Final Year Project 2 – Technical Paper Faculty of Civil And Environmental Engineering

University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia

THE STUDY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT RESIDENTIAL AND

COMMERCIAL AREA IN BATU PAHAT (CASE STUDY: TAMAN

UNIVERSITI, PURA KENCANA AND EVERGREEN HEIGHTS)

Muhamad Firdaurs bin Abdullah1, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ishak bin Baba2

1 Department of Lightweight Structural Engineering, UTHM, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia 2 Department of Civil Engineering Technology, UTHM, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia

af090289@siswa.uthm.edu.my, ishak@uthm.edu.my

Abstract

Solid waste management of the country had been revived through the enforcement of Solid Waste Management

and Public Cleansing Act 2007 (Act 672) started from 1st of September last year. The duty to manage the waste

was transferred to Federal Government. According to the act, the research had been carried out to study the

effectiveness of Municipal Solid Waste management by related parties at residential and commercial area in Batu

Pahat through feedback from public and workers. Collection of data was conducted through distribution of survey

forms, interview sessions, sampling and observation made during waste collection. Gathered data were analyzed

by using statistical software like Microsoft Excel and SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). Pilot Test,

Reliability Test, Average Index and Level of Agreement were used in data analysis. Study showed public

respondents agreed with waste collection system of study area with value of �̅� = 3.65. They also agreed with

current issues of waste management with value of �̅� = 3.84. Whereas 71% of respondents confessed never making

complaint regarding waste collection. Respondents from concession company agreed with waste collection work

procedures with value of �̅� = 3.80. There were 63% of respondents admitted the frequency level of leachate spill

was sometimes. In conclusion, the effectiveness of the Municipal Solid Waste management in the study area was

satisfactory. Further study can be carried out by considering additional assessment tools such as time motion study

and analysis of solid waste collection routes to get more comprehensive results.

Keywords: Solid waste, Municipal Solid Waste, leachate, Act 672, Solid Waste Management

1.0 Introduction

Before the existence of the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Act 672),

solid waste management is a common practice being responsible to Local Authority (LA) in Malaysia

since long ago. However, a fairly well-planned management was started in 1976 through the provisions

of the Local Government Act 1976. It should be understood that according to the existing law at the

time, local authorities only manage solid waste in their administrative areas such as business premises

and houses whereas solid waste management outside of LA’s operation area such as villages in rural

areas was coordinated by the Ministry of Health Malaysia [1].

On average, every Malaysian produces 0.8 kg of waste per day. This amount gets larger if we

take into consideration the people living in the urban. People living this area are estimated to produce

1.5 kg of waste per day. According to statistics released by the Ministry of Housing and Local

Government in 2001, 16,247 tonness of garbage produced daily in Malaysia. Selangor was ahead of

other states with production of 2,955 tonnes of garbage per day. This was followed by Kuala Lumpur

(2,634 tonnes/day), Johor (2,002 tonnes/day), Perak (1,596 tonnes/day) and Kedah (1,383 tonnes/day)

[2]. These statistics show the need for new landfills is becoming critical, while the rate of solid waste

generation is increasing, in line with the increase of population as estimated in Table 1 [3].

Table 1: Estimated population and solid waste generation in Malaysia

Year Population Solid Waste (ton/year)

1991 17,567,000 4,488,369

1994 18,917,738 5,048,804

2015 31,773,889 7,772,402

2020 35,949,239 9,092,611

Source: (Ministry of Housing and Local Government, 1988)

Quantity of solid waste generated by the developed countries is greater than the developing

countries. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) for most of the developed countries, such as Japan, composed

of less organic material compared to other developing countries [4]. MSW production trends per capita

for developed countries like Japan is 1.2 kg per person per day. While developing countries like Nigeria

is 0.55 to 0.58 kg per capita. Japan adopted incineration system as the main method for managing MSW

as well as 3R method (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle). For developing countries, they used landfill and

open dump site to the dispose MSW with a cheaper cost or no cost at all, compared to the developed

countries. According to the Southern Waste Management (SWM), which is a private company

appointed to manage MSW in Southern Peninsular Malaysia, in a Civil Engineering seminar titled

‘Environmental Preservation Through Recycling,’ on average, each person produces 0.8-1.0 kg of waste

per day and Malaysian generate 18,000 tons of waste per day or 0.6 kg per capita [5].

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Definition of Solid Waste

The term ‘solid waste’ includes material considered worthless to be used and usually discarded

as garbage by the community [3]. Based on the Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act

2007 (Act 672) [6], ‘solid waste’ includes:-

i) Any scrap or surplus materials that are not required or rejected products arising from the use

of any process.

ii) Anything that is required to be disposed due to it is broken, worn out, contaminated or

otherwise damaged.

iii) Any other material under this act or any other written law might required by the authority

for disposal.

2.2 Classification of Solid Waste

The Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act 2007 (Act 672) [6], classified controlled

solid waste is divided into 8 types as shown in Figure 1.

2.2.1 Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) contains a useless waste to anyone as well as to the owner of the

material. But the waste may be used or recycled for more useful purpose. The term 'solid' indicates that

the MSW does not have sufficient liquid content to allow it to flow freely (free-flowing). While the

term 'urban' shows MSW is collected in urban areas such as cities, small towns by town council (LA)

or private cleaning company [7].

Figure 1: Eight types of controlled solid waste according to Act 672

2.2.2 Residential Solid Waste

According to the Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act 2007 (Act 672),

'Household Solid Waste' that contains any solid waste generated by a household and of a kind that is

normally produced by or disposed by any premises when occupied as a dwelling house and included

garden waste.

2.2.3 Public Solid Waste

Act 672 stated that public solid waste as any solid waste generated by the public place, which is

under the supervision or control of any local authority. Examples of public solid waste is rubbish along

the streets under the maintenance of the Local Authority (LA), landscape waste, playgrounds, beaches

and other recreational areas.

2.3 Sources of Solid Waste Generation

Solid waste generated from the residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, construction,

treatment plants and municipal services. This research is focused on residential and commercial areas

in which both areas are places for major human activities with variety of organic and inorganic waste

that are non-flammable. Organic waste from residential and commercial premises contain substances

that are susceptible to rotting and sometimes smelling. Organic waste consists of materials such as food

waste, various types of paper, plastic, kadbord, textiles, rubber, yard waste (garden/orchard), wood and

products of animal skin. Inorganic material consists of glass, tin, aluminum, cooking utensils, materials

containing iron and ash [8].

2.4 Solid Waste Management

Solid waste management system should be systematically planned and implemented as

population growth and people's lives becoming more advanced. This is due to solid waste disposal rate

depends on population growth as well as quality of life and economy. The increasing amount of solid

waste should be managed so that the impact of management failures do not occur. For implementation

system, a well-planned, organized, efficient, effective and high-tech management are necessary to

ensure well-being of human life and animals as well as the environment present in the earth.

2.5 Storage of Solid Waste

Solid waste produced will be collected and gathered in areas where it will be collected and taken

to a disposal site. Therefore, the waste should be stored while waiting for the process of collection and

disposal of solid waste in other area being completed. Factors to be considered in the process of storage

are [8]: -

i) Type of containers

ii) Location of containers

iii) Effect of storage on waste content

iv) Health and aesthetic aspects

2.5.1 Type of Containers

There are various types of container used in throughout the country. Some of these are as follows:

Figure 2: Types of solid waste containers according to the standard

Source: (http://www.sisa.my, 2013)

2.6 Solid Waste Collection

Solid waste collection activity is the process of collecting solid waste and take it to storage or

disposal site. Collection is the most important element and it is estimated that almost 80 percent of the

total solid waste management costs incurred for the work of collection of solid waste [9]. Therefore, the

relevant method should be reviewed based on the application and suitability, as well as frequency of

collection and the vehicle used in order to produce a solid waste collection system that effectively and

in accordance with the current situation. Solid waste collection system depends on the location of the

generation, quantity, source and type of waste produced.

2.7 Collection Method

Collection methods affect the quality and quantity of resource recovery and waste disposal

system. There are 4 methods of collection: -

i) Collection of accumulated storage

ii) Block collection

iii) Street collection

iv) House-to-house collection

2.8 Solid Waste Management in Malaysia (Legislation and Development)

In 1996, solid waste management in Malaysia was privatized. Although local governments have

lot of manpower and equipment, financial difficulties becoming the challenge to improve quality of

solid waste management. Under the privatization program, the four consortiums have been appointed

and divided into their respective zones, one of them was SWM Environment Sdn. Bhd. assigned to

Johor, Negeri Sembilan and Melaka.

However, the privatization policy has not shown positive results due to the solid waste

management system in Malaysia still inefficient and imperfect. Thus, on August 30, 2007, the Solid

Waste and Public Cleansing Act 2007 was enacted with a focus on management responsibility to the

Federal Government and the privatization of solid waste handling. The Act came into effect on 1st

September 2011. Hence, the role of enforcement of solid waste management was transferred to

Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam (PPSPPA) in each state. Besides,

amendments were made to the three policies, namely the Local Government Act 1976, ‘Site, drainage

and Building Act 1974’ and ‘Town and Country Planning Act 1976’ [3].

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Methods of Data Collection

3.1.1 Method of Sampling

Public (respondents) involved in this study consists of three group of residents living in selected

neighborhoods of Taman Universiti, Pura Kencana and Evergreen Heights. According to Mr. Izwan

Mohd Amin, Enforcer Assistant of PPSPPA Batu Pahat branch, the number of houses that available in

the three study areas are 1945 units. While the number of shophouses (commercial) are 503 units. Table

2 shows the breakdown of the number of houses and shophouses according to residential area studied.

Thus, in order to get thorough distribution of questionnaires in this study, a total of 80 samples were

selected from three residential areas with the percentage was determined by the total number premises

available in the area. Of the total, 60 respondents were housing residents while 20 respondents are

shophouse owners. Allocation of the number of samples is specified in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Number of premises according to residential area

Residential

House Shophouse (commercial)

Unit Percentage

(%)

Sample

(unit) Unit

Percentage

(%)

Sample

(unit)

Taman Univeristi 390 20 12 285 57 11

Pura Kencana 1129 22 13 96 19 4

Evergreen Heights 426 58 35 122 24 5

TOTAL 1945 100 60 503 100 20

Meanwhile, for sampling of the workers, respondents involved in the study were selected among

the cleaning concession company workers which is SWM Environment Sdn. Bhd. and its sub-

contractors, A. Rahman Enterprise. Number of workers (garbage collection) of SWM Environment

Batu Pahat branch was 99, while A. Rahman Enterprise was 28 person. Table 3 shows breakdown of

the number of workers of both companies based on routing and tasks. Thus, a total of 40 sets of

questionnaires were distributed equally among the workers of two companies.

Table 3: Number of workers according to number of routes and tasks

Concession/

Contractor Company

Number of routes Tasks

(Day Route)

Tasks

(Night Route) Total number

of workers Day Night Driver

Pre-

workers* Driver

Pre-

workers*

SWM Environment

Sdn. Bhd. 19 5 19 60 5 15 99

A. Rahman

Enterprise 7 0 7 21 0 0 28

TOTAL 26 5 26 81 5 15 127

Pre-workers* - Workers work at tailgate

3.1.2 Method of Questionnaires

Questionnaire for public respondents is conducted by visits from house to house and from one

shop to another. Another set of questionnaires are distributed among workers from both companies. The

questionnaire designed for public consists of 3 sections, namely Part A) Demographic, Part B) Feedback

on MSW collection system and Part C) Feedback on current issues of MSW management. Questionnaire

for the workers consist of 2 parts, namely Part A) Demographic and Part B) Feedback on MSW working

procedures. 5-points Likert scale are used to assess the level of agreement for each variable presented

in the questionnaire. Score 1 represents "strongly disagree, SD,' score 2 represents ‘disagree, D,' score

3 represents ‘not sure, NS,’ score 4 represents ‘agree, A' and score 5 represents ‘strongly agree, SA'.

3.2 Pre-analysis of Data

Survey instrument (questionnaire) must be verified its validity and reliability as the initial

formation of questionnaires before it can be really used by all respondents. This steps include the Pilot

Study and Reliability Test for the public and worker questionnaires. Statistical software like IBM®

SPSS® Statistics version 21 is used to run the test.

3.2.1 Pilot Study

Pilot study is a small-scale preliminary test conducted before a major study (the real test). It is

intended to check the feasibility or to improve the design of research instruments (questionnaire). It is

carried out to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of sampling. Ten samples are selected for each

group of questionnaire (the public and workers).

3.2.2 Reliability Test

Reliability Test shows the degree of consistency of the data collected. Coefficient of Cronbach

Alpha (α) is a measure of internal consistency. Reliability of an instrument (questionnaire) is low when

α value less than 0.3 and it is not acceptable. Reliability is high when the value of α greater than 0.7,

indicates internal consistency of the index table is high and it is highly acceptable. However, [10] argued

that the value of α between 0.3 and 0.7 is still can be accepted. They also stated that there is a common

agreement that the data is still acceptable if the value of Cronbach α reaches 0.6.

3.3 Data Analysis

The type of data analyzed in this study involved only quantitative data (multiple response and

Likert scale questions). With the aid of statistical analysis software such as Microsoft® Excel 2013 and

IBM® SPSS® Statistics version 21, data analysis can be done and presented in the form of graphical

analysis as well as descriptive like pie and bar charts.

3.3.1 Average Index, �̅�

Average Index is identified as a tool for determining the level of agreement for each feedback on

waste collection system, current issues of waste management and waste collection working procedure

in order to contribute to effectiveness of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) management. The data obtained

from the Likert scale were analyzed by using the 'Average Index' method [11]. Value of Average index

for each variable (question/factor) is calculated using the following formula:

Average Index = ∑ 1(𝑥1) + 2(𝑥2) + 3(𝑥3) + 4(𝑥4) + 5(𝑥5)

𝑥1+ 𝑥2+ 𝑥3+ 𝑥4+ 𝑥5 (1.0)

Where, 𝑥1 = Number of respondents for scoring ‘strongly disagree, SD’

𝑥2 = Number of respondents for scoring ‘disagree, D’

𝑥3 = Number of respondents for scoring ‘not sure, NS’

𝑥4 = Number of respondents for scoring ‘agree, A’

𝑥5 = Number of respondents for scoring ‘strongly agree, SA’

3.3.2 Level of agreement

Level of agreement is a measurement for interpreting the average response obtained from the

questions in the questionnaire. It is in the range of Likert scale 1- 5. It can also be used as a generalization

of the opinion for a group of respondents represents studied area. This method can give clues to the

level of agreement on the matters set in each of the questionnaire [12].

Evaluation table as shown in Table 4 is used for assessing the level of agreement for each

question/factor that has been calculated its average index value [13].

Table 4: Interpretation of level of agreement based on the average index values for the factors

contribute to effectiveness of waste collection

Average Index Range Level of Agreement

1.00 < x < 1.50 Strongly Disagree

1.50 < x < 2.50 Disagree

2.50 < x < 3.50 Not Sure

3.50 < x < 4.50 Agree

4.50 < x < 5.00 Strongly Agree

Note: x – Average Index Source: (Ghani, 2006)

4.0 Data Analysis and Results

4.1 Analysis of Questionnaires from the Public

Figure 3 shows a total of 60 respondents (75%) are the people living in residential area, while

20 respondents (25%) are occupants of commercial premises in the housing area. Out of 60 respondents

who occupied residential units, 12 (15%) are from Taman Universiti, 13 (16:25%) from Pura Kencana

and 35 (43.75%) from Evergreen Heights. Number of respondents from commercial premises at Taman

Universiti are 11 (13.75%), followed by Pura Kencana, 4 (5%) and Evergreen Heights, 5 respondents

(6.25%).

Figure 3: Distribution of respondents according to the type

of premises in the three residential area

Feedback on waste collection system shows that respondents agree with all the factors that

contribute to the effectiveness of waste collection by the average value, �̅� = 3.65. They agreed that the

collection is done quickly and smoothly and the frequency of collection is satisfactory. But the residents

still not aware about the function of PPSPPA as a monitoring board for solid waste collection operations

in their neighborhoods.

Figure 4 shows the highest number of respondents (32 people) are those who argue that the

frequency of waste collection failure is rarely happened. There are 4 respondents that argue frequency

of failure of solid waste collection is very often, whereas those who are not sure about this are 5

respondents.

Figure 4: The frequency of failure of solid waste collection in the study area

Feedback on current issues of waste management shows that respondents agreed with all the

issues that contribute to the effectiveness of waste collection by the average value, �̅� = 3.84. The issue

they most agree with is 'waste not collected will produce bad odor and affect the surrounding view.’

This result also consistent with the study [5], that proved the frequent problems complained by public

are smelling, waste being scattered all around the place and clogged drainage systems, all of these

problems really affect the view.

Figure 5 shows the majority of respondents (57 people) claimed that they never make a complaint

regarding waste collection. The rest of them, (23 respondents) ever had a complaint, with the highest

number of respondents are 11, chose to make a complaint to the local authority, while complaints to the

concession company, others and PPSPPA are 7, 4 and 1 respectively. These statistics prove there are

no serious problems regarding waste collection within the studied area. But they should aware of the

proper channel to make complaints at the present time is PPSPPA.

Figure 5: Channels for making complaint regarding waste collection

4.2 Analysis of the Questionnaires from the Workers

Figure 6 shows the highest number of respondents comprised of workers from SWM

Environment Sdn. Bhd which is 20 respondents (57.1%), while the number of respondents from the A.

Rahman Enterprise is 15 respondents (42.9%). The distribution number of respondents based on the

collection scheme area in the study as shown in Figure 7, with a total of 20 respondents (57.1%)

assigned for waste collection at Evergreen Heights, 9 respondents (25.7%) at Taman Universiti and

lastly, 6 respondents (17.1%) at Pura Kencana.

Figure 6: Number of respondents according Figure 7: Number of respondents according to

to concession company/ contractor to collection scheme area

Tmn.

Universiti

26%

Pura

Kencana

17%

Evergreen

Heights

57%

Feedback on work procedures of waste collection shows that respondents agreed with all the

procedures that contribute to the effectiveness of waste collection by the average value, �̅� = 3.80. The

work procedure they most agree with is collection is being made just for correct waste types and at

approved premises only. They also agree the workers manage to avoid garbage leachate spills from

happening. This is due to the spills are serious matter concerned by the public. Daily Express on October

18, 2012 reported there was a complaint from the public regarding the effects of leachate spills left

behind shops in Damai, Kota Kinabalu. Collection workers were warned not to repeat such things by

municipality [14].

Figure 8 shows the majority of respondents, 22 (62.9%) admitted the leachate spills were

'sometimes' happened, 6 respondents (17.1%) claimed it was 'often/always' and 'rarely' respectively.

None of the respondents claimed the spill 'never' happened. Lastly, only 1 respondent (2.9%) said ‘not

sure/do not know’ about the spills frequency. These results indicate there is still room for improvement

in this solid waste collection service.

Figure 8: Frequency level of garbage leacahate spills

5.0 Conclusion

The first objective is to study the effectiveness of the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) management

is achieved through the response of questionnaire from the public. Most of respondents who live in the

house and shop premises (commercial) give positive feedback towards the collection system. They

agreed and satisfied with waste collection system available.

The second objective of this study, which is to assess the level of competency of workers in

performing MSW collection is achieved through questionnaire from the workers. Most of the

respondents from the two companies give positive feedback to work procedures stated in questionnaire.

They agreed with the work procedures that contribute to the effectiveness of waste collection.

The third objective is to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of MSW collection method. It is

achieved through observation, surveys and interviews conducted towards PPSPPA, MPBP, SWM

Environment and A. Rahman Enterprise throughout the study. Solid waste collection methods in the

study area are from house to house (also from shophouse to another shophouse) and it make use of

compactor truck. Its effectiveness is satisfactory and on schedule.

In conclusion, the effectiveness of solid waste management in the study area is contributed by

the various parties such as concession/ contrator, PPSPPA enforcer and the resident themselves, hence

it is satisfactory enough.

Acknowledgement

First and foremost, the author sincerely like to express his highest gratitude to his supervisor,

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ishak bin Baba for giving advice, guidance, support, thought and encouragement as

well as his patience in guiding the process of writing this Bachelor Degree Project report. The author

also would like to thank to all the UTHM lecturers for the knowledge that has been taught during his

study at this university.

The author’s appreciation is also extended to his good and helpful friends who shared many ideas,

advice and to all the parties involved directly or indirectly in completion of this report, especially to Mr.

Mohd Izwan bin Mohd Amin, Assistent Enforcer of PPSPPA Batu Pahat branch. It is difficult for the

author to get cooperation from various parties without him.

References

[1] M. N. Salleh, “Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal di Kawasan Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan di Malaysia,” in S. Siwar, H.

Ali, A. R. Ahmad and M. Z. A. Hamid, (Eds), Prosiding Dasar Memperbaiki Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal

Perbandaran, on Julai 1999 & November 2000, 2001, pp. 1 - 6.

[2] A. Sobian, “Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal di Malaysia dan Masalahnya,” 2003, http://www.ikim.gov.my/index.

php/ms/artikel/7193-pengurusan-sisa-pepejal-di-malaysia-dan-masalahnya

[3] L. A. Manaf, Aplikasi Sistem Pintar dalam Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan

Pustaka, 2011.

[4] OA. Rachel, H. Komine, K. Yasuhara and S. Murakami, “Municipal Solid Waste Management in Developed

and Developing Countries - Japan and Nigeria as Case Studies.” in 44th Engineering Site Works Study

Conference, 2009, pp. 1945 & 1946.

[5] F. Mustaffa, “Kajian Keberkesanan Pemungutan Sisa Pepejal di Taman Melodies, Johor Bahru,” Bach.

Degree Project, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, 2009.

[6] Malaysia, “Warta Kerajaan Malaysia, Akta 672: Akta Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam

2007”: P.U.(A) 302/2011, 2011.

[7] D. Taylor, C. Siwar and H. Ali, “Knowledge, Attitudes and Perception on Minimising Household Municipal

Solid Waste Generation: A Case of Petaling Jaya Municipality Council (MPPJ),” in S. Siwar, H. Ali, A. R.

Ahmad dan M. Z. A. Hamid, (Eds), Prosiding Dasar Memperbaiki Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Perbandaran,

on Julai 1999 & November 2000, 2001, pp. 151 - 166.

[8] G. Tchobanoglous, H. Theisen and S. Vigil, Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles

and Management Issues. USA: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1993.

[9] P. A. Vesilind, J. J. Pierce, and R. Weiner, Kejuruteraan Alam Sekitar, 2nd ed. (N. Jaafar, Trans.). Skudai:

Unit Penerbitan Akademik Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 1994. (The original title published in 1988)

[10] X. Li, and R. Wang, “Survey Research on Relationship among Services Failures, Service Recovery and

Customer Satisfaction” in International Conference on Management Science & Engineering, 2007, pp.

1121-1126.

[11] M. R. Abdullah, “Causes and Effects of Construction Delay in Construction Management Procurement

Approach in MARA Projects,” M.S. thesis, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia, 2010.

[12] H. B. Samsul, “Collaborative Usage of ICT DBMS in Construction Cost Control: The Post Contract

Perspectives,” M.S. thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia, 2008.

[13] A. Ghani, “The Importance of Preliminaries Item,” M.S. thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor,

Malaysia, 2006.

[14] S. Skinner, “Garbage collectors chided for leachate spill” Daily Express, pp. 8, Oct. 2012.