Proceedings of the WasteSafe 2017 – 5th International Conference on Solid Waste Management in South Asian Countries
25-27 February 2017, Khulna, Bangladesh
INDIVIDUALIZE OF PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM – A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION FOR THE COMMUNITY:
A CASE STUDY ON NIRALA AND BASUPARA, KHULNA CITY, BANGLADESH Md. Sohanur Rahman and Md. Nazmul Haque
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Khulna University of Engineering &
Technology, Khulna Md. Manjur Morshed
Assistant Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology, Khulna
ABSTRACT
The objective of the paper is to explore why the solid waste collection systems of two adjacent areas of Khulna city, Bangladesh – Nirala and Basupara – are separate from each other. In doing so, this research focuses on four core issues of waste collection system: (i) the capacity and service area of the dumping stations; (ii) the responsibility of the local government in solid waste collection; (iii) the misuse of possible recycling solid wastes; and (iv) the amount of missing solid waste between root level collections to final dumping. This research relied on field survey based data collection from all stakeholders involved in the waste collection and disposal system, and on the Geographic Information System (GIS) based secondary analysis of waste collection points and their coverage. The findings of this study suggests that Nirala, being a high-class residential area, used an gentrification approach to waste collection – self- controlled and collection system, but disposes waste to a separate area. On the other hand, Basupara took the service offered by the local government, Khulna City Corporation. This shows a clear discrepancy and division of rich and poor areas, thus gentrification, in waste collection and disposal system. The study recommends for a uniform distribution of waste collection and disposal system for the two areas to avoid gentrification.
INTRODUCTION
Objective of the study is to explore the dumping station of waste either local or government provided and its service area, the role of local government in waste management, the possible recyclable wastes, finally the gap between the root level and last dumping wastes of BASUPARA and NIRALA residential area with a short comparative analysis. Waste is known as the amount of something which is remaining after the useable and beneficial components have been removed and that has no longer satisfactory or useful. It may damage the healthy environment, spreading odor, make the site unpleasing to see and seriously, it is very harmful if the initiatives are not started. Growth of population, increasing urbanization, rising standards of living due to technological innovations have contributed to an increase both in the quantity
and variety of solid wastes. It is increasing as the population is increasing day by day and the use of different materials is also increasing so that the unused portions is now at the top (UN data. 2012).
The importance of solid waste management is increasing day by day as it is an asset for producing energy, clearing environment, maintaining balance ecosystem which is already adopted in developed countries Globally, the estimated quantity of solid wastes expected to be generated annually by the year 2025 is about 19 billion tons (Yoshizawa et al., 2004). So it is a burning question to find socio, economic and eco-friendly solution for a better green environment. A part of management can be done by reusing the reusable portion from the waste which is collected in a healthy and safe environment. Bangladesh is generally faced with the rapid corrosion of environmental and sanitation conditions due to the conventional system of collection, transportation and the unconscious dumping of municipal solid wastes.
In the rich areas the waste is generally generated in a large scale which is stored for a short time in the households and collected by the waste pickers so that they can discharge the waste in the secondary stations. On the contrary in the poor areas members of the households acting as the active participator in waste management by depositing the daily waste in the nearby solid waste bins. In rich areas the households are not conscious about the primary separation of waste so that the misuse of possible recycling waste is comparatively high in rich areas. On the other hand in poor areas the primary separation of waste is available because the separated possible recycling waste is used for bringing money to the family.
The waste collection system can be classified by the conventional and participatory system where in the conventional system, waste is generated in the home and generally stored until a small amount has been stored. In this system it is the responsibility of the householders to carry their wastes to the nearest solid waste bins or similar facilities which are provided by the city corporation and deposit wastes there. Finally the city corporation’s truck collects the wastes and hauls the stored waste to the final dumping station. In the participatory system Waste generated in the home is stored for a short time in a bin, basket or bag and collected everyday by a primary collector who carry the waste to nearby transfer points, normally in a rickshaw-van. So here the responsibility of the community is dominating as the system is mainly community oriented. Transfer points are places where waste is unloaded from primary collection vehicles to be taken away by secondary transport. Several primary collection blocks are served by a transfer point. The waste is then collected from the transfer points and taken to the final disposal point by a large truck of City Corporation.
LITERATURE REVIEW
There are mainly two types of Waste collection system available namely (1) Public collection system (2) Community based collection system. The table 1 indicates the whole system of waste collection.
Table 1 Types of waste collection Public Collection or Conventional System
Approach Description Benefits Problems Dumping
at Fixed Location
Residents and other generators are required to dump their waste at a specified location or in a masonry enclosure
- Low capital costs - Loading the waste in Truck is slow and unhygienic.
- Waste is scattered around the collection point.
- Adjacent residents and shopkeepers protest about the smell and appearance.
Shared
container Residents and other generators put their waste inside a container which is Emptied or removed.
- Low operating costs - If containers are not maintained they quickly corrode or are damaged.
- Adjacent residents complain about the smell.
Community Based or Participatory Collection System
Approach Description Benefits Problems Block wise
collection Collector sounds horn or rings bell and waits at specified locations for residents to bring waste to the collection vehicle.
- Economical.
- Less waste on streets.
- No permanent container or storage.
- It may be scattered by wind, animals and waste pickers.
Door to door collection
Waste collector knocks on each door or rings doorbell and waits for waste to be brought out by resident.
- Convenient for resident.
- Little waste on street.
- Not suitable for apartment buildings because of the amount of walking required.
Yard
collection Collection laborer enters property to remove waste.
- Very convenient for residents.
- No waste in street.
- Very hard to enter into the property for the waste collector
Community-based waste collection can be seen as a novel approach to solid waste management, which has largely been dominated by the public and private sector divide. In a community based collection method the community is seen as an active actor that is able to successfully manage its wastes given the capacity and know-how to do so. The public authorities have the role of an initiator and an instructor.
There is an example of an effective community based waste collection system in Minh Khai, Vietnam. Where In Minh Khai, Vietnam, there was no system of healthful collection system until 1999, when the local Women’s Union developed an experimental trial of waste collection in cooperation with the community organization representative. In 2003 the level of participation in the collection was 97 % of households. In Minh Khai, the community organization representative is responsible for the community’s Solid waste management organization. The waste collection works so that on alternate days collectors are responsible for collecting waste from participating households as well as sweeping streets and collecting fallen branches and leaves. The residents know the approximate time when the collector arrives at their houses; when the collector rings a bell, residents bring their waste to the street and place it in the collector’s dust cart (Richardson 2003, 25).
Figure 1 Minh Khai’s community-based SWM organizational structure. (Richardson 2003, 24.)
So it can be easily differentiate that in Public collection system the residents must travel a distance to transfer there wastes which is quite undesirable for richer class people. It may also affect the environment as the loading system is very slow of the truck, may spread odor and unpleasant scenario. The fixed dumping station may cause damage for the nearby residents.
On the other hand In Community based collection system it is very convenient for the richer class people as the wastes are collected by small vans or waste pickers from the home and the street may remain clean, fresh. Most important thing that is very economical.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
STUDY AREA
Khulna is the 3rd largest city of Bangladesh. The area of Khulna City Corporation is 14.30 square miles and divided into 31 wards. The study area was selected thus a way that includes both rich and lower income people. The two main study area was Nirala and Basupara. Nirala is located in word no 24. The area of Nirala Residential Area is 69 acres and the population is about 9681 (BBS 2011). On the other hand, Basupara is located in word no 25 and 26 and the area is 124.21 acres. The population of Basupara is 6380. Basupara and Nirala is located 1.6 Kilometers apart.
Information Nirala Basupara
Word 24 25 and 26
Population 9681 (Source :BBS 2011) 6380 (Source :BBS 2011)
Area 69 acres 124.21 acres
Distance from Sonadanga 3.1 Kilometers 2.2 Kilometers Maximum Area Coverage Residential Area Residential Area
Figure 2 Study Area (Source: Field Survey, 2016)
FIELD SURVEY
The survey was conducted on the basis of solid waste collection and management. The survey is covered the waste collection procedure and dumping station at Nirala and Basupara.
The survey was to find and locate all the dumping station including primary and secondary dumping station, waste recycling shops in Nirala and Basupara. The data of the dumping station is collected in GPS and then pointed in GIS. The key informants of the survey are the primary waste picker, community people. The process of waste collection, involvement of households, amount of different type of waste are the desired data for the survey.
ANALYSIS
WASTE GENERATION AND COLLECTION SYSTEM
In the Nirala, the waste are collected from door to door by the primary waste collectors in the van and dumped to the secondary dumping station. During the time of collecting waste, simple segregation was conducted by the waste collectors. From the secondary dumping station, waste was collected by the KCC authorized vehicle and dumped to the final dumping station.
Figure 3 Waste generation in Nirala (Source: Field Survey, 2016)
On the other hand, in Basupara, the waste are collected from different dumping station over the area by the KCC authorized vehicle and dumped to the final dumping station. Some of thehousehold also use the service of door to door waste collection. The waste collected from door to door also dumped to the secondary dumping station.
49%
8% 12%
31%
The overall waste generation in Nirala
Household waste Separated recycable waste Paper
Others
Figure 4 Waste generation in Basupara (Source: Field Survey, 2016)
ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY
The authors find that Nirala residential area is dominated by the richer class people who introduced a different system in waste collection for their own sake where the contribution of KCC is too little as the people of the Nirala could not satisfied with the facilities given by the Authority. Which may separate them from others. Here the facilities provided by the authority is not sufficient as the odor comes, dirty environment prevails in the locality but as the majority of the people are not in well condition as the Nirala they adopted the maintenance without introducing a private system so it may keep them with the level of others. Here the table 2 for showing the involvement of KCC in waste collection of both areas.
27%
50%
6%
17%
THE OVERALL WASTE GENERATION IN BASUPARA
Household waste
Separated recycable waste Paper
Others
Figure: Role of KCC in waste collection of the study area (Nazmul 2016)
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
The study denotes that in Nirala the amount of segregated wastes are very low as the value of the recyclable wastes to the richer class people are not so mentionable but in Basupara ( see table 2) this is very high as people may earn money by selling the recyclable wastes. So the rate of generation of wastes obviously very low in Basupara than in Nirala. Here the environmental issue may introduced as in Nirala there are no secondary collection points where wastes stored so that the environmental cost cannot occur in Nirala by ensuring the odor free, clean and healthy spaces for the community. The surplus from this advantage may use for the improvement of poor. Whereas there prevails three secondary collection stations in the Basupara, which introduces odor, unhygienic condition in Basupara.
Table 2 The Possible Recycling Waste in Basupara
Sl no. Name of the waste Amount ( Kg/ day) price ( Tk/ Kg)
1 Tin 70 7
2 Kachara 16 11
3 Coarse kachara (Metal) 250 17
4 Plastic 100 28
5 Choklet shoe 10 40
6 Glass 25 3
Total 471
Source: Field Survey, 2016 So, the total amount of the recyclable waste of Basupara per day is about 471 kg which can play a vital role in earning money to the people stay there. Here the maximum percentage of recyclable waste seen Coarsekachara (Metal).
15%
4%
53%
21%
2% 5%
Amount of recycling waste at Basupara
Tin Kachara
Coarse kachara (Metal) Plastic
Choklet shoe Glass
Figure 5 Amount of Recyclable Waste in Basupara (Source: Field Survey, 2016) From the table it can be easily said that the separated waste which the maximum coverage in overall wastes has generated in a day that are called self-Segregable waste collection system.
About 50% of the total waste can be recycled from the root level in home.
But in Nirala the household wastes are very high as the possible recycle wastes are not separated primarily in home and everything is mixing with the waste and dump to the secondary station. In that sense the authors found that the amount of possible recycling wastes in Nirala is very low.
Table 2 The Possible Recycling Waste in Nirala
Source of waste Amount (Kg/day)
Household waste 360
Separated recycable waste 120
Paper 60
Others 275
Total 815
Source: Field Survey, 2016 If the population of Nirala are conscious about the sector wise collection system which is already adopted in developed country the wastes may bring wealth for the region.
Figure 6 Amount of Recyclable Waste in Nirala (Source: Field Survey, 2016) CONCLUSION
The study shows that the ultimate difference between public and Community based waste collection system on the basis of cost benefit analysis, user connectivity and social values.
44%
15%
7%
34%
The overall waste generation in Nirala
Household waste Separated recycable waste Paper
Others
From the overview it can be noted that the community based collection system is more convenient for richer people than publicly available system as there is a provision for richer classes people that the road is more clean and the waste pickers collect wastes from individual households and most important features that there prevails participation of community people.
On the contrary in public waste collection system, the absence of community participation and the richer people are not satisfied but it is beneficial for poorer class people as they cannot afford to introduce individual system. Due to lack of manpower, the local Government cannot serve the full area with adequate needs of the community so that the richer classes’ people have a tendency to introduce private waste collection system for the community.
REFERENCES
Nissinen, Tommi & Vanninen, Arttu, Initiating a community-based Solid waste management system In a rural community in ghana: A practical framework Case: Akrofu-Xeviwofe
Yoshizawa, S., Tanaka, M., Shekdar, A.V., 2004. Global trends in waste generation.
In:Gaballah, I., Mishar, B., Solozabal, R., Tanaka, M. (Eds.), Recycling, Waste Treatment and Clean Technology. TMS Mineral, Metals and Materials
Publishers, Spain, pp. 1541–1552 (II).
Richardson, D. W. 2003. Community-Based Solid Waste Management Systems in Hanoi, Vietnam. University of Toronto. Available:
http://www.utoronto.ca/wasteecon/DavidRichardson.pdf UN Report - 2012, Phase Bangladesh
http://un.org/millenniumgoals BBS Report – 2011
http://bbs.gov.bd
