Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Solid waste seasonal characteristics related to economic conditions: Hatay northern west as case study

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper studied solid waste components in six districts of Hatay (Iskenderun, Dortyol, Payas, Erzin, Belen, and Arsuz) for the period 2015 until 2018. Solid wastes were categorized, and the relationship between the population and the waste categories were determined using Pearson’s correlation test. It was mainly categorized using The Standard Method of Determination of Compositions of Unprocessed Urban Wastes by ASTM D5231-92 into 11 categories. Solid waste in the study area consist of food waste (63%), paper (6%), plastic (9%), glass (3%), metal (1%), composite waste (1%), electric–electronic waste (0%), hazardous waste (0%), garden waste (3%), incombustible waste (5%) and combustible waste (9%). Food waste showed strong negative correlation with population (r = − 0.875, p < 0.05), while plastic(r = 0.888, p < 0.05), glass(r = 0.813, p < 0.05) and composite waste (r = 0.890, p < 0.05) showed strong positive correlation. The other categories showed weak or moderate correlation. The socio-economic factor effects were studied in each district. Food waste showed strong negative correlation with the income level (r = − 0.72, p < 0.01). Paper and plastic waste were positively correlated to the income level with the maximum correlation of (r = 0.871, p < 0.01) and (r = 0.843, p < 0.01), respectively. The seasonal variation effect also had been considered in the study. It was concluded that the food portion in the winter season was higher than summer in Belen and Payas, and this could be attributed to the internal migration. Finally, a cost analysis of the recycling aspect for the categories of paper, plastic, glass, and metal (PPGM) was assessed. The result of the cost analysis reflected the effect of inflation on the recycling market. It showed that even though the maximum PPGM generation was estimated in 2018 with value of 15994.66 kg/day, the maximum daily income was recorded in 2017 with a value of 3256.37 $/day.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Worrell WA, Vesilind PA (2012) Solid waste engineering, 2 edn. Cengage Learning Products, Stamford

    Google Scholar 

  2. Unnisa SA, Rav SB (2012) Sustainable solid waste management. Apple Academic Press, Inc., Oakville

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Kiely G (1997) Environmental engineering. McGraw-Hill Publishing Companies, New York (ISBN 0-07-013158-9)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hansen W, Christopher M, Verbuecheln M (2002) EU waste policy and challenges for regional and local authorities. Ecological Institute for International and European Environmental Policy, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  5. Turkey Environmental and Urban Ministry (2018) [Online]. http://cygm.csb.gov.tr/. Accessed 20 June 2018

  6. Da Cruz NF, Ferreira S, Cabral M, Simões P, Marques RC (2014) Packaging waste recycling in Europe: is the industry paying for it. Waste Manag 34(2):298–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hockett D, Lober DJ, Pilgrim K (1995) Determinants of per capita municipal solid waste generation in the southeastern United States. J Environ Manag 45:205–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Irwan D, Basri NEA, Watanbe K (2011) Interrelationship between affluence and household size on municipal solid waste arising: evidence from selected residential areas of putrajaya. J Asian Sci Res 2:747–785

    Google Scholar 

  9. AbdAlqader A, Hamad J (2012) Municipal solid waste composition determination supporting the integrated solid waste management in gaza strip. Int J Environ Sci Dev 3(2):172–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yenice KM, Doğruparmak ÇŞ, Durmuşoğlu E (2009) “Kocaeli İli Katı Atık Karekterizasyonu”, Türkiyede Katı Atık Yönetimi Sempozyumu, TÜRKAY, Kocaeli

  11. Denafas G, Ruzgas T, Martuzevičius D, Shmarin S, Hoffmann M, Mykhaylenko V, Turkadze T (2014) Seasonal variation of municipal solid waste generation and composition in four East European cities. Resour Conserv Recycl 89:22–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Türkiye İstatistik K (2016) Disposal/recovery methods and amount of municipal waste, 1994–2016. [Online]. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=1577. Accessed 10 Apr 2018

  13. Governorship of HATAY-Information Processing Branch Office (2015) Governor of Hatay. [Online]. http://www.hatay.gov.tr/hatay-genel-bilgiler Accessed 20 June 2018

  14. Wilcox R (2011) Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing. Academic Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Aja OC, Al-Kayiem HH (2014) Review of municipal solid waste management options in Malaysia, with an emphasis on sustainable waste-to-energy options, J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 16:693–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sukholthaman P, Chanvarasuth P, Sharp A (2017) Analysis of waste generation variables and people’s attitudes towards waste management system: a case of Bangkok. Thailand. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 19:645–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Moghadam MRA, Mokhtarani N, Mokhtarani B (2009) Municipal solid waste management in Rasht City. Iran Waste Manag 29:485–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chaerul M, Fahruroji AR, Fujiwara T (2014) Recycling of plastic packaging waste in Bandung City, Indonesia. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 16(3):509–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-013-0201-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Al-Khatib IA, Arafat HA, Daoud R, Shwahneh H (2009) Enhanced solid waste management and understanding the effects of gender, income marital status and religious convictions on attitudes and practices related to street littering in Nablus-Palestinian territory. Waste Manag 29:455–499

    Google Scholar 

  20. Öztürk T (2015) Generation and management of electrical–electronic waste (e-waste). Turkey J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 17:411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-014-0258-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Türkiye İstatistik K (2016) Income distribution and living conditions statistics. [Online]. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1011. Accessed 22 Oct 2018

  22. Kamran A, Chaudhry MN, Batool SA (2015) Effects of socio-economic status and seasonal variation on municipal solid waste composition: a baseline study for future planning and development. Environ Sci Eur 27(1):16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. The Central Park of Republic of Turkey (2018) May report. [Online]. http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/EN/TCMB+EN/Main+Menu/Core+Functions/Monetary+Policy/Monetary+Policy+Committee/2018. Accessed 10 June 2018

  24. Koivupuro HK, Hartikainen H, Silvennoinen K, Katajajuuri JM, Heikintalo N, Reinikainen A, Jalkanen L (2012) Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households. Int J Consum Stud 36:183–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Visschers VH, Wickli N, Siegrist M (2016) Sorting out food waste behaviour: a survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in households. J Environ Psychol 45:66–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wenlock R, Buss D, Derry B, Dixon E (1980) Household food wastage in Britain. Br J Nutr 43:53–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ganglbauer E, Fitzpatrick G, Comber R (2013) Negotiating food waste: using a practice lens to inform design. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 20:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stancu V, Haugaard P, Lähteenmäki L (2016) Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: two routes to food waste. Appetite 96:7–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cecere G, Mancinelli S, Mazzanti M (2014) Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Ecol Econ 107:163–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Engineering Department, Mersin University, Ciftlikkoy Campus, 33342, Mersin, Turkey

    Mutlu Yalvaç, Mohammed Saleh & Duygu Yaylacı

  2. Occupational Health and Safety Department, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey

    Selen Günaydın

Authors
  1. Mutlu Yalvaç
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Selen Günaydın
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammed Saleh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Duygu Yaylacı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammed Saleh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yalvaç, M., Günaydın, S., Saleh, M. et al. Solid waste seasonal characteristics related to economic conditions: Hatay northern west as case study. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 21, 743–752 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-00824-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-00824-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation