1

Urban Solid Waste Minimisation in Malaysia - The case of Shah Alam City Hall, Selangor.

Nor Eeda Haji Ali 1 and Ho Chin Siong 2

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

1 jrheeda@yahoo.com

2 csho59@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is one of the most challenging problems and present a serious challenge to local authorities in developing countries caused by the generation of large waste quantities. Waste management hierarchy are 3'R concept (Reduce, Reuse and Recycling), treatment concept (composting and incineration) and disposal. 3'R concept is almost at the top priority of the waste management hierarchy, which is one of the guiding principles for national solid waste management. Solid waste minimization also involves efforts to minimize resource and energy to reduce environment pollution. Integrating solid waste minimization through recycling could help in reducing the problems being faced by municipal solid waste management (MSWM). This study describes and evaluates the urban solid waste minimisation in Shah Alam City Hall (MBSA), Selangor, Malaysia. The objectives of the study (i) To examine resident’s level of awareness on waste minimization (ii) To assess the local authority’s level of involvement in waste minimization. (iii)To examine those factors that are hindering effective waste disposal in the neighbourhood. The total of 100 household heads were sampled through questionnaire interview. The survey was conducted between 18th June -1st July 2012. Findings showed that most of the respondents were not aware of the local authorities’ initiatives and policies regarding waste minimization. In terms of individual commitment, results showed that respondents varied with respect to waste reduction strategies and their utilization of recycle bins. The paper suggests massive awareness campaign by local authorities (Shah Alam City Hall, MBSA) on waste minimisation, so that residents will buy involve and participate in to this noble strategy of the National government on sustainable clean environment.

Keywords: Solid waste minimisation, The 3'R concept (Reduce, Reuse & Recycling), Characteristics of wastes.

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION Municipal solid waste management is a global problem but in Malaysia solid waste

management is one of the three major environmental problems faced by municipalities, (World Bank, 1993 [51]). The highest solid waste generated in Malaysia is from residential sector (MHLG, 2006 [29]). Individual households produce a lot of garbage especially in urban areas with increasing income. Annual growth rate of solid waste generation from household sector in Malaysian is continuously rising because of increasing urbanisation and rising standards of living. In Peninsular Malaysia (West Malaysia), the daily generation of waste escalated from 13,000 tonnes in 1996 to 19,100 tonnes in 2006 (Agamuthu, 2006 [2]). Approximately 75% from this waste is disposed in landfills and dumps. An estimated 20% is burned or dumped into rivers or at illegal sites, while around 5% is recycled (Agamuthu, 2006 [2]). Adopting an effective waste minimisation strategy by government is seen as an another approach of sustainable municipal waste management.

Waste minimisation in Malaysia is not officially incorporated in to waste management practice.

Malaysia launched the first official 3R's( Reduce, Recycle, Reuse) strategies in 1988 by Action Plan for a Beautiful and Clean Malaysia (ABC) where campaigns focused mainly on the recycling activities but the rate is still too low that it did not improve the existing waste management practice. The first recycling programme was introduced in Petaling Jaya in 1991 which involved source separation with kerbside collection. In 1996, Yellow Box Recycling Programme was launched, when 10,000 households were given recycling boxes where they can place their recyclables and collection was done weekly. Recyclables were also collected by local authority, however the quantum collected was less than 1% of the total volume of municipal was generated.

In the 21st century, the scenario of modern solid waste management such as waste

minimisation, service delivery system, public awareness are challenging for both environmental and urban planners (Nazri Yahaya, 2007 [52]). Waste minimization is a reduction of waste at source and the objective is to achieve a target of national solid waste hierarchy towards 2020. Solid waste hierarchy of Malaysia is to decrease the nation's solid waste generation by reduce, reuse, recycle, treatment and dispose. The Malaysia target for recycling is 22% of the total solid waste generated by the year 2020. The current rate is far below the target and is approximately 5%. Many stakeholders are involved in Malaysian waste minimization. They include the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, National Solid Waste Management Department, Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation, local authorities, concessionary companies, collectors and manufacturers, non-governmental organisations, private residents associations, educational institutions, private waste recycles, and others. The most common economic benefits derived from solid waste minimization are cost avoidance, recycling revenue, reduced raw material costs, reduced energy costs, increased sales and increased productivity, (Franchetti, 2009 [24]). Based on a recent survey by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government 2009, there are 100% knowledge and awareness among the public about waste minimisation but very few are actually practicing it. Many factors contribute towards the failure of solid waste minimisation in Malaysia, such as lack of an efficient institutional framework and policies to promote it. Solid waste minimization also involves efforts to minimize resources and energy to reduce environmental pollution. Integrating solid waste minimization through recycling could help in reducing the challenges being faced in municipal solid waste management (MSWM). This study describes and evaluates the urban solid waste minimisation in Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia. Objectives of the study include : (i) To examine resident’s level of awareness on waste minimization (ii) To assess the local authority’s level of involvement in waste minimization. (iii)To examine those factors that are hindering effective waste disposal in the neighbourhood. This study can give a knowledge of household regarding recycling programme and the level of local authority manage it in their area. According to Rossel and Jorge, 1999 [43] solid waste management planning strategies need to support the waste minimisation and using the latest appropriate technology.

2.0 BACKGROUND OF WASTE MINIMISATION 2.1 Concept of Waste Minimisation

Waste minimisation or reduction is the process of reducing the amount in waste streams. The importance concept of waste minimisation is through 3'R (Reduce, reuse and recycling) (Franchetti, 2009 [24]) and treatment (composting and incineration) (Schall, 1992 [45]). There is

3

a great need to develop a regional strategy for waste minimisation at the local level. There are many benefits from the use of these concept like reduction in green house gas emissions, pollutants, and management cost involved in landfill . Waste minimisation hierarchy incorporates the concept of reducing solid waste in stream. The process involves six steps ranked according to environmental impact. Reducing, which offers the best outcomes for the environment is at the top of the priority order, followed by preparing for reuse, recycling, composting, incineration and disposal. Treatment concept, which is in turn better than disposal to landfill. Looking at the pyramid of waste minimisation, reduction is the most preferred option while the landfill is seen as the least favoured option.

2.1.1 The 3'Rs Concept (Reduce, Reuse and Recycling) The 3'Rs in solid waste management generally refer to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. This concept is one way of the ways of minimising the amount of solid waste for final disposal.

i. Reduce Waste reduction is first in the hierarchy of solid waste management and is a difficult alternative compared to recycling. In the housing area, households must reduce the amount of municipal solid waste being produced. Needs to be adopted include bringing their own bags to shopping, using the tool replenishment of buying new containers, using cloth diapers, using

Fig 2.1 : Waste Minimisation Hierarchy

Reduce

Reuse

Recycle

Compost

Incineration

Landfill

reduce of the solid waste

using materials repeatedly

using materials to make new

products using food waste to produce

fertilizer materials that cannot be recycle to combustion for produce energy and reduce solid waste disposal

material that cannot be 3'R & treatment

(ashes, etc)

3'R Concept

Treatment Concept

Disposal

Reduce

Reuse

Recycle

Compost

Incineration

Landfill

Most favoured option

Least favoured option

Fig 2.2 : Pyramid of Waste Minimisation

4

rag than tissue paper and others that can reduce the waste from waste stream, (Worrell & Vesilind, 2012 [50]).

ii. Reuse Reuse items means that materials are still useful and have utility or value for more than

one purpose instead of throwing them away. Households can reuse or give them to others who need it, rather than throw away in waste stream to reduce the waste generation (Worrell & Vesilind, 2012 [50]). Materials, sometimes may be reused, repaired or restored. Materials that we borrow, rent or share are not reuse items. Actually, reuse is a process that many households already implement in their everyday lives without realizing it. For example, paper bags obtained in the supermarket are often reused, old furniture can be given to others in need.

iii. Recycling Recycling is the process of separating out the waste materials that are useable for recycling so that they can be collected separately from the rest of the solid waste. The recycling materials are glass, plastic, paper, cardboard, and others that are used for the manufacture of new products (Worrell & Vesilind, 2012 [50]). Once recyclables have been separated from the waste stream, solid waste can be further reduced in landfill and also the amount of energy needed in production is reduced.

2.1.2 The Treatment Concept Treatment concept is to transform waste into a more manageable thereby making the waste easier to dispose to landfills. Treatment is the last option for reducing solid waste from waste stream.

i. Composting Composting is one of the treatment concepts for reduction technique than can divert large volumes of waste material especially organic waste from the waste stream. Composting only focuses on food and yard waste. Composting can be defined as the controlled biological decomposition of organic solid materials under aerobic or anaerobic conditions to form a humus-like material. Household can compost in their back yards or the government can provide facilities for this. There are a number of composting techniques being used today. These include: in vessel composting, windrow composting, vermin-composting and static pile composting, (Sasikumar & Krishna, 2009 [19]). These techniques are very simple, involving low cost and can be very effective and efficient.

ii. Incineration Incineration can be define as a process of controlled combustion for burning solid waste (solid, liquid and gas), (Sasikumar & Krishna, 2009 [19]). In this process, carbon hydrogen and other elements in the waste are combined with oxygen in the combustion air which generates heat. Incineration also used to reduce waste materials to what was thought of as harmless ash.

2.2 Municipal Solid Wastes The most basic thing to understand in solid waste management is quantity, source and management of the stream. If future quantities and components of the waste stream are under or overestimated, then facilities may be over or undersized and project revenues and costs can be affected. The sources of municipal solid waste are as follows :-

Table 2.1 : Sources of solid waste generation

No Sources of Waste Locations where wastes are generated Domestic sources 1 Residential/Household Single and multifamily dwellings, terrace, semi- detached, bungalow, apartments, cluster house, etc.

5

2 Commercial Stores, hotels, restaurants, markets, office buildings, motels, shops, private school, etc. 3 Institutional Schools, hospitals, prisons, government centers, universities, etc. 4 Municipal Street cleaning, landscaping, parks, beaches, other recreational areas, water and wastewater treatment plants, open spaces, treatment plant sites, alleys, vacant lot, playgrounds, roadside litter, etc. 5 Agricultural Field and row crops, orchards, vineyards, dairies, feedlots, farms, etc. 6 Construction and New construction sites, road repair, renovation Demolition sites, demolition of buildings, broken pavement, etc. 7 Industrial Light and heavy manufacturing, fabrication, construction sites, power and chemical plants, refineries, mineral extraction and processing. Source : 1) Handbook of Solid Waste Management, Frank Kreith, George Tchobanoglous, 2002. 2) Soncuya & Viloria, 1992 in Solid Waste Management, K. Sasikumar, Sanoop Gopi Krishna, 2009. 3) Waste Management Practices, John Pichtel, 2005. 4) What A Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. Hoornweg, Daniel with Laura Thomas. 1999

2.4 Characteristics of Wastes Solid waste has been categorized into several types according to the classification which has been used by almost all countries in the world. The main division is into organic, inorganic and hazardous waste. Paper and paperboard have been the largest component after organic/food waste in the municipal solid waste stream. Plastic, glass, rubber, aluminium, metals and others, forms the rest portion of the component. The details of the housing characteristics of waste are given in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 : Characteristics of wastes at housing area in municipal solid waste stream

No Types of Waste Waste Components a) Organic wastes Composting/Biodegradable waste 1 Food Vegetables and fruit discards and peeling, egg shells, spoiled food and bread, meat and fish bones, etc.

Recyclable/non-biodegradable waste

1 Paper Newspapers, books, comics, magazines, office papers, directories, wrapping paper, paper bags, paper towels, writing paper, cigarette packages, paper plates and cups and other non packaging paper. 2 Plastic Trash bags, plastic plates and cups, toys, wraps, sacks, other plastic packaging, bottle etc. 3 Rubber and leather Rubber tyres, leather shoes, handbags, carpets etc. 4 Textiles Clothes, rags, carpets, hats, other fabrics 5 Wood Lumber, plywood boxes, furniture and cabinets, toys,

6

tree branches, coal, coke, etc. 6 Yard wastes Grass clippings, flowers, plants, leaves, tree and brush trimmings, etc.

Non-Recyclable/residual waste

1 Plastic Sanitary napkins, disposable diapers. b) Inorganic wastes

Recyclable/non-biodegradable waste

1 Glass Bottles, jars, broken glass, beer and soft drinks, food products etc. 2 Aluminium cans Soft drink cans, food and other aluminium cans. 3 Bulky wastes Furniture, refrigerators, stoves (can use any part of it),etc. c) Special wastes 1 Petroleum products Oil, grease, etc. 2 Metals Wire, auto parts, iron, steel, etc 3 Inert material Rocks, stones, ceramics, bricks, sand, dirt, ashes, cinder. d) Hazardous wastes 1 Hazardous wastes Batteries, chemicals, pesticides, paints, thinners, spray canisters, tires, Worn-out/broken radios, stereos, and TV, etc. Source : 1) Handbook of Solid Waste Management, Frank Kreith, George Tchobanoglous, 2002. 2) Soncuya & Viloria, 1992 in Solid Waste Management, K. Sasikumar, Sanoop Gopi Krishna, 2009. 3) Waste Management Practices, John Pichtel, 2005.

2.5 Factors Affecting Household Waste Minimisation The literature review showed that the various factors affecting household waste minimisation can been in Table 2.3 below. These findings from various authors showed that awareness, attitude of the people and lack of transport facilities were found to be affecting household waste minimisation

Table 2.3 : Factors Affecting waste minimisation

Sectors Factors Descriptions Author Year

Media Lack of promotion Lack of awareness Negative public attitude

Lack of promotion of waste minimisation of waste generation. Promotion should be emphasized the community to commitment and willingness in it. Mostly those who are working full-time and claim for not having the luxury of time and energy to do the waste minimisation. Mostly due to a culture of informal recycling already exist.

Aprilia et. al. Aprilia et. al. Ezeah et. al. Ezeah et. al.

2011

2011 2012

2012

Infrastructure Lack of transport

Recyclables items were not collected on time and the bins got

Bolane

2005

7

Lack of recycling centres

full and started overflowing. This situation make the households became angry and stopped from making the separating their materials. Lack of recycling centres and strategically in the neighbourhood and is not suitable for operating hours, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. only.

Bolane

2005

Economy Low return on investment

Householders with good socio-economic would also like to participate but the payment received is not reasonable and should be reviewed.

Aprilia et. al. Ezeah et. al.

2011 2009

Education Lack of public education in waste minimisation

Lack of knowledge or education about solid waste minimisation/reduction among households cause they have no responsibility against.

Ezeah et. al. 2009

The above table 2.3 also indicated that the solution can be looked into the use of media, infrastructure provides, economic costs and education.

3.0 Method 3.1 Questionnaire design The questionnaire was based on the waste minimisation literature and previous research.

This questionnaire divided to close ended question, open ended question and simple tick box options. The questionnaire contained of four following section :-

Section 1 : Demographic Information

Background information regarding the respondents. Section 2 : Knowledge

Respondent was asked about the knowledge of waste minimisation. Section 3 : Action

Action on waste minimisation facilities/programs, which was launched. Section 4 : Participation

Views or comments regarding the involvement/participation of Local Authorities. Section 2 were measured using Likert Scales that typically ranged from 1 to 5, with the respondent choosing a number to indicate from 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree or disagree, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly agree. Section 1 & 3 were used of close ended question and Section 4 were mixed by open and close ended question. The questionnaire was prepared in two language (Malay and English). A relatively large proportion of respondents in Section 4, Shah Alam were more fluent in English language other than Malay because mostly educated.

3.2 The data collection The analysis of this study is based on primary data collected recently from three residential housing types (terrace, semi detached and bungalow) in Section 4, Shah Alam, Selangor. The interview was conducted on persons who were above 18 years of age and were either the heads of households or families. The snowball sampling method was used for the data collection. Enumerators were assigned to particular types of household in each area, with

8

minimum interview quotas for each household type. A total of 100 questionnaires were administered and the proportions were 64% for terrace house and 18% for the semi detached and bungalow respectively. The survey was conducted between 18th June -1st July 2012. The answers were coded and analyse using Special package for Social Science Statistics software (SPSS version 20).

3.3 Case study selection The study was undertaken in Shah Alam, Selangor in Section 4. This area was chosen for the study because of two reasons. First, the section has recycling facilities some years now. Second, the various ethnic composition of the section gives impetus to a study of this nature. The three ethnic groups Malay, Chinese and Indian are fully represented here.

4.0 Results

Table 4.1 : Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Items % Gender Male 65 Female 35 Age 18 - 24 years old 17 25 - 34 years old 29 35 - 44 years old 13 45 - 54 years old 21 > 55 years old 20 Race Malay 64 Chinese 20 Indian 15 Others 01 Occupation Professional 35 Semi-professional 21 Unskilled worker 09 Self-employed 14 Housewife 04 Un-employed 01 Retiree 16 Household total income < RM1,000 06 RM 1,000 - RM 2,499 21 RM 2,500 - RM 4,999 41 RM 5,000 and above 32

S4

9

Type of house Terrace house 64 Semi detached 18 Bungalow 18 Source : Author's Fieldwork Survey, June 2012

4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents The results in Table 4.1 reveal that 65% of the respondents sampled were males while the rest (35%) were females. 29% of the respondents age ranged from 25 - 34 years, 21% ranged from 45 - 54 years, 20% above 55 years, 17% were in the age bracket of 18 - 24 years and 13% were between 35 - 44 years. On the composition of the different races, majority (64%) were Malays, 20% Chinese, Indian 15% and 1% were from other ethnic nationalities. 35% of the respondents were professionals, 21% semi-professional, 16% were retirees, 14% self-employed, 9% unskilled worker, 4% were full time housewife's and 1% were unemployed. From the breakdown of this result, it is obvious that more than 50% of respondents were either profession or semi-professionals. On the income distribution of the respondents, results showed that 41% earned between RM2,500 - RM4,999, 32% earned above RM5,000, 21% earned between RM1,000-RM2,499 and 6% earned below RM1,000 monthly. What this results suggests therefore is that more than 40% were in the medium income group while 32% were in the high income, 21% were from the low medium and 6% from low income group. Majority (64%) of the respondents live in terrace house, while 18% respectively live in semi-detached and bungalow.

4.2 Awareness on Waste Minimization In order to test for the level of awareness of the respondents on waste minimisation, a Chi Square test was conducted. Results should that a significant difference exist in the level of awareness of respondents on waste minimisation (P < 0.05). As could be seen 84% of the respondents agree that waste minimisation helps in reduction of households solid waste while 13% were neutral and 3% disagreed. (X

2 = 49.520, df = 3, P < 0.05).

In contrast 63% of the respondents disagreed that households should not be involved in waste minimisation while 25% agreed and 12% were neutral (X

2 = 25.300, df = 4, P < 0.05). On the

awareness of the quantity of waste being generated, 70% of the respondents agreed that were awared of that while 26% were neutral and 4% disagreed (X

2 = 76.400, df = 4, P < 0.05).

Looking the respondents knowledge about recycling, results showed that more than 90% of the respondent agreed that they were aware of what recycling is and the materials to be recycled (X

2 =

72.720, df = 3, P < 0.05). In the similar vein, majority (72%) agreed that they know the meaning of each of the colour bin while 25% were neutral and 3% disagreed (X

2 = 62.000, df = 4, P < 0.05). 66%

agreed that they have been practicing recycling for a long time 22% were neutral and 12% disagreed (X

2 = 56.100, df = 4, P < 0.05). Based on these results, it could be said that the level of awareness

residents of the neighbourhood has on waste minimisation is high.

Table 4.2: Awareness on Waste Minimization

No Item SD D NA A SA Chi Square

df Sig

% % % % %

1 Waste minimisation helps in reduction of households solid waste generation.

0.00 3.00 13.00 38.00 46.00 49.520 3 .000

2 Households should not be involved in waste minimisation because it is for government and related public agencies.

30.00 33.00 12.00 18.00 7.00 25.300 4 .000

3 I am aware of the quantity of 1.00 3.00 26.00 49.00 21.00 76.400 4 .000

10

waste being generated by my household daily.

4 I know what is recycling and what materials can be recycled.

1.00 0.00 8.00 38.00 53.00 72.720 3 .000

5 I know the meaning of each colour of the bins.

2.00 1.00 25.00 39.00 33.00 62.000 4 .000

6 I have long practiced recycling. 1.00 11.00 22.00 46.00 20.00 56.100 4 .000 Source : Author's Fieldwork Survey, June 2012 Note : SD=Strongly disagree, D=Disagree, NA=Neither agree, A=Agree and SA=Strongly agree. more than 20% of total.

4.3 Respondents View on Local Authority's Involvement in Waste Minimisation The respondents view on the actions of the local authority with respect to waste minimisation was sought during the field survey . Results show that about 36% of the respondents agreed that the local authority has been creating awareness on waste minimisation in the neighbourhood while 26% stated otherwise, and 38 % do not know whether they do such a thing or not. What this implies is that most people in the neighbourhood were either unaware of the activities of the local authority towards waste minimisation or do not believe they are doing much in terms of promoting waste minimisation.

Table 4.3 : Local Authority 's Involvement in Waste Minimisation

Promotion and carrying out waste minimisation in the neighbourhood

%

Evaluation %

Yes Very poor 05.00 36.00

Poor 15.00

Good 16.00

Excellent 00.00

No 26.00

Do not know 38.00

Total 100.00

Source : Author's Fieldwork Survey, June 2012

Another aspect of the local authority's involvement in waste minimisation that respondents' view were sought was on the provision of facilities. Results in table 4.3 show that more than half (57%) of the respondents stated that the facilities provided by the local authority for waste minimisation in their neighbourhood was adequate while 43% said it was inadequate. When further asked, what facilities were lacking in their neighbourhood, they maintained that the recycle bins in their neighbourhood have spoilt and since that time it has not been replaced. They also want a schedule for collection and the location of collection points at strategic places in the neighbourhood so that people will have access to the waste bins.

Table 4.4 : Provision of Facilities

Yes No Total

% % %

Are the facilities provided for waste minimisation by the Local Authority in your residential area adequate?

57.00 43.00 100.00

If NO, what facilities or services are lacking in your residential area?

More recycling bin, many current recycling bins have spoilt and last time have recycling bin but now don't have (only have notice board)

27.00 43.00

Must have schedule place for collection 10.00

Must have strategic location so that it is easy to see and handle 06.00 Source : Author's Fieldwork Survey, June 2012

11

4.4 Factors Hindering Waste Minimisation A total of 47 % of the respondents stated that lack of public awareness from local authority has hindered waste minimisation. In addition, a total of 34% maintained that lack of recycling facilities is one of the major factors impeding on waste minimisation. Other factors like political will of government, cost, vandalism of waste minimisation facilities and non location of collection points at strategic places were identified as hindering waste minimisation in the study area. When respondents were asked on what they feel should be done by government to improve waste minimisation in the area, they stressed the need for corporation by all stakeholders involved in the management of solid waste in the area. Also they want the creation of separation points for organic and inorganic wastes and more recycling plants.

Table 4.5 : Factors Hindering Waste Minimisation

Factors %

Lack of publicity/awareness 47.00

Lack of recycling facilities 34.00

Vandalism 06.00

Political will of government 05.00

Non strategic location of facilities 05.00

Cost 03.00

Total 100.00 Source : Author's Fieldwork Survey, June 2012

4.5 Suggestions to Improve Waste Minimisation On what needs to be done to improve waste minimisation in the study area, 30% of the respondents suggested more enlightenment campaign by the local authority on waste minimisation while 18% wants the creation of more recycle bins. A total of 13% suggested the adoption a schedule for waste collection and 12% advocated the need for separation of the organic and inorganic wastes before their final disposal. Other suggestions made by the respondents include : cooperation of various stake holders involved in waste management, enforcement by government and taking a cue from other countries that have successfully implemented waste minimisation.

Table 4.6 : Suggestions/Recommendation for improve Waste Minimisation

Suggestions/Commends %

Creation of awareness on waste minimisation 30.00

Create more recycling facilities 18.00

Adopt a schedule for waste collection 13.00

Separation of collection points for organic and inorganic wastes 12.00

Learn from other countries on how to practice waste minimisation 09.00

Enforcement by government 07.00

Fine defaulters who are found throwing recyclable materials 06.00

Corporation of all stakeholders 05.00

Total 100.00 Source : Author's Fieldwork Survey, June 2012

5.0 Conclusions This study has been able to assess urban solid waste minimisation in the case study of Shah Alam City Hall, Selangor can be improved with comparing other Best Practice. The findings of the study showed that residents' level of awareness or knowledge on waste minimisation was above average. However, their assessment of the local authority's involvement in promoting waste minimisation was below average. This shows that a lot still needs to be done by local authority in the areas of provision of facilities and sensitization of the public. Some of the factors identified in the study that have been hindering waste minimisation in the study area include: lack of recycling facilities, low public awareness, political will and vandalism of waste minimisation facilities. Waste minimisation though, may sound as a new concept to some, the need for all stakeholders to participate and identify ways of achieving a sustainable waste minimisation strategy is needed based on the findings from the study. This could be done by injecting in new ideas in to the whole process of waste management from the collection ,separation, recycling up to final disposal.

12

References [1] Adriana P. Reyes-Córdoba, Jorge A. Arizmendi-Sánchez, (2009), An Ontological Framework to

Support the Implementation of Waste Minimisation Strategies, Elsevier (2009), 2091-2095. [2] Agamuthu P, Fauziah SH (2006) MSW Disposal in Malaysia : Landfill Management. In :

Proceedings of the 2nd Expect Meeting on Solid Waste management in Asia and the Pacific Islands, Kitakyushu, November 23-24, 2006.

[3] Agamuthu Periatham, Fauziah Shahul Hamid, Kahlil Khidzir, (2009), Evolution of Solid Waste

Management in Malaysia: Impacts and Implications of the Solid Waste bill, 2007, J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2009) 11:96–103.

[4] Agamuthu, P., K. M. Khidzir, Fauziah Shahul Hamid, (2009), Drivers of Sustainable Waste

Management in Asia, Waste Manag Res 2009 27: 625. [5] Agamuthu, P and SH Fauziah, (2010), Challenges and Issues in Moing Towards Sustainable

Landfilling in a Transitory Country - Malaysia, Waste Manag Res 2011 29: 13. [6] Aretha Aprilia, Tetsuo Tezuka & Gert Spaargaren, (2011), Municipal Solid Waste Management

With Citizen Participation : An Alternative Solution to Waste Problems in Jakarta, Indonesia, Green Energy & Technology, Springer 2011.

[7] Alexis M. Troschinetz, James R. Mihelcic, (2009), Sustainable Recycling of Municipal Solid

Waste in Developing Countries, 29 (2009) 915–923. [8] Benjamin Bolaane, (2005), Constraints to promoting people centred approaches in recycling, 30

(2006) 731–740. [9] Chukwunonye Ezeah & Clive L.Roberts, (2012), Analysis of Barriers and Success Factors

Affecting the Adoption of Sustainable Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Nigeria , Journal of Environmental Management Volume 103, 30 July 2012, Pages 9–14

[10] Daniel Hoornweg & Laura Thomas. (1999), What A Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia,

World Bank, Urban Development Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region. [11] G.D.R. Perry, I.D. Williams, (2007), The Participation of Ethnic Minorities in Kerbside Recycling:

A Case Study, 49 (2007) 308–323. [12] Forbes McDougall, Peter White, Marina Franke & Peter Hindle, (2003), Integrated Solid Waste

Management : A Life Cycle Inventory, Blackwell Science. [13] Fourth Special Journal Issue Dedicated to Selected Papers from PRES Conferences, (2010),

Waste Treatment to Improve Recycling and Minimise Environmental Impact, 54 (2010) 267–270. [14] Frances Fahy, Anna Davies, (2007), Home Improvements : Household Waste Minimisation and

Action Research, 52 (2007) 13–27. [15] Frank Kreith & George Tchobanoglous, (2002), Handbook of Solid Waste Management,

McGraw-Hill Prof Med/Tech. [16] I.D. Williams & C. Taylor, (2004), Maximising Household Waste Recycling at Civic Amenity Sites

in Lancashire, England, 24 (2004) 861–874. [17] Jun Tai, Weiqian Zhang, Yue Che, Di Feng, (2011), Municipal Solid Waste Source-separated

Collection in China: A Comparative Analysis, 31 (2011) 1673–1682. [18] John Pichtel, (2005), Waste Management Practices, Taylor & Francis.

13

[19] K. Sasikumar & Sanoop Gopi Krishna, (2009), Solid Waste Management, PHI Learning, New Delhi.

[20] Kiyo H. Kuris, Ana Paula Bortoleto, (2011), Comparison of Waste Prevention Behaviours Among

Three Japanese Megacity Regions in the Context of Local Measures and Socio-Demographics, 31 (2011) 1441–1449.

[21] Latifah Abd Manaf, Mohd Armi Abu Samah, Nur Ilyana Mohd Zukki, (2009), Municipal Solid

Waste Management in Malaysia: Practices and Challenges, 29 (2009) 2902–2906. [22] Li-Teh Lu a, Teng-Yuan Hsiao, Neng-Chou Shang, Yue-Hwa Yu, Hwong-Wen Ma, (2006), MSW

Management for Waste Minimization in Taiwan: The last two decades, 26 (2006) 661–667. [23] M. Athanassiou, A. Zabaniotou, (2008), Techno-Economic Assessment of Recycling Practices of

Municipal Solid Wastes in Cyprus, 16 (2008) 1474e1483. [24] Matthew J. Franchetti, (2009), A Systems Approach Solid Waste. Analysis & Minimization,

McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. [25] Md. Abdul Jalil, (2010), Sustainable Development in Malaysia: A Case Study on Household

Waste Management, Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 3, No. 3. [26] M. Martin, I.D. Williams, M. Clark c, (2006), Social, Cultural and Structural Influences on

Household Waste Recycling: A Case Study, 48 (2006) 357–395 [27] Michele Tonglet, Paul S. Phillips & Margaret P. Bates, (2004), Determining the Drivers for

Householder Pro-Environmental Behaviour: Waste Minimisation Compared to Recycling, 42 (2004) 27–48.

[28] Mike Read, Marten K. Gregory & Paul S. Phillips, (2009), An Evaluation of Four Key Methods for

Monitoring Household Waste Prevention Campaigns in the UK, 54 (2009) 9–20. [29] Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia, (2006), Waste Generation Statistics,

http://www.kpkt.gov. [30] Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia, (2009), Waste Generation Statistics,

http://www.kpkt.gov. [31] Muhammad Asima, Syeda Adila Batoolb, Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhrya, (2012), Scavengers

and Their Role in the Recycling of Waste in Southwestern Lahore, 58 (2012) 152– 162. [32] Mohd Nasir Hassan, Rakmi Abdul Rahman, Theng Lee Chong, Zulina Zakaria and Muhamad

Awang, (2000), Waste Recycling in Malaysia: Problems and Prospects, Waste Manag Res 2000 18: 320.

[33] Nicholas P. Cheremisinoff, (2003), Handbook of Solid Waste Management and Waste

Minimization Technologies, Butterworth Heinemann. [34] O.F. Kofoworola, (2007), Recovery and Recycling Practices in Municipal Solid Waste

Managementin Lagos, Nigeria, 27 (2007) 1139–1143. [35] P. Agamuthu, (2001), Solid Waste : Principles and Management : with Malaysian Case Studies,

University of Malaya Press. [36] Paul T. Williams, (2005), Waste Treatment Disposal : Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [37] Pieter J.H. van Beukering & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, (2006), Modelling and Analysis of

International Recycling Between Developed and Developing Countries, 46 (2006) 1–26.

14

[38] Rachel M. Pratt, Paul S. Phillips, (2000), The Role and Success of UK Waste Minimisation Clubs in the Correction of Market and Information Failures, 30 (2000) 201–219.

[39] R. E. Hester & R. M. Harrison, (2002), Environmental and Health Impact of Solid Waste

Management Activities : Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, Royal Society of Chemistry.

[40] R.E. Timlett, I.D. Williams, (2008), Public Participation and Recycling Performance in England: A

Comparison of Tools for Behaviour Change, 52 (2008) 622–634. [41] R.E. Timlett, I.D. Williams, (2009), The Impact of Transient Populations on Recycling Behaviour

in a Densely Populated Uban Environment, 53 (2009) 498–506. [42] Robert Tobias, Adrian Brügger and Hans-Joachim Mosler, (2009), Developing Strategies for

Waste Reduction by Means of Tailored Interventions in Santiago de Cuba Environment and Behavior 2009 41: 836.

[43] Rossel, S. A., & Jorge, M. F. (1999). Cuban Strategy for Management and Control of Waste. In

A. Barrage, X. Edelmann (Eds.), Recovery, recycling, re-integration (R ‘99) congress proceedings, Vol. 1 (pp. 287–290). Switzerland: EMPA

[44] Samonporn Suttibak, Vilas Nitivattananon, (2008), Assessment of Factors Influencing the

Performance of Solid Waste Recycling Programs, 53 (2008) 45–56. [45] Schall, J. (1992) Does the solid waste management hierarchy make sense? Working paper

series, Programme on Solid Waste Policy, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University.

[46] Seunghae Lee & Hae Sun Paik (2011), Korean Household Waste Management and Recycling

Behaviour, 46 (2011) 1159-1166. [47] T. V. Ramachandra, (2006), Management of Municipal Solid Waste, Chaman Enterprises, New

Delhi. [48] Velma I. Grover, B. K. Guha, William Hogland & Stuart G. McRae, (2000), Solid Waste

Management, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands. [49] Wen-Tien Tsaia, Yao-Hung Choub, Chien-Ming Linc, Hsin-Chieh Hsuc, Keng-Yu Linc, Chunh-

Siang Chiuc, (2007), Perspectives on Resource Recycling from Municipal Solid Waste in Taiwan, 32 (2007) 69–79.

[50] William A. Worrell & P. Aarne Vesilind, (2012), Second Edition : Solid Waste Engineering, United

States of America. [51] World Bank, (1993), Malaysia - Managing Costs of Urban Pollution. Report no. 1764-MA.

Washington D.C. USA: The World Bank. [52] Yahaya, N. (2007), Solid Waste Management in Malaysia :Policy, Review, Issues and Strategies,

Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia, http://www.ea-swmc.org/download/seminar1papers/DrNazriYahaya.apf.