Waste Management 71 (2018) 565–577

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Waste picker livelihoods and inclusive neoliberal municipal solid waste

management policies: The case of the La Chureca garbage dump site in
Managua, Nicaragua
Chris Hartmann
Department of Geography, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA1
Department of Public Health, SUNY Old Westbury, P.O. Box 210, Old Westbury, NY 11568, USA2

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The modernization (i.e. mechanization, formalization, and capital intensification) and enclosure of
Received 7 February 2017 municipal solid waste management (MSWM) systems threaten waste picker livelihoods. From 2009 to
Revised 23 September 2017 2013, a major development project, embodying traditional neoliberal policies with inclusive social poli-
Accepted 7 October 2017
cies, transformed the Managua, Nicaragua, municipal solid waste site from an open-air dump where as
Available online 26 October 2017
many as 2,000 informal waste pickers toiled to a sanitary landfill. To investigate waste pickers’ social
and economic condition, including labor characteristics, household income, and poverty incidence, after
Keywords:
the project’s completion, 146 semi-structured survey questionnaires were administered to four commu-
Waste pickers
Municipal solid waste management
nities adjacent to the landfill and 45 semi-structured interviews were completed with key stakeholders.
Modernity Findings indicate that hundreds of waste pickers were displaced by the project, employment benefits
Sustainable development from the project were unevenly distributed by neighborhood, and informal waste picking endures due
Justice to persistent impoverishment, thereby contributing to continued social and economic marginalization
Managua and environmental degradation. The findings highlight the limitations of inclusive neoliberal develop-
Nicaragua ment efforts to transform MSWM in a low-income country.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In low- and middle-income countries, where resources and
infrastructure to collect, transfer, and dispose of garbage are often
scarce and inadequate (Guerrero, Maas, and Hogland, 2013;
Medina, 2007), garbage is an urban commons, or public resource,
and an important livelihood source for informal waste pickers
(i.e. garbage recyclers) (Ezeah, Fazakerley, and Roberts, 2013;
Zapata and Campos, 2015). Increasingly, garbage is viewed by
municipal governments, development agencies, and private enti-
ties as an urban resource to be enclosed. This transformation is
the result of several often-interrelated objectives, including gener-
ating profit for municipalities or private corporations, ensuring
public health, and promoting sustainable development. As garbage
is enclosed (i.e. public access to it is limited or non-existent), waste
picker livelihoods are profoundly affected.
This paper aims to understand the social and economic condi-
tions of waste pickers after the enclosure and modernization of a
1
At the time of fieldwork and initial writing.
2
Permanent address.
E-mail address: hartmannc@oldwestbury.edu
municipal solid waste site (i.e. garbage dump). To do so, it exami-
nes how neoliberal discourses and practices, specifically influenced
by ‘‘modernization” and ‘‘sustainable development,” simultane-
ously improve and marginalize waste picker livelihoods, thereby
producing new forms of social marginalization and environmental
degradation.
The paper analyzes the case of La Chureca, the lone municipal
solid waste site (i.e. garbage dump) in Managua, Nicaragua, and
the Barrio Acahualinca Integrated Development Project (Proyecto
de Desarrollo Integral del Barrio de Acahualinca and hereafter
Acahualinca development project), funded by the Spanish Agency
for International Development Cooperation (AECID by its acronym
in Spanish). The US$45 million Acahualinca development project,
which was carried out in cooperation with the City of Managua
and completed in early 2013, converted the open-air and unregu-
lated municipal solid waste site to a modern sanitary landfill.
The Acahualinca development project relocated 258 families that
lived in the solid waste site to a new housing settlement, sealed
and covered the toxic site, and erected a materials recycling facility
capable of processing 140 tons of garbage per hour (AECID, 2013).
The recycling plant employs approximately 580 people—far fewer
than the 1,500–2,000 people who earned their livelihood picking

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.10.008
0956-053X/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
566 C. Hartmann / Waste Management 71 (2018) 565–577
over garbage in the site daily prior to its overhaul (Hartmann,
2012).
This study contends that neoliberalism, advanced by the ideals
of modernity and sustainable development, plays an integral role
in shaping urban governance. Specifically, the study builds on a
burgeoning area of research that examines the impacts of neolib-
eral MSWM systems on waste pickers. To achieve this aim, the
study provides an overview of MSWM in Managua and details
the Acahualinca development project before proceeding to con-
sider the social and economic conditions of waste pickers and
non-waste pickers after the modernization and enclosure of La
Chureca. Empirical evidence is drawn from lay perceptions of the
Acahualinca development project, historical and contemporary
labor characteristics among residents of four neighborhoods adja-
cent to the landfill, the prevalence of informal waste recovery at
the landfill—an activity considered illegal—in the contemporary
period, and calculations of household income to estimate poverty
incidence. The findings highlight the limitations of neoliberal
development efforts to transform MSWM in a low-income country.
2. Neoliberalism, modernization, and sustainable development
In the last four decades, the neoliberal development agenda has
transformed urban governance globally. Broadly, as a political eco-
nomic philosophy neoliberalism encourages minimal government
intervention and inextricably links social and economic decision-
making to market value and economic efficiency (Harvey, 2006).
Emblematic of neoliberal policies, governments increasingly seek
to maximize revenue generation and efficient procurement of ser-
vices like MSWM and encourage new and formal capitalist enter-
prises by enclosing and commodifying common resources (often
through privatization, or the sale of contracts to private corpora-
tions) (Sandhu et al., 2017). Since the late 1990 s, neoliberal devel-
opment initiatives have sought to be more ‘‘inclusive,”
‘‘participatory,” and ‘‘comprehensive” in an attempt to lessen
adverse social and economic impacts on aid recipients while still
adhering to the overarching goals of economic growth and integra-
tion into global capitalism (Craig and Porter, 2006).
In recent years, the ideals of modernity and sustainable devel-
opment have fostered the neoliberalization of urban environments.
As a ‘‘planning and programmatic vision,” modernity is a set of
centuries-old, Western-borne governance strategies aimed at
social, economic, and environmental change and progress (Kaika,
2005). The promulgation of modernity comprises the spread of
capitalist relations (Kaika, 2005) as well as the regularization of
and control over everyday life (Foucault, 2003). In particular,
modernity seeks to regulate urban social-environment relations
as populations grapple with anthropogenic environmental prob-
lems. Society believes that to be ‘‘modern” a city must be ‘‘clean,
rationally ordered, and armed with modern technology” (Moore,
2009, p. 428). To meet expectations of modernity—in order to spur
economic development and promote social well-being—some
cities across the Global South are adopting MSWM systems devel-
oped by and for cities in the Global North (Medina, 2007; Oteng-
Ababio et al., 2013). Modern MSWM systems typically are central-
ized, mechanized, capital-intensive, and disposal oriented; impor-
tantly, MSWM systems in the Global North often exclude waste
pickers, a group that (erroneously) is viewed as a threat to urban
health and an aberration of the modern urban landscape
(Medina, 2007). As a result, waste pickers, who historically have
been marginalized socially, economically, and politically by soci-
ety, are further erased from the urban landscape (Medina, 2007;
Sternberg, 2013; Wilson et al., 2006).
Like modernity, ‘‘sustainable development” discourses and
practices drive urban social and environmental change in the
neoliberal era. The Brundtland Report defines sustainable develop-
ment as ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” and that which seeks a balance among economic growth,
environmental quality, and social equity (World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1987, p. 41). MSWM plays a key
role in meeting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals
concerning livelihoods, poverty, public health, and environmental
protection in low- and middle-income countries (Mbah and
Nzeadibe, 2017; Myers, 2005; United Nations Human Settlements
Programme, 2010). Sustainable development programs, also
referred to as ‘‘green neoliberalism,” have been shaped by and
extend the reach of neoliberal market-oriented policies (Obeng-
Odoom, 2014). For example, according to global development
agencies like the World Bank, achieving sustainable development
requires the privatization and decentralization of the solid waste
sector (World Bank, 2011). Additionally, while sustainable devel-
opment discourses have increased environmental awareness
(Adams, 2009, p. 23), in practice sustainable development has yet
to address increasing social inequities and continued unequal
power relations (Kumi et al., 2014).
3. Waste pickers in neoliberal and inclusive neoliberal MSWM
systems
Buoyed by ideals of modernity and sustainable development,
among others, neoliberal policies have profound implications for
urban landscapes and social-environmental relations, as evidenced
by the changing roles of waste pickers vis-à-vis new MSWM strate-
gies in the Global South. Historically and through to the present
day, waste pickers often are marginalized, vulnerable, and impov-
erished. This is due to a variety of factors, including increased
exposure to chemical hazards, infections and illness, and mechan-
ical trauma (e.g., traffic accidents) (Binion and Gutberlet, 2012);
experiencing social stigma and lack of access to basic services
(Binion and Gutberlet, 2012); limited or no access to financial
resources to create cooperatives (Gutberlet, 2008); and economic
exploitation by intermediaries and officials, high susceptibility to
international oscillations in the recycling market, and political
oppression and neglect (Medina, 2007; Wilson et al., 2006). A
review of the websites of Global Alliance of Waste Pickers (global-
rec.org) and Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and
Organizing (wiego.org) reveals the extent of efforts across Asia,
Africa, and Latin America to enclose—and sometimes privatize—
MSWM. According to Sandhu, Burton, and Dedekorcut-Howes
(2017:554), ‘‘under the current macro-economic circumstances it
seems that privatization of municipal solid waste is going to be
inevitable.” Thus, due to waste pickers’ marginalization and the
pervasiveness of efforts to alter their livelihood, it is critical to
examine the impact of the neoliberalization of urban governance
on waste picker livelihoods.
In general, the enclosure of MSWM systems marginalizes waste
pickers by denying them control of material resources and erasing
their contributions as knowledge generators in recognizing the
value of waste (Samson, 2015a). In Cairo, for example, the privati-
zation of the city’s MSWM system—led by international develop-
ment agencies and corporations—has further marginalized
socially and economically tens of thousands Zabaleen waste pick-
ers. To date, research finds that modernization and privatization
of MSWM systems has forced the relocation of Zabaleen housing
settlements and recycling activities, thereby reducing their eco-
nomic sustainability (Fahmi, 2005; Fahmi and Sutton, 2006;
Fahmi and Sutton, 2010). And in Delhi, India, waste pickers were
gradually displaced by the sale of MSWM contracts to private cor-
porations, which did not hire waste pickers and led to the monop-
 C. Hartmann / Waste Management 71 (2018) 565–577
olization of a once commonly held resource (WIH Resource Group,
n.d.). Informal sector waste workers often, though not always, are
subservient to—if not completely ignored or excluded by—private
sector initiatives (Samson, 2015b). Finally, the privatization of
MSWM is often linked to decreased ecological gains compared to
informal recyclers as there is little financial incentive for corpora-
tions to recycle collected solid waste (Baud et al., 2001; WIH
Resource Group, n.d.).
In recent years, development projects increasingly and purpose-
fully integrate informal waste pickers into MSWM systems to
improve their social (e.g., health), economic, and political condition
as well as to yield local economic and environmental benefits in
the name of sustainable development (Gutberlet, 2008). Such ini-
tiatives, often referred to as inclusive or integrated MSWM, seek
to balance the social rights and economic needs of waste pickers
with the desire to improve solid waste collection among other
issues (Sembiring and Nitivattananon, 2010). Further, inclusive
MSWM strategies are beneficial to informal waste pickers because
they recognize the contributions of informal waste pickers as eco-
nomic and environmental agents (Oguntoyinbo, 2012) and often
improve social capital among them by organizing waste picker
cooperatives (Gutberlet, 2008, 2010). Research in low- and
middle-income countries shows that engaging all stakeholders,
especially waste pickers, the local government, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), and community-based organizations (CBOs),
is crucial for designing and carrying out successful context-specific
inclusive MSWM interventions (Aparcana, 2017; Dias and Samson,
2016; Ezeah et al., 2013; Marshall and Farahbakhsh, 2013) and
ensuring project sustainability, defined as ‘‘sustained and effective
change” (Zurbrügg et al., 2012, p. 2126). And in some cities, waste
pickers have been integrated as co-ops into privatization efforts
(Medina, 2007). In sum, at its core inclusive MSWM recognizes
‘‘that instead of being a nuisance, scavengers can form part of the
solution to the inadequate management of solid waste in develop-
ing and transition countries” (Ezeah et al., 2013, p. 2518).
Despite increased attention and interest in inclusive MSWM
practices, data examining impacts of enclosure of MSWM on key
economic and social indicators, including income and employment
patterns, of waste pickers are lacking. This study examines waste
picker livelihoods and community dynamics after the moderniza-
tion and enclosure of the La Chureca garbage dump in Managua,
Nicaragua. Specifically, the paper seeks to analyze several economic
challenges facing waste pickers post-intervention, including: in
what income generating activities are residents of communities
adjacent to the Managua municipal waste site currently involved?
How many persons continue to waste pick informally? What is the
contribution of informal waste recovery to total household
income? And finally, what is the estimated incidence of poverty
among waste picker and non-waste picker households?
4. MSWM in Managua
In Managua, MSWM is a key component of modernization
efforts aimed at increasing economic development, promoting
social welfare, and securing and maintaining political support for
the Sandinista party (Ettlinger and Hartmann, 2015). For example,
in 2013, then First Lady and current Vice President Rosario Murillo
remarked at the start of an anti-littering campaign that ‘‘Private
business is interested in a clean, beautiful, safe country with happy
families; there is no business strategy that can develop itself. . .in a
country that is not clean” (El 19 Digital., 2013). Moreover, the gov-
ernment’s renewed interest in litter clean-up campaigns is closely
linked to efforts to spur international tourism as well as mitigate
environmental and public health problems (Fisher, 2016;
Hartmann, 2013). Additionally, fearing unfavorable ratings among
567
its supporter base and social unrest, the ruling Sandinista party has
attempted to swiftly attend to several recent garbage strikes in
Managua.
Managua, like other major cities in the Global South, is attempt-
ing to manage increasing amounts of garbage with limited finan-
cial resources. In 2008, the capital city’s 1.5 million residents
generated 1,200 tons of garbage daily, an increase of nearly 80%
from 1990. MSWM approaches differ across Managua’s seven dis-
tricts. An estimated 82% of the capital city’s garbage is collected by
the Central Public Cleansing Department of the City of Managua,
with 23% of that waste collected from the cleaning up of illegal
dumpsites (United Nations Human Settlements Programme,
2010, p. 68). Managua’s garbage collection is highly subsidized
and heavily reliant on external aid donations: only one-quarter
of households paid a user fee in 2008 and international donations
paid for approximately 70% of the 89 MSWM vehicles (Olley et al.,
2014). Non-governmental organizations and international aid
agencies, in collaboration with local governments, fund and pro-
mote several waste collection micro-enterprises and cooperatives,
particularly in slums and other residential areas not accessed by
municipal trucks (Minelli and Praslin, 2012; Olley et al., 2014;
Zapata Campos and Zapata, 2013b, 2013a, 2014).
4.1. 1 ‘‘La Chureca”
More than 90% of all waste generated in Managua is deposited
in the city’s lone municipal waste site, nicknamed ‘‘La Chureca.” La
Chureca is located 3 km west of downtown Managua (Fig. 1), abuts
Lake Managua, and is surrounded by residential and industrial
areas. The site dates to the early 1970 s, having since expanded
without government or private regulation. Prior to the Acahualinca
development project, an estimated four million cubic meters of
garbage, including residential as well as toxic commercial (e.g.,
hospital) and industrial wastes, were deposited over approxi-
mately 100 acres (40 hectares). The uncontrolled waste site emit-
ted methane gas, generated persistent odors and dust, and polluted
Lake Managua, the second largest freshwater lake in Nicaragua and
an important source of food (Athanasiadou et al., 2008; Cuadra
et al., 2006).
4.2. ‘‘Los Churequeros”
From its inception until 2009, La Chureca was a housing and
employment refuge for persons displaced by the 1972 earthquake,
neglected by political leaders, and without other economic oppor-
tunity elsewhere. In 2009, 1,500–2,000 people, nicknamed ‘‘chure-
queros,” picked over garbage in La Chureca (see Fig. 2) (Hartmann,
2012), and 874 people lived in La Chureca according to a census
commissioned by AECID (AECID, 2009, p. 11). Many other waste
pickers lived in COOPRENIC and Alemania Democrática, two neigh-
borhoods adjacent to La Chureca. The primary occupational activ-
ity among children and adults included waste picking and
recycling (45%), while sale of recyclables made up approximately
two-thirds of total household income (AECID, 2009). Poverty per-
sisted at alarming rates in La Chureca: 72.0% of La Chureca’s inhab-
itants earned less than US$2 per day per capita (in comparison,
54.6% of residents of Managua earned less than US$2 per day)
(AECID, 2009, pp. 63–4). Importantly, these data were collected
in the wake of a global economic crisis when prices paid for recy-
clable materials plunged 50–75% (Hartmann, 2012).
4.3. Acahualinca development project
In terms of scope and financial investment, the Acahualinca
development project is the largest project ever undertaken by
AECID in Nicaragua. Between 2007 and 2009, AECID and Tragsa
568 C. Hartmann / Waste Management 71 (2018) 565–577

Fig. 1. Municipal solid waste site, Managua, Nicaragua (Map by Jim DeGrand).

Fig. 2. Churequeros working amidst garbage in La Chureca, Managua, Nicaragua, 2009 (source: photograph courtesy of L.P., waste picker).
 C. Hartmann / Waste Management 71 (2018) 565–577
(a public Spanish engineering company) formulated the Acahual-
inca development project and pushed the site’s modernization on
the City of Managua; that is, the dump’s modernization was not
a priority for municipal officials (Zapata Campos and Zapata,
2013b). In 2009, the project was renegotiated and became a joint
venture between AECID and the municipal government due to
the project’s social and political visibility and because the owner-
ship of the recycling plant and landfill would be formally trans-
ferred to the City of Managua upon the project’s completion
(Zapata Campos and Zapata, 2013b). Twelve elected community
leaders represented persons residing in the garbage dump.
Although community leaders reported feeling empowered and
did exert some power over the course of the project, they were lar-
gely ‘‘passive policy transmitters” and the ‘‘[development project]
ultimately remained almost unalterable in content” from its origi-
nal design (Zapata and Zapata Campos, 2015, p. 271). Importantly,
no one represented waste pickers and residents from adjacent
communities; thus, decision-making was not entirely democratic
and some of those most marginalized—particularly waste pickers
who resided outside La Chureca—had little ability to influence their
livelihood trajectory (Hartmann, 2012).
AECID and the Acahualinca development project embrace core
tenets of sustainable development. In a publication detailing the
transformation of La Chureca, AECID cites (A) its founding statute
dictating ‘‘promoting development processes that address the sus-
tainability and regeneration of the environment” (AECID, 2013, p.
14) and (B) the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals
focus on sustainable development as fundamental to defining its
approach to socio-environmental development projects in low-
and middle-income countries (AECID, 2013, p. 13). The Acahual-
inca development project’s embrace of sustainable development
is reflected in three specific foci: solid waste and environmental
management, housing and urban development, and social and eco-
nomic development (AECID, 2013). First, Tragsa sealed the open-air
landfill to prevent further hydrological, soil, and atmospheric con-
tamination. The project included the creation of a state-of-the-art
recycling facility operated by the Complete Solid Waste Treatment
Company (EMTRIDES by its acronym in Spanish), a municipal-
owned entity of the City of Managua (Fig. 3), where solid waste
is sorted and disposed of manually and by mechanized means.
Recyclable material of value is collected, compacted, and sold,
often to international corporations. Some organic material is set
aside to obtain compost. Remaining waste is deposited in the san-
itary landfill, which AECID estimates has a lifespan of five to seven
years (AECID, 2013). To date, the materials recovery facility is nei-
ther profitable nor financially sustainable; consequently, the
plant’s manager has sought partnerships with the private sector
to extend the lifespan of the site and work toward financial
solvency.
Second, the Acahualinca development project relocated families
living in La Chureca to 258 newly constructed homes in a housing
development named Villa Guadalupe Etapa 1. Additionally, the
Nicaraguan government created an adjoining neighborhood,
named Villa Guadalupe Etapa 2, to provide 600 homes to persons
displaced by local flooding. Houses are equipped with electricity,
potable water, and sewage; these basic services were not previ-
ously provided to them. Furthermore, Villa Guadalupe 1 and Villa
Guadalupe 2 contain a public school, cultural center and museum,
government-run health clinic, two NGO-run health clinics, a nutri-
tion project (which was defunct as of early 2015), a police station,
and two public parks. The Villa Guadalupe urbanization project
coincided with infrastructural improvements (e.g., paved streets,
sewage, potable water) in some neighborhoods adjacent to La
Chureca, including COOPRENIC and Alemania Democrática.
Third, AECID, the City of Managua, and several NGOS—some of
which received financing from AECID—focused efforts on improv-
569
ing the social and economic development of the waste site and
waste pickers (AECID, 2013), what the Co-director of the project
summarizes as a process of ‘‘social accompaniment” (Interview,
March 2015). For instance, the Acahualinca development project
sponsored social programs such as literacy education and domestic
violence training. To encourage economic development, some
adults received training in technical careers (AECID, 2013), and
the Nicaraguan government trained and provided loans to 160 per-
sons in Villa Guadalupe to create small businesses as part of the
government’s Usura Cero (Zero Usury) microcredit lending pro-
gram (de Relaciones, 2014). EMTRIDES provides an estimated 580
full-time employment opportunities with health insurance and
social security benefits (AECID, 2013); according to the plant’s
manager, this number reflects the explicit attempt by AECID and
the City of Managua to extend employment to as many waste pick-
ers as possible (Interview, January 2015). Importantly, AECID
intentionally prioritized the hiring of waste pickers living in La
Chureca: ‘‘It is hoped that, at a minimum, one member of each of
the benefitting families (2 5 8) can have access to said work posi-
tions, which would likely solve the vital economic problems of
them all” (AECID, 2013, p. 22). Employees and dependents—but
not spouses—are eligible for private health insurance and receive
social security.
Despite assurances from AECID and City of Managua officials,
informal waste pickers were concerned about their well-being
and livelihoods from the development project’s announcement.
Before the project began, waste pickers expressed competing emo-
tions: enthusiasm for the proposed social and environmental ben-
efits of the project and fear of losing their source of income.
Moreover, waste pickers who did not reside in La Chureca were
concerned that those waste pickers residing in La Chureca were
prioritized because AECID perceived them to be the most destitute
(Hartmann, 2012). Waste picker strikes led by individual waste
pickers and a waste picker union resulted in very few long-term
benefits. While local NGOs were noticeably absent from strike
demonstrations, according to AECID several NGOs played an
important role in facilitating the development agency’s under-
standing of the social and economic needs of waste pickers
(AECID, 2013).
In sum, the Acahualinca development project applies modern-
ization and sustainable development discourses to inclusive
neoliberal MSWM practice. The recycling plant is ‘‘constructed
with modern mechanical equipment” (AECID, 2013, p. 4) and seeks
to enclose Managua’s waste commons while juggling technological
innovation with social needs. In doing so, the project exemplifies
the core tenets of sustainable development: to promote environ-
mental quality, expand profit through the commoditization of an
environmental good (i.e., solid waste), and consider the social
and economic welfare of waste pickers. Therefore, the purpose of
this study is to examine waste picker livelihoods after the comple-
tion of the development project.
5. Methodology
This paper analyzes data from a household questionnaire sur-
vey, semi-structured interviews, and observation to examine a
range of topics including household composition, employment,
and individual and household income as well as several open-
ended questions including perceptions of the Acahualinca develop-
ment project. The survey targeted four communities adjacent to
the Managua municipal solid waste site. Alemania Democrática,
COOPRENIC, and Villa Guadalupe Etapa 1 are neighborhoods where
a substantial number of waste pickers live; the fourth, Villa Guada-
lupe Etapa 2, is located adjacent to Villa Guadalupe Etapa 1 (Fig. 1).
Additionally, 45 semi-structured interviews were completed with
570 C. Hartmann / Waste Management 71 (2018) 565–577

Fig. 3. Solid waste recycling plant at La Chureca, Managua, Nicaragua, 2015 (source: author).

waste pickers, community leaders, representatives of local NGOs,
and public officials. Using an interview protocol guide, interviews
shed light on waste picker and non-waste picker livelihoods as
well as community dynamics, including the social and physical
environment, after the Acahualinca development project. Finally,
the paper benefits from personal observation during fieldwork
stints in 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2015 in La Chureca and surrounding
communities.
Several community leaders reviewed the survey as well as a
preliminary survey conducted in summer 2013. The research team
consisted of the author and two community residents, who clari-
fied key points and colloquialisms when pertinent and assisted in
making contact with potential research participants. All partici-
pants provided verbal consent before participating in the study,
which was approved by the Ohio State University Institutional
Review Board (#2013B0260).
5.1. Survey and interview procedures
The survey used a stratified random sampling technique with
neighborhood as the sampling frame. A random number generator
indicated the households to be approached. Refusals to participate
were recorded as such. If the head of household was not present,
the next home was visited. If the head of household of the second
home was not present, ‘‘Head of Household Absent” was recorded
and the author proceeded to the next randomly generated number.
Surveys were administered in Spanish to persons 18 years and
older over a 23-day period (March 10-April 1, 2015). Surveys were
administered in participants’ homes and were completed in
approximately 30 minutes.
Snowball and convenience sampling aided in identifying poten-
tial interviewees. Interviews were conducted in Spanish, except for
two interviews conducted in English because it was the intervie-
wee’s mother tongue, between 2013 and 2015. Interviews ranged
in length from ten minutes to more than two hours and were
recorded using a handheld digital voice recorder. One interview
was conducted via Skype due to travel and time constraints.
No participants were compensated or received other incentives
for their participation in the study.
5.2. Data analysis
Quantitative survey data were entered into SPSS (IBM SPSS
Statistics Version 22, 2013) and cross-checked for accuracy. Data
were analyzed using a stratified random sampling framework in
R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2008).
Qualitative survey data were transcribed verbatim. Using
grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), themes and sub-
themes were analyzed within individual transcripts and across
stakeholder groups (e.g., current waste pickers, former waste pick-
ers, officials, etc.). The author translated the text from Spanish to
English.
5.3. Household survey sample characteristics
The household questionnaire survey was administered to 146
households across 4 neighborhoods adjacent to the Managua
municipal solid waste site. Although the study aimed to approach
60 homes in each neighborhood, misunderstandings about the
number of dwellings resulted in 58 homes being surveyed in two
of the four neighborhoods. The total participation rate was approx-
imately 62% (n = 146); 13% of homes refused participation, and the
head of household was absent in 25% of houses approached
(Table 1).
Interviewees were more likely to be women (68.7%), born in the
department of Managua (64.4%), and married (39.7%) or cohabitat-
ing (34.2%). The average age of interviewees was 41.1 years. Given
that Villa Guadalupe was built in 2012, years lived in home varied:
Villa Guadalupe Etapa 1, 2.72 years; Villa Guadalupe Etapa 2, 2.65
years; Alemania Democrática, 25.70 years; and COOPRENIC, 15.67
years. The average number of people living in a household was 6.09
(SD = 3.03). The sample size has a calculated confidence level of
80% with a margin of error of 5%.
6. Results
This section begins by briefly summarizing perceptions of the
Acahualinca development project. Next, labor characteristics in
the historical and contemporary periods, including an examination
 C. Hartmann / Waste Management 71 (2018) 565–577
Table 1
Survey participation.
Villa Guadalupe Etapa 1 Villa Guadalupe Etapa 2
Total Number of Houses 258 622
Houses Approached 60 60
Houses Interviewed 36 37
Refusing Participation 9 8
Head of Household Absent 15 15
of current activities around informal waste recovery, are analyzed.
Then, household and per capita income levels are calculated.
Lastly, general poverty and extreme poverty incidence according
to standards developed by the Nicaragua Government and World
Bank are estimated.
6.1. Perceptions of the Acahualinca development project
In responding to several open-ended questions concerning how
their life has changed in the last five years and current likes and
dislikes about their neighborhood, participants drew a distinction
between the social, environmental, and economic benefits of the
Acahualinca development project. First, the overwhelming major-
ity of study participants spoke favorably of the social and environ-
mental changes wrought by the Acahualinca development project.
Participants frequently discussed their satisfaction with their new
‘‘dignified homes” and infrastructure, including potable water, for-
mal electricity, sewage, paved streets, and parks. This was particu-
larly true among participants who lived in La Chureca; for instance,
one respondent mentioned she was no longer ‘‘choking on smoke
or mosquitos” from the garbage dump. Further, several partici-
pants reported feeling healthier because they no longer lived or
toiled in La Chureca. However, several participants commented
on the emergence and persistence of several ‘‘little Churecas”
(churequitas); some waste pickers, because they have been barred
from entering the garbage dump, deposit garbage and sort recy-
clables in public areas (as will be discussed later), thereby creating
numerous small garbage dumps. EMTRIDES employees spoke
favorably of improved working conditions, including protection
from the elements (e.g., sun, heat, rain), employment benefits
(e.g., health insurance and social security), and being provided per-
sonal protective equipment (e.g., gloves and jackets).
Despite these social and environment benefits, very few partic-
ipants opined that the Acahualinca development project resulted
in positive economic impacts. For example, a former waste picker
stated, ‘‘On the one hand, life is better because of the (new) house.
On the other hand, things are worse because there is no work.”
Among respondents who discussed positively their economic con-
dition, plant workers noted the benefit of having a fixed income
and employment benefits. Additionally, three small business own-
ers indicated that they have benefited indirectly from La Chureca’s
modernization because it has led to improved salaries for workers
who are able to purchase more goods. On the other hand, many
respondents, especially but not exclusively former waste pickers
who are not employed by EMTRIDES, lamented that their economic
condition had not improved. A former waste picker starkly
remarked: ‘‘life doesn’t change with only a new house.” Another
former worst picker and resident of La Chrueca commented that
he believed his life was worse now, even though he and his partner
are employed by EMTRIDES: ‘‘the only change is the house. . .we
made good money there in La Chureca.” Another former waste
picker, who works informally in La Chureca alongside his three
sons and whose wife is employed by EMTRIDES, commented his
life was worse because ‘‘[he doesn’t] have a (formal) job” and his
family is ‘‘just getting by.”
571
Alemania Democrática COOPRENIC Total
133 85 1,098
58 58 236
40 33 146
8 5 30
10 20 60
6.2. Labor characteristics in the historical and contemporary periods
Data indicate that prior to the Acahualinca development pro-
ject, informal waste recovery was an important livelihood strategy
among residents of the four surveyed communities. Indeed, on
average one adult per household worked in La Chureca for approx-
imately twelve years (Table 2). Informal waste picking in La Chur-
eca was most prevalent among adults residing in Villa Guadalupe
Etapa 1, COOPRENIC, and Alemania Democrática. Although child
labor in the garbage dump was common until 2012, the survey
did not record whether children worked in La Chureca.
In the present day, community residents hold a variety of for-
mal and informal occupations (Table 3). After small business
owner, the second most prevalent income generating activity is
informal waste recovery. One-fifth of surveyed households indi-
cated that at least one person is involved in informal waste recov-
ery, including waste picking in the sanitary landfill, ambulatory
waste picking (e.g., in public spaces like streets), and buying and
re-selling recyclable materials. Across the four neighborhoods, an
estimated 0.49 people per household (i.e. one person for every
two households) currently are involved in informal waste recovery
activities (Table 4). Among all current informal waste pickers, more
than 88% worked as waste pickers in La Chureca prior to it being
modernized and enclosed. Not surprisingly, informal waste pickers
are more likely to live in Villa Guadalupe Etapa 1, Alemania
Democrática, or COOPRENIC given each neighborhood’s large num-
ber of adult informal waste pickers per household before the site
was enclosed.
The EMTRIDES recycling plant is a significant source of employ-
ment. An estimated 0.33 people per household across the four
neighborhoods currently hold formal employment in EMTRIDES.
Not surprisingly, given that AECID prioritized providing employ-
ment to waste pickers who lived in the garbage dump, most plant
workers reside in Villa Guadalupe Etapa 1. Indeed, more than one-
half of former waste pickers residing in Villa Guadalupe Etapa 1
currently are employed by EMTRIDES; in contrast, less than one-
third and one-fifth of former waste pickers residing in COOPRENIC
and Alemania Democrática, respectively, currently are employed
by EMTRIDES. In total, more than 93% of surveyed EMTRIDES
employees reported having informally waste picked in the garbage
dump prior to the site’s overhaul.
6.3. Informal waste recovery in the contemporary period
The enclosure of Managua’s municipal waste site forces the
reorientation—not termination—of informal waste recovery activi-
ties. Indeed, informal waste recovery continues to shape the social,
economic, and environmental landscape of the study area. Statisti-
cal analyses estimate that 535 (SE = 91) people across the four sur-
veyed neighborhoods are involved in informal waste recovery.
Much waste picking occurs inside the sanitary landfill, as learned
through surveys, interviews, and observation. That waste picking
continues to occur inside the sanitary landfill contrasts with the
official statement of the City of Managua that ‘‘no one scavenges
in La Chureca any longer” (Interview, March 2015).
572 C. Hartmann / Waste Management 71 (2018) 565–577

Table 2
Historical informal waste recovery characteristics.

Villa Guadalupe Villa Guadalupe Alemania COOPRENIC Total

Etapa 1 Etapa 2 Democrática
Average number of adults per household that worked in La Chureca (SD) 1.89 (0.20) 0.49 (0.14) 1.13 (0.21) 1.76 (0.2) 0.99 (0.10)
Average years worked in La Chureca, among waste pickers (SD) 14.7 (1.04) 6.7 (1.3) 13.9 (1.7) 9.5 (0.89) 11.6 (0.78)

Table 3
Contemporary formal and informal labor characteristics among formally and informally employed adults by neighborhood.

Villa Guadalupe Villa Guadalupe Alemania COOPRENIC Total

Etapa 1 Etapa 2 Democrática
Small business owner (e.g., small grocery store, street food vendor), 9 (9.6%) 23 (32.4%) 27 (23.7%) 22 (21.0%) 81 (21.0%)
n (% total by neighborhood)
Informal recycling-related (e.g., waste picking), n (% total by neighborhood) 20 (21.3%) 14 (19.7%) 23 (20.2%) 23 (21.9%) 80 (20.8%)
EMTRIDES Plant, n (% total by neighborhood) 34 (36.2%) 2 (2.8%) 9 (7.9%) 20 (19.0%) 65 (16.9%)
Other salaried job (e.g., government, free trade zone employee), 2 (2.1%) 13 (18.3%) 15 (12.9%) 13 (12.4%) 43 (11.2%)
n (% total by neighborhood)
Manual labor (e.g., carpenter, painter, mechanic), n (% total by neighborhood) 8 (8.5%) 7 (9.9%) 11 (9.6%) 5 (4.8%) 31 (8.1%)
Paid domestic work (e.g., washing & ironing clothes), n (% total by neighborhood) 6 (6.4%) 6 (8.5%) 4 (3.4%) 4 (3.8%) 20 (5.2%)
Security guard, n (% total by neighborhood) 3 (3.2%) 1 (1.4%) 4 (3.5%) 6 (5.7%) 14 (3.6%)
Other (e.g., informal work), n (% total by neighborhood) 12 (12.8%) 5 (7.0%) 23 (19.8%) 12 (3.1%) 52 (13.4%)
Total, n 94 71 116 105 386

Table 4
Contemporary informal and formal waste recovery characteristics among adults by neighborhood.

Villa Guadalupe Villa Guadalupe Alemania COOPRENIC Total

Etapa 1 Etapa 2 Democrática
Average number of people per household currently involved in 0.56 (0.15) 0.41 (0.13) 0.60 (0.13) 0.70 (1.16) 0.49 (0.08)
recycling activities (SD)
Average number of people per household currently working in 0.97 (0.11) 0.05 (0.04) 0.23 (0.06) 0.58 (0.12) 0.33 (0.04)
EMTRIDES (SD)

To enter La Chureca, typically waste pickers ‘‘throw themselves
over the wall” (‘‘tirarse el muro”) that separates the site from Villa
Guadalupe Etapas 1 and 2. If dignitaries (e.g., government or devel-
opment agency officials) are visiting the landfill, the recycling plant
manager orders police to remove all waste pickers so as to give the
appearance of a ‘‘modern” (i.e. devoid of people) sanitary landfill.
Fearing police harassment, some informal waste pickers don flash-
lights and headlamps to work in the predawn hours, at dusk, or
during the night to avoid harassment. Other waste pickers are
increasingly ambulatory (i.e. work in the street). Although employ-
ees of EMTRIDES are barred from waste picking in La Chureca, sev-
eral plant employees disclosed that they do in fact waste pick in
the sanitary landfill to supplement what they perceive to be a
low salary.
In the sanitary landfill, waste pickers collect materials that are
either missed by plant employees or not commercialized by the
plant. Waste pickers recover a variety of traditionally recycled
materials (e.g., plastic bottles, cardboard, paper, and metals) and
increasingly specialize in non-traditional recyclable materials such
as brand-name cosmetics containers, electronics (e.g., cell phones),
and food sacks. As a general rule, however, waste pickers recover
‘‘todo lo que sale,” meaning ‘‘everything that comes out.” Most
waste pickers work independently, though one small cooperative
does exist. Notably, a number of ancillary businesses support and
benefit from the local informal waste picking economy. For
instance, a horse tack business meets the needs of horse cart
owners, who charge C$30 (US$1.12) to carry recyclables from the
depths of the landfill to the site’s perimeter, where materials are
thrown over the wall (Fig. 4). Once sorted, recyclables are sold to
two buyers that rent residential space in Villa Guadalupe; several
others operate in adjacent communities.
In discussing changes at the community level, survey respon-
dents frequently complained that waste pickers sort, clean, pro-
cess, and classify recovered materials in residential spaces (i.e.
yards and homes), near the perimeter wall, and in public spaces
(e.g., parks) (Fig. 5). This is due to waste pickers being displaced
by the Acahualinca development project and fearing persecution
if apprehended inside the sanitary landfill. At least one waste
picker received a microcredit loan from the government’s Zero
Usury program to aid the expansion of his business collecting, pro-
cessing, and reselling cotton (for pillowcases) and food sacks from
the landfill. In addition, buyers of recyclables persist (unregulated)
in the neighborhoods, permitting the accumulation of recyclables
in residential areas. Such actions renew concerns over environ-
mental and health risks, including pollution and contamination,
increased risk of mosquito and rat-borne diseases, and strong
odors.
6.4. Household and per capita income levels
To estimate household income and income per capita across the
four neighborhoods (Table 5), survey respondents recalled total
household income levels from formal and informal economic activ-
ities over a two-week period in February 2015. Daily incomes are
multiplied by average number of days per week each respondent
worked. To determine total monthly income, weekly and biweekly
incomes are multiplied by 4.3 and 2, respectively. Monthly earning
incomes from EMTRIDES (Row 1a), informal waste picking (Row
2a), and other sources (Row 3a) are added together to obtain aver-
age monthly household incomes (Row 4). Row 5 shows average
monthly income per capita, which is obtained by dividing total
monthly incomes by household size. Average income per capita
 C. Hartmann / Waste Management 71 (2018) 565–577
Fig. 4. Scaling the perimeter wall of La Chureca, Managua, Nicaragua, 2015 (source:
author).
per day (Row 6) is computed by dividing average income per capita
per month by 30.5 days. Table 5 excludes twenty-three (n = 123)
households because income for at least one member of the house-
hold was unreported.
Formal and informal waste recovery activities contribute greatly
to the local economy. Table 5 shows that one-seventh of total
income across the four neighborhoods is derived from EMTRIDES
Fig. 5. Casting lead in Villa Guadalupe, Managua, Nicaragua, 2015 (source: author).
573
and informal waste recovery. More than one-half of total monthly
earnings among residents of Villa Guadalupe Etapa 1 is due to
employment in EMTRIDES. Plant operators (operarios), who remove
recyclable materials from garbage as it passes by on a conveyor belt
in front of them (Fig. 2), earn a salary of C$5,000 (US$187.48) per
month. Respondents often complained that their salary, which is
slightly above the national minimum wage, was low and did not pro-
vide for basic household needs. As of 2015, salaries were unchanged
since the plant’s opening in early 2013, despite yearly inflation rates
of 5.6% and 6.4% in 2013 and 2014, respectively. In March 2015, plant
employees began receiving a ‘‘solidarity bonus” (bono solidario), a
financial support of C$500 (US$18.75) per month that the govern-
ment provides to state employees. The solidarity bonus is not
included in these calculations.
Significantly, informal waste recovery remains an important
economic strategy in communities adjacent to the waste site. On
average, participants report earning C$30 (US$1.12) to C$150 (US
$5.61) per day from informal recovery activities. Among house-
holds in which at least one adult is involved in informal waste
recovery, an average of 1.65 persons per household identify as
waste pickers and the sale of recyclable material generates 39%
(US$185.4) of total monthly household income. Indeed, the data
demonstrate that informal waste picking remains a crucial source
of income for the communities adjacent to La Chureca.
6.5. Estimation of poverty incidence
This paper does not seek to compare poverty incidence before
and after the Acahualinca development project; rather, the study
aims to situate labor characteristics within the economic context
of households and neighborhoods. Defining and measuring poverty
incidence is complex, contested, and may not reflect local realities
or lived experiences (Chambers, 1995; Wratten, 1995). This study
uses household income as a proxy for urban welfare (Mitlin and
Satterthwaite, 2013); importantly, this study does not consider
whether households have the capacity to access resources or
how income is distributed among individuals within the house-
hold. Nonetheless, the study seeks to ‘‘identify which people are
likely to lack the resources to achieve a socially acceptable stan-
dard of living” as determined by income (Wratten, 1995, p. 13).
574 C. Hartmann / Waste Management 71 (2018) 565–577

Table 5
Estimation of income per capita per day.

Villa Villa Alemania COOPRENIC, Total,

Guadalupe Guadalupe Democrática, n = 31 n = 123
Etapa 1, Etapa 2, n = 31
n = 29 n = 32
(1) a. Average monthly earnings (C$) from EMTRIDES (SD) 5,076 (617) 313 (210) 1,290 (333) 3,065 (645) 1,723 (211)
b. Average monthly earnings from EMTRIDES as % of total earnings 53.3% 2.7% 11.8% 21.2% 15.3%
(2) a. Average monthly earnings (C$) from informal waste picking (SD) 1,297 (652) 1,806 (613) 1,458 (409) 2,494 (589) 1,713 (391)
b. Average monthly earnings from informal waste picking 13.6% 15.6% 13.3% 17.3% 15.2%
as % total earnings
(3) a. Average monthly earnings C$ from other formal and informal 3,155 (637) 9,461 (1,761) 8,190 (1,303) 8,844 (1,088) 7,856 (1,049)
activities (SD)
b. Average monthly earnings from other formal and informal activities 33.1% 81.7% 74.9% 61.4% 69.6%
as % of total income
(4) Average total monthly household income C$ (SD): (1a) + (2a) + (3a) 9,528 (953) 11,580 (1,750) 10,938 (1,222) 14,402 (967) 11,293 (1,049)
(5) Average Income per capita (C$) per month (SD): (4)/Household size 1,794 (170) 2,206 (377) 1,527 (162) 2,266 (190) 2,027 (208)
(6) Average Income per capita (C$) per day (SD): (5)/30.5 58.8 (5.6) 72.3 (12.4) 50.1 (5.3) 74.3 (6.2) 66.5 (6.8)

C$26.76 (Nicaraguan Córdobas)/US$1 (Feb. 2015).

This paper employs poverty estimation guidelines developed by
the Nicaragua Government and World Bank. The 2014 National
Households Survey on Measurement of Level of Life, published in
October 2015 (INIDE, 2015), determined the cost of meeting the
extreme poverty line to be C$28.83 (US$1.08) per capita per day
and the overall poverty line to be C$46.61 (US$1.74) per capita
per day. The survey defines the extreme poverty line ‘‘as the level
of total annual food consumption per person necessary to satisfy
the minimum daily calorie requirements, estimated in an average
of 2,282 calories” and the overall poverty line ‘‘as the level of
annual consumption per person in food (extreme poverty line) plus
an additional amount for the consumption of services and non-
food items such as housing, transportation, education, healthcare,
clothing and other daily use at home” (INIDE, 2015). That survey
found that 29.6% of all Nicaraguans live in poverty, while 8.3% of
the national population lives in extreme poverty. In Managua,
11.6% of the population is classified as living in poverty and 1.8%
as living in extreme poverty. In comparison, 14.8% and 2.4% of all
urban residents live in poverty and extreme poverty, respectively
(Guerrero, 2015).
Table 6 shows estimated general and extreme poverty inci-
dence for the four neighborhoods in the study. The incidence of
general poverty and extreme poverty among households located
in communities adjacent to Managua’s municipal solid waste site
is estimated to be greater than local municipal, urban, and national
levels. Estimated poverty incidence varies by neighborhood; it is
highest in Alemania Democrática and Villa Guadalupe Etapa 1,
though estimated extreme poverty incidence is greatest in Alema-
nia Democrática and Villa Guadalupe Etapa 2 (Table 6, Fig. 6).
Moreover, Fig. 6 demonstrates income per capita per day in rela-
tion to government-defined poverty definition variations within
and among surveyed neighborhoods.
Finally, estimated general poverty incidence is more prevalent
among households with at least one informal waste picker (0.52)
than those households without informal waste pickers (0.35).
Similarly, extreme poverty incidence is more prevalent among
households with at least one informal waste picker (0.25) than
those households in which no one waste picks (0.14). The data
indicate (and one-on-one interviews confirm) waste picking is an
important livelihood among households experiencing poverty,
which is produced by and reproduces social, economic, and envi-
ronmental marginalization (Fig. 5).
7. Discussion and conclusions
The Acahualinca development project in Managua, Nicaragua,
has yielded some remarkable environmental, economic, and social
benefits, including converting the open-air dump to a sanitary
landfill, improving some waste pickers’ livelihoods through job
training, micro-loans, and salaried positions, and enhancing hous-
ing and neighborhood infrastructure. According to interview and
survey data, in general waste pickers welcomed and appreciated
the social and environmental improvements wrought by the
Acahualinca development project.
Nevertheless, the Acahualinca development project lays bare
some of the challenges of implementing modern and sustainable
MSWM, particularly the reduction in employment opportunities
during the transition from an informal to a formal MSWM system.
Many waste pickers’ livelihoods remain precarious after the enclo-
sure and modernization of their livelihood source: the municipal
garbage dump. To be sure, that the new recycling plant employs
more than 500 persons, the overwhelming majority of whom were
informal waste pickers, signals a concerted effort by development
and city officials to include informal waste pickers in the site’s
overhaul. Certainly, this is a laudable and positive step forward
for (some) waste pickers in Managua, where MSWM strategies
vary by neighborhood according to aid funding (Zapata Campos
and Zapata, 2014). Still, the situation remains grave for hundreds
of waste pickers that lost their livelihood, many of whom were
not adequately represented during the planning and execution of
the development project (Hartmann, 2012).
Additionally, this study demonstrates the need for development
and municipal officials to account for and address the employment
prospects of waste pickers displaced by MSWM interventions. As
development projects do not operate in a vacuum, the relative
scarcity of formal employment opportunities in the new recycling
plant (compared to the number of waste pickers that informally
worked in La Chureca prior to its overhaul) is compounded by
the local and national political economy. In this study and in a pre-
vious study (Hartmann, 2012), waste pickers often indicated that
they did not know of other employment opportunities with an
income that would match or supersede their earnings from waste
picking, however meager. Consequently, without other employ-
ment options, an estimated 535 residents of the study site continue
to engage in informal waste picking. Notably, the Acahualinca
development project attempted to mitigate unemployment among
displaced waste pickers by offering job training and microcredit
loans for small business development; however, it is unknown
how many waste pickers participated in these programs or were
able to secure employment in new careers as a result of their par-
ticipation. Future research should examine the successes and chal-
lenges of the project’s ‘‘social accompaniment” focus.
The Acahualinca development project’s embrace of inclusive
MSWM is limited. For example, social and economic marginalization
 C. Hartmann / Waste Management 71 (2018) 565–577
Table 6
Estimation of poverty incidence.
Villa Guadalupe Etapa 1,
n = 29
Extreme poverty line = C$28.83 (US$1.08), 0.10 (0.05)
incidence (SD)
Overall poverty line = C$46.61 (US$1.74), 0.45 (0.09)
incidence (SD)
Fig. 6. The box plots show household income per capita per day in relation to general and extreme poverty lines. The bottom and top of each box represents the first and third
quartiles, respectively. The bold line in each box denotes the second quartile, or median household income per capita per day. Outliers greater than C$200 per capita per day
are not shown.
is exacerbated because the project excluded many waste pickers and
waste picking in the sanitary landfill is deemed illegal. Conse-
quently, waste pickers engage in risky occupational behaviors,
including collecting materials at night and in the streets, that
increase the likelihood of illness and injury (Binion and Gutberlet,
2012). The City of Managua’s position is that informal waste picking
no longer occurs in the sanitary landfill. Denying that waste picking
continues in La Chureca prevents discussions about potential
interventions to improve the lives of informal waste pickers and pre-
serving. Rather than ignore or criminalize persistent waste picking
in the surveyed communities, government officials (and perhaps
AECID or other development agencies) must recognize and support
waste picker livelihoods so as to promote positive environmental
and public health practices. Such an approach, which the City of
Managua and NGOs have adopted elsewhere in the capital city
(Fig. 7) through the formation of waste picker cooperatives
(Zapata Campos and Zapata, 2013a), would work toward alleviating
socio-economic marginalization and preventing neighborhood-
wide environmental degradation, two pillars of sustainable
development (Mbah and Nzeadibe, 2017). Accomplishing this feat
requires the support of a variety of public (e.g., municipal govern-
ments, society) and private (e.g., corporations, cooperatives) actors
(Tirado-Soto and Zamberlan, 2013).
575
Villa Guadalupe Etapa 2, Alemania Democrática, COOPRENIC, Total,
n = 32 n = 31 n = 31 n = 123
0.24 (0.07) 0.25 (0.06) 0.13 (0.05) 0.20 (0.05)
0.33 (0.08) 0.66 (0.07) 0.23 (0.06) 0.39 (0.05)
In embodying modernization and sustainable development
discourses and practices, neoliberal efforts to enclose garbage in
low- and middle-income countries are rapidly changing MSWM
systems and urban landscapes. In Managua, contemporary MSWM
strategies confront challenges to meet myriad needs of diverse
stakeholders: development agencies, municipalities, citizens, and
waste pickers, among others. To limit adverse impacts on waste
pickers, development and municipal planners increasingly are
including informal waste pickers in new MSWM strategies. Still,
waste pickers remain firmly embedded in the prevailing neoliberal
economic system which prioritizes economic growth over social
and environmental concerns, thereby limiting waste pickers’ abil-
ity to construct a truly democratic and equitable alternative to
development (Gutberlet, 2008). This study demonstrates that
although much progress has been made to integrate the informal
sector in modernization and sustainable development projects,
the social, economic, and environmental impacts of new MSWM
systems on all waste pickers must be critically analyzed regardless
of purported benefits. Besides providing much needed empirical
evidence, this case study also illustrates the ways in which neolib-
eral development practice contributes to the maintenance and cre-
ation of new forms of social marginalization and environmental
degradation. Consequently, it is imperative to continue to work
576 C. Hartmann / Waste Management 71 (2018) 565–577
Fig. 7. Waste transfer station and stalls for sorting recyclables; lockable storage sheds are not pictured. District 5, Managua, Nicaragua, 2015 (source: author).
toward MSWM solutions that are truly inclusive and just to
improve waste picker livelihoods.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the generosity of study participants
in Nicaragua and thanks Huong ‘‘Sophie” Nguyen for her statistical
expertise and Jim DeGrand for his cartography skills. Becky Mans-
field, Kendra McSweeney, Nancy Ettlinger, Elisabeth Root, Jennifer
Hartmann, and four anonymous reviewers provided valuable feed-
back on this research and manuscript at various stages. This
research was made possible with financial support from Ohio State
University, Tinker Foundation, and Conference of Latin Americanist
Geographers.
References
Adams, W.M., 2009. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in a
Developing World. Routledge, London.
AECID. (2009). Diagnóstico socioeconómico del barrio La Chureca. Agencia Española
de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (Spanish Agency for
International Development Cooperation).
AECID. (2013). La transformación del vertedero de La Chureca (The Transformation
of the La Chureca solid waste site). Agencia Española de Cooperación
Internacional para el Desarrollo (Spanish Agency for International
Development Cooperation).
Aparcana, S., 2017. Approaches to formalization of the informal waste sector into
municipal solid waste management systems in low- and middle-income
countries: Review of barriers and success factors. Waste Management 61,
593–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.028.
Athanasiadou, M., Cuadra, S.N., Marsh, G., Bergman, Å., Jakobsson, K., 2008.
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) and Bioaccumulative Hydroxylated
PBDE Metabolites in Young Humans from Managua. Nicaragua. Environment.
Health Perspect. 116 (3), 400–408. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.10713.
Baud, I.S.A., Grafakos, S., Hordijk, M., Post, J., 2001. Quality of life and alliances in
solid waste management: contributions to urban sustainable development.
Cities 18 (1), 3–12.
Binion, E., Gutberlet, J., 2012. The effects of handling solid waste on the wellbeing of
informal and organized recyclers: a review of the literature. Internat. J. Occupat.
Environment. Health 18 (1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1179/
1077352512Z.0000000001.
Chambers, R., 1995. Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts? Environment
Urbanizat. 7 (1), 173–204.
Craig, D., Porter, D., 2006. Development beyond neoliberalism? Governance, poverty
reduction and political economy. Routledge, London.
Cuadra, S.N., Linderholm, L., Athanasiadou, M., Jakobsson, K., 2006. Persistent
organochlorine pollutants in children working at a waste-disposal site and in
young females with high fish consumption in Managua, Nicaragua. AMBIO: A J.
Human Environment 35 (3), 109–116.
Dias, S. M., Samson, M. (2016). Informal Economy Monitoring Study Sector Report:
Waste Pickers. Cambridge, MA: Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing
and Organizing (WIEGO).
Dirección de Relaciones Públicas e Internacionales. (2014). Fondo de crédito PDIBA/
Usura Cero dinamiza economía de Villa Virgen de Guadalupe. Retrieved October
21, 2015, from http://www.managua.gob.ni/index.php?s=4020&n=1692.
El 19 Digital. (2013, February 5). Companera Rosario invita a familias nicaraguenses
a enfrentar juntos el desafio de vivir en una Nicaragua mejor (Companera
Rosario invites Nicaraguan families to confront together the challenge to live in
a better Nicaragua). Retrieved from http://www.elpueblopresidente.com/EL-
19/15136.html.
Ettlinger, N., Hartmann, C.D., 2015. Post/neo/liberalism in relational perspective.
Polit. Geography 48, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2015.05.009.
Ezeah, C., Fazakerley, J.A., Roberts, C.L., 2013. Emerging trends in informal sector
recycling in developing and transition countries. Waste Management 33 (11),
2509–2519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.06.020.
Fahmi, W.S., 2005. The impact of privatization of solid waste management on the
Zabaleen garbage collectors of Cairo. Environment Urbanizat. 17 (2), 155–170.
Fahmi, W.S., Sutton, K., 2006. Cairo’s Zabaleen garbage recyclers: Multi-nationals’
takeover and state relocation plans. Habitat Internat. 30 (4), 809–837. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.006.
Fahmi, W., Sutton, K., 2010. Cairo’s contested garbage: sustainable solid waste
management and the Zabaleen’s Right to the City. Sustainability 2 (6), 1765–
1783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2061765.
Fisher, J., 2016. Cleaning up the streets, Sandinista-style: The aesthetics of garbage
and the urban political ecology of tourism development in Nicaragua. In:
Mostafanezhad, M., Norum, R., Shelton, E.J., Thompson-Carr, A. (Eds.), Political
Ecology of Tourism: Community, Power and the Environment. Routledge,
London, pp. 231–250.
Foucault, M., 2003. 17 March 1976. In: ‘‘Society Must be Defended”: Lectures at the
College de France 1975–1976. Picador, New York, pp. 239–264.
Guerrero R. (2015, October 7). Nicaragua es menos pobre, asegura BCN. El Nuevo
Diario. Retrieved from http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/nacionales/372748-
nicaragua-reduce-pobreza-aumenta-consumo/.
Guerrero, L.A., Maas, G., Hogland, W., 2013. Solid waste management challenges for
cities in developing countries. Waste Management 33 (1), 220–232. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.008.
Gutberlet, J., 2008. Recovering resources, Recycling Citizenship: Urban poverty
reduction in Latin America. Ashgate, Burlington, VT.
Gutberlet, J., 2010. Waste, poverty and recycling. Waste Management 30 (2), 171–
173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.006.
Hartmann, C.D., 2012. Uneven urban spaces: accessing trash in managua nicaragua.
J. Latin Am. Geograph. 11 (1), 143–163. https://doi.org/10.1353/lag.2012.0003.
Hartmann, C.D., 2013. Garbage, Health, and Well-Being in Managua. NACLA Rep.
Am. 46 (4), 62.
Harvey, D., 2006. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
INIDE, 2015. Results of the National Households Survey on Measurement of Level of
Life, 2014. Instituto Nacional de Informacion de Desarrollo, Retrieved from.
http://www.inide.gob.ni/Emnv/Emnv14/Poverty%20Results%202014.pdf.
Kaika, M., 2005. City of Flows: Modernity, Nature, and the City. Routledge, New
York.
Kumi, E., Arhin, A.A., Yeboah, T., 2014. Can post-2015 sustainable development
goals survive neoliberalism? A critical examination of the sustainable
development–neoliberalism nexus in developing countries. Environment,
Develop. Sustainability 16 (3), 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-013-
9492-7.
Marshall, R.E., Farahbakhsh, K., 2013. Systems approaches to integrated solid waste
management in developing countries. Waste Management 33 (4), 988–1003.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.023.
Mbah, P.O., Nzeadibe, T.C., 2017. Inclusive municipal solid waste management
policy in Nigeria: engaging the informal economy in post-2015 development
agenda. Local Environment 22 (2), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13549839.2016.1188062.
Medina, M., 2007. The World’s Scavengers: Salvaging for Sustainable Consumption
and Production. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD.
Minelli, M., & Praslin, C. (2012). Diagnostico de la cadena productiva del reciclaje de
desechos solidos en Managua.
 C. Hartmann / Waste Management 71 (2018) 565–577
Mitlin, D., Satterthwaite, D., 2013. Urban Poverty in the Global South: Scale and
Nature. Routledge, Abingdon.
Moore, S.A., 2009. The excess of modernity: garbage politics in Oaxaca Mexico.
Profession. Geograph. 61 (4), 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00330120903143375.
Myers, G., 2005. Disposable Cities: Garbage, Governance and Sustainable
Development in Urban Africa. Ashgate, Burlington, VT.
Obeng-Odoom, F., 2014. Green neoliberalism: recycling and sustainable urban
development in Sekondi-Takoradi. Habitat Internat. 41, 129–134. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.07.009.
Oguntoyinbo, O., 2012. Informal waste management system in Nigeria and barriers
to an inclusive modern waste management system: a review. Public Health 126
(5), 441–447.
Olley, J.E., IJgosse, J., Rudin, V., Alabaster, G., 2014. Developing a common
framework for integrated solid waste management advances in Managua
Nicaragua. Waste Management Res. 32 (9), 822–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X14545640.
Oteng-Ababio, M., Melara Arguello, J.E., Gabbay, O., 2013. Solid waste management
in African cities: Sorting the facts from the fads in Accra, Ghana. Habitat
Internat. 39, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.10.010.
Samson, 2015a. Accumulation by dispossession and the informal economy -
Struggles over knowledge, being and waste at a Soweto garbage dump.
Environment Plann D: Soc. Space 33 (5), 813–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0263775815600058.
Samson, M. (2015b). Forging a new conceptualization of ‘‘the public”in waste
management. The Motley World of ‘‘‘Making Public’”. London: Zed Books.
Retrieved from http://wiego.org/sites/wiego.org/files/publications/files/
Samson-Public-Waste-Management-WIEGO-WP32.pdf.
Sandhu, K., Burton, P., Dedekorkut-Howes, A., 2017. Between hype and veracity;
privatization of municipal solid waste management and its impacts on the
informal waste sector. Waste Management 59, 545–556. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.012.
Sembiring, E., Nitivattananon, V., 2010. Sustainable solid waste management toward
an inclusive society: integration of the informal sector. Resources, Conservat.
Recycl. 54 (11), 802–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.12.010.
Sternberg, C.A., 2013. From ‘‘cartoneros” to ‘‘recolectores urbanos”. The changing
rhetoric and urban waste management policies in neoliberal Buenos Aires.
Geoforum 48, 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.029.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
577
Tirado-Soto, M.M., Zamberlan, F.L., 2013. Networks of recyclable material waste-
picker’s cooperatives: An alternative for the solid waste management in the city
of Rio de Janeiro. Waste Management 33 (4), 1004–1012. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.025.
Programme, United Nations Human Settlements (Ed.), 2010. Solid waste
management in the world’s cities: water and sanitation in the world’s cities.
UN-HABITAT/Earthscan, London.
Wilson, D.C., Velis, C., Cheeseman, C., 2006. Role of informal sector recycling in
waste management in developing countries. Habitat Internat. 30 (4), 797–808.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.005.
World Bank. (2011). Solid Waste Management Strategic Planning. Retrieved
February 20, 2016, from http://go.worldbank.org/EI3G7AK1J0
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future.
Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.ask-force.
org/web/Sustainability/Brundtland-Our-Common-Future-1987-2008.pdf.
Wratten, E., 1995. Conceptualizing urban poverty. Environment Urbanizat. 7 (1),
11–38.
Zapata Campos, M.J., Zapata, P., 2013a. Switching Managua on! Connecting informal
settlements to the formal city through household waste collection.
Environment Urbanizat. 25 (1), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0956247812468404.
Zapata Campos, M.J., Zapata, P., 2013b. Translating development aid into city
management: the barrio acahualinca integrated development programme in
Managua Nicaragua. Public Administrat. Develop. 33 (2), 101–112. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pad.1628.
Zapata Campos, M.J., Zapata, P., 2014. The travel of global ideas of waste
management. The case of Managua and its informal settlements. Habitat
Internat. 41, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.07.003.
Zapata, P., Zapata Campos, M.J., 2015. Producing, appropriating and recreating the
myth of the urban commons. In: Borch, C., Kornberger, M. (Eds.), Urban
Commons: Rethinking the City. Routledge, New York, pp. 92–108.
Zapata, P., Zapata Campos, M.J., 2015. Unexpected translations in urban policy
mobility: the case of the Acahualinca development programme in Managua,
Nicaragua. Habitat Internat. 46, 271–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
habitatint.2014.10.001.
Zurbrügg, C., Gfrerer, M., Ashadi, H., Brenner, W., Küper, D., 2012. Determinants of
sustainability in solid waste management – The Gianyar Waste Recovery
Project in Indonesia. Waste Management 32 (11), 2126–2133. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.011.