Urban solid waste in the southern of Rio Grande do Sul state
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X37500Keywords:
Solid waste, Waste management, Public policiesAbstract
The National Solid Waste Policy creates tools for the correct management of waste, such as municipal solid waste management plans. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the generation of municipal solid waste and public management policies in municipalities in the Southern Zone of the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Fourteen municipalities were analyzed, where the data of urban and rural population, population served, amount of annual waste collection, annual per capita generation, amount of recycled waste and the final disposal site of the wastes were collected. The municipality with the lowest percentage of collection coverage was Pedras Altas with a value of 35.1% and the highest was Pelotas, with a value of 96.55% collection coverage. Only 50% of the municipalities analyzed have an agreement with recycling cooperatives or associations. The city of Morro Redondo has the highest recycling rate, of 16.25%. Regarding the final disposal, most of the municipalities carry out the outsourcing of this service, and only the municipality of Chuí has its own sanitary landfill.
Downloads
References
ABRELPE - Associação Brasileira de Empresa de Limpeza Pública e Resíduos especiais. Panorama dos Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil, 2017 [Internet]. Available from: http://abrelpe.org.br/download-panorama-2017/.
ABNT, NBR. 10004. Resíduos sólidos–Classificação, 2004.
BORINELLI B. As Características dos problemas ambientais e suas implicações para a política ambiental. Serviço Social em Revista, 2011; 13(2): 63-84
BRASIL. Lei n° 12.305 de 02 de agosto de 2010. Brasília, 2010. Institui a Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos. Diário Oficial da União (Brasília) 2010 agosto 02.
DOMINGOS D, BOEIRA SL. Gerenciamento de resíduos sólidos urbanos domiciliares: análise do atual cenário no município de Florianópolis. Revista de Gestão Ambiental e Sustentabilidade, 2015, 4(3).
GOVERNO DO ESTADO DO RIO GRANDE DO SUL. Plano estadual de resíduos sólidos do estado do Rio Grande do Sul: 2015-2034. [S.l.: s.n.], 2014. 559 p. Available from: <http://www.pers.rs.gov.br/noticias/noticia-08042015.html>. Acesso em: 20 nov. 2017.
INSTITUTO DE PESQUISA ECONÔMICA APLICADA. Diagnóstico dos Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos: Relatório de Pesquisa. 2008. 82 p. Available from: <http://ipea.gov.br/agencia/images/stories/.../121009_relatorio_residuos_solidos_urbanos.pdf >. Acesso em: 20 nov. 2017.
INSTITUTO TÉCNICO DE PESQUISA E ASSESSORIA. Banco de dados Zona Sul, 2010. Disponível em: < http://www.bancodedadoszonasul.com.br/home >. Acesso em: 13 de nov. de 2017.
LUQUE ML. Residuos sólidos urbanos y medio ambiente en Lima. Revista de Química, 2000; 14(1):53-76.
SILVA GV, OLIVEIRA AR, SILVA TA, SILVA PV. Política Nacional De Resíduos Sólidos e sua implementação no município de Rio Pomba/MG. HOLOS, 2016; 1:202-214.
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.
