Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

ISSN: 1096-2247 (Print) 2162-2906 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

Characteristics and management of domesticwaste in a rural area of the Tibetan Plateau

Zhiyong Han, Zeng Dan, Guozhong Shi, Lukun Shen, Wenlai Xu & Yanhua Xie

To cite this article: Zhiyong Han, Zeng Dan, Guozhong Shi, Lukun Shen, Wenlai Xu &Yanhua Xie (2015) Characteristics and management of domestic waste in a rural area of theTibetan Plateau, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 65:11, 1365-1375, DOI:10.1080/10962247.2015.1078859

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2015.1078859

Accepted author version posted online: 07Aug 2015.Published online: 07 Aug 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 974

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

TECHNICAL PAPER

Characteristics and management of domestic waste in a rural area of theTibetan PlateauZhiyong Han,1 Zeng Dan,2 Guozhong Shi,3,⁄ Lukun Shen,3 Wenlai Xu,1 and Yanhua Xie11State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection, College of Environment and Civil Engineering, ChengduUniversity of Technology, Chengdu, People’s Republic of China2Faculty of Natural Science, Tibet University, Lhasa, People’s Republic of China3Biogas Institute of Ministry of Agriculture, Chengdu, People’s Republic of China⁄Please address correspondence to: Guozhong Shi, Biogas Institute of Ministry of Agriculture, Section 4-13, Renmin Nanlu, Chengdu 610041,People’s Republic of China; e-mail: brtc666@163.com

In the rural area of the Tibetan Plateau (RATP), the characteristics of domestic waste, people’s environmental awareness,people’s willingness to pay and their influence factors were firstly studied by questionnaires, field samplings and laboratory tests.The results showed that, in the RATP, the generation of domestic waste was 85 g•d-1 per capita and it was mainly composed ofplastics, inert waste, kitchen waste, glass and paper. The waste bulk density, moisture content, ash, combustible and low calorificvalue were 65 kg•m-3, 19.25%, 44.90%, 35.85% and 10,520 kJ•kg-1 respectively. These characteristics are influenced by incomesources and geographical position to some extent. Classified collection should be promoted widely on the household and thevillage basis. Compost, fermentation, landfill, bioreactor landfill and semi-aerobic landfill have been approved as effectivetechniques to treat domestic waste, except incineration. The distance of 50–800 m between each collection facility and thedisposal fee of around $0.8 per month per household are suggested. For suburbs or large population villages, it’s better to treatdomestic waste by the centralized way. But for the remote rural areas, a decentralized way is proposed. Significantly, theeducational and economic influence should be considered into an effective domestic waste management program.

Implications: The current situatio n of the environment in the rural areas of the Tibetan Plateau (RATP) was surveyed. There,the generation of organics and moisture of domestic waste were low but ash, recyclables, and combustibles were high. People’sknowledge of domestic waste was absent but their participation in management was strong. Based on the current situation,compost, fermentation, and landfill were effective but incineration was inappropriate. Also, a localized mini landfill for a clusterof villages and or settlements was the best method there.

Introduction

The Tibetan Plateau is a large tectonic geomorphologicalregion in central Asia with an average altitude of 4,000 m and atotal area of 2,250,000 km2 that contains a population of10,214,200 (Chen and Shen, 2000). Due to its high altitude,low atmospheric pressure, low oxygen content, and low tem-perature, the environment is very sensitive and fragile.Moreover, it is lacking in preventative and self-renewal cap-ability (Jiang et al., 2009). The Tibetan Plateau is also thesource of the Yellow, Yangtze, and Lantsang rivers, and itswater reserves comprise one-third of the total reserves ofChina. Therefore, the environmental health of the TibetanPlateau is of significant concern to China and other SoutheastAsian nations.

Economic development and changes in lifestyles in theTibetan Plateau have resulted in increasing consumption ofpackaged and processed goods, including food and otheritems, in recent decades, especially since opening of the

Qinghai–Tibet railway. Dan and Han (2012) reported that theamount of municipal solid waste (MSW) in Lhasa increasedrapidly to 600 t d−1 in 2010. The MSW in this region hascharacteristics such as a high per-capita discharge, low watercontent, high ash content, high lower calorific value, and a highpercentage of recyclable matter (Dan and Han, 2012). Moreover,it has been predicted that MSW generation in Tibet will reach4,942 t d−1 in 2020 (Jiang et al., 2009). Therefore, alternativemethods of MSW management have been studied (Dang andOuyang, 2009) and use of semi-aerobic landfilling to treat MSWin Tibet has been investigated (Yang and Zha, 2008). However,no studies of the characteristics or management of domesticwaste in rural areas of the Tibetan Plateau (RATP) have beenconducted to date, even though the rural population makes upmore than 60% of the total population. Notably, solid wastemanagement in the RATP is becoming a major concern. TheRATP is also characterized by a shortage of appropriate infra-structure and formally organized solid waste management,

1365

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 65(11):1365–1375, 2015. Copyright © Biogas Institute of Ministry of Agriculture. ISSN: 1096-2247 printDOI: 10.1080/10962247.2015.1078859 Submitted January 27, 2015; final version submitted June 13, 2015; accepted July 27, 2015.

which has resulted in increasing problems related to domesticwaste, including impacts on human health and decreasingaesthetic values of rural villages and their surroundings.Moreover, pollution has been influencing the quality and secur-ity of water in the region (Zhao, 2009). Therefore, it is essentialto investigate domestic waste treatment, the characteristics ofdomestic waste, local residents’ knowledge of domestic waste,their willingness to pay and participate in domestic waste man-agement, the influence factors of the characteristics, and thefactors influencing people’s awareness of the RATP.

Materials and Methods

Survey design

This investigation was carried out in five villages located insouthern Tibet and northwest Sichuan province (Figure 1). Thesevillages were selected according to their locations, income sources,topography, and distance from the nearest towns or cities (Table 1).

About 10 rural households were randomly selected in eachvillage to survey by an interview questionnaire. Overall,51 households were interviewed and investigated in August2012. Questionnaires were designed to obtain the followinginformation:(1) The socioeconomic characteristics of the households.(2) The present environmental pollution and current situation

of the management, collection, transfer, treatment, anddisposal of domestic waste.

(3) Residents’ knowledge regarding domestic waste pollution,as well as hazardous and recyclable domestic waste.

(4) Residents’ mode of domestic waste collection and treatment.(5) Residents’ willingness to pay for domestic waste services

and participate in domestic waste management.

Experimental design

A garbage bag was provided for each interviewed house-hold to collect all of the domestic waste discharged over 2days. The mixed waste of each household was then collectedand weighed by researchers, after which all domestic wastedischarged by interviewed households within a village wascollected and mixed. The bulk density was tested, after whichit was sorted, the sorted components were weighed, and thecomposition of domestic waste in each village was calculated.Finally, 1 kg of domestic waste was sampled as the proportionof wet component in each village and brought back to thelaboratory for testing and analysis.

Before testing, the samples were prepared. First, samples ofeach component of domestic waste collected in every villagewere dried, after which they were crushed and stored.

The bulk density and the composition of wet mix wastewere sampled according to the Sampling and AnalysisMethods for Domestic Waste (CJ/T 313-2009) promulgatedby the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development ofthe People’s Republic of China. The characteristics of eachsample, including the moisture content, combustible content,and ash, were tested. Since the kitchen waste, wood, and ash inthe Tibetan Plateau are different from other areas due to itsspecific climate and culture, the calorific values of those frac-tions were tested with a calorimeter (IKA C 2000), and thecalorific values of other components were cited from typicalvalues shown in the aforementioned standard. Finally, thecharacteristics of the domestic waste were calculated as theproportion of the composition.

The domestic waste generation was analyzed on a house-hold basis, while other characteristics were analyzed on avillage basis using eq 1. Analyses were conducted usingMicrosoft Excel 2007 and SPSS 19.0:

y ¼ fX

x� �

(1)

where y is the data for the Tibetan Plateau; x is the data on ahousehold or village basis; and f is the calculation formula orstatistic function.

Table 1. Overviews of the investigated villages.

Villages Location Income sources Topography Distance from city

Dajielin Zalang, Shannan, Tibet Handicraft making In the valley of middlereaches of YalutsangpoRiver

2 kmJina Gongga, Shannan, Tibet Crop farming and

livestock breeding19 km

Baidui Qushui, Lhasa, Tibet 34 kmYang shan Jiuzaigou, Aba, Sichuan Livestock breeding and tourism At the foot of a mountain 40 kmBaisa Maerkang, Aba, Sichuan Migrant or local working On the hillside of mountains 40 km

Figure 1. Geographical position of the investigated villages.

1366 Han et al. / Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 65 (2015) 1365–1375

Results and Discussion

Backgrounds of investigated individuals andhouseholds

Table 2 presents the socioeconomic characteristics of theinvestigated people and households. Most of the intervieweeswere middle-aged because young people had migrated. As aresult, only 29.4% of the interviewees were literate and had ajunior education or higher. In addition, the income of investi-gated households was relatively low compared to the averagein China. The primary sources of income were farming, breed-ing livestock, and migrant or local employment. Overall,94.1% of investigated households had an income of less than$4,888 per year.

Current situation

In the RATP, a special municipality for managing and con-trolling the environmental pollution has not been set up belowthe county level to date. Additionally, areas suffer from ashortage of infrastructure, appropriate legislation, and fundsfor environmental control, especially in remote areas. As aresult, solid waste services including collection, transfer, anddisposal are rare. Additionally, when present, the services arecommonly reduced to collection and simple disposal, which aremainly organized and conducted by the local village committeeor town government. A significant portion of the populationdoes not have access to a waste collection service, and only afraction of generated waste is actually collected. The finaldisposal of domestic waste was commonly by burning(70.59%), random dumping into local rivers or open dumpsites(33.33%), collecting in simple landfills (19.61%), and com-posting for organic fertilizer (11.76%). These simple disposalshave led to serious solid waste pollution and water pollution(Figure 2).

Characteristics of domestic waste

Generation. The average per-capita generation of domesticwaste in the RATP was 85 g d−1, although it fluctuated greatlyfrom 39 to 156 g d−1 among villages. As shown in Table 3, thislevel is much lower than that of urban areas of the TibetanPlateau (Dan and Han, 2012), Italian rural areas (1616 g d−1

per capita) (Passarini, et al., 2011), and Iranian rural areas(Abduli, et al., 2008).

Physical characteristics. The results of the waste compositionanalysis are shown in Table 3. The prevailing composition ofdomestic waste (in wet weight percentages) was plastics, inertwaste, kitchen waste, glass, and paper, and their total propor-tion reached 83.95%. The percentage of recyclable wasteincluding plastics, glass, paper, and metals was up to 48.95%;however, the proportion of biodegradable waste was only22.48%. There was very little “other” waste, which consisted

Table 2. Socioeconomic characteristics of the investigated households.

Interviewees’ age (years) ≤30 30–50 50–70 ≥70

Proportion (%) 21.6 45.1 27.4 5.9Interviewees’ educational level Illiteracy Primary Junior Senior HigherProportion (%) 21.6 49.0 13.7 5.9 9.8Annual income ($) ≤814.6 814.6–1,629.2 1,629.2–4887.6 4887.6–8,145.0 ≥8,145.0Proportion (%) 33.3 21.6 39.2 5.9 0Main source of income Corp farming Livestock breeding Both corp farming

and livestockbreeding

Migrant or localworking

Service orothersa

Proportion (%)c 9.8 7.8 37.3 27.5 23.5Livestock Cattle Pigs Poultry Dogs Othersb

Proportion (%)c 86.3 66.7 66.7 51.0 29.5Energy in daily life Firewood Coal Electricity Biogas or natural

gasCow dung

Proportion (%)c 100.0 2.0 100.0 33.3 58.8

Notes: aIncluding catering, tourism, retail and handicraft making.bIncluding sheep and horse.cMultiple choice.

Figure 2. Kinds of environmental pollution in the investigated villages.

Han et al. / Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 65 (2015) 1365–1375 1367

of batteries, expired medicine, and other indistinguishablewaste.

There was a similar percentage of inert waste, kitchenwaste, textiles, and other waste in rural and urban areas ofthe Tibetan Plateau. The level of plastics, glass, and wood wasmuch larger but the content of paper and metals was obviouslysmaller in the RATP. Moreover, when compared to rural areasof other countries, the domestic waste in the RATP has sometypical features, including an abundance of recyclable wasteand a shortage of kitchen waste. These typical features weredue to differences in residents’ habits and customs, recyclableactivities, and climate among areas.

Owing to the large portion of plastic and paper, the domesticwaste of the RATP was very light. The average bulk densitywas 65 kg m−3, with a range of 41 kg m−3 to 112 kg m−3. Thisvalue is obviously lower than in Lhasa (300 kg m−3) (Dan andHan, 2012), which results in a good compressibility.

Chemical characteristics. The chemical characteristics of eachcomponent of domestic waste are shown in Table 4. The

moisture, ash, and combustible contents of domestic wastewere 19.25%, 44.90%, and 35.85%, respectively, which weresimilar to those of MSW in Lhasa (24%, 38% and 38%) (Danand Han, 2012). Based on the proportion of each componentand its chemical characteristics, the moisture of domestic wastewas primarily derived from kitchen waste, the ash was mainlyderived from inert waste, glass, and kitchen waste, and thecombustible fraction was derived from paper and plastics.

In the RATP, the lower calorific value of domestic wastewas very high, reaching 10,520 kJ kg−1. This value wasobviously higher than that of the urban area of the TibetanPlateau (7,877 kJ kg−1) (Dan and Han, 2012) and the rural areaof Iran (2,414–8,916 kJ kg−1) (Abduli, et al., 2008). This is dueto the high content of combustible material and low content ofmoisture in the domestic waste of the RATP.

Factors influencing domestic waste characteristics

Based on the statistics of 51 households, Table 5 shows theinfluence of different factors on characteristics of domesticwaste in the RATP, including income sources and geographical

Table 3. Comparison on the physical characteristics of domestic waste in the RATP and others.

Physical characteristicsRural area

of the Tibetan PlateauUrban areaof Lhasa[3]

Rural areaof Fiji[16]

Rural areaof Iran[8]

Generation (g·d−1 per capita) 85 1370 / 646

Com

positio

n(%

)

Plastics 21.34 14.84 7.50 13.34Inert waste 23.25a 22.83a 9.40b 11.70c

Kitchen waste 16.25 20.45 69.90 42.49Glass 14.94 4.73 1.00 5.89Paper 11.29 23.74 6.40 8.77Wood 6.23 2.76 / 6.90Textiles and leather 4.71 4.50 1.70 4.83Metals 1.38 5.12 4.10 6.08Others 0.61d 1.03d / /

Notes: aIncluding ash, dirt, bricks, and ceramic tiles.bIncluding ash, dirt, wood, bricks, and hazardous waste.cIncluding construction and demolition.dIncluding batteries, expired medicine and other indistinguishable waste.

Table 4. Chemical characteristics of each component of domestic waste.

Composition Moisture content (%) Ash content (%) Combustible (%) Gross calorific value (kJ kg−1)

Kitchen waste 45.50 31.59 22.91 4,650a/12,677c

Paper 22.82 14.62 62.56 16,600a

Plastics 17.85 12.51 69.64 32,570a

Textiles and leather 14.22 1.60 84.18 17,450a

Wood 32.34 31.72 35.94 18,610a /12,002c

Inert wasteb 13.68 75.58 10.74 6,980a /4,344c

Glass 0.10 98.00a 1.90 140a

Metals 0.00 98.00a 2.00 700a

Notes: aThe typical value from the “Sampling and Analysis Methods for Domestic Waste” (CJ/T 313-2009).bIncluding ash, dirt, bricks and ceramic tilescTest value with a calorimeter.

1368 Han et al. / Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 65 (2015) 1365–1375

position of investigated households. Based on the Kruskal–Wallis test and analysis of variance (ANOVA), the character-istics of domestic waste from Tibet and Sichuan did not differsignificantly. Moreover, there was no significant differenceamong different income sources such as crop farming or live-stock breeding, migrant or local working, and service orbusiness.

As shown in Table 5, the content of ash, dirt, and woodin the rural portion of Tibet is much higher than in Sichuan.This is mainly due to the difference in the energy resourcestructure. With the exception of electricity, cow dung andfirewood were the most important energy resources in theinvestigated households in the rural area of Tibet. However,in Sichuan Province, no investigated households used cowdung as an energy resource because of the different climateand people’s different habits and customs. Conversely, thecontent of glass in rural Tibet is obviously lower than inSichuan.

The income sources of the investigated households primar-ily influence the characteristics of domestic waste on the com-position because of their different productive and consumptiveactivities, habits, and customs. Therefore, domestic waste col-lected from households whose income primarily depends onservice or business contains a higher percentage of paper,plastics, kitchen waste, and textiles and leather than that ofother households. This typical composition results in the high-est lower calorific value. Moreover, the domestic waste col-lected from households whose income primarily depends on

crop farming or livestock breeding has a higher percentage ofash, dirt, and wood because most of them used firewood as anenergy resource. As a result, its bulk density was highest.

Based on the mean ranks of different income sources, thecharacteristics of domestic waste in households whose incomeprimarily depends on migrant or local workers are very differ-ent from those of other households. Specifically, in such house-holds, electricity was the dominant energy source and some ofthe households used biogas or natural gas. Accordingly, littleash, dirt, wood, or bamboo was found in the domestic waste.However, a large amount of glass was discharged in theirdomestic waste. Both more discharged glass and smaller num-ber of family members lead to the highest generation of domes-tic waste per capita in those households.

Although there are no significant differences among influ-ence factors, the characteristics of domestic waste were influ-enced by these factors to a certain extent. The differences inchemical and physical characteristics are mainly due to theenergy resource, recycling activity, and residents’ productiveand consumptive activities, habits, and customs.

Environmental awareness

Knowledge of domestic waste. Table 6 shows the residents’knowledge of pollution, toxicity, and recyclable characteristicsof domestic waste in the investigated villages.

Domestic waste impacts human health as well as the environ-ment. Water pollution owing to domestic waste led to the most

Table 5. Analysis of influence factors on the characteristics of domestic waste.

Influence factors

Income sources Geographical position

CharacteristicsCrop farming orlivestock breeding

Migrant orlocal working

Serviceor business Tibet Sichuan

Generation (g·d−1 per capita) 58 137 79 89 79

Com

positio

n(%

)

Kitchen waste 15.85 16.55 21.23 12.77 21.64Paper 9.29 11.80 13.76 10.73 12.16Plastics 17.93 20.49 26.87 20.77 22.20Textiles and leather 1.49 4.75 6.59 5.91 2.84Wood and bamboo 8.71 0.00 4.54 10.26 0.00Ash and dirt 34.18 0.00 7.83 33.12 0.00Bricks and ceramic tiles 0.78 8.01 1.98 2.04 4.78Glass 10.79 36.50 14.71 1.83 35.25Metals 0.29 1.90 1.83 1.54 1.13Others 0.68 0.00 0.66 1.02 0.00

Bulk density (kg·m−3) 84 75 49 59 74Moisture (%) 23.57 5.04 23.86 18.75 20.41Ash (%) 52.32 50.51 37.37 42.28 50.34Combustible (%) 24.10 44.44 38.76 38.98 29.25Lower calorific value (kJ·kg−1) 8256 11490 12240 11228 9418Mean rank 24.75 23.56 25.19 16.88 16.12Significance of Kruskal–Wallis test 0.944 0.821Significance of ANOVA 0.962 0.903

Han et al. / Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 65 (2015) 1365–1375 1369

concern among local villagers, with 66.67% of intervieweesthinking domestic waste could cause water pollution. This pro-portion was about 2.6–4.2 times that for other pollutants causedby discharged domestic waste. However, no residents thoughtthat domestic waste could contribute to groundwater pollution,which was likely because it is difficult to detect and perceive.

More than 90% of interviewees understood that pesticideswere toxic, but only half of the interviewees were aware of thetoxicity of expired medicine. Residents generally did not knowabout other hazardous waste generated by their households,such as batteries, chemical packaging, and fluorescent lamptubes.

Recyclable domestic waste including metals, paper, plastic,and plastic film were well known. However, glass and espe-cially textiles were not commonly known to be recycled, likelybecause few recyclers were willing to recover them.

Factors influencing people’s knowledge of domestic waste.Based on the results of the KruskalºWallis test and one-wayanalysis of variance (ANOVA; Table 6), although there was nosignificant difference in knowledge of pollution or the hazar-dous and recyclable characteristics of domestic waste among

individuals of different educational levels, the mean rank of theKruskal–Wallis test showed that people with higher levels ofeducation are more environmentally aware than those withlower education. Moreover, the mean rank increases withincreasing revenue. These findings indicate that family incomelevel can positively influence knowledge regarding domesticwaste because income is generally correlated with highereducation.

As expected, members of the more educated group weremore likely to sort their waste, had a greater requirement fortreating domestic waste, and were more likely to treat domesticwaste collectively by village committee (Table 7). Indeed, therewas a logarithmic correlation between educational years andthe proportion of interviewees who thought it was necessary totreat domestic waste:

y ¼ 42:11 ln xð Þ þ 55:69 R2 ¼ 0:986� �

where y is the proportion of interviewees and x is the educa-tional years.

In general, literacy is low in the RATP, and environmentaleducation is absent from the primary education program.

Table 6. People’s knowledge of domestic waste and the analysis of its influence factors.

Interviewees’ proportion of awareness (%)

Influence factors

Education Revenue (dollars per year)

People’s knowledgeof domestic waste

TibetanPlateau Illiteracy

Primaryeducation

Junior schooleducationand above R < 814.6

814.6 ≤ R< 1,629.2 R ≥ 1,629.2

Pollutio

n

Water pollution 66.67 63.64 64.00 66.67 82.35 81.82 43.48Amenity andlandscape degradation

25.49 36.36 36.00 33.33 11.76 27.27 56.52

Air pollution 23.53 9.09 24.00 40.00 17.65 27.27 30.43Land occupationand contamination

17.65 36.36 16.00 26.67 11.76 45.45 21.74

Sanitary deterioration 15.69 18.18 28.00 40.00 17.65 36.36 34.78

Hazardous

waste

Pesticide bottles 92.16 100.00 100.00 86.67 100.00 100.00 91.30Expired medicine 50.98 54.55 56.00 66.67 70.59 63.64 47.83Batteries 27.45 18.18 20.00 53.33 11.76 18.18 47.83Chemical packagingin daily life

15.69 9.09 16.00 20.00 0.00 9.09 30.43

Fluorescent lamp tubes 3.92 9.09 4.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 4.35

Recyclable

waste

Metals 88.24 90.91 88.00 73.33 94.12 90.91 82.61Plastics 62.75 63.64 60.00 53.33 58.82 63.64 56.52Paper 54.90 63.64 36.00 86.67 35.29 45.45 73.91Glass 37.25 27.27 44.00 33.33 17.65 18.18 60.87Textiles 1.96 0.00 0.00 13.33 0.00 9.09 0.00

Mean rank / 21.77 21.80 25.43 19.60 23.90 25.50Significance of Kruskal–Wallis test / 0.679 0.444Significance of ANOVA / 0.779 0.648

1370 Han et al. / Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 65 (2015) 1365–1375

Therefore, an extensive environmental education should beprovided to enhance environmental understanding in the RATP.

Willingness to pay for domestic waste services

Willingness to pay. As shown in Table 8, as the price paid toresidents for recycling increases, their willingness to sortdomestic waste becomes strong. After the recycling priceexceeds $0.3 per kilogram, more than two-thirds of intervie-wees were willing to sort recyclable waste. Additionally,82.35% of interviewees accepted the disposal fee with lessthan $0.80 per month per household. If the disposal fee, thecollection facility fee, the disposal facility fee, and the price oforganic fertilizer are more than $0.80 per month per household,$1.60 per household, $16.3 per household, and $0.08 per kilo-gram respectively, more than half of people may refuse to pay.

Factors influencing willingness to pay. As shown in Table 8,there was no significant difference in willingness to pay fordomestic waste services among individuals of different educa-tion or economic levels. This was likely because overallincome in the region was so low that there were no obviousdifferences in income. However, the mean rank increases withincreasing educational levels, which means that improvingeducational level can enhance willingness to pay for domesticwaste service. It should be noted that there was a significantdifference in willingness to pay among different levels ofpayment (p < .001), with a logarithmic decrease occurringwith increasing payment.

As shown in Table 7, the lower income group tended torecycle more waste, which was similar to the results of aprevious study (Chung and Poon, 2001). The correlationcoefficient between annual income per household and theproportion of interviewees who are willing to sort waste was–0.94. This was likely in response to the monetary rewardrather than environmentally friendly behavior (Chung and

Poon, 2001). In the last decade, different authors have statedthat the implementation and development of waste manage-ment programs that ignore social aspects are doomed tofail (Morrissey and Browne, 2004; Henry et al., 2009).Therefore, an economic and educational element should beconsidered in any organized waste management plan imple-mented in the region.

Waste management

Collection and transfer. Waste collection strategies represent amajor issue in an efficient waste management system sincethey can significantly affect recycling targets (Passarini et al.,2011; Chowdhury, 2009; De Oliveira Simonetto andBorenstein, 2009). It is notable that there is in the RATP anabundance of recyclable domestic waste, such as beer bottles,soft drink bottles, and cardboard, that can be recycled andreused. Although many people cannot identify the recyclablewaste, some recyclers have driven regularly to the villages,where they were able to easily collect high-value items ofrecyclable waste. Moreover, 84.31% of interviewees were will-ing to sort waste that could be sold to the recyclers, and theeconomic driving force of classified collection was very highfor local residents (Table 8). Although recycling of waste is anew concept for rural residents, it has been readily adopted bymost rural communities without too much need for raisingawareness (Chung and Poon, 2001). Moreover, even thoughthere has been some social, economic, and material basis toencourage people to sort domestic waste in the RATP, sourceseparation is not common in the region. Therefore, policy-makers should not only focus on whether members of thepublic know how to separate waste, but also on methods tomotivate them to separate waste for individual and socialbenefit and to maintain an effective market for recyclables.For example, many recyclers or recycling companies shouldbe encouraged to collect recyclable waste in the RATP,

Table 7. Influence of education on waste sorting collection and treatment.

Interviewees’ proportion (%)

Education Revenue (dollars per year)

Items IlliteracyPrimaryeducation

Junior schooleducation and above R < 814.6

814.6 ≤ R< 1,629.2 R ≥ 1,629.2

People’s willingness tosort domestic waste

63.64 92.00 80.00 88.24 90.91 73.91

People’s agreement onthe necessity ofdomestic wastetreatment

54.55 88.00 100.00 82.35 100.00 78.26

People’s agreement onthe collectivetreatment of domesticwaste

45.45 64.00 80.00 76.47 81.82 47.83

Han et al. / Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 65 (2015) 1365–1375 1371

Tab

le8.

People’swillingn

essto

payandtheanalysisof

itsinfluencefactors.

Interviewees’

proportio

nof

willingnessto

sort,to

payor

tobuy(%

)

Influencefactors

Educatio

nRevenue

(dollars

peryear)

Price

orfee

Tibetan

Plateau

Illiteracy

Primary

education

Junior

school

educationandabove

R<814.6

814.6≤R

<1,629.2

R≥1,629.2

Price

ofrecyclable

waste

(dollars

per

kilogram

)

P<0.16

27.45

18.18

36.00

20.00

23.53

0.00

43.48

0.16

≤P<0.32

37.25

27.27

40.00

40.00

23.53

36.36

47.83

0.32

≤P<0.65

66.66

54.54

72.00

66.67

64.71

81.81

60.87

P≥0.65

72.54

54.54

84.00

66.67

82.36

81.81

60.87

Disposalfee

(dollars

per

month

per

household)

0.16

≤F<0.81

82.35

81.82

84.00

80.00

94.12

72.72

78.26

0.81

≤F<1.63

39.21

27.27

36.00

53.33

29.41

54.54

39.13

1.63

≤F<2.44

19.60

9.09

24.00

20.00

23.53

18.18

17.39

2.44

≤F<3.26

9.80

9.09

8.00

13.33

17.65

9.09

4.35

3.26

≤F<4.89

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Collectionfacilityfee(dollars

per

household)

F<1.63

90.19

81.81

88.00

93.34

100.00

100.00

73.91

1.63

≤F<8.15

39.21

36.36

28.00

53.34

23.53

63.64

34.78

8.15

≤F<16.29

1.96

0.00

0.00

6.67

0.00

9.09

0.00

F≥16.29

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Disposalfacilityfee(dollars

per

household)

F<16.29

64.71

81.82

60.00

60.00

70.59

54.54

65.22

16.29≤F<48.88

23.53

27.27

16.00

33.33

23.53

18.18

26.09

F≥48.88

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Organic

fertilizerprice(dollars

perkilogram

)P<0.08

80.39

81.81

80.00

86.67

88.23

90.90

78.26

0.08

≤P<1.63

35.29

45.45

24.00

46.67

35.29

63.63

26.09

1.63

≤P<0.32

5.88

9.09

4.00

6.67

5.88

18.18

4.35

0.32

≤P<0.65

1.96

0.00

0.00

6.67

0.00

9.09

0.00

P≥0.65

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Meanrank

/31.91

33.48

35.11

33.75

35.02

31.71

Significanceof

Kruskal–W

allis

test

/0.856

0.845

Significanceof

ANOVA

/0.851

0.816

1372 Han et al. / Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 65 (2015) 1365–1375

especially in remote villages, because the cost of collection andtransportation is too high for recyclers or recycling companiesto gain any benefit.

The results of the study also indicated that the majority ofinterviewees (up to 98.04%) were willing to dump their domesticwaste into collection facilities. However, infrastructure such astransportation, communications, and environmental protectionfacilities is still poor in most villages. Especially, environmentalprotection facilities are so poor that they have restrained the wastefrom recycling. Several scholars have recently suggested thatintermunicipal cooperation should be a viable alternative tolocal privatization, especially in smaller rural municipalitieswith a lower number of potential outside contractors (Warnerand Hefetz, 2003; Bel and Mur, 2009). Thus, it is very importantthat the government enhance construction and investment ininfrastructure and the intermunicipal cooperation in the RATP.Additionally, distance required to dump domestic waste must beconsidered when constructing any collection facilities, becausethe relationship between willingness to use facilities and theirdistance showed a negative logarithmic correlation (Figure 3).Overall, the results indicated that a distance of 50–800 m isappropriate, with 88.24% of interviewees being willing to dumptheir domestic waste into collection facilities within this distance.

Treatment and disposal. Overall, 62.75% of intervieweesreported they would rather collectively treat domestic wasteby village committee than by themselves. This means that inrural areas the support and the popularity of centralized treat-ment for domestic waste are even more prominent than fordecentralized treatment.

In some developed countries, marketing activities of centra-lized treatment of waste have been extremely successful, suchas rural waste management in Aragon, Spain (Bel and Mur,2009). However, in most developing countries, the treatment ofdomestic waste is still primitive. Similar to Fiji (Padma et al.,2007) and India (Gowda et al., 1995), burning, burying, anddumping of wastes are the most common disposal methods inthe RATP. Currently, only 11.76% of investigated householdsdischarged unsorted domestic waste to simple landfills.Additionally, standard landfills are unavailable in the RATPbecause of their poor economic performance. However, given

the extremely dry climate, the very low moisture of domesticwaste, and the low content of kitchen waste, it is possible tobuild a relatively simplified landfill with a liner system, landfillgas venting system, and capping system among some neigh-boring villages or towns. Notably, leachate recirculation canmaintain an optimum moisture condition of at least 31% volu-metric moisture content (Yuen et al., 2001). Transfer stations inwhich waste can be sorted and be transferred to neighboringlandfills need to be established in every village. Additionally,special clearances must be obtained from local governments ormunicipalities if hazardous waste or any contaminated soil is tobe disposed of at the landfill.

Although the percentage of organic matter is relatively lowand compositing is considered an extra daily chore, it has beenpracticed in the region for a long time. If a large amount oforganic waste could be collected from the villages to compostor ferment, the organic fertilizer made from those processeswould have a wide market value in the RATP. Indeed, 84.31%of interviewees were willing to utilize organic fertilizer.

Inert waste such as ash and dirt can be returned to farmland,while bricks and ceramic tiles can stored in a special site orused as paving materials. Both the bioreactor landfill (Li et al.,2011) and the semi-aerobic landfill (Yang and Zha, 2008) havebeen approved as effective techniques to treat domestic wastein rural areas or on the Tibetan Plateau. However, incinerationis not considered a suitable method of treating domestic wastein the RATP because of its expensive cost, difficulty with gascontrol, and shortage of technologists and supervisors.Accordingly, incineration has the potential to exert negativeeffects on air quality and people’s health in the RATP.

Management. According to the latest demographics and surveyresults, it is estimated that rural residents in the Tibetan Plateauwould produce more than 190,000 tons of domestic waste peryear, which would be discharged freely on the plateau. In ruralareas, people primarily perceive pollution based on theirsenses; hence, the visual impact of such waste will be seen asthe main reason for domestic waste management practices inhouseholds. Indeed, more than 80% of interviewees thoughtthat the domestic waste needed to be treated. Moreover, theyexpected that waste services would occur regularly and thatdomestic waste would be managed appropriately.

Generally, the best waste management practices should bebased on the principles of reducing, recycling, and reusingwaste. Some activities in keeping with these principles, suchas composting household waste, establishment of recyclingcenters, and engagement of a waste removal company toremove domestic waste from the area, can be promoted at thevillage or the community level.

Rural waste management options are limited in the RATPbecause of the small population size, geographical distributionof households or villages, and limited resources. Based on aprevious case study (Padma et al., 2007) and the current situa-tion of the RATP, options for rural domestic waste managementare as follows:(1) A partially subsidized rural–urban tandem residual waste

collection and disposal system.

Figure 3. Relationship between people’s willingness and the dumpingdistance.

Han et al. / Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 65 (2015) 1365–1375 1373

(2) A localized transfer station linked to an existing landfillwithin the economic transfer distance.

(3) A localized mini landfill for a cluster of villages and orsettlements.

(4) A small bioreactor for a remote village, settlement or a fewneighboring households.

Regardless of which system is selected, it is important toensure financial viability when designing the system.Accordingly, the following practical considerations areimportant:(1) Collection and transfer of residual wastes and recyclable

material into waste bins under the rural–urban tandemsystem, transfer stations, or mini landfill sites.

(2) Local village or settlement-based fee collection and/orpayment system (around $0.80 per month per householdwould be accepted).

(3) A reasonable distance (of 50–800 m) to install collectionfacilities.

(4) Local village or settlement-based monitoring and enforce-ment of waste separation, recycling, disposa, and collec-tion (which are mainly established depending on the localgovernment and environmental education).

Solid waste management, which is a major responsibility oflocal governments, is a complex task that requires good infra-structure, adequate organizational capacity, and cooperationbetween numerous stakeholders in the public and private sec-tors and appropriate technical solutions (Dijkema et al., 2000).However, in the RATP, there are no municipalities, and mostvillages are not able to provide domestic waste services.Moreover, 17.65% of interviewees were not willing to payanything. Thus, for such a rural waste management system torun effectively, villages and settlements should collectivelynegotiate a regular arrangement for waste management, andeach village needs to define a central location to keep wastebins, as well as a regular local collection arrangement.Conversely, a demonstration or a mandatory village/settle-ment-based waste collection and disposal system should bedeveloped.

Fortunately, 88.24% of interviewees were willing to partici-pate in waste management, and their payment for such partici-pation was relatively low. More than half of interviewees werewilling to participate when their income reached $130.30–195.50 per month. Therefore, operationally, domestic wastemanagement will be relatively easy in the RATP. In this region,the local village committee can be used to establish and operatethe waste collection system and recycling activities. To pro-mote recycling activities, it is suggested that the followingfactors be considered:(1) A waste management system should be planned and estab-

lished, and infrastructure including collection, transporta-tion, treatment, and disposal of waste should be enhancedand improved.

(2) The public and communities should practice recyclingactivities.

(3) Subsidies or tax privileges should be provided to recyclersor recycling companies.

(4) Environmental education should be enhanced so membersof the public learn how and why to separate waste.

Conclusion

The RATP is experiencing waste management problemssuch as shortages in waste disposal and treatment facilities,inadequate management capacity, increasing amounts ofrecyclables, and increasing per capita waste generation (Danand Han, 2012). These issues have resulted in a large portion ofdomestic waste being burned, buried, or dumped freely.Although the environment has not been seriously polluted todate, water pollution and solid waste pollution associated withdomestic waste are very common in the RATP.

Domestic waste in the RATP has unique features, includinglow generation rate, good compressibility and combustibility, ahigh portion of recyclable materials, low content of organicmaterials, low moisture content, and high ash content. Thesecharacteristics are influenced by the income sources and geo-graphical positions of households to some extent.

Classified collection plays an important role in the man-agement of domestic waste; therefore, it should be promotedwidely on a household and village basis. The collection andtransfer of recyclable matters are mainly dependent on recy-clers or material recycling companies. Mixed domestic wasteis suitable for treatment and disposal in relatively simplifiedlandfills or existing landfills, while organic waste can becomposted or fermented to produce energy and fertilizer andinert waste can be returned to farmland or landfilled. Forvillages and settlements close to urban areas, the most logicalapproach could be connection with existing waste removaland disposal systems operating in nearby urban areas.However, for remote rural areas, the disposal of domesticwaste mainly depends on a localized mini landfill for a clusterof villages or settlements.

Moreover, educational level does not have a significanteffect on knowledge of domestic waste and the income doesnot obviously affect willingness to pay. However, a variety ofsocioeconomic factors, including education and income, canstill affect public attitude toward the management, treatment,and disposal of domestic waste. Thus, it is necessary to provideextensive environmental education in the RATP and it is veryimportant to consider the economic elements of an effectivedomestic waste management program.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. He Mingxiong for his support duringthe course of the experiment and Zhao Ze for helping to editthe paper.

Funding

The authors acknowledge the Fundamental Research Fundsfor the Central Research Institutes of China (number

1374 Han et al. / Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 65 (2015) 1365–1375

2012ZL004) and the Cultivating Program of Middle-Aged KeyTeachers of Chengdu University of Technology (numberKYGG201406) for providing financial support.

ReferencesAbduli, M.A., R. Samieifard, and G.Z.M. Jalili. 2008. Rural solid waste

management. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2(4):425–430.Bel, G., and M. Mur. 2009. Intermunicipal cooperation, privatization and waste

management costs: Evidence from rural municipalities. Waste Manage. 29(10):2772–2778. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2009.06.002

Chen, S.K., and L. Shen. 2000. Approach to dynamic relationship betweenpopulation, resources, environment and development of the Qinghai–TibetPlateau. J. Nat. Resources 15(4):297–304.

Chung, S.S., and C.S. Poon. 2001. A comparison of waste-reduction practicesand new environmental paradigm of rural and urban Chinese citizens. J.Environ. Manage. 62(1):3–19. doi:10.1006/jema.2000.0408

Chowdhury, M. 2009. Sustainable kerbside recycling in the municipal garbagecontract. Waste Manage. Res. 27(10):988–95. doi:10.1177/0734242X09335697

Dan, Z., and Z.Y. Han. 2012. Analysis on the characteristics of MSW duringdry season in the Tibetan Plateau. China Biogas 30(6):33–36.

Dang, X.F., and F. Ouyang. 2009. The MSW treatment status and counter-measures of Ngagzha county in Tibet. Guangdong Agric. Sci. 2:88–89.

De Oliveira Simonetto, E., and D. Borenstein. 2009. A decision support systemfor the operational planning of solid waste collection. Waste Manage. 27(10):128–129. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2006.06.012

Dijkema, G.P.J., M.A. Reuter, and E.V. Verhoef. 2000. A new paradigm forwaste management. Waste Manage. 20(8):633–38. doi:10.1016/S0956-053X(00)00052-0

Gowda, M.C., G.S.V. Raghavan, B. Ranganna, et al. 1995, Rural waste man-agement in a south Indian village—A case study. Bioresource Technol. 53(2):157–64. doi:10.1016/0960-8524(95)00078-S

Henry, R.K., Z. Yongsheng, and D. Jun. 2006. Municipal solid waste manage-ment challenges in developing countries—Kenyan case study. WasteManage. 26(1):92–100. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2005.03.007

Jiang, J.G., Z.Y. Lou, N. Silo, et al. 2009. The current municipal solid wastemanagement situation in Tibet. Waste Manage. 29(3):1186–91. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.044

Li, W.B., J. Yao, P.P. Tao, et al. 2011. An innovative combined on-site processfor the remote rural solid waste treatment—A pilot scale case study in China.Bioresource Technol. 102(5):4117–23. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.12.069

Morrissey, A.J., and J. Browne. 2004. Waste management models and theirapplication to sustainable waste management. Waste Manage. 24(3):297–308. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.005

Passarini, F., I. Vassura, F. Monti, et al. 2011. Indicators of waste managementefficiency related to different territorial conditions. Waste Manage. 31(4):785–92. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.11.021

Padma, L., T. Margaret, and K.S. Sandeep. 2007. Economics of rural wastemanagement in the Rewa Province and development of a rural solid wastemanagement policy for Fiji. http://www.sprep.org/att/publication/000574_IWP_PTR57.pdf (accessed December 21, 2014).

Warner, M.E., and A. Hefetz. 2003. Rural–urban differences in privatization:Limits to the competitive state. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 21(5):703–18.doi:10.1068/c008r

Yang, Q.Y., and K. Zha. 2008. Experimental study on heavy metal variationcharacteristics of domestic waste from Tibetan Plateau in semi-aerobiclandfill treatment. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 36(27):11988–90, 12031.

Yuen, S.T.S., Q.J. Wang, J.R. Styles, et al. 2001. Water balance comparisonbetween a dry and a wet landfill—A full-scale experiment. J. Hydrol.251:29–48. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00432-2

Zhao, Y. 2009. A survey of the microbial contamination of drinking water inthe rural area of Tibet. Tibet Sci. Technol. 10:26–28.

About the AuthorsZhiyong Han, Wenlai Xu, and Yanhua Xie are research associate professorsat the College of Environment and Civil Engineering, Chengdu University ofTechnology, in Chengdu, China.

Zeng Dan is research associate professor at the Faculty of Natural Science,Tibet University, in Lhasa, China.

Guozhong Shi is a research professor at the Biogas Institute of the Ministry ofAgriculture, in Chengdu, China.

Lukun Shen is a researcher at the Biogas Institute of the Ministry ofAgriculture, in Chengdu, China.

Han et al. / Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 65 (2015) 1365–1375 1375