R

Oc

YD

a

ARRA

KRHSPM

C

1234567

1

ca

0h

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50– 61

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journa l h om epa ge: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / resconrec

eview

verview of household solid waste recycling policy status andhallenges in Malaysia

iing Chiee Moh, Latifah Abd Manaf ∗

epartment of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Environmental Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 14 February 2013eceived in revised form 7 November 2013ccepted 9 November 2013

eywords:ecyclingousehold wasteolid waste managementolicy implementationalaysia

a b s t r a c t

With the annual increase in waste generation and heavy reliance on landfilling as disposal, method inMalaysia, it is just a matter of time before significant problems of space limitations, health, and envi-ronmental issues hit the nation severely. This paper attempts to develop an overview on solid, wasterecycling in Malaysia at the most basic level of a community or nation which is the household, unit.Households are the main primary source of municipal solid waste in Malaysia, consisting of, recyclablematerials at most 70% to 80% of the total waste composition as found placed in the, landfills. Overviewon the existing household solid waste recycling policy and program status in, Malaysia is relevant inenhancing solid waste management measure from recycling perspective. Despite the high potential andopportunities for solid waste recycling, wastes are still simply being, dumped in an open area of groundwithout any attempt for recovery and recycling. Comparing to, recycling rates of neighboring countries,Malaysia is falling back at merely 5% which proves how, uncommon recycling practice is. The governmentis committed to significantly improve the national’s, solid waste management services especially in wasteminimization. Fortunately the emphasis on, recycling as a sustainable waste management strategy has

taken a shift in paradigm as wastes, separation and recycling are part of the major changes in the currentpolicy implementation. With, issues and challenges in recycling practice that were highlighted in thiscontext especially from the, aspects of information availability and other loopholes within solid wastemanagement policies and, related recycling program within the community, the question on whetherthe goals in 2020 can be, met remains unsure of but there is a possibility for a successful implementationof sustainable solid, waste management particularly in recycling.

© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

ontents

. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

. Opportunities for solid waste recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

. Status of solid waste management and disposal in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

. Recycling status and policy in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

. Issues and challenges in recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

. Introduction

The quality of the environment is rapidly deteriorating espe-ially when it concerns the issue of solid waste which has becoming

challenging task for many large metropolitan heterogeneous

∗ Tel.: +603 8946 6771.E-mail address: latifah@env.upm.edu.my (L. Abd Manaf).

921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.004

areas in most of the developing countries (Dawda, 2010). Inearly times, the disposal of solid waste did not pose a signifi-cant problem as the population scale was smaller and the amountof land available for the assimilation for solid waste was larger(Tchobanoglous et al., 1993). With the rapidly growing population

rate and urbanization progress, it is inevitable that the amount ofland available is becoming scarce even to serve the purpose of pro-viding space for solid waste disposed from the growing populationalone.

onser

ma(mspttadasod

icSwcwmtmiMe(fgg2de

slaoaetaEtber(w(uaTalmv

sl3tta

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, C

Under the Malaysia Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Manage-ent Act 2007 (Act 672), disposal of any solid waste could be by

ny means of destruction, incineration and deposit or decomposingNagapan et al., 2012). However, landfill dump is still a common

ethod in managing solid wastes in Malaysia (The Ingenieur, 2009)ince it is cost-effective and simple, unlike the other common dis-osal method using the incinerator which is costly and requiresechnological experts to operate it. Landfill dumps are testamento the fact that wastes problem is out of control and not goingnywhere. Solid waste disposal via landfilling is becoming moreifficult because most landfills are approaching its threshold orlready exceeded its maximum capacity. At the same time, con-tructing new landfill sites is becoming even more difficult becausef land scarcity and the increase of land prices and high demandsue to the increase in population (Latifah et al., 2009).

Overall waste composition in Malaysia is dominated by munic-pal solid waste (64%), followed by industrial waste (25%),ommercial waste (8%) and 3% consists of construction waste (EU-WMC, 2009).About 80% of municipal solid wastes are recyclables,hich are disposed at the landfills (MHLG, 2006) and under the

ategory of municipal solid wastes, the contribution of householdaste is the highest among sources consisting of recyclables atost 70–80% of total solid waste composition as found placed in

he landfills (Sumiani et al., 2009). Household area is one of theain primary sources of municipal solid waste in Malaysia, besides

nstitutional and commercial waste (Tariq and Mostafizur, 2007).unicipal solid waste generally consist of around 20 different cat-

gories which are food waste, paper (mixed), cardboard, plasticsrigid, film and foam), textile, wood waste, metals (ferrous or non-errous), diapers, newsprint, high grade and fine paper, fruit waste,reen waste, batteries, construction waste and glass; these cate-ories can be grouped into organic and inorganic (Amin and Go,012). Regardless of its composition or type, wastes are simplyumped in an open area of ground without any attempt for recov-ring or recycling (Amin and Go, 2012).

The emphasis on recycling as a sustainable waste managementtrategy has represented a shift in paradigm from conventional col-ection and disposal (Bolaane, 2006). Recycling has been widelyccepted as a sustainable solid waste management method becausef its potential to reduce disposal costs and waste transport costsnd to prolong the life spans of landfill sites (Folz, 1991; Muttamarat al., 1994; Suttibak and Nitivattananon, 2008). The concept ofurning materials that would otherwise become waste into valu-ble resources of financial, environmental and social returns (USPA, 2012) has gained increasing attention as a means of protec-ing the environment as it offers one of the most sensible solutionsoth economically and ecologically for managing waste (Omrant al., 2009). Malaysia targeted 22% of total solid waste could beecycled by the year 2020 but the current recycling rate is about 5%Agamuthu et al., 2011). Compared to other developed countries,here recycling rate is about 30–47%, Malaysia is falling back

Mahmud and Osman, 2010). At present, recycling has not become aniversal way of life in Malaysia (Omran et al., 2009) and only a fewre really practicing it religiously (CheMamat and Chong, 2007).he implications of such practice are the loss of these resourcesnd the rapid utilization of the landfill space reducing the length ofife span of landfills in this country, not only would create environ-

ental problem but also unsustainable from the economy point ofiew (Agamuthu et al., 2011).

Most studies focus more on a general picture of the status ofolid waste management even though there is a need to high-ight other issues such as solid waste recycling. With the common

Rs which are ‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle’ in ascending priority order,he term ‘Recycle’ should not be taken lightly even though sus-ainability in solid waste generation at source, followed by reusend lastly recycle. This paper attempts to develop an overview

vation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50– 61 51

on solid waste recycling in Malaysia at the most basic level ofa community or nation which is the household unit, consider-ing the high contribution of household solid waste among thesolid waste sources in Malaysia. It is almost impossible to requirehouseholds to directly reduce their consumption rate and wastegeneration rate. Moreover, the number of available informationon solid waste management and recycling in Malaysia is ratherlimited with no systematic analysis and periodic documentationnationwide from any local authorities, resulting in inaccurate andoutdated databases (Nasir et al., 2000). Studies on household solidwaste recycling are also found to be vastly conducted in othercountries mainly in western counterparts, even to the extent ofproposing policy implementations and recycling models. To imple-ment and rely on their suggestive outcomes in Malaysia, it mightnot be reliable as it is supposed to be due to the significant dif-ferences in lifestyle and management. Overview on the existinghousehold solid waste recycling policy and program in Malaysiais relevant in enhancing solid waste management measure fromrecycling perspective and could be used as references providingbasic guiding principles for policy makers, related institutions andother researchers.

2. Opportunities for solid waste recycling

Solid waste management is one of the major environmentalproblems faced by municipalities globally (Omran et al., 2009)and the biggest environmental problem in Malaysia (Osman et al.,2009). Malaysia, with a population of over 25 million in 2007 gen-erates approximately 18,000 tons of domestic waste daily. A totalof 22,000 tons of solid waste are being disposed daily through-out the nation, which is about an increase of 10,000 tons from thetotal solid waste disposed daily in 2011 and would show steadyincrease to 30,000 tons per day by year 2020 if similar behaviorpersists among public (BeritaHarian, 2012). It was reported thatMalaysians produced 33,000 tons of solid waste daily in 2012,exceeding the projected production of 30,000 tons by 2020 (NewStraits Times, 2013). The major consequence of Malaysia’s rapidurbanization is viewed as a social transformation with a greatlyincreased generation of municipal solid waste (Murad and Siwar,2007).

Table 1 shows the estimated solid waste generation in localauthorities in Malaysia from 1991 to 2010. With the increasing pop-ulation growth throughout the years, waste generation rate showssimilar increasing trend with steady increase in total amount ofsolid waste generated. As the population increases, the amountof solid waste generation also increases in a tremendous amount.The solid waste generated shows steady increase with the increas-ing trend in population and waste generation rate. The increasein population translates to higher generation of waste (Agamuthuand Fauziah, 2011). Prior to 1993, Malaysia’s waste generation ratevaried between 0.34 and 0.85 kg/cap/day depending on the eco-nomic and geographical status of an area. By 1997, the total solidwaste generated throughout Malaysia totaled 5.6 million tons or15,000 million kg/day and the rest (about 3,100,000 kg/day) beingcommercial waste (Agamuthu, 2001). At present per capita house-hold waste generation in the capital city of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpuris about 0.80–1.30 kg per day (Abdul Jalil, 2010) and it is contin-uously rising as we speak due to the uncontrollable consumption(Osman et al., 2009) owing to the increasing population, acceleratedurbanization and industrialization process (Hassan et al., 1999).Municipal solid waste generation has gained prominence in this

country and it is said to increase more than 91% over the past 10years (Agamuthu and Fauziah, 2011).

Table 2 shows municipal solid waste generation in major urbanareas in Peninsular Malaysia from 1970 to 2006 whereas Table 3

52 Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50– 61

Table 1Estimated solid waste generation in local authorities in Malaysia.

Year Population in local authorities(million) (increase at 3% annually)

Waste generation rate (kg/cap/day)(increase at 2% per capita per year)

Total amount of solid waste generatedin local authorities (million tons)

1991 13.727 0.7 2.51995 15.450 0.8 3.01996 15.913 0.8 3.21997 16.391 0.8 3.41998 16.882 0.8 3.51999 17.389 0.8 3.72000 17.911 0.9 3.92005a 20.598 1.0 5.91

2010a 23.284 1.2 7.0

Sources: Department of Environment (1999), 1Malaysian Government (2006), Zamali et al. (2009).a Estimated based on 3% population growth and 2% waste generation growth.

Table 2Generation of municipal solid waste in major urban areas in Peninsular Malaysia from 1970 to 2006.

Urban center Solid waste generated (tons/day)

1970 1980 1990 2002 2006

Kuala Lumpur 98.90 310.50 586.80 2754.00 3100.00Johor Bahru (Johor) 41.10 99.60 174.80 215.00 242.00Ipoh (Perak) 22.50 82.70 162.20 208.00 234.00Georgetown (Pulau Pinang) 53.40 83.00 137.20 221.00 249.00Klang (Selangor) 18.00 65.00 122.80 478.00 538.00Kuala Terengganu (Terengganu) 8.70 61.80 121.00 137.00 154.00Kota Bharu (Kelantan) 9.10 56.50 102.90 129.50 146.00Kuantan (Pahang) 7.10 45.20 85.30 174.00 196.00Seremban (Negeri Sembilan) 13.40 45.10 85.20 165.00 186.00Melaka 14.40 29.10 46.80 562.00 632.00

Source: Periathamby et al. (2009).

Table 3Generation of municipal solid waste in Malaysia according to states from 1996 to 2009.

States Solid waste generated (tons/day)

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004a 2006a 2008a 2009a

Johor 1613 1786 1915 2093 2255 2430 2578 2655Kedah 1114 1215 1324 1447 1559 1680 1782 1835Kelantan 871 950 1034 1131 1213 1302 1382 1423Melaka 433 480 515 563 605 650 690 711Negeri Sembilan 637 695 757 828 890 957 1015 1046Pahang 806 879 957 1046 1125 1210 1284 1322Perak 1286 1402 1527 1669 1795 1930 2048 2109Perlis 165 180 196 214 230 247 262 270Pulau Pinang 916 999 1088 1189 1278 1375 1458 1502Selangor 2380 2595 2827 3090 3322 3573 3790 3904Terengganu 743 811 883 965 1038 1116 1184 1219Kuala Lumpur 2105 2305 2520 2755 3025 3323 3525 3631WP Labuan NA NA 46 70 74.3 81.2 86.1 88.7Sabah NA NA NA 2490 2642 2887 3062 3154.3Sarawak NA NA NA 1905 2012 2208 2343 2413Total 13,069 14,297 15,589 21,455 23,063 24,969 26,489 27,283

NA: not available.Sources: Agamuthu et al. (2009).

a Extrapolated figures.

Table 4Waste composition (percentage of wet weight) in Malaysia from 1975 to 2005.

Waste composition 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Organic 63.70 54.40 48.30 48.40 45.70 43.20 44.80Paper 7.00 8.00 23.60 8.90 9.00 23.70 16.00Plastic 2.50 0.40 9.40 3.00 3.90 11.30 15.00Glass 2.50 0.40 4.00 3.00 3.90 3.20 3.00Metal 6.40 2.20 5.90 4.60 5.10 4.20 3.30Textiles 1.30 2.20 NA NA 2.10 1.50 2.80Wood 6.50 1.80 NA NA NA 0.70 6.70Others 0.90 0.30 8.80 32.10 4.30 12.30 8.40

NS

A: not available.ource: Periathamby et al. (2009).

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50– 61 53

Table 5Major recyclable items from municipal solid waste in Malaysia.

Item Share of waste composition (%) Remarks

Food waste 49.3 - Composting of food waste is not employed at a large scale

Paper 17.1 - Waste paper for recycling is mostly collected from generation source after separation- Source separation is limited to certain paper categories that have high market value

Plastics 9.7 - Waste plastics actively collected for recycling include PET bottles, HDPE, PE, PP, etc.- Source separation is limited due to comparatively lower price compared to waste paper andmetal

Glass 3.7 - Waste glass recycled includes glass bottles, jars and colored or clear glass- Source separation is low- Limited number of glass bottle manufacturers in Malaysia generates low demand- Bottles reuse market exists

Ferrous metal 1.6 - Wide range of ferrous metal recyclables in the local market- Source separation and direct selling is high

Aluminum 0.4 - Source separation and direct selling is high due to high selling price

ES

diggpott2a1ia2iifr2

bDupalrnfpiumrmtdwtmsster

Table 6Solid waste composition in Malaysia and other Asian countries.

Country Types (%)

Organic waste Paper Plastic Glass Metal Others

Malaysia3 45.0 7.0 24.0 3.0 6.0 15.0Singapore2 44.4 28.3 11.8 4.1 4.8 6.6Thailand2 48.6 14.61 13.9 5.1 3.6 14.2China2 35.8 3.7 3.8 2.0 0.3 54.3Hong Kong2 37.2 21.6 15.7 3.9 3.9 17.6Indonesia2 70.2 10.9 8.7 1.7 1.8 6.2Japan2 17.0 40.0 20.0 10.0 6.0 7.0Laos2 54.3 3.3 7.8 8.5 3.8 22.5Myanmar2 80.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 14.0South Korea2 31.0 27.0 6.0 5.0 7.0 23.0

1

stimated recycling rate is 4.5%.ource: MHLG (2006).

epicts the generation of municipal solid waste by individual statesn Malaysia from 1996 to 2009. Johor, Kuala Lumpur and Selan-or states are the top three ranked in the municipal solid wasteenerated. With the advancement in living standards, it is not sur-rising if the amount of solid waste generated continues to risever the years. Waste generation has since increased with popula-ion expansion (Agamuthu and Fauziah, 2011). The production ofhese wastes increases more than 90% every 10 years (Abdul Jalil,010) with most of these wastes dominated by recyclable materi-ls as shown in Table 4. Although the trend decreased slightly from990 to 1999 due to economic crisis, but it increased significantly

n 2000 with the introduction of more hygienic types of plastic-nd paper-based packaging materials into the market (Abdul Jalil,010). Generally the escalating rate of wastes in Malaysia has man-

fested from the changes in consumption habits as their per-capitancome has increased throughout the years, where they can affordor more consumers than before (Abdul Jalil, 2010) along with theapid population growth and urbanization as well (Zamali et al.,009).

Information on waste composition helps in accessing possi-le options for sustainable waste disposals, reuse and recycling.etailed information on the Malaysian waste composition is rathernderdeveloped and doubtful accuracy, partly due to the unknownathways of waste streams in the environment especially withll the existence of various waste system and management, andimited survey possibilities as well. However from the availableesources, waste composition in Malaysia is known to be domi-ated by putrescible wastes consist of processed kitchen waste and

ood waste mainly in rural landfills, followed by paper waste andlastic-based waste. The larger amount of wastes is recyclables,

n which recyclable items represent about 60% of total waste vol-me without the retrieval activity (Osman et al., 2009). Malaysianunicipal solid waste stream contains approximately 40–60% of

etrievable materials (Agamuthu et al., 2009). Table 5 describesajor recyclable items in terms of their respective percentage of

he waste composition, estimated recycling rates and general con-itions of their market demand. Dominance of recyclables in theaste composition generally consists of food waste, paper, plas-

ics, glass, ferrous metal and aluminum. However these recyclableaterials are not fully recovered and recycled due to the limited

ource separation and items like glass are not employed at large

cale. Among these items, plastics, paper and glass are among thehree types of waste which are more identified as having the great-st potential for recycling (Zamali et al., 2009) compared to otherecyclables.

Philippines 50.0 12.0 25.0 3.0 5.0 5.0

Sources: 1ADB (2003), 2Mendes and Imura (2004), 39th Malaysian Plan (2005).

Plastics are probably the most common recyclable materialswith high potential for recycling in Malaysia as this material iswidely used and being disposed indiscriminately to the landfills.It is essential to understand that not only strengthening recyclinginitiatives extend the life span of landfills; it also supports theeconomy as recycling provides wide profitable business venturesopportunities. Growth rate in Malaysia plastic industries reachesan average of 15% for the past 11 years, showing a dynamic devel-opment due to the robust rate of Malaysian economy. This findingwas reported in the study on plastic management in PeninsularMalaysia initiated by National Solid Waste Management Depart-ment under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG)and conducted by Golden Ecosystem SdnBhd (GESB) in 2011. Find-ings also included that there is a huge potential of plastics recyclingin Malaysia as plastics dominated second highest in the waste com-position after organic waste among Asian countries, as shown inTable 6. Source separation for plastics is limited due to compara-tively lower price compared to waste paper and metal. Despite thefact that most plastics are recyclable and easy to process, the aware-ness toward recycling among plastic manufacturers themselves ispoor.

The recovery rate for paper in Malaysia hovers around 60%,which implies that for every ten sets of newspapers bought, onlysix are recovered for recycling (MNI, 2007). Malaysian publish-ers use about 320,000 tons of newsprint a year, of which only

192,000 tons are recovered from the waste stream which meansit is like throwing away 2.55 million trees into the landfills andthe balance of 128,000 tons of newspapers yet to be recovered

54 Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conser

Table 7Methods of waste disposal in Malaysia.

Treatment Percentage of waste disposed (%)

2002 2006 2020 (Target)

Recycling 5.00 5.50 22.00Composting 0.00 1.00 8.00Incineration 0.00 0.00 16.80Inert landfill 0.00 3.20 9.10Sanitary landfill 5.00 30.90 44.10Other disposal sites 90.00 59.40 0.00

S

fApwbpwstwTio

ttisaidgbMt(

3M

ggMsiMcapaatmpwr

bcts

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00

ource: Periathamby et al. (2009).

or recycling (MNI, 2007). According to Malaysia Paper Merchants’ssociation, as at 2009, Malaysia consumed about 380,000 tons ofrinting and writing paper annually, of which about 230,000 tonsere actually imported. Local paper consumption is estimated to

e close to a million ton each year which expand the capacity ofaper recycling industries but the supply of paper is still shorthich results in waste paper importing (Joy, 2012). There are about

ix main paper mills in Malaysia including Pascorp Paper Indus-ries, Genting Sanyen Industrial Paper and Muda Holdings Berhadhich have acquisition targets of international paper producers.

he growing population contributes to higher consumption, result-ng in higher demand for packaging products despite the intentionf reducing the paper usage.

Regardless of the type of recyclable materials, the awarenessoward waste recycling is poor and most individuals are not able toranslate their concerns to act upon the matter. The recycling raten Malaysia is considered very low, about 5% compared to countriesuch as Singapore (11%), Thailand (14%), Japan (40%), China (13%)nd Germany (52.8%) (MHLG, 2011). As shown in Table 7, landfill-ng is heavily relied on when it comes to wastes disposal methodespite the opportunities for solid waste recycling. Malaysia hasreat potential to achieve recycling target of 22% by year 2020ut not with the current progress made at present. Recycling inalaysia has a long way to go with major problems and obstacles

o be solved, before a successful recycling program can be in placeNasir et al., 2000; Zamali et al., 2009).

. Status of solid waste management and disposal inalaysia

Solid wastes are generally categorized into three major cate-ories, and each category is under the responsibility of a differentovernment (Latifah et al., 2009). Municipal solid waste is under theinistry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG), DOE manages

chedule or hazardous waste and clinical waste is under the Min-stry of Health (MOH). Basically, Malaysia’s National Solid Waste

anagement Department (NSWMD) formulates and proposes poli-ies, plan and strategies in respect of solid waste managementnd public cleansing, sets standards, specifications and codes ofractice exercising regulatory function and lastly, grants licensesnd approval under Act 672. Meanwhile, the Solid Waste Man-gement and Public Cleansing Corporation (PPSPPA) implementshe formulated policies, plans and strategies proposed by NSWMD,

onitors compliance with standards, specifications and code ofractices set by NSWMD besides implements and enforces the solidaste management and public cleansing laws and recommends

eform to such laws.Not all solid waste generated is collected, only about 75% was

eing collected by the concessionaires, local authorities and theirontractors back in 1998 (UNDP, 2008). The wastes generated fromhe residential and commercial establishments will increase corre-pondingly with the increase in the total population, improvement

vation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50– 61

of standards of living and changing lifestyle of the people (Hassanet al., 2001). Urban residents generate two to three times more solidwastes than their fellow rural citizens (World Bank, 1999). The dailywaste generation rate in urban areas is about 760,000 tons and isexpected to sharply increase to 1.8 million tons per day by the year2025 (World Bank, 1999).

The landfill method is the least preferred method of wastedisposal, as wastes should be subjected to physical, chemicaland biological treatment and segregation which are both costlyand time-consuming (Grodzinska-Jurczak, 2001). Landfills are thephysical facilities used for the disposal of residual solid wastes inthe surface solids of the earth, and usually considered as the finaldisposal place for unrecovered wastes (Tchobanoglous et al., 1993).However, landfilling is a main method used for the disposal of solidwastes in Malaysia, and most of the landfill sites are open dumpingareas with overloaded capacity, which pose serious environmen-tal and social threats (Yunus and Kadir, 2003; Latifah et al., 2009).Approximately 95% of waste collected is taken to landfill sites fordisposal with only a negligible portion of the waste subject to inter-mediate treatment, the remaining waste is either sent for treatmentas small incineration plants, diverted to recyclers or re-processors,or is dumped illegally (NSP, 2005). UNDP (2008) summarizes thesolid waste collection in Malaysia are mostly confined to urbanand township areas with only limited collection in adjoining ruralareas. These areas do not receive solid waste collection service, thusmostly are self-reliant and reply heavily on disposal by burial inproximity of their households. This explains the illegal dumpingand widespread of small dumpsites or opens dumping.

The classification of a landfill is based on the decomposition pro-cesses that occur in a landfill: (1) anaerobic landfill, (2) anaerobicsanitary landfill with daily cover, (3) improved anaerobic sanitarylandfill with buried leachate collection pipes, (4) semi-aerobic land-fill with natural ventilation and leachate collection facilities, (5)aerobic landfill with forced aeration (Idris et al., 2004). Howeverfor operational purposes, a second classification system is used:Level 0, open dumping; Level 1, controlled tipping; Level 2, san-itary landfill with a bund (embankment and daily soil covering;Level 3, sanitary landfill with a leachate recirculation system; Level4, sanitary landfill with a leachate treatment system (Latifah et al.,2009). The second classification system is used to access and clas-sify landfill sites in Malaysia (Idris et al., 2004). From availableresource, survey conducted by MHLG back in 2002 revealed thatof 112 disposal landfill sites in use, 43% of these landfills wereopen dumps and only 6.3% were classified as Level 4 landfills asshown in Fig. 1; in which most of these sites are almost full and50% have a remaining lifespan of less than five years (NSP, 2005).These landfills are in bad shape and recycling is still at an infantstage in Malaysia (Latifah et al., 2009). As in 2011, the latest reportfrom MHLG summarized the number of landfill sites in the wholeMalaysia as shown in Table 8 with two sanitary landfills in Johor,three in Sarawak and another three in Selangor.

The government detailed measures to boost the efficiency ofsolid waste management, which will reduce greenhouse emissions,including building material-recovery facilities and thermal treat-ment plants, as well as recycling non-organic waste in the current10th Malaysian Plan (New Straits Times, 2013). In the recent UnitedNations Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen, Denmark 2009,Malaysia has committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by40% of the country’s gross domestic product by 2020 comparedwith the 2005 levels (New Straits Times, 2013). Incinerator is con-sidered to be one of the disposal methods in Malaysia as the nationcould not depend on landfill. Incineration is another common solid

waste disposal method globally after landfill and also one of themost expensive solid waste management options as they requirehighly skilled personnel and careful maintenance, capital-intensiveand high maintenance costs (World Bank, 1999). Incineration was

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50– 61 55

Fig. 1. Landfill sites in peninsular Malaysia.NSP (2005).

56 Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conser

Table 8Summary of solid waste disposal sites in Malaysia (January 2011).

State Number ofoperating disposalsites

Number ofnon-operatingdisposal sites

Total

Johor 14 23 37Kedah 9 6 15Kelantan 13 6 19Melaka 2 5 7Negeri Sembilan 7 11 18Pahang 16 16 32Perak 17 12 29Perlis 1 1 2Pulau Pinang 2 1 3Sabah 19 2 21Sarawak 49 14 63Selangor 8 14 22Terengganu 8 12 20WP Kuala Lumpur 0 7 7WP Labuan 1 0 1

S

d2fPPbaeeaisattsinfi

4

mmwai(wnfdiwttMtissnpc

public awareness and since then it has become an annual event,besides a series of other public awareness campaigns with AlamFlora SdnBhd, and Southern Waste Management SdnBhd, distri-bution of posters, bulletins and leaflets, television advertising and

National Development Plan SWM Plan

1988 ABC Plan

1993

Vision

2020

First recycling

campaign

2000

NSP

Nation al

Recycling

Programme

(NRP)

2005

OPP3

RM-8Waste

Minimization

Master Plan

(WM-MP)

9-MR0102Solid Waste

and Public

Cleansing

Management

(SWPCM) Act

2007

2015

OPP4

RM-10

2020

Total 166 130 296

ource: NSWMD (2011).

eveloped in Malaysia to dispose of hazardous wastes (Latifah et al.,009). There are five existing small incinerators with capacity ofewer than 100 tons in Malaysia, located at Pulau Pangkor in Perak,ulau Langkawi in Kedah, Pulau Tioman and Cameron Highlands inahang, Lumut and Labuan. Three large-scale incinerators woulde built in Taman Beringin, Kuala Lumpur; Bukit Payung, Johor;nd Sungai Udang, Melaka (New Straits Times, 2013). These incin-rators targeting cutting-edge technology in waste managementspecially those that have a minimal impact on the environmentnd cost-effective would be developed in Malaysia through annternational open tender. However, with the concerns of emis-ion of dioxin and other health-threatening gases from incineratorslong with other carcinogenic pollutants, the question of relying onhis technology remains. As recyclable materials dominate amonghe waste disposed, the options of recycling other than compostingeem to offer more sustainable method of disposal. Existing smallerncinerators do not seem to provide positive results and some areot even in operation upon completion as this technology posesnancial burden with its escalating cost of operations.

. Recycling status and policy in Malaysia

As part of the Rio Declaration signed in 1992, Malaysia has com-itted itself to significantly improve the national’s solid wasteanagement services. Before late 1970s, solid waste managementas about local district health officers only cleaning up the streets

nd carried away the household wastes to the assigned munic-pal disposal sites without any wastes separation and recyclingAbdul Jalil, 2010). The number of available information on solidaste management and recycling in Malaysia is rather limited witho systematic analysis and periodic documentation nationwide

rom any local authorities, resulting in inaccurate and outdatedatabases (Nasir et al., 2000). There was no distinct and formal pol-

cy to manage solid waste management in Malaysia; what morehen it comes to recycling policy strategies. Fig. 2 summarizes

he changes of the solid waste management policies in Malaysiahroughout the years. The Action Plan for a Beautiful and Clean

alaysia (ABC Plan) was formulated by the MHLG with the assis-ance of the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA)n 1988 with the aim to produce a national uniform municipalolid waste system that is productive, environmentally sound and

ocially acceptable in Malaysia by 2020. However this plan wasot officially endorsed or implemented, even with the recyclingrogram were introduced since then such as the first recyclingampaign in the year 1993 and the following in 2000.

vation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50– 61

Vision 2020 was then declared in 1990 for Malaysia in becom-ing a fully developed nation by the year 2020 besides pursuingenvironmentally sustainable development. The Third Outline Per-spective Plan (OPP3) constitutes the second decade of developmentunder Vision 2020, from 2001 to 2010 focusing on reducing energy,materials, pollution and waste intensity of urban and industrialactivities. The Eighth Malaysian Plan (RM-8) covers the initial phaseof OPP3 from 2001 to 2005 which introduces the comprehensivewaste management policy highlighting issues of waste reduction,reuse and recycling whereas the Ninth Malaysian Plan (RM-9) reas-sures the continued effort in 3Rs awareness raising campaignsdespite ongoing efforts resulting in very low recycling rate of5%. As for the recently announced Tenth Malaysian Plan (RM-10),operationalizing National Policy on the Environment (2002), theNational Green Technology Policy (2009) and the National ClimateChange Policy (2009) are implemented as the key to sustainabilityin conserving and preserving the environmental resources, besidesimproving solid waste management (Fig. 2).

The first National Recycling Program (NRP) showed lack ofsuccess as most of the local authorities were not able to sustainthe program because it did not improve the existing waste man-agement practice. Recycling rate was still too low as it lacks ofresponse and participation from public. Other program limitationsinclude lack of market for recyclables, diminished public confi-dence due to poor collection services, lack of public awarenessand promotion program, lack of participation by stakeholders, lackof local authority personnel dedicated to the program and lackof policy and master plan focusing on recycling. This resulted ina re-launched program in 2000 with a more reformed objectivewhich is to inculcate habit of the 3Rs with recycling in reducingusage of land for waste disposal, reduce expenditure on solid wastemanagement and to reduce the importation of waste. November11th was designated as National Recycling Day in 2001 to raise

Fig. 2. National development plans and solid waste management plans in Malaysia.

Adapted from MHLG (2006).

onser

nwi

cti2ito‘wttaawctlkraftt

tosMpiseotawrarso

wrmaeSSfWSpro

aaSCfa

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, C

ewspapers, electronic media, billboards, exhibitions and carnivalsith tagline ‘Think before you throw’. However, recycling practice

s still not common among Malaysians.The National Policy on Municipal Solid Waste Management or

ommonly known as the National Strategic Plan (NSP) succeededhe ABC Plan when it was formulated in 2002 and later adoptedn 2005. This strategic plan would be considered up to the year020 with periodic review during the planning period to ensure

ts relevance with respect to the prevailing conditions within theime of review. With that, using the ABC Plan as a guide, rec-mmendations of ‘Formulation for the Master Plan for the 3Rs’,

Development of legal framework for 3Rs’, ‘Development of solidaste management facilities that support 3Rs’ and ‘Implementa-

ion of the Master Plan’ were developed for the implementation ofhe NSP. Sustainable waste management through reduction, reusend recycling with the use of appropriate technologies, facilitiesnd equipment to provide a sustainable and comprehensive solidaste management service become the key strategies in NSP. Basi-

ally, the waste hierarchy adopted under this strategic plan aimso reduce waste through effective management of resources atevels of raw materials utilization, production, distribution, mar-eting and consumption; reuse products and materials; recovereusable elements of the waste through source separation and sep-rate waste collection and materials recovery at materials recoveryacilities; intermediate treatment of the waste and further recoverhe value of the waste through composting or waste to energy; andhe disposal by sanitary landfill of the residual waste.

Local authorities are directly responsible in the waste collec-ion and transport to the disposal sites as well as the operationf some recycling centers or contract them out to private sectorervice providers. Meanwhile, at the Federal level, the MHLG, theinistry of Health (MOH) and the Economic Planning Unit (EPU)

rovide local authorities with technical and financial assistancen wastes management. However, public cleanliness managementeems to be the main focus in this plan as NSP aims to improve andnsure high quality services in managing waste besides the usef appropriate technology and disposal method. It is recognizedhat there is a need to strike a balance between using the avail-ble resources wisely and addressing immediate concerns of solidaste management. Accordingly a large amount of investment is

equired to achieve realistic recycling targets and to decrease themount of waste required for disposal. Thus financial constraintsequire initial investments to be focused on expanding collectionervices, existing disposal sites management and the constructionf proper sanitary landfills.

Subsequently, the Waste Minimization Master Plan (WM-MP)as launched in 2006 to realize the minimization of the natural

esources consumption and the maximum reduction of environ-ental load in the society, where waste minimization activities

re systemized and sufficiently embedded in the behavior of gov-rnment, private sector and public. The concept of ‘Material Cycleociety’ was part of the Law for Establishing a Sound Material-Cycleociety which was enacted in 2000 in Japan, which is used as a basicramework in minimizing waste through 3Rs. With the adoption of

M-MP in preparing the Master Plan for 3Rs, the MHLG formulatedolid Waste Management Act (SWM Act) 2007 which includes theromotion of waste minimization through 3Rs activities, definingecycling as in collecting and separating solid waste for the purposef producing products.

With the recent effect of Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Man-gement (SWPCM) Act 2007 (Act 672) at present, waste separationt source for every household is made mandatory starting from

eptember 1st, 2012 as one of its effective strategies as stated inlause 74 of SWPCM Act 2007. A fine of RM1000 would be imposed

or those who disregard this. The SWPCM Act 2007 (Act 672) waspproved by the Parliament of Malaysia on the July 17th, 2007 and

vation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50– 61 57

is officially enforced starting from September 1st, 2011. Basicallythis Act is introduced to standardize solid waste managementservice with its enforcement conducted in stages. The Act wasexpected to ensure proper household waste management with apromotion of wastes separation and recycling. The SWPCM Act2007 was reviewed for 10 years before it was finally approved inAugust 2007 as an Act and was enacted based on similar Acts inother developed countries such as Japan, Denmark, Switzerland,Germany and the United States. It adopts the best managementpractices in solid waste management from these countries (AbdulJalil, 2010). The SWPCM Act 2007 regulates solid waste manage-ment and public cleansing in ensuring the maintenance of propersanitation in Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territories ofPutrajaya and Labuan. There are at least two clauses in this Actthat directly undertake the 3Rs strategy which are Clause 101Reduction, Reuse and Recycling of Controlled Solid Waste andClause 102 Take Back System and Deposit Refund System. Underthis Act, waste bin with a capacity of 120 l equipped with wheelswould be provided to each household for free from the privateconcessionaires of respective states except Pulau Pinang, Selangorand Perak which have their own legal enforcement approachesregarding this management matter. The distribution of waste bin isconducted in stages from October 2011 to 2014. Every householdis expected to manage waste separation at source which wouldbe collected by selected private concessionaires based on thecollection system of 2 + 1. Collection of non-recyclable materialsdisposed by the households utilizing the waste bin are said to betwice per week while the collection of recyclable materials wouldbe once per week. Booklets on solid wastes separation, recoveryand recycling were distributed to households with the objectiveof introducing them on managing their solid wastes correctlyaccording to this implementation of source separation. Howeversource separation is targeted only to the urban areas as targeted inthe NSP final report (2005). Still it presents a challenge to developa solid waste management system with all elements, which it isimportant to implement in stages strategically.

Prior to the implementation of SWPCM Act 2007, Solid Wasteand Public Cleansing Management Corporation was establishedunder Section 2 of the SWPCM Act 2007 effective under Federalgovernment to recommend and implement policies and strategiespertaining to solid waste management services, relevant standards,improvement measures for existing management, law enforce-ment, establishing institutions to undertake research activities,monitoring of compliance with the Act, besides promoting par-ticipation and creating public awareness (Agamuthu et al., 2009).According to their respective schedules, the private licensed con-cessionaire provides waste collection and disposal service paidby all stakeholders including households. Penalty provisions forthose who fail to pay waste collection and disposal fees are alsointroduced in effect; the Tribunal for Solid Waste Managementenforces fine up to RM5000 (US$1316) and RM50 (US$13) foreach day of the continuation of the offense. The SWPCM Act2007 identified and signed an agreement with three major privateconcessionaires for Peninsular Malaysia which are EnvironmentIdaman covering the north states [Kedah and Perlis], SouthernWaste for the southern states [Negeri Sembilan, Melaka and Johor]and Alam Flora SdnBhd for areas of Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya andPahang. It involves seven states, 52 local authorities, 113 solid wastecollection schemes and 113 public cleansing zones all over Penin-sular Malaysia.

5. Issues and challenges in recycling

In the final report of The Study on National Waste Minimi-zation in Malaysia (2006), various issues involved in the current

5 onser

wSoarsiaciwdtc‘sotcts

ftwlnroeTWeitimat

Limtwtbatspalererocaigeccn

8 Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, C

aste minimization and recycling activities were briefly identified.tudies on solid waste management have come a long way throughver the years which proved a point that wastes have always beenn issue, involving a number of issues and trade-offs. In fact only inecent years, waste minimization strategies particularly recyclingeems to only being taken noticed as a practical solution to thencreasing waste generation rate. The increase in solid wastemount and solid waste management cost issue pose pressinghallenges that requires contribution from stakeholders. Unlessmmediate measures are taken to reduce the amount of disposed

aste, the waste generation rate would continue to rise and theisposal cost would be in similar trend with the increasing popula-ion and advancement in living standards. When constant materialonsumption is encouraged and seen as economic growth, thebuy-and-discard’ mentality generated results in huge amount ofolid waste (Read, 1999). Typical perception toward the abundancef resources in the environment and no significant effects are yeto be observed in details by public have led to the trend of over-onsumption producing unnecessary wastes through time, besideshe influence of socio-economic factors related to stress, livingtatus, upbringing of life, personal expectations and demands.

Solid waste management is only one of the many roles andunctions under the responsibility of local authorities. Commonlyhe function of solid waste management is undertaken togetherith other related functions such as public area cleansing, street-

ight and drainage maintenance as well as landscaping. There iso specific measure in the aspects of waste minimization andecycling. With the affluent lifestyle, planning and managementf wastes has become increasingly complex especially with thexisting perception of local authorities and public toward wastes.ypical perception toward wastes includes dirty and undesirable.ith the lack of required knowledge and technical expertise,

ffective measures and appropriate approaches to address currentssues and challenges are very rigid. As further mentioned inhe EU-Perak Solid Waste Management (EU-PSWMP) report, thisssue is depicted in the local authorities’ waste planning and

anagement in which waste treatment options on ‘how to removend dispose unwanted materials’ is highlighted rather than ‘howo utilize the waste materials resources’ (EU-PSWMP, 2009).

Existing provisions of the Environmental Quality Act 1974, theocal Government Act 1976 and the Street, Drainage and Build-ng Act 1974 are not specifically established to manage solid waste

anagement issues including waste recovery and recycling. In facthere is no Federal or State legislation that comprehensively dealsith all aspects of solid waste management especially recycling in

his matter. Although solid waste management is being managedy Federal, State and local government, there is still lack of capacitynd focus in the management of solid waste system at all levels. Thisoo imposed severe constraints on the planning and development ofervices by the private sector. Waste generators, collection serviceroviders, waste pickers, traders, recycling center operators, NGOsnd end-users to mention a few have limited information andinkage with each other. Proper coordination and linkage is nec-ssary to ensure effective processes of separation of reusable andecyclable materials at sources, establishment of collection points,fficient transportation by collectors and manufacture of collectedeusable and recyclable materials. Lack of cooperation and differentperating basis reduces the opportunities to increase recyclablesollection efficiency and potential for recycling would not be oper-ting at its maximum possibility. Noting that incorporated changesn waste disposal and collection which depends on the varied wasteeneration rates from different sources (Zamali et al., 2009), coop-

ration among municipalities, other levels of government, privateoncessionaires and general community should be at practice toomplement each other’s loopholes which could be beyond mag-itude to control at times.

vation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50– 61

One of the pre-requisites for a successful recycling programis the accurate data on waste generation and composition. Thecurrent situation in Malaysia was no systematic documentationof waste generation and composition. As recycling only exists asprivate transactions between waste generators and private enter-prises, there are no detailed data and information on the volume,composition, waste sources, and characteristics of wastes withinmunicipalities. The first written report on solid waste manage-ment by non-government organizations (NGOs) appears in 1978,where the Environmental Protection Society of Malaysia (EPSM), asa local NGO, carried out survey in five municipalities in Klang Val-ley (Juzhar, 2002; Zamali et al., 2009). Three major inadequacies insolid waste management were identified which are improper dis-posal manner, insufficient coverage of the collection systems andinefficient collection methods (EPSM, 1979; Zamali et al., 2009).Malaysian government is dependent on relevant concessionairesand local authorities for the solid waste management databaseespecially when it comes to policy making and implementations.As for private concessionaires, industries or any relevant activities,the data and reports are particularly limited and outdated. Dataon waste minimization and recycling provided by local authoritiesis even more widely varied and inconsistent in terms of accuracyand uniformity as surveys are conducted on an ad-hoc basis and notstandardized. This leads to lack of policies in promoting waste mini-mization particularly in household solid waste recycling despite thecontinuous efforts to raise awareness.

Even though the enactment of the SWPCM Act 2007 has pro-vided legislative empowerment to the Malaysian government andframework for the solid waste management, it cannot be enforcedand implemented fully due to lack of other supporting regulations.Policy implementation could only be implemented informally andin an ad-hoc manner by stakeholders. Household waste recyclingactivities are only enforced in a non-regulatory approach in theinitial stages. Despite being the main source of wastes generation,household unit is still not the main focus of enforcement when itapplies mandatory call onto other stakeholders such as manufac-turers, assembler, importer or dealer which were introduced to thetake back and deposit refund systems. Existing enforcement onlyhighlighted that solid waste generators are required to reduce thegeneration of solid waste, to use environmentally friendly products,limit waste generation, import, use, discharge or dispose of speci-fied products, implement recycling coding and labeling, and utilizeany method to reduce adverse impact of solid waste toward envi-ronment and to reduce, reuse and recycle solid waste as highlightedby Agamuthu (2010). Despite numerous public awareness cam-paigns throughout the years, public responses and support towardwaste recycling are still at a very low stage. Policy implementationsand enforcement do not seem to be particularly in effect for thisgroup for generating majority of the wastes in Malaysia. Essentiallythe focus of public awareness campaigns need to be strategicallybroadened to provide the general households with a better under-standing on recycling and possible consequence of increasing wastegeneration and disposal that would increase the cost of social over-head capitals and the household living costs as well (MHLG, 2006).

Understanding and cooperation from households is the foun-dation of promoting recycling within the community (MHLG,2006). Recycling activities could only be sustained provided thathouseholds fully comprehend the need and urgency for recycling inminimizing wastes generation and disposal to landfills. Householdstend to be more particular on selling recyclables at higher prices.Providing incentives is said to stabilize and further enhancesrecycling activities in Malaysia as it strengthens the domestic

market and domestic recyclers and manufacturers (MHLG, 2006).However, the voluntary efforts of households to practice recyclingis essential to achieve higher recycling rates without relying onmonetary rewards as not all recyclable materials have enough

onser

mhceyepbp

ao(mct2w1bta((btpeinbtsoc

6

lwgblv

pAwptaamroiaoerataki

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, C

onetary value based on the current market mechanism. House-olds’ attitude and behavior has the least restriction to changeompared to other institutional groups in this matter (Kishinot al., 1999). Thus awareness raising activities should focus on theounger generations such as school kids. Besides public campaigns,ducating school kids about recycling could raise awareness andarticipation in the community which are good opportunities touild an environmentally conscious mindset from young age andositively influencing the adults within households as well.

Households generally have knowledge about the environmentnd realize that the environment needs to be taken care of but mostf them are not oriented to translate their knowledge into behaviorDaniel et al., 2006; Mahmud and Osman, 2010). As for some, they

ight have brief understanding of recycling but they are not able toonnect the benefits of recycling and consequences of not recyclingo the environment in a sophisticated way (Prestin and Pearce,010). This also explains why recycling has not become a universalay of life in Malaysia (Omran et al., 2009) even though there is

00% awareness of the importance of recycling based on a surveyy the MHLG (2012). Thus more effective efforts toward educatinghe community about proper household waste recycling etiquettere necessary in order to see the progress in the recycling rateHo, 2002) as this lack of knowledge is a major barrier to recyclingMcDonald and Oates, 2003). In attempt to actually change theirehavior, barriers that prevent them from recycling especially fromheir very own perspectives have to be addressed. With that pro-osed strategies addressing those barriers could be implementedffectively to motivate them to turn their intentions and knowledgento actual recycling behavior. Although monetary rewards is stillecessary to encourage recycling, majority of households do recycleased on environmental grounds (Evison and Read, 2001). Howeverhe role of monetary rewards in encouraging recycling householdshould not be overplayed by local authorities and the influence ofther reasons for recycling should not be underestimated when itomes to implementing recycling policy and program strategies.

. Recommendations

Several recommendations for possible implementations forocal municipalities of similar jurisdiction and other potential areas

ere proposed to extend the potentials in achieving the desiredoals of a sustainable recycling community. Concerted efforts muste implemented to achieve meaningful results in both short and

ong term for the municipalities. A combination of various inter-entions increases the effectiveness of recycling strategies.

Stringent enforcement of the existing waste related legislationsarticularly the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Managementct 2007 (Act 672) is essential to address the issue of solidaste recycling particularly among households, along with theressing needs of efficient and proper cooperation and coordina-ion among stakeholders equipped with appropriate knowledgend technical expertise in addressing solid waste managementnd recycling issues. With efficient linkage among the govern-ent, local municipality, collection service providers, traders,

ecycling center operators, non-governmental organizations andther related stakeholders, this would impose less constraint on thentegrated planning and development of solid waste managementnd recycling services. It ensures effective processes of separationf recyclable materials at source, establishment of collection points,fficient transportation by collectors and manufacture of collectedecyclable materials collection efficiency and potential for recyclingt its maximum possibility. Capacity building for local authori-

ies and other stakeholders dealing with solid waste managementnd recycling need to be addressed. Lack of expertise in aspects ofnowledge and technical complicates the efforts in addressing thessue within the local municipalities and its area of jurisdiction and

vation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50– 61 59

any strategies in addressing the issue would be less effective andnot improving.

There is also a need for regulatory compliance in solid wastemanagement and recycling among households. Strategies such asimposing fees or charges and mandatory household recycling couldbe given serious consideration for implementation. Extra fee couldbe charged on the amount of wastes disposed at landfills to makedisposal more expensive besides helping to pay for recycling effortsor imposing fees for households that do not recycle. Householdsmay find the strategy of imposing fees or charges taxing but withthis, they are pressured to recycle and consider the issue of solidwaste management and recycling more seriously. Households, notonly need to be aware of the negative consequences of poor wastemanagement, but in fact, they should begin to take up responsi-bilities in managing their household waste in a more pro-activemanner.

Reliable recycling services and facilities should be offered toprovide convenience as it is an essential pre-requisite to recyclingamong households. More recycling drop-off centers at public andconvenient locations such as the family shopping malls shouldbe provided with effective and efficient recycling collection ser-vices. Similarly, recycling bins could be provided in convenientlocations in every household area. Recreational site in householdareas are common locations for children, elders and families togather which is why this could be a good place to begin with. Inorder to ensure disposal of recyclable materials into the recyclingbins as a habit among households, recycling practice has to bemade as easy as disposing wastes into dustbins. Providing recyclingbins at strategic locations within the household areas is a goodstart.

As mentioned earlier, the role of monetary reward should not beoverplayed in the recycling policy strategies and program imple-mentation while other reasons for recycling among householdsshould not be underestimated as well. Monetary rewards suchas rebates and incentives could be utilized to initiate new recy-clers among households and until they are able to sustain thehabit of recycling, the role of monetary rewards should be lessdepended on. There is no clear standard in recycling practice andthus households are generally not convinced to contribute theirleisure time and effort for a task which provides no clear results.Positive results of households’ contributions in recycling should bereported in layman terms for them to understand and aware thattheir contributions actually pays and encourage them to recyclemore. When majority starts to notice that recycling is frequentlypracticed among other households, they would eventually start torecycle themselves.

Effective dissemination of recycling information on what, whereand how to recycle in layman terms creates platform to sufficientlyeducate households to be aware of basic recycling etiquette. Mediasuch as television, radio, newspaper, billboards and relevant Inter-net sources or even door-to-door approach should be implementedeffectively to spread the information and knowledge regardingcurrent solid waste management and recycling. Negative messagedelivery is proved to be effective in delivering the necessary mes-sage and awareness. Introducing recycling formally in schools andimplement recycling program in school societies or science clubsis also a good approach. Soliciting indigenous role models such aschildren has proven to have significant impacts on creating the per-ception of required social behavior to motivate recycling amonghouseholds.

7. Conclusion

This paper attempts to develop an overview on solid wasterecycling in Malaysia at the most basic level of a community or

6 onser

nnweestsstgivdfpmacloTdTpomoitdpatiacgbmrrogmr

R

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

0 Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, C

ation which is the household unit. It is found that there is a sig-ificant underdevelopment in the information and studies on solidaste recovery and recycling. Most studies focus more on a gen-

ral picture of the status of solid waste management in Malaysiaven though there is a need to highlight other smaller issuesuch as solid waste recycling and minimization before going forhe broader aspect of this matter. The contribution of householdolid wastes is considerably the highest among the solid wasteources in Malaysia. Recycling provides a sustainable means tohe nation’s solid waste management with the increasing wasteeneration, limited space for wastes disposal and other relatedssues from social issues to the economy matters. Malaysia pro-ides ample opportunities for solid waste recycling due to theirependence on recyclable materials, which could be observedrom the dominance of recyclable items in the wastes disposedarticularly at the landfills. There has been substantial progressade by the government and related authorities in developing

more comprehensive solid waste management, recycling poli-ies, awareness campaigns and relevant projects. However theocal participation has not been as encouraging as expected; asbserved in the previous outcomes of policies and campaigns.he recycling rate is still substantially lower compared to othereveloped countries in the similar region such as Singapore andhailand. When it comes to minimization and recycling efforts,romotion of recycling activities in Malaysia is not as effective asther developed Asian countries such as Japan for instance. Theain disposal in Malaysia is still landfilling with recycling rate of

nly 5% when the recycling rate in Japan is about 40%. Malaysias putting effort in implementing sustainable disposal alterna-ive of recycling. There is still a long way for improvement andevelopment but from the current progress, the waste recyclingolicy in the future has taken a shift in paradigm as wastes sep-ration and recycling are already part of the major changes inhe current policy implementation. With issues and challengesn recycling practice especially from the aspects of informationvailability and loopholes within solid waste management poli-ies and related recycling program, the question on whether theoals in 2020 can be met remains unsure of. The goals might note met in 2020 but there is a possibility for a successful imple-entation of sustainable solid waste management particularly in

ecycling practice. In attempt to actually change their behavior, bar-iers that prevent them from recycling especially from their verywn perspectives have to be addressed. With that proposed strate-ies addressing those barriers could be implemented effectively tootivate them to turn their intentions and knowledge into actual

ecycling behavior.

eferences

bdul Jalil M. Sustainable development in Malaysia: case study on household wastemanagement. Journal of Sustainable Development 2010;3(3):91–102.

gamuthu P. Solid waste: principles and management: with Malaysian case studies.Malaysia: Institute of Biological Sciences, University Malaya; 2001.

gamuthu P. MSW management in Malaysia changes for sustainability. In: Aga-muthu P, Masaru T, editors. Municipal solid waste management in Asia and thePacific Islands. Bandung: Penerbit ITB; 2010. p. 129–91.

gamuthu P, Fauziah SH. Challenges and issues in moving towards sustainable land-filling in a transitory country – Malaysia. Waste Management and Research2011;29(1):13–9.

gamuthu P, Hamid FS, Khidzir K. Evolution of solid waste management in Malaysia:impacts and implications of the Solid Waste Bill 2007. Journal of Material CyclesWaste Management 2009;11:96–103.

gamuthu P, Santha C, Fauziah SH, Dennis V. 3R related policies forsustainable waste management in Malaysia [Internet]. Available from:umconference.um.edu.my/upload/163-1/Paper%20135.doc [cited 06.12.2011].

min K, Go SY. Identification of the municipal solid waste characteristics and poten-

tial of plastic recovery at Bakri landfill, Muar, Malaysia. Journal of SustainableDevelopment 2012;5(7):11–7.

sian Development Bank – ADB. Waste analysis and characterization sur-vey (WACS) – metro Manila solid waste management project in secondmeeting of the regional 3R forum in Asia [Internet]. Available from:

vation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50– 61

http://www.uncrd.or.jp/env/3r 02/presentations/BG2/2-5%20Philippines-2nd-3R-Forum.pdf [cited 07.02.2013].

Bolaane B. Constraints to promoting people centered approaches in recycling. Habi-tat International 2006;30:731–40.

CheMamat R, Chong TL. Public’s role in solid waste management: In: IMPAK, quar-terly DOE update on environment, development and sustainability, no. 4; 2007.p. 5–7.

Daniel EGS, Nadeson T, MhdShafiee AG. Organising for action in environmen-tal education through smart partnerships: a Malaysian experience. Paperpresented at the international conference for the environment, Malaysia;April 2006.

Dawda B. Solid waste management system in the Kanifing Municipal Council Area,The Gambia. Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia; 2010 [dissertation].

Economic Planning Unit: Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006–2010) [Internet]. Availablefrom: http://www.epu.gov.my/html/themes/epu/html/rm9/html/english.htm[cited 20.01.2013].

EA-Sustainable Waste Management Cycle (EA-SWMC). EU-Perak SolidWaste Management Plan (EU-PSWMP), August 2009. Available from:www.apo-tokyo.org/publications/files/ind-22-swm.pdf

EPSM. Rubbish: a report of the solid waste study of the Klang Valley. Petaling Jaya.Environmental Protection Society Malaysia; 1979.

Evison T, Read AD. Local authority recycling and waste awareness: a nationalsurvey of municipal experience. Resources, Conservation and Recycling2001;32:275–91.

Folz DH. Recycling program design, management and participation: a nationalsurvey of municipal experience. Public Administration Review 1991;51(3):222–31.

Grodzinska-Jurczak MS. Management of industrial and municipal solid wastes inPoland. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2001;32(2):85–103.

Hassan MN, Zakaria Z, Rahaman RA. Managing costs of urban pollution in Malaysia:the case of solid waste. Paper presented at the MPPJ seminar, Petaling Jaya,Malaysia; 1999.

Hassan MN, Chong TL, Rahman M, Salleh MN, Zakaria Z, Awang M. Solid wastemanagement in Southeast Asian countries with special attention to Malaysia.In: Paper presented at the 8th international waste management and landfillsymposium; 2001.

Ho YY. Recycling as a sustainable waste management strategy for Singapore: aninvestigation to find ways to promote Singaporeans’ household waste recyclingbehavior. Sweden: Lund University; 2002 [dissertation].

Idris A, Inane B, Hassan MN. Overview of waste disposal and landfills/dumps in Asiancountries. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 2004;6(2):104–10.

Joy LMY. Two companies earning big bucks from recycling paper. TheStar Online. Available from: http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx?file=%2f2012%2f5%2f28%2fmetrobiz%2f11356922&sec=metrob [28.05.2012].

Juzhar J. Improving municipal solid waste landfills of Peninsular Malaysia: organi-zation and structural adjustments. US: University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2002[dissertation].

Kishino H, Hanyu K, Yamashita M, Hayashi C. Recycling and consumption in Germanyand Japan: a case of toilet paper. Resources, Conservation and Recycling1999;26:189–215.

Latifah AM, MohdArmi AS, NurIlyana MZ. Municipal solid waste management inMalaysia: practices and challenges. Waste Management 2009;29:2902–6.

Mahmud SND, Osman K. The determinants of recycling intention behavior amongthe Malaysian school students: an application of theory of planned behavior.Procedia Social and Behavior Sciences 2010;9:119–24.

Malaysian Newsprint Industries (MNI). Secrets of recycling [Internet]; 2007. Avail-able from: http://www.newsprint.com.my/open.html [cited 08.08.2013].

McDonald S, Oates C. Reasons for non-participation in a kerbside recycling schemes.Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2003;39:369–85.

Mendes MR, Imura H. Eastern Prospect: municipal solid waste management [Inter-net]. Available from: http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/2004/07/eastern-prospect-municipal-solid-waste-management.html [updated01.07.2004; cited 01.02.2013].

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia: National Solid WasteDepartment (NSWMD) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.kpkt.gov.my/jpspn en/main.php [updated 07.10.2012; cited 21.05.2012].

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia: National Solid Waste Depart-ment (NWSMD). A study on plastic management in Peninsular Malaysia.Conducted and written by Golden Ecosystem SdnBhd (GESB) December 2011.

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia: Annual Report 2011 [Inter-net]. Available from: http://www.kpkt.gov.my/kpkt/index.php/pages/view/104[updated 04.12.2012; cited 15.01.2013].

Ministry of Housing and Local Government: The Study of National Waste Mini-mization in Malaysia Final Report. In cooperation with Japan InternationalCooperation Agency (JICA) July 2006.

Mohamed Farid N. 22,000 tan sampahsetiaphari. BeritaHarian; pp. 20.Available from: http://aplikasi.kpkt.gov.my/akhbar.nsf/8521d968204e8b454825697400224ca6/8f51e7fe15186e4d482579e3000d478f?OpenDocument[17.04.2012].

Mokhtar IL. Need to act on rubbish now. In: New Straits Times, August 27; 2013. pp.4.

Murad MW, Siwar C. Waste management and recycling practices at the urban poor:a case study in Kuala Lumpur city, Malaysia. Waste Management and Research2007;25:3–13.

Muttamara S, Visvanathan C, Alwis KU. Solid waste recycling and reuse in Bangkok.Waste Management and Research 1994;12:151–63.

onser

N

N

N

O

O

P

P

R

S

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, C

agapan S, Ismail AR, Ade A. Construction waste management: Malaysianperspective. Paper presented at the International Conference on Civiland Environmental Engineering Sustainability (IConCEES), Malaysia; 2012.p. 229–309.

asir MH, Rakmi AR, Chong TC, Zulina Z, Muhamad A. Waste recycling inMalaysia: problems and prospects. Waste Management and Research 2000;18:320–8.

SP. National Strategic Plan for solid waste management. Malaysia: Ministry ofHousing and Local Government; 2005.

mran A, Mahmood A, Abdul Aziz H, Robinson GM. Investigating households atti-tude toward recycling of solid waste in Malaysia: a case study. Journal ofEnvironmental Research 2009;3(2):275–88.

sman MS, Nasir MH, Mujeebu MA. Assessment of municipal solid waste generationand recyclable materials potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Manage-ment 2009;29(7):2209–13.

eriathamby A, Hamid FS, Khidzir K. Evolution of solid waste management inMalaysia: impacts and implications of the solid waste bill, 2007. Journal of MaterCycles Wastes Management 2009;11:96–103.

restin A, Pearce KE. We care a lot: formative research for a social marketing cam-paign to promote school-based recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling2010;35:1–10.

ead AD. “A Weekly Doorstep Recycling Collection, I Had No Idea We Could!” Over-coming the local barriers to participation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling1999;26:217–49.

umiani Y, Onn CC, Mohd D, Wan WZ. Strategies for planning of optimum landfillsitting decision making. Journal of Sains Malaysiana 2009:457–62.

vation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50– 61 61

Suttibak S, Nitivattananon V. Assessment of factors increasing the performanceof solid waste recycling programs. Resources, Conservation and Recycling2008:45–56.

Tariq Y, Mostafizur R. Monitoring quantity and characteristics of municipal solidwaste in Dhaka city. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2007;135:3–11.

Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil S. Integrated solid waste management. In: Engi-neering principles and management issues. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Inc; 1993.

The Ingenieur. Sanitary landfill: a strategic approach towards solid waste manage-ment. Boards of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) 2009;42:12–6.

United Nations Development Programme – UNDP. Malaysia developing a solidwaste management model for Penang; 2008. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Di7wCVOzZAcJ:www.undp.org.my/uploads/SWM-2008 final.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk [15.12.2012].

US Environmental Protection Agency. Wastes: resource conservation-reuse, recycle[Internet]. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/rrr/recycle.htm[cited 15.12.2012, assessed: 21.05.2012].

World Bank, Decision makers’ guide to municipal solid waste incineration [Inter-net]. Available from http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/urbanenvironment/resources/references/pdfs/DecisionMakers.pdf [cited 16.06.2013].

Yunus MNM, Kadir KA. The development of solid waste treatment technology based

on refuse deprived fuel and biogasification integration. Paper presented in inter-national symposium on renewable energy, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 14–17September 2003.

Zamali T, Mohd Lazim A, Abu Osman MT. An overview of municipal solid wastesgeneration in Malaysia. Jurnal Teknologi 2009;51(F):1–15.