Evolution of integrated solid waste management systems in brazilian cities under the national solid waste policy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X29067Keywords:
Integrated Management Systems, Solid Waste Management, Environmental Assessment, Environmental IndicatorsAbstract
This article analyzes the evolution of integrated solid waste management systems in small and medium cities of the state of Rio de Janeiro. For this purpose, we applied the Modified Solid Waste Management Condition Index (ICGRm), calculated by a spreadsheet with 40 environmental indicators. A field study was carried out to evaluate ten cities in the state of Rio de Janeiro, among twenty already investigated in a survey carried out in the years 2007-2008. The cities were classified as adequate or inadequate according to the ICGRm scores (range from zero to ten points). The comparative evaluation revealed that four cities presented positive evolution, but only slight, while six cities presented worse scores. In the specific case of Brazil, it shows that public managers have not yet given proper priority to solid waste management, although six years have passed since the establishment of the National Solid Waste Policy through Law 12,305/2010. Ten of the cities evaluated reached the level of management considered adequate by the applied method, either in the evaluation in 2007-2008 or 2016, and some showed slight improvement.
Downloads
References
CETESB/SEMA. Inventário Estadual de Resíduos Sólidos Domiciliares – Relatório de 2001, São Paulo, SP, Companhia de Tecnologia de Saneamento Ambiental, Secretaria de Estado de Meio Ambiente, Estado de São Paulo, 2002.
CETESB/SEMA, 2016, Inventário Estadual de Resíduos Sólidos Domiciliares – Relatório de 2015, São Paulo, SP. Companhia de Tecnologia de Saneamento Ambiental, Secretaria de Estado de Meio Ambiente, Estado de São Paulo, 2016.
CONAMA nº 307. “Resolução que estabelece diretrizes para o gerenciamento de resíduos da construção civi”, Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente, Brasília, Brasil, 2002.
CONAMA nº 358. “Resolução que dispõe sobre o tratamento e a disposição final de resíduos sólidos do serviço de saúde”, Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente, Brasília, Brasil, 2005.
CSILLAG, João Mario . A Análise do Valor e A Teoria das Restrições. In: João Mário Csillag. (Org.). Análise do Valor. Análise do Valor. 4ed.São Paulo: Atlas, 1995, v. 1
DANTAS, K. M. C.; MAHLER, C. F.; MENDEZ, G. P.; AZEVEDO, J. P. S.; Avaliação dos Sistemas de Gestão Integrada de Resíduos Sólidos em Municípios. Artigo em avaliação. Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental – ABES, Rio de Janeiro-RJ, 2016.
DECRETO-LEI FEDERAL nº 11.107, “Normas Gerais de contratação de Consórcios Públicos”, Brasil, 06 de abril de 2005.
DEUS, A. B. S., CLARKE, R. T., LUCA, S. J. “Índice de Impacto dos Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos na Saúde Pública (IIRSP): Metodologia e Aplicação”, Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, volume 9, n° 4, Out./Dez. 2004.
FERNANDES, V. Mais prazo reabre debate sobre lixões. Revista BIO/ABES, Rio de Janeiro, Jul/Set. 2015.
GODOY, M. R. B. Dificuldades para aplicar a Lei da Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil, Caderno de Geografia, São Paulo, v.23, n.39. 2013.
HAMADA, J. “Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos”, I SICOM – Simpósio sobre Compostagem – Ciência e Tecnologia, Botucatu, São Paulo,UNESP, Agosto/ 2004.
MARSHALL, R. E.; FARAHBAKHSH K. Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in developing countries. Waste Management, Canada: Elsevier, v. 33, pag. 988-1003, 2013.
MAVROPOULOS, A. International Report: Uncontrolled Landfill Investigation - A Case Study in Athens. Waste Management and Research, United Kingdom (UK) v. 17, pag. 159-164, 1999.
NBR ISO 14.031. “Gestão ambiental - Avaliação de desempenho ambiental- Diretrizes”, Norma Brasileira, ABNT, Brasil, 2004.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
