See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262066396

SUSTAINABLE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN DANANG, VIETNAM: THE 3R

(REDUCE, REUSE, AND RECYCLE) APPROACH FOCUSING ON COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION

Conference Paper · October 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 1,692

3 authors:

Hoang Dao Timothy J Downs

Clark University Clark University
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   259 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Verna Delauer
Franklin Pierce University
17 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evaluating the Effect of a 7-Day Spiritual Retreat on Perceived Stress of African Women Religious Immigrants in the United States View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Verna Delauer on 16 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SUSTAINABLE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT IN DANANG, VIETNAM:
THE 3R (REDUCE, REUSE, AND RECYCLE)
APPROACH FOCUSING ON COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION

H.T.N. DAO*, T.J. DOWNS* AND V. DELAUER**

* Department of International Development, Community and Environment, Clark
University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
** George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University, 16 Claremont Street,
Worcester, Massachusetts, USA

SUMMARY: Building a more sustainable society drives Danang to improve the current solid
waste management (SWM) system. The 3R program is considered a feasible solution for the city
to resolve its existing solid waste-related pollution problems. Through examining Danang’s
current SWM system, this study delved into the level of public awareness and attitudes toward
the city’s current SWM and 3R programs. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 30
households in Ward 3, Cam Le District. The results indicated that most respondents were
unsatisfied with particular elements of the SWM system. The majority of participants thought
that 3R is a good program and revealed their willingness to participate. The existing large
fraction of compostable materials in the solid waste stream (76%) and the willingness of 53% of
respondents to compost at home are advantageous for implementing 3R. The results provide
stakeholders with essential information in designing educational programs and making
improvements in SWM policies and technologies.

1. INTRODUCTION

Solid waste management (SWM) is an integral component of the social-ecological system. For
establishing a sustainable society, it is vital to improve SWM systems (Tadesse et al., 2008; UN-
Habitat, 2010). Improvements in SWM contribute to enhancing quality of life (Shekdar, 2009).
In spite of several efforts and investment in improving SWM in several countries, United Nation
Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or “Rio+20”) still highlighted domestic
sources of waste as a major barrier to achieving environmental sustainability in the 21st century
(UNCED, 1992). According to (Rahardyan et al., 2004), a SWM system should be
environmentally friendly, economically sound, and socially acceptable. To achieve the
objectives of sustainable development, over the years, a more flexible SWM system, known as
integrated solid waste management (ISWM) has replaced a conventional, single–choice system

Proceedings Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 30 September – 4 October 2013
 2013 by CISA Publisher, Italy
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

relying on landfills (Wilson, 2007). Integrated solid waste management is a comprehensive

system involving various activities and processes to manage solid waste that is adaptable to each
community. Reduce, reuse, and recycle (3R) are the central activities of ISWM implementation
(Heimlich et al., 2007).
Through examining Danang City’s current SWM system, this study delves into the demand
and available resources for implementing the 3R initiative in a specific region. In addition, this
research aims to deepen our understanding about public opinions and attitude towards the current
SWM system and the 3R program. The results will contribute to informing Danang’s local
authorities and policy makers in designing educational programs and making changes in policies
and technologies. These improvements will also assist in attaining the objectives of sustainable
development regarding SWM, as well as inform other sustainability goals and efforts going
forward, part of a much-needed integrated approach.
As a SWM paradigm, the 3R approach is based on the idea of using resources completely
before their final disposal. This means that waste materials generated must be recovered for
reuse and recycling (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). Many benefits of 3R have been illustrated over
time. These include energy savings, natural resource preservation, SW reduction in the landfill,
job creation, and an increase in public awareness regarding environmental issues (de Oliveira
Simonetto and Borenstein, 2007). For environmentally sound SWM, The United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) preferred method to reduce solid waste is source
reduction. Recycling and composting are the next preferred method and disposal and treatment
are the last ((EPA), 2008). Discussions of the 3R program within the scientific literature have
been presented for a long time in various countries. Since the early 1990s, the discourse of
recycling has shifted from “end-of-pipe” waste management to sustainable consumption and
production (Hezri and Nordin Hasan, 2006). The discussion about policy change, public health,
environmental safety, and climate benefits of 3R-based waste management in Japan, Malaysia,
and the Philippines is also demonstrated in research of (Hezri, 2011).
Public awareness and involvement is a key factor for the success of 3R programs (Rahardyan
et al., 2004; Visvanathan et al., 2007; Visvanathan and Norbu, 2006). Information about public
awareness is very useful for decision makers in establishing sustainable SWM systems because it
divulges many aspects of environmental status such as knowledge and personal opinions toward
the issue (Huang et al., 2006). Programs that are complicated and poorly communicated may fail
due to low participation rates (Purcell and Magette, 2010). Psychological research regarding
reducing and recycling behaviors also illustrates that greater awareness leads to an increase in
reducing and recycling. Such awareness can be achieved by informing the public about the
critical need to reduce the waste stream (Ward and Gleiber, 1993). Therefore, it is crucial that
people both know how to recycle and be motivated to reduce waste (Clarke and Maantay, 2006;
Sandra et al., 2012).
Research in a variety of countries has been conducted regarding community awareness and
attitudes toward the issues. For example, research in Taiwan showed that attitude, subjective
norms, perceived control, and perceived moral obligation considerably impact recycling
behavior (Chu and Chiu, 2003). A study in Northern Spain showed that citizens support the
separate collection of paper, cardboard, glass, and batteries (Junquera et al., 2001). Finally, age,
income, and SWM attitudes have been demonstrated to considerably influence recycling
behavior in Korea (Lee and Paik, 2011).
Incentives and barriers to the 3R program in some developing countries such as Bhutan,
Brazil, Indonesia, and Thailand have also been studied. The research shows that policy, finance,
waste characterization, collection and segregation, household education, technology, and human
resources are considered factors influencing 3R implementation in those countries (Troschinetz
and Mihelcic, 2009). Moreover, research about sustainable solutions for solid waste management
in southeast Asia countries emphasizes the importance of waste prevention through utilization of
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

all wastes as process input, for example, composting processes (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). In
general, research in multiple countries shows citizen support for 3R, but it is necessary to
consider other factors that may impede its implementation. These might include restrictive
policy, insufficient technology, poor economy, and lack of human resources. Additionally, one
of the key barriers to 3R implementation is the people themselves because they are the chief
drivers of the program. Therefore, it is crucial to design educational programs to effectively
motivate more people to participate in 3R.
As a developing country, Vietnam is endeavoring to establish and implement a sustainable
SWM system. Increasing levels of affluence in Vietnam have created rising demand for
consumer goods. As a result, the amount of solid waste has considerably increased in recent
years. The current paradigm, landfills, is highly polluting and will reach capacity in the near
future. The 3R program is considered a model that Vietnam should apply to improve its own
SWM. The recycling of waste and scraps for reuse has existed in Vietnam for only a few
decades, and until now, these activities have not been well organized and are small scale.
Depending on their economic status and culture, different cities in Vietnam have various
approaches to their SWM system. This paper focuses on Danang, a Vietnamese city that aims to
establish and implement the 3R initiative. Danang is an important tourist destination in Vietnam,
so it is crucial for the city to maintain a high level of sanitation (Singh, 2011). This is the time
for the local government and Danang residents to think towards the future and to become a more
sustainable society; handling solid waste is a good first step on this path.
Danang Urban Environment Company (URENCO) and the department of Natural Resources
and Management are the two main local agencies in charge of SWM. The goals of recycling at
least 70% of the amount of SW by 2020 and becoming one of the greenest cities in the world
drive the two agencies to focus more on establishing and implementing the 3R program.
Landfills are currently the favored SW disposal method in Danang but they will become an
inappropriate method in future treatment because of their negative environmental impacts
(Manfredi and Christensen, 2009). Landfill leachate leads to groundwater supply and surface
water ecosystem contaminations in communities all over the world (Thomas et al., 2011). For a
long time in Danang the Khanh Son landfill has caused considerable negative environmental
impacts including leachate and air pollution. This is why improving material recovery facilities
may be a better solution for the city. The evolution of community concern about landfills plays a
crucial role in promoting the implementation of 3R in SWM (Tuan and Maclaren, 2007). The
volume of SW going to the Khanh Son landfill will be significantly reduced if the recycling is
conducted effectively. The 3R initiative is considered a solution to reduce the problem of SW
pollution that Danang is facing, and to bring economic benefits to the city.
Although research about 3R has been conducted in many countries, there are limited studies
published documenting community based SWM in Vietnam. Moreover, 3R research in Vietnam
has only been focused on a select few cities. The research about advantages and challenges of
associating 3R with SWM in major urban areas in Vietnam indicates high potential for waste
recycling and composting capacity in studied areas such as Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi, and
Danang (Chi and Long, 2011). The research about the potential of plastic waste recycling in Can
Tho shows environmental impacts of plastic waste disposal as well as opportunities and
challenges for recycling plastic waste (Thanh et al., 2011). In 2003 in Danang the pilot project of
source-compostable waste separation was conducted in 74 households in the city. The results
show that 63% of household waste is compostable as well as evidence that residents are willing
to participate in the waste separation program (Thuy, 2005). This shows that the implementation
of 3R may be feasible if educational programs are planned well.
Despite the research conducted about 3R so far, virtually no systematic data exists on
Danang’s public awareness toward 3R. Also, it may not be pertinent to apply the results from the
previous research to Danang because of differences in culture, geography, and economic
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

structure. This study therefore adds new and relevant knowledge to the available collection of
literature on the subject matter. In addition, it contributes to the current global trends of applying
community based approaches to socio-ecological challenges and opportunities.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Research area selection

Danang City was chosen for doing this research and it is the third biggest city in Vietnam with a
population of 887,070 people (Vietnam General Office for Population Family Planing 2009).
Located in the middle of central Vietnam, between Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Danang is
considered a financial center of the central region in Vietnam (Figure 1a). Danang is divided into
seven mainland districts and one island district. Ward number 3 belonging to Cam Le district
was selected to conduct surveys because it is considered an ideal model of modern urban areas of
the city and a new method of waste collection has been tested at this area. The area under study
is shown in Figure 1b.

Figure 1. Location of research area. (a) Location of Danang in Vietnam (adapted from
Wikimedia Commons); (b) Map of Danang City (inset: Ward 3 in Cam Le District)

Table 1. Meteorological Data of Danang City

Climate data for Da Nang

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °C 32 35 37 41 39 38 38 38 37 36 35 32 41
(°F) (90) (95) (99) (106) (102) (100) (100) (100) (99) (97) (95) (90) (106)
Average high °C 24.8 26.1 28.7 31.0 33.4 33.9 34.3 33.9 31.5 29.6 27.0 24.9 29.93
(°F) (76.6) (79.0) (83.7) (87.8) (92.1) (93.0) (93.7) (93.0) (88.7) (85.3) (80.6) (76.8) (85.87)
Daily mean °C 21.7 23.0 25.1 27.2 29.2 29.7 29.8 29.7 27.8 26.4 24.3 22.1 26.33
(°F) (71.1) (73.4) (77.2) (81.0) (84.6) (85.5) (85.6) (85.5) (82.0) (79.5) (75.7) (71.8) (79.40)
Average low °C 18.5 19.8 21.5 23.3 24.9 25.5 25.3 25.5 24.1 23.2 21.6 19.3 22.71
(°F) (65.3) (67.6) (70.7) (73.9) (76.8) (77.9) (77.5) (77.9) (75.4) (73.8) (70.9) (66.7) (72.87)
Record low °C 8 7 11 7 18 20 17 21 21 12 7 11 7
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

(°F) (46) (45) (52) (45) (64) (68) (63) (70) (70) (54) (45) (52) (45)
Precipitation mm 96.2 33.0 22.4 26.9 62.6 87.1 85.6 103.0 349.7 612.8 366.2 199.0 2,044.5
(inches) (3.79) (1.30) (0.88) (1.06) (2.47) (3.43) (3.37) (4.06) (13.77) (24.13) (14.42) (7.84) (80.49)
% Humidity 83 83 83 82 78 75 74 76 81 84 84 84 80.6
Avg. precipitation 13.7 6.9 4.8 5.6 8.9 8.0 8.6 11.4 15.4 21.2 20.9 18.6 144
days
Mean monthly 136.4 144.1 105.4 207.0 257.3 237.0 257.3 207.7 174.0 145.7 120.0 116.6 2,108.5
sunshine hours

(World Meteorological Organization (UN), 2012)

Compared to other areas in the city, this ward’s infrastructure is more developed. Citizens in
this area strongly supported the environmental protection programs of the city by enthusiastically
participating in environmental activities. These included cleaning public areas and roads on
Sunday or disseminating information about sanitary, public health, and environmental
protection. In addition, this area was selected to implement the new program of SW collection.
Therefore, the results of this research will contribute to assessing the efficiency of the program.
When designing solid waste management programs, it is crucial to take into account the
meteorological factors of the region because they directly affect the waste collection and
treatment activities. Danang has a tropical monsoon climate with two seasons which are the
rainy season lasting from September through March and the dry season lasting from April
through August. The meteorological characteristic of the city is shown in Table 1.

2.2 Secondary data collection

To improve the current SWM, it is necessary to scrutinize the current status of municipal SWM
in Danang. The data regarding waste generation, collection, transportation, disposal, and fees
were collected to ascertain the problems occurring at every stage of the SWM system. This kind
of data can be found at URENCO. In addition, the data concerning impacts on human beings and
the environment of the current methods of treating SW on human beings and the environment
are required because it will inform decision-making about selecting and improving SW treatment
technologies of Danang city. This type of data can be found in reports about the environmental
quality of the city and the existing research regarding SW treatment technologies and public
health. Case study models of SWM in different places within Vietnam and in foreign countries
were also reviewed through research papers regarding solid waste management.

Table 2. Survey questionnaire (English translation and adaption)

Aspect No. Question Answer

Personal Age Open
information
Sex Open
Occupation Open
Number of members in family Open
Public 1 Who is responsible for solid waste Open
opinions management in your family?
toward the 2 What are you unsatisfied with in the current Open
city’s current solid waste management in Danang?
solid waste 3 What should Danang do to improve the city Open
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

management solid waste management?

4 Do you know the city’s landfill? [Yes] [No]
What do you think about the environmental
quality at the landfill?
5 What do you think about the environmental [Yes] [No]
quality at the landfill?
6 Do you think it is reasonable to treat the city’s [Yes] [No]
solid waste by using the landfill now?
7 Should Danang keep using the landfill for [Yes] [No]
treating solid waste in the future?
8 Which of the following waste disposal [Recycling][Composting]
methods do you think is the best way for [Incineration][Landfill][Don’t
Danang City to manage its garbage? know]
9 Have you ever attended any community [Yes] [No]
educational programs about solid waste
management?
10 If YES in question 26, what do you think Open
about those community educational programs?
11 How do you evaluate the solid waste [Very good] [Good] [Bad]
management in Danang? [Very bad]
Public 12 Have you ever heard of the 3R (reduce, reuse, [Yes] [No]
awareness and recycle) initiative in solid waste
toward the management?
3R program
13 If YES in question 2, where did you get Open
information about the 3R program?
14 If NO in question 2, do you want to be Open
provided with information about the 3R
program?
15 What do you think about the 3R program? Open
16 Do you think the 3R initiative should be [Yes] [No]
broadly implemented as a solution to reducing
solid waste pollution in Danang City?
17 In your opinion, what are the benefits of the Open
3R initiative?
18 Are you willing to participate in the 3R [Yes] [No]
program?

19 If YES in question 18, what motivate you to Open

participate in the 3R program?
20 If NO in question 18, what refrains you to Open
participate in the 3R program?
21 What do you think you can do when Open
participating in the program?
22 Have you ever separated solid waste? [Yes] [No]
23 Are you willing to separate solid waste?
24 Have you ever received any instructions about [Yes] [No]
solid waste separation?
25 What are the benefits of solid waste Open
separation?
26 Do you want to buy recycled products? [Yes] [No]
27 What concerns you when buying recycled Open
products?
28 Have you ever heard of making compost at [Yes] [No]
home?
29 Do you want to make compost at home if you [Yes] [No]
are provided with composting instructions?
30 What can you do to reduce the volume of solid Open
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

waste?
31 Do you want the city to implement the [Yes] [No]
program “pay as you throw”?

2.3 Primary data collection-Residential survey

For the objective of interpreting public awareness towards the city SWM and the 3R program, a
survey was conducted from June to August 2012. Thirty households in Ward 3, Cam Le District
were randomly selected for interviews. Thirty one questions related to solid waste management
along with five personal questions are included in the questionnaire.

2.3.1 Questionnaire design

Questionnaires included mostly open-ended questions, some yes-no and multiple-choice
questions. The reason for using mostly open-ended questions in the survey is that it allows the
respondents to express all their opinions and concern about solid waste management. The
questionnaires comprise three main sections: personal information; current solid waste
management status; and the 3R program. The first part contains questions related to age, sex, and
occupation while the second part focuses on the public opinions toward the current solid waste
management. The third part is aimed at verifying the knowledge and attitude of citizens about
the 3R program. The survey questionnaire is presented in Table 2.

2.3.2 Conducting surveys

In order to comprehend public attitudes and awareness about the current solid waste
management of the city and the 3R initiative, face-to-face interviewing of household members
was conducted. Face-to-face interviews were used instead of other means of surveying such as
telephone interviews, postal surveys, or internet-based because they were considered to be most
culturally viable: people enjoy an oral tradition. The questionnaire includes 31 questions, most of
them open-ended, so not many people will be willing to spend a long time on the phone to
respond carefully. Internet-based interviews will take respondents a lot of time to type their
answers, particularly those who are not familiar with typing or the internet will find it difficult to
participate. Similarly, postal surveying was not viable because it might generate a low response
rate because selected residents have never completed surveys before and they are not familiar
with this technique. Thirty households were randomly selected based on a sampling frame of
about 100 households that were provided by the local authorities. Before the interviews, the
respondents were required to sign consent forms which prove that they agreed to be interviewed
and that the interviews were recorded. The consent form and other forms were approved by the
Institutional Review Board at Clark University (IRB) which requires them for any human subject
research. However, this meant that many households refused to participate in the interviews
because they thought they might get in trouble due to their opinions. Therefore, if a household
did not consent to be interviewed, the interviewer proceeded to the next household until the
desired sample size of respondents was achieved.

2.3.3 Data analysis

The qualitative data analysis computer program called Anthropac ver. 4.98 (Analytic
Technology Company, Lexington, KY) was used to analyze open-ended questions. This software
is a useful tool for social network analysis. In this research, it was used to calculate the
frequency and salience of the answers that help determine common concerns of interviewers
about the current SWM and 3R. Also, SPSS ver. 20 (IBM Corporation, New York) program was
used in this research. SPSS is a software package used for statistical analysis and social science.
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

In this research, this program was used to support for analyzing the multiple choices and yes/no
questions.

3. RESULTS

3.1 Current status of solid waste management in Danang City

3.1.1 Solid waste generation and composition

Solid waste in Danang city is generated from various sources including households, commercial
centers, offices, schools, institutions, hospitals, airports, parks, construction activities, and
industrial activities. In Danang, the waste generation rate is about 0.65 kg/person/day (Chi and
Long, 2011). This paper only focuses on household solid waste. There is no existing data
concerning the amount of household SW generated, so this paper uses data about total waste
collection to illustrate an increase in SW in recent years. The amount of solid waste collected in
Danang city from 2007 to 2011 can be found in Table 3.
Regarding SW composition, the waste stream in Danang is comprised of more than 70%
organic material such as food and leaves, 12% plastic bags, and 18% comes from other
categories. The huge percentage of food waste accrues because households favor cooking their
own meals at home and people prefer unprocessed food, and this results in a lot of cuttings
(Thanh et al., 2011). In Danang, plastic bags are used in many commercial activities which
results in the high percentage of plastic bags in the total SW composition. Table 4 shows the
composition of SW in Danang in 2010.

Table 3. The amount of solid waste collected in Danang City

No. Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total amount of solid waste (tonne) 191,022 194,000 209,633 228,700 244,421
1 Municipal solid waste - - 205,099 224, 520 238,499
2 Non-hazardous industrial waste - - 2,914 3,243 3,918
3 Non-hazardous medical waste - - 1,257 1,373 1,553
4 Hazardous waste - - 364 565 453

(URENCO 2012)
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Table 4. Composition of solid waste in Danang

No. Category Percentage (%)

1 Paper and cardboard 5.16
2 Food and garden waste 74.65
3 Wood 0.67
4 Fabrics and Textile product 3.18
5 Leather 0.83
6 Rubber 1.29
7 Plastic (PET) 0.07
8 Plastic (PVC) 0.62
9 Plastic bags 11.58
10 Multi-component plastic 0.42
11 Black metal 0.18
12 Ferrous metal 0.01
13 Construction and demolition waste 0.55
14 Glass 0.74
15 Hazardous waste in household such as battery, bulb 0.03
16 Medical waste 0.02
Total 100

(URENCO 2012)

3.1.2 Solid waste collection activities

In Danang, there are three collection systems for three types of SW: industrial wastes, medical
wastes, and household wastes. This paper only focuses on the collection process of household
SW. The current process of collecting SW generated from households in Danang is shown in
Figure 2. In order to collect waste from households living on medium and large streets about
6000 of 240 or 660 litre curbside containers were placed in specific points along the streets. One
hundred and twenty tricycles are used to carry these containers to transfer stations. In order to
collect waste from households living on small roads and far away from curbside containers, the
tricycles are also equipped with door-to-door waste collection containers. Additionally, 68
compressed waste trucks and waste container trucks—with capacities of 3, 5,7,10 or 16 tons—
are used to transfer SW from the curbside containers to the landfill. Due to environmental
pollution problems and aesthetic concerns regarding curbside waste container areas, the city is
conducting the new collection method pilot at Ward number 3. Instead of conducting door-to-
door collection or placing the curbside containers in the streets the whole day to collect SW, the
curbside containers are only placed from 5 to 9 pm. During that time, households are required to
bring their SW to the containers. This method helps reduce the smell and pollution generated
from the containers and is receiving supports from citizens in the area. However, its
disadvantages are collection time and distance from the households to the curbside waste
containers. According to the results from the survey, several households requested to change the
collection time or go back to the old collection method. This problem could be solved by
adjusting the collection time and the locations of curbside waste containers.
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Figure 2. Current process of collecting SW generated from households in Danang

3.1.3 Solid waste ultimate disposal by landfill

Solid waste generated from Danang is carried to and treated at the new Khanh Son landfill. The
site, which is 15 km from the center of Danang, has operated since 2007. The landfill has an area
of 48.3 ha in which 15 ha is used for the municipal SW. The price for treating one ton of SW is
about one dollar. The municipal SW area is divided into five parts. By July 2012, the total
amount of SW that was buried at the landfill was about 1.2 million tons. The storage capacity of
part 1 and part 2 of the municipal SW area has already reached its limit and were supposed to be
closed by July 2012. The landfill was expected to operate for 50 years, but due to a significant
increase in the amount of SW in recent years, there may be not enough room for burying SW in
the near future. In addition, there are many problems related to air pollution and water pollution
at the landfill that need to be resolved.

3.1.4 Current status of solid waste recycling

Activities related to collecting, trading, and recovering recyclables are not carried out by local
authorities. Currently, no central organization is responsible for managing recycling activities;
therefore, almost all recovery and recycling facilities are small, unorganized and are privately
owned. Recyclables are collected from households, curbside containers and the landfill by
unauthorized waste pickers, scavengers, or itinerant buyers.
Recycled waste collected includes metal, plastic, rubber, paper, cardboard, leather, and
textiles. After recycled waste is collected, it is used in various ways. Metals such as iron, copper,
or aluminum are sold to metal recycling facilities to produce finished or semi-finished products.
Glass bottles in good condition are used as liquid containers. Broken glasses are sold to glass
factories for remanufacturing. Rubber is used as fuel for burning at brick kilns. Clean paper is
used for wrapping at stores. Cardboard and other types of paper are recycled to produce
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

cardboard containers. Leather or textiles are sold to car wash stations. Hard plastic is recycled.
The amount of recycled waste collected and reused accounts for about 5-7% of the total SW
collected.
Appropriate recycling helps reduce the amount of SW brought to the Khanh Son landfill,
creates jobs, and saves natural resources. However, recycling activities in Danang are
inappropriately managed resulting in low efficiency and harm to the environment and human
health because of hazardous waste.

3.2 Survey results

3.2.1 Social characteristics of respondents

Gender, age, and occupation were demographic characteristics explored in this study. Most
respondents (63.3%) were female while 36.7% were male. The mean age of respondents was
44.4 years. Figure 3 shows the age composition of respondents which was bimodally distributed
with modes at 30 and 50-60 years old. Respondents have different kinds of jobs. People who are
employed in offices account for the highest percentage (16.7%), the next is civil servants
(13.3%) and retired (13.3%). Figure 4 shows the occupations of all respondents.

3.2.2 Public opinions and attitudes toward SWM system

This section presents respondents’ opinions and attitudes towards the current SWM system by
examining the respondent’s answers to questions one to eleven. In the following sections, the
two descriptive statistical reports presented are frequency and salience. While frequency shows
the number of occurrences of a particular phenomenon, salience combines frequency with the
relative importance and prominence of a category to show categories that are most preferred by
respondents. The frequency and salience between male and female also are shown in order to
learn more how opinions differ with gender on the same issues.

Figure 3. Respondent age

 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Figure 4. Respondent occupation

Table 5 shows what respondents are unsatisfied with and want the city to improve in the
SWM system. As can be seen from the Table 5, what respondents want the city to improve is
similar to what they are unsatisfied with. Most residents are unsatisfied with the curbside
containers. There are multiple problems concerning curbside containers that were mentioned by
most of respondents (frequency = 72.4%). Garbage is usually placed on the nearby sidewalk due
to the lack and low storage capacity of containers. This leads to pollution and aesthetic concerns
around the containers. Respondents are also unsatisfied with collection time. The city is testing a
new collection method in area that has been selected to conduct the interviews. Households are
required to bring their garbage to the curbside containers from 5 to 9 pm. Many people are not
able to stay at home at that time, especially those who work the night shift. Therefore, it is not
convenient for them to follow the new collection schedule. While females and males share a
similar notion about curbside containers, males are more concerned about the collection time
than females. This is illustrated by the large difference in f-salience and m-salience (f=0.361,
m=0.545). The difference may be because males are still working at the collection time, but
females are more likely to stay at home. Therefore, females may not be as concerned about this
schedule. Waste in streets is another concern of 31% of respondents. This led to 29.6%
respondents wanting the city improve the street sweeping activities. Other things that
respondents wanted the city to improve were: separation of waste, improved education programs,
fee rate changes, recycling practices, and waste management policy.
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Table 5. Answer by majority of respondents to questions 2 and 3 (where “Freq.” and “Avg.”
stand for “frequency” and “average”, respectively)

Question 2: What are you unsatisfied with in the current SWM in Danang?
Item Overall f_Freq. m_Freq. Overall f_Avg.Rank m_Avg.Rank Overall f_Salience m_Salience
Freq. Avg.Rank Salience
(%)
Curbside 72.4 66.7 81.8 1.62 1.58 1.67 0.591 0.546 0.664
container
Collection 48.3 44.4 54.5 1.43 1.75 1 0.431 0.361 0.545
Street waste 31 38.9 18.2 2.11 1.86 3 0.209 0.287 0.082
Street 27.6 27.8 27.3 2.13 2 2.33 0.187 0.213 0.144
sweeping
Pollution 20.7 22.2 18.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.098 0.111 0.076
Fee 17.2 22.2 9.1 3 2.75 4 0.092 0.134 0.023

Question 3: What should Danang do to improve the city SWM system?

Curbside 59.3 52.9 70 1.44 1.44 1.43 0.488 0.422 0.6
containers
Collection 48.1 47.1 50 1.62 1.5 1.8 0.37 0.392 0.333
Street 29.6 29.4 30 1.75 1.8 1.67 0.204 0.186 0.233
Sweeping
Public 11.1 11.8 10 2 1 4 0.083 0.118 0.025
opinions
Separation 11.1 11.8 10 1.33 1.5 1 0.093 0.088 0.1
Dissemination 11.1 5.9 20 2.33 3 2 0.068 0.02 0.15
Fee 7.4 11.8 0 2 2 0 0.049 0.078 0

Regarding the city landfill many of the respondents (63.3%) answered that they do not know
the city landfill but have received some information about it through the media. For example,
one participant was surprised that garbage was brought to a landfill, replying: “I thought the
garbage was dumped in the ocean.” Table 6 presents respondent opinions about the
environmental quality at the landfill. Forty respondents did not know the condition of the landfill
while 23.3% said that in their opinions, the landfill is very polluted. Most respondents (83.3%)
said that it is not appropriate to use landfill because of its current condition. Similarly, 90% of
respondents think that Danang should not use a landfill in the future.
When respondents were asked about educational programs, 53.33% of them said that they
have never attended educational programs about SWM. Of the people who have attended
educational programs, 23.3% said that the educational programs were informative. They learn
more about the city current SWM system. Only 3.3% respondents who have attended believed
that educational programs are not important. The same numbers of respondents think that the
programs are boring. Table 7 shows respondent opinions about community educational
programs.
Respondents were also asked to evaluate the city SWM system. Only 3.3% of respondents
think that the current system is very good. More than a half of respondents (53.3%) said that the
system is good and 40% of them think that the system is bad. In general, respondents opposed
using landfills. When asked which SWM strategies they thought that Danang should promote,
30% percent said a recycling program would be the best solution, 10% were in favor of an
improved composting program, and 37% said that a combination of recycling and composting
programs would be the best way to improve the waste management system. Figure 5 shows SW
disposal methods that respondents think are the best.
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Table 6. Respondent opinions about the environmental quality at the landfill (where “Freq.” and
“Avg.” stand for “frequency” and “average”, respectively)

What do you think about the environmental quality at the landfill?

Item Overall f_Freq. m_Freq. Overall f_Avg.Rank m_Avg.Rank Overall f_Salience m_Salience
Freq. Avg.Rank Salience
(%)
Unknown 40 55.6 16.7 1 1 1 0.4 0.556 0.167
Very 23.3 16.7 33.3 1 1 1 0.233 0.167 0.333
polluted
Groundwater 20 16.7 25 1.83 1.67 2 0.128 0.12 0.139
pollution
Polluted 13.3 5.6 25 1 1 1 0.133 0.056 0.25
Smell 10 16.7 0 2 2 0 0.061 0.102 0
Too much 6.7 5.6 8.3 1 1 1 0.067 0.056 0.083
waste
Acceptable 3.3 0 8.3 1 0 1 0.033 0 0.083
Nearby area 3.3 0 8.3 3 0 3 0.011 0 0.028
pollution
Soil 3.3 0 8.3 1 0 1 0.033 0 0.083
pollution
Smell 3.3 5.6 0 1 1 0 0.033 0.056 0
controlled

Table 7. Respondent opinions about community educational programs (where “Freq.” and “Avg.”
stand for “frequency” and “average”, respectively)

What do you think about community educational programs?

Item Overall f_Freq. m_Freq. Overall f_Avg.Rank m_Avg.Rank Overall f_Salience m_Salience
Freq. Avg.Rank Salience
(%)
Unknown 53.3 55.6 50 1 1 1 0.533 0.556 0.5
Informative 23.3 27.8 16.7 1.14 1.2 1 0.217 0.25 0.167
Very 10 11.1 8.3 1 1 1 0.1 0.111 0.083
useful
Useful 6.7 0 16.7 1 0 1 0.067 0 0.167
Increase 6.7 5.6 8.3 1 1 1 0.067 0.056 0.083
public
awareness
Interesting 3.3 5.6 0 2 2 0 0.017 0.028 0
Unattractive 3.3 5.6 0 2 2 0 0.017 0.028 0
Boring 3.3 5.6 0 1 1 0 0.033 0.056 0
Unimportant 3.3 5.6 0 2 2 0 0.017 0.028 0
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Figure 5. Disposal methods that respondents are favored

3.2.3 Public awareness toward the 3R program

The objective of the interviews was to understand public awareness and attitude toward 3R in
order to design an educational campaign to promote a 3R program. For this purpose, respondents
were asked several questions related to their knowledge and attitudes toward 3R. Although a 3R
program has not been implemented in Danang, a high number of respondents (60%) said that
they know about 3R programs in other places. This may be because the program has been
implemented in many countries for a long time and mentioned many times in media; however,
60% of those who know about 3R programs do not remember where they get information from.
Figure 6 shows different ways that people mentioned getting information about 3R programs.
Most respondents (93.3%) wanted to be provided with information about 3R and were willing
to participate in this program. Reducing pollution was mentioned by most respondents (30%) as
being their motivation for participating in the program. Many respondents stated that social and
family benefits are important motivators for them. Sixteen percent of respondents replied that
they are willing to join in the program without any motivation. A high number of respondents
(50%) said that they will disseminate information regarding 3R if such a program is
implemented. However, 16.7% of respondents said that they do not know what to do when
participating in 3R. The rest of respondents indicated other ways that they will support the 3R
program, including following the guidelines, separating their waste, reusing, reducing the
amount of waste they produce, reducing use of plastic bags, sweeping their own streets, and
plating trees. Participants were also asked to provide any comments they have regarding a 3R
program. The results are shown in Table 8.
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Figure 6. Providers of information about 3R mentioned by respondents

Most respondents think 3R is a good program (62.1%). However, only 3.4% think that 3R is
excellent and 24.1% of respondents think 3R is very good. Some respondents elaborated by
saying the program would have economic benefits (10.3%) and increase public awareness of
environmental issues (6.9%). Some respondents said the program would face challenges related
to funding and availability of human resources (3.4%). The results also illustrated the big
differences in salience between females and males on the same issue. While many females
replied that public awareness was necessary, no male thought this issue was important (f-
salience=0.059, m-salience=0). No men said that a 3R program would be excellent, compared to
some women who said it would be (f-salience=0.059, m-salience=0). Males mentioned recycling,
public opinions, funding, human resources, and sustainability as important aspects of 3R.
Females did not mention any of these topics. For example, in the category “improving recycling”,
f-salience=0 and m-salience=0.042.
Benefits of 3R that were mentioned the most by respondents include waste reduction
(f=62.1%), economic benefits (f=44.8%), and reduced pollution (f=44.8%). There are also
differences between female and male in indicating the benefits of 3R. While female included
“achieving city objective”, “easier for treatment”, “tourist attractions”, and “labor saving” as
benefits of 3R, male do not care about that, m-salience in those issue is zero. Instead, males
included “increased the quality of life”, “sustainability”, “land saving”, and “energy saving” in
their answer about benefits of 3R, while no female talked about those benefits (f-salience=0). All
benefits mentioned by respondents are shown in Table 9.
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Table 8. Respondent opinions about the 3R program (where “Freq.” and “Avg.” stand for
“frequency” and “average”, respectively)

What do you think about the 3R program?

Item Overall f_Freq m_Freq Overall f_Avg.Rank m_Avg.Rank Overall f_Salience m_Salience
Freq (%) Avg.Rank Salience

Good 62.1 58.8 66.7 1 1 1 0.621 0.588 0.667

Very 24.1 17.6 33.3 1 1 1 0.241 0.176 0.333
good
Help improve 13.8 17.6 8.3 1.5 1.33 2 0.103 0.147 0.042
dissemination

Economic 10.3 5.9 16.7 2 1 2.5 0.063 0.059 0.069

benefit

Increase 6.9 11.8 0 2 2 0 0.034 0.059 0

public
awareness
Should be 6.9 5.9 8.3 2 2 2 0.034 0.029 0.042
implemented
soon
Difficult 6.9 5.9 8.3 2 2 2 0.034 0.029 0.042
implement

Improve 3.4 0 8.3 2 0 2 0.017 0 0.042

recycling

Concern more 3.4 0 8.3 2 0 2 0.017 0 0.042

about public
opinions
Sustainability 3.4 0 8.3 2 0 2 0.023 0 0.056
Funding and 3.4 0 8.3 3 0 3 0.011 0 0.028
human
resources
Excellent 3.4 5.9 0 1 1 0 0.034 0.059 0
Create no 3.4 0 8.3 2 0 2 0.023 0 0.056
negative
effect
Use 3.4 5.9 0 2 2 0 0.017 0.029 0
Vietnamese
language

Separation is an essential component for conducting 3R, so this study asked respondents about
their attitudes toward waste separation. The results show that 80% of respondents have never
separated solid waste. In addition, 96.7% of respondents said that they have never received any
instructions about SW separation. This reflects the lack of separation activities in the city’s
current SWM system. Danang has conducted a pilot project that involved separating organic and
inorganic waste in some wards, but until now a city-wide separation program has not been
implemented. In this study, 96.7% of respondents said that they are willing to separate SW.
Economic benefit was the greatest advantages mentioned by respondents when they were asked
about benefits of waste separation (40%). Respondents said that separation helps them earn
money from selling recycled wastes. Other benefits such as helping the city stay cleaner, saving
time and labor, convenience for waste collectors were also mentioned by many respondents
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

(frequency ≥ 20%). Only 3.3% of respondents considered health improvement and protecting
collectors from exposure to hazardous waste as benefits of waste separation. Benefits of SW
separation are presented in Table 10.
This interview sought to determine the ability of implementing a policy encouraging
respondents to compost at home. Therefore, respondents were asked several questions regarding
solid waste composting. The results show that 63.3% of respondents have never heard about
making compost at home. The rest said that they used to make compost or are familiar with home
composting. Regarding the willingness of participants to make compost at home, 53.3% of
respondents are willing to make compost if they receive instructions. Thirty percent of
respondents are not willing to make compost at home. Those who do not want to make compost
at home said that they do not have a use for compost or that they do not know what they should
do with the compost they produce. In addition, they were worried about controlling the smell or
they lacked space for making compost. The rest said that they do not know whether or not they
want to make compost. They said that when they receive instructions or if the city changes its
policy to require composting they will decide whether they can conduct composting or not.

Table 9. Benefits of the 3R initiative (where “Freq.” and “Avg.” stand for “frequency” and
“average”, respectively)

What are the benefits of the 3R initiative?

Item Overall f_Freq m_Freq Overall f_Avg.Rank m_Avg.Rank Overall f_Salience m_Salience
Freq Avg.Rank Salience
(%)
Waste 62.1 58.8 66.7 1.33 1.3 1.38 0.529 0.51 0.556
reduction
Economic 44.8 41.2 50 1.38 1.43 1.33 0.368 0.333 0.417
benefits
Pollution 44.8 52.9 33.3 1.54 1.67 1.25 0.339 0.373 0.292
decrease
Save natural 13.8 11.8 16.7 3 3 3 0.054 0.039 0.075
resources

Health 6.9 11.8 0 2 2 0 0.04 0.069 0

improvement
Increase quality 3.4 0 8.3 2 0 2 0.028 0 0.067
of life
Sustainability 3.4 0 8.3 5 0 5 0.007 0 0.017

Achieve 3.4 5.9 0 1 1 0 0.034 0.059 0

city objective
Easier 3.4 5.9 0 2 2 0 0.017 0.029 0
treatment

Touris 3.4 5.9 0 2 2 0 0.017 0.029 0

attraction

Land 3.4 0 8.3 3 0 3 0.011 0 0.028

saving
Energy 3.4 0 8.3 3 0 3 0.021 0 0.05
saving
Labor 3.4 5.9 0 1 1 0 0.034 0.059 0
saving
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Table 10. Benefits of solid waste separation (where “Freq.” and “Avg.” stand for “frequency”
and “average”, respectively)

What are the benefits of solid waste separation?

Item Overall f_Freq. m_Freq. Overall f_Avg.Rank m_Avg.Rank Overall f_Salience m_Salience
Freq. Avg.Rank Salience
(%)
Economic 40 44.4 33.3 1.08 1.13 1 0.383 0.417 0.333
benefits
City 26.7 22.2 33.3 1.63 1.75 1.5 0.189 0.139 0.264
cleaner
Save time 23.3 16.7 33.3 1.86 2 1.75 0.156 0.102 0.236
and labor
Convenient for 20 22.2 16.7 1.5 1.75 1 0.164 0.162 0.167
collector
House cleanner 10 11.1 8.3 1.67 2 1 0.078 0.074 0.083
Unknown 10 16.7 0 1 1 0 0.1 0.167 0
Waste 10 16.7 0 1.33 1.33 0 0.089 0.148 0
reduction
Easier 10 0 25 2.67 0 2.67 0.039 0 0.097
treatment
Convenient 10 5.6 16.7 1.67 1 2 0.078 0.056 0.111
recycling
Smell 6.7 5.6 8.3 2 3 1 0.05 0.028 0.083
reduction
Reuse 6.7 11.1 0 1.5 1.5 0 0.05 0.083 0
Health 3.3 5.6 0 4 4 0 0.008 0.014 0
improvement
Protect 3.3 0 8.3 2 0 2 0.017 0 0.042
collector

Recycling is an important component of the 3R program, the results show plastic was in the
top of recycled materials mentioned by respondents (60%). Paper was the second most common
recyclable material listed by respondents (46.7%). However, 23.3% of respondents do not know
what kinds of SW can be recycled. There are differences between male and female in terms of
the types of recycled materials they mentioned. While male include leaves, aluminum,
construction waste, and bottle caps, no females mentioned those materials (f-salience=0). Using
products made with recycled materials is also an important aspect of implementing 3R.
Therefore, respondents were asked whether or not they want to buy recycled products. Most
respondents (83.3%) said that they were willing to buy recycled products and only 13.33%
replied that they were not. However, many participants had concerns when buying recycled
products. The quality of products concerned the most number of participants (50%).
Respondents were also concerned about price and safety of recycled products (20%). In spite of
those concerns, a high number of respondents (33.3%) were not concerned about buying
products made with recycled materials.
Encouraging reducing SW generation is a crucial strategy when implementing 3R. Reducing
plastic bags consumption, reuse of products, and separation of waste were all mentioned by
respondents as good ways for reducing SW (24.1%). However, a high number of respondents
(24.1%) said that they do not know how to reduce SW. Burning, recycling, selecting products
that produce less waste and are reusable, separation, and dissemination are indicated as ways for
SW reduction. Only 3.4% of respondents said that there are no methods they are familiar with
for reducing SW. Methods of reducing SW mentioned by respondents are shown in Table 11.
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Table 11. Methods of reducing solid waste (where “Freq.” and “Avg.” stand for “frequency” and
“average”, respectively)

What can you do to reduce the volume of solid waste?

Overall
Overall Overall
Item Freq. f_Freq. m_Freq. f_Avg.Rank m_Avg.Rank f_Salience m_Salience
Avg.Rank Salience
(%)
Reduce 24.1 33.3 9.1 1.29 1.33 1 0.207 0.278 0.091
plastic Bags
Reuse 24.1 27.8 18.2 1.43 1.2 2 0.201 0.25 0.121
Unknown 24.1 33.3 9.1 1 1 1 0.241 0.333 0.091
Separate 17.2 16.7 18.2 1 1 1 0.172 0.167 0.182
Disseminate 6.9 0 18.2 1 0 1 0.069 0 0.182
Select 6.9 0 18.2 1 0 1 0.069 0 0.182
products
less waste
Recycle 6.9 5.6 9.1 2 2 2 0.04 0.028 0.061
No method 3.4 0 9.1 1 0 1 0.034 0 0.091
Burn 3.4 0 9.1 1 0 1 0.034 0 0.091

Table 12. House hould waste fee

No. Types of households Collection fee (US dollar)

Households not having business at home
1 Households in large streets or first floors in high buildings 1
2 Households in small roads, condominiums 0.75
3 Households have low income or living in temporary houses 0.5
Households having business at home
1 Households in streets type 1 and 2 3
2 Households in streets type 3, 4, 5 or streets not have name 1.75
3 Households in small roads 1.5

Waste fees were also mentioned in the interviews as an issue that needs to be addressed.
Currently, the waste fee for households is determined based on the width of the road on which
the house is located. The waste fee for households on small streets is lower than for those on
larger streets. Table 12 presents the waste fee applying in 2012. The fees paid by households
cover 45% of the total cost for the operating SWM system. The rest, 55%, comes from the
government budget. This study sought to understand public attitudes about applying the new fee
program that is called “pay as you throw” in Danang city. This program would consider wastes
as commodities and require people to pay for whatever they throw away. This policy has been
applied successfully in several countries and contributes to significantly reducing SW. The
results indicated that 60% of respondents are in favor of implementing a “pay as you throw”
program while 40% are opposed because it would be difficult to determine how much waste they
throw away.

4. Discussion

The findings of this study indicated that the total amount of SW has increased significantly and
there may be not enough space in the landfill in the near future for waste disposal. This suggests
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

the need for designing plans to reduce SW as soon as possible. The 3R initiative that includes
reducing, reusing, and recycling waste materials is a key solution for reducing final volume of
waste going to landfills (Takiguchi and Takemoto, 2008). The large fraction of compostable
waste (74.6%) such as food and garden waste in the SW stream would be better suited for
making compost and removal of these wastes from the system would contribute considerably to
reducing SW going to the landfill. The project of building the composting facility was cancelled
a few years ago due to the lack of funding. However, results from the interviews indicated that a
high number of respondents are willing to make compost at home. Therefore, it may be more
effective for the policy makers of the city to design plans encouraging households making
compost at home rather than attempting large-scale composting. The plans should include
benefits of making compost, requirements, and instructions about how to make compost at home.
Because many households do not have gardens, they do not know what to do with compost
produced in their home. In order to resolve this problem, the city needs to ensure compost is
collected from households and distributed to areas in need such as local farms and community
gardens.
Recycled materials such as paper, rubber, glass, and metal only accounts for about 10% of the
total SW. However, recycling plays an important role in SWM system because it helps to
preserve natural resources, save energy used in production of new materials, reduces the amount
of waste going to the landfill, create jobs and income, and increase public awareness of
environmental issues (Pendergrast, 2011). In Danang city, there is still a large amount of
recycled materials carried to the landfill because they are not separated from other wastes.
Although the activities of scavengers that collect recyclable materials in the city and at landfill
sites contribute to reducing recyclable items, their health is recognized as a public issue of
concern and needs to be addressed. The movement of waste pickers through the city streets and
public gatherings could spread disease and expose many people to potential health hazards
associated with inhalation of contaminated dust and exposure to leachate (Nguyen et al., 2003;
Terazono et al., 2006). The junkshops that buy and sell recycled materials in the city are also
very old and unclean. They are located near the landfill or off the site, affecting the urban
landscape and possibly polluting the environment. The city needs to invest in improving
recycling activities in order to increase the effectiveness of recycling and decrease the pollution
from recycle facilities. One of methods the city needs to improve is placing more separating
curbside containers that have been used effectively in developed countries to collect and sort
waste for the recycling process.
In addition to recyclables, plastic bags constitute a high amount of Danang’s waste
composition (11.6%) and take hundreds of years to decompose. In addition, the process of
recycling plastic bags is inefficient. Therefore, reducing plastic bags was proposed by several
respondents as one of the solutions to improve the city SWM system. A policy banning the use
of plastic bags or encouraging recycled and reusable bags should be designed and included in the
SWM regulations. One of the key components to reduce plastic bags is encouraging
manufacturers and retailers to use recycle bags for packing goods (Tom and Janet, 2010).
Separating waste plays an important role in increasing the amount of recycled waste collected
and reducing GHG emissions and natural resource consumption (Thanh et al., 2010). However,
in the past the city has not required households to separate SW. Therefore, all kinds of SW are
put at the same place and carried to the landfill. Because 96.7% of respondents are willing to
separate SW, implementing the policy regarding separating SW will most likely be supported by
citizens. The plan regarding the separating of wastes needs to be designed comprehensively so
that households know how to separate their waste according to the city’s guidelines. In addition,
the city needs to invest in selecting appropriate means to collect recyclables separate from
garbage. Separated waste collection by the city will contribute to improving recycle activities.
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Loss of work for itinerant buyers, who currently collect recycled materials, is also an issue that
needs to be considered in SWM improvement plans.
A desire for improving the current SWM system was revealed by most respondents. The
opinions about problems with curbside containers need to be considered in the strategy of SWM
improvement. Clearly, curbside containers are closely associated with collection activities
because wastes generated from households and street wastes are collected in those containers.
Curbside containers that are often overflowing waste along streets lead to pollution and
negatively impact the urban landscape. Therefore, the opinions of several respondents about
providing more containers for collecting garbage or increasing the size of containers may be
inappropriate due to concerns about the lack of spaces for placing curbside containers, aesthetic
value, and pollution control. Collecting SW from curbside containers more often may be a better
solution for remediating the problem of overfilled containers. However, if households make
compost at home and recycled materials are collected appropriately, the amount of waste put in
those containers will considerably decrease. Replacing the current curbside containers with
separate containers for compost, recycling and other waste is a crucial aspect in ensuring the
success of separated waste programs. The method of placing containers for waste collection at
certain times of the day which has been implemented in the area selected for doing this research
to collect household waste received strong support from respondents. However, it is important to
determine an appropriate schedule so that all households can put their garbage in the containers
or to have some containers available all the time. Additionally, keeping the containers clean is
important to make sure people are not afraid of pollution when they open the containers to dump
their garbage and to keep the surrounding area clean.
Reducing or preventing the generation of solid waste is the most preferred waste management
strategy (Stefan and Bernd, 2011). Waste reduction brings economic benefits including reducing
the cost of collection and disposal (Stefan and Bernd, 2011; Waggener, 2008). However, the
results from interviews indicated that many respondents did not have clear ideas about how to
reduce waste. Reducing plastic bag use was a common solution mentioned by respondents. This
shows that the educational programs that instruct the public to reduce waste are indispensable. In
addition, encouraging manufacturers to produce and customers to buy products that create less
waste and are reusable is also a key solution for waste prevention.
Conventional landfills the main method for disposing of the city’s SW, have questionable
viability as the primary method for sustainable SWM due to pollution that impacts human and
ecosystem health, but also simply because available space and capacity is limited. Despite their
environmental consequences, landfills are a method which can - manage the huge quantities of
waste produced each day and for the foreseeable future—up to 50 years (Parker, 2003). In
addition, the cost of treating SW with this method is low and the operating process is quite
simple, so landfills are still the primary SWM strategy used in the city. The city’s landfill in
Danang City was opened from 2007 and expected to operate in 50 years, but by July 2012, a half
of the landfill storage capacity was reached its limit. Therefore, the 3R program is a key factor
for ensuring the expected lifespan of the landfill because it would reduce the amount of waste
being added.
Applying the “pay as you throw” program would greatly contribute to the success of 3R. It is
a good sign that a half of respondents support the program. However, with the current method of
collection, it is difficult to determine the volume of waste generated from households. Therefore,
in order to apply this program, it is crucial to have a clear plan about the appropriate fee and the
method of determining the volume of waste. The city can apply the program that has been
successfully implemented in several countries such as the US, Korea, and other Europe
countries. In this program, every household is required to purchase certified bags for waste
disposal (Dahlén and Lagerkvist, 2010). If this program is applied, the city can save a lot of
money paying for fee collectors.
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

5. CONCLUSIONS

The findings support designing and implementing the 3R initiative in Danang city in the wider
context of a more sustainable city. The 3R program will greatly contribute to resolving many
pollution concerns related to curbside containers and the landfill site. The research provides
essential information about public awareness and attitudes toward the current SWM system and
the 3R program that is useful for decision makers and environmentalists in planning for
sustainable urban development. The majority of respondents are unsatisfied with many aspects
of the current SWM system including the curbside containers, effectiveness of street sweeping,
waste fee, and collection activities; their strong support for a 3R program is reason for the city to
change its current policy. In this 3R program, educational programs should be central,
elaborately designed in order to encourage the public to reduce SW by making compost at home,
reusing many products before disposal, and buying “sustainable products.” Informing people of
the value of waste and providing enough relevant information is crucial in educational programs
(Barr et al., 2001). In addition, information about 3R needs to be widely disseminated via
various forms of media. Gender differences also need to be considered. In most homes (75%),
women are responsible for household waste management and the differences between males and
females in some issues require careful consideration when designing and implementing the
program. The first step to implement 3R is setting up a new policy about waste source separation
as an alternative for the current commingled collection, in line with (Memon, 2010). The “pay as
you throw” program is a tool that would considerably support 3R efforts, promote reduction of
waste and social justice, however, it is crucial to carefully design the program to ensure its
feasibility. Above all, fundamental to the successful design, implementation and monitoring of
sustainable 3R-SWM is a process of dialogue, cooperation and collective capacity building
among citizens, local government, and private business. Innovating solid waste management is
an excellent place to begin the journey to a healthier, more prosperous and sustainable Danang,
spurring an integrated community centered effort to chart its future course.

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the Center for Educational Exchange with Vietnam (CEEVN) and the
Ford Foundation International Fellowship Program (IFP) in Vietnam, who sponsored this
research. In addition, the authors are thankful to the Danang Urban Environment Company for
their provision of information and their support in collecting data for this research.

REFERENCES

(EPA), U. S. E. P. A. (2008). Waste Management Options.

Barr S., Gilg A.W. and Ford N.J. (2001). A conceptual framework for understanding and
analysing attitudes towards household-waste management. Environ. Plann. A, vol. 33,
2025-2048.
Chi N.K. and Long P.Q. (2011). Solid waste management associated with the development of 3R
initiatives: case study in major urban areas of Vietnam. J. Mater. Cycles and Waste
Manage., vol. 13, 25-33.
Chu P.Y. and Chiu J.F. (2003). Factors Influencing Household Waste Recycling Behavior: Test
of an integrated Model1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol., vol. 33, 604-626.
Clarke M.J. and Maantay J.A. (2006). Optimizing recycling in all of New York City's
neighborhoods: Using GIS to develop the REAP index for improved recycling education,
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

awareness, and participation. Resour. Conserv. Recy., vol. 46, 128-148.

Dahlén L. and Lagerkvist A. (2010). Pay as you throw: Strengths and weaknesses of weight-
based billing in household waste collection systems in Sweden. Waste Manage., vol. 30,
23-31.
de Oliveira Simonetto E. and Borenstein D. (2007). A decision support system for the
operational planning of solid waste collection. Waste Manage., vol. 27, 1286-1297.
Heimlich J.E., Hughes K.L. and Christy A.D. (2007). Integrated solid waste management. The
Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet, CDFS-106-05.
Hezri A. (2011). 'Toward 3R-Based Waste Management: Policy Change in Japan, Malaysia and
the Philippines' in Kojima, M. (ed.), 3R Policies for Southeast and East Asia. ERIA
Research Project Report 2009-10, Jakarta: ERIA. pp.274-290.
Hezri A. and Nordin Hasan M. (2006). Towards sustainable development? The evolution of
environmental policy in Malaysia. Nat. Resour. Forum, vol. 30, n. 1, 37-50.
Huang P., Zhang X. and Deng X. (2006). Survey and analysis of public environmental
awareness and performance in Ningbo, China: a case study on household electrical and
electronic equipment. J. Clean. Prod., vol. 14, 1635-1643.
unquera , del r o and u i M. (2001). Citizens' attitude to reuse of municipal solid
waste: a practical application. Resour. Conserv. Recy., vol. 33, 51-60.
Lee S. and Paik H.S. (2011). Korean household waste management and recycling behavior.
Build. Environ., vol. 46, 1159-1166.
Manfredi S. and Christensen T.H. (2009). Environmental assessment of solid waste landfilling
technologies by means of LCA-modeling. Waste Manage., vol. 29, 32-43.
Memon, M.A. (2010). Integrated solid waste management based on the 3R approach. J. Mater.
Cycles and Waste Manage., vol. 12, 30-40.
Ngoc U.N. and Schnitzer H. (2009). Sustainable solutions for solid waste management in
Southeast Asian countries. Waste Manage., vol. 29, 1982-1995.
Nguyen H., Chalin C., Lam T. and Maclaren V. (2003). Health and social needs of waste pickers
in Vietnam. Report for Canadian International Development Agency.
Parker B.J. (2003). Solid waste landfills and residential property values. White Paper, National
Solid Wastes Management Association, Washington, DC.
Pendergrast B. (2011). Benefits of Recycling, GRIN Verlag.
Purcell M. and Magette W. (2010). Attitudes and behaviour towards waste management in the
Dublin, Ireland region. Waste Manage., vol. 30, 1997-2006.
Rahardyan B., Matsuto T., Kakuta Y. and Tanaka N. (2004). Resident's concerns and attitudes
towards Solid Waste Management facilities. Waste Manage., vol. 24, 437-451.
Sandra D., Kirrilly T., Anne S. and D. D. (2012). Reducing wasteful household behaviors. In
Designing for Zero Waste-Consumption, Technologies and the Built Environment,
Steffen and Robert (Eds), Earthscan, vol. 1, 67-88.
Shekdar A.V. (2009). Sustainable solid waste management: an integrated approach for Asian
countries. Waste. Manage., vol. 29, 1438-1448.
Singh A. (2011). Municipal Solid Waste Ma Current Status and Stefan S. and Bernd B. (2011).
Waste Prevention and Minimization: Concepts, Strategies and Means. In Solid Waste
Technology and Management, Christensen (Eds), Backwell Publishing Ltd., vol. 1, 183-
193.
Tadesse T., Ruijs A. and Hagos F. (2008). Household waste disposal in Mekelle city, Northern
Ethiopia. Waste Manage., vol. 28, 2003-2012.
Takiguchi H. and Takemoto K. (2008). Japanese 3R policies based on material flow analysis. J.
Ind. Ecol., vol. 12, 792-798.
Terazono A., Murakami S., Abe N., Inanc B., Moriguchi Y., Sakai S., Kojima M., Yoshida A.,
Li J. and Yang, J. (2006). Current status and research on E-waste issues in Asia. J. Mater.
 Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Cycles and Waste Manage., vol. 8, 1-12.

Thanh N.P., Matsui Y. and Fujiwara T. (2010). Household solid waste generation and
characteristic in a Mekong Delta city, Vietnam. J. Eviron. Manage., vol. 91, 2307-2321.
Thanh N.P., Matsui Y. and Fujiwara T. (2011). Assessment of plastic waste generation and its
potential recycling of household solid waste in Can Tho City, Vietnam. Environ. Monit.
Assess., vol. 175, 23-35.
Thomas H., Heijo S. and Ole H. (2011). Landfilling: Concepts and Challenges. In Solid Waste
Technology and Management, Christensen (Eds), Blackwell Publishing Ltd, .vol. 2, 685-
932.
Thuy N.T.T. (2005). Audit and Separation of Compostable Solid Wastes at Households in
Danang, Vietnam, University of Toronto.
Tom F. and Janet S. (2010). Designing for Reuse-The Life of Consumer Packing, Earthscan.
Troschinetz A.M. and Mihelcic J.R. (2009). Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in
developing countries. Waste Manage., vol. 29, 915-923.
Tuan N.Q. and Maclaren V.W. (2007). The evolution of community concern about landfills in
Vietnam. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev., vol. 29, 413-432.
UN-Habitat (2010). Solid Waste Management in the World's Citites.
UNCED (1992). Agenda 21: Action Plan. In Next Century United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development, United Nations, Rio de Janeiro
Visvanathan C., Adhikari R. and Ananth A.P. (2007). 3R practices for municipal solid waste
management in Asia. In Second Baltic Symposium on Environmental Chemistry,
Kalmar, Sweden, November.
Visvanathan C. and Norbu T. (2006). Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle: The 3Rs in South Asia. In
"3R South Asia Expert Workshop, Kathmandu, Nepal, August 30th to September 1st".
Waggener J.E. (2008). Waste Minimization Benefits. Proceedings of the 55th Porcelain Enamel
Institute Technical Forum: Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings, Wiley Online
Library, vol. 15, n. 3, 49-49.
Ward J.D. and Gleiber D.W. (1993). Citizen response to mandatory recycling. Public
Productivity & Management Review, 241-253.
Wilson D.C. (2007). Development drivers for waste management. Waste Manage. Res., vol. 25,
198-207.

View publication stats