Expo Health
DOI 10.1007/s12403-016-0227-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Effective Measures for Municipal Solid Waste Management
for Cities in Some Asian Countries
Achara Taweesan1 • Thammarat Koottatep1 • Chongrak Polprasert2
Received: 31 May 2016 / Revised: 18 July 2016 / Accepted: 4 August 2016
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
Abstract Due to increasing generation of municipal solid
waste and lack of understanding about the different stages
of municipal solid waste management (MSWM) practices,
several cities in Asian countries and elsewhere are facing
environmental and health problems caused by improper
municipal solid waste management. Based on literatures of
municipal solid waste management practices, there have
been no established criteria for effective municipal solid
waste management practices. This study aimed to investi-
gate the existing municipal solid waste management
practices, and develop MSWM indicators and their influ-
encing factors responsible for effective MSWM practices
which covered collection efficiency, treatment efficiency,
benefit/cost ratio, and social satisfaction. Based on data
collected from 80 cities in three Asian countries (Malaysia,
Nepal, and Thailand), factors influencing the efficiency of
the municipal solid waste management indicators were
identified using Response Surface Methodology. A
municipal solid waste management effectiveness diagram
with the satisfactory levels for MSWM practices was
developed and tested with actual data of four cities in Asian
countries having different municipal solid waste manage-
ment efficiencies. The findings identified the influencing
factors affecting the municipal solid waste management
efficiencies of these tested cities and proposed effective
measures for improving municipal solid waste manage-
ment practices. The effective municipal solid waste
& Achara Taweesan
acharataweesan@gmail.com
1
Department of Environmental Engineering and Management,
Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand
management measures, as proposed, are recommended for
implementation by various cities to minimize environ-
mental pollution and protect public health.
Keywords Effective measures
Municipal solid waste
management indicators
Response surface methodology
Introduction
Due to the increasing amount of wastes generated,
municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is a chal-
lenge and expensive task for the cities’ authorities world-
wide (AIT 2004;Fobil et al. 2006; Moghadam et al. 2009;
United Nations Environment Programme Report 2015).
(UNICEF/WHO 2012) estimated that out of 12 billion
tonnes of solid wastes produced globally, approximately
4.4 billion tonnes are generated in Asia (out of 790 million
tonnes of MSW). This waste is ultimately thrown into
improper sites and due to poor and ineffective manage-
ment, the dumpsites turn into sources of environmental and
health impacts to nearby communities (United Nations
Environment Programme Report 2015). A similar finding
was argued by Sankoh et al. (2013), solid wastes that are
not managed properly, especially solid waste from house-
holds and the community, are a serious health hazard and
lead to the spread of infectious diseases. In South Asia, for
example, Kathmandu, Nepal, the use of open dumps is
common for the disposal of wastes, while leachate gener-
ated is not collected properly or treated before being dis-
charged into nearby storm drains or water courses,
resulting in soil and surface water resource contamination
(Dangi et al. 2011). In other cases, there is evidence of
diseases in India e.g., cholera, diarrhea, and dengue caused
by improper MSWM disposal (Hazra and Goel 2009). The
123

World Bank (2000) estimated that urban areas in Asia
spent US$25 billion per year on MSWM practices, and due
to increased generation of MSW, this figure will increase to
at least US$50 billion in 2025. At this point, MSWM
efficiency has attracted increasing attention and is also a
major concern for local authorities worldwide to provide an
appropriate MSWM practices. However, due to lack of
financial resources, appropriate technologies, and regula-
tion enforcement, the MSWM problems have become more
challenging, causing unhygienic and insanitary conditions
(Sharholy et al. 2008; Guerrero et al. 2013; Moh and Manaf
2014).
Several studies have been undertaken to determine sig-
nificant factors affecting MSWM practices in some cities
of Asian countries (Sharholy et al. 2008; ADB 2013;
Chaerul et al. 2014; Linzner and Salhofer 2014; Moh and
Manaf 2014; United Nations Environment Programme
Report 2015). Understanding factors that affect the dif-
ferent stages of MSWM practices is needed to improve the
functioning of the entire managing system. These factors
are further exacerbated by inadequate capital and operating
costs for achieving financial viability as well as policies,
technologies, and manpower requirements. Henry et al.
(2006) and Hazra and Goel (2009), respectively, stated that
the technical factors affecting the MSWM practices are
related to inadequate number of vehicles for waste col-
lection and the limited knowledge on technologies and
good practices for MSWM. Lack of knowledge of treat-
ment systems and active support by authorities was men-
tioned by Chung and Lo (2008) as one factor affecting the
treatment of MSW. In relation to the cost-effectiveness for
MSWM practices, Scheinberg (2011) reported that the
MSW collection charges should cover not only the col-
lection and transportation costs but also the MSW treat-
ment operation. These findings are in agreement with the
reports of Manaf et al. (2009) who documented that the
financial support for MSWM practices and facilities and
positive social satisfaction for the service are the key
success factors of MSWM practices in Malaysia. In addi-
tion, Sharholy et al. (2007) and Sujauddin et al. (2008)
indicated that the important causes for the MSWM sys-
tems’ failure are mainly due to lack of financial resources
and limited local capacity to manage MSW systems.
The objectives of this study are to (i) investigate the
existing MSWM practices of 80 cities in three Asian
countries (Malaysia, Nepal, and Thailand), (ii) develop
MSWM indicators based on surveyed data of the 76 cities
and their influencing factors responsible for effective
MSWM practices, and (iii) test the proposed effective
MSWM practices with the remaining four cities in
Malaysia, Nepal, and Thailand and recommend measures
for health and environmental improvement.
123
A. Taweesan et al.
Methodology
A large number of studies have assessed the performance of
MSWM in different cities worldwide (Worthington and
Dollery 2001; Sarkis and Dijkshoorn 2007; Dangi et al.
2011; Huang et al. 2011; Alavi et al. 2013; ADB 2013;
European Environment Agency 2013; Linzner and Salhofer
2014), but there are no established criteria for effective
MSWM such as number of collection vehicles per house-
hold, number of collector per household, number of trained
operators per treatment MSW plant, benefit/cost ratio of
MSWM operation, and user opinions and satisfaction of
MSWM practices. From a review of the relevant literature on
waste management areas (Burntley 2007; Huang et al. 2011;
UN-HABITAT 2011; Che et al. 2013; Guerrero et al. 2013;
Linzner and Salhofer 2014; Sasaki et al. 2014) and key
informants interview (such as government officers, technical
operators, local leaders and concerned households), four
important MSWM indicators were selected as having a high
potential for improving the performance, including collec-
tion efficiency, treatment efficiency, benefit/cost ratio, and
social satisfaction. Consequently, the main significant fac-
tors of each MSWM indicator were generated through key
informant interviews and published literature (Simonetto
and Borenstein 2007; Scheinberg 2011; United Nations
Human Settlements Programme 2011; Japan Environmental
Sanitation Center 2012; Che et al. 2013; Linzner and Sal-
hofer 2014; Sasaki et al. 2014; United Nations Environment
Programme Report 2015) as presented in Table 1.
The study was conducted in areas covering 80 cities in
three Asian countries (Malaysia, Nepal, and Thailand)
(Fig. 1) during the period of February 2012–June 2014.
These cities were classified into three main groups according
to the number of households: large cities (each with number
of households [100,000), medium cities (each with number
of households 50,000–100,000), and small cities (each with
number of households \50,000). These cities were selected
to represent the various regions of Thailand and other Asian
countries and to generate sufficient data for statistical relia-
bility. Information on existing MSWM practices was col-
lected by field visits, questionnaire surveys, face-to-face
meetings with key informants (such as administrators and
MSWM operators, local leaders, and concerned house-
holds), and from published and unpublished literature
(World Bank 2005; Fobil et al. 2006; Henry et al. 2006;
Chung and Lo 2008; Ramzan et al. 2008; Guerrero et al.
2013). Each indicator with its significant factors was selected
to simulate optimum conditions for MSWM efficiencies
using Response Surface Methodology (RSM) technique.
The effective MSWM levels were assigned from the
performance data of MSWM practices of Asian cities such
as Bangladesh, Nepal, China, Malaysia, and Cambodia
Effective Measures for Municipal Solid Waste Management for Cities in Some Asian Countries
Table 1 Summary of MSWM
MSWM Indicators
practices assessment criteria
Collection efficiency
Treatment efficiency
Benefit/cost ratio
Social satisfaction
Fig. 1 Locations of surveyed and tested cities in Malaysia, Nepal, and Thailand
(World Bank 2005; Henry et al. 2006; Alam et al. 2008;
Chung and Lo 2008; Sujauddin et al. 2008; Manaf et al.
2009; Dangi et al. 2011; Che et al. 2013; Guerrero et al.
2013; Moh and Manaf 2014). For the MSW ‘collection
efficiency’ indicator, it was considered ‘satisfactory’ if the
collected MSW was more than 80 % of the MSW gener-
ated; ‘moderate’ if the collected MSW was between 50 and
80 %; and ‘poor’ if the collected MSW was less than 50 %
(such as Kathmandu, Nepal, Kolkata, India, and Phnom
Penh, Cambodia) (Alam et al. 2008; Hazra and Goel 2009;
Guerrero et al. 2013; United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme Report 2015). For the MSW ‘treatment efficiency’
indicator, the level was assigned ‘satisfactory’ if there were
functioning MSW treatment plant(s) such as sanitary/
engineered landfill, composting, or incineration operated
by trained operator(s) and a monitoring record of
Significant factors
Number of households per city
Number of collection vehicles per city
Number of trained operators per treatment plant
Type of treatment technology
Investment and operation costs (US$/ton)
Collection and disposal charges (US$/ton)
Number of health complaints per 1000 households per year
Number of environmental pollution complaints per 1000
households per year
satisfactory plant performance. The ‘moderate’ efficiencies
were assigned for cities having controlled dumping oper-
ated by trained operator(s), and without a monitoring
record of plant performance. The ‘poor’ efficiencies were
assigned to cities with open dumping and without trained
operators. For the ‘benefit/cost ratio’ indicator, the level
was assigned ‘satisfactory’ if the benefit/cost ratio was
greater than 1.00, ‘moderate’ if the benefit/cost ratio was
from 0.50 to 1.00, and ‘poor’ if the benefit/cost ratio was
less than 0.50. For the ‘social satisfaction’ indicator, three
levels were assigned based on results of the questionnaires
surveys and using the percent positive results (Strauss and
Corbin 1998) similar to the collection indicator.
In this study, MSWM of a city is considered to be
effective if all the four indicators were found to be satis-
factory. The results obtained from Table 1 should suggest
123

conditions which make these four MSWM indicators sat-
isfactory. MSWM effectiveness diagram was developed
and tested with actual situations of some large, medium,
and small-sized cities in Asian countries.
The following assumptions were utilized in calculating
the results of ‘collection efficiency’: each household should
have its MSW collection services done daily; the average
per capita rate of solid waste generated was
0.22–1.89 kg/day; the average capacity of collection
vehicles was within a range from 3 to 5 m3. For ‘treatment
efficiency’ indicator, for the cities that have MSW treat-
ment plants, the operators having professional training on
MSWM practices once yearly were found to be more sig-
nificant than the sizes or capacities of the MSW treatment
plants; since there are no established criteria for effective
MSWM practices, types of treatment technology were
assigned according to required levels of investment and
operation such as ‘high’ for sanitary/engineered landfill,
composting, or incineration; ‘medium’ for controlled
dumping; and ‘low’ for open dumping. For ‘benefit/cost
ratio,’ the benefit was the MSW collection charge, MSW
disposal charge, and MSW recycled material sale, while
the investment and operation costs covered costs of the
collection vehicles, MSW treatment facilities, gasoline,
and maintenance.
Results and Discussion
The existing MSWM practices of 80 cities in Thailand of
this study were evaluated based on: collection efficiency,
treatment efficiency, benefit/cost ratio, and social satis-
faction. The significant factors listed in Table 1 and the
data collected from 80 large, medium, and small-sized
cities were applied into RSM to generate contour plots as
presented in Figs. 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Collection Efficiency Indicator
The relationship between MSW collection efficiency, the
number of households per collection vehicles is shown in
Fig. 2. It can be seen that to achieve the MSW collection
efficiency of more than 80 % (satisfactory), the ratio of
number of households per collection vehicles should be
4700:1 or less. For a city having the ratio of number of
households per collection vehicles of 1:30,000, the MSW
collection efficiency was found to be about 50 % (moder-
ate). In the worst case where the MSW collection effi-
ciency was found to be less than 20 % (poor), that city had
1 collection vehicle to serve 42,000 households or more
(Fig. 2). From the survey results, it was found that most
cities did not have adequate number of collection vehicles
for satisfactory MSW collection services. A review of
123
A. Taweesan et al.
official records of the failure of the MSW collection ser-
vices, as well as previous studies (Henry et al. 2006;
Moghadam et al. 2009), indicated that the availability of
the collection vehicles significantly affected MSW collec-
tion services.
Treatment Efficiency Indicator
The effects of the number of trained operators and type of
treatment technology on MSW treatment efficiency are
presented in Fig. 3. In this study, the level of ‘satisfactory’
was assigned to such treatment systems as sanitary/engi-
neered landfill, composting, or incineration; the moderate
level was assigned to control dumping; while the poor level
was assigned to open dumping. As shown in Fig. 3, the
relationships between type of MSW treatment technology
and the number of trained operators per treatment plant had
direct effects on the MSW treatment efficiencies. For
example, a MSW treatment plant employing engineered
landfill to treat 160 tons/day employed nine trained oper-
ators per treatment plant to achieve satisfactory efficien-
cies; while another city employing controlled dumping to
treat 80 tons/day of MSW had to employ eight trained
operators per treatment plant and achieved only moderate
efficiency. Chung and Lo (2008) and Suttibak and Niti-
vattananon (2008) documented that the number of skilled
operators significantly affected the MSW treatment
efficiency.
Benefit/cost Ratio Indicator
The effects of investment and operation costs and the
incomes from MSWM practices on benefit/cost ratio are
presented in Fig. 4. It can be seen that the investment and
operation costs of MSWM practices of most cities were
more than the incomes from MSWM practices. From the
survey results, the MSW collection fees of most cities were
in the range of US$ 3–10 per ton which could cover mainly
the collection and transportation costs, but not enough for
the MSW treatment operation which was about US$ 20 per
ton for controlled dumping. An exception was for a few
small cities where the MSW collection charges were US$
5–7 per ton and the MSW treatment facilities consist of
low-cost treatment operations such as open dumping
(costing about US$ 4–5 per ton). These problems were still
the case in many cities in Asian countries (such as India,
China, and Indonesia), where the central government pro-
vides some subsidies to local government authorities for
developing infrastructure, but not the environmental sani-
tation management including MSWM practices. Previous
studies by Suttibak and Nitivattananon (2008) and Japan
Environmental Sanitation Center (2012) emphasized the
need for both central and local government agencies to give
Effective Measures for Municipal Solid Waste Management for Cities in Some Asian Countries
Fig. 2 Contour plots of MSW
collection efficiency and the
number of households per
collection vehicles
Fig. 3 Contour plots of number
of trained operators and type of
treatment technology on MSW
treatment efficiency
high priority to support MSWM practices to minimize
undesirable impacts on people and their environment,
especially in high-density population areas.
Social Satisfaction Indicator
The effects of environmental pollution and health com-
plaints on the level of social satisfaction, presented in
Fig. 5, suggest the environmental pollution complaints to
be more significant than the health complaints. For exam-
ple, the Khon Kaen city in North-eastern of Thailand which
had more than 80 % (satisfactory) of social satisfaction on
MSWM received about 20 health complaints per 1000
households per year, but more than 115 environmental
pollution complaints. The level of social satisfaction of
50–80 % (moderate) would occur for cities having the ratio
of the number of health and environmental pollution
complaints per 1000 households per year of 85:135 or less.
Major reason for environmental pollution complaints were
the littering by residents after MSW collection services,
resulting in environmental and public health problems. To
overcome these problems, an awareness campaign is nee-
ded to motivate more people’s participation in the per-
ception of their SWM problems and understanding the
importance of waste recycling in order to reduce the
quantity of waste before going to treatment sites (Suttibak
and Nitivattananon 2008). In addition, the distribution
collection containers should be properly planned to provide
123

Fig. 4 Contour plots of
benefit/cost ratio
Fig. 5 Contour plots of
environmental pollution and
health complaints on the level of
social satisfaction
efficient municipal solid waste collection services, causing
more environmental pollution and health complaints
(Huang et al. 2011; Hazra and Goel 2009; Sharholy et al.
2008; United Nations Environment Programme Report
2015).
Use of Results to Enhance Effective MSWM
Practices
In this section, measures to enhance effective MSWM
practices were tested in four cities in Asian countries using
the four indicators which were collection efficiency,
treatment efficiency, benefit/cost ratio, and social
123
A. Taweesan et al.
satisfaction. These four cities, located in Penang, Malaysia,
Nonthaburi and Nakhonratchasima, Thailand, and Bharat-
pur, Nepal, were large, medium, and small-sized and most
households were served by local government authorities to
collect MSW. Details of the MSWM data of these four
cities (Table 2) obtained from the (United Nations Devel-
opment Programme 2008) and ADB (2013) were used in
plotting in an MSWM effectiveness diagram (Fig. 6) and
comparing with the MSWM satisfactory levels. The scales
of a set of collection efficiency indicator, treatment effi-
ciency indicator, and social satisfaction indicator were
from 0 to 100 %. The benefit/cost ratio levels were from
0.00 to 1.00. The scales of all the four indicators meeting
Effective Measures for Municipal Solid Waste Management for Cities in Some Asian Countries
Table 2 Existing MSWM practices in four tested cities in some Asian countries
Penanga,
Malaysia
Number of households 215,000
Number of population 1500,000
Number of collection vehicle (and capacity, m3) 60 (3–5 m3)
Quantity of collected MSW (tons/day) 657
MSW treatment technology Sanitary
landfill
Investment/operation costs (US$/ton) 44
Incomes (collection charges and recycled material 14
sales) (US$/ton)
USD 1 is approximately Baht 40
a
From (United Nations Development Programme 2008)
b
From survey results
c
From ADB (2013)
Fig. 6 MSWM effectiveness diagram of the four tested cities
the MSWM satisfactory levels were taken into considera-
tion as effective MSWM practices.
Figure 6 shows the results of MSWM practices of the
four tested cities, along with four MSWM indicators which
were collection efficiency, treatment efficiency, bene-
fit/cost ratio, and social satisfaction. Considering collection
efficiency indicator, Nakhonratchasima and Nonthaburi
were found to be ‘satisfactory’ or more than 80 % of the
collected MSW, except for Bharatpur, Nepal, and Penang,
Malaysia which were ‘moderate’ and ‘moderate,’ respec-
tively (Fig. 6). Since Nakhonratchasima and Nonthaburi
cities have increased local taxes by some users of the
service (such as commercial and high-cost residential
properties) to support the MSW collection services, they
also provided monetary incentives to the private collectors
according to the amount of collected charges. As presented
in Fig. 2, the cities of Bharatpur and Penang should have at
Nonthaburib, Thailand Bharatpurc, Nakhonratchasimab,
Nepal Thailand
106,000 36,987 33,447
258,550 147,777 166,217
45 (3–5 m3) 4 (3 m3) 15 (3 m3)
450 20 260
Co-sanitary landfill with Open Controlled
incineration dumping dumping
10 35 12
5 13 3
least ten and forty-five collection vehicles, respectively,
contributing to their MSW collection efficiency levels
being ‘satisfactory.’ From the survey results, a lack of
number of collection vehicles for MSW collection services
is the main factor affecting the unsatisfactory collection
efficiencies of the other two tested cities. The inadequate
number of collection vehicles could lead to propagation of
private operators to cover the shortfall in MSW collection
services. Guerrero et al. (2013) and Sharholy et al. (2008)
reported that MSW collection service in most cities in
Asian countries such as Bangladesh and India is normally
undertaken by private sectors for collecting the MSW from
housing areas of the city and delivering it to the treatment
site. A similar finding was documented by the (United
Nations Human Settlements Programme 2011) showing
that the public–private partnership performance in MSW
collection services is significantly influenced by economic
status, affordability as well as number of collection vehi-
cles for MSW collection operation.
For the MSW treatment efficiency indicator, it was
found that Bharatpur and Nakhonratchasima were still
unsatisfactory because they employ the low treatment
technology to manage MSW which were open dumping
and controlled dumping, respectively. These methods have
led to heavy metal pollution in groundwater (Alavi et al.
2013), since no leachate collection and treatment option is
available. Although Nakhonratchasima had the medium
treatment technology, controlled dumping, the waste is
neither placed systematically nor is it covered with soil and
compacted in thin layers of 200–400 mm as required for
sanitary landfills. The MSW treatment technology of
Nonthaburi and Penang were found to be ‘satisfactory’ due
to appropriate management policies and legal frameworks
123

in implementing the MSW treatment programs. This result
was documented by Guerrero et al. (2013), explanting that
these supporting factors account for the higher MSW
treatment efficiency which were not available in the tested
cities of Bharatpur and Nakhonratchasima.
With regard to benefit/cost ratios indicator, it was also
clear that in all four tested cities the indicators were found
to be less than 1.00 or unsatisfactory. This result implies
that operators who had performed on MSWM practices
need to be aware of the investment and operation costs of
the collection vehicles, MSW treatment plants, gasoline,
and maintenance which were higher than the incomes from
MSWM practices. From the survey results, it was found
that gasoline and maintenance were 10–44 US$/ton, while
the incomes from MSWM practices which could cover
mainly the collection charges were only 3–15 US$/ton. In
addition, only a few cities in Thailand received some
subsidies from the central and local governments in
MSWM practices. This problem of lacking of government
subsidies which occur in Bharatpur, Penang, and some
cities in Asian countries should be solved so that envi-
ronmental pollution and health problems caused by unsat-
isfactory MSWM practices can be minimized.
For the social satisfaction indicator, Bharatpur and
Penang were found to be ‘moderate’ or between 50 and
80 %, except for Nakhonratchasima and Nonthaburi which
was ‘satisfactory.’ From the survey results, it was found
that major complaints about MSWM practices were related
to illegal dumping of MSW at unauthorized locations in
order to reduce costs of MSW transportation, treatment,
and disposal. Minor complaints about MSWM practices
were related to the frequency of MSW collection services
which was less than the needed period, resulting in odors
emanating from the collection containers. These findings
were reported by Hazra and Goel (2009) who found that
inadequate collection frequency of MSW was a main cause
for inappropriate MSWM practices, causing more envi-
ronmental and pollution complaints.
Conclusions
Increasing population levels, booming economy, and rapid
urbanization have greatly accelerated the MSW generation
rate in most cities especially in Asian countries. The col-
lected MSW has been found to be improperly managed,
causing environmental pollution and public health prob-
lems. In this respect, many Asian countries are facing a
number of serious challenges in environmental and health
impacts, among which limited performance capacity to
manage and improve MSWM practices is involved.
123
A. Taweesan et al.
Based on the results obtained from 80 cities in three
Asia countries (Malaysia, Nepal, and Thailand), the fol-
lowing conclusions are made:
1. Relationships between the MSWM indicators and their
influencing factors developed in this study could be
used to identify conditions to achieve effective
MSWM practices for each city.
2. A MSWM effectiveness diagram was developed based
on the four MSWM indicators (Fig. 6). A city is
considered to have an effective MSWM practice if all
the four MSWM indicators were more than the
MSWM satisfactory levels. The MSWM effectiveness
diagram was tested with the MSWM practices data of
four Asian cities and it identifies the MSWM indicators
that need improvement. The results revealed that none
of them had all the four MSWM indicators meeting the
‘satisfactory’ levels.
3. Two of the four tested cities were found to have
unsatisfactory collection efficiencies (due to inade-
quate number of collection vehicles for MSW collec-
tion services), poor to satisfactory treatment efficiency
depending on the level of treatment technology
employed, unsatisfactory benefit/cost ratio (due to
high investment and operation costs and low collection
fees), and moderate to satisfactory social satisfaction.
4. Specific measures to achieve effective MSWM of the
four tested cities were proposed using the results
presented in Figs. 2, 3, 4, and 5 such as increasing the
number of collection vehicles to be 1/4700 households,
choosing sanitary/engineered landfill, composting or
incineration, subsidies from central and local govern-
ments, and optimizing collection frequency to mini-
mize public complaints and odor problems.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge support
from the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR)
North–South, Research Partnerships for User Driven Sanitation, co-
funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), the Swiss
Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), and the partici-
pating institutions.
References
ADB (2013) Solid waste management in Nepal: current status and
policy recommendations. Asian Development Bank, Philippines
AIT (2004) Municipal solid waste management in Asia. Environ-
mental Engineering and Management School of Environment
Resources and Development, Bangkok
Alam R, Chowdhury M, Hasan G, Karanjit B, Shrestha L (2008)
Generation, storage, collection and transportation of municipal
solid waste: a case study in the city of Kathmandu, capital of
Nepal. Waste Manag 28:1088–1097
Alavi N, Goudarzi G, Babaei AA, Jaafarzadeh N, Hosseinzadeh M
(2013) Municipal solid waste landfill site selection with
Effective Measures for Municipal Solid Waste Management for Cities in Some Asian Countries
geographic information systems and analytical hierarchy pro-
cess: a case study in Mahshahr country. Iran Waste Manag Res
31(1):98–105
Burntley SJ (2007) A review of municipal solid waste composition in
the United Kingdom. Waste Manag 27(10):1274–1285
Chaerul M, Fahruroji AR, Fujiwara T (2014) Recycling of plastic
packaging waste in Bandung City, Indonesia. J Mater Cycles
Waste Manag 16:509–518
Che Y, Yang K, Jin Y, Zhang W, Shang Z, Tai J (2013) Residents’
concerns and attitudes toward a municipal solid waste landfill:
integrating a questionnaire survey and GIS techniques. Environ
Monit Assess 185:10001–10013
Chung SS, Lo CWH (2008) Local waste management constraints and
waste administrators in China. Waste Manag 28:272–281
Dangi BM, Pretz RC, Urynowicz AM et al (2011) Municipal solid
waste generation in Kathmandu Nepal. J Environ Manag
92:240–249
European Environment Agency (2013) Municipal solid waste man-
agement in Netherlands. EEA
Fobil JN, Armah NA, Hogarh JN et al (2006) The influence of
institutions and organizations on urban waste collection systems:
an analysis of waste collection system in Accra, Ghana
(1985–2000). J Environ Manag 86(1):262–271
Guerrero LA, Maas G, Hogland W (2013) Solid waste management
challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Manag
33:220–232
Hazra T, Goel S (2009) Solid waste management in Kolkata, India:
practices and challenges. Waste Manag 29:470–478
Henry RK, Yongsheng Z, Jun D (2006) Municipal solid waste
management challenges in developing countries: kenyan case
study. Waste Manag 26:92–100
Huang YT, Pan TC, Kan JJ (2011) Performance assessment for
municipal solid waste collection in Taiwan. J Environ Sanit
Manag 92:1277–1283
Japan Environmental Sanitation Center (2012) Solid waste manage-
ment and recycling technology of Japan. Minister’s Secretariat
Waste Management and Recycling Department, Nagoya
Linzner R, Salhofer S (2014) Municipal solid waste recycling and the
significance of informal sector in urban China. Waste Manag Res
32:896–907
Manaf LA, Samah MAA, Zukki NIM (2009) Municipal solid waste
management in Malaysia: practices and challenges. Waste
Manag 29:2902–2906
Moghadam MRA, Mokhtarani N, Mokhtarani B (2009) Municipal
solid waste management in Rasht City. Iran Waste Manag
29:485–489
Moh YC, Manaf LA (2014) Overview of household solid waste
recycling policy status and challenges in Malaysia. Resour
Conserv Recycl 82:50–61
Ramzan N, Degenkolbe S, Witt W (2008) Evaluating and improving
environmental performance of HC’s recovery system: a case
study of distillation unit. Chem Eng J 140:201–213
Sankoh FP, Yan X, Tran Q (2013) Environmental and health impact
of solid waste disposal in developing cities: a case study of
granville brook dumpsite, Freetown, Sierra Leone. J Environ
Prot 4:665–670
Sarkis J, Dijkshoorn J (2007) Relationships between solid waste
management performance and environmental practice adoption
in welsh small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Int J Prod
Res 45(21):4989–5015
Sasaki S, Araki T, Tambunan AH, Prasadja H (2014) Household
income, living and working conditions of dumpsite waste pickers
in Bantar Gebang: toward integrated waste management in
Indonesia. Resour Conserv Recycl 89:11–21
Scheinberg A (2011) Value added: modes of sustainable recycling in
the modernization of waste management systems. Ph.D
Wageningen University, Wageningen
Sharholy M, Ahmad K, Vaishya RC, Gupta RD (2007) Municipal
solid waste characteristics and management in Allahabad, India.
Waste Manag 27:490–496
Sharholy M, Ahmad K, Mahmood G, Trivedi RC (2008) Municipal
solid waste in Indian cities: a review. Waste Manag 28:459–467
Simonetto EO, Borenstein D (2007) A decision support system for the
operational planning of solid waste collection. Waste Manag
27:1286–1297
Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn. Sage
Publications, London
Sujauddin M, Huda MS, Rafiqul Hoque ATM (2008) Household solid
waste characteristics and management in Chittagong, Bangla-
desh. Waste Manag 28:1688–1695
Suttibak S, Nitivattananon V (2008) Assessment of factors influenc-
ing the performance of solid waste recycling programs. J Resour
Conversat and Recycl 53:45–56
UNICEF/WHO (2012) Progress on drinking water and sanitation.
2012 update. UNICEF/WHO Joint monitoring Program for water
supply and sanitation. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/
media/files/JMPreport2012.pdf
United Nations Development Programme (2008) Malaysia develop-
ing a solid waste management model for Penang. UNDP, kuala
Lumpur
United Nations Environment Programme Report (2015) Global waste
management outlook. UNEP
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2011) Collection of
municipal solid waste management: Key issues for decision-
makers in developing countries. UN-HABITAT, Nairobi
World Bank (2000) Solid-waste ecological enhancement project
World Bank (2005) Waste management in China: issues and
recommendations. working paper No. 9. Urban development
working papers. East Asia infrastructure department, May,
Washington, DC
Worthington AC, Dollery BE (2001) Measuring efficiency in local
government: an analysis of new South Wales municipalities’
domestic waste management function. Policy Stud J 29(1):232–249
123