APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT FOR GOODS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TOWARDS WASTE MINIMIZATION OPTIONS

Tekspenuh

(1)M. al. ay. a. APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT FOR GOODS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TOWARDS WASTE MINIMIZATION OPTIONS. U. ni ve. rs i. ty. of. WAN AHMAD NADZIM. FACULTY OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR. 2020.

(2) al. ay. a. APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT FOR GOODS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TOWARDS WASTE MINIMIZATION OPTIONS. of. M. WAN AHMAD NADZIM. U. ni ve. rs i. ty. DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY (ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT). INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES FACULTY OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR. 2020.

(3) UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA ORIGINAL LITERARY WORK DECLARATION Name of Candidate: WAN AHMAD NADZIM Matric No: SGH130007 Name of Degree: MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY (ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT) Title of Project Paper/Research Report/Dissertation/Thesis (“this Work”): TOWARDS WASTE MINIMIZATION OPTIONS. a. APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT FOR GOODS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. of M al. I do solemnly and sincerely declare that:. ay. Field of Study: WASTE MANAGEMENT (ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE). U. ni v. er s. ity. (1) I am the sole author/writer of this Work; (2) This Work is original; (3) Any use of any work in which copyright exists was done by way of fair dealing and for permitted purposes and any excerpt or extract from, or reference to or reproduction of any copyright work has been disclosed expressly and sufficiently and the title of the Work and its authorship have been acknowledged in this Work; (4) I do not have any actual knowledge nor do I ought reasonably to know that the making of this work constitutes an infringement of any copyright work; (5) I hereby assign all and every rights in the copyright to this Work to the University of Malaya (“UM”), who henceforth shall be owner of the copyright in this Work and that any reproduction or use in any form or by any means whatsoever is prohibited without the written consent of UM having been first had and obtained; (6) I am fully aware that if in the course of making this Work I have infringed any copyright whether intentionally or otherwise, I may be subject to legal action or any other action as may be determined by UM. Candidate’s Signature. Date:. / 1 / 20. Date:. / 1 / 20. Subscribed and solemnly declared before, Witness’s Signature Name: Designation:. ii.

(4) APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT FOR GOODS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TOWARDS WASTE MINIMIZATION OPTIONS ABSTRACT Waste is a global concern. Increasing waste generation levels are causing the increase of waste management costs. In fact, the greatest costs of waste are measured by its impacts. a. to the environment, society and economy. Prevention is better than cure—since all wastes. ay. come from goods, thus the best way to manage wastes is to manage goods. An application model of goods management system has been developed using GIS (Geographic. of M al. Information System) and app prototyping. The primary purpose of goods management is to maximize goods and minimize waste by promoting reduction and reuse. GIS was used to perform spatial analyses on licensed goods and services providers in Kuala Lumpur in order to understand types of goods and services and their distribution patterns. Given the. ity. ubiquity of smartphones, app prototyping was carried out to design a platform to help people reduce and reuse. The prototype was designed to integrate GIS with features. er s. borrowed from shopping, reuse and how-to/product guide portals. The outcome of the model suggests goods management has many potentials for sustainable development.. ni v. This makes goods management very useful not just in minimizing waste but also in. U. improving the environment, society and economy.. Keywords: Goods management, waste management, GIS, app, sustainable development.. iii.

(5) PEMBANGUNAN APLIKASI SISTEM PENGURUSAN BARANGAN KE ARAH OPSYEN PENGURANGAN SISA ABSTRAK Sisa merupakan satu kebimbangan yang dihadapi dunia. Peningkatan kadar penghasilan sampah mengakibatkan peningkatan kos pengurusan sampah. Bahkan, akibat terburuk. a. sampah boleh diukur pada kesannya terhadap alam, masyarakat dan ekonomi. Mencegah. ay. itu lebih baik daripada merawat—hakikatnya semua sisa berasal daripada barangan, jadi cara yang terbaik untuk menguruskan sampah ialah dengan menguruskan barang. Sebuah. of M al. model aplikasi sistem pengurusan barangan telah dibangunkan menggunakan GIS (Sistem Maklumat Geografi) dan pemprototaipan aplikasi. Matlamat utama pengurusan barangan ialah menghargai nikmat barang dan mengurangkan sampah melalui galakan untuk mengurang dan mengguna semula. GIS telah digunakan bagi pelaksanaan analisis. ity. ruang terhadap pembekal barang dan perkhidmatan yang berlesen di Kuala Lumpur untuk memahami jenis dan corak taburan barang dan perkhidmatan. Dek keserataan telefon. er s. pintar, pemprototaipan aplikasi telah dijalankan untuk mereka sebuah pelantar yang dapat membantu orang ramai mengurang dan mengguna semula. Prototaip ini direka untuk. ni v. menyepadukan GIS dengan ciri-ciri pinjaman daripada portal beli-belah, guna semula dan petunjuk/panduan barang. Hasil modelan ini menunjukkan bahawa pengurusan barangan. U. memiliki banyak keupayaan dalam pembangunan mampan. Oleh yang demikian, pengurusan barangan itu sangat bermanfaat bukan sahaja untuk mengurangkan sisa, malah untuk memperbaiki alam, masyarakat dan ekonomi.. Kata kunci: Pengurusan barangan, pengurusan sisa, GIS, aplikasi, pembangunan mampan.. iv.

(6) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.. All praises be to Allah for giving His permission, grace and inspiration to produce this humble treatise. My gratitude also goes to everyone especially my beloved family, friends and teachers for their contributions and prayers. Special thanks to MARA and DBKL for. a. providing financial support and research data, respectively. May Allah reward your deeds. ay. with goodness in abundance and may this treatise be useful to current and future mankind,. of M al. amen. All that is good comes from Allah whereas all that is bad comes from myself. Happy reading dear readers—I hope that you can amend and expand on any weakness and inadequacy, respectively, thank you.. ity. ♻. er s. Dengan nama Allah yang Maha Pengasih lagi Maha Penyayang.. ni v. Alhamdulillah dengan izin, rahmat dan ilham daripada-Nya maka terhasillah karya yang tidak seberapa ini. Tidak dilupakan juga jasa dan doa daripada semua pihak. U. terutama keluarga, sahabat handai dan guru-guru yang tersayang. Sekalung penghargaan kepada pihak MARA dan DBKL atas sokongan kewangan serta perkongsian maklumat kajian. Didoakan semoga Allah balas jasa-jasa kalian dengan banyak kebaikan serta mudah-mudahan karya ini berguna buat umat manusia kini dan akan datang, amin. Yang baik itu daripada Allah, yang buruk pula daripada diri sendiri. Selamat membaca—harap para pembaca dapat memperbaik dan mengembangkan manamana kelemahan dan kekurangan yang ada dalam karya ini, terima kasih.. v.

(7) TABLE OF CONTENTS. ORIGINAL LITERARY WORK DECLARATION................................................... ii ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................iii ABSTRAK ...................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. v. ay. a. TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... ix. al. LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... xiv. M. LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................... xvi. of. LIST OF APPENDICES ...........................................................................................xviii. ity. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1. rs. 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1. ve. 1.2 Problem Statement ................................................................................................... 7. U ni. 1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 8. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 10 2.1 Waste and People ................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1. State of Waste Around the World ............................................................. 14. 2.1.2. State of Waste in Malaysia ........................................................................ 20. 2.2 Costs of Waste ....................................................................................................... 23 2.2.1. Tangible Costs ........................................................................................... 23. 2.2.2. Intangible Costs ......................................................................................... 25 vi.

(8) 2.3 Waste Management................................................................................................ 27 2.4 Sustainable Development....................................................................................... 36 2.4.1. Global Megatrends .................................................................................... 36. 2.4.2. Goals and Strategies for Sustainability ..................................................... 48. 2.5 Portals for Reduce and Reuse ................................................................................. 54. a. CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 63. Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 63. al. 3.2. ay. 3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 63. M. 3.3 Geographic Information System (GIS) .................................................................. 64 Geographic Layer ...................................................................................... 64. 3.3.2. Information Layer ..................................................................................... 65. 3.3.3. GIS Software ............................................................................................. 65. 3.3.4. GIS Map .................................................................................................... 66. rs. ity. of. 3.3.1. Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 70. U ni. 3.5. ve. 3.4 App Prototype ........................................................................................................ 68. CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................... 71 4.1 Goods and Services Providers in Kuala Lumpur ................................................... 71 4.2 A Geographic Information System (GIS) of Goods and Services Providers......... 75 4.2.1. Premise (Premis) Licensees ...................................................................... 77. 4.2.2. Vendor (Penjaja) Licensees ...................................................................... 83. 4.2.3. Signboard Advertisement (Iklan Papan Tanda) Licensees....................... 89. 4.2.4. Entertainment (Hiburan) Licensees .......................................................... 98 vii.

(9) 4.2.5. Liquor (Minuman Keras) Licensees ........................................................ 109. 4.2.6. Private Parking Lot (Tempat Letak Kereta Persendirian) Licensees ..... 114. 4.2.7. Summary of GIS...................................................................................... 118. 4.3 Goods Management Prototype............................................................................. 118 Maps ........................................................................................................ 120. 4.3.2. Goods ...................................................................................................... 123. 4.3.3. Waste ....................................................................................................... 131. 4.3.4. Options .................................................................................................... 137. ay. a. 4.3.1. al. 4.4 Potential Benefits of Goods Management ........................................................... 145 Direct Potential Benefits ......................................................................... 146. 4.4.2. Indirect Potential Benefits ....................................................................... 150. of. M. 4.4.1. rs. ity. CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 157. ve. REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 160. U ni. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 176. viii.

(10) : London Bathing Season published in Punch periodical............... 2. Figure 1.2. : Monster Soup commonly called Thames Water........................... 2. Figure 1.3. : Recycling bins and center............................................................ 3. Figure 1.4. : Ownership of mobile phones versus basic utilities and services in 2020......................................................................................... 6. Figure 2.1. : Relative percentage of waste....................................................... 15. Figure 2.2. : Projection of total MSW generation by region............................. 16. Figure 2.3. : MSW generation per capita versus income level, i.e., GNI per capita by country.......................................................................... 16. Figure 2.4. : Recycling rate versus income level, i.e., GNI per capita by city... 17. Figure 2.5. : MSW composition by income level............................................. 18. Figure 2.6. : Global annual MSW disposal...................................................... 18. Figure 2.7. : Average percentage of controlled disposal versus income level.. 19. Figure 2.8. : Concentration of plastic debris in the ocean................................. 20. Figure 2.9. : Projection of Malaysia’s daily MSW generation......................... 21. U ni. ve. ity. of. M. al. ay. a. Figure 1.1. rs. LIST OF FIGURES. Figure 2.10. : Malaysia’s percentage of MSW................................................... 22. Figure 2.11. : Malaysia’s household waste composition.................................... 22. Figure 2.12. : Waste management hierarchy...................................................... 28. Figure 2.13. : Life cycle stages.......................................................................... 28. Figure 2.14. : Circular economy, life cycle and waste management.................. 33. ix.

(11) : Zero Waste hierarchy by Zero Waste International Alliance....... 35. Figure 2.16. : Sustainable Developments Goals................................................ 49. Figure 2.17. : WHM (Winning the Hearts and Mind) & C4E (Communicate, Educate, Engage, Empower, Enforce) approach.......................... 53. Figure 2.18. : Design characteristics of shopping portal, Amazon, containing departments, list of goods, photos, description and reviews......... 56. Figure 2.19. : Design characteristics of shopping portal, eBay, containing categories, list of goods, photos, description and reviews............ 57. Figure 2.20. : Design characteristics of reuse portals, Olio (top) & Letgo (bottom), containing photos, description, location and categories of goods...................................................................... M. al. ay. a. Figure 2.15. 58. : Design characteristics of reuse portal, Village, containing photos, description and categories of goods................................. Figure 2.22. : Design characteristics of how-to portal, wikiHow, containing procedures for proper usage and disposal.................................... Figure 2.23. : Design characteristics of product guide portals, Macworld (left) & TechRadar (right), containing reviews, pros and cons............. 61. Figure 2.24. : Design characteristics of product guide portal, MacRumors, containing product release timeline and review........................... 62. Figure 3.1. : The flow of methodology............................................................. 63. Figure 3.2. : Map of Kuala Lumpur and its provinces (mukim)........................ 66. Figure 3.3. : Creation of GIS map of business licensees................................... 67. Figure 4.1. : Classification of goods and services providers............................ 71. Figure 4.2. : Color schemes used for heat maps in Esri Maps for Office (left) and ArcGIS Maps for Office (right)............................................ 76. U ni. ve. rs. ity. of. Figure 2.21. 59. 61. x.

(12) : Premise (Premis) licensees—catalog, clusters and heat map....... 80. Figure 4.4. : Premise (Premis) licensees—hot spots: p-value & z-score.......... 81. Figure 4.5. : Premise (Premis) licensees—hot spots: FDR & Nearest Neighbors..................................................................................... 82. Figure 4.6. : Vendor (Penjaja) licensees—catalog, clusters and heat map....... 86. Figure 4.7. : Vendor (Penjaja) licensees—hot spots: p-value & z-score.......... 87. Figure 4.8. : Vendor (Penjaja) licensees—hot spots: FDR & Nearest Neighbors..................................................................................... 88. Figure 4.9. : Signboard Advertisement (Iklan Papan Tanda) non-premise licensees— catalog, clusters and heat map................................... 91. Figure 4.10. : Signboard Advertisement (Iklan Papan Tanda) non-premise licensees—hot spots: p-value & z-score....................................... Figure 4.11. : Signboard Advertisement (Iklan Papan Tanda) non-premise licensees—hot spots: FDR & Nearest Neighbors......................... 93. Figure 4.12. : Signboard Advertisement (Iklan Papan Tanda) premise licensees—catalog, clusters and heat map.................................... 95. Figure 4.13. : Signboard Advertisement (Iklan Papan Tanda) premise licensees—hot spots: p-value & z-score....................................... 96. U ni. ve. rs. ity. of. M. al. ay. a. Figure 4.3. 92. Figure 4.14. : Signboard Advertisement (Iklan Papan Tanda) premise licensees—hot spots: FDR & Nearest Neighbors......................... 97. Figure 4.15. : Game Entertainment (Hiburan Permainan) licensees—catalog, clusters and heat map................................................................... 100. Figure 4.16. : Game Entertainment (Hiburan Permainan) licensees—hot spots: p-value & z-score............................................................... 101. Figure 4.17. : Game Entertainment (Hiburan Permainan) licensees—hot spots: FDR & Nearest Neighbors................................................. 102. xi.

(13) : Evening Entertainment (Hiburan Malam) licensees—catalog, clusters and heat map................................................................... 106. Figure 4.19. : Evening Entertainment (Hiburan Malam) licensees—hot spots: p-value & z-score......................................................................... 107. Figure 4.20. : Evening Entertainment (Hiburan Malam) licensees—hot spots: FDR & Nearest Neighbors........................................................... 108. Figure 4.21. : Liquor (Minuman Keras) licensees—catalog, clusters and heat map............................................................................................... 111. Figure 4.22. : Liquor (Minuman Keras) licensees—hot spots: p-value & zscore............................................................................................. 112. Figure 4.23. : Liquor (Minuman Keras) licensees—hot spots: FDR & Nearest Neighbors..................................................................................... 113. Figure 4.24. : Private Parking Lot (Tempat Letak Kereta Persendirian) licensees—catalog, clusters and heat map.................................... 115. Figure 4.25. : Private Parking Lot (Tempat Letak Kereta Persendirian) licensees—hot spots: p-value & z-score....................................... 116. Figure 4.26. : Private Parking Lot (Tempat Letak Kereta Persendirian) licensees—hot spots: FDR & Nearest Neighbors......................... 117. Figure 4.27. : Main features of goods management prototype............................ 120. Figure 4.28. : Contents of “Maps”...................................................................... 121. Figure 4.29. : Screenshots of “Maps”................................................................. 122. Figure 4.30. : Contents of “Goods”.................................................................... 123. Figure 4.31. : Screenshots of “Goods” (goods and services categories and action menu)................................................................................. 126. Figure 4.32. : Screenshots of “Goods” (donation).............................................. 127. U ni. ve. rs. ity. of. M. al. ay. a. Figure 4.18. xii.

(14) : Screenshots of “Goods” (provider).............................................. 128. Figure 4.34. : Screenshots of “Goods” (product disposal).................................. 129. Figure 4.35. : Screenshots of “Goods” (product credentials).............................. 130. Figure 4.36. : Screenshots of “Goods” (services)............................................... 130. Figure 4.37. : Contents of “Waste”..................................................................... 131. Figure 4.38. : Screenshots of “Waste” (waste categories and action menu)........ 133. Figure 4.39. : Screenshots of “Waste” (organic waste infographic)................... Figure 4.40. : Screenshots of “Waste” (recyclable waste infographic)............... Figure 4.41. : Screenshots of “Waste” (other waste infographic)....................... Figure 4.42. : Contents of “Options”.................................................................. 137. Figure 4.43. : Screenshots of “Options” (main page and login page).................. 140. Figure 4.44. : Screenshots of “Options” (Law & Guidelines and Authority)...... 141. Figure 4.45. : Screenshots of “Options” (Feedback)........................................... 142. Figure 4.46. : Screenshots of “Options” (Facilities)........................................... 143. Figure 4.47. : Screenshots of “Options” (Events and Knowledge)..................... 144. Figure 4.48. : Direct potential benefits of goods management............................ 146. Figure 4.49. : Indirect potential benefits of goods management......................... 150. U ni. ve. rs. ity. of. M. al. ay. a. Figure 4.33. 134 135 136. xiii.

(15) LIST OF TABLES : Percentage of time spent on apps by type........................................ 7. Table 2.1. : A Timeline of Trash....................................................................... 12. Table 2.2. : Malaysia’s MSW generation by year.............................................. 21. Table 2.3. : Malaysia’s recycling rate by year................................................... 23. Table 2.4. : Estimation of solid waste management costs for 2010 and 2025.... 24. Table 2.5. : The intangible costs of waste.......................................................... 25. Table 2.6. : Description of the waste hierarchy................................................. 29. Table 2.7. : PwC’s global megatrends............................................................... 38. Table 2.8. : Hajkowicz’s global megatrends..................................................... 38. Table 2.9. : KPMG International’s global megatrends by group....................... 39. Table 2.10 : Summary of the SDGs.................................................................... 49. of. M. al. ay. a. Table 1.1. 54. Table 3.1. : Workflow in GIS software............................................................. 68. Table 3.2. : Critical p-values and z-scores for different confidence levels........ 68. Table 3.3. : Main features of goods management prototype.............................. 69. Table 3.4. : Prototyping workflow.................................................................... 70. Table 4.1. : Sources identified to collect data on goods and services providers. 71. U ni. ve. rs. ity. Table 2.11 : Strategic objectives of Pelan Transformasi Minda......................... Table 4.2. : Categories of DBKL business licensee........................................... 72. Table 4.3. : License datasets obtained from DBKL for year 2015..................... 73. Table 4.4. : Categories of Premise (Premis) licensees....................................... 77. Table 4.5. : Categories of Vendor (Penjaja) licensees...................................... 83. Table 4.6. : Categories of Signboard Advertisement (Iklan Papan Tanda) non-premise licensees.................................................................... 89. : Categories of Game Entertainment (Hiburan Permainan) licensees......................................................................................... 98. Table 4.7. xiv.

(16) Table 4.8. : Categories of Evening Entertainment (Hiburan Malam) licensees........................................................................................ 103. Table 4.9. : Categories of Liquor (Minuman Keras) licensees......................... 109. Table 4.10 : Categories of Private Parking Lot (Tempat Letak Kereta Persendirian) licensees................................................................. 114 Table 4.11 : Goods and services categories in “Goods”.................................... 124 Table 4.12 : Waste categories in “Waste”......................................................... 132. U ni. ve. rs. ity. of. M. al. ay. a. Table 4.13 : Help sections................................................................................. 138. xv.

(17) LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS :. Eleventh Malaysia Plan. 2R. :. Reduction and reuse / Reduce and Reuse. 3D. :. Dirty, dangerous and demanding. 3R. :. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. AI. :. Artificial intelligence. C4E. :. Communicate, Educate, Engage, Empower, Enforce. C&D. :. Construction and demolition. C&I. :. Commercial and industrial. DBKL. :. Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur / Kuala Lumpur City Hall. DEB. :. Dasar Ekonomi Baru / New Economic Policy. ELV. :. End-of-life vehicle. EPA. :. Environmental Protection Agency. EPR. :. Extended producer responsibility. FDI. :. FDR. :. ay. al. M. of. ity. Foreign direct investment. rs. False Discovery Rate. :. Gross Domestic Product. :. Greenhouse gas. GIS. :. Geographic Information System. GMS. :. Goods management system. GNI. :. Gross National Income. GPS. :. Global Positioning System. HHW. :. Hazardous household waste. ICT. :. Information and communications technology. IoT. :. Internet of Things. U ni. GHG. ve. GDP. a. 11MP. xvi.

(18) :. Kementerian Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan / Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government. LCA. :. Life-cycle assessment. MBT. :. Mechanical biological treatment. MDG. :. Millennium Development Goal. MSW. :. Municipal solid waste. OECD. :. Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development. POI. :. Place of Interest. PPP. :. Polluter-Pays Principle. PTM. :. Pelan Transformasi Minda / Mentality Transformation Plan. RDF. :. Refuse-derived fuel. RPF. :. Refuse-derived paper. RTCE. :. Related total consumer expenditure. SCP. :. Sustainable Consumption and Production. SDG. :. SDSS. :. ay. al. M. of. ity. Sustainable Development Goal. rs. Spatial Decision Support System Solid-recovered fuel. SWPCM. :. Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management. TN50. :. Transformasi Nasional 2050 / National Transformation 2050. UI. :. User Interface. UX. :. User Experience. UN DESA. :. United Nations. UNEP. :. United Nations Environment Programme. WGS84. :. World Geodetic System 1984. WHM. :. Winning the Hearts and Minds. WTE. :. Waste-to-energy. ve. :. U ni. SRF. a. KPKT. xvii.

(19) LIST OF APPENDICES : Categories of Premise (Premis) licensees (277/708)................... 176. Appendix B. : Categories of Vendor (Penjaja) licensees (189/3694)................. 192. Appendix C. : Categories of Evening Entertainment (Hiburan Malam) licensees (143/143)..................................................................... 197. Appendix D. : Legal Notices.............................................................................. 202. U ni. ve. rs. ity. of. M. al. ay. a. Appendix A. xviii.

(20) CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION. 1.1. Background. There is arguably no issue more underrated than waste. Everyone realizes how misery, sickness and poverty can affect each of their lives and why it is important to be content, healthy and financially secure. But the same thing cannot be said for waste—most people. a. do not realize the effects of waste on themselves, society, the environment and the. ay. economy, thus downplaying the importance of proper waste management such as Reduce,. al. Reuse and Recycle (3Rs). Historically, people have always been careless about waste. Waste is not actually an issue from the outset because waste is naturally-occurring and. M. naturally degradable. Anthropogenic waste is the issue due to its enormous volume,. of. detrimental effects and low degradability which disrupts natural cycle.. ity. In small quantities, waste may be disregarded as merely an issue of dirtiness and odor.. rs. People have a habit of neglecting waste until the issue blows out of proportion. History has taught that the issue of waste should not be taken lightly. Sheoal, a dumpsite in ancient. ve. Jerusalem, periodically burned and became synonymous with hell based on historical. U ni. scriptures; in 1400, waste piled up so high outside of Paris gates that it interfered with city defense (Barbalace, 2003). Perhaps the greatest example is the Great Stink: in the summer of 1858, the River Thames became so contaminated—after centuries of being a dumpsite—to the point that its overwhelming stench put London to a standstill (Lemon, n.d.). The state of River Thames at that time developed a public fear of pestilence (Lemon, n.d.). The government could barely function and even considered relocating the Parliament to Oxford or St Albans after failing to mask the stench by soaking curtains in lime chloride (UK Parliament, 2014). To the British people, the Great Stink was degrading given the fact the British empire managed to colonized almost half of the world 1.

(21) but failed to conserve its main river (Wilson, 2016). Figures 1.1 and 1.2 are examples of satirical cartoons produced during that time. The River Thames was finally remediated as the British government began constructing proper sewerage system to divert and. of. M. al. ay. a. control wastewater flow (Lemon, n.d.).. U ni. ve. rs. ity. Figure 1.1: London Bathing Season published in Punch periodical (The Victorian Web, n.d.). Figure 1.2: Monster Soup commonly called Thames Water (Wellcome Collection, n.d.) In modern times, proper waste management is founded upon the principles of 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle). Technically, there is a fourth R (Recover energy) and 2.

(22) finally a D (Disposal) but the 3Rs have much wider recognition especially among the general public (Urban Ore, 2010). 3Rs are systematic steps to effectively and efficiently control and manage waste generation. Reduce means preventing and reducing waste or wastage. There are a lot of ways to reduce. One of the easiest examples of prevention and reduction are avoiding splurge or unnecessary shopping, and buying multiple-use goods instead of single-use or disposable goods, respectively. People may refer to buyers’ guides, articles or websites for knowledge on goods and usage, and assistance in purchase. ay. a. planning. Reuse means reusing and repairing goods to extend goods lifespan. Goods may be reused by repurposing them, or donating or selling them to other people. Among the. al. platforms for reuse are donation boxes, second-hand stores, online portals such as eBay. M. and Freecycle, and repair shops. Besides repair, goods may also be upgraded as part of maintenance. Last but not least, Recycle means recycling or recovering resources such as. of. paper, plastic, metals, glass and e-waste to reduce extraction of raw materials, and save. ity. energy and water. Organic matter can also be recycled through composting to produce fertilizers. Depending on locations, recycling may be carried out by putting recyclables. U ni. ve. (Figure 1.3).. rs. in special or color-coded bins, or sending them to formal or informal recycle centers. Figure 1.3: Recycling bins and center (Relaks Minda, n.d.) 3.

(23) Proper waste management is one of the key areas to achieve sustainable development. Sustainable development is defined in the Brundtland Report 1987 as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Malaysia Productivity Corporation, 2010). It may only be achieved if nations worldwide can overcome obstacles in the form of global megatrends. Global megatrends are not merely issues—they are the larger geopolitical, environmental, economic, social and technological forces that are shaping the future of the world in. ay. a. profound ways (Hajkowicz, 2015; KPMG International, 2014; PwC, 2016). Among the. (2016) are:. M. 1. Resource scarcity & global climate change. al. list of global megatrends by Hajkowicz (2015), KPMG International (2014) and PwC. 2. Rapid urbanization. 5. Public debt. ity. 4. Economic power shift. of. 3. Ageing population & changing demographics. rs. 6. Porous boundaries & the imperative to innovate. ve. 7. Digital immersion. U ni. 8. Great expectations of services & experiences. Such megatrends have direct and indirect relationship with waste. As the world. population increases and more cities are developed, economies will boom and human activities will grow in numbers and complexity. This results in the evolution of goods and services. Subsequently, all goods will become waste hence waste volume will dramatically escalate, leading to pollution, resource scarcity and climate change. This is why proper waste management is a key to achieving sustainable development.. 4.

(24) The most proper way to manage waste is to prevent rather than treat. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. All wastes come from goods, thus prevention of waste is possible through management of goods. Goods and services can never be prevented as they are significant elements of human activities. Human culture and life revolve around interaction with goods and services, be they natural or artificial. For that reason, archaeologists and garbologists analyze remnants or waste to study human culture and history (Rathje & Murphy, 2001). However, these fields only deal with retrospect or. ay. a. hindsight. Goods management, on the other hand, can combine hindsight (past) with insight (present) and foresight (future). A system which incorporates databases and maps. al. of goods and services can store historical records of goods and services, provide real-. M. time assistance to people in finding relevant goods and services, and provide data to. of. governments for urban planning and emergency preparedness (Yunus & Hassan, 2010).. ity. In the age of digital immersion, goods management must take advantage of and integrate with apps. Today, apps are ubiquitous—mobile computing has improved so. rs. much since Apple revolutionized app development by launching the App Store in July. ve. 2008 (Apple, 2008). The revolution of apps has transformed mobile phones from telecommunication devices to mobile computers. As of March 2017, the number of apps. U ni. available in the two leading app stores in the world—Google Play Store and Apple’s App Store—was 2.8 million and 2.2 million apps, respectively (Statista, 2017a). The number of apps downloaded worldwide in 2016 was 149.3 billion and it was forecasted to increase to 197 billion in 2017 (Statista, 2017b). In term of worldwide users, it was estimated that there were 2.32 billion smartphone users out of 4.77 billion mobile phone users in 2017 (Statista, 2015, 2016). To put in perspective, the world’s population was estimated around 7.55 billion in the same year (UN DESA, 2017). Based on the proliferation of mobile phones, Cisco (2016) forecasted that more people will have. 5.

(25) mobile phones (5.4 billion) than utilities such as electricity (5.3 billion) and running water. M. al. ay. a. (3.5 billion), and cars (2.8 billion) by 2020 (Figure 1.4).. of. Figure 1.4: Ownership of mobile phones versus basic utilities and services in 2020 (Cisco, 2016). ity. Apps—short for applications—typically refer to programs that run on mobile. rs. operating systems on devices such as smartphones, tablets and wearables, and also on web browsers. Apps are often built around targeted workflows that deliver streamlined. ve. user experiences (Esri, n.d.). Apps extend the capabilities of mobile devices by enabling. U ni. users to perform particular tasks (Purcell et al., 2010). The versatility of apps is transforming the way people socialize, work, study, play, entertain, exercise, navigate, travel, search and transact. In other words, the way people interact with goods and services. Even so, most people have not taken full advantage on apps and mobile computing. Exact figures are impossible to obtain but on average, most of the time spent on apps are on entertainment (including games) and social networking (Table 1.1). Therefore, goods management should leverage the potentials of mobile computing and become digitally immersed. As an app, goods management system will be more accessible and more optimized to assist people in finding relevant goods and services in 6.

(26) order to foster Reduce and Reuse.. ay. a. Table 1.1: Percentage of time spent on apps by type (GO-Globe, 2015) Games 43% Social networking 26% Entertainment 10% Utilities 10% News 2% Productivity 2% Health & fitness 1% Lifestyles 1% Others 5%. al. As the world moves along the course set by megatrends, the necessity of sustainability. M. has become more pronounced than ever. The sorry state of the world is caused by none other than mankind, as revealed in the Quran:. ity. of. Mischief has appeared on land and sea because of (the meed) that the hands of men have earned, that (Allah) may give them a taste of some of their deeds; in order that they may turn back (from Evil). (Quran 30:41) In response to this circumstance, this treatise proposes goods management as a. rs. methodical means not just to reduce waste but also to realize sustainable and ethical way. ve. of life. The cornerstone of goods management is goods appreciation. Goods management. U ni. is not and should not be a situational or temporary conduct. Mankind must express appreciation or thankfulness for the blessings that Allah have bestowed upon them at all times, not just hard times. Nothing whatsoever should be taken for granted. As caliphs (vicegerents) of Earth, it is the responsibility of mankind to develop Earth sustainably. May this effort contribute to the betterment of mankind for the sake of Allah.. 1.2. Problem Statement. Mismanagement of waste is costly around the world including in Malaysia. Approximately US$205.4 billion was spent globally on waste management in 2010 and 7.

(27) it is estimated to increase to $375.5 billion by 2025 (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). On the other hand, the impacts of waste on the environment, society and economy are incalculable. Waste generation is not just growing fast but faster than urbanization. Now, it is more crucial than ever to see the bigger picture and think beyond waste. The best way to prevent waste is to control the source of waste, i.e., goods. Goods management is needed to replace the limitative approach of waste management with a holistic approach.. ay. a. Waste management is an end-of-life management whereas goods management is a life management. Waste management does actually manage goods through Reduce and Reuse. al. but in literature, such phases are often designated as waste diversion instead of goods. M. management. Also, from a semantic point of view, waste management is a misnomer because its name emphasizes waste whereas waste is actually what is needed to be de-. of. emphasized, i.e., reduced. This is why a paradigm shift is needed to overcome the paradox. ity. of waste management.. rs. Currently, no such system exists—at least in Malaysia—for an integrated reduction. ve. and reuse that actively involves the government, providers and consumers. Therefore, it is important to develop a system for goods management. According to Palmer (n.d.),. U ni. designing Zero Waste solutions require strong social engineering. Such a system should promote appreciation of goods as they are elements of human culture and life. This is because goods are materials that humans use or create to fulfill their needs and wants.. 1.3. Objectives. The general objective of this research is to develop an app as a model for goods management. The model will deliver a systemic approach to minimize waste and. 8.

(28) maximize the potential of goods and services through reduction and reuse. In order to develop the model, this research undertook four specific objectives: i.. To collect current data on goods and services in Malaysia, and apps or websites related to shopping, reuse and how-tos/product guides.. ii.. To create a GIS map in order to analyze the type and spatial distribution of goods and services providers in Kuala Lumpur.. iii.. To develop a goods management system prototype with functional contents. ay. iv.. a. involving mapping, goods and waste.. To evaluate the potential benefits or applications of goods management. U ni. ve. rs. ity. of. M. al. system.. 9.

(29) CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW. 2.1. Waste and People. Waste can be interpreted in many ways, especially among scientific and legal bodies. Paul Palmer (2004b), the founder of Zero Waste, defines waste as any object whose owner does not wish to take responsibility for it. Basel Convention interprets wastes as substances or objects which are disposed of or are intended to be disposed of or are. ay. a. required to be disposed of by the provisions of national laws [United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2002]. The United Nations Statistics Division groups. al. wastes along with emissions to air and wastewater as residuals; it interprets wastes as:. ity. of. M. materials that are not prime products (that is products produced for the market) for which the generator has no further use in terms of his/her own purposes of production, transformation or consumption, and of which he/she wants to dispose. Wastes may be generated during the extraction of raw materials, the processing of raw materials into intermediate and final products, the consumption of final products, and other human activities. Residuals recycled or reused at the place of generation are excluded (UNEP, 2002).. categories:. rs. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD) interprets waste by. U ni. ve. 1. Municipal waste is collected and treated by, or for municipalities that covers waste from households, including bulky waste, similar waste from commerce and trade, office buildings, institutions and small businesses, yard and garden, street sweepings, contents of litter containers, and market cleansing. Waste from municipal sewage networks and treatment, as well as municipal construction and demolition is excluded. 2. Hazardous waste is mostly generated by industrial activities and driven by specific patterns of production that represents a major concern as it entails serious environmental risks if poorly managed: the impact on the environment relates mainly to toxic contamination of soil, water and air. 3. Nuclear (radioactive) waste is generated at various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle (uranium mining and milling, fuel enrichment, reactor operation, spent fuel reprocessing) arises from decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and from other activities using isotopes, such as scientific research and medical activities. (UNEP, 2002). According to the Environmental Quality Act 1974 of Malaysia, waste includes: 10.

(30) any matter prescribed to be scheduled waste, or any matter whether in a solid, semi-solid or liquid form, or in the form of gas or vapor which is emitted, discharged or deposited in the environment in such volume, composition or manner as to cause pollution (Attorney General Chambers of Malaysia, 2006) The Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management (SWPCM) Act 2007 of Malaysia interprets as:. M. al. ay. a. “Solid waste” includes: a) any scrap material or other unwanted surplus substance or rejected products arising from the application of any process; b) any substance required to be disposed of as being broken, worn out, contaminated or otherwise spoiled; c) or any other material that according to this Act or any other written law is required by the authority to be disposed of, but does not include scheduled wastes as prescribed under the Environmental Quality Act 1974 [Act 127], sewage as defined in the Water Services Industry Act 2006 [Act 655] or radioactive waste as defined in the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984 [Act 304].. U ni. ve. rs. ity. of. “Controlled solid waste” means any solid waste falling within any of the following categories: • Commercial solid waste • Construction solid waste • Household solid waste • Industrial solid waste • Institutional solid waste • Imported solid waste • Public solid waste • Solid waste which may be prescribed from time to time [Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (JPSPN), 2013]. In essence, wastes are goods that are not useful—either non-functional, non-beneficial, harmful or unclean—to the user, and/or not needed nor wanted by the user. Goods become wastes for objective or subjective reasons.. Waste is an indicator of worldly activity. Its ubiquity attests to its significance in the cycle of life. Likewise, goods are also an indicator. The difference is that goods precede waste as all wastes comes from goods. The study of waste has given much insight into. 11.

(31) civilizations over the years. Humans are naturally careless with waste so it is not a trait of the 20th century. Garbologists have discovered that people let waste fall where it may. Anthropogenic waste has been a problem since humans’ earliest time. Four basic means of dealing with waste have been used over and over in history which are dumping, burning, recycling, and waste minimization (Barbalace, 2003). Table 2.1 outlines the timeline of the history of trash.. Athens, Greece. New Testament of Bible. Jerusalem, Palestine. rs. ve. 1388. U ni. 1400. England. Paris, France. 1690. Philadelphia. 1842. England. 1874. Nottingham, England. 1885 1889. al. 500 BC. Archaeological studies show a clan of Native Americans in what is now Colorado produced an average of 2.4 kilograms of waste a day. First municipal dump in western world organized. Regulations required waste to be dumped at least a mile from the city limits. The Valley of Gehenna, also called Sheoal, in the New Testament of the Bible "Though I descent into Sheoal, thou art there." Sheoal was apparently a dump outside of the city that periodically burned. It became synonymous with "hell." English Parliament bars waste dispersal in public waterways and ditches. Garbage piles so high outside of Paris gates that it interferes with city defence. Rittenhouse Mill, Philadelphia makes paper from recycled fibers (waste paper and rags). A report links disease to filthy environmental conditions - "age of sanitation" begins. A new technology called "the Destructor" provided the first systematic incineration of refuse in Nottingham, England. Until this time, much of the burning was accidental, a result of methane production. The first garbage incinerator was built in USA (on Governor's Island in New York) Washington, D.C. reported that they were running out of appropriate places for refuse.. M. 6,500 BC. North America. Notes. of. Location. ity. Date. ay. A Timeline of Trash. a. Table 2.1: A Timeline of Trash (Barbalace, 2003). Governor's Island, NY Washington, D.C.. 12.

(32) Table 2.1, continued. A Timeline of Trash. 1914 1920's 1954 1965 1968. a. ve. rs. 1970. ay. 1911. al. 1900. Waste reduction plants arrive in United States. (For United States compressing organic wastes). Later closed because of noxious emissions. New York New York has first rubbish sorting plant for recycling By the turn of the century the garbage problem was seen as one of the greatest problems for local authorities. "Piggeries" were developed to eat fresh or cooked garbage (In the mid-50's an outbreak of vesicular exanthema resulted in the destruction of 1,000s of pigs that had eaten raw garbage. Law passed requiring that garbage had to be cooked before it could be fed to swine). New York New York City citizens were producing 2.1 kilograms of City waste a day There were about 300 incinerators in the United States for United States burning trash. Landfills were becoming a popular way of reclaiming swamp land while getting rid of trash. Olympia, Olympia, Washington pays for return of aluminium cans. Washington The first federal solid waste management laws were United States enacted. By 1968 companies began buy back recycling of containers. The first Earth Day was celebrated, the Environmental United States Protection Agency (EPA) created and the Resource Recovery Act enacted. In 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was created emphasizing recycling and waste United States management. This was the result of two major events: the oil embargo and the discovery (or recognition) of Love Canal. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued United States criteria prohibiting open dumping. The list goes on and on.. M. 1898 Turn of Century. Notes. of. 1896. Location. ity. Date. U ni. 1976. 1979. Today. The nature of the waste varies greatly from one civilization to another. Studies indicated that Americans are more wasteful than similar civilizations of the past. According to Barbalace (2003), there is an archaeological account of Native Americans in Colorado around 6500 BC who killed 200 buffalo in one day and butchered 150 of them, carrying away enough meat to feed 150 people for 23 days and leaving some 8,337 13.

(33) kg of bones behind. In comparison, she stated that 150 modern day Americans would produce about 6,418 kg of waste in 23 days. Based on the weight of the bones that remained, the Native Americans in that clan produced about 2.4 kg of waste a day as compared to 1.1 kg a day, which is a moderate figure for middle class American consumption (Barbalace, 2003).. 2.1.1 State of Waste Around the World. ay. a. Waste generation levels are increasing fast around the world. Hoornweg and BhadaTata (2012) from the World Bank estimated that, in 2012, the global municipal solid. al. waste (MSW) generation levels were approximately 1.3 billion tonnes of solid waste (per. M. capita generation rate of 1.2 kg per person per day). By 2025, the global MSW generation levels were expected to increase to 2.2 billion tonnes per year (1.42 kg per person per. of. day) (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). However, in 2015, UNEP published a report. ity. stating that—based on a best ‘order of magnitude’ estimate—the global MSW generation levels may have reached around 2 billion tonnes per year. Urban wastes—MSW,. rs. commercial and industrial (C&I) waste, and construction and demolition (C&D) waste—. ve. were estimated around 7 to 10 billion tonnes per year (Wilson et al., 2015). Figure 2.1 shows the relative percentage of waste based on sectors, using OECD data as proxy.. U ni. However, such data does not include mining, and agriculture and forestry waste. Waste is generated since the beginning of goods life cycle, thus the total global waste generated may be greater than 10 billion tonnes per year.. 14.

(34) a. ay. Figure 2.1: Relative percentage of waste (Wilson et al., 2015). al. In term of waste generation growth rate, all except the high income regions of the. M. world are growing rapidly as populations rise, migration to cities continues, and economies develop. In 2010, the traditional high income regions accounted for around. of. half of all waste generation (Wilson et al., 2015). But around 2030, Asia is forecasted to. ity. overtake these countries in terms of overall MSW generation. Later in the century, Africa could potentially overtake both (Wilson et al., 2015). Figure 2.2 shows the projection of. rs. total MSW generation by region. Despite stabilized waste generation rate, high income. ve. regions still generate higher amount of MSW compared to middle and low income regions (Figure 2.3). This shows that waste generation is directly proportional to income. U ni. levels. However, such relationship is not evident between recycling rates and income levels (Figure 2.4). On average, high income regions have closely similar recycling rates with lower-middle income regions (~30%) while low income regions share rates with upper-middle income regions (~10%). It is important to note that these recycling rates may refer to rates of waste diverted rather than rates of goods resold, goods recaptured or resources saved (Palmer, 2004a).. 15.

(35) ve. rs. ity. of. M. al. ay. a. Figure 2.2: Projection of total MSW generation by region (Wilson et al., 2015). U ni. Figure 2.3: MSW generation per capita versus income level, i.e., GNI per capita by country (Wilson et al., 2015). 16.

(36) a ay. M. al. Figure 2.4: Recycling rate versus income level, i.e., GNI per capita by city (Wilson et al., 2015). of. Solid waste is generally considered an urban issue. In rural areas, waste generation rates tend to be much lower because—on average—residents are usually poorer, purchase. ity. fewer store-bought items (therefore less packaging), and have higher levels of reuse and. rs. recycling (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). Waste composition is influenced by income. ve. levels as well as rate of industrialization, culture, geography, climate and energy sources (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). On average, organic waste is more prevalent in low. U ni. and middle income regions whereas recyclables such as paper, plastics, metals and glass are more prevalent in middle and high income regions (Figure 2.5). In term of waste management, disposal in landfills and dumps is still the main option due to its lower cost, lower (or lack of) technology requirement and lack of access to waste collection and controlled disposal (Figure 2.6). Uncontrolled disposal—i.e., open dumping and open burning—is particularly prevalent in low and lower-middle income regions (Figure 2.7).. 17.

(37) a ay al M. U ni. ve. rs. ity. of. Figure 2.5: MSW composition by income level (Wilson et al., 2015). Figure 2.6: Global annual MSW disposal (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). 18.

(38) a. al. ay. Figure 2.7: Average percentage of controlled disposal versus income level (Wilson et al., 2015). M. The growth of solid waste on land is affecting the ocean as well in the form of marine debris. Marine debris originates from sea and land. There are approximately 5.25 trillion. of. pieces of plastic debris in the ocean—around 269,000 tonnes float on the surface and. ity. around four billion plastic microfibers per square kilometer litter the deep sea (Parker, 2015). A study conducted by the World Economic Forum estimated that around 8 million. rs. tonnes of plastic waste enter the oceans from land each year (Sebille, 2016). Plastics are. ve. the primary component and the most challenging of marine debris because they are abundant, are lightweight and can be transported over long distances, degrade slowly into. U ni. microplastics instead of organic substances, and cause impact on numerous marine organisms and habitats (Wilson et al., 2015). Marine debris is distributed mainly—but not limited to—within the five subtropical ocean gyres (Figure 2.8).. 19.

(39) a ay al M of ity rs ve U ni. Figure 2.8: Concentration of plastic debris in the ocean (Parker, 2015). 2.1.2 State of Waste in Malaysia As an upper-middle income nation, Malaysia is also affected by the global trend of. increasing waste generation level (Table 2.2). Malaysia’ MSW generation level—i.e., household, industrial, commercial and institutional waste—increased to 14,075,495 tonne/year (38,563 tonne/day) in 2015 from 6,935,000 tonne/year (19,000 tonne/day) in 2005—a 103% increase in the span of 10 years. MSW generation was projected to increase at 5.19% rate yearly from 2015 till 2020 (Figure 2.9). SWCorp (2017) stated that Malaysia’s MSW generation in 2020 is estimated to reach around 18.1 million tonne/year 20.

(40) (49,670 tonne/day) whereas C&D generation is estimated to reach around 13.3 million tonne/year (36,473 tonne/day). Thus, Malaysia’s urban waste is estimated to reach 31.4 million tonne/year. MSW is the major contributor to solid waste in Malaysia, surpassing industrial or manufacturing waste and C&D waste (SWCorp, 2017).. U ni. ve. rs. ity. of. M. al. ay. a. Table 2.2: Malaysia’s MSW generation by year (Muzdalifah Mustapha, 2016; NEHAP Malaysia, 2016; Department of Statistics, Malaysia, 2017) Total Waste Generated Total Disposed to Landfills Tonne/Year Tonne/Day Tonne/Day Percentage 2005 6,935,000 19,000 18,050 95% 2012 12,092,450 33,130 30,129 90.9% 2015 14,075,495 38,563 35,335 91.6%. Figure 2.9: Projection of Malaysia’s daily MSW generation (KPKT, 2015). Based on 2012 MSW data, Malaysia generated approximately 33,130 tonne/day which equals to per capita generation rate of 1.17 kg/person/day (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2017). Households were the major contributor to Malaysia’s MSW generation (12,092,450 tonne/year) at 65% (7,860,092 tonne/year) followed by commercials and. 21.

(41) institutions at 28% (3,385,886 tonne/year) and industries at 7% (846,472 tonne/year) (Figure 2.10). Industries contributed the least as MSW was not the main waste. Approximately 2,854,516.8 tonne/year of scheduled waste (hazardous waste) was generated by industries which did not count towards MSW (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2017). Figure 2.11 shows organic waste (51%)—i.e., food waste (45%) and garden waste (6%)—predominate Malaysian household waste followed by plastics (13%), diapers (12%) and paper (9%) (KPKT, 2015). High organic waste content is. ay. a. typical of upper-middle income nations. The prominence of diapers (disposable sanitary products) and the commingling of domestic waste with hazardous household waste. al. (HHW) including e-waste are some of the growing concerns in Malaysia’s MSW. U ni. ve. rs. ity. of. M. management.. Figure 2.10: Malaysia’s percentage of Figure 2.11: Malaysia’s household waste composition (KPKT, 2015) MSW (KPKT, 2015) Recycling rate is low but has been steadily increasing over the years (Table 2.3). The. Malaysian government aims to reach 30% recycling rate by 2020 (SWCorp, 2018). On 1 September 2015, the government began implementing a law on solid waste separation at source under the Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act 2007 (Act 672) in Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya, Pahang, Johor, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Perlis and Kedah.. 22.

(42) According to the Dewan Rakyat session on 23 March 2017, a total of 1,719 tonnes of recyclables were collected from door to door since the enforcement of solid waste separation at source on 1 June 2016. This led to a 10.2% (358,489 tonne/year) reduction of solid waste disposed in landfills (KPKT, 2017). The implementation of 3R programs and solid waste separation is improving recycling rate and reducing disposal to landfills (KPKT, 2017).. 2.2. Costs of Waste. of. M. al. ay. a. Table 2.3: Malaysia’s recycling rate by year (UPE, 2015; SWCorp, n.d., 2018) Malaysia’s Recycling Rate 2010 5.00% 2012 10.5% 2014 13.2% 2015 15.7% 2016 17.5% 2017 21.0%. ity. 2.2.1 Tangible Costs. rs. Waste management involves a lot of money. It is costly for governments but lucrative. ve. for waste capitalists—especially those who profit from resource and energy recovery— because waste is renewable, inevitable and also increasing. According to Ali et al. (2012),. U ni. cost is the most important aspect for solid waste management system to operate in optimal condition. Tangible, direct or financial cost covers investment cost and operation cost for waste management. Tangibility refers to its calculability in the economics of waste. Aside from politics, cost is also the bottleneck to environmentally sound waste management, especially for low and lower-middle income countries (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012; World Bank, 2016). Environmentally sound waste management is in fact achievable but not universally viable. Globally, solid waste management costs are estimated to increase from US$205.4 billion in 2010 to US$375.5 billion in 2025 (Table 2.4).. 23.

(43) Table 2.4: Estimation of solid waste management costs for 2010 and 2025 (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012) Country Income Group. 2010 Cost. 2025 Cost. Low Income. $1.5 billion. $7.7 billion. Lower-Middle Income. $20.1 billion. $84.1 billion. Upper-Middle Income. $24.5 billion. $63.5 billion. High Income. $159.3 billion. $220.2 billion. Total Global Cost (US$). $205.4 billion. $375.5 billion. ay. a. In many lower income countries, municipalities already spend 20% to 50% of their budgets on solid waste management, yet only manage to provide services for less than. al. half their citizens (Mugabi, 2014). According to Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata (2012), low. M. income countries allocate 80-90% of the budget on solid waste management to collection but very little on disposal, middle income countries allocate 50-80% to collection and. of. spend much more on waste treatment and disposal than low income countries, and high. ity. income countries allocate less than 10% to collection but spend most of the budget on treatment and disposal. According to the World Bank (2016), solid waste management in. rs. many developing countries can consume 20-50% of a city’s budget. In that regard, the. ve. World Bank has been lending US$4.5 billion to support 329 solid waste management programs around the globe since 2000. This is because countries on the verge of. U ni. transitioning from low to middle income status are hit particularly hard, with no tax or fee structure to sustain solid waste programs and a population accustomed to using free, open-air dumps (World Bank, 2016).. Financial cost of waste management in Malaysia is expected to keep increasing as well. In 2015, Malaysia spent around RM2 billion on waste management and public cleansing, compared to RM1.2 billion in 2013 (Utusan Malaysia, 2016). According to KPKT (2015), public cleansing accounted for the majority of cost (63%) versus solid. 24.

(44) waste management (37%) in 2011-2014. Within the same period, the federal government bore 61% (RM2,276 million) of the total cost while local authorities (PBTs) bore only 39% (RM1,337 million) (KPKT, 2015). According to Towonsing (2017), KPKT stated that PBTs had to spend approximately 40-70% of the annual assessment tax revenue for the purpose of waste collection and disposal.. 2.2.2 Intangible Costs. ay. a. Intangible costs (aka indirect, external or ghost costs) are costs or impacts of waste borne by the environment, society and economy. Intangibility refers to complexity in. al. identification and calculation, thus making such costs often sidelined or externalized in. M. the economics of waste. Table 2.5 describes the breakdown of intangible costs.. of. Table 2.5: The intangible costs of waste Environment Society Disamenity. ity. Pollution. Economy. Loss of property value. Loss of natural resources. Health hazards. Loss of yield. Loss of biodiversity. Social unrest. Disruption to industries. rs. Energy spending. U ni. ve. Climate change Adapted from Zoï Environment Network and GRID-Arendal (2012). Intangible costs are not necessarily monetary. They are best understood as the losses. that would be incurred if the commons is mismanaged or not managed at all. Intangible costs greatly exceed tangible costs at least by a factor of 5-10 (UNEP, 2015). Nonetheless, their significance should be based on pricelessness, rather than price. Environmentally sound waste management is important in order to maintain the sustainability of home planet. The lucrativeness of waste should only be a means to a sustainable end since negative impacts due to exploitation of resources and waste can never be compensated by money. 25.

(45) Environmental cost represents the impacts of waste on the ecosystem. Emissions from open dumps, open burning, landfills and incineration in the form of gases, fumes, leachate and ashes will degrade the quality of natural resources such as air, aquifer, rivers, oceans and soil. The physical, chemical and biological features of waste can harm lifeforms through contact, cut, entanglement, ingestion, inhalation, skin absorption, contamination and infection. Such stress on the whole ecosystem will cause the loss of biodiversity and causing species extinction. Remediation or pollution control requires resources and. ay. a. energy to function, leading to increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. Constant extraction of virgin materials for goods production will deplete more natural resources. al. and spend more energy than reuse and recycling (EPA, n.d.). All these will ultimately. M. lead to climate change which results in disasters, rise of diseases, loss of lives and properties, food and water crisis, and ecological changes such as melting of polar ice. ity. of. caps, rise of sea level, desertification and salinization of freshwater.. Social cost represents the impacts on human well-being. The presence of waste is a. rs. disamenity to people in the vicinity. Such disamenity or discomfort is associated with. ve. odor, decline in cleanliness and aesthetic value, pests and scavengers. Proximity to waste treatment plants brings additional impacts such as heavy vehicle traffic and noise (Brown,. U ni. 2003). Waste pose risks of health hazards such as vectors, pathogens, heavy metals, particulates, fumes, fire, leachate, organic pollutants, inorganic pollutants, carcinogens, mutagens and radiation (Zoï Environment Network & GRID-Arendal, 2012). The collective stress exerted upon physical, mental and spiritual well-being can drastically increase health and insurance expenditure needed to prevent, treat or alleviate diseases and disorders. Personal or localized unrest, if not contained, can spread and magnify into social or global unrest. The disamenity of waste will diminish the sense of ownership of the land and increase dissatisfaction with poor governance. Loss of natural resources can. 26.

(46) affect quality of life due to the rise of cost of living and poverty (Samruhaizad Samian@Samion et al., 2014).. Economic cost represents the financial impacts on sectors other than waste management. Tenants are averse to invest in dirty, risky, visually unappealing or nonstrategically located properties. Such properties have a great risk of losing tenants, resulting in loss of rental income and property tax which will lead to a subsequent loss in. ay. a. capital value (Adeniran et al., 2014). Resource exploitation and pollution by waste will cause ecosystem goods and services to decline. Consequently, the loss of yield will be. al. the effect of such decline. It will bring about unstable market price of commodities, goods. M. and services. Overall instability due to environmental, social and economic costs will disrupt revenue stream of industries. These conditions will create a chain reaction among. of. various industries and disrupt their revenue streams. Tourism industry, in particular,. ity. relies on the pleasant and aesthetic experience provided by visiting places of natural or cultural value. Littering and poor sanitation can ruin such experience and nullify the. 2.3. ve. rs. appeal of such places, thus resulting in loss of tourists and revenue.. Waste Management. U ni. Like the old adage “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, waste. management is set on a hierarchic system, prioritizing the prevention of waste over its treatment and disposal. This concept—known as waste management hierarchy, waste hierarchy, or pollution prevention hierarchy (Figure 2.12)—began in the 1970s when the environment movement started to critique the practice of disposal-based waste management (Gertsakis & Lewis, 2003). Despite looking linear, waste management hierarchy is not a cradle-to-grave approach. In fact, it is a series of options from most desired to least desired. Cradle-to-grave is a term used in life cycle analysis to describe a. 27.

(47) linear model for materials that begins at the cradle of raw materials with resource extraction, moves to goods production, followed by transportation, then use and, ends with a grave where the goods are disposed of in a landfill. Waste is produced at all stages. of. M. al. ay. a. of life cycle (Figure 2.13).. U ni. ve. rs. ity. Figure 2.12: Waste management hierarchy. Figure 2.13: Life cycle stages (Venditti, n.d.). Cradle-to-grave analysis or life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a technique to assess environmental impacts associated with all the stages of a good’s life from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling (The Global Development Research Center, n.d.). 28.

(48) On the contrary, cradle-to-cradle is a term used to describe a material or good that is recycled into a new product at the end of its life, so that ultimately there is no waste (McDonough & Braungart, 2003). Cradle-to-grave is a direct contrast to cradle-to-cradle. Waste management hierarchy is cradle-to-cradle ideal. Unfortunately, it is an ideal yet to be realized entirely—due to environmental, economical, and political factors, the majority of the world do not follow the hierarchy in proper sequence.. ay. a. Table 2.6 describes the waste hierarchy or integrated waste management based on its components, attributes and goals. A preventative approach seeks to eliminate or avoid. al. waste from the outset, an ameliorative approach can only ever reduce or minimize the. M. problem and an assimilative approach is underpinned by the view that the wider. ity. (Gertsakis & Lewis, 2003).. of. ecosystem can continue absorbing and integrating the waste into a larger system. U ni. ve. rs. Table 2.6: Description of the waste hierarchy Hierarchy Component Attribute Goal Prevention Increase goods efficiency Reduce Preventive Reduction & reduce potential waste Predominantly Extend goods lifespan, or Reuse Reuse ameliorative functional reuse Repair Part preventive Predominantly Recover materials from Recycling Recycle ameliorative waste, or material reuse Composting Part preventive Thermal Predominantly Recover energy from Recover treatment ameliorative waste, or transform waste energy Biogas Part assimilative to energy Dispose Landfill Assimilative Assimilate or isolate waste Adapted from Gertsakis and Lewis (2003).. The first order of the hierarchy, Reduce, is preventive as it manages waste from the source, i.e., goods. Reduction goes hand in hand with prevention. Both prevention and. 29.

(49) reduction seek to minimize the amount of waste generated by reducing consumption, redesigning goods to be more effective and efficient, or changing pattern of production to maximize materials and minimize waste (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). Source reduction is the most environmentally preferred strategy of the waste hierarchy as it brings the most desirable outcomes in terms of saving natural resources, conserving energy, reducing pollution, saving money and saving time.. ay. a. The second order, Reuse, is predominantly ameliorative and part preventive. Reuse comprises both reuse and repair. Reuse ameliorates by extending lifespan of used goods. al. through the practice of functional reuse thus prevent or delay the creation of waste.. M. Functional reuse means reusing or repairing goods that has already fulfilled their original or primary function to serve similar or different function. Reuse does not involve. of. reprocessing or transforming goods into raw materials, thus it causes less environmental. ity. impact than Recycle. Goods that are broken in parts or as a whole may be repaired with new parts to maximize their lifespan, functionality as well as their value. Repairing. rs. removes the need to replace broken goods with new goods that cost resources, energy. ve. and money for the supply chain which creates waste and pollution. Sale or donation of unwanted goods allows such goods to remain in circular economy and let other people. U ni. reuse and gain benefits for their needs and wants.. The third order, Recycle, is also predominantly ameliorative and part preventive.. Recycling includes composting of organic or wet waste. Recycling differs from reuse by ameliorating used goods—ideally goods that cannot be reused—through the practice of material reuse instead of functional reuse. Material reuse means reusing or recovering the materials of goods to create similar or different goods. Recycle requires reprocessing of used goods down to their main components which costs more and causes more. 30.