3r related policies for sustainable waste management in malaysia agamuthu p. 1, Santha chenayah2#, fauziah shahul hamid1, dennis victor1
Download 121.94 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (SWM) IN MALAYSIA
- States Solid waste generated (tonnes/ day) 2000 2002
- 3R RELATED POLICIES IN MALAYSIA AND POLICY GAPS 3R Related Policies
- Level of Service Present 2003-2009
- Potential 3R Policy Gaps
- ANALYSIS OF 3R IN MALAYSIA
- Results based on 3R Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
- Stakeholder Perception on 3R on economic incentives support
- 3R Local Authority (LA) Questionnaire Findings
|
3R RELATED POLICIES FOR SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT IN MALAYSIA AGAMUTHU P.1, SANTHA CHENAYAH2#, FAUZIAH SHAHUL HAMID1, DENNIS VICTOR1 1 Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 2 Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Abstract This study (funded by Ministry of Environment, Japan) is to examine 3R related policies for solid waste management (SWM) in Malaysia and to analyze possible development or impact of national level policy in response to specific challenges in relation to priority policy areas. A review of the main solid waste management policies in Malaysia namely the National Strategic Plan on Solid Waste Management (2005), the the National Solid Waste Management Policy (2006), the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act (2007) and the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation Act (2007), was done to determine their significance. These policies are the most relevant solid waste management policies on the 3R activities in the country which provide 3R data collated at the national level. Consecutively, data collection and interviews involving collation of existing recycling data and 3R awareness surveys were conducted. This phase involved many stakeholders in 3R ranging from the local government to the non-governmental organizations. Compilation of data from the various stakeholders was achieved via a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and responses through survey. Eventually, 3R gaps between policy and practice were analyzed. It focused on the potential strengths and weakness in the Malaysia 3R policy formulation and implementation system, where some actions to reduce the 3R policy gaps were recommended. As a conclusion, the study indicated that existing 3R policies have gaps which weaken the implementation of 3R activities, thus resulting with failure in 3R program in the country. However, it can be amended with appropriate strategy to remove the existing gaps. Keyword: 3R policy, solid waste management, policy gap, focus group discussion, policy formulation
The objective of the 3Rs program is to reduce the nation’s generation of solid waste by REDUCE, REUSE and RECYCLE. This objective is in line with the National Recycling Target; 22% of the total solid waste can be recycled by the year 2020. The current rate is about 5%. Many players are involved in Malaysian 3Rs programs. They include the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, local authorities, concessionary companies, collectors and manufacturers, non-governmental organizations, private residents associations, educational institutions, private waste recyclers and others. Every year about 60% of the allocation given (so far RM70 million or US$18 million) is used to increase awareness among the public. Some of the medium used are poster, pamphlets, bulletin, and electronic medium such as television, radio, websites, school busses, LRT, billboards, exhibition, carnivals and seminar. Based on a recent survey by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, there is 100% awareness among the public but only 80% are actually practicing. One important reason for this is insufficiency of facilities, including collection schedule or inappropriateness in the location of recycling facilities. Presently, facilities available are recycling bins, recycling centres, mobile collection unit (van), Siverboxes and recycling lorry. The 3Rs principle was established to improve waste management system towards a more sustainable approach and to reduce human ecological footprint. Many studies around the globe have reported that the implementation of 3Rs managed to boost economic activities, reduce environmental impacts from waste disposal, prevent the loss of resources and lengthen landfills operating life. Though the implementation of 3Rs has been successful in many developed countries, the accomplishment among the developing nation is yet to be seen. Many factors are contributing towards the failure of 3Rs implementation in most developing countries including Malaysia. Among others is the lack of efficient institutional mechanisms in waste management and lack of policy to promote 3Rs. Malaysia launched the first official 3Rs strategies in late 1980s where campaigns focused mainly on the recycling activities. It has initiated the participation of various NGOs, however, the recycling rate was too low that it did not improve the existing waste management practice. In 2001, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG) re-launched another 3Rs programme to improve the recycling rate in the country. As a result, the recycling rate reached 5%. Various surveys conducted indicated that the majority of Malaysians are aware of the importance of 3Rs, however the environmental drive alone was ineffective in the country. Public indicated that only policy and political drives may effectively promote their participation in 3Rs activities. The need to use carrot and cane is evident. Therefore, with the passing of the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management (SWPCM) Bill 2007, it is hoped that 3Rs strategies will change the current waste management system drastically. The Bill incorporated at least two clauses which directly undertake 3Rs strategy. These include Clause 101 Reduction, Reuse and Recycling of controlled solid waste and Clause 102 Take back system and deposit refund system. Some of the objectives of this study include analyzing policy of the National Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Management (NSP) & The Study on National Waste Minimization in Malaysia (NWM); collecting, collating and assessing data of 3Rs activities segmented by stakeholders and their perceived effectiveness; determining the willingness of the public to participate in 3Rs activities with the implementation of the SWMPC Bill 2007; investigating the issues in achieving targeted goals of 3Rs programme, and analyzing the policy gap between 3Rs policies and practices (this will evaluate the existing 3Rs solid waste policy strengths and weaknesses and identify policy gaps for improvement). This study funded by Ministry of Environment, Japan, is to examine 3R related policies for solid waste management (SWM) in Malaysia and to analyze possible development or impact of national level policy in response to specific challenges in relation to priority policy areas. The paper is organized in the following manner. First, we will briefly explain the 3R and its implementation in Malaysia. In the next section, we discuss the solid waste management (SWM) and issue pertaining to SWM in Malaysia. Then, we focus on the 3R related policies in Malaysia and the existing gaps. This is followed by analysis of our study. We end with some recommendation in closing the 3R gaps in Malaysia.
Solid waste management particularly municipal solid waste (MSW) has become a national concern due to the ever increasing rate of MSW. Currently daily generation of MSW has exceeded 28,000 tonnes and with the existing trend, it is expected to reach more than 38,000 tonnes by 2020. The current generation indicates 60% increase over the past 10 years. Table 1 depicts the daily generation of waste by states in Malaysia. Table 1: Generation of MSW in Peninsular Malaysia according to states (1996 – 2009)
NA = Not available * = estimated figure The main component in Malaysian MSW is organic waste which contributes approximately 40% of the total waste stream. The high organic content is a typical characteristic of waste disposed by developing countries in the world. This is followed by 15% of paper and 14% plastics. The detail composition of waste received by landfills in Malaysia is shown in Figure 1. 
Figure 1: Average composition of waste received by landfills in Malaysia The larger amount of Malaysian MSW is recyclables which include paper, plastic, glass, metal and aluminum (Fauziah and Agamuthu 2010, Mohamad Osman et al. 2009). Recyclable items represent 60% of the total waste volume that without retrieval activity, these valuable materials will be disposed off into landfill. The implications of this practice are the lost of these resources and the rapid utilization of the landfill space. Thus, it will reduce the length of the life-span of landfills in the country. The existing waste disposal habit among Malaysians sees a very high potential of diverting waste via recycling. The only obstacle in material recovery practice comes from the fact that Malaysian MSW is highly commingled. As a result, the waste contains high moisture content and reduces the value of the recyclable items. The generation of various types of waste among the groups with different income level show slight different. While others show insignificant differences in generation among the different income groups, the generation of food waste and non-consumed food items was evident. Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of waste generated by high income, middle income and low income groups in Malaysia. 
Figure 2: Percentage of waste generated by different income groups in Malaysia. The generation of paper waste in Malaysia showed an interesting finding. The highest percentage of newsprint disposal was from the high income group followed by the middle income and low income groups. This indicated the correlation between income level and newsprint disposal into the waste stream. Since newsprint has some market value in the recycling sector, it is more commonly collected and sold off by the lower income groups to generate additional side-income. On the other hand, the low market value discourages this activity among the higher income group to participate as the economic benefit is not attractive. Corrugated paper was found the highest in the low income groups’ waste (Figure 3) followed by the middle income group and high income group. It shows a correlation between income level and generation of corrugated paper where increase in income level will result in the reduction in corrugated paper disposal. This probably contributed to the current practice among high-end products’ sales-agents and distributors to collect corrugated boxes from their customers. Thus, less corrugated boxes need to be discarded. Figure 3 shows types of paper waste generated by different income groups in Malaysia. 
Figure 3: Waste paper generation by different income groups in Malaysia. The current trend in waste generation and the composition in Malaysia highlight the urgent need of improvement to current waste management system. To date, approximately 95% of the waste are disposed off directly into landfills that it not only will create environmental problem but also unsustainable from the economy point of view. Thus, implementation of 3Rs practice into Malaysian waste management practice is deemed necessary. The main weakness in the existing waste management system in the country is the lack of proper policy that focuses the various issues in waste management sector particularly 3Rs. Consecutive sections discuss the policies related to 3Rs in Malaysia and its evolution towards the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act (2007).
The main 3R related policies in Malaysia are outlined below:-
Prior to 1988 and the ABC, there was no concerted and formal policy to guide solid waste management in Malaysia. Solid waste management in terms of collection and management were mainly handled by the Local Authorities (LAs) without much involvement from the Federal government. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG) in 1998 with the assistance of the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) formulated an Action Plan on Municipal Solid Waste Management or more commonly known as an Action Plan for A Beautiful and Clean Malaysia (ABC). The proposed national policy by ABC was formulated with the aim to produce a national uniform municipal solid waste system that was productive, environmentally sounds and socially acceptable in Malaysia by the year 2010. The ABC policy was not officially endorsed by the National Council for Local Government as well as implemented completely although MHLG initiated its first and second recycling programs in 1993 and 2000 respectively. The ABC generally is considered to have been succeeded by the National Strategic Plan on Solid Waste Management in Malaysia officially adopted in 2005.
The National Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Management (NSP) was formulated in 2002 and adopted in 2005 by the Government of Malaysia (GOM) and provides the basis for SWM policies and measures in Peninsular Malaysia until 2020 The NSP scope covers municipal solid waste in Peninsular Malaysia including solid waste from household, institutional, commercial and industrial premises, as well as those generated from construction and public cleansing activities. The key strategy of the NSP is to achieve “Sustainable waste management through reduction, re-use and recycling and the use of appropriate technologies, facilities, and equipment to provide a sustainable and comprehensive solid waste management service”. The NSP proposed six Strategies to guide solid waste legislative, institutional and infrastructural planning and management in Malaysia including an Action Plan to act as a road map for the implementation of the NSP. The Action Plan covers the regulatory and technical services framework for SWM, facilities and services framework for SWM and the supporting infrastructural framework for a sustainable SWM system. The NSP established the following service targets to focus plans to improve SWM and the monitor the efficiency of its implementation (see Table 2). Table 2 : NSP Targets
The reduction target for 2020 was revised by the GOM to 22%. The NSP provided the framework for the development of the SWM Legislation, SWM Master Plans, Waste Minimization Master Plans and the SWM Facilities Master Plans. However, some elements of the NSP may need to be reviewed and updated due to the gazetment of the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Bill (SWMB) in 2007 as well as taking into consideration the current SWM situation and institutional structure where the NSP is expected to be revised in the near future.
The Master Plan on Waste Minimization (MWM) was launched in 2006 with the objective to provide Vision, Strategies and Roles of Stakeholders to minimize the amount of solid waste disposed in Malaysia. The Vision of the WMP is “To realize a Material Cycle Society, where waste minimization activities are systemized and sufficiently enrooted in the behavior of government, private sector, and the people in Malaysia”. The MWM outlined waste minimization strategies, action plans for Federal Government, action plans for the local authorities and pilot projects including the preparation of guidelines on waste minimization.
The National Solid Waste Management Policy is aimed at establishing an integrated solid waste management system that is comprehensive, cost effective, sustainable and accepted by the public, emphasizes environmental protection, selective of affordable technologies and ensure the public health. The implementation of the Policy will be through the waste management hierarchy with emphasis on waste reduction through 3R activities, intermediate treatment and final disposal.
The SWM Act regulates the management of solid waste and public cleansing to ensure the maintenance of proper sanitation in Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territories of Putrajaya and Labuan. The SWM Act includes the term controlled solid waste to denote the source of the waste and defines solid waste as scrap material or other unwanted surplus substance or rejected products arising from the application of any process but excludes scheduled waste, sewage and radioactive waste. The SWM Act defines recycling as to collect and separate solid waste for the purpose of producing products.
Generally, many of the Malaysian SWM policies especially those related to 3R activities have been implemented in an informal basis due to a lack of legislative empowerment. However, even though the enactment of the SWM Act in 2007 has provided the legislative framework for SWM it is still powerless because it has not been enforced where it cannot be implemented due to a lack of supporting regulations. Furthermore, the initial enforcement of the SWM Act is only expected to be in areas related to SWM facilities and services as opposed to SWM 3R activities since the DWSM and the SWM Corporation are expected to adopt a non-regulatory approach in addressing 3R activities in the initial stages. Consequently one of the potential key policy gaps observed in 3R policies is the delay in the formal adoption and implementation of 3R policies in Malaysia. This is a significant policy gap analysis between theory and practice since without the formal adoption or enforcement of the policies; policy implementation can only be done informally and in an ad-hoc manner by SWM stakeholders. Thus, the key challenge in the Malaysian 3R policy analysis is gap reduction between SWM policy and its implementation either due to stakeholder acceptability of 3R policies or policy implementation obstacles from political interference or policy impracticality due to direct adoption of SWM policy practices from other countries.
Our analysis consisted of obtaining the feedback on the 3R policies and their implementation in Malaysia using interview, questionnaires and focus group discussions. A 3R policy analysis questionnaire was developed. This was carried out in two phases. The first is a 3R Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with a total of 25 participants from government agencies, local authorities, non-government organizations (NGOs) and private sector organizations attending the 3R FGD. Next, the 3R Questionnaire was administered to 107 local authorities (LA) in Malaysia who was known to practice 3R activities within their jurisdiction. A total of 54 questionnaires was completed and returned.
  
  
Figure 4: Awareness on 3R Policies
The 3R FGD stakeholder perception on Malaysia achieving a recycling target of 22% by 2020 was generally in the agree category with a total of 80% in the agree/strongly agree category. The highest percentage was for the agree category at 60% followed by the strongly agree category at 20%, disagree category at 16% with the lowest percentage for the strongly disagree category at 4%. They also believe that the Malaysian public is ready for solid waste source separation. The analysis shows that 52% agree that the Malaysian is ready for source separation. However, 68% either agree or strongly believe that recycling is inconvenient The analysis also shows that 72% either disagree/strongly disagree hat the existing level of recycling in Malaysia is high. Only 4% agree that the recycling is high. Generally the 3R FGD stakeholder perception was that Malaysia can achieve a 22% recycling target by 2020 and the public is ready for solid waste source separation. However, the perception is also that recycling is inconvenient and that the existing recycling rate is not high (see Figure 5).  
 
Figure 5: FGD Stakeholder Perception on 3R Existing Situation
A total of 68% disagree/strongly disagree that existing political will for recycling is high. 88% perceive that the existing low consciousness for recycling is due to a lack of government efforts. About 76% said that residents who refuse to do recycling should be punished severely. However, 100% agree on stipulating laws to make recycling mandatory in Malaysia. Generally the 3R FGD stakeholder perception was that existing political will for recycling is not high and that low consciousness for recycling was due to a lack of government efforts. Furthermore, the perception is that residents who refuse to recycle should be punished severely where laws should be stipulated to make recycling mandatory. Interestingly 100% of the stakeholder agreed that recycling should be made mandatory (Figure 6).  
 
Figure 6: Stakeholder Perception on 3R policies & legislation
The 3R FGD stakeholder perception on awareness of recycling facilities location was about 80% in the agree/strongly agree category. The highest percentage was for both agree and strongly agree category at 40% followed by the disagree category at 20% with none recorded for the strongly disagree category. 92% of the stakeholders feel that staff involved in recycling activities requires technical training. Only 8% agree that there is recycling awareness among the public. They feel that low public concern (60% agree, 36% strongly agree) is the cause for limited recycling. The stakeholders who attended the FGD agree that awareness creation is important for the success of recycling. Therefore, they strongly believe that education plays an important role in making recycling a success. Generally the 3R FGD stakeholder perception was that people were aware of the location of recycling facilities in their area and that awareness creation, education and technical training for staff is important in making recycling a success. However, the perception is also that recycling awareness among the public is not high and low public concern is the cause for limited recycling. Interestingly 100% of the stakeholder agreed that awareness creation was important for recycling (Figure 7).      
Figure 7: Stakeholder Perception on 3R awareness & information
A total of 60% either agree/strongly agree that recycling information is easily accessible. The 3R FGD stakeholder perception that recycling facilities such as recycling bins are easily available was generally in the disagree category with a total of 76% in the disagree/strongly disagree category. The highest percentage was for the disagree category at 64% followed by the strongly disagree category at 12%, agree category at 20% with the lowest percentage for the strongly agree category at 4%.About 96% answered that sufficient recycling facilities are important in making recycling a success. Only 4% disagreed to this. However, when asked on ways to encourage the public to recycle, 96% suggested providing more user friendly facilities can encourage public participation in recycling. Generally the 3R FGD stakeholder perception was that recycling information is easily available and that sufficient and user friendly recycling facilities was important to make recycling a success. However, the perception was also that recycling infrastructure such as recycling bins was not easily available (Figure 8).    
Figure 8: Stakeholder Perception on 3R infrastructure and facilities
From the FGD, 60% of the stakeholders perceive that it is appropriate to pay for better recycling services. A total of 68% of the stakeholders generally disagreed that recycling increases the burden of the local authorities. 92% of stakeholders generally perceived social factors play an important role in making recycling a success. Most of the stakeholders felt that cost criterion play an important role in making recycling a success, a total of 92% either agreed or strongly agreed. About 80% disagreed to the fact that government funding for recycling was sufficient. However, there’s a general view that recycling can be increased if government agencies were to use recycled products. About 96% said that financial incentives are important in making recycling work About 80% either agreed or strongly agreed that public participation in recycling should be voluntary and 96% said that collectors need to play an important role. 52% voiced out that there is not sufficient support for recycling from the industries and producers. About 48% said there is sufficient support. However, only 60% generally agreed that support for recycling from the Ministry is high. Generally the 3R FGD stakeholder perception was that it was appropriate to pay for better recycling services and that social factors and cost criterion plays an important role in recycling. However the perception was that recycling did not increase the burden of the local authorities and that government funding was also not sufficient. Furthermore, stakeholders agreed that recycling required incentives and can be improved if government agencies used recycled products where public participation should be voluntary. The perception was also that support from the industries and producers were not high though support from the Ministry was high (Figure 9).   
  
  
  
Figure 9: Stakeholder Perception on 3R on economic incentives & support
Generally the 3R FGD stakeholders had the following feedback on 3R benefits, key issues and potential solutions:
.
The LA stakeholder awareness on each 3R plan/policy:
Generally LA stakeholder awareness on 3R policies was in the moderate and high awareness category (Figure 10).   
  
Figure 10: LA Stakeholder Awareness on 3R Policies
About 70% of the LA stakeholder generally agrees that Malaysia can achieve the recycling target of 22% by 2020. A Total of 54% either agree/strongly agree that the Malaysian public being ready for solid waste source separation. Only 2% strongly disagree to this perception. 52% of the LA stakeholder agree/strongly agrees on recycling being inconvenient. Generally, they disagreed that the existing level of recycling in Malaysia is high. Only 29% agree/strongly agree that the existing level of recycling in Malaysia is high. Generally the LA stakeholder perception was that Malaysia can achieve a 22% recycling target by 2020 and the public is ready for solid waste source separation. However, the perception is also that recycling is inconvenient and that the existing recycling rate is not high (Figure 11).    
Figure 11: LA Stakeholder Perception on 3R Existing Situation
The LA stakeholder perception that existing political will for recycling is high was generally in the agree category with a total of 52% in the agree/strongly agree category. About 65% of the LA’s said that the existing low consciousness for recycling is due to a lack of government efforts. When asked if the residents should be punished severely if they refuse to recycle, 72% generally agreed that non-cooperative residents should be punished. A total of 93% of the LA stakeholder agree stipulating laws to make recycling mandatory in Malaysia. Generally the LA stakeholder perception was that existing political will for recycling is high and that low consciousness for recycling was due to a lack of government efforts. Furthermore, the perception is that residents who refuse to recycle should be punished severely where laws should be stipulated to make recycling mandatory (Figure12).    
Figure 12: Stakeholder Perception on 3R policies & legislation
The LA generally (83%) agrees that public has awareness of recycling facilities location. However, 70% disagree/strongly disagree that recycling awareness among the public is high. LA stakeholder perceives that low public concern is the cause for limited recycling. The entire stakeholder who responded to the survey agrees that awareness creation is important for the success of recycling. About 98% of the LA stakeholder feels that the staff involved in recycling activities requires technical training. A total of 81% of the LA stakeholder agree/strongly agree that education plays an important role in making recycling a success. Generally the LA stakeholder perception was that people were aware of the location of recycling facilities in their area and that awareness creation, education and technical training for staff is important in making recycling a success. However, the perception is also that recycling awareness among the public is not high and low public concern is the cause for limited recycling. Interestingly 100% of the stakeholder agreed that awareness creation was important for recycling (Figure 13).      
Figure 13: Stakeholder Perception on 3R awareness & information
A total of 54% of the LA stakeholder responded that recycling information is easily accessible. However, 46% disagreed to this. Only 43% of the respondents said that recycling facilities such as recycling bins are easily available. However, 93% perceived that sufficient recycling facilities are important in making recycling a success. The LA stakeholder perception that providing more user friendly facilities can encourage public participation in recycling was generally in the agree category with a total of 96% in the agree/strongly agree category. Generally the LA stakeholder perception was that recycling information is easily available and that sufficient and user friendly recycling facilities was important to make recycling a success. However, the perception was also that recycling infrastructure such as recycling bins was not easily available (Figure 14).    
Figure 14: Stakeholder Perception on 3R infrastructure and facilities
A total of 74% agree/strongly agree that it is appropriate to pay for better recycling services. Only 4% strongly disagree to the charges. Generally, the LA disagree that recycling increases the burden of the local authorities. Social factors play an important role in making recycling a success. This is based on the analysis that all respondents agreed to the fact that social factor is an important factor. Other than the social factor, cost criterion is important as well. 93% of respondents supported this. Here, government funding is important as most LA receive their funds from the Federal Government to finance their recycling activities. Some have their own revenue such as from the tax collection. About 93% of the LA agreed that recycling can be increased if government agencies were to use recycled products. 87% o the respondent agrees that financial incentives can encourage more recycling activities. However, 91% of the LA perceived that public participation in recycling should be voluntary. A total of 67% LA agree/strongly agree that support for recycling from the industries and producers are high. About 33% generally disagreed to this. The LA stakeholder (about 74%) perceived that support for recycling from the Ministry is high. A total of 96% agree/strongly agree that was generators play a crucial role in recycling. Generally the LA stakeholder perception was that it was appropriate to pay for better recycling services and that social factors and cost criterion plays an important role in recycling. However the perception was that recycling did not increase the burden of the local authorities and that government funding was also not sufficient. Furthermore, stakeholders agreed that recycling required incentives and can be improved if government agencies used recycled products where public participation should be voluntary. The perception was also that support from the industries and producers and the Ministry was high (Figure 15).         
 
Figure 15: Stakeholder Perception on 3R on economic incentives & support
The LA stakeholder perception on the main benefit of 3R activities was the highest for pollution prevention being at 48%, followed by resource conservation at 37%, business generation at 9% and economic interest at 6%. The LA stakeholder perception on the key area for the successful implementation of 3R activities was the highest for policy and legislation at 48% followed by information and awareness at 35%, economic incentives at 9% and infrastructure and facilities at 7% (see Figure 16).  
Figure 16: Stakeholder Feedback on 3R benefits & key issues
Stakeholder awareness on 3R policies in Malaysia was moderate to high except for the Action Plan for a Beautiful & Clean Malaysia and the National Waste Minimization Study. Generally, there is a belief that Malaysia can achieve a 22% recycling target by 2020 and the public is ready for solid waste source separation. However, the perception is also that recycling is inconvenient and that the existing recycling rate is not high. They perceive the reason for low consciousness for recycling was due to a lack of government efforts. Furthermore, the perception is that residents who refuse to recycle should be punished severely where laws should be stipulated to make recycling mandatory. Interestingly 100% of the FGD stakeholder agreed that recycling should be made mandatory. However stakeholder perception between FGD stakeholders and LA stakeholders differed for political will where FGD stakeholders disagreed to the fact that political will is high while LA stakeholders agreed political will is high People were aware of the location of recycling facilities in their area and that awareness creation, education and technical training for staff is important in making recycling a success. However, the recycling awareness among the public is not high and low public concern is the cause for limited recycling. Interestingly, 100% of both FGD and LA stakeholder agreed that awareness creation was important for recycling. Stakeholder perception was that recycling information is easily available and that sufficient and user friendly recycling facilities was important to make recycling a success. However, the perception was also that recycling infrastructure such as recycling bins was not easily available. The analysis show that it was appropriate to pay for better recycling services and that social factors and cost criterion plays an important role in recycling. Interestingly 100% of LA stakeholder agreed that social factors were important for recycling. However the perception was that recycling did not increase the burden of the local authorities and that government funding was also not sufficient. Furthermore, stakeholders agreed that recycling required incentives and can be improved if government agencies used recycled products where public participation should be voluntary. Interestingly 100% of FGD stakeholder agreed that recycling can be increased if government agencies used recycled products. The perception was also that support from the Ministry for recycling is high. However stakeholder perception between FGD stakeholders and LA stakeholders differed for support from the industries and producers for recycling activities where FGD stakeholders disagreed that industries and producers support for recycling is high while LA stakeholders agreed that the support is high. Stakeholder perception was that the main benefit of 3R activities is for pollution prevention and resource conservation and that the key area for the successful implementation of 3R activities is in 3R policy/legislation as well as 3R information and awareness. REFERENCES Agamuthu (2010), MSW Management in Malaysia : Changes for Sustainability”, Municipal Solid Waste Management in Asia and the Pacific Islands, Penerbit ITB, Indonesia, pp 138-144 Chenayah, S., Agamuthu, P. and Takeda, E. (2007). Multicriteria Modelling on Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste in Subang Jaya, Malaysian Journal of Science, Vol 26 (1), pp 1-16 Dennis (2001), “Policy for an Integrated Solid Waste Management in Malaysia”, Thesis, University Malaya. Fauziah S.H. & Agamuthu, P. 2010. Trends in sustainable landfilling in a developing country. Waste Management & Research. (paper submitted: WMR-10-0404) GOM (2007), “Solid Waste & Public Cleansing Corporation Act”, Government of Malaysia.
Mohamed Osman, S., Mohd Nasir, H., Abdul Mujeebu, M., 2009. Assessment of municipal solid waste generation and recyclable materials potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Management 29(7), 2209-2213. 2# corresponding author: santha@um.edu.my Directory: upload upload -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 upload -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers upload -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? upload -> For want of a nail upload -> Traditional British values upload -> Tv shows, Made for tv movies, Mini Series & Internet Programs Shot at Paramount Ranch upload -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models upload -> Police Militarization upload -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 upload -> Township of winfield Download 121.94 Kb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||