Synergy In The Urban Solid Waste Management System In .
Philippine Journal of Science148 (1): 73-97, March 2019ISSN 0031 - 7683Date Received: 02 Aug 2018Synergy in the Urban Solid Waste ManagementSystem in Malolos City, PhilippinesMarion Micah R. Tinio1*, Analiza P. Rollon2, and Tolentino B. Moya31Departmentof Geography, University of the Philippines Diliman,Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines2Department of Chemical Engineering, University of the Philippines Diliman,Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines3Institute of Environmental Science and Meteorology,University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, PhilippinesThe paper demonstrates through system dynamics modelling how the following variableswork together in the urban solid waste management (USWM) system: population, city income,public participation, composting and recycling, and greenhouse gas emissions. Malolos City,Philippines, is used as a case study for three ten-year model scenarios: (1) USWM with nocomposting and recycling, (2) USWM with an operational materials recovery and compostingfacility (MRCF), and (3) USWM with operational MRCF and incorporated effects of publicparticipation towards solid waste management practices. The operation of the MRCF inScenario 2 reduced total volume of disposed solid waste by about 25,000 tons but increasedtotal expenses for solid waste management by about Php 37M. The incorporation of the effectsof public participation in Scenario 3 further reduced the volume of disposed solid waste byabout 103,900 tons; reduced the volume of generated solid waste by around 101,000 tons; andallowed the informal collection of 9,966 tons of recyclables. Estimates of CH4 and CO2 emissionsalso decreased in Scenario 3. The results revealed how composting and recycling and publicparticipation affects the USWM through reduced waste volumes and increased savings.Key words: system dynamics, urban solid wasteINTRODUCTIONSolid waste affects land, water, and air; it also has implicationsto human health. In 2050, it is anticipated that two-thirds ofglobal population will live in cities (UN 2013). With growingpopulation and continuous urbanization, waste generation isprojected to increase – waste in Asia alone is estimated toreach 1B tons by 2030 (Okumura et al. 2013).Solid waste management systems (SWMS) in developingcities are dominantly characterized by mixed collection,minimal recycling, and uncontrolled final disposal (UNHabitat 2010). SWMS in developing cities also focus*Corresponding author: mmrtinio@gmail.comprimarily on collection and removal services: sourcecollection, transport, and disposal (Wilson 2007).Collection and removal services constitute 80–95% oftotal city SWM budget (Guerrero et al. 2013).Environmental quality suffers due to unsustainable solidwaste management practices (Chandrappa and Das 2012,Chiemchaisri et al. 2007). Activities in waste storage,collection, transfer and transport, recycling and composting,and final disposal have impacts toward the air, water, andland. Chandrappa and Das (2012) present a comprehensivesummary of the environmental impacts of different stagesof waste management. The current solid waste managementsystem in the Philippines contributes to human-induced73
Philippine Journal of ScienceVol. 148 No. 1, March 2019greenhouse gas emissions – 11% of national total accordingto the Climate Change Commission of the Philippines (2010)– and to water pollution [e.g., solid waste accounts for 7% oftotal Pasig River water pollution according to Gorme et al.(2010)]. Public spaces with unmanaged waste are breedinggrounds for disease vectors (e.g., Hoornweg & Bhada-tata2012). The environmental risks of solid waste managementcan cause health risks (Bridges et al. 2000, Gorme et al.2010, Mor et al. 2006). The current model is limited in thatit measures environmental quality using greenhouse gasemissions only.Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos CityThe synergy is characterized through exploring theintersections of economy, environment, and society inthe USWM (Figure 1).An ecological solid waste management system (ESWMS)considers societal influences, primary of which arepopulation and existing laws. The characteristics of thepopulation, also influenced by current economy, affectswaste generation and composition. Developing citiesThe complexity of solid waste management problems hasstimulated interest in studies using different quantitativeand qualitative approaches, particularly in systemdynamics modeling (SDM). The SDM approach hasbeen used to study fast-growing urban centers both indeveloped (e.g., Dyson and Chang 2005) and developing(e.g., Guzman et al. 2010) regions because through SDM,interactions among a variety of factors can be exploredeven with data scarcity issues (Dyson and Chang 2005).Municipal Solid Waste Management in the PhilippinesAverage per capita waste generation in cities and provincialcapitals in the Philippines is 0.50 kg/cap/day (NSWMC 2015).Municipal solid waste is composed of 52.31% biodegradables,27.78% recyclables, 17.98% residual waste, and 1.93% specialwaste (NSWMC 2015). The Philippine law Republic Act 9003or the “Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000”envisions a “systematic, comprehensive, and ecological solidwaste management program.” City governments are onlymandated to collect non-recyclable materials and specialwastes; however, because of budget constraints, the CityGovernment of Malolos provides financial assistance tobarangays struggling to perform mandated responsibilities.Solid waste management research in the Philippines coverstechnical and socio-demographic themes, including:compliance with laws and ordinances (e.g., Bernardo 2008,Irene 2014, Premakumara et al. 2014); implementation oflow-cost technologies for composting and recycling (e.g.,Paul et al. 2012); and assessment of knowledge, attitudes,and practices of citizens and officials (e.g., Del Mundo etal. 2009, Macawile and Su 2009, Tatlonghari and Jamias2010). System dynamics modelling can incorporate theinterrelated themes of solid waste management, but only afew studies in the Philippine context have been undertaken(e.g., Guzman et al. 2010).Conceptual FrameworkT h e p a p e r d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e s y n e rg y i n t h einterrelationships among solid waste management,population, city budget, environmental quality (measuredin greenhouse gas emissions), marketability of recoveredwaste, and public participation (of waste generators).74Figure 1. Conceptual framework of an ecological solid wastemanagement system.experience increasing waste generation due high populationgrowth, improving living standards, and changing activities(e.g., Dyson and Chang 2005, Sufian and Bala 2007, Tanaka2007). Institutional and commercial centers generate mostlyplastic and paper waste (e.g., Al-Salem et al. 2009), whileresidential centers generate mostly food and yard waste(e.g., Guzman et al. 2010). Different waste generation andcomposition scenarios affect the environment differently.Laws and institutions set rules about solid waste and publicparticipation in USWM. For example, providing markets forcompost and recyclables will likely encourage compostingand recycling. Changes in regulations for manufacturinge.g., packaging standards, will change composition andvolume of generated waste.Urban environmental quality can be measured usingindicators for water, land, soil, and air. The modeluses primary greenhouse gases – CH4, CO2, and N2O– to measure environmental quality in different wastemanagement scenarios. Urban economy is complex, sothe model uses city budget plus capital and operation costsand benefits to demonstrate economic affordability of theESWMS. An efficient waste infrastructure system (e.g.,collection equipment, disposal and recovery facilities,
Philippine Journal of ScienceVol. 148 No. 1, March 2019roads) needs capital investment – thus, its implementationwould be impossible without sufficient financial budget.Waste management costs and benefits, however, are notcontained to the economy – these also have societal andenvironmental impacts. Recycling can give additionalincome to the community, inducing public participationwhile diverting waste from direct disposal.An ESWMS, similar to the integrated solid waste managementsystem (ISWMS) of Tammemagi (1999), seeks to “maximizethe useful life of the resources” (Tammemagi 1999) andsatisfy environmental effectiveness, social acceptability, andeconomic affordability (Marshall and Farahbakhsh 2013).The participation of waste generators is an evidence of thesocial acceptability and behavior change towards ESWMS(e.g., Rahardyan et al. 2004, Shaw and Maynard 2008),reducing waste generation and increasing the possibilityof proper waste segregation, waste recovery (e.g., Dysonand Chang 2005, Jacobi 2002, Lavee 2007) and wastedisposal (e.g., Troschinetz and Mihelcic 2009).MATERIALS AND METHODSSystem Dynamics ModelFlow of solid waste material. Figure 2 illustrates theframework of Philippine urban solid waste managementbased on various literature (EcoGov 2011, Guerrero etal. 2013, Guzman et al. 2010, Magalang 2014, MarshallTinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos Cityand Farahbakhsh 2013, Wilson et al. 2012). Four finaldestinations are possible for solid waste in the currentwaste management system: informal collection, wastediversion, waste disposal, or unmanaged waste.Households are assumed to perfectly segregate generatedwaste according to composition: recyclables, compostables,residuals, and special waste. When a barangay is unableto manage solid waste, the City is relayed with theresponsibility to collect all generated waste. Specialwaste is directly brought to the disposal site; the restundergoes the whole waste management system. Citywaste collection is the process in which the city formallycollects generated waste. Remaining material after citywaste collection either becomes unmanaged waste (litter)or managed when waste generators participate in SWM.Collection ability and public participation (in Scenario 3only) influences waste collection. Remaining uncollectedwaste becomes unmanaged solid waste (which representslitter). Collected waste is brought to the final disposal site,unless it is diverted by another waste intervention – thecurrent model uses a Materials Recovery and CompostingFacility (MRCF) for waste diversion. The MRCF consistsof the composting and recycling elements of the urbanSWMS. Both composting and recycling practices havefour stages: collection, processing, production, and sale.Waste is brought to the MRCF only if the MRCF isoperational and funding is sufficient for current expenses;otherwise, waste is directly brought to the final disposalsite. Waste is only considered “diverted” when it isconverted into either compost or processed recyclables.Figure 2. Framework of solid waste generation and management.75
Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos CityPhilippine Journal of ScienceVol. 148 No. 1, March 2019Informal collection is the volume of recyclable solidwaste collected by door-to-door collectors – activeonly in Scenario 3. Recyclable waste that is collectedinformally is considered diverted from waste disposal.Waste disposal consists of: (1) collected waste that hasbeen directly disposed; (2) residual from composting andrecycling processes (assumed 1% of the material that isprocessed); and (3) waste transported to the MRCF butwas not converted to compost and processed recyclables.The current model assumed that the city disposal site is asemi-aerobic managed solid waste disposal site (describedin IPCC 2006).Four sets of emissions were estimated: (1) CH4 emission fromdisposed waste; (2) CH4 emission from biodegradation ofcompostable fraction of unmanaged waste; (3) N2O emissionfrom composting; and (4) CO2 emission from open-burningof plastic and paper fraction of unmanaged waste. Allemission estimates assumed waste volumes in wet weight.Model structure. The system dynamics model, constructedusing STELLA (iseesystems.com), consists of elevensectors (Table 1). Appendix I shows the stock and flowstructure of the model. Appendix II contains detaileddescriptions of all model variables. Three SWM items areidentified (Table 2); each item is represented by equationssimilar to Equation 1.Fundi (t) Fundi (t-dt) (budget inflowi – expenses outflowi ) * dt(1)where: Fundi available fund for i SWM itembudget inflowi SWM Fund*ALLOCATIONFOR i SWM itemexpenses outflowi respective expenses formulafor i SWM itemPublic participation. The current model defines publicparticipation as the involvement of waste generators indifferent stages of waste management. The activatedparticipation of waste generators in Scenario 3 isexpected to (1) reduce per capita waste generationrate, (2) activate participation of waste generators withinformal collectors of recyclables, (3) add value tocollection ability for formal waste collection, (4) activatemanagement of waste generators of waste uncollectedby the city, and, (5) add value to the marketability ofrecovered waste. The effect of public participationconverter (Table 3) encapsulates the additional effectsof the participation of waste generators.Marketability of recovered waste. Marketability ofrecovered waste (mrw) is the likelihood of sellingrecovered waste, which is expected to increase withthe same rate as effect of public participation. MRWis expected to affect selling times and selling prices ofproduced compost and processed recyclables. Table 4summarizes the corresponding selling prices and sellingtimes for respective mrw converter values.Greenhouse gas emissions. Three sets of emissionestimates were evaluated: (1) total CH4 emission fromdisposed waste and organic portion of unmanaged waste,(2) total CO2 emission from open-burning of plastic andpaper contents of unmanaged waste, and (3) total N2Ofrom the compostable fraction of waste that underwentcomposting. Formulae were derived from IPCC (2006).Table 1. Sectors of the system dynamics model.SectorPurposePopulation SectorContains constants for population, growth rate, and initial public participationSWM Budget SectorEncapsulates the influence of city income and budget for SWM to the urban SWMSWaste Composition Constants SectorContains values of waste composition fraction of SWPublic Participation SectorEncapsulates the change in collective public participation of waste generators due to changes inallocation for information, education, and communication campaigns (IECs)Marketability of Recovered Waste SectorEncapsulates the level of acceptance for recovered waste in the market, measured as 0–100%Solid Waste Management SectorEncapsulates the material flow from waste generation to waste disposal, as well as the influenceof the other sectorsComposting SectorContains the default structure of composting. Inputs for elements are in the Composting Facilitysector.Recycling SectorContains the default structure of recycling. Inputs for elements are in the Recycling Facilitysector.Jagna Composting FacilityContains input values for the Composting Facility, based on the Jagna Facility in EcoGov (2011)ADB Recycling FacilityContains input values for the Recycling Facility, based on the Semi-automated RecyclingFacility in ADB (2013)GHG Emission SectorEncapsulates the emission of CH4,CO2, and N2O76
Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos CityPhilippine Journal of ScienceVol. 148 No. 1, March 2019Table 3. Range of values for effect of public participation converter.Table 2. Solid waste management items in the study.Funding and ExpensesRepresentedEffect of public participation GRAPH (current public participationlevel)Transport equipmentCity collection of waste and transportto waste diversion and disposalfacilitiesBased on authors’ judgement, there is an assumption that a 1.0 increasein the level of public participation is equivalent to 25% increase invariables affected by public participation.MRCF equipmentConstruction and operation of theMRCFCurrent PublicParticipation LevelEffect of Public ParticipationInformation,Educationand Communication (IEC)IEC campaigns aimed at raisingpublic participation towards USWMS00.0010.2520.5030.7541.00SWM ItemTable 4. Corresponding selling prices and selling prices for mrw values.mrwaSelling Price of Compostb(Php/50 kg Sack)Selling Time forCompostcSelling Price ofRecyclablesd (Php/kg)Selling Time forRecyclablesc0.0000.25507 days03 days4 days202 days0.50754 days401 day0.751502 days601 day1.002502 days801 dayNotes:aMarketability of recovered wastebBased on experience of Maddela Quirino of Php 250 per 50 kg sack (EcoGov 2011)cAuthors’ judgementdBased on EMB recyclables selling price of Php 80/kg (EMB n/d)Case StudyBrief profile of Malolos City. The system dynamicsmodel was tested using Malolos City parameters (Table5). Malolos City is the capital of the Province of Bulacan.A no-segregation, no-collection policy is implementedin the city (personal communication, City of MalolosDevelopment Authority); the City General Services Office(CGSO) collects non-segregated waste on curbsidesand brings it directly to the MRCF for separation andprocessing. It is assumed that CGSO budget (12% of citybudget) is fully allotted for solid waste management. Toimagine the worst-case, the model also assumes that allbarangays are unable to manage solid waste and the CityGovernment of Malolos City manages all generated waste.The materials recovery and composting facility (MRCF)of Malolos City. Malolos City operates a five-hectare CityMaterials Recovery and Composting Facility (MRCF);however, baseline data was unavailable. To compensatefor this data gap, the Materials Recovery and CompostingFacility (Table 6) was derived from two references: forthe composting facility, the experience of Jagna, Boholdescribed in EcoGov (2011); for the recycling facility, theSemi-Automated MRF Facility described in ADB (2013).Model validation and scenarios. Table 7 comparesthe waste generation simulated in Scenario 1 with acomputed projection of waste generation; the smalldifference between values mean the results of modelsimulations are acceptable. Similar to Sufian and Bala(2007), the behaviors of following key variables areexamined in Scenario 1 to validate the system dynamicsmodel: volumes of Disposed Waste, Unmanaged Waste,and Diverted Waste; expenses and savings in TransportEquipment, MRCF, and IECs (information, education, andcommunication campaigns); and volume of N2O, CH4,and CO2 emissions.The changes were compared in all three scenarios (Table8). Scenario 1 simulates the Malolos City SWM withoutthe MRCF to show the full potential of waste diversionin Scenario 2. Composting and recycling strategiesare mandated by RA 9003 as a responsibility of thebarangay through the establishment of MRCFs. Manybarangays, however, are unable to construct and operateMRFs because of budget limitations. City governments,then, have the succeeding responsibility to establish acentral MRCF for the city and its barangays. Scenario2 measures the effect of establishing an MRCF in termsof: (1) the reduction in volume of waste disposed and77
Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos CityPhilippine Journal of ScienceVol. 148 No. 1, March 2019Table 5. Input parameters for Malolos City.Variable NameInput ValueData Source/ReferenceInitial Population (2014)(in persons)264,182City Government of Malolos 2014 WasteAnalyses and Characterization Study(WACS)Growth fraction 1.19%City Government of Malolos 2014 WACSPhp 972,000,000.00Rounded Malolos City 2015 Statementof General Fund (City Government ofMalolos Website)12%2015 Budget for City General ServicesOffice (City Government of MalolosWebsite)0.0036City Government of Malolos 2014 WACSFraction of recyclables recovered by informal collectors30%Quezon City experience (Wilson et al.2012)Cost of collection and disposal per ton of SW (pesos)1,322City Government of Malolos, PersonalinterviewYearly city budget(pesos)SWM budget allocation (percentage)Initial SW generation per capita rate (tons)Initial Public Participation Level (unitless)0n/a31.1% compostables, 19.5% recyclables48.2% residual1.19% special waste(10.42% plastic7.21% paper)City Government of Malolos 2014 WACSCollection ability (percentage)98%City Government of Malolos 2014 WACSInitial Marketability (percentage)50%Authors’ judgementTE MOOE FRACTION (additional cost for themaintenance and other operating expenses of transportequipment)20%Authors’ judgementInitial Waste CompositionTable 6. Characteristics of the composting facility and the recycling facility.ParameterCompost Being ProcessedConveyorInflow limitInfiniteInfiniteTransit Time45 days (represented byCOMPOSTING TIMEconverter)1 day (represented byRECYCLING TIMEconverter)Capacity1.5 tonsCapital CostPhp 550,000Operating ExpensesPhp 20,000/moPhp 2.5M/yFacility Count11Facility Effectiveness100%100%ReferenceJagna, Bohol experience(EcoGov 2011)GHG emissions, and (2) additional income. The MRCFSector (along with the Recycling Facility and CompostingFacility sectors), is turned on at the start of the simulation.The City realigns funds for transport equipment tosatisfy capital costs of the MRCF. The MRCF becomesoperational only in Year 2 to simulate planning and78Recyclables BeingProcessed Conveyor15 tonsPhp 24.8MReferenceSemi-Automated MRF(ADB 2013)construction period. Scenario 3 simulates the effect ofpublic participation of waste generators to the SWM. ThePublic Participation Sector is turned on to consider effectsof public participation to the system. The City realignsfunds for transport equipment to generate IECs.
Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos CityPhilippine Journal of ScienceVol. 148 No. 1, March 2019Table 7. Computed vs. simulated waste generation.YearVolume of Waste Generation –Computationa(in Tons)Volume ofWaste Generation –Scenario 1(in Tons)Difference(in Tons)Difference(in tial population 264,182.00Per annum growth rate 1.19%Per capita waste generation fraction 0.36 kg/cap/dayaPopulation*(per capita waste generation/1000) x 365Table 8. Summary of scenarios.ScenarioJustificationsSectors TurnedOn or OffSWM Budget ne Run/Scenario1:No composting andrecycling strategiesAllSWMbudgettowards collection anddisposal (Guerrero etal. 2013) Toisolatethe OFFeffects of wastediversion and publicparticipation to theSWM, these wereturned off.OFFOFFOFFON0100%00Scenario 2:With active compostingand recycling strategies,but no participation ofwaste generators. MRCFallocationis based on neededcapital costs ofCF and RF (Php25,350,000).ONONONOFFON080%20%0Scenario 3:With active compostingand recycling strategies,and with participationof waste generators. PortionofTEallocationistransferred to IECallocation.Wastegeneratorsonly participate inSWM in Scenario 3.Lowest level ofpublic 20%10% Notes: CS – Composting Sector; RS – Recycling Sector; MRW – Marketability of Recovered Waste Sector; PP – Public Participation Sector; IPPL – Initial PublicParticipation Level; TE – Transport Equipment; MRCF – Material Recovery and Composting Facility; IEC – Information Education, and Communication Campaign79
Philippine Journal of ScienceVol. 148 No. 1, March 2019Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos CityRESULTSFigures 3 to 7 show ten-year trends for Scenarios 1, 2, and3. The annual volumes of disposed waste in Scenario 1 areslightly lower than in Scenario 2 because of the MRCF.Scenario 3 has remarkable difference because of the effectof public participation. Only Scenario 3 exhibits changesin volumes of generated waste, informal collection ofrecyclables, and unmanaged waste; these changes aredue the effect of public participation in the USWM (seePublic Participation section). Scenarios 2 and 3 have equalvolumes of diverted waste because the MRCF has similarcharacteristics in both scenarios. Simulation results ofwaste management for each scenario in Year 10 are inTable 9. Activating the MRCF in Scenario 2 reduced thevolume of disposed waste (by 24,911 tons), yet 7,400tons of wastes remain unmanaged. Among the threescenarios, Scenario 3 generated the least volume of waste( 101,000 tons less), lowest percentage of unmanagedwaste (0.01% in S3 vs 2% in S1 and S2), and least volumeand percentage of disposed waste; it likewise diverted atotal of 13% of waste through composting and recycling(9.26%) and informal collection of recyclables (3.73%).Scenario 3 generated 69% more expenses than Scenario1 but it also generated 25% more savings (Table 10). Theincrease in expenses is imputed to allocation to IECs;Figure 5. Ten-year values of diverted waste.Figure 6. Ten-year values of informal collection of recyclables.Figure 3. Ten-year values of generated waste.Figure 7. Ten-year values of unmanaged waste.the increase in savings is attributed to the reinforcingeffect of public participation towards marketability ofwaste and other waste management stages. Compostingand recycling reduced CH4 and CO2 emission of thesystem but it also increased N2O emission (Table 11); thereinforcing effect of public participation further reducedCH4 emission and eliminated CO2 emission (because therewas negligible unmanaged waste percentage).Figure 4. Ten-year values of disposed waste.80
Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos CityPhilippine Journal of ScienceVol. 148 No. 1, March 2019Table 9. Comparison of waste composition distribution in three scenarios in Year 10.ScenarioTGSWaTICWb% ofTGSW% ofTGSWTDisSWd% ofTGSWTUSWe% ofTGSWTWTf% %280.150.10%TDivSWcNotes:aTotal Generated Solid WastebTotal Informally Collected Waste (recyclables only)cTotal Diverted Solid WastedTotal Disposed Solid WasteeTotal Unmanaged Solid WastefTotal Waste in TransitTable 10. Comparison of total SWM expenses and savings in threescenarios in Year 10.ScenarioTotal SWMExpenses (in Php)Total SWM Savings .69S2 vs S136,867,054.86934,806,735.09S3 vs S2358,531,925.35(87,931,925.35)S3 vs S1395,398,980.21846,874,809.74Table 11. Comparison of total greenhouse gas emission estimates inthree scenarios in Year 10.ScenarioTotalCH4Emission(in Tons)Total CO2Emission (inTons)Total N2OEmission 0.00S36,580.703.9725,920.00S2 vs S1(705.81)-25,920.00S3 vs S2(2,977.47)(916.63)-S3 vs S1(3,683.28)(916.63)25,920.00DISCUSSIONSynergy in the Urban Waste Management SystemThe interlinkages and interactions among urban solidwaste generation, urban solid waste management,population, city budget, marketability of recoveredwaste, public participation, composting and recycling,and GHG emissions defines the urban solid wastemanagement system (Figure 8). Feedback effects inthe system are primarily caused by public participationand waste diversion. Public participation is expected todecrease the uncertainty of recycling profitability (e.g.,Lavee 2007, Shaw and Maynard 2008) because citizensthemselves will buy merchandise from recycled materials;in effect, public participation is expected to increase themarketability of recovered waste. The study showedhow recycling sustained the synergy of the urban solidwaste management system – recycling provided financialsupport for SWM items. With profit from recycling andcomposting, city budget increases and more budget isavailable for SWM items. Because of the operation ofthe MRCF, waste that previously goes directly to disposalis processed. The profit from selling recovered wastebecomes additional SWM fund available for utilizationin any of the four SWM items. Troschinetz and Mihelcic(2009) identified personnel education, waste collectionand segregation, and government finances as the threebiggest barriers to recycling in developing countries. Themodel simulations reveal how additional income fromcomposting and recycling translate to effects in variouselements of the USWMS because of increase in SWMfund. Additional SWM Fund could provide additionalbudget for personnel education through trainings andseminars, encourage the improvement of convenienceof recycling and composting through the purchase ofcommunity bins, and enable the incentivization of localagencies for participation in sound waste management.As a waste diversion strategy, composting has been foundto be not as profitable as recycling (Eriksson et al. 2005,Tonjes and Mallikarjun 2013); however, it is practiced forits environmental benefits and reduced costs for collectionand disposal (Tonjes and Mallikarjun 2013). In the currentstudy, composting reduced the volume of unmanagedorganic waste that may emit CH4. Eriksson et al. (2005)found out that recycling is a more beneficial alternative todirect disposal than incineration and biological treatmentin terms of larger financial returns and minimal pollutioncontribution. Malolos City can greatly benefit from a semiautomated recycling facility, with specifications similarto that described in ADB (2013).81
Philippine Journal of ScienceVol. 148 No. 1, March 2019Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos CityFigure 8. Causal loop diagram.Reinforcing Effect of Public ParticipationScenario 3 yielded the following additional effects besidesScenario 2 improvements: reduced volume of total waste generation by101,373 tons (–28% than in S1 and S2), reduced percentage of
capitals in the Philippines is 0.50 kg/cap/day (NSWMC 2015). Municipal solid waste is composed of 52.31% biodegradables, 27.78% recyclables, 17.98% residual waste, and 1.93% special waste (NSWMC 2015). The Philippine law RepublicAc t 9003 or the “Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000”
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
This User Manual is a guide for use during the installation, normal operation and maintenance of a Synergy System or Synergy UV Water Purification System. 'Synergy' is used in this manual to refer to either the Synergy or the Synergy UV System unless otherwise noted. It is highly recommended to completely read this manual and to
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
three new synergy measures: the expected total cost synergy, the relative risk reduction synergy, and the absolute risk reduction synergy for the assessment of the potential strategic advantages. We illustrate the analytical framework with two sets of numerical examples
