a study of the households' willingness to contribute to an improved
TRANSCRIPT
A STUDY OF THE HOUSEHOLDS’ WILLINGNESS TO CONTRIBUTE TO AN IMPROVED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN KRATOVO,
MACEDONIA
By KATRINA R FINN
A REPORT Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY 2007
Copyright © Katrina R Finn 2007
i
This report, “A Study of the Households’ Willingness to Contribute to an Improved Solid Waste
Management Program in Kratovo, Macedonia” is hereby approved in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING.
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Master’s International Program
Signatures:
Report Advisor ________________________ Brian D. Barkdoll
Department Chair ________________________ Neil Hutzler
Date ________________________
ii
Preface
This report is based on my service as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Macedonia, Eastern
Europe from December 2004 – December 2006. I worked as a water resources engineer
with the Municipality of Kratovo, in northeastern Macedonia.
This report is submitted in order to complete my master’s degree in Environmental
Engineering from the Master’s International Program in Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Michigan Technological University. The report focuses on my
experiences with the community, the solid waste management improvement project
supported by the Engineers Without Borders Chapter at the University of Florida, as well
as surveying the opinions of the residents of Kratovo, Macedonia concerning solid waste
management.
iii
Table of Contents
Preface ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Acknowledgements viii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1: Motivation 1
1.2: Geography 2
1.3: History 4
1.4: Economics 7
1.5: Government 8
1.6: Demographics 8
1.7: Solid Waste Management (SWM) 12
1.8: Solid Waste Management Legislation in Macedonia 16
1.9: European Union (EU) Standards Concerning Target Goals for EU Candidacy
19
1.10: Current Solid Waste Management System in Kratovo 21
1.10.1: Collection 21
1.10.2: Separation 24
1.10.3: Disposal 25
1.10.4: Current Landfill 26
1.10.5: Illegal Landfills 29
iv
1.11: Discussion of Future Progress 29
1.12: Objectives and Scope 29
1.13: Peace Corps Macedonia 30
Chapter 2: Literature Review 33
2.1: Solid Waste Management (SWM) Programs in Developed Countries 33
2.2: SWM Programs in Transitional Countries 34
2.3: SWM Programs Concerning Decentralization 35
2.4: SWM Programs in Developing Countries 37
2.5: Proper Surveying Techniques 41
2.6: Discussion of Literature Review 43
Chapter 3: Procedures 44
3.1: Solid Waste Management (SWM) Survey 44
3.2: Engineers Without Borders-University of Florida (EWB-UF) Assessment Report
47
3.2.1: Role and Objective of Team 47
3.2.2: EWB-UF’s Assessment Visit Description 47
3.2.3: Discussion of EWB-UF Future Work with Kratovo 55
Chapter 4: Results 57
4.1: SWM EWB-UF (Engineers Without Borders – University of Florida) Assessment Trip and Survey Results
57
4.2: SWM Survey Results 59
4.3: Possible Reasons for Inaccurate Data in Survey Results 70
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations 72
Appendix A: Solid Waste Management Survey Conducted in Kratovo, Macedonia in October 2006
78
v
Appendix B: Household Location in Kratovo and Number of Households that Responded to the Solid Waste Management Survey
80
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Macedonia national flag, regional map, country map 3
Figure 1.2: Municipalities of Macedonia, a scene of the Kratovo landscape 4
Figure 1.3: The trash-collection truck for the city of Kratovo 23
Figure 1.4: A tractor and trailer used for trash collection 24
Figure 1.5: Kratovo’s current landfill site 28
Figure 1.6: Kratovo’s current landfill in the village of Zheleznica 28
Figure 1.7: A side street in the center of Kratovo full with garbage 31
Figure 1.8: Garbage along side of Kratovska River in the center of Kratovo 32
Figure 3.1: Kratovo’s Town Map Showing the Streets on which the Surveyed Households are Located
45
Figure 4.1: EWB-UF students collecting and measuring solid waste samples from a trash container near Kratovo’s town center
58
Figure 4.2: A street near Kratovo’s town center, an example of an illegal landfill 61
Figure 4.3: Survey results of frequency of solid waste disposal in Kratovo 62
Figure 4.4: Loosely thrown trash near a garbage container in Kratovo is a common site
62
Figure 4.5: Survey results regarding the frequency of solid waste collection in Kratovo
64
Figure 4.6: Survey response to the question “How often does the trash need to be collected from the container you use?”
65
Figure 4.7: Survey results regarding activities that would improve the polluted river in Kratovo
67
Figure 4.8: Students cleaning the local park during the Global Youth Service Day activities
69
Figure 4.9: Students planting small plants on Kratovo’s town square 69
vii
List of Tables Table 1.1: Population of Kratovo according to five-year age group and gender 10
Table 1.2: Ethnic Affiliation of Kratovo’s population 10
Table 1.3: Total population of Kratovo, Macedonia at 15 years of age and over according to the educational attainment in comparison to the national average
11
Table 1.4: Economically active population in Kratovo at 15 years of age and over, according to the activity
11
Table 4.1: Composition by weight of two residential municipal solid waste containers in Kratovo, Macedonia as measured by the EWB-UF team
58
viii
Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisor, Brian Barkdoll, for all his advice before I started Peace
Corps, his support during my service, and his guidance through the completion. I would
also like to thank Jim Mihelcic for his dedication to the Master’s International Program
and his constant encouragement, I am truly grateful. Also, I would like to thank Dave
Watkins and Kathy Halvorsen for their advice and time for serving on my committee.
Thank you to my counterpart, Limonka Georgieva, without whom I could not have fully
integrated into the community of Kratovo, Macedonia.
Thank you to the Engineers Without Borders Chapter at the University of Florida for
seeing the potential of Kratovo, for getting to know the community, and for their
continual support for the solid waste management improvement project.
Thank you Stanislav for your patience and support as I gained a deeper understanding of
the Balkans and its amazing people.
And, thank you to the people of Kratovo for opening up their houses and hearts to me.
Macedonia will forever be a part of me. I especially want to thank Blaga, Dragan,
Jordanka, and Goce.
ix
Abstract
The standard of living in a country can be correlated with the standard of solid waste management. Efficient solid waste management must consider the cultural, social, and economic circumstances of a country while coordinating the efforts of the people on a local level. The author of this report worked in a small town in the northeastern part of Macedonia while studying the households’ willingness to contribute to an improved solid waste management program in their community. Macedonia was declared a candidate country for entry into the European Union in December 2005 and has since been making advances towards implementing solid waste management policies throughout the country. The process of implementing these policies has been challenging as the government has been in the process of decentralization since July 2005. During the author’s Peace Corps service the author spoke informally with many residents of Kratovo, Macedonia concerning the current solid waste program. Through these discussions, as well as through the collaboration with the Engineers Without Borders Chapter at the University of Florida, an improved solid waste management plan is in development. To assist the project’s success, a solid waste drop-off survey was distributed to 300 households in Kratovo to assess the community’s perceptions on the current solid waste management program using a 10% sample size of the total population; 269 surveys were returned to the Municipality of Kratovo. The solid waste survey suggests that a large percentage, 76% of households in Kratovo, think the current waste management service is inadequate. When asked whether the garbage along the river and at the illegal landfill sites located throughout Kratovo bother them, 99% stated “yes.” Through informal discussions with residents and as the survey suggests, many households (41%) said they are willing to contribute to improving the condition of the polluted river in Kratovo through environmental activities, and 26% said they would participate in environmental campaigns. This suggests that a large percentage of households are willing to contribute to an improved solid waste management program in Kratovo. Recycling and composting are also viable options for Kratovo to reduce the amount of solid waste that is currently being disposed of at the landfill. Future surveys conducted in Kratovo should chose the appropriate surveying method while properly selecting the households to be surveyed and clearly writing questions to minimize measurement error. As the community of Kratovo is willing to assist the local solid waste management program, the local government must maintain collaboration between the Engineers Without Borders Chapter at the University of Florida. Their recommendations can help to coordinate the efforts of local citizen organizations with the local government. This collaboration is crucial as Macedonia faces decentralization with the ultimate goal of EU membership.
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Motivation
The primary goal of municipal solid waste management is protecting the health of
the population (Schübeler, 1996). Other goals include promoting the environmental
quality and sustainability, and supporting economic productivity along with employment
generation. A solid waste management program must consider the specific interests,
roles, and responsibilities of the following entities: households, community-based
organizations; local and national government authorities; non-governmental
organizations; formal and informal private sector enterprises; and, external support
agencies (Schübeler, 1996).
In 1992 the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development
(UNCED) recommended a set of measures for waste management (Prüss et al., 1999).
The recommendations included the following: Preventing and minimizing waste
production, reusing or recycling waste to the extent possible, treating waste by safe and
environmentally-sound methods, and disposing of the final residues by landfill in
confined and carefully designed sites (Prüss, 1999).
Municipal solid waste management is of great importance on the global scale.
Similar to many towns in developing countries, the current solid waste management
program in Kratovo, Macedonia lacks policy-regulated services. The next sections will
describe the background of Macedonia as well as the waste management of Kratovo,
Macedonia.
2
1.2. Geography
The Republic of Macedonia (See Figure 1.1(a) for a national map) is situated in
Southeastern Europe (Figure 1.1(b)). The country is landlocked and shares a border with
Bulgaria to the east, Serbia to the north, Albania to the west, and Greece to the south. It
has a total land area of 25,333 km2, of which 477 km2 is water (Central Intelligence
Agency, 2006). The capital of the country is Skopje which is located in the north-central
portion of the country (Figure 1.1. (c))
The climate is considered warm, with dry summers and autumns, and has
relatively cold winters with heavy snowfall. Also the terrain is mountainous with deep
valleys. Three lakes are located in the southwestern and southeastern part of the country;
the Vardar River bisects the country (Figure 1.1(c)) (Central Intelligence Agency, 2006).
Macedonia has a total population of 2,050,554 and a growth rate of 0.26% as of
July 2006 (Central Intelligence Agency, 2006). The languages spoken include
Macedonia (70%), Albanian (21%), Turkish (3%), Serbo-Croatian (3%), and other (3%).
Natural resources found in Macedonia include low-grade iron ore, copper, lead,
zinc, chromite, manganese, nickel, tungsten, gold, silver, asbestos, gypsum, timber, and
arable land (Central Intelligence Agency, 2006). Twenty-two percent of the land is
considered to be arable, with 1.79% having permanent crops. A total of 550 km2 of land
was irrigated according to data collected in 2003. Natural hazards in the country include
high seismic risks and current environmental issues are air pollution from metallurgical
plants located in the industrial towns (mainly concentrated within the capital and along
the Vardar River) (Central Intelligence Agency, 2006).
(a)
(b) (c)
Figure 1.1. Macedonia (a) national flag, (b) regional map, and (c) country map.
Kratovo is located in the northeastern part of Macedonia and is considered one of
the oldest settlements in Macedonia as well as the Balkans (Cvetanovski, 2003). The
town of Kratovo is situated in a crater in the Osogovo Mountains; the municipality can be
seen in the below picture. Kratovo’s terrain varies from low fields to high mountains. In
the Municipality of Kratovo 10,441 people live on a total land area of 376 km2. The
3
climate in Kratovo is considered moderate continental with temperatures ranging from 38
0C (101 0F) in the summer to the lowest temperature in winter of -16.5 0C (2 0F). The
Municipality of Kratovo has moderate rainfalls, varying from 550 mm/m2 to 750 mm/m2
annually, with most rainfall in April, May, October, and November (Cvetanovski, 2003).
Figure 1.2. (a) Municipalities of Macedonia, including the Municipality of Kratovo (highlighted) and (b) a scene of the Kratovo landscape.
1.3. History
The Republic of Macedonia has had an incredible history spanning centuries. This
history is important to the current study because it demonstrates how centuries of
transitioning governments in Macedonia has shaped the attitudes of people living there
today. Some archaeological evidence shows that between 7000 and 3500 B.C. civilization
in Macedonia thrived (History of Macedonia, 2001). Then between 336 – 323 B.C.
Alexander the Great led the Macedonian armies into Asia by conquering the Persian
Empire which then spanned the Macedonian Empire from Europe to North Africa and
India, thereby making Macedonia the world’s largest empire. After the death of
Alexander the Great, Macedonia was divided into the three regions of Macedonian and
Greece, Egypt, and Asia.
4
Between 300 – 146 B.C. Macedonia strengthened its occupation of Greece, but
then after the clash with the Romans during the two “Macedonian Wars,” Macedonia’s
5
borders were reduced to their original size and by 146 A.D. Macedonia had become a
Roman province (History of Macedonia, 2001). During 395 the Roman Empire was split
into Western and Eastern and, as a result, Macedonia had fallen into the Eastern
(Byzantine) Empire, an empire which stretched over three continents. Then by 535 the
Slavs overran Macedonia. Between the years of 855 – 886 two Macedonian brothers by
the names of Cyril and Methodius created the first Slavonic alphabet and were credited
for promoting Christianity among the Slavs. Between 976 – 1018 the Byzantine Empire
weakened and the Macedonian Slavs rebelled against the Bulgarian authority which
helped them create a strong Macedonian kingdom under Tsar Samuel, but then by 1018
the kingdom was retaken by the Byzantines. The Macedonian Slavs organized two
additional uprisings against Byzantine rule between 1040 – 1072, but these proved to be
fruitless.
In the 13th and 14th centuries there were two short-lived occupations of both
Serbian and Bulgarian rule (History of Macedonia, 2001). The Turks had conquered
Macedonia in 1389, and this occupation lasted 500 years. Then between the years of
1828 – 1878 Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria gained independence from Turkish Rule; they
then sought to gain territory in Macedonia and, in the process, deny Macedonia from
gaining their own independence from Turkish rule. From 1564 – 1912 the Macedonia
people persistently tried to gain independence from the Ottoman Empire through a series
of revolutions, of which one stands out in history to be significant. On August 2, 1903 the
Macedonian Revolutionary Organization launched the Ilinden Uprising against the Turks
and declared independence, even though the Turks had defeated the Macedonian’s
attempts. In 1908 the Young Turk revolution, through significant help from a
6
Macedonian revolutionary, Jane Sandanski, and the national federation party, the
Macedonian people finally crushed the Ottoman Empire. Between 1912 – 1913 Greece,
Serbia, and Bulgaria helped fight with the Macedonian army against the Ottoman Empire,
and as a result, at the end of the battles Macedonia was partitioned between Bulgaria,
Serbia and Greece.
After WWI, Macedonia was again partitioned and was reincorporated with the
rest of Serbia to become a member of the greater region later known as Yugoslavia which
consisted of the countries of Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia (History of Macedonia, 2001).
During WWII, Bulgaria as the fascist ally of Germany invaded most of Macedonia.
Because of growing anti-fascist sentiment, the communist party gained support among
Macedonians, and as a result the Communist Party of Macedonia was established in
1943. Following the war, under Marshall Tito, Macedonia became one of the constituent
republics of the new Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. During this time the
economy, language, and culture of Macedonia flourished.
In 1991 as Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia declared independence from Yugoslavia,
Macedonia proclaimed independence as well, and with this, the Republic of Macedonia
was declared a sovereign, independent, civil, and democratic state (History of
Macedonia, 2001). Then Macedonia was admitted to the United Nations in 1993
(History of Macedonia, 2001).
Tensions erupted in February 2001 when ethnic minority Albanians carried out an
insurgency near the Kosovo border (History of Macedonia, 2001). During the first half of
2001 the insurgency spread throughout the northern and western part of Macedonia. One
motive of the insurgency was to gain political control of the areas nearest to Albania.
7
Then in July 2001 the government coalition expanded and formed a grand coalition to
include the major opposition parties.
Once Macedonia declared its independence, Greece insisted that there was no
Macedonian nation due to their fear that the Macedonian people might claim their rights
over the Aegean Macedonia region located in current-day Greece (History of Macedonia,
2001). After Macedonia refused to rename the country, Greece then enforced a trade
embargo on Macedonia.
Under a new territorial reorganization plan which consolidated the number of
Macedonian’s municipalities and created ethnically-mixed municipalities, the process of
decentralization began in July 2005 and is still continuing (U.S. Department of State,
2006).
1.4. Economics
When Macedonia gained independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, it was the least
developed of the Yugoslav Republics, producing only about 5% of the total federal
output of goods and services (CIA World Factbook, 2006). During the collapse of
Yugoslavia, financial support from the central government ended and put Macedonia in
the position to find help outside of the Federation. With UN sanctions forbidding
Macedonia trading with the once economically stable Yugoslavia and with the Greek
economic embargo over Macedonia’s name dispute, Macedonia had a low economic
growth until 1996. Despite the government’s economic reforms, in 2001 an ethnic
Albanian insurgency caused the economy to decrease 4.5%. The country has been slowly
recovering since then, and in 2005 the economy rose by 3.7%. However, Macedonia has
8
failed to attract much foreign investment and currently has an unemployment rate of
about 35% (CIA World Factbook, 2006).
1.5. Government
The Republic of Macedonia is considered a parliamentary democracy consisting
of 85 municipalities throughout the country (CIA World Factbook, 2006).
Macedonia’s constitution was adopted November 17, 1991 and later amended
with a series of new constitutional amendments strengthening minority rights in 2001
(Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), 2007). In July 2005 Macedonia’s government
began decentralizing with an overall objective to develop stronger municipal legislative
and regulatory frameworks with less dependence on the national government
(Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), 2007).
1.6. Demographics
Tables 1.1 through 1.4 show the demographic statistics for Kratovo including age,
ethnicity, education, and economic levels (The Census of Population, Households and
Dwellings in R. of Macedonia, 2002). The Macedonian Census collected the statistics in
2002.
Table 1.1 shows that the total population of the Municipality of Kratovo is
10,441, with 5,327 males and the majority of residents between 15 – 19 and 35 – 49 years
old.
Table 1.2 shows that 97.99% of Kratovians are Macedonian, 1.45% Roma (often
referred to as Gypsies), 0.32% Serbian, 0.08% Turkish, one person of Vlach ancestry,
9
and 0.16% of other ancestry. The ethnicity of Kratovians is important to understand since
those who scavenge for metal scrap material at the landfill are traditionally of Roma
ancestry.
Table 1.3 shows that 28% of adults have only a primary education. Also, 22% of
Kratovo’s adult population has an incomplete primary education; and, of the general
population in Macedonia, 13.8% have an incomplete primary education. This is important
to recognize because it suggests that many people in Kratovo are not able to finish their
education due to the economic hardships many families face.
In 2002 the percentage of employed persons in Kratovo was the same percentage
compared to the general population of Macedonia (29%), as shown in Table 1.4. The
table also shows that in Kratovo, 19% of the population was unemployed, compared to
18% of the population in Macedonia in 2002. However, as of 2006 Macedonia’s
unemployment rate has risen to 35% (Central Intelligence Agency, 2006).
10
Table 1.1. Population of Kratovo according to five-year age group and gender Age Total Male Female Total 10,441 5,327 5,114 0 – 4 478 247 231 5 – 9 562 292 270 10 – 14 732 387 345 15 – 19 820 414 406 20 – 24 761 398 363 25 – 29 707 376 331 30 – 34 646 340 306 35 – 39 813 451 362 40 – 44 891 517 374 45 – 49 806 433 373 50 – 54 726 364 362 55 – 59 518 249 269 60 – 64 512 225 287 65 – 69 518 236 282 70 – 74 389 153 236 75 – 79 334 151 183 80 – 84 170 73 97 85 and higher 55 21 34 Unknown 3 3 Total 10,441 5,327 5,114
Table 1.2. Ethnic Affiliation of Kratovo’s population Total Macedonian Turk Roma Vlach Serb Other Kratovo 10,441 10,231 8 151 1 33 17 Male 5,327 5,226 2 75 17 7 Female 5,114 5,005 6 76 1 16 10
11
Table 1.3. Total population of Kratovo, Macedonia at 15 years of age and over according to the educational attainment in comparison to the national
average
Tota
l pop
ulat
ion
With
out e
duca
tion
Inco
mpl
ete
prim
ary
educ
atio
n
Prim
ary
scho
ol
Seco
ndar
y sc
hool
Hig
h sc
hool
Uni
vers
ity
Mas
ters
deg
ree
Doc
tora
te
Still
in p
roce
ss o
f pr
imar
y ed
ucat
ion
Kratovo 8,669 728 1,937 2,460 2,994 238 303 1 8
Percentage of total 8.40 22.34 28.38 34.54 2.75 3.50 0.01 0.00 0.09
Macedonia 1,596,267 67,358 219,507 559,082 588,554 50,302 104,081 2,783 2,069 2,531
Percentage of total 4.22 13.75 35.02 36.87 3.15 6.52 0.17 0.13 0.16
Table 1.4. Economically active population in Kratovo at 15 years of age and over, according to the activity
Total All Employed Unemployed
Economically inactive
Kratovo 8,635 4,123 2,518 1,605 4,512 % of total Kratovo
29 19 52
male 4,376 2,551 1,696 855 1,825 female 4,259 1,572 822 750 2,687 Macedonia 1,577,001 743,676 460,544 283,132 833,325 male 781,270 456,199 285,570 170,629 325,071 female 795,731 287,477 174,974 112,503 508,254
% of total Macedonia
29 18 53
• Unemployed persons are defined as those that have interrupted their employment
because of bankruptcy of employer/own enterprise, seasonal character of the
12
work, persons that are waiting to start a new job, students, pensioners,
housewives, unemployed and other persons that are looking for a job.
• The non-active population is defined as persons that are not employed, that are
not looking for a job and persons that have interrupted their employment.
The next sections will discuss the components of a regulated solid waste management
program, the current legislation in Macedonia concerning solid waste management, solid
waste management policies regarding European Union membership, and the current solid
waste management program in Kratovo.
1.7. Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Solid waste management has two objectives (Davis and Cornwell, 1998). These
objectives are “to remove discarded materials from inhabited places in a timely manner to
prevent the spread of disease, to minimize the likelihood of fires and to reduce aesthetic
insults arising from putrifying organic matter; and, to dispose of the discarded materials
in a manner that is environmentally acceptable,” (Davis and Cornwell 1998, p. 635).
The public sector has the responsibility to outline the policy to govern solid waste
management (Davis and Cornwell, 1998). Collection, transport, processing, and disposal
are the basic areas that must be considered for a proper SWM program. Some criteria to
measure an effective SWM program are frequency of collection, types of waste collected,
location from which waste is collected, method of disposal, location of disposal site,
environmental acceptability of disposal system, and the level of satisfaction of the
customers (Davis and Cornwell, 1998).
13
One of the first decisions that need to be made in designing a SWM system is
where the waste will be picked up (Davis and Cornwell, 1998). For proper collection an
effective SWM program must decide how each trash container will be serviced. There are
three basic methods which include curbside, set-out, and backyard pickup collection.
Curbside pick-up is the quickest, most common, and most economically advantageous
method. In terms of disposal, there are three basic alternatives which are: direct disposal
of unprocessed waste in a sanitary landfill, processing of waste followed by land
disposal, and processing of waste to recover resources (materials and/or energy) with
subsequent disposal of the residues (Davis and Cornwell, 1998).
Within the last 20 years the method known as Integrated Solid Waste
Management (ISWM) has gained attention from many SWM programs as it combines
innovative techniques, technologies, and management programs in order to achieve waste
management objectives (Davis and Cornwell, 1998). The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) outlines the hierarchy of actions involved with the implementation of
ISWM as source reduction, recycling, waste combustion, and landfilling (Davis and
Cornwell, 1998).
According to Davis, a sanitary landfill is “a land disposal site employing an
engineered method of disposing of solid wastes on land in a manner that minimizes
environmental hazards by spreading the solid wastes to the smallest practical volume, and
applying and compacting cover material at the end of each day,” (Davis and Cornwell
1998, p. 658). The site selection of a sanitary landfill is probably the most difficult
challenge when planning a SWM program. Because local citizens have opposed many
potential landfill sites, when planning a SWM program some factors that should be
14
considered include: public opposition, proximity of major roadways, speed limits, load
limits on roadways, bridge capacities, hydrology, climate, wetlands, and similar
environmental factors. Two basic techniques are involved when describing the operating
methods used at sanitary landfills. These techniques are the “area method” and the
“trench method.” Usually both methods are used at a landfill site. The solid waste is
deposited on the surface, compacted, and then covered with a layer of compacted soil at
the end of each working day for the “area method.” If a potential landfill site is located on
a hill the “area method” is still an acceptable approach. However, if the water table is low
and the terrain is level or slopes slightly, the “trench method” is practiced. With the
“trench method” a trench is excavated and solid waste is then placed in it and compacted.
This method is advantageous in that the soil that was excavated is easily available for
cover material (Davis and Cornwell, 1998).
Site preparation, buildings, monitoring wells, size, liners, leachate collection
system, final cover, and gas collection system are all components to a sanitary landfill
(Davis and Cornwell, 1998). In the US strict leachate controls are enforced in order to
prevent groundwater contamination. A landfill in the US must be lined with a synthetic
membrane at least 0.76 mm thick, supported by a compacted soil liner at least 0.6 m
thick. In designing a proper leachate collection system, the depth of leachate above the
liner must not exceed 0.3 meters and is on a sloping floor of the landfill. Then
underground pipes are placed above the synthetic membrane to collect the leachate. Over
the synthetic membrane a 0.3-meter-deep granular layer, i.e. sand is placed to conduct the
leachate to the leachate collection pipes. Once the leachate is collected it must be treated
because of the high concentration of pollutants. This can be done with on-site treatment,
15
pumped to a municipal treatment plant, or re-circulated through the landfill (Davis and
Cornwell, 1998).
The final landfill cover’s main objective is to prevent moisture from entering the
landfill (Davis and Cornwell, 1998). Groundwater contamination can be minimized when
the leachate production is minimized, which can only be done if moisture from the
outside does not enter into the landfill. As a result of anaerobic decomposition of the
organic solid waste, methane is produced in sanitary landfills. The collected gas has a
heating value of approximately 37.3 MJ/m3 and is extracted using gas wells and a
collection system (Davis and Cornwell, 1998). This can be advantageous as the heating
value can provide a potential economic benefit to the community.
Recycling is an important component to effective SWM. Recycling is “the
reprocessing of wastes to recover an original raw material,” (Davis and Cornwell 1998, p.
685). Curbside collection, drop-off centers, material processing facilities, and material
transfer stations are some recycling options available to US municipalities. Curbside
collection is the most common method in the US. Another method to consider when
planning a SWM program is a recycling drop-off center. However, the municipality must
consider the following factors when organizing a drop-off recycling center: location,
materials handled, population, number of centers, operation, and public information. If a
drop-off center is the only option a community has for their recycling efforts, the center
must provide for increased capacity to accommodate more people. There will be
increased recycling participation if the center is placed in a high traffic flow area as its
location will provide convenience for the residents of a community. Davis states that the
most likely candidates for recycling are paper, nonferrous metals, and ferrous metals.
16
Composting, like recycling can significantly reduce the amount of solid waste that is
disposed of at a landfill and is defined as “a humus-like material that results from the
aerobic biological stabilization of the organic materials in solid waste,” (Davis and
Cornwell 1998, p. 688). Yard waste is ideal for this process as this type of waste is free of
inorganic materials. It should be noted that compost can be used as a soil conditioner, but
is not a valuable fertilizer (Davis and Cornwell, 1998).
The next discussion will focus on Macedonia’s legislation concerning solid waste
management and the role of the municipality in Macedonia with regard to SWM.
Macedonia’s SWM legislation is important to the current study as it will guide
Macedonia’s municipalities toward regulated SWM with the ultimate goal of European
Union membership.
1.8. Solid Waste Management Legislation in Macedonia
Macedonia’s Waste Management Law states the objectives of the law which are
to provide (Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia, 2004):
1. Avoidance and reduction to the maximum possible extent of the amount of
waste generation;
2. Re-use of usable components of the waste;
3. Sustainable development through protection and saving of natural resources;
4. Prevention of negative impacts of waste on the environment, human life and
heath;
5. Environmentally acceptable waste disposal; and
6. High level of protection of the environment, human life and health;
17
The report also defines waste as “any substance or object that the generator or the
holder discards, intends to discard or is required to discard,” (Official Gazette of the
Republic of Macedonia 2004, p. 3). Also, landfill is defined as “a facility intended for
waste disposal by way of tipping it above or under the ground,” (Official Gazette of the
Republic of Macedonia 2004, p. 5). The main priorities in waste management are stated
as being “(1) The waste generators shall avoid the waste generation as much as possible
and reduce the negative impacts of the waste on the environment and human life and
health, and (2) In waste management, after prior selection, the waste should be processed
by means of recycling, reuse or other process for extraction of the secondary raw
materials, or used as a source of energy,” (Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia
2004, p. 6).
Under the principle of environmental protection in waste management, the report
emphasizes that the processing and the disposal of the waste must be done by using the
best available technologies and techniques and should be processed primarily at the
location of its generation (Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia, 2004). If the
solid waste cannot be processed at the location of its generation, it can be transferred to
the nearest location for processing or disposal. Also, the general rule of payment for
waste management services in Macedonia is the “polluter pays” principle which defines
that the “generator and/or holder of waste shall cover all the costs generated during waste
management, including the costs for waste collection, transportation, treatment, storage,
disposal, prevention and monitoring, as well as the costs for the rehabilitation measures
18
for the damage caused by the waste or the damage that might be caused by the waste,”
(Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia 2004, p. 7).
Also, the Law on Waste Management states that when a buyer purchases a certain
product, he or she must pay a certain added value which can be returned to the consumer
once he or she returns the used products and packaging to be processed (Official Gazette
of the Republic of Macedonia, 2004).
Article 22 defines the responsibility of the municipalities regarding municipal
solid waste, as defined below (Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia, 2004):
1. Take care of the public hygiene and of the abandoned waste;
2. Issue acts in order to regulate the selection, collection and transportation of
the municipal solid waste;
3. Cooperate with other Municipalities and the City of Skopje with regard to
solid waste management;
4. Implement projects and undertake investments for solid waste management
improvement;
5. Act in accordance with the general rules on solid waste management (two or
more municipalities may enact a joint waste management program for solid
waste).
The value-added tax for waste management in the municipalities and the City of
Skopje are defined in Article 121 and Article 123 as a range from 1% to 2% of the price
for the service of municipal waste collection and transportation (Official Gazette of the
Republic of Macedonia, 2004). This must be approved by the councils of the
19
municipalities and expressed in the following units: denar/m2, denar/m3, and denar/kg.
Denar is the local currency of Macedonia; approximately 50 Macedonian denars equals 1
USD in 2006. If an individual or a legal entity fails to develop a waste management
program for the current year and/or fails to remove, collect, select and transfer the waste
in accordance to Articles 40, 43, and 44, respectively, Article 139 states that “the legal
entity shall be fined for a misdemeanor with a fine ranging from 50,000 to 300,000
denars,” (Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia 2004, p. 72). Also, the legal
entity can be fined for the above range if “it fails to inform the consumers on the re-use
and renewability of used products and packages,” (Official Gazette of the Republic of
Macedonia 2004, p. 73). The enterprise collecting and transporting municipal solid waste
shall be fined for a misdemeanor with a fine ranging from 100,000 – 200,000 denars if it
collects and transports waste with resources/equipment not appropriate for this activity
and if it does not have a permit.
This national waste management strategy came into force in October 2004 and
currently applies to all municipalities in Macedonia. The next section will describe the
European Union standards concerning the target goals for candidate countries, such as
Macedonia.
1.9. European Union (EU) Standards Concerning Target Goals for EU Candidacy
As Macedonia looks toward the future many Macedonians see the European
Union (EU) as a path towards economic progress and as a conduit for their children to
gain more opportunities in a free-market, open community with their neighbors to the
west. In 1958 the EU was created by the six founding states of Belgium, the Netherlands,
20
Luxembourg, France, Italy and West Germany (European Commission, 2007). It has
since expanded to 27 member states of Ireland, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece,
Portugal, Spain, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Caribbean
islands of Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius (part of the Netherlands) (European
Commission, 2007).
In December 2005, the European Council declared the Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia as a candidate country for entry into the EU (European Commission,
2007). However, the accession negotiations have not yet begun. Many Macedonians are
hopeful that these negotiations will be completed smoothly, but many are skeptical
whether the government can enact and enforce the required laws to bring Macedonia up
to speed with the current EU countries. Macedonia’s government must focus its
legislation on efficient solid waste management policies.
From the Commission of the European Communities, in 2003 the report for
Further Indicative Guidelines for the Candidate Countries sought to help accession
countries become members of the EU through assisting national and regional authorities
to prepare their programming strategy (Commission of the European Communities,
2003). This report states that the candidate country must support the environment
through:
1. Direct funding of environmental investments helping with the implementation
of the environment such as solid waste management; and
21
2. Support the integration of the environment into other policies, and
consequently promoting sustainable development. (Commission of the
European Communities, 2003).
1.10. Current Solid Waste Management System in Kratovo
The current solid waste situation in Kratovo is described next to provide
background against which survey of peoples’ attitudes towards SWM are viewed.
1.10.1. Collection
The current waste management system of Kratovo is managed through the AD
Sileks Corporation of Kratovo (a company that produces polyurethane foam and mines
quartzite near Kratovo) which employs about 5 men who collect the trash every day
throughout the town using a trash-collection truck and/or a tractor. For about ten years
the current waste management system has been privatized through Sileks. One-hundred
sixty steel garbage containers are located throughout the town, each with a volume of
about 40 ft3. Many of these containers have wheels missing but are still in use. Because
many residents do not have a container that is in close proximity to their house, a large
amount of trash is discarded in the river or on the streets. During a discussion with the
truck driver of the waste collection truck, he spoke of how the trash containers are not in
the most optimal location to reduce solid waste pollution. On average, it was estimated
that about 20 households dispose of their waste in each container.
Garbage is collected from two zones which divide Kratovo. As stated by the
current solid waste management enterprise, the first zone gets serviced every Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday. The second zone has a weekly collection route on Tuesday and
22
Thursday. Since Kratovo is located in a crater, the mountain sides are steep which makes
for a difficult transportation route. The truck driver does not stop at the trash container if
it is not completely full since many of the turns can be difficult to maneuver for a large
truck in this small European town. The large collection truck, which is shown in Figure
1.3, spends two to four hours each day collecting waste, beginning at 5:00 am.
The collection truck was donated by the Norwegian Embassy to the Municipality
of Kratovo in October, 2004. The truck is a Man Type F0617192, built in 1991 and has a
curb weight of 9,800 kg, can carry 7,700 kg of waste, and holds 150 L of gas. Every
week the truck must be refilled with gas twice. The waste management officials stated
that the collection truck frequently breaks down. The Municipality of Kratovo is the
official owner of the trash collection vehicle and responsible for its maintenance. Because
the truck frequently breaks down it has become difficult for the municipality to maintain
its regular operation.
In some areas of the town with extremely narrow streets the collection truck
cannot pass. In order to service these streets a tractor collects the solid waste. It was
estimated that about 30% of the town’s waste is collected this way. Figure 1.4 shows a
picture of the tractor.
Figure 1.3. The trash-collection truck for the city of Krotovo.
23
Figure 1.4. A tractor and trailer used for trash collection.
1.10.2. Separation
The separation practices in Kratovo include minimal composting for households’
vegetable gardens, scrap metal extraction to be sold and reused, and a local NGO’s
efforts in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottle recycling.
Many residents in Kratovo, and throughout Macedonia, have small vegetable
gardens in their back yard and practice composting. However, current composting efforts
are minimal and do not contribute to the overall reduction of solid waste that is being
disposed of in a landfill. Most Macedonians understand the benefits of composting as a
24
25
method of conditioning their backyard soil, but do not realize the benefits of composting
as a method of reducing the amount of solid waste disposed of at the landfill.
It is common to see Roma people search for metal at the landfill and near the trash
containers throughout Kratovo, then later sell the scrap metal. The Roma people are a
marginalized people and have the highest percentage of unemployment in Macedonia.
Because of their low living standards, many rely on selling scrap metal by digging
through the trash and separating the metal from the other solid waste. This kind of
behavior can be seen throughout the world. Scavengers are generally poor immigrants
from rural areas, and scavenging represents an important survival strategy for the poor in
Asia and Latin America (Medina, 2004). Instead of being a problem, scavengers can be
successfully integrated into formal SWM programs for collection and recycling efforts
with will consequently create jobs and benefit low-income communities (Medina, 2004).
A local recycling non-governmental organization (NGO), “Sunny Hill” from
Kratovo, has begun recycling PET (polyethylene terephthalate) plastic bottles. From 2005
to 2006 this NGO collected and recycled 90,000 kg of PET plastic waste from the
communities of Kratovo and the surrounding villages. After the bottles are collected they
are crushed into smaller plastic pieces then transported to Turkey to be reused.
1.10.3. Disposal
Each household is required to pay 300 MKD (Macedonian Denar), about 6 USD,
per month for waste collection services. Both the waste collection and drinking water
supply bill is mailed to each household as one receipt. However, because of high
unemployment in the community, it has been estimated that only 70% of households pay
26
for the service. If a household does not pay for the SWM services, the household is not
fined because the SWM services collect from neighborhood waste containers, not from
individual trash containers. This kind of system is also common with drinking water
supply. If a household does not pay for water supply, the public enterprise does not turn
off the water because the only way to turn off an individual household’s water supply is
shutting off the entire apartment complex or street on which that apartment/household
resides.
Each morning the truck transports the waste to the landfill about two or three
times. The landfill is located in the village of Zheleznica, located approximately 15
kilometers west of Kratovo.
1.10.4. Current Landfill
The current landfill is located in Zheleznica, about 15 kilometers from Kratovo,
and it takes about ten minutes for the collection truck to get there. Solid waste is collected
every day except Sundays. It was estimated that 20 m3 of solid waste is disposed of at the
landfill site each day.
Kratovo’s current landfill site has been the location for waste disposal for the
Municipality of Kratovo for the past 40 years and is an unregulated landfill. In Figure 1.5
it is shown that the majority of waste volume is plastics. About thirty years ago in
Kratovo and throughout Macedonia plastic bottles and plastic trash bags were introduced
in the stores and have since inundated the landfill sites. As seen in Figure 1.6, the trash
covers a hillside, and as the trash collection truck disposes of trash, the additional waste
is then pushed down the hillside into a ravine. There is no lining of the landfill, nor does
27
it have a cover. Groundwater contamination studies have not been conducted in the area,
but because a small creek is located about 2 km from the landfill the unregulated landfill
causes unforeseen environmental consequences to both groundwater and surface water
quality in Kratovo. Once per week the solid waste is then pushed down the hill using a
bulldozer. On many visits to the landfill, smoke was seen in a variety of locations in the
landfill.
Figure 1.5. Kratovo’s current landfill site.
Figure 1.6. Kratovo’s current landfill in the village of Zheleznica
28
29
1.10.5. Illegal Landfills
The illegal landfills found in Kratovo can be seen on the side of the road, along
the river, or near waste containers as seen in Figs 1.7 and 1.8.
1.11. Discussion of Future Progress
The responsibilities of proper waste management rest upon the shoulders of a
government that is in the process of decentralization. This transition will take time. As
power shifts from the capital to the communities throughout Macedonia, the local
governments in the municipalities will gain more influence within their local borders,
thus creating the optimal conditions for an improved SWM program to develop in
Kratovo as local citizens are able to gain the confidence needed to take a proactive role in
improving their community’s environmental conditions.
1.12. Objectives and Scope
The objective of this study is to determine the households’ willingness to
contribute to an improved solid waste management program in Kratovo, Macedonia. This
study took place between December 2004 – December 2006 in the town of Kratovo using
the results from the following activities: informal discussions the author had with
colleagues, friends and neighbors during her Peace Corps service; the solid waste
management survey conducted in October 2006; and, the Engineers Without Borders –
University of Florida’s (EWB-UF) assessment trip conducted in May 2006. From 300
surveys distributed, two hundred sixty-nine surveys were returned from a community
with a total of 2,553 households. The EWB-UF assessment results were compiled from
30
informal interviews with government officials, non-governmental organizations, students,
and other community members from Kratovo, as well as through a waste composition
assessment taken during their visit to Kratovo, Macedonia.
1.13. Peace Corps Macedonia
I served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Kratovo, Macedonia from December 2004
– December 2006. The Peace Corps Macedonia program focuses on education and
community development as the Peace Corps Volunteers help Macedonia through the
transition of decentralization by working in English language education, and assisting and
serving in NGOs and local governments to improve the organizations’ managerial skills
and practices. As local organizations from small towns throughout Macedonia are
anxious to start collaboration between the community and international organizations,
Peace Corps Volunteers are assisting in these efforts (Peace Corps, 2007).
As a water resources engineer in Kratovo, Macedonia, I assisted with grant
proposals to improve Kratovo’s infrastructure, economic, and social conditions through
the contributions from international aid organizations. During my service, Kratovo
received donations from various international aid organizations to expand the drinking
water filter station to include an additional sedimentation basin, expand the market place
by 20 m2, create 20 new jobs for people in the textile industry, replace the existing water
supply pipes with larger PVC pipes, and implement a volunteer program to encourage
educated youth to remain and work in Kratovo.
I volunteered at the Municipality of Kratovo and had a close relationship with my
counterpart, Limonka Georgieva. Mrs. Georgieva is the Municipality’s local economic
development coordinator, and with her generous help I was able to become closer to the
community, understand the operations of the municipality, and have a better
understanding of Macedonian culture.
Figure 1.7. A side street in the center of Kratovo full with garbage
31
Figure 1.8. Garbage along side of Kratovska River in the center of Kratovo
32
33
CHAPTER 2. LITERARATURE REVIEW 2.1. Solid Waste Management (SWM) Programs in Developed Countries In 1999 Sterner and Bartelings conducted a study to determine the waste disposal,
recycling and composting efforts in Tvaaker, Sweden (Sterner, 1999). They noted that the
most important components of each household’s waste were kitchen waste composting,
living area, age and attitudes concerning the difficulty of recycling. They found that even
though economic incentives are important for a successful SWM program, they are not
the only determinant behind the observed reduction in municipal solid waste. They
showed that if a community was given the proper infrastructure that facilitates recycling,
the residents in that community are “willing to invest more time than can be motivated
purely by savings on their waste management bill,” (Sterner 1999, p. 473).
The researchers also found that if more people are at home at least during part of
the day, they will compost more and consequently produce less waste. Also if recycling
takes more time, people are less willing to recycle (Sterner, 1999). Both this study and
the one in Kratovo emphasized waste reduction through composting and recycling
efforts. However, Kratovo is in a country considered to be developing while Sweden is a
developed country.
In the US, it has been estimated that Americans generate 236 million tons of
municipal solid waste per year (about 2 .08 kg/person/day) (Troschinetz, 2005). As of
2003, the largest components in the American waste stream consists of paper (36%),
organic material (30%), and plastics (11%) (Troschinetz, 2005). In Western Europe, the
amount of daily municipal solid waste generated per person is 1.51 kg. The Western
European consisting of Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, and the 15 EU member states had
34
an average waste composition consisting mainly of organic material (27%), paper (26%)
(Troschinetz, 2005).
2.2. SWM Programs in Transitional Countries
The Integrated Sustainable Waste Management framework (ISWM) concentrates
on the participatory process designed to improve waste management and urban
governance in countries that are classified as “in-development,” (Anschütz, et al. 2004).
A key element of ISWM is the belief, “Solid waste management in any city has a close
relationship to economic, social, health and many other aspects of urban life,” (Anschütz,
et al. 2004, p.11). Countries in transition, such as Macedonia, can undermine economic
development efforts and spread disease and discomfort through a poorly managed SWM
program. A well-planned and reliably-executed waste management system can help
citizens gain a sense of pride in their town. Also, a reliable SWM program can provide
livelihoods to poor people and can serve as an example for good governance in other
public services (Anschütz, et al. 2004).
In Varna, Bulgaria an ISWM assessment was conducted which focused on
recycling and composting (Anschütz, et al. 2004). In 2005, when Bulgaria was a
candidate country for EU membership, the waste composition was averaged from the
measurements of the 13 candidate countries (Troschinetz, 2005). It was found that the
municipal solid waste in these countries consisted mainly of organic material (42%) and
paper (14%) (Troschinetz, 2005). During the entire ISWM planning process in Bulgaria,
many community members were given the opportunity to share their perspectives on how
to effectively provide the citizens with the best SWM program (Anschütz, et al. 2004).
35
This kind of process can increase awareness among citizens of solid waste issues in their
homes and businesses, thus creating new ideas, behavior, and demands. It can also
provide the citizens with the necessary information about a proper waste management
program. Initially when residents hear about a new disposal facility in their community,
they usually oppose it because they think it will be another “illegal” unmanaged dump.
But if there is convincing evidence about the need and they see similar facilities operating
successfully, they would be easier persuaded (Anschütz, et al. 2004). This study has
ramifications for the current study in that Bulgaria has similarities to Kratovo in
development stage (both were former communist countries that are in transition, and both
studies deal with solid waste). The current study, however, is unique, being the only one
known of in Macedonia thus far.
2.3. SWM Programs Concerning Decentralization
In August 2000, The Third Global Report on Human Settlements focused on
Decentralization and Urban Infrastructure Management Capacity and wrote about the
effects decentralization has on local governance. The report states that decentralization
creates the following objectives: provide flexibility to respond to the different local and
regional problems and opportunities; improve local governance through increased
autonomy and better accountability; mobilize private resources for local development;
and empower people in the development of their communities (Serageldin, et al. 2000).
The Decentralization and Urban Infrastructure Management Capacity report
concentrated on the effects of decentralization with regard to general governance, while
the study in Kratovo focuses on the collaboration between the community, the current
36
SWM program, and outside organizations to improve its current waste management
system through informal surveys and discussions with the community.
Because of the difficulties facing many local governments to secure finances for
infrastructure investments, many parts of the developing world such as Macedonia have
prompted citizens to seek services through the collaborative effort at the community
level.
This situation is leading to a gradual shift towards partnerships between local governments, NGOs (non-governmental organization) and CBOs (community-based organization). In many ways, these partnerships are… the cornerstone of successful local development initiatives (Serageldin et al. 2000, p.3).
This kind of partnership was seen in Kratovo as the EWB-UF chapter visited Kratovo in
May 2006 and conducted meetings with concerned residents and local NGO members.
As stated in the ISWM, exemplary SWM programs have developed from many
stakeholders investing into the community from understanding the environmental
benefits with proper SWM services (Anschütz, et al. 2004). Those people who have a
strong interest in seeing something happen in the community will be most involved in the
project and the most dedicated in its sustainability. Similarly, as stated in the article titled,
“Some Problems of Waste Management in Developing Countries,” it is crucial to the
overall success of a properly managed solid waste program that the community served by
a landfill regards it as their facility and is operated for their benefit (Blight, 1996).
37
2.4. SWM Programs in Developing Countries The methods used to achieve the objectives of waste management policy must be
adapted to the prevailing circumstances in each developing country (Rushbrook 1988).
Even though there is no single correct method to achieve proper waste management, there
are “common needs” that must be emphasized, which include: “adequate knowledge of
the types of waste to be disposed of, how much there is, where it arises, who produces it,
and what happens to it,” (Rushbrook 1988, p. 1).
The overall standard of living in a country can be associated with the standard of
solid waste management (Rushbrook 1988). Rushbrook states that, “waste management is
not only a technical problem, but is also strongly influenced by cultural, social and
economic circumstances. It should be recognized that ultimately only the people of a
nation can solve waste management problems in their country,” (Rushbrook 1998, p. 19).
While foreign investment can contribute to the success of a proper SWM program
through their recommendations and advice, ultimately the nationals in that country must
convert this help into a fully practical, operation system (Rushbrook 1988). This study
differs from the study in Kratovo because of its general focus on a variety of countries,
while the study in Kratovo researches the perceptions a specific group of people have
toward solid waste management.
There is a need to recognize the difficulties concerning solid waste management
in developing countries and to understand the reasons for those difficulties, as expressed
by Blight (1996), who states,
It is well recognized and widely known that the type and quantity of refuse generated by a community depends on its culture and the per capita income. Wealthy communities form throw-away societies,
38
whereas poor communities have less to throw away and are more ingenious in reusing, recycling and refurbishing articles that a wealthier community would discard (Blight 1996, p. 20).
This can be seen in Macedonia as the majority of the food most Macedonians eat come
from locally grown and locally raised food sources, whereas in the US most Americans
eat processed foods which are usually packaged in plastic and cardboard. This abundant
amount of packing seen in developed countries leads to consumers consequently
throwing away more solid waste compared to consumers in developing countries.
Reusing some items found in a landfill can be seen as the presence of scavengers
live on refuse dumps and depend on refuse for their food. This is a common occurrence
of landfills in developing countries. Some of these scavengers live entirely off the refuse
through collecting and selling a “specialized” item, such as shoes, bricks or glass (Blight,
1996). Scavengers are seen as the poorest of the poor throughout the world (Medina,
2004). But when scavenging is supported in a community it illustrates a good example of
sustainable development by creating jobs while reducing poverty (Medina, 2004). Non-
governmental organizations can initially help the scavengers organize their efforts and
operations with the ultimate goal of having the scavengers become integrated into the
formal solid waste management through collection and recycling of solid wastes
(Medina, 2004). Because Macedonia is a developing country, many of the problems
discussed in this study can be seen in Kratovo; however, the Kratovo study deals with
improving the current waste management conditions through the collaboration of foreign
aid organizations and community initiative.
Researchers measuring how households in Madras, India view garbage problems,
what their preferences are for improved services, and the extent to which they would pay
39
for them found that waste is an inevitable by-product of economic development (Anand
1999). The greater the GNP, the greater the quantity of waste produced each day. While
waste production rates increase with economic growth, the environmental and social cost
for disposal rises as well. One of the main obstacles facing local governments is deciding
and regulating the costs associated with proper waste management (Anand 1999).
In 1994 an analysis was performed to measure the relationships between
economic growth and environmental quality (Shafik, 1994). This author stated that
at one extreme has been the view that the greater economic activity inevitably leads to environmental degradation and ultimately to possible economic and ecological collapse. At the other extreme is the view that those environmental problems worth solving will be addressed more or less automatically as a consequence of economic growth (Shafik 1994, p. 757).
However the costs and benefits regarding environmental quality are complex
since they are associated with local technology and local economic structure. Another
important factor emphasized in this analysis is that the types of environmental
degradation that occur “depend on the composition of output, which changes with
income.” It was concluded that “some environmental indicators improve with rising
incomes (like water and sanitation), others worsen and then improve (particulates and
sulfur oxides), and others worsen steadily (dissolved oxygen in rivers, municipal solid
wastes, and carbon emissions).” Thus, because solid waste can be externalized there are
few incentives to pay the costs associated with reduced wastes (Shafik 1994). Since the
study in Kratovo looks at the relationship between households’ willingness to help solve
the community’s solid waste problems, it differs from the analysis above which measured
40
the relationship between the community’s economic growth and its environmental
quality.
Other researchers working in Madras, India found that people are willing to
cooperate for waste collection services – some people will cooperate for primary
collection, while others for transport and disposal which are considered services
providing for the general public (Anand, 1999). However, few people are aware of what
happens to the waste once it is collected and disposed. And the people surveyed are
reluctant to contribute to the local environmental improvements unless there is a
provision for private benefits (Anand, 1999). The difference in this study compared to the
Kratovo study is the size of the community that was surveyed. Kratovo is a small isolated
town in Eastern Europe, whereas Madras is a heavily populated metropolitan area in
India. In addition, the Kratovo study focused on the households’ willingness to contribute
for an improved municipal solid waste management system.
Research in Ghana in 2002 sought to find the relationship between the perception
and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for composted solid waste among urban and peri-urban
agricultural farmers and other potential compost consumers in three major Ghanaian
cities. It was concluded that the majority of farmers have positive perceptions and are
willing to use and pay for compost, often without related experience. An important
conclusion was that “reasons for low WTP were in general more economic and technical
than cultural (Danso, et al. 2002).” However, this study only focused on composting,
whereas the current study concentrated on the community’s willingness to contribute to
an improved SWM program through their involvement with environmental activities,
composting, and recycling.
41
2.5. Proper Surveying Techniques
Because the SWM survey conducted in Kratovo did not properly follow the
recommendations for proper surveying techniques, the survey results have limitations.
Coverage error was seen in the October SWM survey as the author of this report did not
include all elements of Kratovo’s population, i.e. the households surveyed (as shown in
Appendix C) are not distributed evenly and were not chosen randomly. Also, sampling
error must be considered as the survey chose a subset of the entire population. In
addition, some answers on the returned SWM survey were imprecise, which led to
measurement error.
According to Salant (1994), “successful survey produces sound data that can be
translated into valuable information for its intended users,” (Salant 1994, p. 11). Possible
solutions to community problems can be measured through a needs assessment survey. A
key component to a well-organized survey is a random selection of the households to be
surveyed. In order to conduct a successful survey ten steps should be followed, which
include: (1) understanding and avoiding the four kinds of error (coverage, sampling,
measurement, and non-response error); (2) being specific about what new information is
needed and why; (3) choosing the survey method that works best; (4) deciding whether
and how to sample; (5) writing good questions that will provide useful, accurate
information; (6) designing and testing a questionnaire that is easy and interesting to
answer; (7) putting together the necessary mix of people, equipment, and supplies to
carry out the survey in the necessary time frame; (8) coding, computerizing, and
analyzing the data from your questionnaires; (9) presenting the results in a way that
42
informs the audience, verbally or in writing; and, (10) maintaining perspective while
putting your plans into action (Salant, 1994).
To make a drop-off survey (in which people deliver questionnaires by hand to the
households) accurate, the questionnaires should clearly state who should fill out the
survey. This method gives surveying a “human face” and encourages respondents to
complete the survey. These surveys are ideal to small communities where households are
not spread over a large area, with the survey having simple questions (Salant, 1994).
A set of respondents selected from a larger population is called a sample and can
save time and money if selected properly (Salant, 1994). The main objective of a sample
survey is to gain information from relatively few respondents to describe the
characteristics of an entire population. To determine the sample size, the designer of the
survey must consider the following: how much sampling error can be allowed;
population size; the variety of the population with respect to the characteristics of
interest; and, the smallest subgroup within the sample. In order to conduct an accurate
sampling, the target population must be identified, a population list must be organized,
and a sample must be selected (Salant, 1994)
As defined by Salant, a response rate is “the proportion of people in a particular
sample who participate in the survey,” (Salant 1994, p. 43). In well-organized surveys
about 60 percent, and possibly higher, can be expected to be returned (Salant, 1994).
When writing questions for a survey, deciding what new information is needed, how to
structure the questions, and whether people can accurately answer what is being asked are
all necessary steps in order to minimize measurement error.
43
2.6. Discussion of Literature Review The studies mentioned above are valuable tools to help analyze the current
situation in Kratovo, Macedonia as they provide a background into similar communities
with similar programs developed to improve SWM programs. However, none of these
studies presents a community’s willingness to contribute to an improved SWM program
in Macedonia. The Kratovo study is the first of its kind in Macedonia which coordinates
the efforts of international organizations with the community’s efforts. The next chapters
will present the procedures and results after distributing a survey in October 2006,
collecting data from the EWB-UF (Engineers Without Borders – University of Florida)
trip conducted in May 2006, and having informal discussions with people in the
community of Kratovo during the author’s Peace Corps service from December 2004 –
December 2006.
44
CHAPTER 3. PROCEDURES
3.1. Solid Waste Management (SWM) Survey
In October 2006 a solid waste management survey was conducted in Kratovo,
Macedonia. The survey asked a variety of questions concerning the local population’s
perceptions on pollution, solid waste disposal, types of solid waste disposed, adequacy of
the current waste management system, recyclable materials, local environmental
conditions, and local environmental activities to improve the current environmental state.
The objective of the survey was to gain a higher understanding of the local population’s
opinions on the local SWM while providing the Municipality of Kratovo with a helpful
instrument to use in future grant proposals. This survey also helped the EWB-UF team
assess the community’s perceptions on the current SWM program. United States Agency
for International Development (USAID), EWB-UF, and the Municipality of Kratovo will
use this survey for future solid waste management initiatives in Kratovo.
Local high school students assisted in distributing 300 questionnaires. In
Appendix B is a list of the streets with the corresponding locations in Kratovo of the
households that responded to the survey. Most responding households were on the streets
of Goce Delchev (18.6%), Planinska (9.3%), Tosho Kukovski (7.1%), Ise Eminov
(6.3%), Merche Acev (5.6%), and Atanas Babata (4.8%). Figure 3.1 shows a map of
Kratovo which includes the streets of the households that were surveyed.
These streets were chosen by Laste Trenchevski, a Communal Inspector in
Kratovo based on his knowledge of the town, the distribution of the highly populated
areas in Kratovo, and with regard to the location of the illegal landfills.
Figure 3.1. Kratovo’s Town Map Showing the Streets on which the Surveyed Households are Located; Note that red lines correspond to length of street with corresponding number representing number of households that responded on that street
Throughout Kratovo there are many illegal landfill sites. The general observation
from these landfill sites is that people choose to dispose of their household solid waste in
the streets even though in most cases the nearest trash container is about 20-30 meters
away from these illegal landfill sites.
High school students distributed the survey; the high school principal instructed
them on how to collect the data. Approximately twenty students distributed the surveys
by going door-to-door and informing the households about the survey and its potential
benefit to an improved SWM program. Each student distributed the survey based on
convenience, i.e. the high school student asked households located near his/her own
45
46
house to fill out the survey. The students went to these households and knocked on the
door. If no one was home, the student would knock on the door of the next house. Once
the student was able to speak with someone who was home at the time, the survey was
left at the household and the student informed the person that he or she would return in
the next two days to collect the completed survey. It is not known who completed the
survey in each household (the person responsible for solid waste disposal or someone
else), and because of this the survey results are limited. The response rate is unknown.
Because the choice of households was not randomized and because it is not known who
filled out the surveys, the results can therefore only be interpreted as suggestive. The
degree to which the sample and results represent the general population of Kratovo is
unknown.
The local economic development coordinator, Limonka Georgieva and the author,
a Peace Corps Volunteer, developed the survey in September 2006 to gauge the
households’ willingness to solve the problems of the current SWM system and to
understand their perception about the current SWM program. The survey questions are in
Appendix A. In the town of Kratovo, there are 2,553 households with a total population
of 6,924, according to the Macedonian 2002 Census. Three hundred surveys were
distributed to attempt an eleven percent sample size of the total number of households in
Kratovo. Two-hundred sixty-nine surveys were returned to the Municipality of Kratovo;
thus from a total of 2,553 households in the town of Kratovo, this survey represents an
11% sample size. If the survey had been conducted in accordance with proper techniques,
these results would be reasonable, as eleven percent of the total number of households in
47
Kratovo were surveyed (Salant, 1994). However, the SWM survey conducted in Kratovo
did not follow proper techniques as recommended by Salant.
3.2. Engineers Without Borders-University of Florida (EWB-UF) Assessment Report 3.2.1 Role and Objective of Team The EWB-UF chapter outlined its goal of the project as “to work with the community to
enhance the current waste management practices.” The primary objectives were to:
1. Identify solid waste management issues in Kratovo;
2. Provide achievable technologies and methodologies designed to improve the
solid waste management system in the town;
3. Work with residents to implement solid waste management programs;
4. Educate the community about the benefits of a sanitary waste management
system.
3.2.2. EWB-UF’s Assessment Visit Description
In 2006 half of the EWB-UF team traveled to Kratovo. The team included two
environmental engineering consultants from Gainesville, Florida, Mr. Mark Roberts and
Ms. Rebecca Kelner; Director of the Hinkley Center for Solid Waste and Hazardous
Waste Management (HCSHWM) at the University of Florida, Mr. John Schert; and
undergraduate students Mr. Erik Greensfelder, Ms. Patricia Lamb, and Mr. Charles
Lawrence traveled to Kratovo. Atso Jakimovski, Director of Urban Planning in Kratovo,
and Laste Trenchevski, a Communal Inspector in Kratovo showed the team around
48
Kratovo and pointed out the various illegal landfill sites. The team observed that many of
these illegal dump sites are a result of a lack of access to garbage containers or
inadequate SWM services. Trash was on the ground near many of the trash containers as
well as in the streets due to infrequent collection. Even though the local officials state that
trash is collected daily, the reality of the situation is that many trash containers are not
serviced on a daily basis because of the difficulty in maneuvering the large trash
collection vehicle on Kratovo’s narrow streets.
The following morning the team met with Kratovo’s mayor, Mr. Mite
Andonovski; Director of AD Sileks Corporation, Mr. Mishe Svetkov; Kratovo’s former
mayor and current Director of Kratovo’s drinking water filter station, Mr. Stojan
Milanov; and the Director of Kratovo’s public enterprise, Vlado Zahariev. During this
meeting the team introduced themselves and described the purpose of their visit. It was
stated that the EWB-UF team wanted to get to know the community and speak to as
many residents as possible. The students of the team spoke the majority of the time and
emphasized their role in the project. The students were given the responsibility to design
and give recommendations to the community of Kratovo with the guided mentorship of
the environmental engineering consultants and professors from UF.
The local officials then expressed their appreciation to the EWB-UF team for their
collaboration on this project. The primary concern for the local officials was the lack of
capital resources for infrastructure projects in Kratovo. Decentralization has caused the
majority of municipalities to face challenges similar to that Kratovo which is currently
facing. Before the breakup of Yugoslavia, the citizens of Macedonia had proper waste
management services because the socialistic government provided these services at the
49
local level. Now municipalities have started to look outside the country and to NGOs, as
stated in The Third Global Report on Human Settlements, as the country is in transition
from a socialistic society to a decentralized government (Serageldin, et al 2000).
Many older residents nostalgically remember their socialistic past. They
remember a time when Macedonia belonged to a larger global community during the
time Macedonia was part of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia had great economic strength because
of its strong ties to both the US and Russia, but after the breakup Macedonia found itself
looking for its own economic dependency. This has caused Macedonia’s government to
depend upon international aid organizations to help with local infrastructure projects,
such as the current solid waste management improvement project supported by EWB-UF.
One main recommendation from the local officials to the EWB-UF team was the
community’s need for a new trash collection vehicle that can access the steep, narrow
streets throughout the town. Each official emphasized that the current waste collection
truck needs to be repaired often and cannot maneuver through the steep and narrow
streets efficiently. Also, the local officials stated that if Kratovo had more trash
containers located closer to the households then less trash would be found in the streets or
dumped into the river.
Then the EWB-UF team met with the Waste Board of Kratovo. This committee
was formed in March 2006 and consisted of local residents from Kratovo, including the
following: Goce Stojanovski, Director of the Independent Citizen Initiatives NGO & a
local radio reporter; Stole Nasevski, Manager of a recycling organization NGO “Sunny
Hill” which collects and recycles plastic PET bottles; Vanche Aleksovski, Kratovo’s
town engineer; Dr. Dushko Aleksov, a local expert of rock art; and Igor Mladenovski,
50
Director of an environmental NGO. These people were chosen from the
recommendations of the Municipality of Kratovo based on their participation in local
initiatives in the past. During the meeting the Waste Board expressed many of the same
concerns as the local officials, such as placing more trash containers throughout Kratovo,
a more efficient SWM program, a higher environmental awareness at the community
level, and a higher sense of responsibility among citizens for an improvement in the
current SWM program. Many of these committee members expressed a need to educate
the public about environmental responsibility through a campaign directed towards the
youth.
The Waste Board also explained to the EWB-UF team the differences between the
quality of life during the time Macedonia was part of Yugoslavia and the current
situation. Since many of the committee members were older they could remember a time
when Macedonia had clean streets, when each household swept the sidewalk near their
house, and when the government provided adequate SWM services. The Waste Board
would like to see those values returned to the community, with each citizen having a
sense of environmental responsibility, and as a result a high sense of pride for their town
and country.
The Waste Board recommended the following activities for the EWB-UF team to
consider: place more containers in Kratovo; coordinate a more organized and frequent
solid waste collection service; select and design a new landfill in a better location; protect
the surrounding land of the current landfill site; begin an environmental awareness
campaign educating the local people about the dangers associated with illegal dumps and
51
littering; engage Kratovo’s youth to sustain the environmental awareness campaigns; and,
introduce a street sweeper to clean the streets.
On May 11th, the entire team of EWB-UF, which consisted of those mentioned
above as well as the lead mentor and professor from UF, Dr. Timothy Townsend and
eight students from UF met with local officials who manage the current waste collection.
These officials included the Director of Waste Management, Branko Ivanov; the Manager
of the Public Enterprise, Vlado Zahariev; the Town Engineer, Vanche Aleksovski; and
Director of AD Sileks, Mishe Svetkov. The discussion focused on an overview of the
current waste collection services and their recommendations to overcome the challenges.
Many officials stated that a street sweeper was necessary to clean the streets and that it
would be cheaper than manual labor. When the EWB-UF team asked the officials about
fines involved with non-payment of SWM services, the officials stated that there are fines
outlined in the SWM guidelines, but these fines are rarely enforced because of the
difficulties with fining a specific household as the SWM program collects from
containers used by multiple households. When asked about what the EWB-UF team
could do to contribute to a successfully implemented SWM program, the officials
disagreed on a solution. Some officials stated that the most important activity that the
EWB-UF team should focus on is cleaning the city, while other officials said that
improving the landfill site is critical. The EWB-UF team suggested having residents who
are unemployed and receiving social welfare clean the streets or creating a community
service program which required those residents who refuse to pay for the SWM services
to clean the streets and river in Kratovo.
52
Half of the EWB-UF team spoke with the directors of the local textile factories in
Kratovo. Lenche Mirevska, Susanna Aritonova, and Niki Krstovo manage the operations
of three small textile factories that employ approximately forty residents from Kratovo
and the surrounding villages. The average monthly salary is about 100 Euros for each
employee, and the clothing produced in these factories is sold in US stores. During this
meeting the managers stated that the garbage generated from the textile operations are
disposed of in the regular trash containers in Kratovo which are also serviced by
households. There are three containers the textiles factories use to dispose of their
garbage which consists mainly of cardboard packaging, paper, synthetics, plastics, and
approximately fifty 8-foot long cardboard tubes each day. Because the textile factories
employ residents from Kratovo, the companies are not required to pay for the SWM
services. The factories have tried to burn the long cardboard tubes, but because of the
glue on the tubes it causes them to smoke when burned.
On the last morning in Kratovo the EWB-UF team met with the Mayor, Mite
Andonovski; Kratovo’s Town Engineer, Vanche Aleksovski; Kratovo’s former Mayor
and current Sileks official, Stojan Milanov; Director of Waste Management, Branko
Ivanov; Forestry Engineer and Town Council President, Marjan Kolevski; and the
director of AD Sileks Corporation, Mishe Svetkov. The local officials emphasized the
following recommendations for the EWB-UF team: rehabilitate the current landfill site
and create a new landfill site to act as a transfer station for the proposed regional landfill;
place additional trash containers in more strategic areas of the community to ensure a
larger percentage of trash to be collected; develop measures to collect from the steep,
narrow streets in the town; initiate an environmental awareness campaign to educate the
53
residents regarding their responsibilities for a successful SWM program; and, begin
composting and separation activities for the entire community to reduce the amount of
waste that is collected and disposed of at the landfill. Every recommendation given to the
EWB-UF team was helpful in understanding how the community wants to improve the
SWM system. However, many of these recommendations, such as placing additional
trash containers or creating a new landfill site cannot be initiated nor sponsored by EWB-
UF. EWB is a non-profit organization established to collaborate with communities such
as Kratovo while providing sustainable technologies to the community. Traditionally
EWB does not donate materials such as trash containers. During each of the meetings
with the local officials and concerned community members in Kratovo, the EWB-UF
team had to reiterate its goal as many residents would have liked to see EWB donate
materials to Kratovo.
A part of the EWB-UF team met with students from the local high school and
middle school during two separate meetings. On May 10th, the high school principal,
Mrs. Nada Konjanovski and the middle school principal, Mrs. Raditsa Zafirovska spoke
about the environmental challenges facing Kratovo and compared those to the conditions
in Kratovo thirty years ago. Both principals remembered a time when many “foreigners”
from other parts of Macedonia moved to Kratovo for work in the mining industry which
then altered the community make-up of Kratovo. As more “outsiders” moved into the
town, more trash was seen in the streets because, according to Mrs. Konjanovski, the
“foreigners” did not have the same amount of community pride as those families who had
been living in Kratovo for centuries. During this meeting the students also spoke about
the importance of community pride and environmental awareness among all of Kratovo’s
54
residents. The students also spoke enthusiastically about starting an environmental club to
educate their neighbors and friends about each person’s responsibility for a cleaner
Kratovo.
Speaking with the principals of the high school and middle school it was noted
that they believe that people from the villages upstream from Kratovo throw trash into the
river which is then carried to Kratovo’s town center. The students however believed
ecology needs to be stressed in the curriculum at school in order to prevent the next
generation from polluting the streets and rivers.
The youth of Kratovo allowed the EWB-UF team to get closer to the community.
The youth spoke the truth and, because they wanted to be open with the team, the EWB-
UF students were able to see a side of Kratovo that was unfiltered and honest. Even
though the meetings with the local officials were beneficial as well, the team was aware
of the politics involved with the officials’ recommendations. Another factor influencing
the reluctant local officials’ behavior with the EWB-UF team is that for the past ten years
the current private company has been managing the solid waste management program in
Kratovo and potentially feels threatened concerning an “outside” organization
recommending new initiatives.
Conversely, the meetings and discussions with the kids were open and relaxed.
Spending time with the kids in Kratovo allowed the EWB-UF team to become more
familiar with the culture which will greatly benefit the project as both the community and
EWB-UF finds a solution that is appropriate for Kratovo and its people.
55
3.2.3. Discussion of EWB-UF Future Work with Kratovo
After getting to know the community of Kratovo better, the EWB-UF team has
recommended starting a composting and recycling program for the town. Even though
the majority of residents spoke of the need to place more trash containers throughout
Kratovo and the need for a new trash collection vehicle that can access the steep, narrow
roads in the community, the EWB-UF team wanted to focus their efforts on the
community’s recommendation that Kratovo should introduce an environmental campaign
to educate the public about environmental responsibility. The initial efforts of this
campaign are through the introduction of composting on a larger scale as well as a
community-based recycling program.
EWB-UF has implemented a composting bin near the high school to hold the
local households’ yard waste and to encourage other households to build similar bins.
This composting program is in the initial stages of implementation, but the effects have
been positive so far. The student environmental club has been responsible for the
composting bin’s maintenance. During the next EWB-UF trip to Kratovo the team is
planning to meet again with the environmental club to discuss the students’
recommendations to encourage other composting activities for the entire community.
Working with the local recycling NGO in Kratovo, the EWB-UF team has
proposed that Kratovo implement 3-4 recycling bins throughout Kratovo to gauge the
community’s reaction and participation in a recycling program. The Municipality of
Kratovo will assist in determining the location of the bins to optimize their use. In order
for the PET plastic bottles to be collected in Kratovo, the EWB-UF team is also working
on implementing a sorting and storage location for the bottles. Once the PET bottles are
56
collected in Kratovo, the local recycling NGO has the capacity to transport them within
Macedonia to later be processed and exported.
57
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
4.1. SWM EWB-UF (Engineers Without Borders – University of Florida) Assessment Trip and Survey Results
During the five-day visit to the community of Kratovo, the Engineers Without
Borders Chapter from University of Florida (EWB-UF) assessed the current composition
by weight of Kratovo’s residential municipal solid waste in order to gauge the possibility
of starting composting activities in the community with the long-term goal of reducing
the amount of solid waste that is transported and disposed of at the current landfill near
Kratovo. Two residential garbage containers, each with a volume of approximately 40 ft3
(1.13 m3) were sorted to measure the waste composition in each container. Both
containers were separated by eleven waste categories, then each of these types of wastes
were weighed separately. As seen in Table 4.1 below, a significant amount (91%) of the
total weight was considered to be composting material waste (since vegetation, food
waste, and corrugated cardboard can all be used as composting material). This
percentage is not apparent from the figures above (Figures 1.7 and 1.8) which depict the
majority of waste as being plastic. However, because the waste composition assessment
was done in May when many households begin buying fresh fruits and vegetables at the
market it may have led to a seasonal bias in the results. Also, since the biodegradable
matter is typically located at the bottom of the landfills (legal and illegal), it is not
initially visually apparent that biodegradable waste is a large component in an average
trash container in Kratovo. Figure 4.1 below shows the EWB-UF students collecting and
measuring the solid waste samples from a trash container near Kratovo’s town center in
2006.
Type of Waste Sample 1 (lbs)
Sample 2 (lbs)
Total (lbs)
Percentage by weight
Vegetation 167.20 571.40 738.60 81% Food waste 32.30 38.00 70.30 8% Corrugated cardboard
19.30 1.30 20.60 2%
Other paper 0.00 5.40 5.40 1% Textiles 3.40 3.80 7.20 1% Plastic PET bottles 8.00 4.90 12.90 1% Other plastic 24.50 1.90 26.40 3% Glass 6.40 7.50 13.90 2% Ferrous metals 1.30 0.00 1.30 0% Building materials 6.60 0.00 6.60 1% Other inorganics 3.20 0.00 3.20 0%
Total 272.20 634.20 906.40 100%
Table 4.1. Composition by weight of two residential municipal solid waste containers in Kratovo, Macedonia as measured by the EWB-UF team
Figure 4.1. EWB-UF students collecting and measuring solid waste samples from a trash container near Kratovo’s town center
58
59
4.2. SWM Survey Results
Sixty-six percent of households that responded have 4 – 5 family members living
in a household. According to Macedonian 2002 Census Kratovo has 6,924 people with
2,553 households, resulting in an average of about 3 people per household. It is possible
that survey respondents had a higher number of family members per household compared
to the census because they included elderly members or stay at home moms with small
children who were there to answer the door when students knocked.
The municipality of Kratovo has 10,441 residents, because it includes 30 villages
surrounding the town of Kratovo. Because the waste management program is
concentrated in the town of Kratovo, the survey was distributed just to town residents in
order to measure the perceptions of the people which this project would directly impact.
The largest factory in Kratovo is Sileks AD which produces polyurethane foam
and mines quartzite near Kratovo. This company employs the majority of citizens in
Kratovo and the surrounding areas. There are also three textile factories in Kratovo which
employ about 40 people total, the majority of whom are women. These four factories are
considered to have the most influence on pollution in Kratovo. However, the majority of
survey respondents (59%) thought that the industrial pollution in Kratovo was
insignificant.
Respondents (58%) characterized traffic as having a “small” contribution to
pollution. Most households have one car, but these vehicles are rarely used. Most
residents in Kratovo walk to work and nearby stores since these places are concentrated
in a small area. Most cars in Kratovo are Serbian and date from the early 1970’s.
60
Sixty-three percent of households thought pollution caused by households was a
“large” contributor to local environmental conditions. This kind of pollution can be seen
in the streets and the rivers of Kratovo as many illegal landfills are spotted throughout the
town. Figure 4.2 is a picture of one of these illegal landfills. These illegal landfills are
caused by the accumulating solid waste thrown in the streets and near the rivers as
residents have many years of experience with the current solid waste management
program which does not collect the waste as frequently as it should.
My many discussions with local Macedonians about their dissatisfaction with the
waste management service corroborated that the survey results stating the majority of
respondents (76%) chose “large” when asked about the inadequate waste management
services impact on pollution in the community. Many voluntarily added statements such
as “the waste management must collect more frequently” even though this particular
question did not ask for suggestions nor solutions to the problem. This dissatisfaction
with the current SWM program can also be seen in their responses to a question where
they were asked whether the garbage along the river and in the illegal landfill bothers
them, and 99% stated “yes.” This suggests that the majority of the people in Kratovo
want their community to be free of garbage and that they expect better service from the
current SWM program.
Figure 4.2. A street near Kratovo’s town center, an example of an illegal landfill
As seen in Figure 4.3, a large percentage of respondents (45%) replied with
“daily” when asked how frequent their household disposes of solid waste, and thirty-four
percent stated “three times per week.” Because large plastic trash bags are expensive in
Macedonia, people commonly use 3-gallon plastic buckets to carry their solid waste from
their homes to the garbage containers on the street. As they dump this trash into the
containers on the street, it is a common sight to see loosely packaged solid waste on the
road near the trash containers as seen in Figure 4.4.
61
Figure 4.3. Survey results of frequency of solid waste disposal in Kratovo
Figure 4.4. Loosely thrown trash near a garbage container in Kratovo is a common site
62
63
When asked if the number of containers currently located in Kratovo is adequate
for proper solid waste management, an overwhelming number of respondents (93%)
stated that Kratovo does not have enough containers located throughout the town. Then
85% of the households stated that the current solid waste management system in Kratovo
would improve if every house had its own trash container.
Figure 4.5 below shows that a majority of residents (72%) state that the current
waste management service collects household waste weekly; 26% state that trash is
collected more than five times per week. When the households surveyed were asked if
the current waste collection is sufficient, 93% responded with “no.” However, when
speaking with the current SWM program in Kratovo, the local officials state that the
waste collection truck collects trash throughout the town on a daily basis. It is possible
that if the trash containers are more appropriately placed throughout Kratovo to allow the
trash collection truck and/or trailer to access the sites more frequently, a higher
percentage of trash can be collected more often which can potentially lead to a lower
dissatisfaction of the current SWM services in Kratovo.
Figure 4.5. Survey results regarding the frequency of solid waste collection in Kratovo
A large number of respondents, 55% answered “daily” when asked about how
often the solid waste management program should collect trash in Kratovo. These results
are shown below in Figure 4.6. Also, twenty-three respondents stated the trash needs to
be collected “three times a week.” However there are limitations to this response because
it suggests that people want more frequent trash pick-up services.
64
Figure 4.6. Survey response to the question “How often does the trash need to be collected from the container you use?”
In order to gauge the public’s opinion concerning recycling as a solution in
reducing the amount of solid waste generated, the survey asked if they would recycle
materials if Kratovo had a recycling center. Sixty-nine percent of households said that
they would. Listed recyclables included paper, plastic, glass, and metal. The majority of
households (54%) said they would take plastic, thirty-one percent chose paper, eight
percent said metal, and seven percent said glass. Many households (although the exact
number is unknown) selected two or more options which suggest that the households
would take more than one type of recyclable to be recycled. This suggests that many
households are willing to contribute in the overall success of an improved SW collection
program in Kratovo.
65
Besides recycling, another solution to improve the current SWM program in
Kratovo would be to encourage and support various environmental activities such as
66
organizing environmental campaigns emphasizing the importance of community
environmental responsibility, distributing educational flyers, enforcing littering fines,
organizing trash pick-up activities, placing informational tablets throughout Kratovo
about the importance of environmental protection, and organizing community
environmental awareness seminars. When the households were asked about possible
solutions to solve the trash problem along the river, many chose more than one option,
which suggests that many households support a combination of activities. Figure 4.7
shows that forty percent of respondents support fines enforced for littering. Twenty-four
percent believe that trash pick-up fines are also a potential solution to this problem. Then
when asked which activity the households are most likely to participate in, a large
percentage, 41% said that they would contribute to improving the condition of the
polluted river in Kratovo through environmental activities, and twenty-six percent said
they would participate in environmental campaigns. This suggests that a large percentage
of the community is willing to contribute to the overall improvement of the current
environmental conditions in Kratovo.
Figure 4.7. Survey results regarding activities that would improve the polluted river in Kratovo.
Kratovians voiced concerns that environmental protection is important and critical
for the future. They were aware that one of the criteria for EU entrance is a regulated and
properly managed solid waste system; however, few took the initiative to make positive
changes within their community.
Some might assume that they did not care about the trash problem in their
community, but the survey results suggested otherwise. Most (99%) respondents were
bothered by trash in the river and along the streets. After living in the area I believe the
reason for their lack of initiative is that during WWII as the Communist Party in
Macedonia gained power, Macedonians were eager to become part of a larger community 67
68
with Yugoslavia. As time passed Macedonians slowly grew dependent upon
Yugoslavia’s public services such as a properly managed solid waste management system
throughout Macedonia. Under Yugoslavia, the Macedonian nation and people
experienced a secure way of life with low unemployment and an open market with their
neighbors to the north. After the breakup of Yugoslavia, Macedonians found they were
independent and had to restore their government’s policies. This transition from socialism
to a decentralized government will take time. In the meantime, as the government is
shifting power from the capital to the municipalities, community improvement programs
can only strengthen and reinforce the sense of pride in Kratovo and throughout
Macedonia which will lead to a higher understanding of environmental responsibility
among all generations as Macedonia adapts to its new government.
As Figure 4.7 suggests, a large percentage of households in Kratovo are willing to
contribute to an improved waste management system. An example of this willingness
occurred when the youth of the community from Kratovo participated in a two-day park
clean-up project supported through the Disney Global Youth Service Day in 2006. About
thirty high school students gained community pride as they cleaned the local park and
spoke about the importance of local environmental awareness. The student group also
planted small bushes in the town center which allowed the students to gain a clearer
understanding of how their actions affect the world around them. Figure 4.8 shows
activities from the 2006 park clean-up activities. Figure 4.9 shows students planting
small bushes in Kratovo’s town center on April 21, 2006 in recognition of Global Youth
Service Day, which is a celebration of young volunteers in countries worldwide who
carry out community improvement projects.
Figure 4.8. Students cleaning the local park during the Global Youth Service Day
activities
Figure 4.9. Students planting small plants on Kratovo’s town square
69
70
4.3. Possible Reasons for Inaccurate Data in Survey Results
The 2006 SWM survey was written with guidance from the Municipality’s local
economic development coordinator. The survey found in Appendix A had been translated
into English from Macedonian by the author of this report. Because of limited vocabulary
in Macedonian, there is a possibility that the survey questions and possible answers are
not appropriately translated. Also the response level is unknown and could be very low
which leads to respondent bias. This limits the survey’s results.
Error can be found in the SWM survey in the method the sample group was
chosen, the question/answer structure, and the method of collecting the data. Because the
sample group was chosen due to convenience, it may not accurately reflect the attitudes
of the general public. Also, some questions on the questionnaire are not very clear for the
respondent to fully understand what was being asked. In terms of the survey collection
method, because the questionnaires were left at the houses for approximately two days, it
did not guarantee that the person in the household responsible for solid waste disposal
answered the survey questions. The next survey should clearly state that the person
responsible for waste disposal should complete the questionnaire. Also, the next survey
should ask about how many people stay home at least during part of the day in order to
make a comparison with the study done in Sweden to assess whether the community
composts more (Sterner, 1999).
Because the illegal landfill sites throughout Kratovo were not mapped, this leads
to error in assessing the households’ willingness to contribute to an improved SWM. The
next survey should also include a reference map showing the location of the illegal
landfills along with the location of the trash containers in Kratovo.
71
In order to accurately measure Kratovo’s waste composition, the EWB-UF team
should have gathered samples throughout the year from a random sampling of trash
containers, which would decrease error. The seasonal bias in the waste composition
analysis limits the results.
72
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The people of Kratovo, Macedonia are willing to contribute to an improved SWM
program in their town; however, the overall success to an effective program depends not
only on their contributions. The local government of Kratovo must be willing to accept
and implement the recommendations from the EWB-UF team, as well as show flexibility
as the Republic of Macedonia transitions to a decentralized government. It was
demonstrated that the local residents of Kratovo believe that the current SWM system is
inadequate and they would like to see a more organized program to maintain the town’s
streets and rivers. This improved SWM program can be implemented with assistance
from the EWB-UF team, but the long-term success of the project depends on the
community’s consistent involvement in programs such as recycling, composting, and an
understanding of environmental responsibility.
Composting and recycling are a viable option for the community of Kratovo to
contribute in the reduction of solid waste that is currently being disposed of at the local
landfill. Because approximately eighty-one percent of the total weight found in an
average trash container is biodegradable organic matter, composting activities can
contribute to an improved SWM program as it will reduce the amount of waste being
landfilled while empowering the people to take a proactive role in improving the current
environmental state of Kratovo. Recycling is another activity which would provide the
residents of Kratovo an opportunity to contribute to an improved SWM program. As the
survey suggests, many residents would take their plastics to a recycling center in Kratovo
if Kratovo had such a center. And because a recycling NGO already exists in the
community, coordinating the efforts of the NGO with the participation of the local
73
residents can translate into a higher sense of community pride while reducing the amount
of solid waste generated in Kratovo.
The next SWM survey conducted in Kratovo should follow the recommendations
outlined by Salant (1994) , which includes being specific with what information is
needed, choosing the appropriate method, randomly selecting the households to be
surveyed to minimize coverage error, and clearly writing questions to minimize
measurement error. The current SWM survey has bias in the results since the households
were not chosen randomly, the response rate is not known, and the drop-off questionnaire
did not state who should answer the questions. A drop-off survey is an appropriate
method to gather people’s opinions on the next survey conducted in Kratovo; however,
the survey must give clear directions as to who should answer the questions. Provided a
population size of 2,500, a sample of 333 households is needed to make estimates with a
sampling error of no more than + or - 5%, at a 95% confidence level with a 50/50 split,
having the population relatively varied (Salant 1994, p. 55). In other words, 95% of the
time that a random sample of 333 from the population of 2,500, a range that is a sample
estimate of + or – 5% can be expected to include the population for all 2,500 households
in Kratovo (Salant, 1994). An investigation into the community’s perceptions on the
recently-implemented recycling & composting program can further measure the
community’s willingness to continue its efforts to improve and potentially maintain an
improved SWM program.
Future collaboration with the community of Kratovo should focus on
environmental awareness campaigns while considering the history of the Macedonian
people. The Macedonian people have faced many transitions in government since WWII
74
and are a proud people. Foreign aid investments must take into consideration the cultural,
political, and social implications associated with a reorganized SWM program. Change is
not immediate in Macedonia; thus, future SWM programs in Kratovo must be directed at
the community level to engage youth, support local NGOs and involve the local self-
government of the Municipality of Kratovo.
75
REFERENCES Anand, P. B. (1999). “Waste management in Madras revisited.” Environment and Urbanization. Vol. 11; 2. pgs. 161 – 176. Anschütz, Justine, Jeroen I. Jgosse, and Anne Scheinberg (2004). “Putting Integrated Sustainable Waste Management into Practice Using the ISWM Assessment Methodology.” ISWM Methodology as Applied in the UWEP Plus: Programme (2001-2003). Blight, G.E., C.M. Mbande (1996). “Some Problems of Waste Management in Developing Countries. “ Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management. Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 19-27. 1996.
The Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Macedonia (2002). Republic of Macedonia State Statistical Office; Skopje, Macedonia: May 2004. Central Intelligence Agency. “The World Factbook, Macedonia.” June 2006. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/mk.html. January 20, 2007.
Central Intelligence Agency WORLD FACTBOOK (2006). “Macedonia Economy 2006.” June 2006. http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/macedonia_the_former_yugoslav_republic_of/macedonia_the_former_yugoslav_republic_of_economy.html. January 20, 2007.
Commission of the European Communities (2003). “Communication from the Commission. Further Indicative Guidelines for the Candidate Countries.” Brussels; March 2003. Cvetanovski, Mite (2003). “Profile of the Municipality of Kratovo.” Sponsored by LGRP, USAID Project, 2003.
Danso, G., S. C. Fialor, and P. Drechsel (2002). “Farmers’ perception and willingness to pay for urban waste compost in Ghana.” International Conference on Waste Management and the Environment; Cadiz, Spain. 2002.
Davis, Mackenzie L, and David A. Cornwell (1998). Introduction to Environmental Engineering. pp. 630-690. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998. Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) (2007). “Transforming development concepts and strategies into sustainable solutions.” http://www.dai.com/work/project_detail.php?pid=79. January 20, 2007.
76
European Commission website (2007). “EUROPA – Enlargement Countries.” European Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/index_en.htm. January 20, 2007.
History of Macedonia (2001). “Timeline of the History of Macedonia.” http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/timeline.html. January 20, 2007.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia (2004). Law on Waste Management. Skopje, Macedonia. 2004.
Medina, M. (2004) “Scavenger Cooperatives in Asia and Latin America,” Global Development Network, Retrieved 12 October 2004.
Peace Corps (2007). “Where Do Volunteers Go? Eastern Europe and Central Asia/Macedonia.” http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.wherepc.easteurope.macedonia. February 6, 2007.
Prüss, A., E. Giroult, and P. Rushbrook (1999). “Safe Management of Waste from Heal-care Activities.” World Health Organization, 1999.
Rushbrook, P.E. and E.E. Finnecy (1988). “Planning for Future Waste Management Operations in Developing Countries.” Waste Management & Research; the Journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA. Vol. 6, pp. 1-21. 1988.
Salant, Priscilla, and Don A. Dillman (1994). How To Conduct Your Own Survey. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994. Schübeler, Peter (1996). “Conceptual Framework for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Low-Income Countries.” Collaborative Programme on Municipal Solid Waste management in Low-Income Countries. UNDP/UNDHW/World Bank/SDC, 1996. Serageldin, Mona, Suzanne Kim, and Sameh Wahba (2000). “Decentralization and Urban Infrastructure Management Capacity. The Third Global Report on Human Settlements.” The Center for Urban Development Studies Harvard University Graduate School of Design. UNCHS/ Habitat. August 2000. Shafik, Nemat (1994). “Economic Development and Environmental Quality: An Econometric Analysis.” Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, Vol.46, Special Issue on Environmental Economics; October 1994, pp. 757-773.
77
Sterner, Thomas and Heleen Bartelings (1999). “Household Waste Management in a Swedish Municipality: Determinants of Waste Disposal, Recycling and Composting.” Environmental and Resource Economics. Vol. 13, pp. 473-491. 1999.
Troschinetz, Alexis (2005). “Twelve Factors Influencing Sustainable Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste in Developing Countries.” Troschinetz, 2005.
U.S. Department of State (2006). Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. “Macedonia 09/06.” September 2006. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/26759.htm. January 20, 2007.
78
Appendix A: Solid Waste Management Survey Conducted in Kratovo, Macedonia in October 2006
HOW TO IMPROVE THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OF KRATOVO
1. On which street to you live?
_______________________________________________________________________________
2. How many people live in the house on the above mentioned address?
_______________________________________________________________________________
3. What is the largest source of pollution in the living environment in Kratovo?
Source Largest Small Insignificant
1. Industry 1 2 3
2. Traffic 1 2 3
3. Households 1 2 3
4. Services 1 2 3
5. Inadequate Waste Management Services 1 2 3
6. Attitudes/Behaviors of the people 1 2 3
7. Other 1 2 3
4. How often do you throw garbage in the trash containers?
daily 5 times a week 4 times a week 3 times a week
5. What kind of trash do you dispose of most often?
Food Paper Plastic Glass Metal
6. Do you think that Kratovo has enough garbage containers throughout the town?
Yes No
7. How often does the waste management collect trash from the container you use?
daily 5 times a week 4 times a week 3 times a week 1 time a
week
8. Do you think this waste collection is enough?
Yes No
9. If it is not enough, how often does the trash from the garbage container you use need to be
collected?
79
__________________________________________________________________________
10. If Kratovo has a recycling center, would you take your recyclables to the center to be
recycled?
Yes No
11. What kind of waste would you recycle most often if you were given the opportunity?
Paper Plastic Glass Metal
12. Does the garbage along the river and in wild landfills bother you?
Yes No
13. How do we solve the problem of trash along the river?
Campaigns Flyers Fines Fines w/ cleaning Informational Signs
Day of cleaning Ecological activities
14. Which activity would you be most likely participate in?
Campaigns Flyers Informational Signs Day of cleaning
Ecological activities
15. If every house as its own trash container do you think that this will help us solve the waste
management problem in Kratovo?
Yes No
The census questionaire is anonymous and will help the local self-government of Kratovo of waste management.
Thank you for your participation in this questionaire.
80
Appendix B: Household Location in Kratovo and Number of Households that Responded to the Solid Waste Management
Survey
Location in Kratovo C
onne
cts
wes
t of C
lock
Tow
er
In T
sarin
a, c
onne
cts
w/ T
osho
Ku
kovs
ki
In T
sarin
a, c
onne
cts
w/ T
osho
Ku
kovs
ki
In Z
orle
, con
nect
s w
/ Goc
e D
elch
ev
Tsar
ina,
was
Bra
ka M
iladi
novi
co
nnec
ts to
11
Okt
omvr
i
Street Tosho Kukovski
Jove Gichev
Koce Hralampiev
6th September
Drako Miladunovch
No. households 19 5 4 5 1
In T
siga
nska
Loz
je, c
onne
cts
w G
oce
Del
cev
Zorle
, is
Krs
te M
isirk
ov c
onne
cts
w/ 6
S
empe
mvr
i
In Z
orle
, con
nect
s w
/ 8 S
epte
mvr
i
Nea
r riv
er
Vera Jocik 25th April Mirche
Acev Goce
Delchev
7 1 15 50
81
In A
rgul
itsa,
con
nect
s w
/ Jos
if D
aska
lov
In M
erak
, con
nect
s w
/ Goc
e D
elch
ev
In T
sarin
a, c
onne
cts
w/ G
orgi
Ka
kesh
evsk
i
In T
sarin
a, w
as K
iril &
Met
odij
conn
ects
w/ 1
1 O
ktom
vri
In T
sarin
a, c
onne
cts
w/ G
orgi
Ka
kash
evsk
i
In C
haer
, was
Kar
shi B
avch
a co
nnec
ts w
/ Bre
za
Cvetko Tonev
Lazo Sofijanov
Orce Nikolov Ljubljanska Mitko
Dimitrov Proleterska
3 4 3 2 5 8
In C
haer
, con
nect
s w
/ Pla
nins
ka
In C
haer
, con
nect
s w
/ Bre
za
In Z
orle
, was
8 S
empe
mvr
i con
nect
s w
/ Mirc
he A
cev
In A
rgul
itsa,
con
nect
s w
/ Sve
tko
Tone
v
In T
siga
nska
Los
ja w
as G
rigor
P
rlich
ev c
onne
cts
w/ A
tana
s B
abat
a
Musala Karshi Bavcha
29th Noemvri
Gligor Pazavanski
Gritor Prileb
5 1 2 5 1
82
In C
hars
hija
, con
nect
s w
/ Goc
e D
elce
v
In T
sarin
a, c
onne
cts
w/
Bra
ka M
iladi
novi
In T
sarin
a, w
as B
ukov
ec c
onne
cts
w/
Mitk
o D
imitr
ov
In C
haer
, was
Crn
Vrv
con
nect
s w
/ B
reza
In Z
orle
, was
Tsv
eten
Dim
ov c
onne
cts
w/
Mirc
he A
cev
Strahil Docev
Kristijan Karpos Cepinska Belgradska Efren Karanov
1 1 1 1 2
In T
sarin
a, c
onne
cts
w/ 1
1 O
ktom
vri
Par
ralle
l w/ Z
leto
vska
, con
nect
s w
/ 6ti
Sep
tem
vri
In T
sarin
a, c
onne
cts
w/ 1
1 O
ktom
vri
In C
haer
, con
nect
s w
/ Jos
if D
aska
lov
In T
sarin
a &
Zor
le, c
onne
cts
w/ G
orgi
Ka
kash
evsk
i
Braka Miladinovi
Karposhovo Vostanie
Gorgi Kakashevski
Nikola Karev Prvomajska
2 2 3 1 3
83
In T
sarin
a, c
onne
cts
w/ B
raka
M
iladi
novi
In T
siga
nski
Loz
ja, c
onne
cts
w/ A
tana
s B
abat
a
In T
sarin
a, w
as M
itko
Pen
djul
iski
co
nnec
ts w
/ Tos
ho K
ukov
ski
In C
haer
, con
nect
s w
/ Pla
nins
ka
11 Oktomvri Jane Sandanski Saraevska Josif Daskalov
5 3 3 5
In T
sarin
a, c
onne
cts
w/ T
osho
Ku
kovs
ki
In T
siga
nska
Loz
ja, W
est o
f foo
tbal
l st
adiu
m
In C
haer
, con
nect
s w
/ Jos
if D
aska
lof
In C
haer
, con
nect
s w
/ Bre
za
In Z
orle
, Con
nect
s to
6ti
Sep
tem
vri
In V
rshn
ik, c
onne
cts
w/ G
oce
Del
cev
In M
usal
a, c
onne
cts
w/ J
osif
Das
kalo
v
Trajche Arsov
Atanas Babata Skopska Vlado
Gagev Zletovska Nikola Tesla Planinska
3 13 7 2 5 3 25
Nova Tsarina – connects with Orce Nikolov Saraevska – connects with Mihajlo Apostolski