Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1623e1633

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Review

Municipal solid waste management in China: Status, problems and challenges

Dong Qing Zhang a, *, Soon Keat Tan b, Richard M. Gersberg c
a
DHI-NTU Centre, Nanyang Environment & Water Research Institute, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, N1.2-B1-02, Singapore 639798, Singapore
b
Maritime Research Centre, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, N1-B1a-03 Singapore 639798, Singapore
c
Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Hardy Tower 119, 5500 Campanile, San Diego CA 92182-4162, USA

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

Article history: This paper presents an examination of MSW generation and composition in China, providing an overview
Received 2 June 2009 of the current state of MSW management, an analysis of existing problems in MSW collection, separa-
Received in revised form tion, recycling and disposal, and some suggestions for improving MSW systems in the future. In China,
1 March 2010
along with urbanization, population growth and industrialization, the quantity of municipal solid waste
Accepted 23 March 2010
Available online 21 April 2010
(MSW) generation has been increasing rapidly. The total MSW amount increased from 31.3 million
tonnes in 1980 to 212 million tonnes in 2006, and the waste generation rate increased from 0.50 kg/
capita/day in 1980 to 0.98 kg/capita/year in 2006. Currently, waste composition in China is dominated by
Keywords:
Municipal Solid Waste
a high organic and moisture content, since the concentration of kitchen waste in urban solid waste
Management makes up the highest proportion (at approximately 60%) of the waste stream. The total amount of MSW
China collected and transported was 148 million tonnes in 2006, of which 91.4% was landfilled, 6.4% was
incinerated and 2.2% was composted. The overall MSW treatment rate in China was approximately 62% in
2007. In 2007, there were 460 facilities, including 366 landfill sites, 17 composing plants, and 66
incineration plants. This paper also considers the challenges faced and opportunities for MSW
management in China, and a number of recommendations are made aimed at improving the MSW
management system.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The Chinese population has increased over the past two decades
and its economy has developed tremendously. China’s develop-
ment has also brought about an unprecedented increase in the
amount of solid waste. No other country has ever experienced as
large and as fast an increase in solid waste quantities that China is
now facing (Xue and Chen, 2007; World Bank, 2005; Dong et al.,
2001). Urbanization, population growth and industrialization are
three key reasons behind the large magnitude of China’s increase in
total waste generation. In general, China still has a long way to go in
the management of solid waste with respect to solid waste recy-
cling, treatment technology and management strategy when
compared with many more developed countries, e.g., Germany,
Sweden, Japan, and the United States (Yuan et al., 2006).
Throughout the country, the social, financial and environmental
impacts of this growing waste generation are gaining attention and
MSW management is becoming a major issue (Zerbock, 2003;
Zurbrügg, 2002). Improvement in MSW collection, recycling and
disposal will be an important goal for the governments of all cities
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dqzhang@ntu.edu.sg (D.Q. Zhang).
in China in the years to come, and all aspects of China’s MSW
management systems will have to undergo great reform in order to
achieve this goal.
There have been a number of published papers which have
reviewed the trend of MSW generation and composition, as well as
MSW management including waste collection, recycling and
disposal in different cities in China, e.g., Beijing (Qu et al., 2009;
Xiao et al., 2007; Li et al., 2009), Shanghai (Hong et al., 2006; Zhu
et al., 2009), Tianjin (Zhao et al., 2009a,b; Geng et al., 2007),
Chongqing (Yuan et al., 2006), Hangzhou (Zhao et al., 2009a,b),
Guangzhou (Chung and Poon, 2001), Tibet (Jiang et al., 2009), etc.
Additionally, comparisons of MSW management among these
different cities have also been conducted. Chung and Poon (2001)
compared MS1W management in two of the most developed
cites in China: Hong Kong and Guangzhou. In addition, other
authors have addressed different aspects relating to MSW
management. Wang et al. (2008) investigated a new method of
community recycling and collection, which is operated by a waste
collection company through door-to-door service and supported by
the municipal government in the Haidian District in Beijing. Zhuang
et al. (2008) evaluated the possibility and effectiveness of a new
waste separation system which classified household waste as food
waste, dry waste, and harmful waste in a residential area of

0301-4797/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.012
1624 D.Q. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1623e1633
Hangzhou. And Cheng et al. (2007) reported on a waste-to-energy
incineration technology based on co-firing of MSW with coal in
a grate-circulating fluidized bed incinerator in Changchun.
While these other studies have mainly focused on specific
aspects of MSW management in specific cities in China, this paper
attempts to review the overall situation of MSW management in
China. With this overall aim, this paper seeks to: (i) identify MSW
generation, quantity and composition in China; (ii) review the
different methods for MSW collection, recycling, treatment and
disposal; (iii) identify the attitudes and behaviour towards MSW
separation and recycling; (iv) investigate the current problems and
barriers in MSW management in China; and (v) develop a vision for
opportunities and challenges of MSW management in future.
2. Municipal solid waste generation and composition in
China
Most Chinese MSW usually includes residential, institutional,
commercial, street cleaning and non-process waste from industries
(World Bank, 2005). MSW generation in China has increased
rapidly in the past 20 years from 31.3 million tons in 1980 to 113.0
million tons in 1998 and the annual rate of increase is 3e10% (Wang
and Nie, 2001). Currently, there are about 660 cities in China that
produce about 190 million tonnes of solid waste annually and,
account for 29% of the world’s MSW each year (Dong et al., 2001;
Yuan et al., 2006; Zhuang et al., 2008). In 2004, China surpassed
the United States as the world’s largest waste generator (World
Bank, 2005). Table 1 shows an increasing trend of collected and
transported MSW from 1981 to 2007. In 2006, the total MSW
generation was approximately 212 million tonnes, and the MSW
generation rate was 0.98 tonnes/capita/year (China Statistical
Yearbook, 2001e2007; Raninger, 2009). Compared with other
developed countries, China has been considered as having a rela-
tively low per capita MSW generation rate. According to Yuan et al.
(2006), China’s per capita waste generation rate is 0.8e1.0 kg/
capita/day, while a typical developed country generates
1.43e2.08 kg/capita/day (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). The
MSW generation rate also varies among different cities in China, e.
g., with rates of about 0.85 kg/capita/day in Beijing (Li et al., 2009),
1.11 kg/capita/day in Shanghai (Zhu et al., 2009), 1.08 kg/capita/day
in Chongqing (Yuan et al., 2006), 1.51 kg/capita/day in Lhasa (Tibet)
(Jiang et al., 2009), 1.17 kg/capita/day in Hangzhou (Zhao et al.,
2009a,b), and 1.33 kg/capita/day in Hong Kong (Ko and Poon,
2009). Table 2 compares the generation rate of MSW between
China and other selected OECD countries, and shows that China
ranked second after the USA in terms of the total amount of MSW,
but third from last in terms of MSW per capita.
Table 3 presents a comparison of MSW composition in various
cities in China. In general, waste composition in China is dominated
by a high organic and moisture content, since the concentration of
the kitchen waste in urban solid waste makes up the highest
proportion at approximate 60% (Yuan et al., 2006). In contrast, it is
recognized that industrialized countries’ waste consists of more
recyclables and lower bio-degradable organic waste. The high ratio
of organic waste in China is partly attributable to the diet, e.g., more
fresh vegetables and fruit compared with Western culture, and
preferences for food that is unprocessed and unpackaged. This
Table 1
Collected and transported MSW in China (Data source: China Statistical Yearbook, 2001e2007).
1981
Urban population (
104) 14,400
Collected and transported MSW (104 tonnes/year) 2606
Per capita quantity of MSW (kg/day/capita) 0.50
suggests that the high organic composition of MSW probably will
not decline significantly even as industry grows, wealth increases
and living standards improve. In this sense, kitchen waste will also
continue to occupy a high ratio of the waste in China in the future.
Another major component of MSW in China is coal ash, which
originates from household furnaces, as coal and wood are used for
heating in the northern part of China and for cooking in major parts
of the rural areas. However, this situation is changing rapidly as coal
is increasingly being replaced by natural gas. The proportion of ash
has clearly decreased in some cities (Zhuang et al., 2008; Xiao et al.,
2007; Solenthaler and Bunge, 2006), and by 2030 it is estimated
that all urban households will be using gas for home heating and
coal ash will only be a minor component in the waste stream
(World Bank, 2005).
The composition of MSW in China is extremely non-homoge-
nous and the variation is caused by differences between cities: the
level of industrialization and income, consuming habits etc. In
some of the larger cities, the composition of the waste is roughly
similar to that in Western Europe and features a high percentage of
paper and plastic (10e20%). Indeed, China’s waste stream is
growing fastest in paper, plastics and multi-laminates (World Bank,
2005). This composition is generally believed to be a sign of
urbanisation and rapid economic development. However, with that
said, the composition of MSW in China is still predominantly
kitchen waste and differs greatly from that of the western indus-
trialized world.
Even though nationwide waste generation rates are comparable,
it is recognized that high-income urban residents in China have
a higher generation rate than low-income residents (World Bank,
2005). In terms of the effect of income on waste generation, Abu
Qdais et al. (1997) concluded that the waste generation rate was
dependent on income level, and more household waste is gener-
ated with increasing residents’ income. Dennison et al. (1996) also
indicated that residents’ income was positively related to the rate of
household waste generated. In addition, Qu et al. (2009) reported
that residents’ income was negatively related to daily per capita
generation of kitchen wastes and positively related to daily per
capital generation of waste per capita generation of waste paper
and plastics. Generally speaking, more affluent families have more
opportunities to dine out in restaurants. This may be the reason
why kitchen waste generation decreased with increased income. In
low-income families, people tend to reuse plastic bags as a result of
the policy of charging for plastic bags in every supermarket in
China.
Table 4 compares MSW composition between China and other
countries. Tchobanoglus et al. (1993) classified the distribution of
components in residential MSW into low- (per capita income less
than US$750), middle- (per capital income US$750e5000) and
upper-income (per capital income more than US$ 5000) countries.
China belongs to the level between low- and middle-come levels.
Raninger (2009) reported that the rapidly bio-degradable waste
(food and kitchen waste), slowly bio-degradable waste (wood,
paper, yard waste, composites) and non bio-degradable waste
(plastic, metal, glass, ash) account for 78%, 10% and 12% of total
amount of MSW in China respectively, while these same types of
solid waste account for 12%, 47% and 41% of total amount of MSW in
EU, respectively.
1990 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
32,530 52,376 54,283 56,157 57,706 59,379
6767 14,857 15,509 15,577 14,841 15,214
0.57 0.78 0.78 0.76 0.70 0.70
 D.Q. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1623e1633 1625

Table 2
Waste generation in selected OECD countries and China.

Countries Total amount of MSW MSW generation rate Total amount of HSW HSW generation rate
generation (1000 tonnes) (kg/capita/day) generation (1000 tonnes) (kg/capita/day)
USA (2005)a 222,863 2.05 133,718 1.23
Canada (2005)a e e 13,375 1.15
France (2005)a 33,963 1.48 22,000 0.96
Germany (2005)a 49,563 1.64 39,886 1.32
Denmark (2005)a 3,900 2.03 3,337 1.70
Switzerland (2005)a 4,855 1.78 3,237 1.21
Australia (2005)a e e 8,903 1.23
Poland (2005)a 9,354 0.68 6,496 0.47
Portugal (2005)a 5,009 1.29 e e
Hungary (2005)a 4,632 1.26 2,677 0.74
Mexico (2005)a 36,088 0.93 27,785 0.71
Japan (2005)a 51,607 1.10 34,798 0.74
Korea (2005)a 18,252 1.04 15,175 0.88
China (2006)b 212,100b 0.98 e e
a
OECD (2005).
b
China Statistical Yearbook (2001e2007); Raninger (2009).

3. Current MSW management in China
In China, the implementation of a MSW management system
depends on several important factors such as the country’s statutes,
environmental requirements, strategies in environmental
management, energy policy, economic and technological feasibility
and capabilities, and education and environmental awareness of
citizens (Yuan et al., 2006; Zhu et al., 2009). All the collection,
transportation and disposal of MSW are primarily the responsibility
of a central authority. Fig. 1 depicts a general diagram of the MSWM
system in China including: waste generation, collection and
disposal processes.
3.1. Waste collection
Generally, MSW collection in the major cities in China is carried
out as a two-tier system: primary and then secondary collection.
Primary collection involves storage and transportation of the waste
from the households to local collection points, and this is achieved
by various means. Secondary collection includes storage and
transportation from the local collection points to points of treat-
ment, and disposal, and is undertaken as a municipal responsibility.
Waste collection services vary enormously between Chinese cities
and even within different parts of cities. In Beijing, the waste
collection services to the modern, high-rise apartment blocks of
downtown are adequate, while refuse collection systems in the
poorer suburban areas are considerably more rudimentary.
For residential areas, there are two type of urban solid waste
collection: collection at roadsides and household collection. Road-
side waste collection is a method whereby residents sort recyclable
items into the specific collection containers offered by the local
authorities. According to Chung and Poon (2001), the old house-
hold collection systems included “ring bell and collection” and
“refuse chute”. The former term refers to the fact that residents are
reminded by the collection crew’s ringing bell to bring the trash to
the street level for disposal. This type of operation is very popular in
southern China (e.g., Guang Zhou). With fast urbanization, high-
rise buildings are appearing in large numbers. Therefore,
a centralized facility, usually called “refuse chute” has been intro-
duced and implemented. However, “Ring bell and collection” and

Table 3
Comparison of typical distribution of MSW composition in various cities in China.

Composition (%) Organic garbage Paper Plastic Glass Metal Textile fiber Wood timber Ash
Beijing (2006)a 63.39 11.07 12.70 1.76 0.27 2.46 1.78 5.87
Shanghai (2009)b 66.70 4.46 19.98 2.72 0.27 1.80 1.21 2.77
Tianjin (2007)c 56.88 8.67 12.12 1.30 0.42 2.47 1.93 16.21
Shen Yang (2007)d 73.70 7.60 5.20 2.40 0.30 0.90 1.70 e
Hangzhou (2009)e 57.00 15.00 3.00 8.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 4
Qingdao (1998)f 42.20 4.00 11.20 2.20 1.10 3.20 e e
Tibet (2009)g 72.00 6.00 12.00 e 1.00 7.00 e e
Ningbo (1998)f 53.70 5.40 7.90 2.40 1.00 3.00 1.10 e
Guanghan (1998)h 50.70 8.80 6.10 0.6 0.2 0.60 0.20 32.80
Chongqing (2006)i 59.20 10.10 15.70 3.40 1.10 6.10 4.20 e
Guangzhou (1999)g 58.10 6.30 14.50 2.00 0.60 4.80 3.10 9.00
Shenzhen (1998)f 40.00 17.00 13.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 e e
Hong Kong (2009)j 44.00 26.00 18.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 e

“e” Means data absent.

a
Li et al. (2009).
b
Hong et al. (2006).
c
Zhao et al. (2009a).
d
Raninger (2009).
e
Zhao et al. (2009b).
f
Liu et al. (2006).
g
Jiang et al. (2009).
h
Hu et al. (1998).
i
Yuan et al. (2006).
j
Ko and Poon (2009).
1626 D.Q. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1623e1633

Table 4
Comparison of typical distribution of MSW composition between China and other countries.

Composition (%) Organic garbage Paper/ Plastic Glass Metal Textile Wood Ash Construction Horticultural Others
cardboard debrits waste
China (2003)a 52.6 6.9 7.3 1.6 0.5 4.7 6.9 19.2 e e e

Singapore (2008)b 9.5 21.2 11.5 1.0 14.6 1.6 4.5 9.5 15.4 3.8 7.5
USA (2005)c 25.0 34.0 12.0 5.0 8.0 e e e e e 16.0
Japan (2000)c 34.0 33.0 13.0 5.0 3.0 e e e e e 12.0
Korea (2005)c 28.0 24.0 8.0 5.0 7.0 e e e e e 28.0
Canada (2005)c 24.0 47.0 3.0 6.0 13.0 e e e e e 8.0
France (2005)c 32.0 20.0 9.0 10.0 3.0 e e e e e 26.0
Netherlands (2005)c 35.0 26.0 19.0 4.0 4.0 e e e e e 12.0
Germany (2005)c 14.0 34.0 22.0 12.0 5.0 e e e e e 12.0
Switzerland (2005)c 29.0 20.0 15.0 4.0 3.0 e e e e e 29.0
Australia (2005)c 47.0 23.0 4.0 7.0 5.0 e e e e e 13.0
Mexico (2005)c 51.0 15.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 e e e e e 18.0
Slovak R. (2005)c 38.0 13.0 7.0 8.0 3.0 e e e e e 31.0
Portugal (2005)c 34.0 21.0 11.0 7.0 4.0 e e e e e 23.0
Hungary (2005)c 29.0 15.0 17.0 2.0 2.0 e e e e e 35.0

Europe (average)a 30.0 32.0 7.0 10.0 8.0 4.0 e 9.0 e e e

Low-income countriesd 40e85 1e10 1e5 1e10 1e5 1e5 e e e e e
Middle-income countriesd 20e65 8e30 2e6 1e10 1e5 2e10 e e e e e
Upper-income countriesd 6e30 25e66 2e8 4e12 3e13 2e6 e e e e e

“e” Means data absent.

a
Visvanathan et al. (2004).
b
National Environment Agency (NEA), Singapore (2008).
c
OECD (2005).
d
Tchobanoglus et al. (1993).

“refuse chute” have already been taken out of service and have been
replaced by the new system since 2000. Now residents are advised
to place their waste in bags and deposit their garbage in the
appointed garbage bins outside the residents’ house for collection
under the new system, and then the waste is transported by truck
to a transfer station. This system is usually carried out by
a community or business entity in China.
3.2. Waste separation and recycling
MSW is generally composed of three groups of materials:
organic waste (kitchen waste, garden waste, etc), non-recyclable
inorganic waste (coal ash, cinder, dust, etc), and recyclable waste
(paper, plastics, glass, metal, etc.). At present, MSW is collected in
a mixed state, but residents can volunteer to participate in the
source-separated collection. The recyclable materials from daily use
are often collected at the source by scavengers and reusable waste
collectors patrolling the residential areas. Residents sell their
recyclables to buyers who call door-to-door or sometimes deliver
recyclables to the service sites themselves. The buyers in turn sell
the materials to a nearby recyclables distribution centre where the
materials are sorted and sold to factories as raw or processed
materials. Table 5 shows the buy-back and selling price of waste for
private waste collectors in Beijing.
In China, since there is little in the way of government recycling
initiatives, recycling and recovery is usually conducted by the
“informal” sector, which takes place at all levels and at every stage
of the waste management stream, and this practice strongly

Road cleaning Refuse Institutional Commercial Waste

refuse Household generation
container refuse refuse

By residents By each By each

or private By CSB institution market
By CSB collector

Waste
Collection Transfer station collection &
Site (Recyclable waste separation) separation

By CSB
By CSB

Industrial Waste
recycle and Sanitary landfill, composting, incineration treatment &
reuse disposal

Collection through CSB (City Sanitation Bureau)

Collection through private agency

Fig. 1. General diagram of MSWM system in China.

 D.Q. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1623e1633 1627

Table 5 MSW collected and transported was 148 million tonnes, of which
Buying and selling price of different recyclables for private waste collectors in Beijing 91.4% was landfilled, 6.4% was incinerated and 2.1% was composted.
(Fung, 1999).
Table 6 presents the current status of MSW treatment in China.
Type of Waste Buy-back price offer Selling price to In 2002, there were 651 disposal facilities with a total capacity of
to households (RMB) waste (RMB)
136 million tonnes/year for MSW in China, including 528 landfill
PC bottles (white one) 0.3e0.4 0.5 sites, 78 composting plants, and 45 incineration plants (China
PC bottles (transparent) 0.1 0.2
Statistical Yearbook, 2001e2007; Huang et al., 2006; Raninger,
Aluminium can 0.08 0.12
Steel can 0.02 0.03e0.04 2009). Five years later in 2007, there were only 460 facilities with
PET bottles (0.75 l) 0.08 0.12 a total capacity of 152 million tons/year, including 366 landfill sites,
PET bottles (0.6 l) 0.04 0.05 17 composing plants, and 66 incineration plants (China Statistical
Paper (newspaper) 0.4 per kg 0.5 per kg Yearbook, 2001e2007).
Corrugated paper 0.25 per kg 0.3 per kg
Waste electrical appliances 4e5 (for refrigerator), Unknown
Approximately 30% of the generated MSW was not collected in
negotiable 2006 (see Fig. 2) and the MSW treatment rate was only 62% in 2007
(see Table 6). Admittedly, financial and institutional constraints are
Note: I US$ ¼ 6.84 RMB (Chinese Currency).
the main reasons for inadequate collection and disposal of MSW.
Other reasons are the frequently inappropriate guidelines for siting,
influences the flow of the waste stream. Compared with developed design and operation of new landfills, and for possible upgrading
countries, there are some distinct differences in collection of options of existing open dumps. Table 7 compares the adminis-
recyclables. First of all, developed countries typically utilize curb- trative, socio-economic characteristics, and waste generation and
side recycling programs (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). The treatment methods adopted in the large cities in China and other
collection of recyclables is included within the system for MSW developed Asian countries.
management in communities and municipal government or recy-
clables collection companies collect and transport the recyclables 3.4. Incineration
together with MSW. However, in China, recyclables and MSW are
treated separately by different entities. Recyclables, with Incineration of MSW has numerous advantages such as signifi-
commercial value, typically are collected and traded. Treatment of cant volume reduction (approximately 90%) and mass reduction
the rest of MSW is still the task of the municipal government. (approximately 70%), complete disinfection, energy recovery, and
other positive benefits (Li et al., 2003; Sakai et al., 1996). It is also
a possible component of an integrated waste management program
for large cities where space for landfills may be limited. However,
3.3. Sanitary landfill incineration is usually constrained by high costs and potentially
toxic emissions. Incineration of MSW not only may produce emis-
MSW disposal in China is predominantly by means of landfill sions of toxic air pollutants, but also may generate considerable
because it is cost-effective and it can accommodate large fluctua- volumes of solid residues, e.g., bottom ash, grate sifting, fly ash, and
tions in the amount and type of waste. Generally, landfills are air pollution control (APC) residue, which are generated at different
administrated by construction departments and supervised by points in the process of MSW incineration. In China, MSW incin-
environmental protection departments. In 1991, the first MSW eration technology was initially introduced at the end of 1980s, and
landfill, Hangzhou Tianziling Solid Waste Landfill was built and put underwent rapid development in 1990s. More than 30 large and
into use. A vertical cement curtain technology was first used in the middle-scale cities already have or are underway constructing
landfill to prevent leachate from polluting the groundwater. In MSW incineration plants (Liu et al., 2006). By 2006, there were
1997, the first MSW landfill using a HDPE membrane as liner about 70 MSW incinerators and the total capacity had reached
material, Xiaoping Solid Waste Landfill in Shenzhen, was built and 33,010 tonnes/day (China Statistical Yearbook, 2001e2007).
put into use (Xu et al., 2006). There are three main types of incineration technologies used in
According to Huang et al. (2006), in 2002, the amount of MSW China. These are the mechanical stoker grate (e.g., the Pudong MSW
disposal was 74.04 million tons, of which 89.3% was landfilled, incinerating plant located in Shanghai and the Changping inciner-
3.72% was incinerated, and 6.98% composted. The distribution ation plant located in Beijing), the rotary kiln (e.g., the Longgang
tendency seemed to have remained the same in 2006. Fig. 2 pres- incineration plant located in Guangdong province) and the fluid-
ents the disposal methods for MSW in China for 2006. The total ized bed (e.g., The Xiaoshan MSW incinerating plant located in
Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province) (Liu et al., 2006). In comparison with
Europe, e.g., where most plants in operation are grate systems
composting Incineration (Vehlow, 1996), China uses the mechanical stoker gate and fluidized
Uncollected 1.5% 4.5%
bed technology for incinerating municipal waste, together which
waste 30%
account for about 80% of the existing systems (Ministry of
Construction, 2007). As far as the grate technology is concerned,
most systems have an average (500 t/d) or high capacity (1000 t/d)
in addition to a few furnaces with a very small capacity (<100 t/d).
Most fluidized bed furnaces on the other hand appear to have
a capacity ranging between 100 and 500 t/d (Liu et al., 2006). It
appears as though large cities such as Shanghai and Beijing are
Uncotrolled mainly constructing grate firing systems, while smaller and
Controlled landfill 40% medium sized cities on the other hand appear to prefer fluidized
landfills with bed combustion (Liu et al., 2006). In terms of air pollution control
basic sanitary
facilities 24% (APC) systems the active carbon adsorption system, dry or semi-dry
scrubber followed by the subsequent separation of the fly ash using
Fig. 2. Disposal method for MSW in 2006 (Raninger, 2009). textile filter equipment are commonly employed in China (Liu et al.,
1628 D.Q. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1623e1633

Table 6
Current status of MSW disposal in China (China Statistical Yearbook, 2001e2007).

Year Collected & Numbers of Treatment Numbers of Numbers of Numbers of Waste disposal Waste disposal Treatment
transported MSW facilities for capacity landfill incineration compositing (104 tonnes) in a simple way rate (%)
(104 tonnes) treatment (tonnes/year) facilities facilities plants (104 tonnes)
2003 14856.5 575 219,607 457 47 70 7544.7 4631.8 50.8
2004 15509.3 559 238,591 444 54 61 8088.7 4457.7 52.1
2005 15576.8 471 256,312 356 67 46 8051.1 4444.3 51.7
2006 14841.3 419 258,048 324 69 20 7872.6 e 52.2
2007 15214.5 460 271,791 366 66 17 9437.7 e 62.0

2006; Solenthaler and Bunge, 2006). Moreover, most of the large
incinerators built after 2002 are equipped with a flue gas cleaning
system including a cyclone, and an active carbon adsorption system
and a baghouse. This kind of control system would provide a quite
high efficiency of the flue gas cleanup.
4. Existing problems in MSW management
4.1. Waste collection
China’s overall MSW collection includes both formal and
informal waste collection, and indeed, there are twice as many
people in the informal sector as those in the formal sector (World
Bank, 2005). Unfortunately, these informal waste collection
systems make it more difficult to regulate and implement an effi-
cient and standardized waste treatment system (Zhuang et al.,
2008; Wang et al., 2008). Additionally, rummaging through the
solid waste may have a negative impact on the health and hygiene
of these scavengers and waste collectors (Chung and Poon, 2001;
Yuan et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2008). When the scavengers sort
through and remove the recyclables from the waste collection
containers or stations, they also often scatter about the remaining
unwanted waste on the street. This litter can cause sanitation
problems and is an additional environmental issue of concern
(Yuan et al., 2006). Additionally, in some areas, waste is collected up
to three times per day, but in others, there is no regular collection at
all. Overall, collection efficiency is better in the east side of China
than in the west.
4.2. Waste separation and recycling
Waste segregation before collection will reduce the amount of
solid waste generation and facilitate recycling of materials, as well
as reduce the overall cost of waste disposal. In China, unlike
developed countries where the single household predominates and
MSW can be separately collected by using different containers
distinguished by different colors with labels and clearly written
instructions, high-rise apartments especially in large cities
predominate, and this makes waste separation relatively difficult so
that solid waste generated from each household is mixed and
collected in bags. To a certain extent, the convenience of discarding
waste is also responsible for the low rate of solid waste separation.
Although some of this segregation is already happening through
the efforts of waste pickers, source-separated collection at the
household level is not a common practice in China, e.g., Xiao et al.
(2007) reported that the separation ratio of MSW in Beijing was
only approximately 15%.
In terms of waste recycling, industrialized countries such as
Germany, Sweden, Japan and the United States have already ach-
ieved remarkable results in comprehensive utilization of resources
as well as solid waste management (Yuan et al., 2006). However,
both the recycling rates and technical level of recycling of MSW in
China are lower than most other countries (Huang et al., 2006;
World Bank, 2005) for the following reasons. First, recycling
effort is labour-intensive, as most recyclables are recovered through
the disposal process by scavenging. (Yuan et al., 2006). Secondly,
the waste, after removing items with commercial value, may be of
low caloric value, making it unattractive for incineration (Zhuang
et al., 2008).
Moreover, residents in developed countries usually sort their
recyclables themselves, and send them to certain sites in their
communities and pay the stipulated fee for handling/disposal.
Whereas in China, commercial exchange is the most efficacious
mode to prompt residents to join the recycling system (Chung and
Poon, 2001; Wang et al., 2008; Yuan et al., 2006). Finding a recy-
cling bin is extremely hard in some cities, which may explain the
tendency of the inhabitants to dispose of all their waste together.
This is probably because the result of the lower living standard of
residents in China compared to other developed countries, as well
as the fact that their environmental awareness is also

Table 7
Comparison of administrative, socio-economic characteristics, waste management situations between large cities in China and other developed Asian countries.

Population Area GDP MSW rate Total waste Number of MSW facilities Proportion of facilities (%)
(million) (km2) (US$/capita) (kg/capita/day) generated
Incineration Landfill Incineration Landfill
(million t/y)
a
Beijing (2007) 16.33 16,808 7700 0.85 6.01 2 13 2 94
Shanghai (2007)a 18.58 6340 7000 0.96 6.91 2 4 e e
Tianjin (2007)a 11.15 11,305 6065 e 1.65 5 2 e e
Guangzhou (2007)a 5.82 7263 9302 1.22 e 2 2 e e
Chongqing (2007)a 28.16 82,403 1834 1.08 2.01 1 9 e e
Hong Kong (2006)b 6.99 1042 24,282 1.33 0.17 e 3 e 90
Singapore (2000)c 3.89 707 21,113 0.96 e 4 2 87 13
Japan (1989)d e e e 1.1 50.2 1841 2361 74.3 25.7
Tai Wan (2006)b 23 e e 0.6 8.3 26 e 83 17

“e” Means data absent.

a
China Statistical Yearbook (2001e2007).
b
Ross (2008).
c
Bai et al. (2002).
d
Sakai et al., 1996.
 D.Q. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1623e1633
correspondingly lower. Another factor affecting the recycling
industry is that the buying price of recycled goods by industries is
relatively low, and therefore does not provide an incentive for
individuals to recycle. Without a market for reused materials,
recycling is pointless.
4.3. Sanitary landfill
Although the Ministry of Construction in China developed
a comprehensive technical municipal solid waste landfill standard
for China, in reality, landfills are often poorly operated and good
landfill practices are not well understood (Rissane and Naarajärvi,
2004). In general, landfills do not meet best practices from either
the design or management perspective, and only rarely manage the
MSW in a manner approaching North American or European
standards (World Bank, 2005). Only newly developed landfills (e.g.,
in Shenzhen, Guangzhou) are considered to be operating at
anywhere near internationally accepted standards. Although more
than 90% of waste generated in China is landfilled, in some cities,
the landfills are more or less open dumps, which unfortunately can
be detrimental to the urban environment (Zurbrügg, 2002).
Biogas, which is primarily composed of methane (CH4), carbon
dioxide (CO2), and hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is generated by the
biological degradation of organic matter, and is a serious concern in
landfills. It has been estimated that CH4 has 20 times greater global
warming potential than CO2 (Ishigaki et al., 2002). While the
recovery rate of landfill gas in western countries is approximately
60%, in China it is less than 20% (Raninger, 2009). According to Xiao
et al. (2007), in Beijing it is not clear what the chemical composition
of the gas produced from the landfills really is, nor what the health
effects might be on workers of the facility who are exposed to the
landfill gas, or the effects on the population nearby. Among the 13
landfill sites in Beijing, only two sanitary landfills were designed to
collect methane. Yuan et al. (2006) also reported in the simple
landfills in Chongqing, that only a negligible quantity of leachate is
treated before being discharged into the groundwater, thus this
situation may endanger land, air and groundwater.
In China, leachate is discharged into sewage collection systems
in 10% of the landfills; bio-chemical methods were used in 20% of
the landfills; membrane methods were used in 3% of the landfills;
other methods were used in about 20% of the landfills; and leachate
was not treated in 47% of landfills (Xu et al., 2006). Although the
newly established landfills in large cities in China are all lined with
clay liner or geomembrane for leachate interception, and are
equipped with leachate collection and treatment systems, prob-
lems still exist because either the quality of the pollution control
systems is not adequately emphasized during construction, and/or
due to careless operation and maintenance of the leachate collec-
tion and treatment equipment for these facilities.
It is no doubt that the present disposal situation is expected to
deteriorate as China experiences rapid urbanization. Housing
developments are now increasingly encircling the existing dumps
and the environmental degradation associated with these dumps is
directly affecting the population. Yuan et al. (2006) indicated that
siting for two sanitary landfill facilities in Chongqing is not
economically sound because of the high population density and the
high real estate value nearby. Additionally, it is becoming increas-
ingly difficult to find new sites which are located at a reasonable
distance from the collection areas. Siting landfills at greater
distances from the central collection areas, implies higher transfer
costs as well as additional investments in the infrastructure, and
hence intensifies the financial problems of the responsible
authorities. Moreover, the few secured landfill sites that now exist
are overloaded before their planned operational life, because of the
unexpected increase in the volumes of waste generated. Zhan et al.
1629
(2008) reported that most of the landfills in major cities that were
built in the early 1990s have now reached the end of their design
service life. Expansion of the existing landfills facilities is presently
being undertaken in many cities of China.
4.4. Incineration
In comparison with developed countries, the net caloric value of
MSW in China is far too low for waste heat utilization and poorly
suited to incineration because of the high concentration of foods
waste and the moisture content (Zhuang et al., 2008; Liu et al.,
2006; Yuan et al., 2006; Xiao et al., 2007; Solenthaler and Bunge,
2006). Solenthaler and Bunge (2006) reported that the average
caloric value of MSW in the studied Chinese incineration plants
equals 5 MJ/kg. However, Zerbock (2003) suggested that for
incineration, the minimal heating value must on average be at least
7 MJ/kg, and must never fall below 6 MJ/kg because the low heating
value of MSW will affect the economics of incineration especially
for power generation. Therefore, in the majority of Chinese incin-
eration plants, in order to keep stable burning and combustion, the
original MSW should be deposited in the waste pit for five to seven
days before it is fed into the furnace.
In terms of bottom ash, many countries have also permitted
extensive use of processed bottom ash in various construction
applications. In contrast, although bottom ash in China has been
reused for construction applications (e.g., Chongqing, Shenzhen),
some plants do not use processes to reclaim metals from the
residues in incinerators. Conversely, the fly ash streams (about
1e5% of incineration residues), particularly the residues from air
pollution control systems, are deemed to be a hazardous waste in
most counties and require special handling and disposal. As fly ash
often includes high concentrations of heavy metals, it is classified
as hazardous waste in many countries and requires sound
management. According to the State Environmental Protection
Agency (SEPA), fly ash should be pretreated before being taken to
a suitable landfill. Although most incinerators now solidity fly ash
cement before being taken to a suitable landfill, in some places,
this has not been adopted because of the high cost of cement in
China.
Air pollution control (APC) residues are another significant
concern. He et al. (2004) investigated the contaminant character-
istics of APC residues of the first large-scale MSW incinerator in
China located in the Pudong New Area of Shanghai. This author
reported that the level of Pb substantially exceeded the permitted
level of leachate toxicity for the landfill, and the residues also
contained considerable amounts of soluble salts, with a strong
potential to pollute the groundwater after landfilling. Furthermore,
although the dioxin levels were in a similar range to those of APC
residues from overseas incinerators, the levels still did not comply
with the environmental quality standards for soil application.
Currently, many areas of China still use coal to heat homes and to
generate electricity. The ash created in these processes has been
a major problem, not only for China, but for other nations as well.
According to World Bank (2005), about 27.6 million tonnes of coal
ash enter China’s urban waste stream annually, and the material is
very difficult to dispose of, as it contains heavy metals and is
corrosive. Additionally, its composition reduces the lifespan and
efficiency of incinerators as well as making the residues unsuitable
for composting. Moreover, waste incinerators are one of the largest
sources of air-borne mercury. Solenthaler and Bunge (2006)
reported using XRF (X-ray fluorescence) that the average metal
content of the Chinese slag tested (e.g., Cu, Zn, Pb and Cd) was
clearly lower than that of Swiss slag, but that the mercury occurred
in significantly higher concentrations in Chinese slag in comparison
to Swiss values.
1630 D.Q. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1623e1633
4.5. Discharge/levying fees system
In China, only State Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and
its regional branch EPA (REPA) have the rights to collect the waste
disposal fee, and municipal Governments collect levies for the
disposal of waste from residential, commercial and industrial
producers as part of general taxation (World Bank, 2005).
However, the fee levies are extremely low and could barely cover
costs and only offset a small fraction of collection, transport and
treatment cost for the safe disposal of waste. Moreover, existing
policies in China are based on a flat rate charging systems and
present no economic incentives for waste reduction and recycling
for waste generation. For example, in Chongqing’s main districts,
the MSW fee per household is now 3 RMB/month (US$0.4/month)
(Yuan et al., 2006). In Beijing, the city domestic garbage disposal
fee is at 2e3 RMB per household per month depending on resi-
dency status. Xiao et al. (2007) indicated that up to 2008 the
construction cost of municipal solid waste disposal establishments
in Beijing was far more than the fees collectable. Chung and Lo
(2008) also reported that in Guangzhou, other than the monthly
waste collection charge of 10 RMB/household/month, the only
other economic measure that has been adopted is the waste
disposal charge of 5 RMB/household/month. In particular, Shang-
hai’s households do not even have to pay any waste disposal
services fee.
5. Opportunities and perspectives
5.1. Improving waste collection
As an informal system is still playing a significant role in MSW
management in China, the local governments should consider
organizing and managing this informal system so that it can be
better regulated by the municipal institutions. Not only would this
improve the efficiency and cleanliness of urban solid waste
collection, it would also provide job opportunities for these
informal waste collectors as well as better protect their health and
welfare. In some cases, for instance in certain communities in
Haidian District of Beijing, the community collection system began
to be developed under the direction of the government, and some
companies operated this under an open market system (Wang
et al., 2008). These authors concluded that the community collec-
tion system of residential recyclables could appreciate and be
applied easily in China as it is developed from the current collection
situation e waste pickers and itinerant buyers can provide enough
low-cost labour and actually carry out the recycling practices
instead of municipal government in the urban areas of China. Mo
et al. (2009) reported that with the urbanization process in Hang-
zhou, a new recyclables collection system is being built under
government guidance in tandem with the community’ s waste
management system as a series of small collection shops, which
collect the MSW, classify the recyclables, and sell them to collection
enterprises. Furthermore, efficient and effective separation and
collection of solid waste materials require different methodologies
due to differing economic situations in different districts.
5.2. Enhancing source separation and recycling
Waste minimization and recycling will remain a major challenge
in the future. Although current waste scavenging in China could
contribute to conservation of resources, the most important driving
force for changing the current collection method should be based
on the consideration of systematic waste separation, which is
a critical component of a successful integrated waste management
system and enables better financing of waste management
activities while minimizing the energy and labor inputs to any
downstream process.
There are several major factors which can improve the practical
application of the source separation system and recycling at the
household level in China. First the sorting method should be
well-defined as residents are easily confused by the general
concepts (e.g., recyclables and non-recyclables, combustible and
non-combustible materials). Wang et al. (2008) indicated that
unlike the traditional transfer station which sorts and recycles
municipal waste such as waste glass, plastic and paper, residents
may be encouraged to sort their waste as food waste, dry waste and
harmful waste in the future. Second, high water content waste
should be separated from the recyclables to make recovery easier.
The high moisture content of MSW is regarded as one of the
greatest concerns, as the high moisture content of MSW not only
poses difficulties for the recovery of recyclable materials, but also
increases the amount of leachate in landfills and reduces the net
caloric value of MSW for incineration. Third, compatible facilities
for separated waste treatment streams need to be better developed.
In addition, the recycling industry needs to be improved
through increased professionalization, improved product stan-
dards, market development and better operating standards.
Moreover, increasing the accessibility of recycling facilities should
be considered as an important factor to increase Chinese recycling
behavior, and simple and convenient methods of separating and
storing recyclable waste should be conveniently located preferably
at the individual floors of residents’ blocks. Hence, the use of
different containers with different identifying colours located in
residential areas for source separation to minimize waste and
maximizing recycling is recommended. However, the collection
vehicles and the collection methods have not been able to accom-
modate this new innovation. In addition, education about waste
sorting and recycling is necessary to promote this policy.
5.3. Improving design of landfill disposal
The design of appropriate landfill technology demands
a comprehensive approach for alternatives, including in recent
years, the management of greenhouse gas emissions. In a compar-
ative study of MSW management in industrialized countries and
newly industrialized nations, Tränkler (2002) suggested that pre-
treatment of solid waste is an option among others. The author
indicated that pre-treatment processes might include mechanical
and biological treatment. Mechanically pretreated waste acceler-
ates degradation in landfills by reducing the size of material
particles and promoting rapid organic decomposition. And bio-
logical pre-treatment of solid waste is claimed to have advantages
such as shortening of the monitoring period, producing of better
quality leachate requiring less or no treatment, reducing of green-
house gas production rates, and reducing of the filling up of useful
space in the landfill due to better compacted waste. Visvanathan
et al. (2004) also indicated that the most common pre-treatment
practiced method in Asian countries is composting. However, pre-
treatment prior to landfilling needs to be tested and be appropri-
ately adapted to the local conditions, e.g., waste composition and
climatic conditions.
In the future, China also needs to improve the criteria for liners
and leachate collection systems to assure appropriate technology
investment. Simple approaches using several important indicator
parameters may yield better results. For instance, monitoring
chemical oxygen demand (COD), total nitrogen, and selected heavy
metal levels may increase understanding of the pollution potential
in the landfills and provide an early warning for groundwater
contamination. In addition, as anaerobic decomposition of MSW in
the landfill generates relatively large amounts of greenhouse gases,
 D.Q. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1623e1633
properly controlled and engineered landfills may need in the future
to incorporate appropriate designs to reduce methane emissions.
5.4. Improving disposal level
The overall MSW treatment rate is 62% in 2007 in China (see
Table 6). The relatively low disposal levels of MSW are related to
under-capitalization. In 2002, aggregate investment in MSW
disposal facilities was about 0.3 billion Yuan (0.043 billion US$)
(Huang et al., 2006), and despite the fact that the Chinese
government has put great efforts more recently in investing in
MSW facilities, the overall MSW treatment capacity has proved
insufficient. Even in the capital of China (Beijing), the total capacity
of the treatment facilities cannot satisfy the need of MSW treat-
ment, and many of establishments must have been over-utilized to
exceed their design capacity (Xiao et al., 2007). It is apparent that
a lack of financial support from the centralized municipal budget is
a tremendous obstacle for the local waste collection system
resources to cope with the increasing amount of waste produced.
The proportion of funding allocated for sanitation and environ-
mental protection in China is even much lower when compared
with other developed countries. Therefore, China’s national and
local governments should encourage investment in solid waste
management from the local private sector.
A sustainable MSW management system requires the develop-
ment of an effective working partnership among various stake-
holders concerned with MSW management (Taylor, 1999;
Pfammatter and Schertenleib, 1996). A limited and unsuccessful
integration or cooperation between public and private sectors
create MSW operational difficulties and weaken the efficiency of
MSW management. In the future, all stakeholders should be
encouraged to participate in the decision-making process con-
cerning MSW management so as to achieve sustainable MSW
management. In particular, the contribution of the private sectors
to MSW management needs to be officially recognized, and incor-
poration of private stakeholders into the overall stakeholder part-
nership should be in place. The private sector should be encouraged
to manage its business independently, while at the same time,
regulation and control by the local government is essential to
monitor the overall performance of the private sector.
China also needs to seek foreign investment and attract inter-
national services, outsourcing contracts, and enhance its coopera-
tion with foreign companies. In the past decade, although foreign
technologies have made wide appearance in some markets, the
MSW sector itself is still very hard to enter. Also in the past, the
main involvement of foreign companies’ has been the provision of
technology, equipment, and services, rather than MSW manage-
ment itself. In the future, involvement and collaboration of the
foreign sector will play a significant role as a catalyst to improve
waste handling and disposal operations.
5.5. Improving waste levying/charging fee system
Improving the waste fee levying system can be helpful in
providing financial support for existing urban solid waste disposal
through financing programs as well as reducing the quantity of
urban solid waste generated in China (Xiao et al., 2007). Raising
waste collection and disposal fees can recover the costs and raise
funds for the investment in new facilities. In addition, the tradi-
tional charging fee system in China is a flat fee system, and the fee
has to be paid regardless of the use of the service. Such a strict flat
rate approach is not recommended as it is contrary to the “polluter
pays” principle and is unable to create economic incentives for
waste producers to reduce and recover waste. Although a weight/
volume-based Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) system will likely increase
1631
a waste management agency’s administrative costs and cause
illegal dumping, as well as provide difficulties in identifying the
amount of waste generated by individual residents, such a system
can, to a great extent, generate the economic incentives among
households to reduce waste generation. Pilot projects and
successful experience adopting PAYT system should be promoted in
the future.
Another challenge is the way in which the waste disposal fee can
be charged efficiently and effectively, as well as how to accurately
value an appropriate price scale for all social costs including envi-
ronmental damage. It is apparent that no single calculation can
comprehensively cover all of the social costs of the disposal of the
waste, and this has posed a significant challenge for decision-
making on the level of waste disposal fees that may be charged to
the households. A low municipal community hygiene maintenance
fee, on one hand, cannot relieve the municipal government’s
financial pressure concerning MSW treatment operations; and
additionally, households may not have adequate economic incen-
tive to keep waste generation low and to modify their waste
management behavior and decisions. In contrast, too high a waste
disposal fee may create a significant chance of an unexpected and
unacceptable level of illegal waste dumping. In addition, in
imposing waste disposal fees among all households in China, the
problem of distributional equity might take place. It is unfair to
impose a waste disposal fee for low-income families when their
livelihood is already poorly maintained. On the other hand, some
households may also be encouraged by the adoption of a waste
disposal fee, and make use of the chance to “buy their rights to
generate waste”. Therefore this equity problem needs to be taken
into account.
5.6. Improving the balance between state and the local levels
A sustainable MSW management system also requires decen-
tralization, which is an essential element and can bring decision-
making close to the people and result in the provision of levels of
services that the community can afford and maintain (Chen, 2006).
However, under the long-term dominance of a planned economy,
all decisions and resources concerning MSW operation and main-
tenance in China are highly centralized within the state govern-
ment and SEPA, which deeply degrades the incentives of the
stakeholders from the lower levels, e.g., Municipal Sanitation
Bureau (MSB), District Sanitation Bureau (DSB), regional EPA, etc.,
to carry out efficient and effective MSW management. In the
traditional top-down planning methods, state government formu-
lates plans at a national level and requires the compliance from the
lower levels. In practice, it is difficult for the lower levels to adhere
strictly to the directive from the state government because of
limited legislative freedom, and differing goals and perceptions.
Therefore, with the view for more efficient MSW management
in China, it is important to appropriately distribute responsibilities,
authorities, jurisdiction, functions, rights and capacity for
empowerment, to the proper levels of the various regulating
authorities. In order to achieve a higher efficiency for all stake-
holders, overlapping of the responsibilities and functions among
different institutions in the public sector should be overcome, and
the roles and responsibilities at all institutional levels should be
clarified.
6. Conclusion
Over the last two decades, as a result of the rapid urbanization,
economic development and population growth in China, total
waste generation has increased greatly. Some key findings and
challenges are outlined below.
1632 D.Q. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1623e1633
1. As an informal system of MSW management still plays
a significant role in China, local governments there should
consider organizing and managing this informal system so that
it can be better regulated by municipal institutions.
2. Systematic waste separation is a critical component of
a successful integrated waste management system, and waste
needs to be sorted at the source as much as possible in order to
reduce the amount of waste requiring disposal. Organic waste
with high moisture content should be separated from
recyclables.
3. Minimizing waste generated and maximizing recycling will
remain major challenges in the future. The recycling industry in
China needs to be improved through increased professionali-
zation, market development, and clearer operating standards.
More accessible recycling facilities, and the use of colour-coded
containers for designated waste types, need to be provided and
publicized to promote recycling behaviors.
4. Landfilling is the predominant means of disposal of MSW now
in China. Approximately 90% of China’s total MSW is disposed
of in sanitary and simple landfills. The criteria for liners and
leachate collection systems need to be improved, and the
practice of landfill leachate treatment should be markedly
increased.
5. Improving MSW management in China can be achieved by
various financial mechanisms. Foreign investment and inter-
national services might be more utilized. These include
outsourcing contracts, e.g., international loans and build-
operate-transfer (BOT) modes are used now in some landfill
projects in China. In the future, all stakeholders should be
encouraged to participate in the decision-making process
concerning MSW management.
6. Currently, there is no limitation on the amount of residential
solid waste generated, and the convenience of waste disposal is
responsible for more solid waste generation. Improving the
waste fee levying system, and raising waste collection and
disposal fees can recover the costs and raise funds for invest-
ment in new facilities. It can also be helpful in providing
financial support for existing waste disposal facilities, and
promote adequate economic incentives for the public to reduce
MSW generation and modify their waste management
behaviour.
References
Abu Qdais, H.A., Hamonda, M.F., Newham, J., 1997. Analysis of residential solid
waste at generation sites. Waste Management and Research 15, 395e406.
Bai, R., Sutanto, M., 2002. The practice and challenges of solid waste management in
Singapore. Waste Management 22, 557e567.
Chen, K., 2006. Controlling Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Over-generation with
a “Waste Disposal Fee” Based on an Efficient Stakeholder Partnership e A Case
Study in the Old City of Ningbo. Master thesis, LUMES e Lund University
International Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability
Science.
Cheng, H.F., Zhang, Y.G., Meng, A.H., Li, Q.H., 2007. Municipal solid waste fueled
power generation in China: a case study of waste-to-energy in Changchun City.
Environmental Science and Technology 41, 7509e7515.
China Statistical Yearbook, 2001e2007.
Chung, S.-S., Poon, C.-S., 2001. A comparison of waste-reduction practices and new
environmental paradigm of rural and urban Chinese citizens. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Management 62, 3e19.
Chung, S.S., Lo, C.W.H., 2008. Local waste management constraints and waste
administrators in China. Waste Management 28, 272e281.
Dennison, G.J., Dodda, V.A., Whelanb, B., 1996. A socio-economic based survey of
household waste characteristics in the City of Dublin, Ireland. Waste Compo-
sition, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 17, 227e244.
Dong, S., Tong, K.W., Wu, Y., 2001. Municipal solid waste management in china:
using commercial management to solve a growing problem. Utilities Policy 10,
7e11.
Fung, S.F., 1999. Handling the Municipal Solid Waste in China e A Case Study of
Policies for “white Pollution” in Beijing. Master thesis, International Institute for
Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Lund University.
Geng, Y., Zhu, Q.H., Haight, 2007, 2007. Planning for integrated solid waste
management at industrial park level: a case of Tianjin, China. Waste Manage-
ment 27, 141e150.
He, P.J., Zhang, H., Zhang, C.G., Lee, D.J., 2004. Characteristics of air pollution control
residues of MSW incineration plant in Shanghai. Journal of Hazardous Materials
B116, 229e237.
Hong, R.J., Wang, G.F., Guo, R.Z., Cheng, X., Liu, Q., Zhang, P.J., Qian, G.R., 2006. Life
cycle assessment of BMT-based integrated municipal solid waste management:
case study in Pudong, China. Resource, Conservation and Recycling 49,
129e146.
Hu, D., Wang, R., Yan, J., Xu, C., Wang, Y., 1998. A pilot ecological engineering project
for municipal solid waste reduction, disinfection, regeneration and industrial-
ization in Guanghan City, China. Ecological Engineering 11, 129e138.
Huang, Q.F., Wang, Q., Dong, L., Xi, B.D., Zhou, B.Y., 2006. The current situation of
solid waste management in China. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management 8, 63e69.
Ishigaki, T., Inanc. B., Okhouchi, Y., Mohri, S., Yamada, M., Inoue, Y., Kazakai, T.,
Nagamori, M., Ono, Y., 2002. Relationship between gas flux and ground
temperature on a surface of a waste landfill site. In: Proceeding of the
Second Asia Pacific Landfill Symposium, September 25e28, Seoul, Korea, pp
477e481.
Jiang, J.G., Lou, Z.Y., Ng, S., Ciren, L., Ji, D., 2009. The current municipal solid waste
management situation in Tibet. Waste Management 29, 1186e1191.
Ko, P.S., Poon, C.S., 2009. Domestic waste management and recovery in Hong Kong.
Journal of Mater Cycles Waste Management 11, 104e109.
Li, Z.S., Yang, L., Qu, X.Y., Sui, Y.M., 2009. Municipal solid waste management in
Beijing City. Waste Management 29, 2596e2599.
Li, M., Hu, S., Xiang, J., Sun, L., Li, P., Su, S., Sun, X., 2003. Characterization of fly ashes
from two Chinese municipal solid waste incineration. Energy and Fuels 17,
1487e1491.
Liu, Z.Q., Liu, Z.H., Li, X.L., 2006. Status and prospect of the application of municipal
solid waste incineration in China. Applied Thermal Engineering 26, 1193e1197.
Ministry of Construction P.R.C., 2007.
Mo, H.P., Wen, Z.G., Chen, J.N., 2009. China’s recyclable resources recycling system
and policy: a case study in Suzhou. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53,
409e419.
National Environment Agency (NEA), Singapore, 2008 Available from: http://app2.
nea.gov.sg/index.aspx (accessed 20.05.09).
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2005. Envi-
ronment Data: Compendium 2005 Available from: http://www.oecd.org/
dataoecd/22/58/41878186.pdf (accessed 02.11.09).
Pfammatter, R., Schertenleib, R., 1996. Non-governmental Refuse Collection in Low-
income Urban Areas: Lesson Learned from Selected Schemes in Asia, Africa, and
Latin America. SANDEC Report 1/96. Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental
Science and Technology, Dubendorf, Switzerland.
Qu, X.Y., Li, Z.S., Xie, X.Y., Sui, Y.M., Yang, L., Chen, Y., 2009. Survey of composition
and generation rate of household wastes in Beijing, China. Waste Management
29, 2618e2624.
Raninger, B., March 25, 2009. Management and Utilization of Municipal and Agri-
cultural Bioorganic Waste in Europe and China. Workshop in School of Civil
Environmental Engineering. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Rissane, J., Naarajärvi, T., 2004. China Waste Management. Working Paper for
Streams Technology Programme.
Ross, J., 2008. Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Hong Kong and Taiwan - A
China Environmental Health Project Research Brief. Environmental Health
Research Briefs and Fact Sheet (1008/2009). Produced as Part of the China
Environment Forum’s partnership with Western Kentucky University on the
USAID-supported China Environmental Health Project (CEHP) Available from:.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/docs/taiwan_hk_trash_mar08.pdf
(accessed 20.05.09).
Sakai, S., Sawell, S.E., Chandler, A.J., Eighmy, T.T., Kosson, D.S., Vehlow, J., van der
Sloot, H.A., Hartlen, J., Hjelmar, O., 1996. World trends in municipal solid waste
management. Waste Management 16 (5/6), 341e350.
Solenthaler, B., Bunge, R., 2006. Waste Incineration in China. HSR Hochschule fuer
Technik, Rapperswil, Swiss, Institut fuer angewandte Umwelttechnik (Institute
for Applied Environmental Technology).
Taylor, D.C., 1999. Mobilizing resources to collect municipal solid waste: illustrative
East Asian case studies. Waste Management Research 17, 263e274.
Tchobanoglus, G., Theisen, H., Vigil, S.A., 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management:
Engineering Principles and Management Issues. In: McGraw Hill for Mainland
China Edition (Ed.). McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., and Tsinghua University
Press, Beijing, China.
Tränkler, J., 2002. A Comparison of the Solid Waste Management of Industrialized
Countries and Newly Industrialized Nations e Recent Trend, Lessons Learned
and Options for Future Development. International Symposium on the Tech-
nology and Management of the Treatment and Reuse of the Municipal Solid
Waste, Shanghai, China, 2002.
Troschinetz, A.M., Mihelcic, J.R., 2009. Sustainable recycling of municipal solid
waste in developing countries. Waste Management 29, 915e931.
Vehlow, J., 1996. Municipal solid waste management in Germany. Waste Manage-
ment 16, 367e374.
Visvanathan, C., Tränkler, J, Basnayake, B.F.A., 2004. Landfill management in
Asia e notions about future approaches to appropriate and sustainable
solutions. In: Tenth International Waste Management and Landfill Sympo-
sium, Sardinia.
 D.Q. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1623e1633
Wang, H., Nie, Y., 2001. Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in
China. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 51 (2), 250e263.
Wang, J., Han, L., Li, S., 2008. The collection system for residential recyclables in
communities in Haidian District, Beijing: a possible approach for China recy-
cling. Waste Management 28, 1672e1680.
World Bank, 2005. Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations.
Urban Development Working Papers 9. East Asia Infrastructure Department.
Xiao, Y., Bai, X., Ouyang, Z., 2007. The composition, trend and impact of urban
solid waste in Beijing. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 135,
21e30.
Xu, W.L., Li, J.H., Higuchi, S., 2006. Review and Forecast on MSW Treatment and
Landfill Technology in China. http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl¼en&source¼
hp&q¼reviewþandþforecastþonþmswþtreatmentþandþlandfillþtechnologyþ
inþChinaþ%28pdf%29&meta¼&aq¼f&oq¼ (accessed on 20.11.09).
Xue, B., Chen, X.P., 2007. Analysis of transition process from waste management
towards resource management system. Wireless Communications, Networking
and Mobile Computing, 2008, Fourth International Conference, 12e14 Oct, 2008.
Yuan, H., Wang, L., Su, F., Hu, G., 2006. Urban solid waste management in
chongqing: challenge and opportunities. Waste Management 26, 1052e1062.
1633
Zerbock, O., 2003. Urban Solid Waste Management: Waste Reduction in Developing
Nations. Written for the Requirements of CE 5993 Field Engineering in the
Developing World. Michigan Technological University.
Zhan, L.T., Chen, Y.M., Ling, W.A., 2008. Shear strength characterization of municipal
solid waste at the Suzhou Landfill, China. Engineering Geology 97, 97e111.
Zhao, W., Voet, E., Zhang, Y., Huppes, G., 2009a. Life cycle assessment of municipal
solid waste management with regard to greenhouse gas emissions: case study
of Tianjin, China. Science of the Total Environment 407, 1517e1526.
Zhao, Y., Wang, H.T., Lu, W.J., 2009b. Life-cycle assessment of the municipal solid
waste management system in Hangzhou, China. Waste Management Research
27, 399e406.
Zhu, M.H., FanXi, M., Rovetta, A., He, Q., Vicentini, F., Liu, B.K., Giusti, A., Liu, Y., 2009.
Municipal Solid Waste Management in Pudong New Area, China. Waste
Management 29, 1227e1233.
Zhuang, Y., Wu, S.W., Wang, Y.L., Wu, W.X., Chen, Y.X., 2008. Source separation of
household waste: a case study in China. Waste Management 28, 2022e2030.
Zurbrügg, C. Urban solid waste management in low-income countries of Asia e how
to cope with the garbage crises. Urban Solid Waste Management Review
Session, Durban, South Africa, November 2002.