Loop. The

benefits and drawbacks of this scenario are discussed below.

5.4.2.1 Benefits

The Religious Partnerships Scenario improves the SWM system more than The

Foundations Scenario, yet the gap that exists between current waste practices in

Todos Santos and this scenario is not so large that a simpler scenario – The

Foundations Scenario – is needed to act as a stepping-‐stone between them. The

Religious Partnerships Scenario can thus be directly implemented, providing more

benefits in terms of project ownership and waste minimization while still consisting

of simple, low-‐cost measures.

186

In this scenario, the private sector begins to participate more substantially, and

opportunities for turning a profit from waste by creating value-‐added products and

services are introduced. This scenario also includes the participation of local

farmers in waste minimization efforts, introducing money-‐saving reuse practices

into the most common occupation in town.

The potential financial drawbacks associated with providing compensation for

proper waste practices are eliminated in The Religious Partnerships Scenario.

Proper participation is expected to grow as project ownership increases and the

community’s interest in SWM improves due to the ability to make a profit from

recycled materials.

Religious partnerships are introduced in this scenario, which bring several benefits

to the SWM system: these partnerships may spread SWM awareness; increase the

community’s sense of responsibility to keep the public environment clean;

strengthen interest in maintaining traditions; and potentially reduce waste

generation.

5.4.2.2 Drawbacks

The drawbacks of this scenario are similar to those associated with The Foundations

Scenario. This scenario provides only a small increase in projects for recycling and

reuse; the central focus is still on measures for final disposal. Similarly, no new

measures are implemented to further improve the public education system, and

therefore it is only minimally targeted.

The lack of compensation for proper waste practices may make certain measures

more difficult to implement. It may take longer to get certain groups to adopt proper

waste practices, and some may not be interested in adopting them at all. More

project ownership and interest in SWM is needed to get the whole community on

board.

187


The Private Sector Involvement Scenario’s impact on the SWM system is much more

substantial than that of The Religious Partnerships Scenario. Project ownership and

the participation of women and youth are increased, and new measures indirectly

target education and youth’s interest in consumerism and modern culture. The

Health and Interest in SWM Loop is also directly strengthened.

This scenario has more benefits than the previous two; however, it also has unique

drawbacks. These are discussed below.

5.4.3.1 Benefits

The new measures implemented in this scenario bring many benefits. The

biodigester will greatly minimize the amount of organics ending up in the waste

stream, and therefore prevent contamination through disease vectors that feed on

organics. The biodigester can also provide methane as a cooking fuel to homes or

restaurants. Since wood is the primary fuel source used for cooking in the

community, the biodigester may eventually decrease the amount of deforestation in

the area. Wood is also extremely expensive, and families receiving methane from a

biodigester will receive significant savings. Additionally, wood may be used for

making higher value products than heat.

This scenario includes measures that promote the involvement of the private sector,

more local ownership, and much more reuse and recycling. The implementation of a

recycling center will generate new employment opportunities in the area. The youth

waste education program targets the community’s concern about the public

education system and also has the potential to reduce waste generation.

5.4.3.2 Drawbacks

The Private Sector Involvement Scenario is more costly to implement than the

Religious Partnerships Scenario. Particularly, the biodigester and the secondary

separation program at a recycling center will increase the cost of implementation

and maintenance. The construction of the recycling center will decrease the

municipal waste budget (even if the majority of the materials used for construction

188

are recycled or reused), and the center will incur an annual cost associated with

paying employees to do the sorting.

There are two drawbacks associated with the biodigester. If this technology is

widely adopted within the community, the use of methane as a cooking fuel may put

loggers out of work. However, some could be employed to run the biodigester or to

sort waste at the recycling center. Additionally, a large number of animals, many of

which are household pets, rely on a steady supply of organic material deposited in

the dump as a food source. A significant reduction in the amount of organic material

sent to the dump will leave these animals hungry. This will not only be extremely

detrimental to the wellbeing of the animals but may also cause them to become

dangerous to community members. This issue will be difficult to resolve, as it would

be beneficial to control the dog population, and thus the number of disease vectors,

through their food source, yet many of these animals are highly valued household

pets that may not be provided for if this food source is removed.


The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario is the most highly integrated, involved, and

systemically impacting scenario. New measures are introduced that target

education and project ownership, and have the potential to reduce waste

generation. Several measures increase the strength of the Health and Interest in

SWM Loop, both directly and indirectly. As is to be expected, this scenario provides

the most benefits of the four, but also carries its own unique drawbacks; these

issues are discussed below.

5.4.4.1 Benefits

The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario includes many measures that will increase

reuse and recycling. It also contains several strategies for minimizing waste

generation, including separate collection days, the pre-‐cycle campaign, and the

previously introduced return to point of sale program. The pre-‐cycle campaign,

which is an in-‐store, point of purchase educational program, can help minimize

waste by encouraging store owners to provide products with minimal packaging,

189

and having store owners instruct buyers about which items come with the least

amount of packaging. The return to point of sale program will enlist local businesses

to accept broken products or empty contains for repair and resale, minimizing the

number of such items that are sent to landfill. Therefore, The Integrated SWM Vision

Scenario promotes more private sector participation in waste minimization efforts.

The private sector is also further encouraged to play a role in carrying out SWM

tasks.

Innovative waste practices and microenterprise development is promoted and

supported in this scenario through the establishment of an alliance with an

ecological university. Such an alliance has the potential to greatly impact the public

education system by providing expert help with relevant program and curriculum

development.

The establishment of a non-‐profit SWM organization has the potential to bring in

more financial support and more support from the NGO and governmental sectors.

The foundation may also draw in a more established eco-‐tourism sector as Todos

Santos continues to develop into a center for waste innovation in the region.

The scenario also proactively includes the few waste pickers that currently exist in

Todos Santos. This ensures that as the population grows and the allure of this

activity increases, these community members are not exposed to ever-‐increasing

health risks and poor working conditions.

5.4.4.2 Drawbacks

The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario is the most costly scenario to implement and

maintain. Certain measures may also be difficult and/or time consuming to get off

the ground, such as securing a partnership with an ecological university, or starting

up a successful non-‐profit organization that can bring in all the benefits previously

discussed. Other measures may encounter backlash from the community, such as

the implementation of separate collection days for recyclables and waste. If a

culture of waste responsibility is not firmly established at the time when this

190

measure is implemented, residents may turn to waste burning in backyards and the

home when collection is not as frequent as they would like.

If this scenario brings about a substantial increase in eco-‐tourism, the two weak

balancing loops that were left out of the systemic depiction in this chapter for

simplicity’s sake might become medium strength loops and have some detrimental

effects on the environment or cause further population growth. This would result in

the need for a larger landfill, and/or more aggressive waste minimization measures.

Population growth should be closely examined in order to predict the amount of

landfill space needed in the future, and land should be set aside now while it is

available.

5.5 Recommendations It is recommended that The Foundations Scenario or the Religious Partnerships

Scenario be implemented in outer neighbourhoods that currently receive little-‐to-‐no

SWM services. Neighbourhoods that are further away from the center may find that

The Foundations Scenario is a better fit due to its simplicity, its incineration option,

and its low cost. Neighbourhoods that are closer to the center but still not quite as

wealthy as El Centro are recommended to start with The Religious Partnerships

Scenario, which provides more benefits than The Foundations Scenario while still

being fairly low-‐cost and easy to implement. The wealthy neighbourhood of El

Centro is recommended to implement The Private Sector Involvement Scenario.

This scenario provides many more opportunities for SWM improvement and is

better tailored to the residents living in this area. As new waste practices become

well established in each neighbourhood, plans to upgrade to the next higher

scenario can be made. Even if The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario is eventually

established within the community, new opportunities for innovation and

improvement can be taken. For example, wastewater that is currently piped directly

to the Limon River could act as part of the feed source for the biodigesters,

providing more community members and businesses with methane and preventing

further environmental damage.

191

It is recommended that all scenarios be implemented in a series of stages. The

implementation of any system-‐wide change brings about what Vermaak (2007)

refers to as ‘intervention paradoxes’: changes that help to deal with a systemic issue

are also resisted and/or rejected by the system in question. Like the strong

homeostatic internal regulation systems in “warm-‐blooded” organisms that

maintain body temperature despite drastic external temperature changes, systems

will use all available means to resist external disturbances as they are moved away

from equilibrium (Schneider & Kay, 1994). Thus, while strongly deviating

approaches are more effective at transforming a given system’s structure, they also

trigger stronger systemic defenses (Vermaak, 2007). This is as true for social

systems as it is for biological systems. Take Galbraith’s ‘conventional wisdom’, for

example – defined as concepts that are valued at any time for their acceptability

(Galbraith, 2001). These concepts are stable, predictable, and safe, and people will

fight to maintain them, particularly when confronted with extreme change. Any

measures that are implemented in these cases tend to be diluted, proving “that

‘those novelties do not work here’” (Vermaak, 2007, p. 188). Therefore, it is

important to work from within the current system structure, using the existing

dynamics of dominant practices to implement change in manageable steps

(Vermaak, 2007). Change must be implemented in small steps; extreme measures

will not work. It is for these reasons that scenarios should be implemented in a

series of stages. Regardless if a neighbourhood is employing the simple The

Foundations Scenario, or the more advanced The Private Sector Involvement

Scenario, implementation should be carried out in manageable steps.

For brevity’s sake, this chapter will only recommend which projects should be

included in the initial, momentum-‐building implementation stage. The projects

suggested as momentum-‐building starting points for each scenario are listed in

Table 17.

Table 17. Implementation Stage 1: Momentum-‐building projects

The Foundations Scenario The Religious Partnerships The Private Sector Involvement Scenario initial

192

initial projects Scenario initial projects projects

Solid waste auditing Solid waste auditing Solid waste auditing

Development of an effective SWM plan



Community SWM Committees Community SWM Committees Community SWM Committees

Waste education measures Waste education measures Waste education measures

Compensation for proper waste practices

Manually operated landfill Manually operated landfill

Manually operated landfill Tax-‐based fee collection/education program

Tax-‐based fee collection/education program

Tax-‐based fee collection/ education program

Agricultural uses for recyclable materials

Agricultural uses for recyclable materials

Small-‐scale incinerator SWM workshops for local businesses

SWM workshops for local businesses

Biodigester for methane used as a cooking fuel

5.6 Conclusion Systems thinking is a valuable tool for the improvement of SWM systems. A systems

perspective can change both how community members think about the SWM

system, and how they interact with it. It can help to maximize effectiveness and the

benefits they receive from it. This study used the results of a participatory causal

mapping process as a means to represent the SWM system in Todos Santos, and to

hypothesize about the systemic impacts of potential SWM changes in the future.

While working with causal mapping by no means guarantees results or a successful

change process, it can be an effective tool for conveying systemic concepts, for

demonstrating the potential for widespread change, and for minimizing actions that

might have a detrimental impact on the system in the future.

Upon examining the systemic impacts of the four scenarios established in Chapter 4

on a simplified version of the community-‐wide causal map, this study recommends

scenarios 1, 2, and 3 be implemented in different neighbourhoods according to

193

socio-‐economic capacity. Scenarios should be implemented in a series of stages to

avoid triggering major system defenses.

This chapter has laid the groundwork for the implementation of a system

intervention plan that is action-‐oriented and strongly founded upon stakeholder

participation. The measures within this plan set the foundations for the continued

development and support of local SWM innovation, preparing Todos Santos for

continued growth and change well into the future.

5.7 References Campo, P. C., Bousquet, F., & Villanueva, T. R. (2010). Modelling with stakeholders

within a development project. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25(11), 1302-‐1321.

Clipak, N., & Barton, J. R. (2012). A system dynamics approach for healthcare waste management: A case study in Istanbul Metropolitan City, Turkey. Waste Management & Research, 30(6), 576-‐586.

Dyson, B., & Chang, N.-‐B. (2005). Forecasting municipal solid waste generation in fast-‐growing urban region with system dynamics modeling. Waste Management, 25(7), 669-‐679.

Galbraith, J. (2001). The concept of the conventional wisdom The Essential Galbraith. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Karavezyris, V., Timpe, K.-‐P., & Marzi, R. (2002). Application of system dynamics and fuzzy logic to forecasting of municipal solid waste. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 60(3), 149-‐158.


Kum, V., Sharp, A., & Harnpornchai, N. (2004). A system dynamic approach for financial planning in solid waste management: A case study in Phnom Penh city. International Journal of Science and Technology, 9(2), 27-‐34.

Mashayekhi, A. N. (1993). Transition in the New York State solid waste system: A dynamic analysis. System Dynamics Review, 9(1), 23-‐47.

Mirchi, A., Madani, K., Watkins Jr., D., & Ahmad, S. (2012). Synthesis of system dynamics tools for holistic conceptualization of water resources problems. water resource management, 26(9), 2421-‐2442.

194

Neves, D. S. F., Gomes, A. P. D., Tarelho, L. A. C., & Matos, M. A. A. (2007). Application of a dynamic model to the simulation of the composting process. Paper presented at the Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Cagliari, Italy.

Schneider, E. D., & Kay, J. (1994). Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Mathematical Computer Modelling, 19(6-‐8), 25-‐48.

Stroh, D. P. (2003). Leveraging change: The power of systems thinking in action. In P. Kumar (Ed.), Organisational learning for all seasons: Building internal capabilities for competitive advantage. Buona Vista, Singapore: National Community Leadership Institute.

Sudhir, V., Srinivasan, G., & Muraleedharan, V. R. (1997). Planning for sustainable solid waste management in urban India. System Dynamics Review, 13(3), 223-‐246.

Suwarno, A., Nawir, A. A., Julmansyah, & Kurniawan. (2009). Participatory modelling to improve partnership schemes for future Community-‐

Based Forest Management in Sumbawa District, Indonesia. Environmental Modelling & Software, 24(12), 1402-‐1410.

Vermaak, H. (2007). Working interactively with causal loop diagrams: Intervention choices and paradoxes in practical applications. In J. Boonstra & L. De Caluwé (Eds.), Intervening and changing: Looking for meaning in interactions. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Yuan, H. (2012). A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste management. Waste Management, 32(6), 1218-‐1228.

195

6 Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Research synthesis The following sections provide a summary that reformulates the central literature

and original research findings of this thesis.

6.1.1 Literature review key findings

SWM in high-‐income countries has been historically driven by public health, the

environment, resource scarcity, climate change, and public awareness and

participation (Wilson, 2007). Integrated solid waste management, the current

paradigm industrialized countries are striving for, aims to strike a balance between

the environmental effectiveness, social acceptability, and economic affordability of

SWM (McDougall et al., 2001; Morrissey & Browne, 2004; Petts, 2000; Thomas &

McDougall, 2005; van de Klundert & Anschutz, 2001). However, SWM systems in

industrialized countries are still far from integrated (Wilson, 2007), and a lack of a

systems thinking has been identified as a prominent contributor to this shortcoming

(McDougall et al., 2001; Seadon, 2010; Turner & Powell, 1991).

In developing countries, poor SWM practices remain severely problematic for a

variety of reasons, resulting in severe human health and environmental issues

(Boadi et al., 2005; Konteh, 2009). While parallels exist between the development

trajectories of SWM practices in industrialized and developing countries, the

contexts of developing nations, and thus the problems they face, are unique (Konteh,

2009): rapid urbanization, soaring inequality, and the struggle for economic growth;

varying economic, cultural, socio-‐economic, and political landscapes; governance,

institutional, and responsibility issues; and international influences have created

SWM challenges of immense complexity (Boadi et al., 2005; Coffey & Coad, 2010;

Cohen, 2004; Henry et al., 2006; Jha et al., 2011; Konteh, 2009; Tacoli, 2012; UN-‐

HABITAT, 2010; Zurbruegg, 2003). Researchers are calling for case-‐specific, locally

appropriate SWM methods that can be absorbed and carried by a given society (Jha

et al., 2011; Schübeler, 1996; Yousif & Scott, 2007).

196

Systems approaches to SWM have the potential to meet these demands, though

taking such a perspective increases management difficulties (Seadon, 2010).

Particularly, SWM approaches can benefit from being founded in two schools of

thought: post-‐normal science, and complex, adaptive systems theory. Post-‐normal

science embraces incomplete control, unpredictability, and multiple legitimate

perspectives, and is structured to handle problems in which uncertainties and

decision stakes are high (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). Thus, it is appropriate for

SWM, which is fraught with uncertainty and strongly impacts the lives of millions of

people. Taking a post-‐normal science approach calls for the inclusion of extended

peer communities in the processes of SWM quality assurance, policy, research, and

project implementation (Funtowics & Ravetz, 1993). Complex, adaptive systems

theory has the potential to provide significant insight into the structure and

functioning of SWM systems, and how to begin going about “managing” them in a

successful manner. Sometimes, outcomes from seemingly direct interventions are

extremely surprising due to time lags, cross-‐scale effects, and incomplete system

models (Waltner-‐Toews et al., 2003). With an understanding of how CAS work,

approaches to SWM may help avoid or at least prepare for unwanted system

behaviour.

Ultimately, the next steps for SWM must be tailored to the context of the local

history, relationships, culture, and aspirations of stakeholders (Checkland, 2000;

Wilson, 2007). Approaches must be locally sensitive, critical, creative, and ‘owned’

by the community of concern (Coffey & Coad, 2010; Henry et al., 2006a; Konteh,

2009; Schübeler, 1996; UN-‐HABITAT, 2010).

6.1.2 Key study findings

The Guatemalan town of Todos Santos Cuchumatán is experiencing a solid waste

crisis that threatens fragile environmental systems, essential natural resources,

economic potential, and human health. Poor SWM has created complex problems

within the community that call for new, innovative, and highly context-‐specific

approaches capable of dealing with complexity, uncertainty, and high decision

stakes. This thesis presents three research studies that aim to address this need.

197

The first, a participatory research study of the current SWM system in Todos Santos

Cuchumatán, generated three distinct perspectives on the structure and functioning

of the complex, eco-‐social SWM system. The primary barriers to successful SWM in

the community were identified as follows:

• A disposal system incapable of handling the change in composition and

increase in quantity of solid waste;

• Little interest, understanding or concern about the waste issue due to

preoccupations with:

o Poor health

o A failing education system

o Poverty

o Domestic violence and alcoholism

• A male-‐dominated SWM decisional arena that limits the inclusion of women

and youth; and

• A lack of municipal government interest in SWM because it is not a priority

for voters, and it does not bring in funds.

When amalgamated, the perspectives of male, female, and youth participants

provided significant insight into what kinds of projects have the potential to

strongly impact the structure and behaviour of the system, potential indicators of

success, and critically sensitive factors to be aware of. Identified leverage points

included two feedback loops – the Health and Interest in SWM Loop and the Waste

in the Streets Loop – and five system elements: public education, particularly that of

youth; project ownership; participation of women and youth; municipal interest in

SWM; and youth’s interest in consumerism and modern culture. This study laid the

groundwork needed to identify ‘best fit’, locally appropriate solutions.

The second study employed a residential waste audit to further determine the

issues plaguing the current SWM system. New insights gathered include:

• Limited SWM funding due to a general lack of willingness to pay for SWM

services;

198

• Waste collection is sparse and irregular, predominantly occurring in the rich

neighbourhood of El Centro;

• Large quantities of recyclable materials, including plastic, metal, and paper,

are found in the waste stream; and

• Existing waste practices include waste burning and a small amount of

composting.

With a more complete picture of the waste issues and needs in the community, the

second study compiled a wide range of locally appropriate projects with the

potential to act as system levers into four SWM scenarios. These scenarios represent

increasingly integrated and improved SWM systems; each builds upon the previous

scenario, allowing the community to gradually work towards a locally sustainable,

integrated vision of SWM.

The third study examines the impact of each of the four SWM scenarios on the

community-‐wide representation of the SWM system.

In keeping with the need for context specificity, scenarios 1, 2, and 3 were

recommended as starting points for neighbourhoods with relatively low, medium,

and high levels of socio-‐economic capacity.

6.2 Outstanding issues While the methodology used in this thesis aimed to capture the “big picture” of SWM

in Todos Santos, an issue of particular importance to the health and wellbeing of the

community was left out of the research scope – the need to remediate the existing

open dump. The dump, which sits directly on a riverbank of the Limon River in the

center of town, is a threat to local environmental systems and human health.

Nothing is known about the kind of soil it sits on, meaning that toxic leachate may

well be entering the ground and surface water systems. Todos Santos sits near the

headwaters of the Limon River, which flows past many communities on its way into

Mexico. Clearly, there is a strong need to remediate the site. However, due to the

quantity of waste in the dump and the steep grade of the bank, digging out the waste

and contaminated soil is both a dangerous and unmanageable task for the

199

community. While covering the dump with soil and certain varieties of plants may

help somewhat, leachate will likely continue to contaminate ground and surface

water. Unfortunately, no easy solution presents itself for this situation. Like in so

many places around the world, this kind of intractable environmental destruction

will remain as part of our legacy of mass consumption, haunting us for decades to

come. It is the author’s hope that further research and innovative measures may

help to alleviate this tragic situation.

6.3 Recommendations Based on the research presented in this thesis, the following recommendations are

made:

• A thorough examination should be made of how much waste is produced

daily in Todos Santos;

• An environmental impact assessment study of the influence of the current

open dump on the Rio Limon (water quality, species/ecosystem effects) and

subsequent health risks should be conducted;

• Waste audits of schools, businesses, and restaurants should be conducted;

• The amalgamated system structure and functioning should be verified with

community members;

• A long-‐term (5+ years) study of population growth patterns and waste

generation rates in Todos Santos should be conducted for planning purposes;

• A wider range of stakeholders should be included in SWM decision-‐making

processes; and

• Finally, local decision makers should use the results from this thesis to

consider the implementation of one or more SWM scenarios for the effective

management of solid waste in Todos Santos.

6.3.1 Building action momentum

If a neighbourhood chooses to implement a given scenario, it is recommended that

the implementation process be carried out in a series of stages. Staged

implementation will support the creation of immediate momentum for initiating

200

ongoing action, and help to avoid triggering strong systemic defenses. It can also

allow time and space for reviewing small projects that have been implemented,

assessing their effectiveness, and adjusting accordingly. Thus, a step-‐wise

implementation process brings flexibility, momentum, continuous learning, and

ongoing innovation to the SWM system (see Figure 37).

Figure 37. The staged implementation process

Implementation

ReassessmentAdjustment

Innovation Learning-by-doing

New projectgeneration

Onto the nextstage/scenario...

Implementation

Reassessment

Adjustment

Innovation

Learning-by-doing


Implementation

Reassessment

Adjustment

Innovation

Learning-by-doing


Act

ion

Mom

entu

m

Stage 1: BuildingMomentum

Stage 2: Buildingon Foundations

201

6.3.1.1 Short-‐term stage: Capacity development and foundational system elements

Chapter 5 identified the immediate local action initiatives that can be implemented

to build action momentum. These projects are focused on developing local capacity

and foundational system elements that future initiatives can build upon.

Fundamental planning, financial, social, educational, and structural elements make

up this stage of implementation. As the dominant waste practices and the behaviour

of the system shift, new projects within the chosen scenario can be implemented.

This secondary wave of projects includes those that require some level of

foundational knowledge, commitment, relationships, or physical structure to be

adopted by a given neighbourhood.

6.3.1.2 Long-‐term stage: Transitioning to a community-‐owned vision of SWM

In the long-‐term, the town of Todos Santos can work towards transitioning to a

vision of SWM focused on community-‐wide ownership, widespread participation,

education improvement, business development, and environmental protection. Each

neighbourhood can make this transition gradually, evolving through each scenario

up to The Integrated SWM Vision Scenario and beyond. The community living in the

town center, called El Centro, is recommended to begin with The Private Sector

Involvement Scenario, while outer neighbourhoods are recommended to begin with

The Religious Partnerships Scenario. Those neighbourhoods on the outskirts of

Todos Santos may find The Foundations Scenario to be the most appropriate

starting point (see Figure 38).

202

Figure 38. Long-‐term stage: Community-‐wide transition through the scenarios

6.4 “Situatedness” and local ownership While recommendations were given for the community of Todos Santos throughout

this thesis, the researcher recognizes that no projects or approaches can be deemed

appropriate by anyone but the community itself. The fundamental imperative

behind each study conducted is the necessity of local validation of research

methods, results, and recommendations. Todos Santos, like many other indigenous

communities in Guatemala, has a history filled with racism, violence, and abuse or

complete disregard of indigenous rights, control, and authority. ‘Top-‐down’,

imposed solutions to waste management have failed in the past; approaches not

structured around local control and authority perpetuate the hegemonic,

imperialistic imposition of knowledge that has only succeeded in creating a deep

sense of distrust in the community. It is here that post-‐normal, participatory

systems approaches are most needed – approaches founded on the inclusion of

extended peer communities with multiple legitimate perspectives, and a strong

consideration and profound respect for history, narrative, and context. Even more,

Scenario 1 Scenario 2Scenario 3Scenario 2 Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 3 Scenario 3

Scenario 3

Scenario 2

Scenario 4

Neighbourhood ofEl Centro

OuterNeighbourhoods

OutskirtNeighbourhoods

OuterNeighbourhoods

OutskirtNeighbourhoods

Community vision of SWM

203

what is needed is an approach that embraces the sociocultural “situatedness” of the

community, defined as “the way(s) in which individual minds and cognitive

processes are shaped by... their interaction with social and cultural structures, such

as other agents, artifacts, conventions, etc.” (Frank, 2008, p. 1). An individual’s

situatedness defines “where [they are] coming from” – not just a place or a culture,

but somewhere between where one stands with intention and where one is

concretely embedded without choice (e.g. in culture or race) (Simpson, 2002, pp. 7-‐

8). Imposed approaches can be disembedding, delegitimizing local systems and

resulting in the rise of new systemic problems whose root causes are unlikely to be

addressed.

In response to such issues, community capacity building and empowerment have

emerged as mainstream strategies in indigenous research. However, these models

often have limited ability to meet the real needs of indigenous populations (Chino &

DeBruyn, 2006). While Chino and DeBruyn (2006, p. 596) argue that indigenous

people need “not only to develop tribal programs but also to define and integrate

the underlying theoretical and cultural frameworks” for application in the public

health sector, this is also a serious need in other sectors, such as SWM. Indeed, local

project ownership was identified as one of the primary community concerns in

Todos Santos, and one of the key places to intervene in the SWM system.

This study was therefore strongly considerate of and built upon the worldviews of

local stakeholders, many of whom do not traditionally participate in SWM decision-‐

making processes. Ultimately, recommendations given in this thesis are founded on

multiple legitimate perspectives of participating stakeholders. These suggestions

are meant to spark ground-‐level discussion amongst a wide range of stakeholders,

and provide concrete examples to stimulate local innovation and work towards a

community-‐defined SWM vision.

6.5 A new methodology for SWM and engineering inquiry The methodology used in this study may benefit future solid waste management and

engineering research. Engineering, as a discipline with a history of development

204

projects fraught with inappropriate approaches and subsequent failures, may gain

assurance in its ability to carry out development work through appropriate means

that also follow a structured study approach. As an area of study traditionally

focused on the technical sphere, SWM research may gain significant insight into how

to address SWM in a locally appropriate manner, and how to successfully instigate

desired systemic change. The causal mapping process can help to identify principal

barriers, challenges, and key places to intervene in the system for positive change

where simple observation might lead to other conclusions. The methodology used in

this study can also provide insight about potential areas in conflict among

stakeholders, an important element to consider in any management process.

Participatory systems approaches may be able to help these disciplines move

towards capacity development in cases where mainstream models have failed.

Participatory system modeling can identify key barriers to local ownership, and

initiate discussion and local innovation for removing them. Systems approaches may

also be able to address systemic misrepresentations that lead to project collapse.

For example, too often, consideration is not given to the amount of time needed to

fully establish capacity building processes. Socio-‐cultural, economic, historical, and

political contexts can prevent communities from being able to immediately resolve a

given issue (Chino & DeBruyn, 2006). Here, a systems perspective can make all the

difference, as time lags and delays are inherent in systems. Ultimately, local

ownership and a strong consideration for sociocultural ‘situatedness’ will define the

success of future SWM developments.

6.6 Final remarks The systems approaches used in this study are immensely important for the

improvement of SWM, the care of the environment, and health in its broadest sense.

Todos Santos’ SWM system, like the SWM systems impacting many vulnerable

populations, is a mess of disparities on its way to collapse. To begin the process of

“righting” it, close attention must be paid to what is important as defined by the

people it impacts, not just what is quantifiable. To tackle these issues, decision-‐

makers will need flexibility of mind and the ability to throw off their own paradigms

205

about whose perspectives are legitimate. Careful observation of behavioural

patterns, not theories, is important. More questions must be asked.

The words of the late Donella Meadows (2008, p. 170) best wrap up this viewpoint:

Systems thinking leads to another conclusion, however, waiting, shining,

obvious, as soon as we stop being blinded by the illusion of control... The

future can’t be predicted, but it can be envisioned and brought lovingly into

being. Systems can’t be controlled, but they can be designed and redesigned.

We can’t surge forward with certainty into a world of no surprises, but we

can expect surprises and learn from them and even profit from them. We

can’t impose our will on a system. We can listen to what the system tells us,

and discover how its properties and our values can work together to bring

forth something much better than could ever be produced by our will alone.

My analyses are by no means exhaustive, or even thorough; indeed, I have barely

skimmed the surface of an incredibly complex topic. A SWM system is a complex

system, composed of complex sub-‐systems, which are composed of more complex

sub-‐systems still. Yet in Todos Santos, its detrimental, distorted tendencies must be

rebalanced. It is the sincerest hope of the author that this thesis might act as a place

to begin this rebalancing through local innovation, ownership, and action for

continued, long-‐term positive change. If the health of those most lacking it is to be

achieved on any level, the SWM system must be seen and treated as the whole that it

is.

206

6.7 References Boadi, K., Kuitunen, M., Raheem, K., & Hanninen, K. (2005). Urbanisation Without

Development: Environmental and Health Implications in African Cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(4), 465-‐500.


Chino, M., & DeBruyn, L. (2006). Building true capacity: Indigenous models for indigenous communities. American Journal of Public Health, 96(4), 596-‐599.


Frank, R. (2008). Cognitive Linguistics Research: Body, Language and Mind (Vol. 2: Sociocultural Situatedness). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.

Funtowics, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-‐normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-‐755.

Henry, R. K., Yongsheng, Z., & Jun, D. (2006). Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries -‐ Kenyan case study. Waste Management, 26(1), 92-‐100.








Simpson, D. (2002). Situatedness, or why we keep saying where we're coming from. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.



207





208

Complete Reference list Ancona, C., et al. (2010). Integrated environmental and health impact assessment of

waste management in Lazio (Italy): INTARESE. Anschütz, J. (1996). Community-‐based solid waste management and water supply

projects: Problems and solutions compared: A survey of the literature. Gouda, The Netherlands: WASTE

Asian Tribune. (2009). The importance of technology for development: A political economy perspective, Asian Tribune.

Axelrod. (1976). Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of

Political Elites. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Badilla, R. A., & Suarez, A. S. (2002). Viabilidad de implementar un sistema integrado

de manejo de desechos para pequenas comunidades de la zona Atlantica de Costa Rica a traves de microempresas. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Bhuiyan, S. H. (2010). A crisis in governance: Urban solid waste management in Bangladesh. Habitat international, 34(1), 125-‐133.

Bigoth, K. S. (2001). Auditoria del manejo de los desechos en la empresa Linda Vista, Cartago, Costa Rica. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

BIO Intelligence Service. (2011). Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth Final Report prepared for European Commission DG ENV.

BNAmericas. (2011). Govt creates national waste management strategy, Online report, Business News Americas.

Boadi, K., Kuitunen, M., Raheem, K., & Hanninen, K. (2005). Urbanisation Without Development: Environmental and Health Implications in African Cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(4), 465-‐500.

Boulding, K. E. (1956). General Systems Theory -‐ The Skeleton of Science. Management Science, 2(3), 197-‐208.

Byrne, D. (2005). Complexity, Configurations and Cases. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5), 95-‐111.

Byrne, D. S. (1998). Complexity theory and the social sciences : an introduction. London; New York: Routledge.

Calderon, J. C. S., & Ventura, J. F. Q. (2008). Plan de gestion para el manejo de los residuos solidos en empresas del distrito de guapiles. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Campo, P. C., Bousquet, F., & Villanueva, T. R. (2010). Modelling with stakeholders within a development project. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25(11), 1302-‐1321.

Capra, F. (2005). Complexity and Life. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5), 33-‐44. Carabias, W. J. V., Winistoerfer, H., & Stuecheli, A. (1999). Social aspects of public

waste management in Switzerland. Waste Management, 19(6), 417-‐425.

209

Carmona, C., & Giraldo, E. (1997). Analysis del sistema de recoleccion de desechos solidos municipales con previa separacion en al fuente. Bogota, Colombia.

CEC. (1977). Second EC Environment Action Programme. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

Chai, K.-‐H., & Yeo, C. (2012). Overcoming energy efficiency barriers through systems approach—A conceptual framework. Energy Policy, 46, 460-‐472.

Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester, England; Toronto: J. Wiley.


Chino, M., & DeBruyn, L. (2006). Building true capacity: Indigenous models for indigenous communities. American Journal of Public Health, 96(4), 596-‐599.

Clipak, N., & Barton, J. R. (2012). A system dynamics approach for healthcare waste management: A case study in Istanbul Metropolitan City, Turkey. Waste Management & Research, 30(6), 576-‐586.

Coc, E. M., & Zonso, J. J. (2011). Elaboracion de una guia basica para la manejo de desechos solidos en una comunidad rural. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.



Cointreau, S. (1982). Environmental management of urban solid wastes in developing countries: A project guide Urban Development Technical Paper Number 5. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Conteh, A. (2003). Culture and the transfer of technology. In B. Hazeltine & C. Bull (Eds.), Field guide of appropriate technology. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science.

Cook, D. M., Swanson, R. C., Eggett, D. L., & Booth, G. M. (2009). A retrospective analysis of prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites among school children in the Palajunoj Valley of Guatemala. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 27(1), 31-‐40.

Da Zhu, P., Asnani, H., Zurbrugg, C., Anapolsky, S., & Mani, S. (2008). Improving municipal solid waste management in India: A source book for Policy Makers and Practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Darrow, K., & Saxenian, M. (1993). Appropriate technology sourcebook: A guide to practical books for village and small community technology. Stanford, CA: Village Earth.


Drack, M., & Schwarz, G. (2010). Recent developments in general system theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27(6), 601-‐610.

Dunn, P. (1978). Appropriate technology: Technology with a human face. London: Macmillan.

Duru, R. C. (1981). Technological growth and ecological crisis: the Nigerian example. The Science of the Total Environment, 17(3), 243-‐256.

210

Dyson, B., & Chang, N.-‐B. (2005). Forecasting municipal solid waste generation in fast-‐growing urban region with system dynamics modeling. Waste Management, 25(7), 669-‐679.

Echeverria, F. O. (2009). Evaluacion del sistema de tratamiento de aguas residuales del sector central de la Universidad EARTH. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Eckaus, R. S. (1977). Appropriate technologies for developing countries. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

European Commission. (2010). 2009 Environment Policy Review. Brussels: EC. Fairweather, J. (2010). Farmer models of socio-‐ecologic systems: Application of

causal mapping across multiple locations. Ecological Modelling, 221(3), 555-‐562.

Frank, R. (2008). Cognitive Linguistics Research: Body, Language and Mind (Vol. 2: Sociocultural Situatedness). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.

Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability (pp. 137-‐152). New York: Columbia University Press.

Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-‐normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-‐755.

Furedy, C. (1992). Garbage: Exploring non-‐conventional options in Asian cities. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 42-‐61.

Galbraith, J. (2001). The concept of the conventional wisdom The Essential Galbraith. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., & Giljum, S. (2011). Integrating ecological, carbon, and water footprint: Defining the "Footprint Family" and its application in tracking human pressure on the planet: One Planet Economy Network.

Geng, Y., Tsuyoshi, F., & Chen, X. (2010). Evaluation of innovative municipal solid waste management through urban symbiosis: A case study of Kawasaki. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(10-‐11), 993-‐1000.

Gertsakis, J., & Lewis, H. (2003). Sustainability and the Waste Management Hierarchy: A discussion paper on the waste management hierarchy and its relationship to sustainability (pp. 1-‐15). Melbourne: RMIT University.

Gonzalez, G. P. B., & Taborga, S. A. T. (2001). Evaluacion economica de la contaminacion por desechos en la zona urbana de Guapiles. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.


Hardoy, J. E., Mitlin, D., Satterthwaite, D., & Hardoy, J. E. (2001). Environmental problems in an urbanizing world : finding solutions for cities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.

Henry, R. K., Yongsheng, Z., & Jun, D. (2006a). Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries -‐ Kenyan case study. Waste Management, 26(1), 92-‐100.

211

Henry, R. K., Yongsheng, Z., & Jun, D. (2006b). Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries-‐-‐Kenyan case study. Waste Management, 26(1), 92-‐100.

Hirschhorn, J., Jackson, T., & Baas, L. (1993). Towards Prevention: the emerging environmental management paradigm. In T. Jackson (Ed.), Clean Production Strategies: developing preventative environmental management in the industrial economy. Chelsea, MI: Lewis.

Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390-‐405.

Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-‐Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: A global review of solid waste management. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Hoornweg, D., & Giannelli, N. (2007). Managing municipal solid waste in Latin America and the Caribbean: Integrating the private sector, harnessing incentives: PPIAF World Bank.

IDB. (2011). Strategic guidelines for the municipal solid waste sector (MSW). Paper presented at the CSD intersessional conference on building partnerships for moving towards zero waste, Tokyo, Japan.

IDB. (2012). GU-‐T1177: National Plan for Solid Waste Management in Guatemala. Retrieved November 2, 2012, from http://www.iadb.org/en/projects/project-‐description-‐title,1303.html?id=GU-‐T1177.

Iwerks, L. (Writer). (2006). Recycled Life. In M. Glad (Producer): Leslie-‐Glad. Jacome, A. C., & Romero, F. F. V. (2003). Elaboracion de sustratos y enmiendas

agricolas a partir de desechos de la agroindustria azucarera y la industria del jabon. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.


Jimenez, E. D. S. (2000). Analysis del sistem a de manejo integrado de desechos solidos domesticos de EARTH y su evaluacion desde el punto de vista social interno. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Joseph, K., Rajendiran, S., Senthilnathan, R., & Rakesh, M. (2012). Integrated approach to solid waste management in Chennai: an Indian metro city. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 14(2), 75-‐84.

Karavezyris, V., Timpe, K.-‐P., & Marzi, R. (2002). Application of system dynamics and fuzzy logic to forecasting of municipal solid waste. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 60(3), 149-‐158.


Kgathi, D., & Bolaane, B. (2001). Instruments for sustainable solid waste management in Botswana. Waste Management and Research, 19(4), 342-‐353.

Koestler, A. (1978). Janus: a Summing Up (1St American Ed ed.). New York: Random House.

212

Kojima, M. (2011, February 16-‐18, 2011). Case from Asia: Expanding role of private sectors in waste management and recycling business towards realizing sound material cycle society. Paper presented at the CSD intersessional conference on building partnerships for moving towards zero waste, Tokyo, Japan.

Kollikkathara, N., Feng, H., & Stern, E. (2009). A purview of waste management evolution: special emphasis on USA. Waste Management, 29(2), 974-‐985.



Kosko, B. (1988). Hidden patterns in combined and adaptive knowledge networks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2(4), 377-‐393.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kum, V., Sharp, A., & Harnpornchai, N. (2004). A system dynamic approach for financial planning in solid waste management: A case study in Phnom Penh city. International Journal of Science and Technology, 9(2), 27-‐34.

Langeweg, F., Hilderink, H., & Maas, R. (2000). Urbanisation, industrialisation and sustainable development Globo Report Series No. 27: RIVM.

Louis, G. E. (2004). A Historical Context of Municipal Solid Waste Management in the United States. Waste Management & Research, 22(4), 306-‐322.

Mantilla, J. E. V. (2007). Proyecto cuente con ambiente primer informe sobre desechos solidos (1 ed.): MARN Universidad Rafael Landivar.

Martuzzi, M., Mitis, F., & Forastiere, F. (2010). Inequalities, inequities, environmental justice in waste management and health. European Journal of Public Health, 20(1), 21-‐26.

Mashayekhi, A. N. (1993). Transition in the New York State solid waste system: A dynamic analysis. System Dynamics Review, 9(1), 23-‐47.

Matuschke, I. (2009). Rapid urbanization and food security: Using food density maps to identify future food security hotspots. Paper presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing, China.

Mayo, E., Knight, A., Clifton, R., Jackson, T., Johnstone, J., Furey, S., . . . Pomfret, C. (2006). I will if you will: Towards sustainable consumption.: National Consumption Roundtable Sustainable Development Commission.


McGranahan, G. (2001). The citizens at risk: from urban sanitation to sustainable cities. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan: Stockholm Environment Institute.


213

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Melosi, M. V. (1981). Garbage in the cities: refuse, reform, and the environment, 1880-‐1980 (1st ed.). College Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University Press.


Mendonca, A. E. A. (2007). Propuesta de modelo para la gestion de los residuos solidos en el canton de Pococi. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Mirchi, A., Madani, K., Watkins Jr., D., & Ahmad, S. (2012). Synthesis of system dynamics tools for holistic conceptualization of water resources problems. Water Resource Management, 26(9), 2421-‐2442.

Mohamad, Z. F., Idris, N., & Mamat, Z. (2012). Role of religious communities in enhancing transition experiments: a localised strategy for sustainable solid waste management in Malaysia. Sustainability Science, 7(2), 237-‐251.

Moodley, S. (2005). Deconstructing the South African Government's ICT for Development Discourse. Africa Insight, 35(3), 3-‐11.


Moyaz, M. V., & Reyes, M. F. (2002). Analisis de factibilidad technico-‐economica del engorde de bovinos en semiconfinamiento suplementados con desechos de palmito. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Murphy, H. M., McBean, E. A., & Farahbakhsh, K. (2009). Appropriate technology – A comprehensive approach for water and sanitation in the developing world. Technology in Society, 31(2), 158-‐167.

Muttamara, S., & Leong, S. T. (1997). Environmental Monitoring and Impact Assessment of a Solid Waste Disposal Site. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 48(1), 1-‐24.

Nemerow, N. L. (2009). Environmental engineering: Environmental health and safety for municipal infrastructure, land use and planning, and industry (6th ed.). Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Neves, D. S. F., Gomes, A. P. D., Tarelho, L. A. C., & Matos, M. A. A. (2007). Application of a dynamic model to the simulation of the composting process. Paper presented at the Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Cagliari, Italy.

Ntim, B. (1988). Introduction. In S. Buatsi (Ed.), Technology Transfer -‐ nine case studies. London, UK: IT Publications.

OECD. (2012). Members and partners. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/

Özesmi, U., & Özesmi, S. L. (2004). Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multi-‐step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling, 176(1-‐2), 43-‐64.

Pan American Health Organization. (1998). Health in the Americas. (Vol. 2): World Health Organization.

214

Parkes, M. W., Morrison, K. E., Bunch, M. J., Hallström, L. K., Neudoerffer, C., Venema, H. D., & Waltner-‐Toews, D. (2010). Towards integrated governance for water, health and social-‐ecological systems: The watershed governance prism. Global Environmental Change, 20, 693-‐704.


Pellegrini, U. (1979). The problem of appropriate technology. . In A. De Giorgio & C. Roveda (Eds.), Criteria for selecting appropriate technologies under different cultural, technical, and social conditions (pp. 1-‐5). New York: Pergamon Press.


Pfammater, R., & Schertenleib, R. (1996). Non-‐Governmental Refuse Collection in Low-‐ Income Urban Areas: Lessons Learned from Selected Schemes in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Duebendorf, Switzerland.

Ponting, C. (1991). A green history of the world: the environment and the collapse of great civilizations. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Price, J. L., & Joseph, J. B. (2000). Demand management — a basis for waste policy: a critical review of the applicability of the waste hierarchy in terms of achieving sustainable waste management. Sustainable Development, 8(2), 96-‐105.

Robbins, P. T. (2007). The reflexive engineer: perceptions of integrated development. Journal of International Development, 19(1), 99-‐110.

Robles, M. B., & Orejuela, F. S. (2002). Evaluacion de manejo dedesechos organicos domesticos en la EARTH. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH. Guacimo, Costa Rica.

Rodic, L., Scheinberg, A., & Wilson, D. C. (2010). Comparing Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities. Paper presented at the ISWA World Congress 2010, Urban Development and Sustainability -‐ a Major Challenge for Waste Management in the 21st Century, Hamburg, Germany.

Rybczynski, W. (1980). Paper Tigers. Charlmington: Prism. Schneider, E. D., & Kay, J. (1994). Life as a manifestation of the second law of

thermodynamics. Mathematical Computer Modelling, 19(6-‐8), 25-‐48. Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods : integrating

quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.


Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered. London: Blond and Briggs, 1974.

Seadon, J. K. (2006). Integrated waste management -‐ looking beyond the solid waste horizon. [Review]. Waste Management 26(12), 1327-‐1336.


215

Shimura, S., Yokota, I., & Nitta, Y. (2001). Research for MSW flow analysis in developing nations Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 3(1), 48-‐59.

Shukla, S. R., et al. (2000). Solid Waste Management Manual. New Delhi: Government of India.

Sierra, J. A. P., & Matute, T. D. S. P. (2010). La biodigestion como estrategia en el manejo sostenible de desechos organicos, y para el fomento de alianzas entre la agroindustria, las comunidaded, y redes de escuelas ecologicas. Undergraduate thesis. Universidad EARTH.

Simon, A. M. (2008). Analysis Of Activities Of Community Based Organizations Involved in Solid Waste Management, Investigating Modernized Mixtures Approach: The case of Kinondoni Municipality, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. (MSc), Wageningen University.

Simpson, D. (2002). Situatedness, or why we keep saying where we're coming from. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Singh, R., Tyagi, V. V., Allen, T., Ibrahim, M. H., & Kothari, R. (2011). An overview for exploring the possibilities of energy generation from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Indian scenario. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), 4797-‐4808.

Singh, R. P., Singh, P., Araujo, A. S. F., & Ibrahim, M. H. (2011). Management of urban solid waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 55(7), 719-‐729.

Smillie, I. (2000). Mastering the Machine Revisited: Poverty, Aid and Technology. London: ITDG Publishing.

Southerton, D., McMeekin, A., & Evans, D. (2011). International Review of Behaviour Change Initiatives: Scottish Government Social Research.

Stokoe, J., & Teague, E. (1995). Integrated solid waste management for rural areas: A planning tool kit for solid waste managers. Washington, D.C.: USDA Rural Utilities Service.

Stroh, D. P. (2003). Leveraging change: The power of systems thinking in action. In P. Kumar (Ed.), Organisational learning for all seasons: Building internal capabilities for competitive advantage. Buona Vista, Singapore: National Community Leadership Institute.

Sudhir, V., Srinivasan, G., & Muraleedharan, V. R. (1997). Planning for sustainable solid waste management in urban India. System Dynamics Review, 13(3), 223-‐246.

Suwarno, A., Nawir, A. A., Julmansyah, & Kurniawan. (2009). Participatory modelling to improve partnership schemes for future Community-‐

Based Forest Management in Sumbawa District, Indonesia. Environmental Modelling & Software, 24(12), 1402-‐1410.

Tacoli, C. (2012). Urbanization, gender and urban poverty: paid work and unpaid carework in the city. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development United Nations Population Fund.

216

Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., & Eliassen, R. (1977). Solid Wastes: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. New York; Toronto: Mcgraw-‐Hill.


Thornloe, S. A., Weitz, K., Nishtala, S., Barlaz, M., Ranjithan, R., & Ham, R. K. (1997). Update on the US study applying life-‐cycle management to compare integrated waste management strategies. In T. H. Christensen, R. Cossu & R. Stegmann (Eds.), International Landfill Symposium. Sardinia, Italy: Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre.

TTSSC. (2010). SSC in the context of aid effectiveness: Telling the story of partners in south-‐south and triangular cooperation: Task Team on South-‐South Cooperation.


Turnpenny, J., Jones, M., & Lorenzoni, I. (2011). Where Now for Post-‐Normal Science?: A Critical Review of its Development, Definitions, and Uses. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36(3), 287-‐306.

UMA Environmental. (1995). Small scale waste management models for rural, remote and isolated communities in Canada. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Prepared for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

UN Habitat. (1989). Community participation -‐ Solid waste management in low income housing projects: The scope of community participation. Nairobi, Kenya.



UNEP. (1996). International Source Book on Environmentally Sound Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste Management International Environmental Technology Centre Technical Publication Series: United Nations Environmental Programme.


UNEP. (2010). Waste and Climate Change: Global Trends and Strategy Framework. Osaka; Shiga: United Nations Environmental Programme

UNFPA. (2011). State of world population 2011: United Nations Population Fund. United Nations ESCAP. (2010, 22-‐24 February, 2010). Regional exposure workshop

on pro-‐poor and sustainable solid waste management in secondary cities and small towns: Dhaka, Bangladesh. Paper presented at the Regional exposure workshop on pro-‐poor and sustainable solid waste management in secondary cities and small towns, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

217

van de Klundert, A. (1995). Community And Private (Formal And Informal) Sector Involvement In Municipal Solid Waste Management In Developing Countries. Paper presented at the UMP workshop, Ittingen.

van de Klundert, A., & Anschutz, J. (1999). Integrated Sustainable Waste Management: the selection of appropriate technologies and the design of sustainable systems is not (only) a technical issue. Paper presented at the CEDARE/IETC Inter-‐Regional Workshop on Technologies for Sustainable Waste Management, Alexandria, Egypt.


Vanek, F. (2003). Design philosophies for appropriate technology. In B. Hazeltine & C. Bull (Eds.), Field guide of appropriate technology. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science.

Vennix, J. A. M. (1996). Group model building: facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.

Vermaak, H. (2007). Working interactively with causal loop diagrams: Intervention choices and paradoxes in practical applications. In J. Boonstra & L. De Caluwé (Eds.), Intervening and changing: Looking for meaning in interactions. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An Outline of General System Theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 134-‐165.



Wajcman, J. (2002). Addressing Technological Change: The Challenge to Social Theory. Current Sociology, 50(3), 347-‐363.

Wall, J. M. (1993). With the Mayans: In Guatemala. The Christian Century, 110(36), 1259.




Wicklein, R. C. (1998). <Designing for appropriate technology in developing countries.pdf>. Technology in Society, 20(3), 371-‐375.


218

Wilson, D. C., Velis, C., & Cheeseman, C. (2006). Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in developing countries. Habitat international, 30(4), 797-‐808. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.005

Wolsink, M. (2010). Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-‐political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 302-‐311.

Woodward, D. (1985). "Swords into ploughshares": Recycling in Pre-‐Industrial England. The Economic History Review, 38(2), 175-‐191.

World Bank. (2005a). Guatemala: Country Economic Memorandum (Report No. 29145-‐GT). Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. (2005b). Tunisia integrated solid waste management project: World Bank.

World Bank. (2009). Integrated solid waste management and carbon finance project: World Bank.

World Bank. (2011). Guatemala Overview Retrieved April 6, 2011, from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/guatemala/overview

Worrell, W. A., & Vesilind, P. A. (2012). Solid waste engineering (2nd ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.


Yuan, H. (2012). A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste management. Waste Management, 32(6), 1218-‐1228.


Zellmer, A. J., Allen, T. F. H., & Kesseboehmer, K. (2006). The nature of ecological complexity: A protocol for building the narrative. Ecological Complexity, 3(3), 171-‐182.

Zerbock, O. (2003). Urban Solid Waste Management: Waste Reduction in Developing Nations Written for the Requirements of CE 5993 Field Engineering in the Developing World: Michigan Technological University.

Zero Waste SA. (2011). Waste Management Hierarchy Retrieved May 18, 2012, from http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/About-‐Us/waste-‐management-‐hierarchy

Zurbruegg, C. (2003). Solid waste management in developing countries: A sourcebook for policy makers and practitioners: EAWAG /SANDEC.

219

Appendix A: Interview guide

INTERVIEW GUIDE – COMMUNITY MEMBERS

A systems approach to community engaged integrated waste management in Todos Santos Cuchumatán, Guatemala

Pre-‐Interview Script Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. My name is Rachael Marshall from the University of Guelph in Canada and I would like to talk to you about your experiences with solid waste and wastewater management in Todos Santos. As a member of the community here we believe that your day-‐to-‐day activities and experiences will provide some useful insight into not only identifying waste management problems, but also help with developing solutions to improve the waste management of the community. This interview process is meant to be like a conversation, allowing you to share your experiences and expertise as community member. The interview should take approximately 30 to 60 minutes of your time. All responses will be kept confidential. This means that any information that is collected during this session will only be shared amongst the University of Guelph research team. The information gathered here today will be combined with information from other interviews and will be presented in a meeting with other participants with the intention of developing solutions to improve the waste management in Todos Santos. Any information that you provide during this session that will be used in these meetings will be amalgamated in such a way as to avoid making individual information recognizable as much as possible. However, some waste management staff may provide information that will be recognizable due to their specific function/job, and therefore it is important to note that in this case their identity may be known to other focus group members. In addition to this interview, I welcome you to participate in these meetings. I would like to remind you that you do not have to talk about anything that you do not want to talk about and you may end the interview at any time. Now I would like to review the consent form in front of you orally. This form outlines what I have just talked about in more detail including:

220

a) the purpose of this research b) the method for conducting this interview session c) potential risks and how the information you present here will be used in

ways that will keep you safe and comfortable d) the benefits to you as a participant e) methods for ensuring the confidentiality of the information you present

during the interview, and, f) your rights as a participant

[Consent form will be reviewed orally with participant in the language they prefer] Are there any questions about this form or anything else that I have explained so far?

Are you willing to participate in this interview? I would also like to record this session on audiotape because I do not want to miss any of your comments. Although I will be taking some notes during this session, I cannot possibly write fast enough to get all of the information down. Recording this interview on audiotape will only be done if you feel comfortable and consent to the process. It will be used to clear up any missed information and will remain confidential. How would you like to proceed with this interview? On audiotape or without audio-‐

recording?

Interview The following describes the anticipated themes to be discussed with community members.

INTERVIEW QUESTION THEMES (not for public distribution)

1. Title / Job Description.

2. Duration of position within waste management (if applicable).

3. Personal experiences with solid waste and wastewater management practices and projects in Todos Santos. (Possible areas include):

221

a. [waste system description – boundaries, inputs and outputs, information flow, delays, etc]

b. [how waste affects participant’s needs and activities] c. [participant’s concerns – issues, causes, consequences] d. [how waste affects resource states] e. [project planning] f. [preliminary or detailed project design] g. [approvals] h. [construction] i. [operation]

4. Anticipated themes for further discussion:

a. Capacity issues b. Self-‐governance issues c. Funding issues d. Resource issues e. Staff/ Human Resources turnover issues f. Participant’s vision/possible solutions for the future

Post-‐interview Script I have no further questions for this interview session.

Is there anything more that you would like to add? I will be analyzing the information I have received from you today as well as information I have gathered from conducting interviews with other community members. I would like to remind you again that the use of this information will not identify you as the respondent and will remain confidential. Because this interview session was recorded on audiotape, I will be transcribing what has been said here into a written document. I would be more than happy to send you a copy of this document if you wish to review it. In addition, I may contact you (by email or telephone through the main community contact, Kelly Chauvin) to clarify some of the information you have provided to ensure that my interpretation of what you have said is correct. It is important to note that participants’ identity will not be confidential, but known to this main community contact. However, the main community contact has signed a confidentiality agreement. Would you be interested in participating in the group meetings as the next step in this

process?

222

Are there any other questions you have at this time? Thank you for your time and I hope you have a great day.

223

Appendix B: Feedback loop descriptions

A. Men’s feedback loops

The Waste in the Streets Loop demonstrates how poor SWM has lead to a lack of

locations, such as waste receptacles, for people to properly dispose of their waste

throughout town. This encourages people to throw their waste in the streets, which

then creates more cleaning up work for the municipality, decreasing SWM funds

that could be used to ameliorate SWM. This loop is of low to medium strength, as

people throw waste in the streets not only because there is a lack of receptacles in

which to place it. The habit of throwing waste in the streets is also greatly

influenced by a lack of interest or understanding about the waste issue (see Figure

15). The majority of the population is accustomed to throwing organic waste on

fields with no consequence due to the fact that plastic has only entered the waste

stream within approximately the last 20 years. Therefore, it has developed into a

habit that is reinforced by the Waste in the Streets feedback loop. Intervening in this

loop by providing receptacles may not create much change in behaviour or improve

the SWM situation, as receptacles must first be emptied, and without other system

changes, would simply be emptied into the full, unregulated dump in the center of

town.

The Environment and Population Loop shows the balancing effects of

environmental degradation on population growth and thus on the adequacy of

SWM. Population growth is a stressor on the SWM system not only by increasing the

quantity of waste but, as this particular loops shows, by limiting the availability of

land, preventing proper facilities from being constructed. The lack of a properly

located landfill and recycling facility due to land constraints was strongly identified

as a major cause of inadequate SWM in Todos Santos by this sample group. This

balancing loop demonstrates how environmental degradation decreases tourism,

limits the economy and decreases population growth.

The Waste Quantity Loop demonstrates how the degradation of environmental

systems increases the waste quantity, reinforcing inadequate SWM by creating more

224

waste that must be dealt with. Degradation impacts waste quantity through

population growth, which increases consumption and limits land availability to

construct recycling facilities, but also through the need to consume pre-‐packaged

goods, such as bottled water or pre-‐wrapped food due to health concerns about

contamination. This loop also relies on the weak-‐to-‐medium connection between

environmental degradation, tourism, economic income and population growth.

However, it is supplemented by the need to rely on pre-‐packaged goods because

environmental services, such as clean water, are lacking. Thus, this loop has a higher

strength than the Environment and Population Loop, and could contain leverage

points with medium impacts.

B. Women’s feedback loops

The Education and Poverty Loop is a reinforcing feedback loop that demonstrates

how the poor education system decreases the number of educated youth in the

town, which in turn prevents them from attaining high paying jobs, and therefore

prevents them from being able to afford education fees for their children. The lack of

opportunities for youth to gain an education decreases their interest in waste issues

and increases the amount of waste thrown in the street, as youth are perceived as

the primary culprits of littering.

The Youth and Tradition Loop shows the reinforcing effects of youth’s interest in

modern culture and consumerism on loss of culture and traditions. As traditions are

lost, youth do not know how to maintain them and lose interest in doing so because

they have less connection to them. Thus they grow increasingly interested in

modern culture and consumerism, which draws their time away from maintaining

traditions. With a focus on consumerism, youth become a driving force for

consumption and thus waste production – particularly the production of plastic

waste in the form of highly packaged goods and other items that were not

previously available in the local economy.

The Economic Income Loop demonstrates how inadequate SWM has a negative

effect on the local economy, which reinforces the inadequacy of SWM. Inadequate

225

SWM has lead to the placement of the dump and abattoir in close proximity to the

town center, and has allowed it to fill to the brim. This has a negative effect on the

aesthetics of the town. Aesthetics impact tourism and local businesses, which need

to maintain a clean storefront in order to attract customers. Tourism is also

impacted by environmental degradation. Tourism and local business contribute to

the local economy, which provides resources to the community. These resources

allow community members to maintain their good health, or pay for medical

services. Therefore, a decrease in tourism has a negative impact on health, which

increases inhabitants’ preoccupation with other issues and draws time and

resources away from dealing with the adequacy of SWM. While the Economic

Income Loop has strong connections all along its length, economic capital made

through tourism or local business may not always be spent on maintaining good

health. Additionally, local business brings in more economic capital than tourism,

yet the connection between aesthetics and local business success is fairly weak.

Therefore, this loop is likely of low strength. However, the proximity of the dump to

the town center also has a direct impact on health through the Contamination and

Health Loop, as vectors move from the dump into human spaces, including dogs and

cats that are allowed into kitchens and the market. Again, this loop is difficult to

target because all factors within it are highly embedded in the system.

The female participants identified the same Waste in the Streets Loop that was

identified by the male participants, and it functions in the same way. This loop is

again limited in terms of interventions due to other variables impacting the main

problem of people throwing waste in the streets.

C. Youth’s feedback loops

The reinforcing Waste Generation Loop demonstrates how SWM impacts on health

impact waste generation rates, which put more pressure on the SWM system.

Contamination from the local dump and abattoir and waste left in the streets

increases illness, which has a negative impact on family wellbeing. Family wellbeing

is directly tied to community wellbeing. If many families in the community are

226

preoccupied with poor health, they are less focused on the preservation of culture,

language, and the traditional way of life. As traditions and culture are lost, a high

consumption culture replaces them, which leads to more waste generation. This in

turn creates a larger volume of waste that must be dealt with by an already

overloaded SWM system.

The reinforcing Youth and Culture Loop shows how the more youth value the town,

the more interest they have in preserving the culture, which in turn increases its

value to them.

The reinforcing Waste Generation Loop is a fairly weak loop due to the low strength

relationship between community wellbeing and preservation of culture and

language. Likewise, the Youth and Culture Loop is of low strength.

The two balancing feedback loops, Tourism 1 and Tourism 2, are of medium

strength due to the connections from tourism to degradation and to economic

income. Like the balancing loop in the men’s causal map, these loops would only be

effective if tourism became a larger focus in the local economy. The balancing

Tourism Loop 1, shows how environmental systems have a balancing effect on

tourism. While many tourists are attracted to the surrounding area for its ecological

beauty, they cause some environmental degradation directly by creating traffic

through sensitive ecological zones, and through the increase in consumption they

bring as the town caters to their needs. This decreases the ‘pristineness’ of the very

ecological systems tourists are attracted to. The balancing Tourism Loop 2

demonstrates how environmental degradation caused by poor SWM decreases

tourism, which puts less pressure on the waste system. Tourism contributes the

economy, which provides resources to maintain good health or pay for medical

services. This in turn promotes the preservation of traditions and culture, which

decreases waste generation. Waste generation contributes to the inadequacy of

SWM by adding more waste to the full dump that must be dealt with.

227

Appendix C: Bank of Ideas

Table 18. Overall system management options


Description and details

Public-‐private partnerships25 26

Semi-‐privatization of the waste management system:

• Has high potential to improve the quality/efficiency of SWM services; • Municipality must maintain financial and managerial autonomy; and • Competition, transparence, and accountability are necessary for private

sector success. Creation of a non-‐profit community-‐based organization: Clean Todos Santos Foundation36

A community-‐based SWM organization:

• Founded on the vision of the community at large; • Signs an agreement with the municipality on solid waste objectives,

targets and a comprehensive SWM plan for the town of Todos Santos; • Conducts ‘learning-‐by-‐doing’ educative workshops and sessions in the

community; • Searches for and secures national and international support; • Conducts certain SWM tasks (e.g. establishes collection centers,

conducts a thorough waste audit, conducting ongoing monitoring, etc.); • Oversees and manages certain SWM aspects in the community (e.g.

coordinates with/oversees micro-‐enterprises); and • Must be composed of a group that is representative of the population.

Development of SWM micro-‐enterprises39 40 26

Micro-‐enterprises:

• Can accomplish smaller scale tasks within the SWM system that the municipality cannot manage;

• Municipality can remain the governing body, delegating tasks to each community-‐based micro-‐enterprise and coordinating their efforts;

• Micro-‐enterprises contribute to the local economy; • Low-‐cost, labor-‐intensive approaches; • Greater community participation, which encourages better collection

and source separation; and • Requires more extensive municipal monitoring than larger scale public-‐

private partnerships. Coordination with local NGOs for capacity building40

Coordinating with existing local NGOs:

• Can build capacity, coordinate waste education, training, workshops, etc.;

• NGOs can help tackle governance issues; and • Community capacity building and good governance can greatly ease

management responsibilities and tasks. Motivational training and/or exchange visits for managers and

To maintain high motivation among managers and operators:

• Training and exchange visits to areas with successful SWM systems; • Potential locations for exchange visits could be coordinated with NGO

contacts.

228

operators37

Integrating informal waste pickers26

Waste picker integration program:

• Aimed at eliminating counterproductive competition between informal and formal sectors; and

• Upgrading informal pickers into community-‐based recycling cooperatives.

Table 19. Waste characterization options

Waste Characterization

Options Description and details

Further waste auditing27

Conducting a waste audit:

• Of local businesses, restaurants, and schools; • That determines how much waste is construction debris, street

sweepings, etc. is in the overall waste; and • That provides an overall estimate of how much waste is brought to

landfill each month. Determine energy potential of solid waste27

Conducting a moisture content study:

• Monthly data allow waste-‐to-‐energy technologies to be considered in greater detail.

Hands-‐on waste characterization workshops41

Hands-‐on solid waste workshops:

• For conducting waste characterization and quantification; • Capacity building and education-‐centered; and • Workshop participants ranging from solid waste workers to local

schools.

Table 20. Waste Reduction Options

Waste Reduction Options


Community-‐wide waste education program28 29 30 31

An education program that explores:

• The profitability of waste; • The usefulness of waste; and • The environmental and health benefits of recycling.

Waste separation28 Promoting waste separation through:

• Education programs; and Waste bins for separate solid waste types, divided by colour.

Youth waste education program42

A waste education program founded on:

• Ecological awareness;

229

28 • Ethical values; • Entrepreneurial thinking; and • Social responsibility.

‘Teach the teachers’ program28 30

A waste education program for teachers that explores:

• Environmental education; • Entrepreneurship; • The solid waste system; and • Solid waste management activities.

The program should include:

• Seminars and workshops to allow teachers to network, present their successes/failures, and share experiences;

• A final workshop for the teachers to assemble a solid waste education manual; and

• A final goal for basing each class taught in school on the pillars of ecological awareness, ethic values, entrepreneurial thinking, and social responsibility

Community clean streets initiative35

An education program focused on:

• Preventing waste from being thrown in the streets by making it the community’s responsibility;

• Consumer buying power awareness; and • Encouraging purchases that have less packaging

Youth waste entrepreneurship program35

A program focused on:

• Getting the youth involved in instructing the municipality about innovative SWM practices; and

• Marketing SWM skills for work in the community or other towns. Community SWM committees35

Committees composed of:

• Community members; workers from the ministries of health, environment, and agriculture; municipal authorities; local businesses; restaurants; local schools; the police force, etc.

Committee purposes include:

• Providing a place for community-‐wide motivational speeches, workshops, and training;

• Determining what kind of solid wastes are being produced by each group;

• Determining what can be reused and how; • Ensuring the municipal authorities take responsibility for implementing

planned SWM measures; and • Conducting ongoing monitoring.

SWM planning workshops for local businesses48

Group and personalized workshops for local businesses:

• Initiating solid waste audits on a business by business basis; • Identifying ways to minimize wastes, recover resources; • Potential for sharing waste materials as resources among local

businesses; and • Developing personalized SWM plans;

Pre-‐cycle In-‐store, point of purchase educational campaign:

230

campaign49 • Encourages store owners to provide products with minimal packaging; • Store owners can instruct buyers about which items have the least

packaging; and • Shelves can indicate which items are the most environmentally friendly.

Fostering constructive neighbourhood/ household competition37

Fostering competition:

• Among households or neighbourhoods for the cleanest streets/environment;

• Most waste reduction by weight; • Most reuse around the house, etc.; • An appropriate incentive can be given out as a prize; and • A competition/celebration day can be held.

Compensation for proper separation/ system compliance37

Households receive monetary benefits:

• Through a small stipend; • Through discounts on valued items, targeted at those who are in charge

of solid waste activities (such as vegetable discounts for women); and • Stipend/discount amount depends on the degree of participation.

Increasing respect for public spaces to keep them clean37

Program for streets and public spaces that are frequently littered with waste:

• Education campaign about the financial repercussions of littering (less municipal resources for education, health, etc., unclean spaces causes health and environmental issues); and

• Installing religious shrines, symbols of respect, etc. in public spaces and holding a public inauguration for them.

Religious partnerships54

Establishing interest among the churches, religious leaders and organizations:

• Partnerships that demonstrate how waste reduction, recycling, reuse, and proper SWM is in line with religious teachings and beliefs;

• Religious groups can be very effective at motivating the community; and

• Recycling and reuse activities can be based on the concepts of charity and communal good

Ecotourism Encouraging ecotourism activities within the community:

• Will provide a local drive to shift to more ecological practices; • Will help the economy; and • Can be based on innovative waste practices in the community – as

waste practices improve, Todos Santos can represent a “sustainable community”

Table 21. Collection and transport options

Collection, Transport, and

Financing Options Description and details

Mini collection centers34 35

Mini solid waste collection centers:

• Located in areas where pick-‐up is not occurring weekly; • Located in an areas that is accessible to large trucks; • Have drop-‐off zones for different kinds of wastes; and

231

• Can be used as an education tool for local schools and the community. Citizens must understand that they have to clean all items going to recyclable material bins.

Separate collection days38

Collecting recyclables on one day and other waste on a second day:

• Encourages separation at the source; • Only an option in areas with weekly collection; and • May initially increase costs or lack collaboration from citizens.

Secondary and tertiary sorting at Recycling center35

Constructing a centralized recycling center where:

• Re-‐sorting all waste that was previously separated in the home or in mini collection center bins occurs;

• Re-‐sorting occurs by glass colour, plastic type, etc.; and • Materials are organized for sale or free pick-‐up.

Collection by small vehicle/pushcart in outer neighbourhoods50

Due to limited collection outside of El Centro:

• Small motorized vehicles or manual pushcarts can be used for waste collection;

• Smaller vehicles can fit into narrow, steep roadways that are unfit for municipal trucks; and

• Vehicles must be able to handle the wet season and unpaved, rocky roads.

Tax-‐based collection fee system40 43

Collection fee system:

• Based on taxation; • Will require solid waste education in the community; and • Will require municipality to demonstrate to the community that it is

capable of making substantial long-‐term SWM improvements. Collection fee community education program43

Education program:

• To inform the community on the value and importance of paying for SWM services;

• Primary goal to get the public on board with a taxation system for SWM funding;

• Founded on transparency, fully explaining the taxation process; • Demonstrates the financial benefits of having a proper SWM system

(savings in terms of health and environmental services expenses). User pays fee system37

Payment is made upon service achievement:

• To increase willingness to pay in cases where services are seen as unreliable; and

• User pays per collection round. Change in method of payment37

Discuss with the community:

• Which way they would like to pay for SWM services; • Lump sum, with water bills, etc.

Relate collector/

transporter salaries to performance37

If collection or other services are unreliable:

• Operators may need new incentive to perform better; • This is particularly true for new operators that are former waste

pickers;

232

If paid according to achievement, reliability and quality of services will improve.

Installation of more waste bins in public areas and incorporation into collection route

Installation of more waste bins:

• In public places where people tend to throw waste on the ground; • Waste bins should be regularly emptied by collection operators on the

weekly route; and • Separate bins for waste, recyclables, and organics should be provided.

Table 22. Resource recovery options

Resource Recovery Options


Women's vermiculture initiative32

Develop a partnership with the NGO Byoearth to transfer knowledge on:

• Vermiculture; and • Entrepreneurship for women’s groups.

Women's recycled craft initiative32

Partnership with Byoearth:

• Can help local women develop entrepreneurship skills to make and sell recycled crafts

Recycled materials as construction materials28 35

Recycled plastic and metal can act as:

• Barriers around garden beds, etc. to beautify work/community spaces; and

• Can decorate community gardens on top of old covered landfill trenches.

Agricultural uses for recycled materials (substrate, etc.)28

Recyclable materials can be used as:

• Substrate in soil; • Barriers around beds, for dirt walls, etc.; and • Must accompanied by activated charcoal.

Biodigesters for methane use as a cooking fuel 28 46

Biodigesters can be used for:

• Methane production for cooking use; • Fertilizer (biodigester by-‐product); and • Can also run on wastewater for future projects.

Waste-‐to-‐electricity28 47

Biodigesters that create electricity:

• Can run on pig manure or other organic materials; and • Effluent must go to organic deposition and oxygenation ponds.

Sustainable alliances between agroindustry, communities, and ecological universities47

An alliance between agroindustry, ecological universities, and communities:

• Agroindustry waste can act as the nutrient source; • Communities and ecological universities can participate in setting up

and running the biodigesters; • Communities can benefit from electricity/methane production; and • Universities can foster environmental education through engaged,

hands-‐on SWM learning.

233

Organics to paper production28

Paper can be made out of fruit peels (e.g. banana) and sold to tourists, etc.

Roofing from recycled materials35

Tetra paks or plastic/metal combinations used to make roofing.

Waste crops for livestock production during flooded market51

If a particular crop has flooded the market:

• Waste crops can be used to fatten livestock for meat, depending on the crop;

• Diversification of production can help to support farmers through a period when the market is flooded; and

• Minimum conditions for such a venture to be profitable must be calculated on a case-‐by-‐case basis.

Small-‐scale composting28 35 52

Composting organic material can be used for:

• Creating organic fertilizer for sale or use in agricultural practices; • Can be done on a house-‐by-‐house basis, or in groups of families; • Can be sold for a profit or used for crops; and • Uses manual labour.

Substrate and fertilizer produced from soap and sugar cane waste53

Highly marketable agricultural products:

• Made from soap waste, cane/palm sugar waste (mill mud, bagasse), ashes, and silica sand; and

• Agroindustry and community alliances can be established for the production of these products.

Waste food products55

Waste from food products on farms can be used for:

• Making value-‐added products; • E.g. whey from cheese-‐making, burnt coffee beans, etc.

Compost pile with aeration tube and fan56

Composting technique:

• Uses a perforated aeration btube, placed in the center of the pile; • Pile is continually aerated by directing a fan into the aeration tube; • Time-‐efficient, volume-‐reducing technique • Easy to implement/operate, low capital cost, produces high quality

compost Town beautification project49

Competition to design a beautification project:

• That uses recycled materials only; and • That represents the culture/identity of the town; • Can be open to schools, community members, etc.

Return to point of sale program49

Reuse program:

• Enlisting local businesses that would accept broken products or empty containers etc. for repair and re-‐sale;

• E.g. old paint to paint stores, used oil and car batteries to gas stations/garages, etc.; and

• Program can be advertised on the radio, in the storefront, etc. Medium-‐scale composting26

Composting facilities can be set up for:

• Can be done in mini composting centers in each community; • Can establish centers for agricultural waste; and

234

• Can be used for market waste.

Table 23. Waste transformation options

Waste Transformation

Options Description and details

Small-‐scale incinerator34

Small-‐scale incinerator:

• Employs simple combustion; • Requires easily found materials, including a concrete/metal cylinder,

large equally sized rocks or a concrete slab for the base, and a metal grate;

• Does not fully combust waste, only reduces volume; • Ashes must be deposited in the landfill; and • Either a filter must be installed or plastics and bleached items should

not be incinerated to avoid dioxin production.

Table 24. Disposal options

Disposal Options Description and details

Manual landfill35 Small-‐scale manual labour landfill:

• Located on clay or geotextile; • Composed of rows of 4.5 m trenches dug out with a back-‐hoe/by hand; • Covered with soil every day to prevent open exposure; • Requires 10 years of leachate monitoring, so monthly fees must be

charged for a minimum of 15 years (this is the minimum lifespan of the landfill);

• Nearly no organic materials should be deposited in the landfill to minimize methane production and vectors; and

• This design results in no odors. Hazardous waste disposal pit29

A hazardous waste disposal pit can be constructed:

• Located on clay; • Lined with concrete; • Pit can act as a disposal site for fluorescent light bulbs, batteries,

medical waste, etc.; and • Hazardous waste should be treated with sulfur before being disposed of

in the pit. Transporting hazardous waste to Huehuetenango

Transporting hazardous waste:

• Medical waste is already transported to the city of Huehuetenango, which is 2.5 hours away;

• Transporting other hazardous wastes along with medical waste would not significantly increase costs; and

• Residents would have to separate these wastes from regular municipal waste and safely deposit them at a hazardous waste drop-‐off site.

235

Appendix D: System lever assessment Table 25. System lever assessment

= YES

= MAYBE

= NO

System Lever Options

Selection Criteria

User Affordability

Use of local m

aterials/ resources

Relatively labour-‐intensive

Low capital cost

Education-‐centered

Targets youth culture

Socially appealing

Environm

entally sustainable

Locally sustainable

Flexibility

Capacity building

Soundness of conceptual/ technological

design

Targets recyclables

Targets organics

Targets w

aste reduction

Targets rem

aining waste

Privatization

Clean Todos Santos Foundation

Development of SWM micro-‐enterprises

Coordination with local NGOs

Integrating informal waste pickers

Motivational training/exchange visits for managers and operators

Further waste auditing

Determine energy potential of solid waste

Hands-‐on waste characterization workshops

Community-‐wide waste education program

Youth waste education program

Teach the teachers program

Community clean streets initiative

Youth waste entrepreneurship program

Community SWM committees

SWM planning workshops for local businesses

Pre-‐cycle campaign

Waste separation

Fostering constructive competition

236

Compensation for proper system compliance

Increasing respect for public spaces

Religious partnerships

Mini collection centers

Separate collection days

Secondary and tertiary sorting at Recycling center

Collection by small vehicle in outer neighbourhoods

Tax-‐based collection fee system

Collection fee community education program

User pays fee system

Change in method of payment

Relate operator salaries to performance

Women's vermiculture initiative

Women's recycled craft initiative

Recycled materials as decorative construction materials

Agricultural uses for recycled materials

Biodigesters for methane use as a cooking fuel

Waste-‐to-‐electricity

Organics to paper production

Roofing from recycled materials

Sustainable alliances between agroindustry, communities, and ecological schools

Waste crops for livestock production during flooded market

Small-‐scale composting

Substrate and fertilizer produced from soap and sugar cane waste

Waste food products

237

Compost pile with aeration tube and fan

Town beautification project

Return to point of sale program

Medium-‐scale composting

Small-‐scale incinerator

Methane tester

Hazardous waste disposal pit

Transporting hazardous waste to Huehuetenango

marshall rachael 201301 masc

Documents