In any waste management services. In case of city

In 2011, the delayed publication of the UK government’s Waste Strategy
demonstrated the severe municipal waste challenge now facing England and Wales.
There were produced 32.4 million tons of municipal wastes, with 27.3 million
tons of this coming from households in the year 2008/09. This denotes around 27
kg of waste from each household per week. The policy also indicated that in the
same period, 81.9% of this waste was directed to landfill, with only 11.2%
being recycled and just 6.9% being burned with some energy recovery (DETR, 2011).

 

2.4 Problem and Practice of Bangladesh SWM
Service

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

In  Bangladesh,  a rising quality  of 
life  and  high 
rates  resources  consumption patterns have had an unintended
and negative impact on the urban 
environment generation  of  waste 
far  beyond  the handling capacities urban government and
agencies (Agamuthu et al., 2010).

 A significant amount
of waste in Dhaka is not collected due to lack of infrastructure, funds and
collection vehicles.  In Dhaka, there is provided community
based door-to-door waste collection from households to local waste bins but it
is limited. In case of household sector, wastes are typically collected in
a  non-segregated  manner 
and  placed  into 
the  slender containers  at  the  households. 
Organizations  outsourced  by City 
Corporation  (CC)  collect 
the  waste  in 
vans  through waste collection van
service on  payment  basis 
and  carry  to 
the  secondary collection   points  
(containers   or   predefined places). Subsequently, the waste
is carried by various sizes of trucks (authorized by the city Corporation) to
the landfill sites situated at Matuail and Amin Bazaar. In this connection, an
informal market operates to recycle a significant portion of the solid waste. Waste
picketers collect the recyclable things from both the different landfills and
open waste-bins and trade it to a recycle waste trader (Bhangari). Besides the
scavengers, the Hawkers buy recyclables from door to door and trade with the
Bhangari (receivables buyers).

The design of waste management practice in slum area households
is different to some extent. Generally, in these areas, the authority of City
Corporation does not provide any waste management services. In case of city streets,
the process of waste management is quite different. The city corporation
through its cleaners (permanents and temporary) undertakes the cleaning of
public places (roads, drains and parks etc.) on a daily basis. Unlike household
and public   place waste   management,  
commercial   waste management is
far complicated. The waste collected from the city is disposed to the final
destination at land filling sites (JICA, 2005; Burgess, 2015).

In case of Dhaka city, two important initiatives have been
undertaken for Solid Waste Management (SWM). One initiative was undertaken by
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) in 2005 with the objectives of
formulating a master plan of Dhaka City and to develop capabilities and
management skills of the Dhaka City Corporation. Another initiative, 3R
Strategy was undertaken in 2010 by Department of Environment (DoE), Ministry of
Environment and Forestry of the Government. Towards sustainable waste management,
3R can play a major role to protect environment from greenhouse gas emission
and convert waste into precious resources (Chowdhury et al., 2005).

 

 

 

2.5 Policies for Improved Solid Waste
Management

Waste management has become a
great problem to the urban area. To solve this problem several policy instruments regarding solid waste
management have been proposed. These include the command and control (Slack et
al., 2009), i.e. waste regulation which is often accompanied by penalties in
case of noncompliance. Command and control instruments have been proved not to
necessarily lead to compliance and improvement in environmental quality
(Stafford, 2002) and thus not very effective. The market-based mechanisms have
been found to be more effective than the command and control (Driesen, 2006)
because it provides several incentives for households. For example, negative
incentives such as revenue tax or ‘pay as you throw’ policies where the public
pay according to the volume or weight of their waste; positive incentives, i.e.
funding opportunities or tax lessening is applied for those whose activities
lead to waste minimization (Gellynck and Verhelst, 2007). There is also a
market-based mechanism which is a mix of negative and positive incentive, e.g.
the deposit-refund systems (Wagner and Arnold, 2008; Mckerlie et al., 2006).
The voluntary based mechanisms (e.g. voluntary participation in recycling) have
also been implemented in many communities (Werner et al., 1995; Palatnik et al.,
2005).

Although there are many policy mechanisms regarding solid waste
management their efficiency may vary between communities. For example, where
the actual volume of solid waste generated by households are not well known,
the ‘pay as you throw’ policy may not be very fruitful in some developing
countries (Longe and Ukpebor, 2009). Thus, the price concerning solid waste
management services is often based on a flat rate fixed by waste management
authorities and paid monthly by each household. For an improvement in waste
management services and consequently environmental quality, it will be exciting
to explore how much money that households would be willing to pay. The
improvement in environmental quality has the characteristics of environmental
good (e.g. good that its economic value is not revealed in market prices), i.e.
non-excludability and non-rivalry (Hanley et al., 2007).

 As the economic benefits are not easily inferred from
ordinary market, the waste management services are often under-priced or
non-priced (Anaman and Jair, 2000). The economic benefits of waste management
services are typically estimated by non-market valuation method such as the
contingent valuation (Mitchell and Carson, 1989; Loomis, 1993; Bishop et al.,1995;
Ezebilo, 2010; Carson, 2011; Ezebilo et al., 2010; Shih and Chou, 2011;
Imandoust and Gadam, 2007). They used survey questions to elicit people’s
preferences for non-market goods by asking people how much they would be
willing to pay for stated improvements or to avoid decrements in them (Mitchell
and Carson, 1989). Several studies that have been carried out in developing
countries have shown that household’s willingness to pay for solid waste
management is influenced by willingness to pay amount, age, income, household
size, occupation and educational level