| Literature DB >> 33293967 |
Mohamad Noufal1,2, Liu Yuanyuan1, Zena Maalla2,3, Sylvia Adipah1.
Abstract
The absence of accurate information on the state of waste is a challenge to the solid waste management system in Syria. The local authorities commonly estimate the quantity of waste produced and its characterisation, which is the starting point for solid waste management planning. So, this paper aims to evaluate the generation and composition of household solid waste in Homs city, Syria. Also, the study presents factors influencing the waste generation rate and the waste composition. The study was carried out in 300 families from four zones in Homs city, and three sampling stages were conducted during the study duration, which started in July 2017 and ended in February 2019. The outcomes show that an average of 0.68 kg/per/day solid waste generated was calculated for the entire study area in Homs city. Also, the data analysis presents that organic waste constitutes the largest component in the waste mixture (69.1%) followed by plastic (10.6%), inert materials (8.7%), paper (4.6%), textile (2.5%), metal (1.2%), glass (1.1%), wood (0.6%), and hazardous materials (1.6%). The multiple linear regression results showed that the adjusted R 2 value was found to be 0.557, 0.839, and 0.709 for the waste generation per capita, the daily household organic waste generation, and the daily household packaging waste generation, respectively. Also, according to Pearson's coefficient values, a positive correlation was found between household waste generation and monthly income (r = 0.626), household size (r = 0.37), and age of the household head (r = 0.517), whereas a negative correlation was found between household waste generation and the education level of the household head (r = -0.649).Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33293967 PMCID: PMC7714613 DOI: 10.1155/2020/7460356
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Figure 1The geographical location of Homs city [49].
Household selection for the study.
| Area | Neighbourhoods | Number of participants | Family size | Residential status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zone 1 | Al Sabil, Al-Muhajirin, Al Abbasiah, Al Zahra, and Al Arman | 75 | 6.10 | Low-income areas |
| Zone 2 | Wadi Aldahab, New Akrama, Karam el-Zeitoun, and Karam el-Looz | 75 | 6.15 | Lower-middle-income areas |
| Zone 3 | Al Inshaat, Al-Mahatta, and Al-Shammas | 75 | 5.95 | Upper-middle-income areas |
| Zone 4 | Al-Ghouta and Al Boughtassia | 75 | 5.90 | High-income areas |
Socioeconomic characteristics of the responding households.
| Frequency | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender of the household head | ||
| Male | 179 | 59.67 |
| Female | 121 | 40.33 |
|
| ||
| Age of the household head | ||
| 18–30 | 43 | 14.30 |
| 31–45 | 100 | 33.33 |
| 46–60 | 122 | 40.70 |
| >60 | 35 | 11.67 |
|
| ||
| Family size (individual) | ||
| 1–3 | 44 | 14.67 |
| 4–6 | 135 | 45.00 |
| >6 | 121 | 40.33 |
|
| ||
| Education level of the household head | ||
| Elementary school | 19 | 6.33 |
| Junior high or middle school | 34 | 11.33 |
| High school | 103 | 34.33 |
| College/institute | 129 | 43.00 |
| Postgraduate | 15 | 5.00 |
|
| ||
| Monthly income (SYP) | ||
| <50,000 | 9 | 3.00 |
| 50,000–100,000 | 135 | 45.00 |
| 100,000–150,000 | 108 | 36.00 |
| 150,000–200,000 | 42 | 14.00 |
| >200,000 | 6 | 2.00 |
1 USD = 438 SYP [57].
Average daily waste generation per capita in Homs neighbourhoods.
| Zone 1 | Zone 2 | Zone 3 | Zone 4 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waste generation per capita (kg/per/day) | 0.61 | 0.67 | 0.72 | 0.74 | 0.68 |
ANOVA test results for spatial variation in waste generation per capita.
| Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
| Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between groups | 0.749 | 3 | 0.250 | 40.079 | 0.000 |
| Within groups | 1.844 | 296 | 0.006 | ||
| Total | 2.592 | 299 |
Household solid waste composition in studied zones of Homs neighbourhoods.
| Zone 1 | Zone 2 | Zone 3 | Zone 4 | Average (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organic waste (%) | 72.10 | 71.00 | 66.95 | 66.35 | 69.10 |
| Plastic (%) | 8.10 | 9.50 | 12.20 | 12.60 | 10.60 |
| Inert materials (%) | 9.00 | 8.70 | 8.60 | 8.50 | 8.70 |
| Paper (%) | 3.60 | 4.00 | 5.20 | 5.60 | 4.60 |
| Textile (%) | 2.60 | 2.40 | 2.55 | 2.45 | 2.50 |
| Metal (%) | 1.30 | 1.20 | 1.15 | 1.15 | 1.20 |
| Glass (%) | 1.10 | 1.00 | 1.15 | 1.15 | 1.10 |
| Wood (%) | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.60 |
| Hazardous materials (%) | 1.60 | 1.60 | 1.60 | 1.60 | 1.60 |
ANOVA test results for spatial variation in waste composition.
| Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
| Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organic | Between groups | 7.365 | 3 | 2.455 | 1.798 | 0.148 |
| Within groups | 404.148 | 296 | 1.365 | |||
| Total | 411.513 | 299 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Plastic | Between groups | 3.649 | 3 | 1.216 | 32.561 | 0.000 |
| Within groups | 11.058 | 296 | 0.037 | |||
| Total | 14.707 | 299 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Inert materials | Between groups | 0.148 | 3 | 0.049 | 2.263 | 0.081 |
| Within groups | 6.453 | 296 | 0.022 | |||
| Total | 6.601 | 299 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Paper | Between groups | 0.698 | 3 | 0.233 | 33.210 | 0.000 |
| Within groups | 2.074 | 296 | 0.007 | |||
| Total | 2.772 | 299 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Textile | Between groups | 0.016 | 3 | 0.005 | 3.012 | 0.030 |
| Within groups | 0.536 | 296 | 0.002 | |||
| Total | 0.552 | 299 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Metal | Between groups | 0.001 | 3 | 0.000 | 0.683 | 0.563 |
| Within groups | 0.120 | 296 | 0.000 | |||
| Total | 0.121 | 299 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Glass | Between groups | 0.007 | 3 | 0.002 | 5.808 | 0.001 |
| Within groups | 0.111 | 296 | 0.000 | |||
| Total | 0.117 | 299 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Wood | Between groups | 0.001 | 3 | 0.000 | 3.915 | 0.009 |
| Within groups | 0.031 | 296 | 0.000 | |||
| Total | 0.032 | 299 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Hazardous materials | Between groups | 0.009 | 3 | 0.003 | 3.915 | 0.009 |
| Within groups | 0.221 | 296 | 0.001 | |||
| Total | 0.230 | 299 | ||||
Waste composition (%) in developing countries.
| Area | Organic | Paper | Plastic | Glass | Metal | Others | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phnom Penh/Cambodia | 63.3 | 6.4 | 15.5 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 13.0 | [ |
| Mekong Delta/Vietnam | 80.0 | 4.7 | 6.3–7.1 | 0.7–1.0 | 0.5–0.7 | 0.9–1.4 | [ |
| Bangkok/Thailand | 43.0 | 12.1 | 10.9 | 6.6 | 3.5 | 23.9 | [ |
| Bahrain/Bahrain Kingdom | 59.6 | 9.9 | 13.4 | 5.5 | 3.4 | 9.2 | [ |
| Baghdad/Iraq | 70.0 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 15.3 | [ |
| Amman/Jordan | 54.4 | 14 | 13.2 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 13.2 | [ |
| Abadan/Iran | 66.9 | 11.2 | 14.3 | 2.8 | 1.35 | 3.45 | [ |
| Chittagong/Bangladesh | 62.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 3.0 | [ |
| Kathmandu/Nepal | 71.0 | 7.5 | 12.0 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 7.9 | [ |
| Lagos/Nigeria | 68.0 | 10.0 | 7.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 8 | [ |
| Cape Haitian/Haiti | 65.5 | 9.0 | 9.2 | 5.8 | 2.6 | 7.9 | [ |
| Bhutan | 62.2 | 15.2 | 13.1 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 6.1 | [ |
| Chihuahua/Mexico | 48.0 | 16.1 | 11.9 | 5.9 | 2.4 | 16.0 | [ |
| Ghana | 61.0 | 5.0 | 14.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 14.0 | [ |
| Nablus/Palestine | 65.1 | 9.1 | 7.6 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 5.4 | [ |
| Moratuwa/Sri Lanka | 90.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | — | [ |
| Allahabad/India | 45.3 | 4.69 | 2.86 | 0.73 | 2.54 | 43.88 | [ |
| Portugal | 35.5 | 25.9 | 11.5 | 5.4 | 2.6 | 19.1 | [ |
| Kraków/Poland | 36.2 | 19.9 | 14.4 | 7.8 | 2.9 | 18.8 | [ |
| Castellón de la Plana/Spain | 57.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 7.0 | 4.0 | 7.0 | [ |
| London, Ontario/Canada | 30.0 | 32.0 | 10.0 | 6.0 | 3.0 | 19.0 | [ |
Figure 2The relationship between family size and per capita waste generation.
Figure 3The relationship between family income and per capita waste generation.
Figure 4The relationship between education level and per capita waste generation.
Figure 5The relationship between gender and per capita waste generation.
Figure 6The relationship between the age of the household head and per capita waste generation.
Figure 7Dealing with recyclable materials in Homs neighbourhoods.
Chi-square test result for the relationship between dealing with recyclable materials and residential districts.
| Value | df | Asymptotic significance (2-sided) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson chi-square | 10.826 | 9 | 0.288 |
| Likelihood ratio | 11.097 | 9 | 0.269 |
| Linear-by-linear association | 0.373 | 1 | 0.542 |
| Number of valid cases | 300 |
Per capita waste generation model.
| Model | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients |
| Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Std. error | Beta | |||
| Constant | 0.608 | 0.034 | 18.094 | 0.000 | |
| Gender | 0.022 | 0.007 | 0.118 | 3.027 | 0.003 |
| Education level | −0.035 | 0.005 | −0.357 | −6.826 | 0.000 |
| Monthly income | 0.040 | 0.005 | 0.356 | 7.692 | 0.000 |
| Household size | 0.009 | 0.006 | 0.070 | 1.519 | 0.013 |
| Age | 0.012 | 0.006 | 0.116 | 2.172 | 0.031 |
P < 0.1, P < 0.05, and P < 0.01, significant level; adjusted R2 value = 0.557; F value = 76.262, P < 0.01.
Daily organic waste generation model.
| Model | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients |
| Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Std. error | Beta | |||
| Constant | 0.526 | 0.255 | 2.064 | 0.040 | |
| Gender | 0.058 | 0.056 | 0.024 | 1.034 | 0.302 |
| Education level | −0.295 | 0.039 | −0.241 | −7.639 | 0.000 |
| Monthly income | 0.098 | 0.040 | 0.069 | 2.477 | 0.014 |
| Household size | 1.193 | 0.047 | 0.709 | 25.562 | 0.000 |
| Age | 0.122 | 0.043 | 0.092 | 2.838 | 0.005 |
P < 0.1, P < 0.05, and P < 0.01, significant level; adjusted R2 value = 0.839; F value = 313.338, P < 0.01.
Daily packaging waste generation model.
| Model | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients |
| Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Std. error | Beta | |||
| Constant | −0.125 | 0.116 | −1.086 | 0.279 | |
| Gender | 0.112 | 0.025 | 0.139 | 4.403 | 0.000 |
| Education level | −.081 | 0.018 | −.195 | −4.595 | 0.000 |
| Monthly income | 0.090 | 0.018 | 0.188 | 5.016 | 0.000 |
| Household size | 0.331 | 0.021 | 0.582 | 15.624 | 0.000 |
| Age | 0.031 | 0.020 | 0.070 | 1.608 | 0.100 |
P < 0.01, P < 0.05, and P < 0.01, significant level; adjusted R2 value = 0.709; F value = 146.983, P < 0.01.