Critical Analysis of Solid Waste Information Systems in Brazil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X42951Keywords:
Solid waste, Information systems, Statistical methodologyAbstract
The comprehensiveness and reliability of information on the current management of urban solid waste in Brazil is a challenge to the objectives of scientific research. In the introduction to this article, the main information systems are appointed and their main limitations are briefly presented. ABRELPE's Panorama of Solid Waste in Brazil - as one of the main sources of information- was analyzed in detail regarding the statistical methodology used to determine its values. The results of this analysis revealed to be of low reliability in relation to the quantitative referring to the variables published on RSU - solid urban waste and RSS - health services waste. Either because there are no complete descriptions about the application of the method, as well as the evidence of inadequacies of the model developed with the adopted statistical method. The present work allowed us to conclude the importance of developing an independent national system for gathering information on the production, treatment and disposal of waste that effectively contributes to the search for solutions to the serious social, economic and environmental problem caused by solid urban waste and its poor management in general.
Downloads
References
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE EMPRESAS DE LIMPEZA PÚBLICA E RESÍDUOS ESPECIAIS – ABRELPE. (2017) Panorama dos resíduos sólidos no Brasil – 2015. São Paulo. ABRELPE/ISWA, 92 p.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE EMPRESAS DE LIMPEZA PÚBLICA E RESÍDUOS ESPECIAIS – ABRELPE. (2017) Panorama dos resíduos sólidos no Brasil – 2016. São Paulo. ABRELPE/ISWA, 64 p.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE EMPRESAS DE LIMPEZA PÚBLICA E RESÍDUOS ESPECIAIS – ABRELPE. (2017) Anexos do Panorama dos resíduos sólidos no Brasil – 2015. São Paulo. ABRELPE/ISWA, 22 p.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE EMPRESAS DE LIMPEZA PÚBLICA E RESÍDUOS ESPECIAIS – ABRELPE. (2017) Anexos do Panorama dos resíduos sólidos no Brasil – 2016. São Paulo. ABRELPE/ISWA, 51 p.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE EMPRESAS DE LIMPEZA PÚBLICA E RESÍDUOS ESPECIAIS – ABRELPE. (2017) Panorama dos resíduos sólidos no Brasil – 2017. São Paulo. ABRELPE/ISWA, 73 p.
BRASIL. Lei nº 12.305/10. Institui a Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos; altera a Lei nº 9605/98 e da outras providências.
DIAS, D.M.; MARTINEZ, C.B.; BARROS, R.T.V.; LIBANIO, M. v.17 n.3 jul/set 2012 p.325-332 (jornal da Scielo) Eng Sanit Ambient
FERNANDES, V. Mais prazo reabre debate sobre lixões. Revista BIO/ABES, Rio de Janeiro, Jul/Set. 2015.
FILHO, G. W. C. O Cadastro Nacional de Operadores de Resíduos Perigosos como um dos instrumentos da Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos. Rio de Janeiro: Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sérgio Arouca, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz; 2013.
HILL, R. C.; Griffiths W. E.; Judge G. G. Econometria (2a Ed.). (de Farias, A. A. Trad.). São Paulo: Saraiva, 2006.
PISANI JUNIOR, R.; CASTRO, M. C. A. A. de; COSTA, A. Á. da. Desenvolvimento de correlação para estimativa da taxa de geração per capita de resíduos sólidos urbanos no estado de São Paulo: influências da população, renda per capita e consumo de energia elétrica. Eng. Sanit. Ambient., Rio de Janeiro , v. 23, n. 2, p. 415-424, Mar. 2018 . Available from <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-41522018000200415&lng=en&nrm=iso>. access on 12 Nov. 2019. Epub Mar 29, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1413-41522018167380.
SHAH, T. M.; RAMASWAMI, S.; BEHRENDT, J.; OTTERPOHL, R. Simultaneous removal of organics and ammonium-nitrogen from reverse osmosis concentrate of mature landfill leachate. Journal of Water Process Engineering, v. 19, 2017, p. 126-132.
THOMAZ, I.P.L. Utilização de Redes Neurais Artificiais (RNA) para previsão da composição gravimétrica e peso específico de Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos (RSU). Rio de Janeiro: COPPE/Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; 2016.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2022-04-26 (2)
- 2020-06-04 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Ciência e Natura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International 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.