See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321422346

The impact of socioeconomic factors on municipal solid waste generation in

São Paulo, Brazil

Article  in  Waste Management & Research · January 2018

DOI: 10.1177/0734242X17744039

CITATIONS READS

18 770

2 authors:

Victor Hugo Argentino de Morais Vieira Dácio Roberto Matheus

Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC) Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC)
4 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   367 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Integrated sustainable waste management: social factors, regional planning and organic valorization of municipal solid waste in tropics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Victor Hugo Argentino de Morais Vieira on 24 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The impact of socioeconomic factors on municipal solid waste

generation in São Paulo, Brazil

Victor Hugo Argentino de Morais Vieira

Environmental Science and Technology Graduate Program, Federal University of ABC,

Santo André, São Paulo, Brazil

Dácio Roberto Matheus

Centre of Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences; Federal University of

ABC, Santo André, São Paulo, Brazil

Corresponding author: Victor Hugo Argentino de Morais Vieira

Avenida dos Estados, 5001 – 09210-170 - Santo André, SP – Brazil

Telephone: 55 11 4996-8240

Email: victor.argentino@ufabc.edu.br

Please, cite this article as: VIEIRA, Victor H. Argentino de Morais; MATHEUS, Dácio R. The

impact of socioeconomic factors on municipal solid waste generation in São Paulo,

Brazil. Waste Management & Research, v. 36, n. 1, p. 79-85, 2018.

The final version is available at journal website:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734242X17744039
Abstract: Social factors have not been sufficiently explored in municipal solid waste management

(MSWM) studies. Latin America has produced even fewer studies with this approach; technical and

economic investigations have prevailed. We explored the impacts of socioeconomic factors on municipal

solid waste (MSW) generation in Greater Sao Paulo, which includes 39 municipalities. We investigated

the relations between MSW generation and social factors by Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The

Student’s t-test (at p < 0.01) proved significance, and further regression analysis was performed with

significant factors. We considered 10 socioeconomic factors: population, rural population, density, life

expectancy, education (secondary, high and undergraduate level), income per capita, inequality and

human development. A later multicollinearity analysis resulted in the determination of inequality (rp =

0.625) and income per capita (rp = 0.607) as major drivers. The results showed the relevance of

considering social aspects in MSWM and isolated inequality as an important factor in planning.

Inequality must be used as a complementary factor to income, rather than being used exclusively.

Inequality may explain differences of waste generation between areas with similar incomes because of

consumption patterns. Therefore, unequal realities demand unequal measures to avoid exacerbation,

for example, pay-as-you-throw policies instead of uniform fees. Unequal realities also highlight the

importance of tiering policies beyond the waste sector such as sustainable consumption.

Key-words: Socioeconomic factors; Waste generation; Inequality; Income; Integrated solid waste

management; Municipal solid waste; Sustainable consumption;

Introduction

Ma and Hipel (2016) showed that only 0.69% of municipal solid waste management (MSWM)

studies relate to social aspects. Few studies have considered policies, attitudes and behaviours, which

are important aspects of waste management failures (Van der Klundert and Anschütz 2001; Su et al.
2007). Latin America has produced the smallest number of studies concerning social aspects, almost 2

times less than Africa, which has produced the next smallest number.

Integrated Sustainable Waste Management (ISWM) offers a framework that aims to integrate a

diversity of factors in solid waste management. ISWM considers three dimensions: elements, aspects

(social, environmental, political, economic and institutional) and stakeholders (Schübeler1996; Van der

Klundert and Anschütz 2001; Wilson et al. 2012; Wilson et al. 2013).

The lens of ISWM provides an important approach for moving towards solutions involving

populations and stakeholders and acknowledges socio-cultural and other MSWM aspects (Van de

Klundert and Anschütz 2001; Wilson et al. 2012; Fischer et al. 2013). MSWM problems relate to more

than money and equipment; they include social and cultural relations of local society such as man-

woman relationships, education, and beliefs (Read 1999; Van de Klundert and Anschütz 2001; Coffey

and Coad 2010).

Social aspects are evident when recycling is the focus in developing countries. Low- and middle-

low-income countries have recycling rates of 85% only in the informal sector, in contrast to the formal

sector in high-income countries (Scheinberg et al. 2010; Wilson et al. 2012; Gupta et al. 2015).

Brazil, a middle-high-income developing country, is at the beginning of the struggle to overcome

the barriers of sanitation concerns in MSWM. A national framework law (Federal Law nº 12.305) was

only developed in 2010, after 20 years of debate in the national congress. The most relevant advance in

Brazil’s MSWM was biogas collection in controlled dumps and sanitary landfills (Jacobi and Besen 2011)

because recycling rates in the country do not yet exceed 3% (SNIS 2016). Efforts have been

concentrated on technical and economic aspects, except for informal-sector recycling incentives.
 Despite some advances towards enhancing environmental protection, rapid urbanization and

inequality in the developing world makes the collection of MSW even more difficult (Coffey and Coad

2010; Scheinberg et al. 2010; Marshalland Farahbakhsh 2013); this is the case in Greater Sao Paulo and

most metropolises in Latin America and Africa (UNDP 2015). The unsuccessful implementation of pure

technical engineering models to the developing world has spurred the development of the ISWM

framework. However, most efforts have not recognized local cultural characteristics or social dynamics

(Van der Klundert and Anschütz 2001; Guerrero et al. 2013; Wilson et al. 2013).

A variety of social, economic and cultural aspects have been appraised in the literature of MWSM.

Read (1999) noted the role of education in MSWM. Su et al. (2007) also highlighted the lack of

communications in not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) opposition to state-of-the-art incinerators in

unfavourable media coverage. MSWM systems have specific dynamics and are essentially local issues.

Tourism in Italy is an important driver (Mazzanti et al. 2008), as is immigration in Mexico (Buenrostro

and Bocco 2003) and the rainy season plus food availability in Africa (Getahun et al. 2012).

MSW generation is crucial for MSWM planning and is affected not only by deviation during time, as

for the factors previous mentioned, but also by individual characteristics. MSW generation changes

according to average family size (Ojeda-Benítez et al.2008; Khan et al 2016), energy source (Hoornweg

and Bhada-Tata 2012; Khan et al. 2016) and education (Sujauddin et al. 2008; Monavari et al. 2012).

Social, cultural and economic characteristics equally affect MSW composition (Sujauddin et al. 2008;

Hoornweg and Bhada-tata 2012; Wilson et al. 2012; Suthar and Singh 2015).

Although there are a variety of factors, studies have identified economic status as a major driver

positively correlated with municipal or household solid waste generation (Hockett et al. 1995; Sujauddin

et al. 2008; Afroz et al. 2011; Wilson et al. 2012; Guerrero et al. 2013). Income or sales are preferable to
per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in the estimation of MSW generation because they show

consumption ability more effectively (Hockett et al. 1995; Liu and Wu 2010; Wilson et al. 2012). This

trend characterizes our model of consumer society and makes MSW generation rates grow faster than

populations (Hoornweg and Bhada-tata 2012) because of rapid population growth and increased

unsustainable consumer practices, which raises MSW generation rates. Additionally, there is no

evidence of the decoupling effect between economic growth and waste generation; rather, a stability

point has been estimated (Mazzanti et al. 2008), with few exceptions (Monavari et al. 2012).

Environmental protection by regulation and public awareness has led developments in MSWM in

the recent history of developed countries (Wilson 2007),and understanding local social factors is vital to

implement successful regulatory systems. Successful systems involve extended producer responsibility

(EPR), landfill and incineration taxes and the pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) policy (Demajorovic 1995;

Olofsson et al. 2005; Fischer et al. 2013; Singh et al. 2014).

In Brazil, most work has focused on the role of community-based organizations for recycling. Few

studies have focused on the socioeconomic and cultural aspects of MSW generation (Melo et al. 2009;

Dias et al. 2012; Medeiros et al. 2015). MSWM advances demand studies to promote public policies in

developing countries (Wilson et al. 2013) because there are no “quick fixes” (Wilson 2007, p.205).

In this study, we investigated the impact of socioeconomic factors in MSW generation and their

consequences for waste planning. Our results may help not only Greater Sao Paulo but also other

developing metropolises and developed countries to consider the social dimensions in their MSWM.

Materials and Methods

Study area
 Greater Sao Paulo, or Sao Paulo’s Metropolitan Region, is the largest Brazilian metropolitan area

legally institutionalized by national law (Complementary Federal Law nº 24/1973). Greater Sao Paulo is

inside Sao Paulo State (see Figure 1). The region includes 39 municipalities with a variety of

socioeconomic statuses, including the capital, Sao Paulo. The area has 20.4 million habitants,

approximately 10% of the total national population and 20% of Brazil’s GDP in barely 0.1% of the

national land.The capital alone has 11.9 million habitants (IBGE, 2015a, 2015b). (Figure 1 here)

Figure 1: SPMR location, municipalities and respective MSW per capita generation rates.

Elaborated by authors based on SNIS (2016) data.

Data collection
 We collected socioeconomic data in the Atlas of Human Development in Brazil, which includes data

from municipalities based on the National Census of 2010 (UNDP et al. 2013). MSW generation data

were collected from Brazil’s National System of Information about Sanitation (SNIS 2016).

We considered 10 variables for correlation with MSW per capita generation. We considered

different socioeconomic dimensions, such as education, health, demography, economy and inequality

(Table 1), to evaluate the widest range of variables. (Table 1 here)

Table 1: Factors considered for analysis, description and distribution range at the municipal scale.

Factor Title Description Mean Value*

Population The number of live people (inhabitants) 584,240 ±
1,986,982
Population density The average number of people living in an area 3,444 ± 3,809
(hab/km²)
Rural population The proportion of people living in rural areas (%) 0.03 ± 0.1
Life expectancy Number of years of life expected at birth (years) 76 ± 1
Secondary Education The proportion of people who are more than 18 years 61 ± 6
old and have at least 8 years of study(%)
High Education The proportion of people who are more than 18 years 43 ± 7
old and have at least 12 years of study (%)
Undergraduate The proportion of people who are more than 25 years 11 ± 6
Education old and have an undergraduate degree (%)
Income per capita** The sum of all resident's income divided by population 854 ± 359
(R$ - Brazilian currency)
Inequality Income distribution of residents (Gini Index) 0.5 ± 0.1
M-HDI Municipal Human Development Index 0.76 ± 0.03
MSW generation The average MSW generation of residents in a day 0.9 ± 0.2
(kg hab-1 d-1)
* values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation to show variation within the metropolis.

** 1 US DOLLAR = 3.09 BRL by February 20, 2017

Source: UNDP et al 2013, except for MSW generation, which is from SNIS 2016.
Data Treatment and Statistical Analysis

We excluded doubtful data when the municipality provided per capita MSW generation outside

the range of the mean ± 3 standard deviations. Furthermore, municipalities with no weight machine in

waste facilities were excluded from analysis. This resulted in the exclusion of only one municipality:

Biritiba-Mirim. Three other municipalities did not provide information: Itaquaquecetuba, Mairiporã and

Salesópolis. Finally, final data was matched with environmental agency reports on waste facilities to

validate generation data.

The impact of factors was evaluated by correlation between the socioeconomic factors in Table 1

and MSW generation by means of Pearson’s correlation coefficients (rp). Student’s t-test (two-tailed) for

p < 0.01 and n=35 determined the significance of the correlations.

Finally, we crossed all socioeconomic factors by multicollinearity analysis, as well as by Pearson’s

correlation coefficients. This aided the exploration of factors that were correlated with others and thus

with MSW generation.

Results and Discussion

Significant socioeconomic factors

Student’s t-test showed that 6 out of 10 variables were significant (rp≥ 0.430 for p < 0.01, n=35), as

shown in Table 2. Only rural population was inversely correlated with MSW generation, which

demonstrated the rural characteristic of natural recycling routes predominantly for organic content, as

observed by Wilson et al. (2012) and Khan et al. (2016). Rurality proved not statistically significant
because of a limited number of municipalities with rural populations, although it might show important

dynamics in rural areas on further exploration. (Table 2 here)

Table 2: Correlation of socioeconomic factors and significance to MSW generation.

Factor Correlation (rp) Significance

Rural population -0,178 p > 0.05
Population Density 0,232 p > 0.05
Population 0,338 p < 0.05
Life expectancy 0,408 p < 0.05
High Education 0,432 p < 0.01
Secondary Education 0,436 p < 0.01
M-HDI 0,543 p < 0.001
Undergraduate Education 0,581 p < 0.001
Income per capita 0,607 p < 0.001
Inequality 0,625 p < 0.001

The results showed population to be insignificant to per capita MSW generation, which

corroborated other studies (Hocket et. al. 1995), although it is a common practice in the Brazilian public

sector (SNIS 2016). Education and economic dimensions have proven to be important factors for MSW

generation, as observed in other countries; however, inequality had the greatest correlation.

This suggests a question for further inquiry: does a single primary factor lead other factors to

correlate with MSW generation? Moreover, if it does spur correlation with other factors, what are they?

To explore this question, we determined the multicollinearity between significant factors presented in

Table 3. (Table 3 here)

Table 3: Multicollinearity analysis between significant socioeconomic factors.

Factor Undergraduate Ed. Income p. c. Inequality

Secondary Education 0,78 0,72 0,47
 High Education 0,84 0,77 0,49
M-HDI 0,92 0,89 0,66
Undergraduate Education - 0,97 0,77
Income per capita 0,97 - 0,79
Inequality 0,77 0,79 -
MSW generation 0,58 0,61 0,63
Correlations superior to 0.85 are in red and bold to display high collinearity.

Several studies have recognized economic status as the major driverof MSW generation (Hocket et

al. 1995; Sujauddin et al. 2008; Wilson et al. 2012; Guerrero e al. 2013). Our results corroborate this

conclusion, since income per capita had the second greatest correlation, but we also added inequality.

Moreover, income incorporates loadings of education and development as both presented high

collinearity with income in this study. High correlation between income and education reveals how

access to education in Brazil is restricted, primarily at the undergraduate level. Multicollinearity analysis

exposed income as a common cause. For example, if we had not performed this analysis, we would still

have considered income and education to be major drivers. Nonetheless, education was correlated to

MSW generation because of its prior relationship to income patterns.

In this context, inequality proved to be a new variable in addition to income per capita. Inequality

had the greatest correlation to MSW generation and low correlation to other socioeconomic factors,

even with income per capita. Therefore, we explore the importance of inequality and its relationship to

income in the next section.

The importance of inequality: a complement to income and a social dimension of waste

Income integrates the impact of different dimensions as a means of access to quality education

and health, typically in developing countries (OECD 2015; UNDP 2015). Nonetheless, income does not

express how it is distributed. (Figures 2 and 3 here, side by side)

Figure 2: MSW per capita generation and income. Figure 3: MSW per capita generation and inequality.

1,40 1,40
MSW generation per capita

1,20 1,20

MSW generation per capita

1,00 1,00
(kg hab-1 d-1)

0,80 0,80

(kg hab-1 d-1)

0,60 0,60
0,40 0,40
y = 0,0003x + 0,5826 y = 1,9435x - 0,0827
0,20 R² = 0,369 0,20
R² = 0,391
0,00 0,00
0 1000 2000 3000 0,3 0,5 0,7

Income per capita (R$) Gini index

Logarithmic and quadratic relationships between MSW generation and income (Mazzanti et al.

2008; Dias et. al. 2012; Wilson et. al. 2012) express the limitations of average per capita indicators.

Mean indicators underestimate the MSW generation of the richest regions and overestimate that of the

poorest regions, for example, the MSW generation in Derahun, India of 0.055 kg capita -1 day-1 (Suthar

and Singh 2015). Regression analysis did not prove significant differences in linear, logarithmic and

quadratic regression models in our area of study (see Table 4), probably because of the limited ranges of

income and inequality indexes.

The impact of inequality on MSW generation has also been observed within high-income countries

(Dorling 2014). Explanation of this effect relies on the fact that societies with higher inequality stimulate

consumption and produce more waste (Wilkinson and Pickett 2011; Dorling 2014). Wilkinson and

Pickett (2011) also associated higher recycling rates between more equal countries, such as Sweden and
Japan, when compared with the United States and Great Britain (the same countries appear in Dorling

2014 for MSW generation).(Table 4 here)

Table 4: Regression analysis using income per capita and inequality as explicative variables for MSW
per capita generation.

Variable Regression Equation R²

Linear y = 0,0003 x + 0,583 0,369
Income per capita (R$) Quadratic -7
y = 3x10 x² + 0,0009 x + 0,029 0,413
Logarithmic y = 0,363 ln(x) - 1,600 0,406
Linear y = 1,943 x - 0,083 0,391
Inequality (Gini Index) Quadratic y = 3,603 x² - 1,800 x + 0,872 0,400
Logarithmic y = 0,979 ln(x) + 1,575 0,380

Inequality ultimately complements income or other economic status; it summarizes income

distribution in society and social dynamics that encourages waste generation, limits access and hinders

policy implementation. Inequality must not be used by itself or it would fail. For example, consider a

perfectly equal society with high income. A model based only on inequality fails because consumption

still exists and, consequently, MSW generation. Moreover, inequality does not have the same flexibility

of income for use at different scales from person to country, continent or world; it depends on the

complex availability of data at a minimum territorial scale, which restricts its use.

How does inequality change waste management policies in Brazil and around the world? What are

the consequences of inequality on the waste sector? We discuss our findings and implications on

policies, particularly in the developing world, in the next section.

Contributions for ISWM: inequality in perspective

 Most MSWM systems have adopted non-integrated approaches, and integrated systems have

lately been developed to fill this demand (Morrissey 2004; Pires et al. 2011). The developing world has

introduced different scenarios and challenges for waste management, and non-integrated and pure

technical engineering systems have thus failed (Van der Klundert and Anschütz 2001; Morrissey

2004).Therefore, the social dimension plays a crucial role when elaborating policies. As considered here,

income inequality condenses a set of aspects of local social structure. Our results corroborate the

significance of inequality and the need for adopting inequality as a factor for ISWM.

Financial sustainability is a key aspect of good waste governance; however, the affordability for a

population must be evaluated (Wilson et al. 2012). Brazil, most Latin American countries and developing

countries face high inequality rates (OECD 2015; UNDP 2015), and such unequal conditions require

unequal policies to address them. Based on this premise, Chu et al. (2016) showed how differentiated

taxes in waste generation blocks may efficiently reduce waste generation and advance environmental

justice. This model reduces the burden of low-income families, which have less disposable income.

Almost 60% of Brazilian municipalities do not have waste fees, and within the 40% that do, not even 1%

have specific waste fees that include other urban services such as property taxes, waste, fresh water

and sewage fees (SNIS 2016).

Waste fees should be levied via PAYT policies in volume-based models, which have been successful

policies in other countries (Dahlén and Lagerkvist 2010; Park and Lah 2015). Moreover, other policies

should focus on mechanisms, such as landfill taxes and extended producer responsibility, to achieve

environmental protection.

Conclusion
 The analysis of social aspects at the local level has proven essential for the design of consistent

policies and plans. This consideration guarantees higher efficiency and effective paths towards

sustainable solutions. Technological and economic analysis would not provide the results achieved in

this study.

Inequality was introduced as an important factor for MSW generation that complements income

and other individual economic indicators. By so incorporating inequality, waste fees should be levied via

PAYT systems to not overwhelm the poorest people. Inequality impacts in MSW generation and MSWM

dynamics, as well as the impacts of other social factors, must be better explored in future worldwide

research.

Combatting inequality does not belong to the range of waste policies, although its impact should

be better assessed. Combatting inequality shows the importance of tiered policies in social and

environmental dimension, as sustainable consumption and inequality struggle in the search for

sustainable development.

References

Afroz, R., Hanaki, K., &Tudin, R. (2011). Factors affecting waste generation: a study in a waste

management program in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 179(1-4),

509-519.

Buenrostro, O. & Bocco, G. (2003). Solid waste management in municipalities in Mexico: goals and

perspectives. Resources, conservation and recycling, 39(3), 251-263.

Coffey, M & Coad, A., (2010). Collection of Municipal Solid Waste in Developing Countries. UN-HABITAT,

Malta, 2010: http://www.eawag.ch/fileadmin/Domain1/Abteilungen/sandec/E-

Learning/Moocs/Solid_Waste/W1/Collection_MSW_2010.pdf (Accessed December 20, 2016)

Chu Z., Wu Y. &Zhuang J. (2016).Municipal household solid waste fee based on an increasing block

pricing model in Beijing, China. Waste Management & Research. First published date: December-15-

2016. doi: 10.1177/0734242X16681462

Dahlén, L., & Lagerkvist, A. (2010). Pay as you throw: strengths and weaknesses of weight-based billing

in household waste collection systems in Sweden. Waste management, 30(1), 23-31.

Demajorovic, J. (1995). Da políticatradicional de tratamento do lixo à política de gestão de

resíduossólidos as novasprioridades (From tradicional policy of refuse treatment to waste management

policy: new priorities). Revista de Administração de Empresas, 35(3), 88-93.

Dias, D. M., Martinez, C. B., Barros, R. T. V., &Libânio, M. (2012). Modelo para estimativa da geração de

resíduossólidosdomiciliaresemcentrosurbanos a partir de

variáveissocioeconômicasconjunturais. EngenhariaSanitária e Ambiental, 17 (3), 325-332.

Dorling, D. (2014). Inequality and the 1%. New York, USA and London, UK. Verso Books.

Fischer, C., Gentil, E., Ryberg, M., & Reichel, A. (2013). Managing municipal solid waste-a review of

achievements in 32 European countries. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark:

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste (Accessed December 10,

2016)
Getahun, T., Mengistie, E., Haddis, A., Wasie, F., Alemayehu, E., Dadi, D. & Van der Bruggen, B. (2012).

Municipal solid waste generation in growing urban areas in Africa: current practices and relation to

socioeconomic factors in Jimma, Ethiopia. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 184 (10), 6337-

6345.

Guerrero, L. A., Maas, G., &Hogland, W. (2013). Solid waste management challenges for cities in

developing countries. Waste management, 33(1), 220-232

Gupta, N., Yadav, K. K., & Kumar, V. (2015). A review on current status of municipal solid waste

management in India. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 37, 206-217.

Hockett, D., Lober, D. J., & Pilgrim, K. (1995). Determinants of per capita municipal solid waste

generation in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Environmental Management, 45(3), 205-217.

Hoornweg, D. & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: a global review of solid waste

management. Urban development series knowledge papers, 15, 1-98.

IBGE (2015a). Brazilian Institute of Statistics and Geography. Estimativa da

PopulaçãoResidentenosMunicípiosBrasileiros com data de Referência 1º de Julho de 2015. Rio de

Janeiro: IBGE, 2015:

ftp://ftp.ibge.gov.br/Estimativas_de_Populacao/Estimativas_2015/estimativa_2015_TCU_20160712.pdf

(Accessed December 10, 2016).

IBGE (2015b). Brazilian Institute of Statistics and Geography. Produtointernobruto dos municípios: 2010-

2013, Rio de Janeiro: IBGE, 2015:

http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/pibmunicipios/2010_2013/default.shtm (Accessed

December 10, 2016)

Jacobi, P. R., & Besen, G. R. (2011). Gestão de resíduossólidosem São Paulo: desafios da

sustentabilidade. EstudosAvançados, 25(71), 135-158.

Khan, D., Kumar, A., &Samadder, S. R. (2016). Impact of socioeconomic status on municipal solid waste

generation rate. Waste Management, 49, 15-25.

Liu, C., & Wu, X. W. (2010). Factors influencing municipal solid waste generation in China: A multiple

statistical analysis study. Waste Management & Research, 29(4), 371-378.

Ma, J., & Hipel, K. W. (2016). Exploring social dimensions of municipal solid waste management around

the globe–A systematic literature review. Waste Management, 56, 3-12.

Marshall, R. E., & Farahbakhsh, K. (2013). Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in

developing countries. Waste Management, 33(4), 988-1003.

Mazzanti, M., Montini, A., &Zoboli, R. (2008). Municipal Waste Generation and Socioeconomic Drivers:

Evidence From Comparing Northern and Southern Italy. The Journal of Environment &

Development, 17(1), 51-69.

Medeiros, J. E. D. S. F., Paz, A. R. D., Júnior, M., & de Araújo, J. (2015). Análise da evolução e

estimativafutura da massacoletada de resíduossólidosdomiciliares no município de João Pessoa e

relação com outros indicadores de consumo. EngenhariaSanitária e Ambiental, 20(1), 119-130.

Melo, L. A., Sautter, K. D., &Janissek, P. R. (2009). Estudo de cenários para o gerenciamento dos

resíduossólidosurbanos de Curitiba. EngenhariaSanitária e Ambiental, 14(4), 551-558.

Monavari, S. M., Omrani, G. A., Karbassi, A., &Raof, F. F. (2012). The effects of socioeconomic

parameters on household solid-waste generation and composition in developing countries (a case study:

Ahvaz, Iran). Environmental monitoring and assessment, 184(4), 1841-1846.

Morrissey, A. J., & Browne, J. (2004). Waste management models and their application to sustainable

waste management. Waste management, 24(3), 297-308.

OECD (2015). In it together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All, OECD Publising, Paris. http://www.oecd-

ilibrary.org/employment/in-it-together-why-less-inequality-benefits-all_9789264235120-en (Accessed

December 18, 2016)

Ojeda-Benítez, S., Armijo-de Vega, C., & Marquez-Montenegro, M. Y. (2008). Household solid waste

characterization by family socioeconomic profile as unit of analysis. Resources, Conservation and

Recycling, 52(7), 992-999.

Olofsson, M., Sahlin, J., Ekvall, T., & Sundberg, J. (2005). Driving forces for import of waste for energy

recovery in Sweden. Waste management & research, 23(1), 3-12.

Park, S., & Lah, T. J. (2015). Analyzing the success of the volume-based waste fee system in South

Korea. Waste Management, 43, 533-538.

Pires, A., Martinho, G., & Chang, N. B. (2011). Solid waste management in European countries: A review

of systems analysis techniques. Journal of environmental management, 92(4), 1033-1050.

Read, A. D. (1999). “A weekly doorstep recycling collection, I had no idea we could!”: Overcoming the

local barriers to participation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 26(3), 217-249.

Scheinberg A, Wilson DC and Rodic L (eds). (2010) Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities: Water

and Sanitation in World Cities. Earthscan for UN-Habitat, London, UK.

Schübeler, P., Christen, J., &Wehrle, K. (1996). Conceptual framework for municipal solid waste

management in low-income countries (Vol. 9). SKAT (Swiss Center for Development Cooperation).

Working paper series no. 9.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/829601468315304079/pdf/400960Municpal1te0framewo

rk01PUBLIC.pdf (Accessed December 19, 2016).

Singh, J., Laurenti, R., Sinha, R., &Frostell, B. (2014). Progress and challenges to the global waste

management system. Waste Management & Research, 32(9), 800-812

SNIS (2016). Brazil’s National System of Information about Sanitation. Diagnóstico do Manejo de

ResíduosSólidos Urbanos – 2014.– Brasília: MCIDADES.SNSA. http://www.snis.gov.br/diagnostico-

residuos-solidos/diagnostico-rs-2014. (Accessed December 10, 2016)

Su, J. P., Chiueh, P. T., Hung, M. L., & Ma, H. W. (2007). Analyzing policy impact potential for municipal

solid waste management decision-making: A case study of Taiwan. Resources, Conservation and

Recycling, 51(2), 418-434.

Sujauddin, M., Huda, S. M. S., & Hoque, A. R. (2008). Household solid waste characteristics and

management in Chittagong, Bangladesh. Waste Management, 28(9), 1688-1695.

Suthar, S. & Singh, P. (2015). Household solid waste generation and composition in different family size

and socio-economic groups: a case study. Sustainable Cities and Society, 14, 56-63.
 UNDP; IPEA; FJP (2013). Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano Municipal Brasileiro. – Brasília: PNUD, Ipea,

FJP, 2013. 96 p. – (Human Development Atlas in Brasil 2013).

UNDP (2015). Human Development Report 2015: Work for Human Development:

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_human_development_report_1.pdf (Accessed December

20, 2016)

Van de Klundert A & Anschütz J (2001) Integrated sustainable waste management – the concept.

Scheinberg A (ed.). Gouda, The Netherlands: WASTE.

http://www.rainfoundation.org/tools/downloads/tools_ISWMconcept.pdf (Accessed December 19,

2016)

Wilkinson, R.G., Pickett, K. (2011). The spirit level: why greater equality makes societies stronger. New

York, USA. Bloomsbury Press, ISBN : 978-1-6 0 819-34 1-7.

Wilson, D. C. (2007). Development drivers for waste management. Waste Management &

Research, 25(3), 198-207.

Wilson, D. C., Rodic, L., Scheinberg, A., Velis, C. A., & Alabaster, G. (2012). Comparative analysis of solid

waste management in 20 cities. Waste Management & Research, 30(3), 237-254.

Wilson, DC., Velis, CA, RODIC, L. (2013). Integrated sustainable waste management in developing

countries. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Waste and Resource Management, 166(2),

52-68.

View publication stats