1. INTRODUCTION

Increasing population, rapid urbanizationand the growth of living standards havesignificantly accelerated the rate of waste

generation in countries around the world.According to the World Bank’s globalreview of solid waste management (SWM),in 2011 alone, urban areas in the worldgenerated about 1.3 billion tonnes of

PLANNING OF INTEGRATED/SUSTAINABLE SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT (ISWM) – MODEL OF INTEGRATED SOLID

WASTE MANAGEMENT IN REPUBLIKA SRPSKA/B&H

Milan Topić* and Hubert Biedermann

Chair of Economic and Business Management, Montanuniversitaet Leoben, Peter Tunner Straße 25-27, 8700 Leoben AustriaAustria

(Received 16 December 2014; accepted 27 May 2015)

Abstract

Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) has become an important issue for countries around

the world. The challenges are particularly notable in developing and transitional countries reflected

mainly in inappropriate management, underdeveloped technology, an unfavorable economic situation

and the lack of environmental awareness, causing a tremendous environmental impact. Today, various

models are applied to analyze solid waste management systems from the regional to the municipal

levels. Understanding the mechanisms and factors that currently drive the development of waste

management is a crucial step for moving forward and planning sustainable waste management systems.

The main objective of this paper is to apply the ISWM model, which is based on the Life-Cycle

approach and follows the analytical framework methodology, to the research region. The trans-

disciplinary research framework was empirically tested and subsequently applied in the region

Republika Srpska. Using the benchmark methodology, based on environmental, institutional and

economical sustainability, the waste management is summarized in assessment profile. The results of

the conducted analyses and the application of the developed model can be used further as a basis for the

proposal of further strategic, political and managerial changes and support decision makers and

stakeholders to handle waste in a cost-efficient and environmentally sound way.

Keywords: Integrated/sustainable waste management, planning of SWM

* Corresponding author: milan.topic@unileoben.ac.at

S e r b i a n

J o u r n a l

o f

M a n a g e m e n t

Serbian Journal of Management 10 (2) (2015) 255 - 267

www.sjm06.com

DOI: 10.5937/sjm10-7360

municipal solid waste and that is expected toincrease to approximately 2.2 billion tonnesannually by 2025. Expectations are thatwaste generation rates in developingcountries will more than double over the nexttwo decades (World Bank, 2012). Thesedeveloping and transitional countries havesignificant problems in managing solidwaste. The reasons are numerous; notablylimited resources (financial and social) andenforcement of relevant regulationsespecially affecting the quality of wastecollection and the application oftechnologies for safe recycling, treatmentand disposal (Chen et al., 2010). Therefore,introduction of efficient solid wastemanagement and its affordability will be oneof the key challenges of the 21st century fordeveloping countries, and one of the keyresponsibilities of local city and municipalgovernments (UN-Habitat, 2010).

Republika Srpka (RS), an economicallydeveloping country, is faced with developingand implementing an effective, functional,adoptable and sustainable wastemanagement system. War and the itsaftermath in the 1990s has had a significantimpact on the country’s economic andenvironmental situation. The wastemanagement sector in particular, wasdisadvantaged. The main problems arereflected in inappropriate municipal solidwaste management, outdated technology, anunfavorable economic situation and the lackof awareness within the society. In recentyears, local authorities have been makingsignificant efforts to improve MSWM.Regulations and policies have been adoptedand elaborated; waste managementinfrastructures are in the process of beingdeveloped and improved andcommercialization of the sector has beenencouraged. However, despite recent

investments in the improved operation ofregional landfill sites, the lack of suitablefacilities, inadequate management structures,the lack of technical skills and poor lawenforcement are the main obstacles to thefurther development of effective andefficient municipal waste managementstructures.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Implementation of effective andsustainable solid waste management indeveloping and transitional countries is anespecially challenging process. A review ofthe literature suggests that cities and regionsworldwide are making improvements,however development is a relatively slowprocess because of a number of factors(Schżbeler et al., 1996; Tedesse et al., 2008;UN-Habitat, 2010; Wilson et al., 2012; Simet al., 2013; Topić et al., 2013; Wilson et al.,2013a). One of the major obstacles toimprovement is the fact that developing andtransitional countries try to simply “copy andpaste” developments from developedeconomies without regard to their actualstrengths and needs. However, this practicehas shown that there is no one right modelthat can be applied to all cities and allsituations. Therefore, the future developmentgoal should be the encouragement ofdifferent ways of thinking and supportingevery region to develop an individualsolution that is appropriate to its ownspecific history, economy, demography andculture and in accordance with its uniqueinstitutional, environmental and financialresources. Integrated Sustainable SolidWaste Management (ISWM) follows thisapproach and allows studies of complex andmulti-dimensional systems in an integrated

256 M.Topić / SJM 10 (2) (2015) 255 - 267

way and provides a new and modernperspective for further development.Moreover, the ISWM systems combinewaste streams, waste collection andtreatment and disposal methods, with theobjective of achieving environmentalbenefits, economic optimization and societalacceptability (McDougall et al., 2001). Thisapproach is also a response to a growingglobal consensus that cities in developingand transitional countries need to take chargeof the modernization process and to developtheir own models for waste management(UN-Habitat, 2010).

The ISWM model, based on the Life-Cycle approach, recognizes three dimensionsin analyzing, developing or changing a wastemanagement system: Firstly, thestakeholders - a key element in sustainabledevelopment and the role of the legislation inthe system; secondly, the technicalcomponent of integrated solid wastemanagement system elements such as wastecollection and transportation, waste recoverythrough sorting and recycling options, wastetreatment, waste disposal and wasteminimization; and thirdly waste managementsustainability aspects. Hence, thedevelopment of waste management systemdepends on the successful interaction andintegration of a diverse range of activities,processes, technologies and people. Themain goal of the model is therefore tosupport decision-makers, stakeholders andplanners to handle the system in aneconomically and environmentally soundway (Klunert & Anschutz, 2001). Throughthe last several years the concept of ISWMand its aspects has been further clarified andis gradually becoming the norm in discussionof solid waste management in developingcountries (Abou-Najm & El-Fadel, 2004;Seadon, 2006; UN-Habitat, 2010; Marschall

& Farbakhsh, 2013; Wilson et al., 2013a).However, one of the main challenges derivedfrom the analysis has been the usage ofvarious methodologies for data gathering.Moreover, this problem is especiallyemphasized when the different cities fromdifferent countries are compared. In order tosolve and minimize those limitations theISWM benchmarking indicators set wasdeveloped (UN-Habitat, 2010; Wilson et al.,2012; Topić, 2014). This set allowsbenchmarking of a city’s performance inwaste management, allowing consistentcomparison of performance between citieseither in developing countries or in thedeveloped world and monitoring changesand progress over time. Topic (2014)research closely this thematic and develops aModel of Integrative/Sustainable SolidWaste Management.

A model (Figure 1) has been built aroundthe analytical framework of UN-HABITATbenchmarking methodology (UN-Habitat,2010; Wilson et al., 2012; Wilson et al.,2013b), which is based on the concept ofintegrated and sustainable (solid) wastemanagement, known as ISWM (Klunert &Anschutz, 2001) and around the phase modelof KLAMPFL-PERNOLD (Klampfl-Pernold et al., 2006; Topić et al., 2013). Theanalytical framework combine relativelystandard, quantitative indicators for the threemain physical components – collection,treatment/disposal and recycling – with acorresponding, qualitative, compositeindicator for the “quality” of serviceprovision for each physical component, aswell as five further qualitative, compositeindicators which assess performance for thethree main aspects of governance, namelyinclusivity of stakeholders, financialsustainability and sound institutions &proactive policies. On the other hand the

257M.Topić / SJM 10 (2) (2015) 255 - 267

KLAMPFL-PERNOLD phase model allowsan indicator-based classification of differentcountries or regions to determine the stage ofwaste management development. Theclassification of the development stage ofwaste management in a country or a regioncan be stated by using a few key parameterswithout large-scale, on-site surveys. Theparameters are classified by using aneconomic, social, legal and ecologicalperspective. Depending on the wastemanagement phase, certain wastemanagement measures are appropriate andeffective.

The ISWM from Topić (2014) model iscomposed of three dimensions representingthe sustainability process. In order to achievesustainability, all dimensions in the modelhave to be in motion and connected to eachother. The first green component representsthe environmental dimension ofsustainability and focuses on key drivers forthe development of waste management,which include the three key physical

components: (1) public health, whichdepends on a good waste collection service;(2) environmental protection achieved bycontrolled waste treatment and disposal; and(3) resource management (“3 R’s” – reduce,reuse, recycle), which leads to a recyclingsociety and recognizes waste management asa source of raw material. The second, blueelement characterizes the institutional andsocial sustainability aspect. To deliver awell-functioning system and to seecontributions and benefits, full participationof all relevant stakeholders (both serviceusers and service providers) have to beensured. This aspect is considered from twoperspectives: firstly, the active participationof the users of solid waste services, whichdescribes how these stakeholders areincluded in the planning, policy formationand implementation processes. Secondly, theprovider participation refers to theperformance of the system, and the extent towhich it serves all users equitably andaccording to their needs and preferences.The institutional/social component relies notonly on effective stakeholder participationbut also on the legal framework. Moreover, itfocuses on the implemented legislation andregulation, institutions and legalrequirements on the national level and onlocal institutions and their organizationalstructures and institutional capacity. Theeconomic aspect is categorized as a specialcomponent and presented in red.Sustainability of the solid waste managementsystem relies on the assurance that SWMservices and activities are cost-effective andaffordable. Moreover, without directeconomic benefits, investment and subsidies,the waste management system is notsustainable. To achieve economicsustainability it is necessary to fulfill twodifferent criteria: (1) the macro-economic

258 M.Topić / SJM 10 (2) (2015) 255 - 267

Figure 1. Model of sustainable solid wastemanagement (Topić, 2014)

indicators, which represent the overalleconomic situation of a country, region or acity and (2) specific economic wastemanagement indicators, which give anoverview of sustainability in wastemanagement (e.g. cost accounting, systemcosts recovered from user fees andpayments).

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The methodological basis for this paperincludes an interdisciplinary approach whichis based on the knowledge and experiencesaccumulated from environmental sciences,natural and technical geosciences andeconomic sciences. The waste managementdata was collected through comprehensiveon-site research carried out in RS through theresearch project “Waste Management in theRepublic of Srpska”. The project applicationwas developed in cooperation with theDepartment of Geography and RegionalSciences (Austria) and the InternationalAssociation of Scientists “AIS” in BanjaLuka (BIH) and co-financed by theEnvironment Protection and EnergyEfficiency Fund of Republika Srpska. Themain aim of the project was to conductsystematic and critical research, usingstructured data collection, of the municipalsolid waste management in RS, in order todetect, identify and solve the problems andchallenges which this branch of the economyhas to face. In addition, the study analyzedthe generation, collection, transportation,recycling and disposal options in municipalsolid waste management in RS (Topić et al.,2013). The main part of the data wascollected through questionnaires, deliveredto municipalities (62) and wastemanagement companies. The collected data

was entered into a computer database andanalyzed with the statistical program SPSS.In addition to the questionnaire and theliterature review, the waste management datawas also collected by conducting severalstructured interviews with decisions makers,communal enterprises and the civil sector.The interviews were addressed to wide rangeof active stakeholders within the system. Forinstance, representatives of the Government(Senior Associate for Waste Management atthe Ministry of Spatial Planning, CivilEngineering and Ecology); representatives oflocal governments; service providermanagers (technical directors at regionallandfill company Ramici in Banja Luka andin Bijeljina; managers of several communalenterprises; managers of several wastemanagement companies); NGO and CBOrepresentatives and scientific researchersfrom Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia(University of Banja Luka; University ofSarajevo; University of Belgrade; Universityof Novi Sad; Union University).

Furthermore the methodology used in thispaper follows the developed ISWMmethodology (Topić, 2014), where theindicators and criteria have been identified,supplemented and designed around the threemodel components. The Model encompassesseven indicators which are selectedaccording to a series of quantitative andqualitative criteria. The quantitativeindicators are based on the originalmethodology (e.g. analytical framework)which is tested on numerous case studiesaround the world. For each of the criteriacomprising a qualitative indicator, there is adevice to allow the very different aspects ofperformance - each ideally being assessed byits own distinct and traceable criterion - to becombined into one indicator; that way, theresulting overall percentages can be

259M.Topić / SJM 10 (2) (2015) 255 - 267

converted back into a qualitative assessment.The model recognizes the five phases ofwaste management development. Each phaseis color-coded using a “traffic light” system,to assist with a rapid visual assessment of thetabulated data. The color red indicates areasof the system requiring immediateobservation and reformation.

The level of the environmentalsustainability is analyzed by a set ofqualitative and quantitative criteria. Forinstance, quantities criteria cover thepercentage of the service coverage in thetested region, either waste collectioncoverage, controlled waste disposal andtreatment or share of the recycled waste. Inaddition, for each component tested there isthe qualitative criterion. Qualitative criterionis composed of several questions measuringeach indicator separately, for instance thequality of waste collection, the degree ofenvironmental protection in waste treatmentand disposal and evaluation of resourcemanagement.

Further, the sustainability processes insolid waste management cannot be achievedwithout the effective participation of relevantstakeholders and a legal framework.Therefore, the indicator of participation isanalyzed from both sides: user and providerparticipation. The indicator for userparticipation is measured by the sixqualitative criteria for determining thedegree of user participation in the solid wastemanagement system. The questions arerelated to user involvement in the planning,policy formation, implementation andevaluation of those services, existence oflegal rules and regulations which requireconsultation with and participation ofstakeholders outside the institutionalstructures, existence of user satisfactionmeasurements, the existence and use of

public feedback mechanisms for SWMservices, implementation of comprehensive,culturally appropriate public education,behavioral changes and/or awareness raisingprograms and level of involvement NGOsand CBOs dedicated to conservation andenvironmental protection. The secondindicator is related to provider participation.It again encompasses a set of qualitativecriteria measuring the degree to whicheconomic niches in service delivery andrecycling are open and accessible to non-state stakeholders and non-municipal serviceproviders from the formal, private,community or “informal” sectors. Thesecond indicator for measuring theinstitutional sustainability is built on twocriteria: (1) adequacy of national frameworksfor solid waste management (measures theexistence and implementation of the wastemanagement related legislation at nationallevel) and (2) the degree of local institutionalcoherence (measures the strength of the localinstitutional capacities).

The level of economic sustainability isidentified by two indicators: firstly, by themacro-economic indicators comprising threequantitative economic criteria: (1) grossdomestic product (GDP), (2) unemploymentrate and (3) inflation rate; secondly, byspecific economic waste managementindicators analyzed through a bundle ofqualitative questions. The second indicatorincludes information related to investments,subsidies, cost accounting, affordability ofuser charges and charging policies.

The final result of the model analysis isthe assessment profile consisting of a one-page summary of the benchmark indicatorsand supplementary background data. Inaddition to the set of indicators, theassessment profile is supplemented bybackground information (name of the

260 M.Topić / SJM 10 (2) (2015) 255 - 267

researched region, population and theHuman Development Index (HDI) and bykey waste related data (waste generation peryear (t/year), waste generation per capita peryear (kg/year) and municipal solid wastecomposition with a focus on maincomponents).

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The first step in planning sustainable solidwaste management is to conductcomprehensive on-site research and obtainthe essential data. Equally important is theunderstanding of the mechanisms and factorsthat currently drive the development of solidwaste management. This is a crucial step inmoving forward and planning sustainablewaste management systems. Therefore, thekey for effective waste management analysisis a clear understanding of wastemanagement data, such as data about the

volumes, mass and nature of each type ofwaste produced; the collection andtransportation system, and treatments anddisposal methods.

Municipal solid waste (MSW) presents asignificant problem in RS (Topić et al., 2013;

Topić, 2014; Topić, 2013; Topić et al.,

2013a). Current waste management systemsdo not follow modern waste managementpractices due to different historical, financialand social aspects. Fragmentation of solidwaste collection and disposal systems;inadequate, technically and legallyunapproved landfills; absence of treatmenttechnologies or insufficient number ofrecycling centers have contributed to thepresent situation. The material flow diagram,presented in Figure 2, gives an overview ofthe municipal solid waste management inRS. As the MFD illustrates, the MSWMinvolves a wide range of stakeholders in thesystem, including decision-makers, serviceproviders and service users.

261M.Topić / SJM 10 (2) (2015) 255 - 267

Figure 2. Material Flow Diagram for MSWM in Republika Srpska (Topić, 2014)

The organization of collection, transportand disposal of household waste in RS isunder the direct jurisdiction ofmunicipalities. Local municipalities areresponsible for organizing effective wastemanagement services within theiradministrative territories. Regarding thewaste collection, local governments areresponsible for the collection of municipalsolid waste, which is performed bycommunal enterprises. Three types ofcompanies can be defined throughownership: (1) communal enterprises ownedby municipalities, (2) communal enterprisesprivatized by individuals and (3) privatecompanies which perform wastemanagement. In addition to the diversity inthe ownership structure, a variety of servicesperformed by companies has been identified,such as: the distribution of drinking water,sewage and wastewater management,maintenance of municipal hygiene,horticultural production, hazardous wastecollection, recycling, maintenance and repairof motor vehicles, funeral related activities,cemetery maintenance, management andmaintenance of the green market, chimneyservices and managing shelters for straydogs. The total area covered by collectionservices varies from municipality tomunicipality. Moreover, the identification ofthe total collection area depends on themethodology used for analysis. For example,using the official statistics the coverage areaof 66%, meaning that of the 376 438 tons ofwaste generated in 2012 only 250 223 tonswere formally collected. However, accordingto other sources (e.g. interviews with expertsand press releases) or other methodology, thecollection coverage is even lower.Comparative analysis of data obtained byquestionnaire on the number of householdsincluded in a regular system of waste

collection out of the total number ofhouseholds in RS leads to an averagecoverage rate of 48.18%. Furthermore,significant differences in waste collectioncoverage between municipalities can benoticed. For instance, the provision ofservices is lowest in the municipalitiesOsmaci (9.47%), Berkovići (18.06%) and

Kalinovik (24.03%), while in municipalities

Gradiška (77.36%) Istočno N ovo Sarajevo

(72.42%) and Banja Luka (89.99%)coverage is significantly higher. Therefore, itcan be concluded that approximately 60% ofRS has organized household collection.

Today the most widely used option forwaste “treatment” in RS is waste disposal.The principal methods for waste disposal inRS include (1) waste disposal on sanitarylandfill, (2) disposal on regulated locallandfills, (3) disposal on unregulated locallandfills and (4) disposal on wild dumps. Thepercentage of the controlled waste treatmentand disposal refers to the collected waste thatgoes to any sort of controlled disposal ortreatment facility rather than an uncontrolledsite. The coverage of controlled disposal inRS is 43.61%, emphasizing the fact thatcontrolled waste disposal is conducted onlyon regional sanitary landfill sites in BanjaLuka and Bijeljina, which cover themunicipalities within the regions.

Current capacities for recycling options inRS, concerning the range and/or amount ofmaterials processed, are generally verysmall, particularly if measured as aproportion of total generated waste. A formalor organized system of separate householdcollection does not exist, and this directlyinfluences the total percentage of recycledwaste. Analysis has shown that in somemunicipalities communal enterprises havelaunched initiatives for waste recycling

(Topić et al., 2013; Topić, 2014). They are

262 M.Topić / SJM 10 (2) (2015) 255 - 267

collecting and manually sorting recyclables

such as: paper, plastic (PET packaging andplastic foil) and metal. Yet only few of themhave operational recycling yards and most ofthem are not meeting the criteria of theEuropean Union. Therefore it can beconcluded that there is no structuredapproach to waste recycling in anymunicipality within the entity. According tointerviews with the experts and throughcomparative analysis of other authors, it canbe concluded that the recycling rate of wastein RS is lower than 10%.

An Integrated Solid Waste Managementsystem cannot be implemented withouteconomic sustainability. The measurementof sustainability in solid waste managementin this model is achieved through twoindicators: (1) the macro-economicindicators and (2) specific economic wastemanagement indicators. The Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) of Republika Srpskaaccounts for 6006.00 KM per capita (approx.3 096.00 EUR). This value represents one ofthe lowest in Europe, due to war destructionin the 1990s and slow economicdevelopment afterwards. These figuresmatch the first phase of waste managementdevelopment. Of the total Gross DomesticProduct in 2012, the manufacturing sectorparticipated with 7.8%; electricity, gas,steam and air conditioning supply with4.2%; and mining and quarrying with 2.2%.In terms of employment, these sectors werealso dominant, accounting for approximatelyone-quarter of the total number of employedpersons. The average monthly salary inRepublika Srpska in 2012 was 818.00 KM(approx. 422.00 EUR). The highest salarieswere found in the sectors of financial andinsurance activities, in which half ofemployees have a university degree. Theyaccount for 2.8% of the total number of

employed persons and receive on average 1280.00 KM per month (Topić et al., 2013a).

4.1. Assessment profile

Solid Waste Management in RS is mostlyspread between the medium/low andmedium phases of development (Figure 3).Significant problems are represented bywaste disposal, particularly the unregulateddisposal in several municipalities as well asthe appearance of a large number of wilddumps in rural areas, and should be rapidlysolved in order to reduce harmful effects onhumans and the environment. Moreover, thedifficult economic situation in the country isa major obstacle to rapid waste managementdevelopment. The first steps in building alegal framework for environmentalprotection and waste management have beentaken. Adoption of numerous rules andregulations in the country, in accordancewith the EU directives, and adoption ofprocedures for setting up regional sanitarylandfills, has facilitated a comprehensiveapproach to waste management. Despite thenon-existent legislation in separate wastecollection, there have been some positiveimprovements in waste recycling, mostlythrough the initiatives by private wastecompanies and the informal sector.However, the lack of data collection andincomplete knowledge about waste streamspresent a constructive challenge for furtherstrategic planning. The existence of wastedata is a prerequisite for steering the countrytowards advanced waste management. Wasterecycling will have to become an essentialpart of waste management in RS, particularlywhen the country speeds up the process ofapproximation to the European Union,fulfills the demands made by EU policiesand legislation, and notably EU directives,

263M.Topić / SJM 10 (2) (2015) 255 - 267

that impact directly on waste managementoptions. These include requirements withinthe Landfill Directive to reduce dependencyon landfill for biodegradable waste, andpolicies that support the waste managementhierarchy of options and notably supportwaste reduction and recovery.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current state analysishave showed that municipal solid waste

management (MSWM) presents a significantproblem in RS. Current waste managementsystems in RS do not follow modern wastemanagement practices due to differenthistorical, financial and social aspects.Fragmentation of solid waste collection anddisposal systems; inadequate, technicallyand legally unapproved landfills; absence oftreatment technologies or insufficientnumber of recycling centers have contributedto the present situation. Using the benchmarkmethodology, based on environmental,institutional and economical sustainability,

264 M.Topić / SJM 10 (2) (2015) 255 - 267

Figure 3. Assessment profile of MSWM in Republika Srpska (Topić, 2014)

the MSWM in the research region isanalyzed and as result the assessment profileis presented. The results of the evaluationshow that MSWM in RS is mostly spreadbetween the medium/low and mediumphases of development. Severe problems areidentified in the waste disposal, particularlyunregulated disposal in severalmunicipalities as well as the appearance of alarge number of wild dumps in rural areas.These problem areas should be dealt withurgently in order to reduce harmful effectson humans and the environment. One of themain obstacles for the further developmentlies in the difficult economic situation.However, positive steps toward sustainabledevelopment have already been taken. Thebuilding of a legal framework forenvironmental protection and wastemanagement at national level is identified asmedium/high. Numerous rules andregulations in the country, in accordancewith the EU directives, have been adopted,creating the foundation for future planning.Furthermore, the positive improvements inwaste recycling, mostly through theinitiatives of private waste companies andthe informal sector, show that the serviceproviders have recognized the benefits to begained from the raw materials market.

Furthermore, the model clearly illustratesthe problem of poor legal enforcement.Although the basic environmental and wastemanagement laws are implemented, the poorwaste collection coverage and uncontrolleddisposal are present in the region. The entityis deficient in capacity to manage complexarrangements with private investors. Theprivate public partnerships (PPP) in thewaste management sector are rare causinglack of new investments in newinfrastructure and capacity. This is leading toa deficiency in the development of skilled

labor, so that there is a critical need fortraining and transfer of know-how. Anotherproblem area identified by model is thefinancial viability of communal enterpriseswhich is impaired by inadequate costaccounting and low payment rate of providedservice. The combination of these twofactors produces a devastating effect on theeconomic viability of the waste managementsector.

References

Abou-Najm, M., & El-Fadel, M. (2004).Computer-based interface for an integratedsolid waste management optimizationmodel. Environmental Modeling &Software, 19, 1151–1164.

Chen, X., Geng, Y., & Fujita, T. (2010).An overview of municipal solid wastemanagement in China. Waste Management,30, 716-724.

Klampfl-Pernold, H., Gelbmann, U., Abl,C., Pomberger, R., & Schmidt, G. (2006).Quantum leaps in waste management:Development of an innovation-orientedphase model of European wastemanagement. Shaker Verlag, p.183.

Klampfl-Pernold, H., Schmidt, G., &Heihl, M.. (2012). If the waste management(still) at the end. Proceedings of the 11international conference on wastemanagement DepoTech, Leoben, p. 20-34.

Klunert, A., & Anschutz, J. (2001).Integrated Sustainable Waste Management:the Concept: Tools for Decision-makers,experiences from the Urban Waste ExpertiseProgramme (1995-2001). Waste, Gouda,Netherlands.

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

265M.Topić / SJM 10 (2) (2015) 255 - 267

countries. Waste Management, 33, 988-1003.

Mcdougall, F., White, P., Franke, M., &Hindke, P. (2001). Integrated solid wastemanagement: a Life Cycle inventory, 2ndEdition, Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Schżbeler, P., Wehrle, K., & Christen, J.(1996). Conceptual Framework forMunicipal Solid Waste Management in Low-Income Countries, UNDP/UNCHS(Habitat)/World Bank/SDC CollaborativeProgramme on Municipal Solid Wastemanagement in Low-Income Countries;SKAT, St. Gallen, Switzerland.

Seadon, J.K. (2006). Integrated wastemanagement – Looking beyond the solidwaste horizon. Waste Management, 26,

1327-1336. Sim, M.N., Wilson, C.D., Velis, A.C., &

Smith, R.S. (2013). Waste management andrecycling in the former Soviet Union: thecity of Bishkek, Kyrguz Republic(Kyrgyztan). Waste Management andResearch, 31, 106-125.

Tedesse, T., Ruijs, A., & Hagos, F.(2008). Household waste disposal in Mekellecity, Northern Ethiopia. Waste Management,28, 2003–2012.

Topić, M. (2013). The road to sustainablewaste management in Bosnia andHerzegovina - current developments andchallenges. In GEOGRAZ, AustrianGeographical Society, Branch Graz, Austria.

Topić, M. (2014). Waste Management in

266 M.Topić / SJM 10 (2) (2015) 255 - 267

ПЛАНИРАЊЕ ИНТЕГРИСАНОГ/ОДРЖИВОГ УПРАВЉАЊА

ЧВРСТИМ ОТПАДОМ (“ISWM”) – МОДЕЛ УПРАВЉАЊА

ЧВРСТИМ ОТПАДОМ У РЕПУБЛИЦИ СРПСКОЈ/ Б и Х

Milan Topić, Hubert Biedermann

Извод

Управљање чврстим комуналним отпадом је постао значајан проблем за земље широм света.

Изазови су посебно видљиви у земљама у развоју и транзицији, који се огледају углавном у

неодговарајућем начину управљања, неразвијеним технологијама, неповољним економским

ситуацијама и недостатцима еколошке свести, што изазива огроман утицај на животну средину.

Данас се примењују разни модели за анализу система управљања отпадом од регионалних до

општинских нивоа. Разумевање механизама и фактора који тренутно воде развој управљања

отпадом представља кључни корак за напредовање и планирање одрживог система управљања

отпадом. Главни циљ овога рада је примена „ISWM“ модела на огледном подручију, који се

заснива на принципу животног циклуса и прати аналитички оквир методологије.

Трансдициплинарна истраживачка методологија је емпириски тестирана и примјењена на

региону Републике Српске. Користећи референтну методологију која је базирана на принципима

заштите животне средине и институционалне и економске одрживости, сyстем управљања

отпадом је представљен у профилу процене. Резултати спроведених анализа и примена

развијеног модела могу се користити као основа за предлог даљих статешких, политичких и

менаџерских промена, као и подршка доносиоцима одлука и заинтересованим странама да

управљају отпадом на економичан и еколошко прихватљив начин.

Кључне речи: Интегрисано/одрживо управљање отпадом, планирање управљање чврстим

отпадом

Republika Srpska - Strategies andMeasurements for Future Waste Collection,Treatment, Recycling and Prevention.Doctoral Thesis at University of Graz.

Topić, M., Preradović, Lj., Stanković, M.,Zimmermann, F., Fischer, W., Preradović,G., Pešević, D., & Topić, D. (2013). Wastemanagment in Republika Srpska: analysis ofcurrent situation with special fokus on thecomunal enterprises. InternationalAssosiation of scientific workers AIS /BanjaLuka/ BiH and Department of Geographyand Regional Science/Graz/ Austria, BanjaLuka p. 227.

Topić, M., Zimmermann, F., & Fischer,W. (2013a). Waste Management Planning:An analysis of the waste management systemin Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Planning andnormative protection of space andenvironment: proceedings of the 7thscientific conference with internationalparticipation, Belgrade, p.205-213.

UN-Habitat, (2010). Solid wastemanagement in the world’s cities - Waterand sanitation in the world’s cities 2010,United Nations Human SettlementsProgramme (UN-HABITAT), EarthscanLtd, London, UK; Earthscan LLC,Washington, DC, USA.

Wilson, C.D., Costas, A.V., & Rodic, Lj.(2013a). Integrated sustainable wastemanagement in developing countries.Proceedings of the Institution of CivilEngineers, Waste and ResourceManagement, 166, 52–68.

Wilson, C.D., Rodic, Lj., Cowing, J.M.,Whiteman, A., Stretz, J., & Scheiberg, A.(2013b). Benchmark Indicators forIntegrated & Sustainable WasteManagement (ISWM). ISWA WorldCongress 2013, Vienna.

Wilson, C.D., Rodic, Lj., Scheinberg, A.,Costas, A.V., & Alabaster, G. (2012).

Comparative analysis of solid wastemanagement in 20 cities. WasteManagement and Research, 30, 237-254.

World Bank (2012). What a Waste – AGlobal Review of Solid Waste Management,Urban development series knowledgepapers, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.

267M.Topić / SJM 10 (2) (2015) 255 - 267