Waste Management 23 (2003) 425–432

www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Solid waste management practices and review of recovery and

recycling operations in Turkey
E. Metin*, A. Eröztürk, C. Neyim
ÇEVKO, Environmental Protection and Packaging Waste Recovery . & Recycling Trust, Cenap Şehabettin Sokak No 94,
Koşyolu, Kadıköy, 81020 Istanbul, Turkey

Accepted 2 May 2003

Abstract
This paper provides a general overview of solid waste data and management practices employed in Turkey during the last decade.
Municipal solid waste statistics and management practices including waste recovery and recycling initiatives have been evaluated.
Detailed data on solid waste management practices including collection, recovery and disposal, together with the results of cost
analyses, have been presented. Based on these evaluations basic cost estimations on collection and sorting of recyclable solid waste
in Turkey have been provided. The results indicate that the household solid waste generation in Turkey, per capita, is around 0.6
kg/year, whereas municipal solid waste generation is close to 1 kg/year. The major constituents of municipal solid waste are organic
in nature and approximately 1/4 of municipal solid waste is recyclable. Separate collection programmes for recyclable household
waste by more than 60 municipalities, continuing in excess of 3 years, demonstrate solid evidence for public acceptance and
continuing support from the citizens. Opinion polls indicate that more than 80% of the population in the project regions is ready
and willing to participate in separate collection programmes. The analysis of output data of the Material Recovery Facilities shows
that, although paper, including cardboard, is the main constituent, the composition of recyclable waste varies strongly by the source
or the type of collection point.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Turkey. This study can be assumed as a summary of

Implementation of appropriate solid waste manage-
ment practices requires reliable waste statistics. The
data should represent a sufficiently long time frame
(usually more than a few years), with relatively short
measurement frequencies, to be statistically acceptable.
This manuscript is a product of an effort aimed to
review the existing data on solid waste management
(SWM) in Turkey. Since, solid waste management con-
stitutes one of the major Municipal expenditures; an
additional attempt was made to review the cost data of
solid waste management practices. The characteristics
and costs for managing solid waste alters from one
Municipal application to another and in addition to
demographic facts, it is also a factor of how cost and
solid waste terms are defined. Therefore, the authors
have made an attempt to consolidate some of the solid
waste data representing demographic and social facts of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-216-428-7890; fax: +90-216-
4287895.
URL: http://www.cevko.org.tr.
0956-053X/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0956-053X(03)00070-9
long-standing efforts in establishing reliable figures on
solid waste characteristics of Turkey.
2. Solid waste management in Turkey
2.1. Solid waste statistics
The State Institute of Statistics (SIS) has published
one of the major sources of information in solid waste
in Turkey. This extensive research published in 1993,
provides valuable data on compositional variations in
the household solid waste in Turkey (SIS, 1993). The
household solid waste data collected from 57% of
municipalities, corresponds to a sufficiently long sam-
pling time frame and statistically acceptable waste col-
lection frequencies. Therefore, almost all scientific
publications emanating from Turkey, reference this
important study. This particular data covers only solid
waste generated by individual households. The SIS also
published ‘‘Municipal Solid Waste’’ statistics in 1994
(SIS, 1994). The results of these two major studies are
426 E. Metin et al. / Waste Management 23 (2003) 425–432

summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Data indicates that the comprehensive and extensive data on solid waste, which
majority of the household waste in Turkey is organic in covers more than five years of continuous and detailed
nature, and that slag and ash constitute an important data collection process which constitutes an important
fraction. Because this study was conducted about eight reference for Turkey (BGCM, 2000). Also, some efforts
years ago, when coal heating used to be the dominant conducted by international agencies in southern parts
heating method employed in most of the households in and major cities of Turkey must be referred to as well
Turkey, recent studies should reflect significant varia- (IGCM, 2000; JICA, 2000). A summary of the data
tion in the characteristics of solid waste. Natural gas has gathered from these various resources are presented in
now become the major source of energy used for Table 3.
household heating, at least in major towns. Therefore, Table 3 shows that major constituents of the munici-
significant alterations in the household solid waste pal solid waste (MSW) are organic, whereas recyclable
characteristics in the recent years should be expected. materials constitute almost 1/3 of total MSW in big
Furthermore, the lack of periodicity in SIS studies cities. Another extensive municipal solid waste survey
remains to be the main problem in obtaining reliable conducted with Municipal Authorities in the Aegean
solid waste data in Turkey. coast of Turkey indicates the difference between big
Therefore, a survey with municipalities representing cities vs. small towns as well as peculiarities of touristic
some major large cities and with municipalities repre- towns (Kirkitsos et al., 2000). The results of this study
senting a group of small–medium towns constituting. a are shown in Table 4. The data summarized in Table 4
region
. has been conducted. We cite Bursa, I stanbul, shows the variation in MSW as well as the composi-
Izmir, Adana and Mersin as the sources of information tional characteristics of waste. In summary, three dif-
representing major cities utilized in this paper. The ferent groups of MSW data are provided in Tables 2–4.
Municipality of Bursa (an industrial town with a popu- The data corresponds to the nationwide research of SIS,
lation of two million people) has supplied the most long-term statistical data gathered from major cities of
Turkey, and a comprehensive regional data review
Table 1 focused on Aegean coast of Turkey. The comparative
Household solid waste (HSW) composition in Turkey (SIS, 1993) analysis of these three sets of data reflects the typical
Season HSW Organic and Ash and Recyclable variation of MSW based on the demographic, social
(kg/day) wet (%) slag (%) (%) and economic differences. Such differences are typical of
many developing countries (Sundaravadivel and Vig-
Summer 0.6 80.21 2.61 17.18
Winter 0.5 46.2 45.89 7.9
neswaran, 2002; Rüütelmann, 2002).
Average 0.57 68.87 17.04 14.09 However, most of the time, for general purposes,
overall figures reflecting the national average character-
istics of MSW are useful. If one needs an overall, well-
Table 2 rounded figures, which may represent the general char-
Municipal solid waste in Turkey (SIS, 1994)
acteristics of solid waste statistics in Turkey, we suggest
Municipal Treatment of solid waste that the data summarized in Table 5 is should be con-
solid waste sulted. The overall figures presented in Table 5 are
(kg/person-day) 1994 2001
based on an analytical review of several important and
Summer 0.9 acceptable data published by different sources and, in
Winter 1.0 % Landfill 4.7 15 the authors view, reflects the overall characteristics of
Average 0.97 % Composting 1.1 2.0
municipal solid waste in Turkey.

Table 3
Municipal solid waste composition in major cities of Turkey, (%, in weight)
. . . .
BURSA ISTANBUL
. IZMI
. R ADANA MERSIN
(Bursa Greatercity (Istanbul Greatercity (Izmir Greatercity (JICA, 2000) (JICA, 2000)
Municipality, 2000) Municipality, 2000) Municipality, 2000)

Population (1997) 1,958,529 9,198,809 3,114,859 1,682,483 1,508,232

Organic 53.1 43 46 64.4 63
Recyclable 36.4 33.9 31.0 25.2 29.4
Paper/board 18.4 7.8 12 14.8 18.42
Plastics 11.6 14.2 12 5.92 6.69
Metal 3 5.8 3 1.4 1.25
Glass 3.4 6.2 4 3.08 3.08
Others 10.5 23.1 23 11.4 7.6
 E. Metin et al. / Waste Management 23 (2003) 425–432 427

Table 4
Municipal solid waste (MSW) data in Aegean Coast of Turkey (Kirkitsos et al., 2000)

City MSW Waste composition%

(kg/day-capita)
Glass Metal Plastic Paper&Board Organic Ash&Slag Other

Çanakkale 1.12 2 1 3 7 80 4 3
Kuşadası-aydin 2.3 3.65 1.85 5.8 14.8 68 5.9
Manisa
. 1.95 1.09 2.1 4.45 1.52 62.61 20.32 7.91
Izmir 0.96 4 3 12 12 46 9 14
Balikesir 0.89 3 5 3 8 67 9 5
Muǧla 1 2 3 2 4 20 20 49
Average of six municipalities 1.37 6 4 8 12 49 12 9

Table 5 Table 6
Average municipal solid waste composition in Turkey, Interpretation Amounts of packaging waste (tons/year) placed in to market, and
from cited studies (%) estimated recovery and recycling figures for Turkey in 2000 (Metin et
al., 2001)
Large Medium Small towns
cities towns and villages Placed into Amount % Recycling
market recovered
Organic 45–50 50–55 60 (tons/year) (tons)
Recyclable 30–35 20–25 15
Others 20–25 25 25 Paper and board 1,850,000 700,000 36
Glass 350,000 80,000 25
Plastics 550,000 170,000 30
Metal 150,000 50,000 30
Based on these evaluations and interpretation of the Total 2,900,000 1,000,000 35
MSW in Turkey, it is concluded that the average per
capita MSW generation in Turkey can be assumed to be
0.95 kg/person-day. When it comes to compositional
characteristics of MSW, one should take in to account beyond the municipal solid waste management system;
the social and demographic factors of the individual however, due to similarities of the collection process of
town or village, etc. Regarding the compositional char- recyclable waste, it will only be mentioned briefly here.
acteristics of municipal solid waste, a general categorical Turkey, as one of the biggest steel scrap importers of the
approach such as large cities vs. small towns might be world, recycles more than 2 million tons of steel scrap
helpful as suggested in Table 5. However, if overall fig- annually. Recycling of nonferrous metals is also wide-
ures are required to reflect the compositional character- spread and conducted at industrial scale, including alu-
istics of MSW in Turkey, organic components can be minum, copper, lead and silver. The scrap metal
assumed to be 50–55%, whereas recyclable and others recycling industry essentially is built on small and med-
(ash and slag, dust etc.) can be assumed to be 20–25%. ium scale scrap dealers spread around the country. This
However, some correction is always required to accom- type of operation is also valid for most of collection and
modate the statistical variations arising from the specific recovery of recyclable MSW.
nature of waste sources, seasonal changes and demo- Recyclable household waste (i.e. mostly the packaging
graphic facts. For example, significant alterations may waste) is a major focus of this publication. Recovery of
be presented in tourist sites due to the condensed plastics, paper, glass and metal from municipal solid
population and the type of consumption during the waste is mostly conducted, as indicated above, by the
tourist season. scrap dealers and individual collectors (scavengers etc.).
These individual collectors and scrap dealers purchase
2.2. Solid waste recovery and recycling in Turkey the used packaging (mostly paper and cardboard) from
commercial units, markets and business centers and
Solid waste recovery and recycling has been a long- reprocess (sort and bale) these materials to sell directly
standing commercial activity in Turkey. Glass and to the industrial recycling facilities. In addition, scaven-
paper recycling have been conducted at industrial scales ging and collection from the waste bins is a widespread
since the 1950s (Neyim et al., 2001; Banar et al., 2001). activity. Since this type of collection and recovery pro-
With the recent investments in the recycling industry, cess is a part of ‘‘unregistered’’ economic activity, it is
almost all types plastic materials, glass, paper and difficult to specify figures reflecting actual collection and
metals can be recycled at industrial levels in Turkey. recovery. This is essentially a widespread collection and
Recycling of scrap metal should be considered at a scale recovery method utilized in Turkey. However, estimates
428 E. Metin et al. / Waste Management 23 (2003) 425–432
made by experienced individuals working in this field
indicates that total amount of MSW recovered in Tur-
key is probably over 1.0 million tons/year. This estima-
tion, together with the data showing the amount of
packaging and recyclable materials placed into market,
is shown Table 6.
As shown in Table 6, packaging waste recycling in
Turkey is well above 30%. However, most of these
activities operate within the hands of private entre-
preneurs and waste collectors working on streets and in
waste yards. This obviously is driven by the fact that a
strong used material market operates in Turkey as well
as by the limited economic conditions in the country
that provide an employment opportunity for this sector.
Paper and cardboard are collected through the scrap/
waste dealers and delivered to recycling facilities
nationwide. There exists approximately 30 medium to
large-scale paper recyclers operating with capacities
exceeding 50 tons/day. The output of these facilities is
mostly the packaging cardboard made out of recycled
paper. Glass recycling also works on the free market
principles, which is mostly operated by the Glassworks
Co. of Turkey, consuming more than 90% of the col-
lected used glass bottles. The collection and recovery
scheme is essentially the same as paper and cardboard
recovery. In addition to glass bottle banks well spread
in large cities, private entrepreneurs and scrap dealers
collect, sort and prepare used glass bottles for recycling.
There exist five major buy back centers and glass cullet
preparation units nationwide. Significant efforts have
been made, in recent years, to increase the number of
glass bottle banks and separate collection systems. The
plastics and metal packaging collection system is essen-
tially the same. PET recycling has been an industrial
activity since the establishment of a major PET recy-
cling plant in 1992. Currently, three industrial scale PET
recycling plants exist in Turkey with a total operating
capacity exceeding 25,000 tons per year. HDPE, LDPE
and PVC post-consumer bottle recycling has also been a
long-standing operation and have been evolving since
the oil crises in the 1970s. Several small-scale plastics
recyclers (like PVC recycling operations) exist, since
these facilities can be established with fairly low initial
investments. In summary a strong market demand exist
for almost all types of packaging waste, regardless of its
nature. Current scrap material prices are indicative of
the world market influences. However, glass, paper and
PET recycling are being conducted at fairly high indus-
trial capacities, which is another important recyclable
item in household solid waste. Used beverage and tin
cans are being recycled together with steel scrap by the
steel smelters. Several small-scale aluminum recyclers
are spread around the country; and a major aluminum
can recycler recently started operation in the western
part of Turkey with a capacity of 12,000 tons/year. Due
to the high intrinsic economic value of aluminum cans,
the aluminum collection and recycling rate is fairly high,
exceeding 60% recovery rate.
2.3. Separate collection of household packaging waste/
review of municipal programmes
Separate/curbside collection of the recyclable materi-
als has started within the last ten years in Turkey. Cur-
rently more than 60 municipal recovery programmes are
operational nationwide. These pilot programmes have
been a useful tool to develop relevant statistical basis
for solid waste recovery activities in Turkey; the data
has been summarized elsewhere (Neyim et al., 2001;
Banar et al., 2001; Metin and Yidit, 1997). In Table 7, a
list of municipal recovery programmes being imple-
mented in Turkey is given. This list also supplies the
data on the amount of used packaging material recov-
ered and recycled through these programmes. Data on
collection frequency is also given in this table, which
refers to a fairly long period of time, and therefore
represents a relatively high statistical significance.
The collection scheme is similar in all of the municipal
separate collection programmes and is based on the
weekly, commingled collection by plastic bags. Com-
mingled recyclable waste materials include plastic, glass,
metal, and paper. The collected packaging waste is
either transported to Material Recovery Facilities
(MRF) or is being handled by the individual private
waste contractors.
A continuous data collection process is typical for all
material recovery facilities and for weekly collection
programmes. Data is being collected in the form of the
amount of recyclable solid waste collected, sorted, and
recycled. Opinion surveys and analysis are conducted to
measure participation rate and attract public interest. In
Table 8, an attempt was made to summarize and cate-
gorize the packaging waste recovery data emanated
from these separate collection programmes. This data is
sorted with respect to the source of collection: house-
hold, commercial and tourist areas. The difference in the
composition of recovered materials is given in Fig. 1a
and b. These figures and data shown in Table 8 clearly
indicate the influence of the collection source to the
composition of recovered waste.
2.3.1. Influence of participation and awareness in
separate collection programmes
Public participation and awareness in municipal
recovery programmes has been an important issue in all
curbside/separate collection programmes. Several types
of tests and opinion poles have been conducted in order
to gain an insight to the role of public awareness in
these types of environmental programmes (Banar et al.,
2001; Metin et al., 2001). A good example of such com-
prehensive programmes has been implemented by a
joint effort of UNDP-CEVKO—local municipalities as
 E. Metin et al. / Waste Management 23 (2003) 425–432 429

a part of a programme in the earthquake-affected
regions of Turkey (CEVKO, 2000). This programme
covered 39,000 prefabricated temporary settlements and
approximately 130,000 people directly influenced from
the earthquake, after which solid waste management
has become a serious problem for municipalities. The
results as shown in Fig. 2a, demonstrate that even under
difficult living conditions, such as in temporary settle-
ments in the disaster region, regular citizens support
and participate in environmental actions especially
when properly informed. Furthermore, a detailed sur-
vey in Bursa Municipal Recovery Program as shown in
Fig. 2b, which covered 10,869 residents, has shown that
66.4% are aware of the separate collection and recovery
program and 51.8% are claiming regular and active
participation. Similar participation measurement polls
have shown that the overall participation rate varies
between 30 and 35% in other programs in Turkey.
ities. The first set of data was collected from 24 selected
Municipalities from the Aegean Coast of Turkey. The
survey includes only the collection and transport costs
of municipal solid waste. This data is provided in
Table 9, which was compared with the data collected
from other Municipal Authorities.
In order to make comparative assessment and gain
some commercial insight towards the separate collec-
tion programmes, cost data has been gathered from
separate collection programmes in Turkey. The data on
cost of collection and sorting has been summarized in
Tables 10 and 11, for a medium-to-large city. An average

2.3.2. Costs and financing of solid waste collection and

recovery operations in Turkey
Cost data on solid waste management in Turkey is
usually highly controversial and complicated due to the
nature of the subject. The cost data is further compli-
cated by the specifics of the Municipal Region and the
cost accounting methodology employed. However, here
we attempt to simplify some of the factors involved (by
separating out some cost build up operations) in order
to gain an overall assessment of MSW management cost
factors. In this section, two separate Municipal cost
analyses have been conducted. The first one covered
Municipal collection and transport costs whereas the
other one is essentially an economic performance analy-
sis of two small-medium scale material recovery facil-

Table 7
Scope and source of separate collection data used in this study (oper-
ated in cooperation with ÇEVKO and local municipalities)

Number of municipalities 31 Fig. 1. (a) Detailed compositional distribution of composition of

Number of households 186,311 recovered material, Kadıköy MRF output, average of 2 years of
Number of hotels 320 operation. Indicative of MRF output with collection dominantly from
Number of schools 237 commercial resources. (b) Detailed compositional distribution of
Number of commercials 179 composition of recovered material, Bakırköy MRF output, average of
Total waste collection (kg/month) 1,090,000 3 years of operation. Indicative of MRF output with collection dom-
inantly from residential resources.

Table 8
Composition of recyclable materials collected

Bakırköy Beşiktaş Marmaris Kadıköy Bursa

Source of Municipal Collection Residential Residential Touristic (Hotels) Commercial Residential+Commercial

Period of data 3 years 2 years 3 years 2 years 3 years
Data Collection Frequency Weekly Weekly Monthly Monthly Weekly
Paper and board 38% 52% 37% 74% 70%
Glass 32% 24% 25% – 9%
Metal 9% 6% 5% 2% 3%
Plastic 21% 18% 33% 24% 18%

Collection source: (Bakırköy/Kadıköy/Marmaris/Bursa). Collection frequency: Weekly, Data of 2 years operation.

430 E. Metin et al. / Waste Management 23 (2003) 425–432

population is estimated to be 1.0 million. Based on the

Fig. 2. (a) Results of public opinion and awareness survey, willingness to
participate in Municipal Recovery Programmes. Project Region: earth-
quake effected zone, no. of houses surveyed 2092, Representation over the
project region 31%. (b) Results of participation rate measurement in
separate collection, Project region, Bursa, 10869 houses surveyed.
detailed waste analysis, a cost/revenue analysis for a city
wide recycling programme is made.
The analysis given in Table 10 indicates that revenues
are sufficient to cover the general operational costs of
material recovery facilities if operated at full capacities.
Depending on the source composition or depending on
the collection method employed, a relatively acceptable
commercial profit can be retained. In Table 10, costs
items are categorized with different types of collection
methodology. Collections through bring-centers yields
relatively high investment costs and low operational
costs, whereas door-to-door collection of recyclable
materials by plastic bags has the lowest investment cost.
However the continuing consumption of plastic bags
yields relatively higher operational costs. These analyses
are found to be consistent with the data published by
Coopers and Lybrand (2000) and seem to be in line with
similar studies (Lund, 1993; EPA, 1997; White et al.,
1995). Obviously, the cost of separate collection, purely
on financial terms will be misleading since environ-
mental costs and benefits are not accounted for in sim-
ple financial evaluations. The results indicate that at
large scales of collection and sorting, market gains of

Table 9
Cost data for municipal solid waste collection and disposal, for some selected cities full scope of this survey comprises 24 cities

Population Waste collected Total Budget Distribution Costa

ton/year USD
Personnel Maintenance Operation Others USD/capita USD/ton
USD USD USD USD -Year -Year

Çanakkale 76,000 31,200 378,840 42% 40% 18% 0% 4.98 12.14

Manisa 214,000 153,000 1,533,790 7.17 10.02
Bandırma-balikesir 120,990 43,800 803,552 6.64 18.35
Mudla 43,000 15,840 566,207 58% 0% 42% 0% 13.17 35.75
Aydin 145,000 52,200 1,209,677 33% 25% 67% 15% 8.34 23.17
Average (of 24 towns in 66% 18% 14% 2% 14 27
Aegean Coast)
a
Municipal solid waste collection cost (inc. personnel, maintenance, operation etc.).

Table 10
Cost estimation for a medium sized city wide recycling programme for Turkey, with difficult collection methodology

Cost item/collection method Bring centers Plastic Bins Door-to-door, plastic bags

Investment cost (US$)

Cost period Invest. Invest. Invest.
Collection bins/units 1,500,000 980,000 0
Municipal trucks 560,000 750,000 750,000
MRF 650,000 650,000 650,000
Total 2,710,000 2,380,000 1,400,000

Operation costs (US$)

Cost period Monthly Monthly Monthly
Collection costs 26,000 34,000 28,000
Operational costs 38,500 25,500 78,000
MRF operation 60,000 60,000 60,000
Total 124,500 119,500 166,000

Assumptions: Population: 1.0 million, MSW: 1000 tons/day,% recyclable waste: 20% amount recycable waste: 200 tons/day, participation rate:
45%, material recovery: 90 tons/day.
 E. Metin et al. / Waste Management 23 (2003) 425–432
Table 11
Sales value of sorted material with different collection source
Material source Paper and Plastics
board
Sales value $/ton 80a 150a
Residential 38% 21%
Commercial 72% 26%
Composite 70% 18%
a
An average value is calculated based on the annual sales volume of sorted material: Paper and board in four categories, Plastics in five
categories, Metal in three categories and glass in two categories.
b
Glass is being collected through a bin system. Therefore glass is only accounted for in door-to-door residential collection programme.
the sold material are usually sufficient to support
the operational costs of material recovery facilities.
Additional costs due to separate collection and public
training processes are usually considered to be com-
pensated as an environmental benefit. These costs and
benefits must be studied through a life cycle approach,
which has been a topic of various publications. A
good summary of environmental benefits of material
recycling has been recently published by White et al.
(1995). Intensive efforts are being made by the
European Commission and European Countries in
order to assess the ‘‘value’’ of material recycling versus
other methods of waste management, such as land
filling, incineration, composting, etc (Coopers and
Lybrand, 2000; ECOTEC, 2000). The results indicate
that material recycling has the highest environmental
benefit. Therefore, the recent legislative proposals in the
European Union Packaging Waste Directive targets
higher recycling rates.
3. Conclusions
The review of municipal and household solid waste
statistics in Turkey indicates that average household
waste generation per capita is 0.6 kg/day and average
municipal solid waste is 0.95 kg/day. The composition
of municipal solid waste varies by the source of waste;
however in all cases organic constituents accounts for
more than 50% of municipal solid waste.
Material recovery data have been obtained from 31
municipal separate collection programmes, with data
period extending up to 5 years of collection and sorting
operations. These data clearly indicate that the compo-
sition of recovered material shows some variation
depending on the source (commercial, residential and
mixed) and the season of the year. However, regardless
of the source of collection, whether it is commercial,
residential or a tourist site, the majority of the material
collected is composed of paper and cardboard. Glass
packaging ranks second with an average of 20–25% (by
weight) and plastics constitute 15–20% of the outputs of
the material recovery facilities.
431
Metal Glass Average Total revenues
revenue $/ton $/month
120a 35a 96.25
9% 32% 83.9 170.000
b
2% 99 200.000
3% 9% 89.75 182.000
Public participation is an important element of all
municipal separate collection and recovery operations.
Several different types of opinion surveys and public
awareness measurement methods can be employed to
assess the level of public concern in waste management
issues. These surveys and analyses have consistently
indicated that the general public favors the separate
collection of recyclable solid waste in Turkey.
Detailed cost analyses have been performed in several
pilot programmes conducted. These evaluations have
indicate that material recovery facilities are usually self
sufficient if operated at their established capacities,
whereas initial investment to set up large-scale collec-
tion and recovery schemes still remains to be the major
barrier that the municipalities have to overcome.
References
Banar, M., Vardar, Ç., Malkoç, S., Şahin, A., Neyim, O.C., Eröztürk,
A., 2001. Recovery of campus solid wastes and as an example:
Anadolu University. In: 2nd International Packaging Congress and
Exhibition, Proceeding Book.
Bursa Greater City Municipality (BGCM), 2000. Separate Collection
and Recovery Projects, Feasibility Study.
CEVKO Trust, European Commission Humanitarian Organization
(ECHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2000.
Improving Solid Waste Management Services in the Earthquake
Affected Areas, Final Report.
Coopers and Lybrand, 2000. Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Different
Municipal Waste Management Systems; Objectives and Instruments
for the Year 2000. Office for the official Publication of the European
Communities, Luxembourg.
ECOTEC Research and Consulting, 2000. Beyond the Bin; The Eco-
nomics of Waste Management Options. Final Report to UK Waste
and Waste Watch.
EPA, 1997. Full Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Man-
agement, A Handbook (EPA 530-R-95-041).
Istanbul Greater City Municipality (IGCM), 2000. Solid Waste Sta-
tistics Report.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Kokusai Kogyo Co.
Ltd., January 2000. The Study on Regional Solid Waste Manage-
ment for Adana-Mersin in the Republic of Turkey, Final Report.
Kirkitsos, P., Dalamagas, A., Toksöz, F., Eröztürk, A., Loutsi, P.,
Metin, E., Hopkins, T., 2000. Strategic planning for the implemen-
432 E. Metin et al. / Waste Management 23 (2003) 425–432
tation of an integrated solid waste management and recycling
program of large coastal cities of Turkey in the Aegean. Appro-
priate Environmental & Solid Waste Management & Technologies
for Developing Countries, 1, 1.
Lund, H.F., 1993. The Recycling Handbook. The McGraw-Hill.
Metin, E., Eröztürk, A., Neyim, C., 25–28 June 2001. Environmental
Education and Solid Waste Management in the Earthquake Effec-
ted Regions. Balkan Environmental Association, Annual Meeting
Proceedings, Chalkidiki, Greece.
Metin, E., Yidit, V., 1997. The legal and practical aspects of recycling
in Turkey. Recovery, Recycling, Re-integration R’97, Conference
Proceedings vol. 1.
Neyim, O.C., Metin, E., Eröztürk, A., Ambalaj atıkları ve Türkiye’de
geri kazanım Sanayii. In: 2nd International Packaging Congress and
Exhibition, Proceeding Book, May–June 2001, p. 561.
Rüütelmann, M., ‘‘Waste management in Estonia’’, Waste Manage-
ment World May–June 2002, p. 49.
State Institute of Statistics of Turkey (SIS), 1993. Environmental Sta-
tistics, Household Solid Waste Composition Survey.
State Institute of Statistics of Turkey (SIS), 1994. Municipal Environ-
mental Inventory, Fundamental Environment Indicators.
Sundaravadivel, M., Vigneswaran, S., 2002. Sustainable MSW man-
agement in developing countries, the experiences of smaller towns in
India. Waste Management World November–December, 60.
White, P.R., Franke, M., Hindle, P., 1995. Integrated Solid Waste
Management, A Life Cycle Inventory. ISBN 0-7514-0046-7.