waste journal

7/31/2019 Waste Journal

1/10

Zaini Sakawi, 2011. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Malaysia: Solution for Sustainable Waste Management.

29

Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 6 (1): 29-38.

Practical Case Study

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN MALAYSIA: SOLUTION FORSUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT

ZAINI SAKAWI

Earth Observation Centre, School of Social, Development and Environmental StudiesFaculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia

Phone + 603 89213623 Fax:+603 89213334, E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 9th November 2010; Revised: 14th December 2010; Accepted: 21st December 2010

Abstract: This article discusses the present status of municipal solid waste management(MSWM) in Malaysia. The basic situation in large municipalities in Malaysia is one inwhich available resources are not sufficient to provide adequate municipal services toeither the main stream of the population, or to those residing in the slum settlements.Effective waste management is dependent upon achieving informed consensus amongstinterested parties. The problem for data collection and planning is the lack of locallyavailable trained personnel and the need for relevant data. Most universities andeducational institution fails to offer curriculum in waste management, and this neglectresults in a serious lack of trained human resources necessary for the planning andimplementation of waste management systems.

Keywords: MSWM, privatisation of MSWM, integrated MSWM

INTRODUCTION

The rate of waste generation in Malaysia is increasing, covering community activities suchas commercial, institutional, industrial and markets. It is also related to the economic level ofdifferent sectors in the community such as squatters, low, medium and high class residentialarea. The rate varies according to the type of waste generators and land use. Depending on theeconomic status of the area, the per capita solid waste generation rate varies from 0.45 to 1.44kilogram per capita per day [8]. Based on data produced by Ministry of Housing and LocalGovernment (MHLG) [11], the national average rate estimated for year 1991 to 1993 was about0.711 kilogram per capita per day. This average has been increased to 0.8 kilogram per capita

ISSN 0126-2807

V o l u m e 6 , N u m b e r 1 : 2 9 - 3 8 , M a r c h , 2 0 1 1 T2011 Department of Environmental Engineer ingS e p u l u h N o p e m b e r I n s t i t u t e o f T e c h n o l o g y , S u r a b a y a& Indonesian Society of Sanitary and Environmental Engineers, JakartaO p e n A c c e s s h t t p : / / w w w . t r i s a n i t a . o r g / j a s e s

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, which permitsunrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


2/10


30


per day between 1994 to 1999 and increased to 1.5 kilogram per capita per day in year 2000. Forthe year 2003, national average for waste generated per person is 4.5 kilogram per day [12].

Data on solid waste composition was mainly on the physical characteristics [9]. Statisticsgathered by the government indicated that the average amount of organic wastes for high income

areas like Petaling Jaya and Kuala Lumpur was approximately 48.32 percent. This is followed bypaper (23.56 %), plastic and rubber (9.37 %), metal (5.93 %), wood (4.82 %), glass and ceramics(4.03 %) and textiles (3.97 %). Generally, waste generation and composition vary with the degreeof affluence and urbanization. Both the quantity and composition of solid waste vary widely fromday to day and also seasons of the year not only between countries, but also betweenneighbouring localities and between different types of properties within the same town.

The handling and separation of wastes at the source is a critical step in waste management.The storage of waste at source used various types of bins such as a small bin (household),medium bin (communal bin) and large bin (hauled communal). The most used bins for residentialareas are small bin. Also, the bins used are of various materials, such as metal, plastic, rubber,concrete bin, and cardboard boxes [16]. In the case of high-rise building, communal bins or

central container are used.Waste collection activities are the most expensive activity in waste management systems.

The cost of waste collection consists of two types: directand indirect cost. Direct costs include alldirect expenditure incurred in the management of solid waste in an area. It also includes theresources used in the administration, development and operations of waste management rightfrom storage to collection, transportation and disposal. Conversely, indirect costs refer to externalcost incurred in practising existing waste management systems. These costs include theenvironment damage cost of hazard storage, and collection disposal practices [16].

The efficiency of collection systems would have immediate impacts on the level of MSWMservices in an area. Poor collection would affect public confidence in the services. The public isvery sensitive to collection services. Most complaint received is related to the quality of collection.

The frequency of collection varies from daily to three times a week. Everyday collection isnormally practiced in city centres, commercial areas and public areas [17]. In the widerperspective, direct haulage from collection point to disposal sites without any intermediatetreatment is the current practice in Malaysia. Some local authorities are at the beginning stagewith the problem of getting suitable land for disposal sites as land is getting scare and there is avery high cost of land acquisition. The introduction of intermediate treatment facilities such astransfer stations, composting and incinerator plants may become alternative treatment of waste inthe future. The government is also considering the various designs and mode of incinerationprocess available in the market. One such process is the thermal gasification process.Consideration is particularly given to the technical and financial viability of the process to localconditions.

Disposed of waste in Malaysia is totally to landfill. In 1988, there were 230 official dumpingsites in Malaysia and about 49 sites are landfill. By the year 2002, there are 161 disposal sitesare actively operated in Peninsular Malaysia. Most landfill in Malaysia were small scalesoperations with varying levels of design sophistication, and the majority of the sites were poorlymanaged [11,18]. Then, approximately 50 percent of the landfills are open dumps. Controlledtipping or sanitary landfill is likely to be practiced in municipal councils and the total is very small.The only private operated, engineered and modern sanitary landfill in the country which can becategorised as a class IV landfill sites under the landfill classification system is The Air HitamSanitary Landfill. The advanced features of the landfill include a proper liner system, gasventilation systems and the most comprehensive leachate collection system.


3/10


31


A general view related to waste management is important to understand the situation andthe planning or approach to implement so as to obtain an efficient and effective MSWM in thefuture. The MSWM programme and the different levels of government taking part in the MSWMwill follow this. Discussion will also focus on development of the MSWM. Also, integrated

approach and further planning in the future will be discuss.

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR MSWM

In general, MSWM in Malaysia involves the participation of varies Government agenciesfrom federal to state and down to local authorities. All of the government agencies involved withMSWM either directly or indirectly. Malaysia is governed as a parliamentary democracy with threetiers of government, namely the Federal Government, State government and Local authority.There are 14 states in Malaysia, and have 144 numbers of Local Authority in the country. Thenumber of local authorities is included the Municipal Council, District Council, City Hall and TownBoard.

Under Federal Government, the administration of MSWM is under the purview of the MHLG.There have two units in this ministry involved directly with the MSWM, such as Local GovernmentDepartment and Town and Country Planning Unit. The roles of Federal Government in MSWMare principally as an advisory and coordinating nature. As provided by the Constitution, theNational Council of Local Government is an important vehicle that provides the avenue forconsultation between the MHLG, from time to time, in the formulation of National Policies for thepromotion, development and control of local authority.

Another government agencies related to MSWM is Prime Ministry Department. There areseveral bodies which are under this department, such as Economic Planning Unit (EPU), CabinetDivision, Public Service Department (JPA), INTAN, Klang Valley Planning Section, Kuala LumpurCity Hall and Putrajaya Municipality. Another agencies involved indirectly is the Ministry of

Finance and the Ministry of Health, which involved the Engineering Services Department, HealthEducation Unit, Health Division, Public Health Institute, Manpower and Training Division. Ministryof Sciences, Technology and Environment also one of the active government agencies involvedin waste management. Anywhere, the focus of the management more to Scheduled waste. Thereare two departments relatively active with waste management in this ministry, which isDepartment of Environment (DOE) and Department of Standards. In addition, Ministry of RuralDevelopment and Ministry of Public Work also related to waste management indirectly. Followedby the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Land and Regional Department and Ministry ofEducation.

State government is the second tier in Malaysian government administration. Theresponsibility of this state government is to guide and assist Local Authorities in strengtheningtheir institutional and financial capabilities for MSWM. Conversely, the third tiers in the MalaysianGovernment level related to MSWM are Local Authority. Local Authority is the more powerful tier,which is directly engage with MSWM. The decision to determine whether MSW collection isimplemented either by local authority or private contractor is becomes the local authorityresponsibility. Similarly decision to determination the area for MSW collection is based on thenumber of population and total of the tender offered. In Malaysia, there have seven City Halls,whereas Four City Halls is in Peninsular Malaysia, and Three City Halls in Sabah and Sarawak.Henceforth, for Municipal Council, 28 are in Peninsular Malaysia with the highest number inSelangor (6 Municipal councils), and 5 Municipal councils has found in Sabah and Sarawak. For


4/10


32


District council, there have 104 District councils, whereas 65 in Peninsular Malaysia and 39 inSabah and Sarawak.

MSWM PROGRAMME IN MALAYSIA

Action Plan for a Beautiful and Clean Malaysia

MHLG produced the Action Plan for a Beautiful and Clean Malaysia (ABC) document in 1988

[13]. This document discusses the guidelines and the procedures in implementing SWM

programme in Malaysia. The document outlined 12 programmes with their underlying policies to

improve the MSWM in its various fields. The components of this outline included:

Local authorities thought out the country should be strengthened to be able to establishefficient and effective systems of MSWM in their areas.

A regional approach for MSWM should be encouraged, whenever it is applicable to improvetheir economic and technical level.

All urban centres should prepare and implement MSWM plans extending into the futureincluding periodical revisions. All MSW generated in urban and semi-urban areas should be collected and disposed of

adequately in such a manner that would not create public health, workers health and

environmental problems and would be technically and financially viable.

The generator of waste who is supported by the Rural Environmental Programme of theMHLG should dispose of all municipal solid wastes generated in rural areas adequately.

Reduction of solid waste generation especially that of packaging wastes and householdchemical wastes should be encouraged involving the producers and distributors of consumer

goods as well as consumers themselves.

MSW should be treated as a resource and all efforts must be made to recycle and recovermost of the materials that are presently burnt and buried.

MSWM services should be self-financing and an appropriate user charge or any othermethods to attain the self-financing objective should be imposed on beneficiaries of the

service.

The private sector should be encouraged to be contractors for MSW collection and disposalservices. In addition, the national automobile industries and other related industries should be

encouraged to produce locally all the vehicles and the equipment necessary for MSWM.

The public should be continuously educated on cleanliness and resources recovery throughhealth and environmental education, cleanliness campaigns and strict enforcement of the

anti-litter by-laws. Land for MSWM disposal should be identified and reserved for the purpose. Research and development about MSWM should be strengthened to cope with the ever-

changing environment.

Privatisation of MSWM

The privatisation of MSWM is to be done on National scale. The aim of privatisation is to

improve the quality of service and to promote efficiency and provide better facilities. The goal of

this privatisation is to take over the municipalities function in managing MSWM in an integrated

National MSWM system that will be managed by the Federal Government [17].


5/10


33


Integrated MSWMThe hierarchy of MSWM is an internationally accepted and practised concept in many

countries through out the world especially in developed countries. For example, study by Cooper[4] and Clarke [5] discussed the concept is used as a guideline for planning modern MSWM

facilities. Under full privatisation or concession period, contractors will roughly try to match thehierarchy of MSWM starting with waste minimisation, waste separation and recycling, wasteprocessing such as incineration and composting and finally disposal to the landfill. This integratedstrategy requires participation at all levels: government, industries, public and the wastemanagement concessionaires [17].

THE PRIVATISATION ON MSWM

In October 1994, the Malaysia Government initiated the privatisation of the countrys wastemanagement system by issuing a call for proposals. The decision was made as part of the Vision2020 initiative which focuses on having the country evolve into a fully industrialized nation by the

year 2020 while protecting public health, environment and sustainable utilization of naturalresources. HICOM Environmental Berhad is a joint partnership, which prepared a wastemanagement privatisation proposal to the Government of Malaysia.

In 1996, HICOM was among the four consortiums successful in obtaining a 20 yearsprivatisation contract throughout East and West Malaysia. The concession territory awarded tothe HICOM consortium included the Federal territory of Kuala Lumpur and the states of Selangor,Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan. This territory represents 70 percent of the countrys wastemanagement system. Other consortia awarded the countrys waste management system areSouthern Waste Management Sdn.Bhd., which included Johor, Negeri Sembilan and Melaka;Northern Waste Industries Sdn.Bhd (Perak, Kedah, Penang, Perlis); and East Malaysia regionwas awarded by Eastern Waste Management Sdn. Bhd (Sabah and Sarawak). Currently, all the

consortiums are in the midst of an interim period between the awarding of the concession andactual privatisation. Once the final concession agreement has been complete, the concession canthen apply for any loans and proceed with their plans for privatisation implementation

As the past system proved inadequate for the collection and disposal of waste, eachconcession is required to develop their own technologies and methods to better compensate forthe rising levels of MSW. Each of the concessions is trying to gather their own information andideas about how they specifically want to attend to the problems of their region. The rationale forprivatisation of MSWM is based on the notion that technically inefficient [1]. Privatisation ofMSWM is to be done on a national scale. The aim of privatisation is to improve the quality ofservice and promote efficiency and provide better facilities. The goal of this privatisation is to takeover the municipalities function in managing MSW to an integrated National MSWM system thatwill be managed by the Federal Government [17]. The World Bank found that privatisationenhances efficiency, and that efficiency was closely linked to the involvement of management;more closely supervised and regulated privatised agencies were more efficient that thoseoperated at a bureaucratic distance [15].

SOLUTION TO INTEGRATE MSWM

Full privatisation of MSWMSince the Government of Malaysia issued an invitation to the private sector to tender for the

privatisation of MSWM in the whole country of Malaysia in 1994, the current state of the


6/10


34


privatisation system is still under interim agreement. During this period, few significant issues andproblems persist were directly faced by the consortia. The implication of these issues andproblems will directly influence the overall performance while implementing the MSWM system.The first important issue is the lack of funds. This is entirely different when the MSW system was

under the management of municipalities. The municipalities usually have their own funds from theassessment taxto fund the MSWM service. In addition, the state and federal government wouldalso fund municipalities through grants, loans and subsidies. The consortium also had to managetheir own capital. The government no longer subsidies or provides loans to the consortium. It isnot possible for the consortium to secure financing for capital expenditure because all wasteactivities are not covered by the management fees agreed upon by municipalities.

The length of contract between municipalities and the consortia is on a yearly basis. A yearis not a suitable duration for consideration to apply the bank loan. Thus, the consortium facedproblems obtaining the loans from bank for financial needs. The consortiums do not have anyreliable financial resource or recovery cost system such as direct billing. This is due to thepayment service being directly paid to the municipalities (service arranger) by the consumer

(service recipient). The payment system is through the yearly assessment tax. The consortiumsonly receive payment from the municipalities on a monthly basis based on the service provided.

Late payment for service provided is also the main issue during the interim period. Due tothis phenomenon, the consortium also faced the problem of paying the sub service provider. Thisphenomenon will affect worker performance and financial performance will affect both the sub-service producer and the service provider. Generally, the problem existing during this interimperiod will have a negative effect on the MSW system. Basically, the implication of this situationcauses the consortium to be unable to improve their facilities and equipment such as purchasingof landfill equipment, or purchase transfer truck, and collection vehicle. Currently, the consortiumonly maintains the existing management systems without making any changes particularly toimprove facilities and old equipment, unless a few administration changes for example as done

by Alam Flora Sendirian Berhad, such as rescheduling the private contractor under theirsupervision.

Full privatisation also seems easier for the consortia to layout plans and plot a long-termprogram in order to improve the quality of services and efficiency of MSWM. Due to this, fullprivatisation is necessary to help the consortia to accumulate funds in forms of cost recoverysystem through user charge. The longer length of the contract will enable the consortia toapplying for bank loans for the purpose of working capital, capital expenditure and investment inMSWM equipment and facilities, for example, purchasing vehicles for collection, maintenancefacilities and investing in waste disposal facilities and equipment.

Full privatisation also gives the opportunity to the consortia to have their own autonomy andbe free to manage their own financial system and plan their programmes. Generally, fullprivatisation with financial autonomy and fixed financial resources can improve the quality ofservice, promote efficiency and fulfil the customer needs for a better MSWM system. Fullprivatisation with managerial autonomy can increase competitiveness through competitivetendering in determining the contractors as the service provider. Theoretically, this competitivetendering concept will reduce the cost of service, because the actual cost for MSWM service canbe traced by the bidding proposal prepared by the contractors [1].

Creation of New Policy and Act for MSWM in MalaysiaCurrently, there is no national policy on MSWM. Nonetheless, the ABC has become the de

facto guideline for MSWM activities by the State and Local Authorities. The ABC, however, was


7/10


35


formulated on the basis that action plans would be executed by the local authorities with guidancefrom federal agencies. The success of the federal government privatisation programmes hasshown that the private sector can play a key role in rejuvenating sectors for the economy, whichhave been retarded when under government control. With the increased participation of the

private sector, through privatisation, various aspects of the ABC will require amendment.Furthermore, the creation of a new policy for MSWM in Malaysia is important as a part of thelegislation approach to support an integrated approach for better MSWM.

The objective to setting MSWM systems must be clear and should cover the whole of

Malaysia. It should have the features of uniformity, cost-effectiveness, be environmentally sound

and socially acceptable. The national MSWM policy should focus on the five Rs. Namely;

reducing the production of waste, reusing items, recycling waste, recovering useable material or

energy from waste, and residue management.

The government of Malaysia should implement the legislation system relating to the MSW

generation, collection, treatment, and disposal as mandatory. The laws that will be implementing

should be implemented as mandatory and fines imposed should be honest and continuous. The

implementation of the legislation by mandate is an effective approach to ensure that the MSWM

system can be successfully implemented. For example, when the government of Malaysia

through the MHLG launches the recycling campaign in 1993, there was no support from all

groups (state government, local authorities and public) and this campaign failed to achieve the

required objective. Recently, the same campaign was launched to involve all societys level to

take part for a second time. However, a campaign that is launched without the existence of

enforces able law will not give a good result. The best example for the implementation of

legislation approach is a study by the regional of Halifax, Nova Scotia [7].

With the existence of government action to ban materials such as glass, plastic, paper,

organics and others to disposal sites, this will encourage the community to practice recycling and

composting. When people start to take part in any activities related to recycling and composting,this will be very good strategy for Malaysia in future to decrease the total MSW generation to the

disposal site. Recently, the new law related to management of MSW in Malaysia has not been

gazetted. However, some of the fundamentals that this law needs to address are suggested. The

objective of the MSW Act would be to consolidate and rationale laws relating to MSWM in

Malaysia. MSW activities involve generating, storage, cleansing, collection, transportation,

sorting, recycling, recovery, treatment and disposal. There would also be a need to regulate

privatised entities and educate the public. It is proposed that the Act encompass all of these

activities. Then, the laws would also require the following activities to be licensed:

collection services for MSW transportation of MSW transfer station and operation facilities for treatment of MSW and operating (composting and incineration) facilities for the disposal of MSW and operation (landfill) recycling and waste recovery activities Competency certificates for key personal.

The form of support required by the private contractors will entail a new regulatory structure

driven at the federal level. This will give rise to the necessity of establishing a federal regulatory

body under an act of parliament, and the role which has to be played by all levels government,

including the local authorities.


8/10


36


Option of Waste Management Hierarchy for MSWM in MalaysiaThe implementation of waste management hierarchy approach in developed country is very

common. For example studies by Arner [2], Cooper [3-4], Clarke [5], Habitat [6] Hoorneg [10], andThurgood [14] discussed the successful implementation of the waste management hierarchy for

MSWM. The limitation of data and information for waste management hierarchy in Malaysia hasplaced a barrier for the Government to implement this approach. But for the long term planningand management, the Government should consider a combination of the various technologies toopt for an integrated approach. To indicate this approach, the Government should considering theoption of waste management hierarchy. In this case, several options will be highlighted below:

Option 1: Waste reductionWaste reduction can be achieved at several levels, such as reduction of per capita waste

generation through public education and government policy initiatives. It can also be helped bysource separation of recyclable materials and separate collection for recycling purposes.

Option 2: Recycling.At present, there is no organised programme for recycling in Malaysia. Stakeholders are now

working on their own programme and objective. Measures need to be taken to integrate thesegregated efforts of the individual stakeholders into a single recycling programme. As such,measures have to be taken of both short-term and long-term perspectives. The aim for the short-term measures shall be to mobilise the stakeholders towards active recyclable generators andenhance their participation. Long-term measures should aim toward increased diversion of wastefor recycling, an efficient recyclable collection system and an organised end-market.

Option 3: Biological treatment/compostingComposting achieves the microbiological degradation of organic matter to produce a

recycled organic product for use in agriculture, garden, park, etc. The technology of compostingmunicipal waste is well established, and there are many detailed information and operationexperiences. Even though the technology of composting MSW is well established, only a few ofthe refuse composting plants around the world are economically successful. The drawbackscommonly experienced with composting are its high cost and low value of the compost products.Subsequently, composting in Malaysia not been pursued as a solution to MSW disposal problemsbecause of the following reasons.

The quality of product very much depends on the waste it is fed; therefore waste separationis very important.

A compost plant requires a large area.

There is possibility of secondary pollution caused by inclusion of heavy metal in waste. Theproduct is thus limited for use in hotly-culture and not at all for agriculture.

There is a lack of suitable markets for compost and lack of economies of scale for quantitiesfor the recyclable market.

Composting is not a complete solution since a landfill disposal would still be required forcomponent of waste that is not suitable for composting.

Option 4: Incineration.General observation indicates that incineration may be feasible where landfill is scarce and

posing a threat to aquifer or very remote from the actual MSW generation centre. Modernincineration and flue gas cleaning technologies make waste incineration an environmentally


9/10


37


acceptable option for waste treatment. It is possible to locate such plants even in denselypopulated areas. Incineration has played a role in MSWM for more than 5 years in many majorJapanese, European and American cities. Despite high capital investment, expensive operationand maintenance cost as well as the need for environmental pollution measures caused by

emissions, the advantages of incineration outweigh the disadvantages, such as: Waste volume reduction is highly efficient. It can be reduce the original volume by 9-.95

percent.

Offensive odour is limited. Hazardous and infectious materials are neutralized by combustion at high temperatures. There is energy recovery.CONCLUSIONS

From the beginning to the end of the MSWM chain makes one of the most problematicsubjects in the scope of environmental quality. Beginning in our home and reaching the finaldestination (landfill) passing through collecting and transport operations and treatment processes,each one of the elements is important and sensitive technical systems deserve a detailed andcorrect analysis. Generally, MSWM problems are due to non-effective and improper handling.Some problems have reached critical level and need urgent action for planning, designing andimplementation. These problems are closely related to the problems of adequate funds,manpower, management system and expertise. To obtain systematic and accurate data for eacharea for waste generation several procedures must be achieved. The collector must register andbe under the control of the local authorities or else fully privatised. The management must comefrom one administrator (mono administrator). In this case, every local authorities or privatecollector can monitor how much waste will be collected in one day and source of waste. The effort

to develop database for waste much easier, and effort to identify composition for waste muchbetter.Since the waste management system was privatised, and four consortia were awarded a 20

years concession contract, it was hoped that privatisation was able to improve the quality ofservice and its efficient. Currently, the privatisation of the waste management system in Malaysiahas not reached full privatisation. The system is still in an interim period, and is not running asexpected due to some problems arising from the lack of funds, the length of the interim period,and the unavailability of financial resources. Problems faced by consortia have led to theinefficient operation of the waste management system. These problems affect future planning forwaste management in Malaysia, and frustrate the implementation privatisation.

The local authorities must implement and introduce mandatory specific guidelines or

regulations for every private contractor registered with the municipalities. Using the integratedand centralised management, it is easy and systematic for local authorities to implementmonitoring and make the effort to develop a database. Few of the private contractors areregistered with the local authorities, but make a deal direct with the factory management itself. Infuture, factory must register the private contractor (waste collector) for waste collection atmunicipalities. This can also help the illegal dumping problem, which normally comes fromunregistered private contractor or collection by the factory. Even the factory itself which providedthe collection by their own management must register with the local authorities, and submit theirreport either monthly, every six months or annually regarding the tonnage of waste, composition,waste activities and recycling programme.


10/10


38


Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for financialsupport provided for this work under the research university grant UKM-GUP-ASPL-08-05-216

References

1.

Teuku Afrizal and Hassan, M. N. 2001. Privatisation of solid waste management in Malaysia: Is fullprivatisation the answer to solid waste management issues. In Proceeding on NationalSeminar on Environmental Management 2001: Current development and future planning.UKM. Environmental Management Programme, Centre for Graduate Studies.

2. Arner, R. 1999. Northern Virginia: A model in integrated waste management.(http://www.nvpdc.state.va.us/arner/ra-wa1.htm).

3. Cooper. J. 1995. Integrated waste management option takes shape. Journal Materials Cycling Week.165 (4). 10-11, 13.

4. Cooper. J. 1996. Integrated waste management in Vienna. Journal Waste Management., 16-17.5. Clarke. M. J. 1993. Integrated municipal solid waste planning and decision-making in New York City:

The citizens alternative plan. Journal Air and Waste Management. 43 (4) : 453-462.6. Habitat II Conference. 1999. Integrated solid waste collection system in the City of Olongapo,

Philipines. (http://www.hsd.ait.ac.th/bestprac/olongapo.htm).7. Hickman, D. and Bauld, J. 1998. Waste management in Nova Scotia: Aggressive diversion in the

Halifax Regional Municipality. Solid Waste and Recycling Magazine. 3 (3), 14.8. Hassan, M.Nasir, Zulina Zakaria and Rakmi Abdul Rahman. 1998. Managing costs of urban pollution

in Malaysia: The case of solid wastes. Netherland Geographical Studies: Looking at maps inthe dark. Direction for Geographical Research in Land Management and SustainableDevelopment in Urban and Rural Environment of the Third World. Pg. 127-147.

9. Hassan, M.N. and Chong, T.L. 2000. Contemporary issues of MSWM in developing countries. Paperpresented in Seminar on Environmental Indicators (river quality and solid waste). Sarawak.Malaysia. 4 April 2000.

10. Hoorneg, D. 1999. What a waste: solid waste management in Asia. United States of America: WorldBank.

11. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG). 2000. Ministry of Housing and LocalGovernment Reports 2000. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers.

12. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG). 2003. Ministry of Housing and LocalGovernment Reports 2002. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers.

13. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG). 1988. Action Plan for a Beautiful and cleanMalaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers.

14. Thurgood, M. 1996. Waste management in Vancouver: Taking an integrated approach a step further.Journal of The Resource World Foundation Warmer Bulletin. 151 : 14-15.

15. Valauskas. E.J. 1998. A review of privatisation. INSPEL 33 (1). Pg. 1-9.16. Zaini Sakawi and Gerrard, S. 2000. Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: Issues, concepts

and integrated approach. The 16th International Conference on Solid Waste Technology andManagement Proceeding. Philadelphia. USA. 10-13 Dis.2002.

17. Zaini Sakawi, Gerrard, S., Andy, P.Jones, and Kadaruddin Aiyub. 2002. Policy, challenges and futureprospect of solid waste management in Malaysia. Proceeding on International SustainableDevelopment Research Conference. University of Manchester. 8-9 April 2002. 391-398.

18. Zaini Sakawi. 2003. Keberkesanan penswastaan sistem pengurusan sisa pepejal di Malaysia: Kajiankes terhadap Alam Flora Sendirian Berhad. Prosiding Seminar Kebangsaan PengurusanPersekitaran 2003. Pusat Pengajian Siswazah, UKM. 8-9 Julai 2003. M/surat: 742-750.

waste journal

Documents