RELATED LITERATURE

Solid waste management

In technical note, the term ‘solid waste’ is used to include all non-liquid wastes generated by human
activity and a range of solid waste material resulting from the disaster, such as general domestic
garbage such as food waste, ash and packaging materials; human faeces disposed of in garbage;
emergency waste such as plastic water bottles and packaging from other emergency supplies; rubble
resulting from the disaster; mud and slurry deposited by the natural disaster; and allen trees and rocks
obstructing transport and communications. Other specialist wastes, such as medical waste from
hospitals and toxic waste from industry, will also need to be dealt with urgently, but they are not
covered by this technical note (World Health Organization, 2011).

The Municipal Council enacted an ordinance establishing solid waste management also known as
“Perkash Fashura Ordinance Na Isadanga.”The ordinance prohibits dumping of garbage anywhere other
than those recognized and established garbage facilities; dumping of unclean and unsegregated waste at
the redemption center/facility; discharging of human feces along the creeks and rivers; throwing of
wastes in creeks, rivers, public places such as roads, sidewalks and establishments; and burning of
garbage particularly non-biodegradable wastes. It also requires residents to practice segregation of
wastes at source. Reusable solid wastes such as bottles, plastics, cellophanes and papers shall be
brought to the barangay material recovery facility duly segregated or directly to the agent-buyers. Non-
recyclable materials and special solid wastes will be brought to the material recovery facility, while
hazardous wastes or chemicals will be disposed in coordination with concerned government agencies
according to prescribed methods. The local government is responsible for collecting reusable, recyclable
and non-biodegradable waste materials from the material recovery facilities; and transporting them to
the recycling centers and or to the municipal material recovery facility. Collection of segregated solid
wastes is scheduled per barangay (Saley, 2012).

3R’s (Reduce Reuse Recycle)

The Environmental Protection Agency has determined a three tiered approach for managing solid
waste. Each of these should be practiced to reduce the amount material headed for final disposal. They
are in order of importance: REDUCE, the best way to manage solid waste.Don't create waste in the first
place! Buy only what you need. Use all that you buy. Avoid heavily packaged products. Avoid disposable
items like paper plates and plastic silverware. Buy the largest size package for those items that you use
are often. REUSE, the better way to manage solid waste. Reuse items use them over and over until they
are completely worn out. RECYCLE, the good way to manage solid waste.Recycle means taking
something old and making it into something new. In Seminole County, all residents who live in a single
family home can recycle right in front of their house. Those residents who live in apartments or
condominiums can drop off their recyclables at several different locations. Old newspapers, #1 and #2
plastic bottles, green, clear and brown glass bottles and jars, aluminum and steel cans can all be recycled
at the curb. Simply rinse out containers and remove lids. That's it; it's very simple and very worthwhile.
Not only does it keep items out of the landfill, recycling conserves natural resources (Seminole County
Government, 2012).

Australia may be a large country, but we live in a throw-away society that is rapidly filling it with our
waste. Our insatiable desire to constantly upgrade disposable technology and consume over-packaged
products has continued unabated for decades. At the same time however, there has been a trend away
from both burning waste in incinerators and burying it in landfills. Waste management policies now seek
to minimize waste disposal by reducing its generation and by reusing and recycling. This book reveals
the extent of our growing waste problem and examines the waste and recycling practices of households,
and includes many tips on how to reduce, reuse and recycle. Topics include green waste, plastics, glass,
paper, metal and electronic waste (Healey, 2010).

RELATED STUDIES

Foreign studies
A detailed investigation was made regarding the methods of practices associated with sources,
quantity generated, collection, transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of Municipal solid waste
in Mysore City. The data concerning to SWM in Mysore was obtained through questionnaire, individual
field visit, interacting with people and authentic record of municipal corporation. Photographic
evidences were also made about generation, storage, collection, transportation, treatment and disposal
of MSW. This study reveals that the present system of MSWM in Mysore City is not satisfactory based
on Municipal Solid Waste Management & Handling Rules 2000 (Chandra, et al., 2009).

Another case study across North America conducted by Whoilistic Environmental Consulting (WEC,
2007), yard and food waste make up over a quarter of all the ordinary garbage we throw away. That's
25% by weight. In the U.S., that 25% is almost equally divided between yard waste (32.6 million tons, or
12.8% of all MSW) and food scraps (31.7 million tons, or 12.5%). And then there's all the other organic
stuff that could be composted: all the clothing, towels, and bedding made of organic fibers, plus wood,
old furniture and sawdust. Then there's paper, which at 83 million tons accounts for another 30% of
municipal solid waste. As of 2006, the latest year for which figures are available, over 64% of the yard
waste we throw away was recovered and composted, as was 54.5% of the paper and cardboard. Only
2.6% of food waste reached a compost heap.

Local studies
The experiences and practices of household waste management of people in a barangay (village) in
Manila, Philippines are documented. The data were gathered through an interview with household
members using open-ended questions. Interviews were also conducted with garbage collectors as well
as scavengers. Results showed that the households generated an average of 3.2 kg of solid waste per
day, or 0.50 kg/capita/day. The types of wastes commonly generated are food/kitchen wastes, papers,
PET bottles, metals, and cans, boxes/cartons, glass bottles, cellophane/plastics, and yard/garden wastes.
The respondents segregate their wastes into PET bottles, glass bottles, and other waste (mixed wastes).
No respondents perform composting. It is worth noting, however, that burning of waste is not done by
the respondents. The households rely on garbage collection by the government. Collection is done twice
daily, except Sundays, and household members bring their garbage when the garbage truck arrives.
However, there are those who dump their garbage in non-designated pick-up points, usually in a corner
of the street. The dumped garbage becomes a breeding ground for disease-causing organisms. Some
household respondents said that it is possible that the dumping in certain areas caused the dengue fever
suffered by some of their family members. Mothers and household helpers are responsible for
household waste management. Scavengers generally look for recyclable items in the dumped garbage.
All of them said that it is their only source of income, which is generally not enough for their meals.
Most of the respondents said that garbage collection and disposal is the responsibility of the
government. The results of the study showed that RA 9003, also known as the Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act of 2000, is not fully implemented in Metro Manila (Bernardo, 2008).

This study highlights the results of the study that was conducted to analyze the solid waste
management practices of the waste generators, and the extent of their compliance with the Republic
Act 9003, otherwise known as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. The study was
conducted in Bacolod City, Philippines in 2007. The findings of this study served as basis in developing a
handbook on solid waste management (Ballados, 2010).

The Motiong town government in Samar has vowed to intensify the implementation of its Solid Waste
Management Program after barangay chairmen here took at one-day seminar-workshop on the
program. The activity was held at the Legislative Building here last Wednesday, August 29.Motiong
Mayor Francisco M. Langi Sr. said 30 barangay chairmen of his municipality attended said seminar-
workshop sponsored by the town government conducted Municipal Planning and Development Officer,
Engr. NicasioPermejo. Langi said all the barangay chairmen were educated on the provisions of the Solid
Waste Management Act of 2003 so that they would be acquainted with and help implement the law in
their respective barangays and propagate environmental preservation. He said the town government
will strictly implement the “no segregation, no collection policy” in all of Motiong’s barangays and urged
the barangay officials to put up a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) where they can segregate bio-
degradable and non-biodegradable waste materials. Such materials can be turned into a livelihood as,
according to Langi, “there is money in junk” (Abrematea, 2012).

Solid Waste Management (SWM) Solid waste management has become one of a major concern in
environmental issues (Mazzanti & Zoboli, 2008). This is particularly true to urban areas where
population is rapidly growing and amount of waste generated is increasing like never before (Kathiravale
& Mohd Yunus, 2008). Current earth’s population is 6.8 billion and it is estimated that almost half of this
population lives in urban areas (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of
the United Nations Secretariat, 2009). Waste generation increase proportionally to this population
number and income, creating the needs of effective management (Mazzanti & Zoboli, 2008).
Urbanization and industrialization leads to new lifestyles and behavior which also affects waste
composition from mainly organic to synthetic material that last longer such as plastics and other
packaging material (Idris et al., 2004). E-waste that barely existed before was generated as much as 20-
50 metric tons a year (UNEP, 2006). The management of waste become complex and the facilities
provided cannot cope with the increasing demand and needs. Therefore, best approach need to be
implemented immediately while considering environmental, social and economic aspects (Aye &
Widjaya, 2006). The drivers of sustainable waste management were clarified by Agamuthu et al. (2009),
which include human, economic, institutional and environment aspect. The study suggests that each
driving group should be considered in local context as managing solid waste for a particular society may
differ from the others.
For example, waste managers in Africa need to tackle some issues including, lack of data, insignificant
financial resources, vast different of amount and waste types between urban and rural area, lack of
technical and human resources, low level of awareness and cultural aversion towards waste (Couth &
Trois, 2010). On the other hand, problems faced among Asian countries differ with two distinct groups;
developed and developing countries. While some of the countries are having specific national policy on
solid waste management, some others experience problems such as increasing urban population,
scarcity of land, services coverage area, inadequate resources and technology, and so on (Shekdar,
2009). The differences in managing solid waste not only vary between countries but also among areas in
the same country. For instance, while Istanbul are having big improvement in their solid waste
management with the establishment of transfer stations, sanitary landfills and methane recovery
system, it does not reduce the problem in the Black Sea coast in Turkey. This is caused by the complex
topography, weak administrative structures and the low local’s income (Berkun et al., 2005). Integrated
Sustainable Waste Management (ISWM) system was then introduced in 1995 to improve earlier system
that neglect unique characteristics of a given society, economy and environment (van de Klundert,
1999). For example, European countries had applied various system assessment tools and engineering
models to create sustainable communities, manage resources efficiently, tapping innovation potential of
the economy, ensuring prosperity, environmental protection and social cohesion in their SWM system
(Pires et al., 2011). Asian countries had also given attention in building the national legal 12 frameworks,
managing institutional, technology, operational and financial aspects, and creating public awareness and
participation (Shekdar, 2009). The waste management system should be dynamic and continuous based
on new insights and experiences (van de Klundert, 1999). For example, continuous assessment of
current policy and regulatory framework of New Zealand indicated the lack of policies coordination,
hazardous waste management, consistency, incentives and markets for recycled material, and cleaner
production effort (Boyle, 2000). Thus, the improvement in policy is needed while it will also benefit the
country. As an example, based from EU25 group, it was found that the generation of waste is increasing
and is expected to continue for many years ahead. After the implementation of the new EU’s policy in
waste recovery and incineration, the amount of waste landfilled has been decreasing slowly (Mazzanti &
Zoboli, 2008).

However, based from the data from developed countries, the actual amount of waste been landfilled is
actually decreasing as more waste are incinerated, composted or recycled. Looking at the positive angle,
Lomborg (1998) believed that area needed is sufficient to cater the total amount of waste generated by
the world, but the problem is the location since nobody wants to stay near landfills. He also reported
that air from incinerators and groundwater near landfills today are cleaner and safer. Therefore, solid
waste generation can be considered more of a political or social issue than others (Lomborg, 1998). A lot
of literature has discussed current practices, challenges and future solutions on waste management
such as those for India (Hazra & Goel, 2009), Portugal (Magrinho et al., 13 2006), Canada (Wagner &
Arnold, 2008) and Malaysia (Agamuthu et al., 2009). These studies allow comparison to adopt the best
practice wherever applicable.