Social analysis of a selective collection program of household solid waste

Authors

  • Luciara Bilhalva Corrêa Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1686-5282
  • Juliana Carriconde Hernandes Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS
  • Cibele Velleda Santos Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS
  • Weslei Martins Santos Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS
  • Gustavo Stolzenberg Colares Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS
  • Érico Kunde Corrêa Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5902/2236130818876

Keywords:

Solid residues, Recycling, Participation, Sustainability

Abstract

The National Policy of Solid Residues – PNRS defines that municipalities should implement a Selective Collection Program (PCS), which aims at gathering of solid residues generated by population, previously segregated as its constitution or composition. The aim of the present study was to identify the participation of population resident at central district in PCS of the municipality of Pelotas-RS. The research was conducted through a questionnaire to the population resident at municipality central district, making a total of 177 sampled houses. It was found that 94.4% of the interviewed demonstrate to have knowledge about the differentiation of organic and recyclable residues. Of the total interviewed, 85.3% segregate the residues in their houses and 78.53% know the PCS and perform segregation and availability of residues to selective collection. The study allowed to affirm that the most part of population resident at central district actively participates in PCS in the city, however 40% of the material that reaches the screening cooperatives is considered waste, being this one of the weaknesses of municipality PCS. It is considered relevant to study the population resident at other districts, in order to understand the low levels of recyclable residues collected by PCS.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Luciara Bilhalva Corrêa, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS

Núcleo de Educação, Pesquisa e Extensão em Resíduos Sólidos e Sustentabilidade. Centro de Engenharias.

Juliana Carriconde Hernandes, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS

Núcleo de Educação, Pesquisa e Extensão em Resíduos Sólidos e Sustentabilidade. Centro de Engenharias.

Cibele Velleda Santos, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS

Programa de pós graduação em Parasitologia. Instituto de Biologia.

Weslei Martins Santos, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS


Núcleo de Educação, Pesquisa e Extensão em Resíduos Sólidos e Sustentabilidade. Centro de Engenharias.

Gustavo Stolzenberg Colares, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS

Núcleo de Educação, Pesquisa e Extensão em Resíduos Sólidos e Sustentabilidade. Centro de Engenharias.

Érico Kunde Corrêa, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS

Núcleo de Educação, Pesquisa e Extensão em Resíduos Sólidos e Sustentabilidade. Centro de Engenharias.

References

Abrelpe, Brazilian Association of Public Cleaning Companies and Special Waste. Report of solid waste in Brazil. São Paulo. 2013. 116p.

Albertin RM, Moraes E, Silva FF, Corveloni EPM, Angelis Neto G, Angelis Neto BD. Proposed expansion of a selective collection program for the São Jorge of Ivaí city, Paraná, Brazil. Revista Agro@mbiente. 2011;5(1):75-81.

Brasil - ABNT, Associação Brasileira de Normas de Técnicas. NBR 8419/92. Apresentação de projetos de aterro sanitário de resíduos sólidos urbanos. Rio de Janeiro. 1992. 7 p.

Brasil - ABNT, Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. NBR 13896/97. Aterros de resíduos não perigosos - Critérios para projeto, implantação e operação. Rio de Janeiro. 1997. 12 p.

Brasil - IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística [cited 2015 mar 27]. Available from: http://www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat/xtras/perfil.php?codmun=431440&search=rio-grande-dosul|pelotas.

Brasil – PNRS. Política Nacional dos Resíduos Sólidos. Lei nº 12.305, 2010.

Brasil - SNIS, Secretaria Nacional de Saneamento Ambiental. [cited 2015 mar 01]. Available from: http://www.snis.gov.br, acesso em 2013.

Bringhenti MR, Günter WMR. Participação social em programas de coleta seletiva de resíduos sólidos urbanos. Eng. Sanit. Ambient. 2011;16(4):421-430.

Cdc – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Epi Info versão 3.5.4. 2008.

Clarke MJ, Maantay JA. Optimizing recycling in all of New York City’s neighborhoods: using GIS to develop the REAP index for improved recycling education, awareness, and participation. Resour Conserv Recy. 2006;46(2):128–148.

Colares GS. Avaliação do Programa de Coleta Seletiva de resíduos sólidos urbanos do município de Pelotas/RS.[monography]. Pelotas: Centro de Engenharias/UFPel, 2015.

Junquera B, Brío DAJ, Muníz M. Citizens’ attitude to reuse of municipal solid waste: a practical application. Resour Conserv Recy. 2001;33:51-60.

Lanza VCV, Carvalho AL. Orientações básicas para operação de aterro sanitário. Fundação Estadual do Meio Ambiente-FEAM. Belo Horizonte, 36p. 2006.

Lavee, D. Is Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Economically Efficient? Environ Manage. 2007;40:926-943.

Pereira MCG, Teixeira MAC. A inclusão de catadores em programas de coleta seletiva: da agenda local à nacional. Cad. EBAPE.BR[online]. 2011;9(3):895-913.

Sanep – PMGIRS – Plano Municipal de Gestão Integrada de Resíduos Sólidos – Município de Pelotas, 2014. [cited 2015 jun 01]. Avaiable from: http://www.pelotas.com.br/sanep/plano-deresiduos/arquivos/PMGIRS-Pelotas-08-2014.pdf.

Seng B, Hirayama K, Katayama-Hirayama K, Ochiai S, Kaneko H. Scenario analysis of the benefit of municipal organic-waste composting over landfill, Cambodia. J Environ Manage. 2013;114:216-224.

Sidique SF, Lupi F, Joshi SV. The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities. Resour Conserv Recy. 2010;54:163–170.

Singhirunnusorn W, Donlakorn K, Kaewhanin W. Contextual Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behaviours: A Case of Waste Bank Project in Mahasarakham Municipality. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012;36:688 – 697.

Simonetto EO, Borenstein D. Gestão operacional da coleta seletiva de resíduos sólidos urbanosabordagem utilizando um sistema de apoio à decisão. Gest. Prod. 2006;13(3):449-461.

Vilhena A. Lixo municipal: manual de gerenciamento integrado. 3.ed. IPT CEMPRE, 2010.

Downloads

Published

2015-09-21

How to Cite

Corrêa, L. B., Hernandes, J. C., Santos, C. V., Santos, W. M., Colares, G. S., & Corrêa, Érico K. (2015). Social analysis of a selective collection program of household solid waste. Monografias Ambientais, 14(2), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.5902/2236130818876

Issue

REMOA, V. 14, N. 2, MAIO-AGO., 2015

Section

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATIVE PRACTICES

License

Declaration

Available here

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.

Most read articles by the same author(s)