J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:781–789
DOI 10.1007/s10163-015-0379-6
SPECIAL FEATURE: REGIONAL CASE STUDY
Door-to-door measurement of household waste arisings in selected
towns in Malaysia
Kohei Watanabe1 • Dani Irwan2 • Noor Ezlin Ahmad Basri2
Received: 12 January 2015 / Accepted: 23 March 2015 / Published online: 10 April 2015
Ó Springer Japan 2015
Abstract To establish the per capita household waste
arisings, door-to-door measurement of discharged waste
was carried out. Survey was done in four 2-week phases
over a period of 13 months. A questionnaire survey was
also carried out to obtain data on household size and other
household characteristics as well as the extent of reduce
and recycle activities. The results showed that there is a big
variance among households on waste arisings, and that
household size is an important socio-economic factor in
determining per capita waste generation.
Keywords Household waste
Quantity of waste

Questionnaire survey
Malaysia
Introduction
Determining the per capita MSW generation rate by its
category of origin and understanding its influencing factors
is one important step towards efficient MSW management.
MSW consists of household waste, commercial waste, and
other waste. These different categories of waste are often
collected together in a single vehicle. In such case it is not
possible to accurately estimate the amount of waste in each
category from collection tonnages of each vehicle. This
study focuses on waste discharged from households. We
measured the amount of waste put out for collection di-
rectly, before the regular waste collection took place. By
& Kohei Watanabe
k@teikyo-u.net
1
Teikyo University 359 Otsuka, Hachioji 192-0395, Japan
2
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
1st 3R International Scientific Conference (3RINCs 2014)
obtaining the average per capita amount of waste from each
household and also information on its various socio-eco-
nomic characteristics, it will be possible to identify factors
affecting the household waste arisings.
There have been many researches analysing the effect of
socio-economic factors on waste arisings. A typical ap-
proach is carrying out a multiple regression analysis on per
capita waste arisings of municipalities with independent
variables including policy factors as well as other demo-
graphic and socio-economic factors. A variety of socio-
economic factors are included as independent variables, but
most research agree on the effect of household size, that is
the number of persons residing in one household. Mu-
nicipalities with larger average household size tend to
generate less waste per person [1–6].
However, existing research disagree on the effect of
household income. Standard consumer theory in economics
suggests that the level of consumption is determined by the
current income. Hence, the higher the income, the more the
waste. Actual empirical studies show conflicting results.
While Wertz [7] as well as Terashima and Hashimoto [8]
reported a positive correlation between income and per
capita waste arisings, the analyses of Hockett et al. [9] and
Kitabatake et al. [2] indicated that income is insignificant.
Cargo [10] indicated a negative correlation between in-
come and waste generation, and in Sasao’s [5] analysis, the
coefficient for income is positive for ‘agricultural cities,’
and negative for ‘industrial cities.’ These were both sta-
tistically significant at the 1 % level. Jenkins [4] pointed
out that the reason why the actual waste arisings do not
necessarily follow the theory may be that better-off people
dine more often at restaurants (hence less food waste at
home), and have more space to stock potentially useful
objects for future (re-)use. It has also been alleged that
affluent people participate more in recycling due to higher
123
782
environmental awareness/education levels. In addition,
Lowe [11] noted that districts facing problems of high
unemployment and social deprivation have not placed
much emphasis on recycling.
Watanabe [12, 13] investigated the above analyses in
details and demonstrated that the disagreement of the re-
sults is due to a problem with the data structure and sta-
tistical methods to deal with the issue. All the analyses
mentioned above use arisings data compiled at the mu-
nicipality level, and in many cases, the municipalities differ
greatly in terms of population (a few thousand to a few
millions). It is statistically problematic to deal with aver-
ages of different-sized samples (the issue of hetero-
skedasticity: Gujarati [14: 359]. Furthermore, the weighted
least squares method employed to combat this issue pro-
duces conflicting results depending on the choice of the
‘‘weight’’ variable (as illustrated by Sala-i-Martin [15]).
Moreover, using the municipality as a unit for analysis is
not suitable for the purpose. It is difficult to tease out and
identify the effect of different socio-economic factors on
waste generation, as arisings from areas with different so-
cio-economic characteristics are all aggregated into one
average figure [16]. Hence, analyses at a more micro level
with similar-sized units are desired. This paper describes
the research which measures and analyses the waste gen-
eration at its most basic unit, that is at the household level.
There is not many existing research incorporating a
Fig. 1 Study area
123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:781–789
comparable methodology, for example that by Bandara
et al. [17] and Benitez et al. [18], however, these are lim-
ited in terms of sample size and sampling duration.
Methodology
Characteristics of the sampling area
Three locations of about 30 km distance from the city
centre in the southern suburb of Kuala Lumpur were chosen
as our study area. They are Kajang, Bandar Baru Bangi
(Bangi New Township), and Putrajaya (Fig. 1). Kajang is a
relatively old centre developed from colonial ages, with a
high proportion of ethnically Chinese population. Bandar
Baru Bangi is located within the Kajang municipality area,
and had been converted from a palm oil plantation into
residential and industrial land use in the 1980s. The main
campus of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, some govern-
ment training centres as well as assembly factories such as
that of Sony, Hitachi, and Denso are located here, and are
the main local employers in this area. There are also many
people that commute to central Kuala Lumpur. The resi-
dents are mostly of Malay ethnicity. Putrajaya was designed
as the new federal administrative centre and subsequently
developed in the 1990s and 2000s. The government sector is
the major employer in this municipality.
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:781–789
Fig. 2 Close-up of the study
area. The labels for each study
area is created by the authors.
‘‘S’’ stands for section, ‘‘P’’ for
precinct, ‘‘K-F’’ for Kajang
Flats and ‘‘K-T’’ for Kajang
Terraced
At the time of the survey research, door-to-door waste
collection service1 was usually provided three times a week
in this area (e.g. Mon, Wed, Fri, or Tue, Thu, Sat). Any
items other than bulky items and garden waste are accepted
in this waste collection. Kajang Municipality as well as
Putrajaya Corporation delegated waste collection to Alam
Flora Sdn. Bhd., the regional concessionary (and its sub-
contractors). Waste collected in Kajang was delivered to
the ‘‘Recycle Energy’’ MRF/RDF/Incineration facility in
Semenyih (within Kajang municipality area).2 At this fa-
cility, metals, plastics, and hazardous items were removed
and the rest was incinerated, whereby the generated heat
was utilised for electricity generation (the items and the
amount recycled in this facility is not included as ‘‘recy-
cled’’ in the discussion below). Waste collected in Putra-
jaya was brought directly to a sanitary landfill.
Survey methodology
To best capture the difference between varying socio-e-
conomic conditions, the sampling areas were selected ac-
cording to housing types. Each sampling area consists
1
For terraced and detached housing. At flats, waste is collected via
dust chutes or large containers used by several households.
2
This was the case when the survey research took place. At the time
of review of this paper (Mar 2015), Kajang Municipality delegates
waste collection to companies other than Alam Flora. The ‘‘Recycle
Energy’’ facility has its operation suspended in May 2014, and since
then the waste is directly delivered to sanitary landfill, similarly to
Putrajaya.
783
predominantly of either bungalow (detached housing),
terraced housing,3 or flats (Fig. 2). The households selected
for this study are presumed to be representative of the
entire neighbourhood and other similar residential devel-
opments in the Kuala Lumpur and Klang Valley area.
Primary waste arisings data from the households under
study was obtained by simple door-to-door weighing of
waste put out for collection, for 2 weeks (12 consecutive
collection days, from Mondays to Saturdays). This makes
up one data sampling phase and was conducted concur-
rently in all study areas, with a total of 4 sampling
phases done over a period slightly longer than 1 year.
Sampling phase 1 was performed in February 2011,
phase 2 in May 2011, phase 3 in December 2011 and
finally phase 4 took place in March 2012. Although the
daily temperature do not differ greatly throughout the
year in this area, there are periods with increased rainfall,
thus we designed our methodology so that we can cap-
ture seasonal fluctuations.
The door-to-door MSW weighing activities were con-
ducted by 3 teams with each team having 2–3 personnel.
Each team used standardised digital electronic weighing
scales with a maximum capacity of 40 kg and a resolution
of 10 g. Standard operating procedures were as follows;
team members are to arrive at each site in the morning of
3
Terraced housing is the predominant housing type in Malaysian
suburbs, as in the U.K. Its distinctive feature is that a row of houses
share a common side wall that also acts as a partition between units.
Also known as ‘‘townhouses’’ in the U.S.
123
784 J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:781–789

Table 1 Questionnaire items

Q0. Housing type (filled in by the enumerator)
Q1. Your ethnicity : Malay / Chinese / Indian / Others
Q2. Have you & your family stayed here for more than 1 year?
Q3. How many of the residents are males / females?
Q4. How many of the residents belong to the following age groups:
Q5. How many residents have a regular job outside the house?
Q6. How many people are still in school or students?
Q7. How many just stay at home all the time?
Q8. How many of the residents have the following highest education level:
Q9. Is this house occupied by 1 family, multiple families or by singles?
Q10. Do you own this house or are you renting it?
Q11. Approximately how much is the total monthly income of all the residents combined?
Q12. On average, how many days in a week do you eat at home?
Q13. Where (how often) do you normally buy your food or foodstuffs?
Wet market / Supermarket / Corner shops Grocery shop / Restaurants hawkers
Q14. Which mealtime is the one most frequently taken at home by residents?
Q15. On average, how many times in a month are the residents not at home on weekends (balik kampung, etc)?
Q16. Are you aware of the environmental problems caused by household solid waste?
Q17. Do you know or are you aware of the following concepts:
a) Recycling b) Water reduction in waste c) Waste reduction at source d) Waste separation at source
Q18. (If Q17a/b/c/d has a ‘‘yes’’) ? How did you learn of those concepts? (multiple choice)
Q19. Do you (or other members of the household) do recycling at home?
a. If yes, why do you recycle?
b. If no, why don’t you recycle?
c. If you do recycle at home, which & how much of the following materials have you recycled in the past month?
Newspapers / Mixed paper / Plastics / Clothes or textiles / Metals / Others
Q20. Do you try to reduce the water content in the waste that you throw away at home?
a. If yes, why do you do it?
b. If not, why?
Q21. Usually where do you dispose of your leftover soups, gravy and other liquid wastes?
Q22. Do you drain or squeeze the moisture out of food wastes before it is thrown away?
Q23. Do you ensure the rubbish bin outside your house is always covered so rainwater won’t get in?
Q24. Do you try to reduce the amount of waste that you and your family throw away?
a. If yes, how do you do it?

waste collection day before the collection takes place,4
identify the waste bin of the house under study, take out all
the waste that has been discharged within and then weigh it
using the digital scale. Waste that is ‘loose’ or those that
has been scattered inside the waste bin were repackaged in
new plastic bags and then weighed.
A face-to-face survey (structured interviews) was per-
formed on all households under study (633 households) to
obtain relevant socio-economic data of the occupants. The
survey took place over 3 weeks in November 2011.
Trained student enumerators were used during this phase of
the study. They were always supervised on site by one of
4
At all our sampling areas, we have confirmed that the usual waste
collection happens in the morning.
the authors. If there happened to be no one present at the
household, the enumerators were to make two more visits
at different times of the day and different days of the week
(weekday/weekend). A response rate higher than 75 % was
achieved through this method.
The questionnaire sheet consisted of 24 questions per-
taining to the demographic, socio-economic status and
waste management habits of the household under study
(Table 1). Among the more pertinent questions is one re-
garding the number of persons living in the house. Another
question asks the respondent to state the approximate
combined monthly income of their entire household.
Houses that were vacant or that discharged waste too
sporadically such as guesthouses and houses that were only
occupied on the weekends were precluded from the final

123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:781–789 785

Table 2 Number and characteristics of the households involved in this study

Study Housing Applicable Q’naire Vacant Response All Ave. waste Household Total Household with
area type households responses rate (%) period arisings [g/ size household infant/child/elder
presenta per/day] incomeb (%)c

S2/1 Detached 47 34 0 72.3 29 593 5.51 4.26 21/59/48

S4/3 Terrace 69 55 8 90.2 47 337 5.25 3.77 23/72/13
S4/7 Terrace 67 48 7 80.0 37 369 4.71 3.81 24/76/13
K-T Terrace 60 30 8 57.7 19 292 5.53 3.67 11/61/33
P14aB Detached 25 19 1 79.2 17 466 5.00 4.37 0/50/14
P14aS Terrace 51 42 3 87.5 30 287 5.29 4.26 27/87/3
P16d Terrace 66 44 5 72.1 27 266 5.22 4.10 22/81/11
S1/9 Flats 212 (5blks) 139 26 74.7 –d 260 4.47 2.72 18/38/6
S4/2 Flats 240 (7blks) –e –e –e –d 283 –e –e –e
d
K-F Flats 36 (1block) 18 6 60.0 – 218 3.72 2.87 11/22/17
a
Households that responded to the questionnaire survey, and had a non-zero reading for more than 3 times during each of the 4 9 2 weeks
survey period
b
Average of five income levels [(1) \RM1 k, (2) RM1-2 k, (3) RM2–5 k, (4) RM5-10 k, (5) [RM10 k] (RM1 = JPY26)
c
Infant \3 years, child 3–18, elder [58 (retirement age)
d
Dust chutes are used at flats and, therefore, per household measurement was not possible
e
No questionnaire survey at S4/2, as the unit size, building age, etc. were identical to that of s1/9 and it could be assumed that the residents’
characteristics are also similar

data analysis to preserve data accuracy and avoid outliers
in the analysis. A particular house is designated as being
sporadic if it has more than 4 zero readings in one sampling
phase. Also houses we could not obtain questionnaire re-
sponses were excluded from analysis. After all sporadic
and questionable premises were eliminated, the number of
houses included in the final analysis is shown in Table 2.
This set of houses is identified as the APP (All Periods
Present) dataset, signifying houses that consistently pro-
duced good data and discharged waste regularly throughout
the whole 1 year sampling period. Subsequently, the
household waste arisings data are compiled and then
analysed with the prime aim being to determine average
per capita per day waste generation figures. The socio-
economic data acquired from the questionnaire survey
exercise are then studied in parallel with the aforemen-
tioned waste arisings data.
Results and discussion
Variance of per capita arisings
The histogram in Fig. 3 shows the distribution of mea-
surements at APP households over the whole fieldwork
period (total 3964 measurements). From the large number
of zero measurement, we can see that many households do
not necessarily put out waste on every collection day.
Some households occasionally skip collections; they may
have been away on a trip, while some regularly do not put
out waste on a certain day of the week. On the other hand,
we can also see that households occasionally put out a very
large amount of waste exceeding 2 kg/person/day. The
mode (excluding 0) was 0.2–0.3 kg/day/person. This pat-
tern suggests that we cannot estimate the variance of the
amount of waste of households from measurements on just
a single day.
Figure 4 shows the average per capita arisings of waste
over the four sampling phases (max. 24 measurements in
total) of each household. While there is a concentration of
households around the 0.25–0.3 kg/person/day range, we
can notice that there is a big variance in the amount of
waste generated per capita. There is a long tail towards
higher amount of arisings. The maximum value was
1570 g, while the average was 367 g.
For comparison, a similar histogram generated from a
survey in Tokyo is shown in Fig. 5. This is based on a
survey duration of just 1 week (2 measurements/household,
zero readings and exceptionally large discharge excluded
[19]). Hence, it could not be denied that the variance in this
study is due to daily fluctuations. Our result suggests that
the variance is robust and also points to the presence of
households that constantly dispose of significantly larger
amount of waste than the average.
Socio-economic factors and per capita arisings
We have identified that the strongest factor affecting the
per capita amount of waste generated from households is
the household size, i.e. the number of persons per

123
786 J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:781–789

700 40

600 35

number of households
number of measurements

30
500
25
400
20
300
15
200 10
100 5

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

waste arisings [kg/day/person] waste arisings [kg/day/person]

Fig. 3 Distribution of all measurements Fig. 5 Distribution of per capita waste arisings (Tokyo, based on
Toshima-ku 2011)

40

35 700

waste arisings [g/day/person]

number of households

30 600
25 500 recycled
20 disposal
400
15
300
10
200
5

0
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
0
waste arisings [kg/day/person] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
persons per household
Fig. 4 Distribution of per capita waste arisings (Malaysia)
Fig. 6 Waste arisings according to household size (Malaysia)

household. Figure 6 indicates a tendency that the larger the

household size is, the smaller the amount of discharged 1000
waste arisings [g/day/person]

waste per capita. This could be due to the fact that many
800
items are consumed communally within the household. For recyclable
example, one household is likely to subscribe to one 600 non-burnable
burnable
newspaper, which would for example be shared among 2
persons in a small household, and perhaps among 6 in a 400
bigger household. Larger households tend to buy items in
200
bulk, which implies a smaller amount of packaging per unit
amount of goods. Also larger households are likely to make 0
more efficient use of items. One item that is no longer used 1 2 3 4 5 6+
by one member of the household can be used by another. persons per household
The result from Tokyo shown as a comparison shows a Fig. 7 Waste arisings according to household size (Tokyo, based on
similar tendency (Fig. 7). Toshima-ku 2011)
We have cross-tabulated the arisings data with responses
from the questionnaire survey. Table 3 shows the results of with children tend to have less waste per person. However,
questionnaire items with Yes or No answers. The average if we control for the household size (person per household),
arisings for both Yes and No groups were calculated, and the children factor was insignificant. This suggests that the
t tests were carried out to see if there is a significant dif- presence of children was only a surrogate for household
ference in waste arisings between the two groups. There size; i.e. households with children have a larger number of
was a significant difference in waste arisings according to persons per household.
housing types. Detached housing produced more waste per The presence of elderly person(s) in household showed
person compared to terraced housing. Also the presence of an opposite effect to that of children. Households with
child(ren) in the household was significant. Households elderly person (aged above 58, which is the retirement age

123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:781–789 787

Table 3 t test of differences in per capita arisings Table 4 t test of differences between high and low arisings
Y n N n High 10 % Low 10 %

Q0: detached** 434 73 331 130 waste g/p/d 881 151

Q4: children** 338 146 444 57 Q3: person/hh** 3.4 6.3
Ditto (p/hh \5) 466 33 503 38 Q19c: total recy/p** 66 g/day 28 g/day
Q4: elderly* 436 37 353 166 Q19c: recycling rate: %* 6.9 % 14.1 %
Ditto (terraced) 355 20 326 110 Q8: university degree % 90 % 76 %
Q4: infant 368 42 368 161 Q7: stay home % 33% 19 %
Q17b: water red. aware 371 143 361 54 Q11: income 3.85 3.55 1–5 scale
Q17c: reduction aware 368 146 373 50 Q12: eat at home 3.10 3.55 1–4 scale
Q17d: separation aware 373 161 335 36 Q13: wet market 2.36 2.31 1–3 scale
Q19: recycle? 366 149 376 53 Q13: supermarket 2.46 2.38 1–3 scale
Q22: squeeze water? 363 160 389 39 Q13: grocery 1.92 1.54 1–3 scale
Ditto (terraced) * 317 102 391 26 Q13: takeaway 1.95 1.85 1–3 scale
Q23: cover bin? 373 162 353 39 Q15: wknd na. home 1.75 1.72 1–4 scale
Q24: reduce? 371 129 367 71 ** Significant at 1%, * significant at 5%, for details of questionnaire
** Significant at 1%, * significant at 5%, for details of questionnaire items, see Table 1
items, see Table 1

per capita waste arisings for the top 10 % households was

in Malaysia) had significantly more waste per person. It
could be that retirees spend more time and engage in more
activities at home than those that go out for work,5 thus
generating more waste at home. It could also be that the
older cohorts tend to prepare food at home in a traditional
way from fresh ingredients, rather than relying on pre-
cooked items bought from vendors and supermarkets.6
However, when the elderly presence factor was con-
trolled for housing type, this factor became insignificant.
Detached housing has a higher presence of elderly dwell-
ers. Hence, we are not sure if this difference in arisings is
due to difference in housing type or the presence of elderly
persons.
All other factors did not produce a significant difference
in arisings. One exception being the practice of removing
moisture from waste; i.e. squeezing water out from kitchen
waste before putting in the bin. Overall, this practice in-
duced slightly smaller amount of waste per person, but the
difference was not statistically significant. When controlled
for housing types, among households in terraced housing,
the presence of this practice made a significant difference.
Table 4 shows the results of questionnaire items with
quantitative responses. Here we selected the top and bot-
tom 10 % households according to per capita waste aris-
ings, and conducted t tests for differences in the average
value of responses to each questionnaire item. The average
5
The ratio of elderly persons in household and the ratio of person
staying at home had a positive correlation (r = 0.56).
6
Households with elderly persons had a significantly higher
frequency of meals eaten at home (p \ 0.001). Households with
elderly persons had significantly lower frequency of buying takeaway
food from vendors (p \ 0.001).
881 g/person/day, while that for the bottom 10 % was
151 g/person/day. There was a significant difference in
household size between these two groups. Households with
larger arisings had a significantly small average household
size. This confirms the tendency described earlier in this
section.
When it comes to recycling, households with a larger
amount of waste/person recycled significantly more in
terms of quantity. On the other hand, households with a
smaller amount of waste per capita had a significantly
higher recycling rate in relation to the total waste arisings.
For all other questionnaire items, there were no significant
differences between the top 10 % and the bottom 10 %.
We have tried with the top and bottom 20 % as well, and
that produced similar results.
Waste composition and per capita arisings
We have also carried out compositional analyses of
household waste [20], in Bangi area, for section 2/1 (de-
tached), 4/3 (terraced), 4/7(terraced), and 1/9 (flats). For
5 days, about 200 kg of waste sample was collected door-
to-door from the kerbside (total 1005 kg) with a flat
loading truck on the day of regular waste collection before
the usual collection vehicle arrives. The waste was then
sorted into about 120 categories according to its material,
original function (goods, packaging, etc.), reducibility and
recyclability. This research generated percentage figures on
each component of waste. That was multiplied by the av-
erage per capita arisings derived from the study described
in detail in this paper, to derive per capita per day arisings
of each component of waste.

123
788
Fig. 8 Comparison of waste
composition between higher and
lower waste generation
We can see in Fig. 8 that the difference between de-
tached and other housing types is the former produced
more paper waste than others. Detached housing stands on
a larger plot of land with a larger garden compared to other
housing types, however, there was no marked difference in
the amount of garden waste mixed in household waste
(garden waste is to be collected separately from ordinary
household waste). Looking into more detail, it was non-
packaging paper items that had the biggest difference.
Detached housing also produced more textile, metal, and
glass waste. We are not sure about the cause of this dif-
ference. We can perhaps hypothesise that although there is
no statistically significant difference in the current income
(flow of wealth) between detached and other housing types,
detached housing dwellers may be better-off in terms of
stock of wealth, engaging in more materialistic consump-
tion. This is yet to be tested.
Summary and further research
We have measured the quantity of day-to-day discharge of
waste from each household, and cross-analysed the out-
come with socio-economic information obtained from
questionnaire survey that we conducted. The results
showed that there is a big variance among households on
waste arisings, and that household size is an important
socio-economic factor in determining per capita waste
generation. The presence of elderly person appeared to
contribute to larger per capita arisings. There is a trend
towards smaller households as well as a trend towards an
ageing population. This would imply that even with other
conditions being the same, this demographic trend would
bring forth an increased waste arisings per person.
No statistically significant results could be obtained with
other questionnaire items. To identify more factors that
affect waste generation, an improved set of questions re-
garding socio-economic factors may be effective. We have
conducted a detailed waste composition according to
housing types and observed some differences. To see more
123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:781–789
clearly the difference in waste composition between the
high-waste generation households group and the low-waste
group, sampling for composition analysis could be done
based on per capita arisings of each house (high/mid/low,
etc.), instead of housing types.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by Environment
Research and Technology Development Fund (K22059, K2338) by
Ministry of the Environment, Japan. The content of this paper was
presented at the 3R International Scientific Conference, Kyoto March
2014. The authors are grateful to the comments received from the
audience on that occasion.
References
1. Yamaguchi H, Asao S, Hashimoto N, Nakajima M, Tomura N
(1989) Matsudo shinai kara hassei suru gomi no sô haishutsuryô to
butsuryû ni tsuite (Waste arisings and materials flow in Matsudo
City) Toshi Seisô (J Japan Waste Manag Assoc) 42(170):231–244
2. Kitabatake Y, Nakasugi O, Nishioka S, Harasawa H (1981) Kakei
no kônyu haiki kôdô ni kansuru jisshôteki kenkyu (An empirical
research into consumption and disposal behaviours of house-
holds) Chiiki Gaku Kenkyû, 11:185–200
3. Kyoto-shi Seisôkyoku (1984) Katei gomi saisosei chousa hou-
kokusho (Detailed waste composition analysis of residential solid
waste)
4. Jenkins RR (1993) The economics of solid waste reduction: the
impact of user fees. Edward Elgar Publishing
5. Sasao T (2000) Haikibutsu shori yûryôka to bunbetsu kaishû no
chiiki eikyô wo kouryoshita haikibutsu genryô kôka ni kansuru
bunseki (An analysis considering the regional factors of the ef-
fects of user fees and sorted collection for solid waste services on
the reduction of waste) Haikibutsu Gakkai Ronbunshi. J Japn Soc
Waste Manag Experts 11(1):1–10
6. Yamakawa H, Ueta K (2002) Waste reduction through variable
charging programs: Its sustainability and contributing factors.
J Material Cycles Waste Manag 4(2):77–86
7. Wertz KL (1976) Economic Factors Influencing Households’
Production of Refuse. J Environ Eco Manag 2(4):263–272
8. Terashima Y, Hashimoto T (1990) Shichôson no gomi hassei
gentan’i to shakai keizai tokusei tono kankei (Relationships be-
tween per capita waste arisings of municipalities and their socio-
economic characteristics). Kankyô Gijutsu 19(2):131–137
9. Hockett D, Lober DJ, Pilgrim K (1995) Determinants of per
capita municipal solid waste generation in the Southeastern
United States. J Environ Manage 45(3):205–217
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:781–789
10. Cargo DB (1978) Solid wastes: factors influencing generation
rates Issue 174. Department of Geography, University of Chi-
cago, Chicago
11. Lowe S (1997) Recycling in cities—broadening the prospects at
the bottom of the table. Materials Recycling Week (Feb 14),
pp 12–14
12. Watanabe K (2003) The management and recycling of household
waste in England and Japan—a comparative study. PhD disser-
tation submitted to the University of Cambridge
13. Watanabe K (2006) The effect of socio-economic factors on
municipal waste arisings—a discussion on statistical methods
Proceedings. Japan Soc Waste Manag Expert 17:1
14. Gujarati DN (1995) Basic econometrics, 3rd edition, McGraw-
Hill
15. Sala-i-Martin X (2002) The world distribution of income (esti-
mated from individual country distributions) NBER Working
Paper No. 8933 National Bureau of Economic Research [Cam-
bridge, MA]
789
16. Watanabe K (2007) An assessment of variable charging scheme
as a means to waste minimisation. In: Lechner P (ed) Waste
matters—Integrating views Facultas Verlag, pp 337–346
17. Bandara NJ, Hettiaratchi JP, Wirasinghe SC, Pilapiiya S (2007)
Relation of waste generation and composition to socio-economic
factors: a case study. Environ Monit Assess 135(1–3):31–39
18. Benı́tez SO, Lozano-Olvera G, Morelos RA, Vega CA (2008)
Mathematical modeling to predict residential solid waste gen-
eration. Waste Manag 28 Suppl 1:S7–S13
19. Toshima-ku (2011) Kateikei Ippan Haikibutsu Haishutsu Jittai
Chousa Houkokusho (report on the situation of household waste
discharge)
20. Watanabe K (2012) The 3R potential of municipal waste in
Bangi, Malaysia. In: The Nippon Foundation (ed) Understanding
confluences and contestations, continuities and changes: towards
transforming society and empowering people, pp 116–126
123
Journal of Material Cycles & Waste Management is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights
Reserved.