Evaluation of integrated municipal solid waste in Brazil compared to developed countries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2236130814684Keywords:
Management, Waste, Urban, Integrated assessmentAbstract
Management of urban municipal waste has become an increasing problem for governments in developing countries, in the last decades. Not only the developing countries but also the developed ones have introduced restrictive environmental legislations with the objective of optimization of waste treatment and waste disposal programs. The main objective of the present paper is to investigate the real situation of this scenario and in developed countries, showing the results and tracing a parallel comparative and critical. Are transcribed and analyzed the data obtained at each stage of an Integrated Solid Waste Management – GIRSU. Important findings are reported, such as the high level of investment by developed countries, inverted in awareness campaigns for implementing a GIRSU effective, as well as remarkable contrasts between recycling rates in Brazil than differential block of this others countries, that is, 2% and 20%, respectively, in the total amount of waste generated. The final assessment is that the big difference is about economic incentive policy of the block of developed countries in terms of subsidies, compared to the Brazilian case.
Downloads
References
Alemu, C. La bonne élève de l`Union Européene. Label France, dez. 2001.
Calderoni, S. Os Bilhões Perdidos no Lixo. 4. edição – São Paulo: Humanitas Editora / FFLCH / USP, 2005. 346 p.
D’Almeida, M.L.O. & Vilhena, A. Lixo muncipal: Manual de gerenciamento integrado. 2ª. Ed., São Paulo: IPT/CEMPRE, 2000. 370p.
EMB. Entidad Metropolitana de Medio Ambiente de Barcelona, Datos Ambientales Metropolitanos de 2004. Edição de outubro de 2005.
IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia Econômica, 2000. Pesquisa Nacional de Saneamento Básico - PNSB. Koushki P.A., Al-Duaij U. & Al-Ghimlas W. Collection and transportation cost of household solid waste in Kuwait. Waste Management n. 24, 2004, pp. 957-964.
Leite, V.D. et al. Bioestabilização de resíduos sólidos orgânicos. Digestão de resíduos sólidos orgânicos e aproveitamento do biogás. Rio de Janeiro, ABES. Projeto PROSAB. 2003. p. 95 -119.
Leme, J.H.P. Estudo de caso: reciclagem energética na Usina Verde. 1º Simpósio Brasileiro de Incineração – UPAN. Porto Alegre, dezembro de 2006.
Leroy J.B. Guia para elaboración de um proyecto de tratamiento de resíduos urbanos. Revista Resíduos n. 82, janeiro-fevereiro de 2005, pp. 46-53.
Lima, J. D. Gestão de Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos no Brasil. Universidade Federal da Paraíba, , 2000, 267 p. Miranda, E. C. et al. Sistema Nacional de Informações sobre Saneamento: Diagnóstico do Manejo de Resíduos Sólidos-2004. Brasília, M.CIDADES, SNSA, 2006, 381 p.
Neto, S.N., König, T. et al. Gerenciamento de Resíduos Sólidos: uma visão de futuro. Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do estado de São Paulo e Secretaria do Meio Ambiente, Saúde Pública e Proteção do Consumidor da Baviera. 2005. 80 p.
Riera, P. & García, L. Análisis económico de la gestión de resíduos urbanos. XXIII Reunión de Estudios Regionales, Valencia, 18-21 noviembre 1997.
Sabata, J.M.C. Gestion de los resíduos sólidos urbanos. Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya-UPC /Metrópolis. 2006. http://www.ema-amb.es
Strobridge, D. E. & Gerlock, F.G. Obtención de datos y control de costes. Manual McGraw-Hill de Reciclage, 1996. Cap.33.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Ethical guidelines for journal publication
The REMOA 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. Reviews 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 referee 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.
