Content uploaded by Florin Constantin Mihai
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Florin Constantin Mihai on Oct 26, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 23
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management
Official Journal of the Japan Society of
Material Cycles and Waste Management
(JSMCWM) and the Korea Society of
Waste Management (KSWM)
ISSN 1438-4957
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
DOI 10.1007/s10163-017-0637-x
Waste collection in rural communities:
challenges under EU regulations. A case
study of Neamt County, Romania
Florin Constantin Mihai
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Japan KK. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived
in electronic repositories. If you wish to
self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
REGIONAL CASE STUDY
Waste collection in rural communities: challenges under EU
regulations. A case study of Neamt County, Romania
Florin Constantin Mihai
1
Received: 10 September 2016 / Accepted: 8 June 2017
Springer Japan KK 2017
Abstract The paper aims to examine the changes in the rural
waste management sector at regional scale since the
Romania adhesion to the EU in 2007. The traditional waste
management based on the mixed waste collection and waste
disposal often on improper sites prevailed in municipal waste
management options of transitional economies across the
globe. The lack of formal waste collection services in rural
areas has encouraged the open dumping or backyard burning.
The paper analyzes the improvements and challenges of
local authorities to fulfill the new EU requirements in this
sector supported by data analysis at local administrative unit
levels and field observations. Geographical analysis is
compulsory to reveal the local disparities. The paper per-
forms an assessment of waste collection issues across 78
rural municipalities within Neamt County. This sector is
emerging in rural areas of Eastern Europe, but is far from an
efficient municipal waste management system based on the
waste hierarchy concept.
Keywords Waste collection Waste management
Municipal waste Rural areas EU
Introduction
The rural waste management sector is poorly developed in
low- and middle-income countries compared to urban
areas, even a significant share of the population lives in
such regions. The rural waste management issues are less
debated in the literature than urban areas due to the lack of
proper data. There has been a little discussion about this
issue which focuses on a local scale using the data analysis
in a geographical point of view. In this context, the paper
seeks to provide a spatial dimension of the waste collection
issue across rural areas. Open dumping is a complex
environmental threat which is often widespread in rural
regions across the developing countries due to the lack of
formal waste management services. The illegal dumping of
waste has occurred even in countries where waste man-
agement systems are better developed and cover almost all
population as in Spain [1] or Italy [2]. Rural waste man-
agement sector is an emerging issue in developing and
transitional countries across the world [3–5]. The landfill is
far the main waste management option across new EU
member states [6,7]. Reorganization of waste collection
services, closure or the upgrade of non-compliant landfills,
and development of recycling centers are priorities in the
case of new EU members [8,9]. The implementation of
Landfill Directive 1999/31 is challenging even for older
EU countries such as Greece [10]. The investments in the
modernisation process of municipal waste management
sector are expensive and CEE countries rely on EU funds
[11,12]. Extension of waste collection towards less pop-
ulated areas leads to a reduction of illegal dumping activ-
ities [13]. The changes of municipal waste composition
varied differently among urban and rural households in the
last decade which lead to different waste management
options [14]. Rural areas of Eastern Europe were often
ignored by waste management services until the imple-
mentation of the EU Landfill Directive. Recent studies pay
attention to rural waste management issues from Poland
[15,16], Romania [17], or from EU candidate countries
such as Serbia [18] concerning illegal waste disposal
&Florin Constantin Mihai
mihai.florinconstantin@gmail.com
1
Department of Research, Faculty of Geography and Geology,
‘‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’’ University of Iasi, Blvd Carol I, Nr.
20 A, 700505 Iasi, Romania
123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
DOI 10.1007/s10163-017-0637-x
Author's personal copy
practices, poor waste management facilities, and future
perspectives related to EU waste policy. The inter-munic-
ipal cooperation should be developed to combat the
administrative and logistical inefficiency of rural areas with
poor results in terms of separate collection and recycling
activities [19]. Romania must upgrade the poor waste
management facilities across rural municipalities. The
paper examines the progress and the gaps of a new EU
member in rural waste management sector.
Materials and methods
Study area
Neamt County is located in North-East Region of Romania,
the Eastern border of EU. The population is 470,776
inhabitants according to the last Population Census (2011),
of which 301,167 lives in rural areas and only 169,599
people are residents in urban areas. The administrative
territorial unit of this county includes 5 cities (Piatra
Neamt—county capital, Roman, Targu Neamt, Bicaz, and
Roznov) and 78 communes, as shown in Fig. 1.
The commune is the basic administrative unit for
Romanian rural areas which may include one or more
villages and where a single village plays the role of the
local administrative center. The landscape varies from
mountain region in the western half to subcarpathian
depression and hills in the center to corridor valleys
(Moldova and Siret rivers) and the plateau region in the
southeastern part of the county.
Data source and the geographic analysis
Raw data of waste streams (e.g., amounts of mixed house-
hold waste collected, amounts of separately waste collected
breakdown per waste fractions, number inhabitants served
by waste of collection, waste collection facilities, frequency,
and type of waste collection, sanitation fees) were collected
from local authorities, waste operators, and Environmental
Protection Agency of Neamt County to calculate at com-
mune level the main waste indicators. The analysis of
quantitative data related to local geographical areas, demo-
graphic features, and between rural municipalities is a dif-
ficult task. The paper analyzes the annual and monthly
variations of the household waste stream in case of the five
Fig. 1 Geographical location of Neamt County and local administrative units
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
123
Author's personal copy
communes to outline the seasonal variations. The compar-
ative analysis regarding the amounts of waste collected
(2011–2012) reveals some oscillations within a commune or
between rural localities served by the same waste operator.
The accurate records of waste streams (mixed/separately
collected, recovered, and disposed) owned by the local
authorities or waste operators are crucial in the analysis of
key performance indicators, especially in a geographical
context. The responses received from local authorities vary
from case to case; some of them are incomplete, inaccurate,
or local authorities which have no such data. Most of the
waste collection services are delegated to private operators
and they also have no concrete data at the commune level
because the data are mixed with other rural municipalities.
Some of the waste operators refuse to share the waste
statistics data. Therefore, the quality of the data varies from
the one commune to another or between waste operators.
The majority of waste fractions data are volumetric esti-
mations based on bin/containers volumes or according to the
garbage compactor truck capacity.
There are no weighbridge systems at Roman and Targu
Neamt landfills where most of the localities disposed their
waste. Data submitted in tons are obtained based on vol-
umetric estimations (the waste operator using a specific
density of 0.4 t/m
3
). The household waste is transported via
a waste compactor truck (including waste fractions col-
lected from population and economic agents). The quan-
titative and qualitative data are displayed by thematic maps
which reveal, on one hand, the coverage rates of the rural
population access to waste collection services and, on the
other hand, the current waste collection methods used by
rural communities.
Governance of waste management sector
The closure of non-compliant urban landfill sites according
to the calendar stipulated into Government Decision nr.
345/2005 [20] which transposed the EU Landfill Directive
1998/31 led to serious governance issues associated to
waste management sector. The papers examine the impli-
cations of the landfills closure deadlines on rural munici-
palities of Neamt county such as: (1) 16 July 2009—the
closure of local dumps from rural areas and Bicaz city
landfill (2) 16 July 2012—the closure of not-compliant
landfills of Roman and Targu Neamt cities;
In 2014, the new regional sanitary landfill located in the
Girov commune should be operational until the end of the
year. In this context, the paper examines the garbage crisis
(2014–2015) due to the legal issues debated in the regional
mass media. Local details are provided for some communes
to reveal the concrete difficulties encountering by local
authorities in providing basic waste collection services.
Results and discussion
The closure of wild dumps and non-compliant urban
landfills
Local dumpsites, river dumping, and open burning were
the main options for rural waste disposal until 16 July
2009. A little attention to this issue has been paid by rural
municipalities till then, but environmental authorities have
begun a better monitoring of the law enforcement. The
calendar of urban landfills closure stipulated by G.D. nr.
345/2005 [20] created several difficulties at the county
level such as:
1. the obligation of local authorities to close and reha-
bilitate the rural dumpsites by 16 July 2009;
2. the local authorities are obliged to provide regular
waste collection services across their administrative
areas and to transport the wastes collected to urban
landfills since the above deadline;
3. the non-compliant urban landfills (where these wastes
could be disposed within the county) should be
operational until 16 July 2009 (Bicaz) and 16 July
2012 (Roman and Targu Neamt);
4. poor budgets allocated to waste management sector,
particularly in the case of rural communities.
The gap between the deadlines mentioned above and the
implementation status of the new integrated solid waste
management system at the county level led to serious
issues in waste management sector during July 2012 and
July 2015 (Sect. ‘‘The local garbage crisis ’’).
The expansion of waste collection services (WCS)
in rural areas
Rural waste management sector is in a full expansion
process at national, regional, and local levels in order to
comply the targets assumed by Romania to EU. The waste
collection companies prefer to serve dense urban centers
with high population density and avoid sparsely populated
rural areas with a lower income population [21]. In Neamt
county, most of the rural municipalities have a coverage
rate over 70% to waste collection services in 2012
according to Fig. 2. The map also reveals the lack of such
services in seven communes and poor coverages (\50%) in
Brusturi and Negresti communes. Waste operators have
expanded their services towards rural areas after the clo-
sure of rural dumpsites in July 2009 compared to the pre-
vious years [22]. This fact is visible year by year since
2009 due to the expansion of the private sector. In the first
phase, urban operators have extended their activity in
surrounding rural areas (SC Rossal SA Roman, SC Bratner
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
123
Author's personal copy
Ecological Services Piatra Neamt¸, SC Romprest Service
SA); then, the new waste operators came into the local
market (SC Ave Huron SRL, SC Lemar Industries SRL, SC
DDD Service SRL, SC Eurosal Trade SRL, SC Diana
Service SRL). There are long distances between the col-
lection point and landfill site; for example, wastes collected
across Tazla
˘u&Ca
ˆndes¸ti communes are transported to
Ta
ˆrgu Neamt city landfill. In other cases, the wastes col-
lected from communes in the vicinity of Baca
˘u County
(Roma
ˆni, Podoleni) are disposed in the urban landfills of
Buhus¸i or Baca
˘u cities (Nicolaie Ba
˘lcescu-sanitary landfill)
which are located in the Bacau county. The coverage area
of certain waste operators can be locally (e.g., SC Huron
Ave-Bicaz Valley) or to overlap with a heterogeneous
geographic region. For instance, SC Agmady SRL Dura
˘u
collects the wastes from communes located in a mountain
area (Ceahla
˘u, Grinties, Farcas¸a, Hangu) or Moldavian
Plateau (Bozieni, Oniceni). These wastes are collected
from economic agents, local institutions, or households.
Most of the municipal waste collected across the county
during July 2009—July 2012 were transported to old urban
landfills of Ta
ˆrgu Neamt¸ (see Fig. 3) and Roman cities.
Alternatives for non-compliant landfills
Piatra Neamt, the capital city of Neamt county, has a
modern waste management system supported by ISPA
funds since 2007, but the sanitary landfill must accept only
the garbage generated within the city. In this context, the
peri-urban communes (Dumbrava Rosie, Girov, Garcina,
Alexandru cel Bun) were forced to look for other alterna-
tives with supplementary costs due to the transport. The
investments achieved with pre-accession funds (PHARE-
CES) had been implemented and new facilities (1 transfer
station, 2 sorting plants) have been operational since 2011
in the county, serving the surrounding communes of Bicaz,
Targu Neamt, and Roznov cities. To avoid the transporta-
tion of waste in other counties at higher costs, two tem-
porary sites (dumps) were designed in the proximity of old
landfills (Roman—25,000 m
3
, Targu Neamt—13,000 m
3
)
in the summer of 2012. This temporary solution was an
environmental compromise of local authorities, because the
new regional sanitary landfill was under construction and
the old landfills should be closed until 16 July 2012. The
residual waste collected (mixed fraction) from Roznov,
Fig. 2 Coverage rates of waste collection services (reported and estimated data) at commune level in 2012. The numbers refer to the communes
which are discussed in the paper and cover different geographical areas; not all communes can be labeled because will affect the map visibility
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
123
Author's personal copy
Bicaz, and surroundings communes was transported to
Roman city landfill site. Furthermore, these two temporary
sites are non-compliant with EU standards, which pollute
the surroundings, and these have limited capacity, serving
three cities and dozens of communes. Basically, all the
wastes disposed in these sites should be transported to the
new regional sanitary landfill located in the Girov com-
mune. This fact will imply supplementary costs for waste
operators and local councils.
Lack or poor waste collection facilities
Seven communes (Doljes¸ti, Dulces¸ti, Icuses¸ti, Pancesti,
Poienari, Pastraveni, and Bargaoani) were not covered by
WCS in 2012, as shown in Fig. 1, the wastes generated are
disposed on improper sites (roadsides, riverbanks, pastures,
and creeks) or burnt by the inhabitants. The field obser-
vations revealed that waste dumping is still present and
poor waste management services are implemented across
several communes due to the lack of funds. Some inhabi-
tants still refuse to pay the sanitation fees, because the
uncontrolled waste disposal is a cheap and convenient bad
practice. Backyard burning or river dumping still occurs in
the proximity of households, particularly in the mountain
or subcarpathian sector of the county. Lack of appropriate
infrastructure and improper location of collection points
within a commune favor this bad practice. In this context,
waste collection through ‘‘door-to-door’’ system may be
more suitable. New regulations stipulate that the frequency
of waste collection from community points should not
exceed the following deadlines [23]:
1. in the warm season (April 1–30 September) daily from
the central areas, catering establishments, health facil-
ities with beds, kindergartens, and nurseries and at
most 2 days in other areas for biodegradable and
residual fractions;
2. in the cold season (October 1–31 March) within 3 days
for all areas;
3. once of 3 days in case of dry recyclables.
Furthermore, waste collection through ‘‘door-to-door’’
system must be performed once per week for
Fig. 3 Mixed waste collection system in Petricani commune (2011)
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
123
Author's personal copy
biodegradable and residual fractions and once per 2 weeks
in case of dry recyclables. This system is commonly
encountered in the rural areas and households districts of
urban areas. The waste collection infrastructure varies from
one community to another, depending on financial
resources. For instance, in the case of the Trifes¸ti com-
mune, the waste collection is carried from door to door in
trash bags (household waste is taken by teams formed by
individuals who benefit from the minimum income guar-
antee under Law 416/2001), transported by their own
means or by tractor with trailer at the special collection
point provided with containers. At this collection point,
household wastes are transported by the waste operator (SC
Rossal Roman SA) to the Roman city landfill.
Some localities (villages) are inaccessible and private
waste operators do not consider economically profitable to
serve all the villages within a commune; therefore, such
local authorities need to provide the primary waste col-
lection services. Thus, the household waste collected is
transported to the collection center (administrative village)
and then carried out by the waste operator to the urban
landfill site. In other cases, containers are spread across the
commune where certain public locations are established
(based on population density and households). Population
performs the primary collection of mixed household waste
which is further transported by the waste operator to the
urban landfill site.
Separate waste collection services
The poor infrastructure and the few separate collection
facilities across Romania reveal the early stage of waste
management system in rural areas. The plastics and paper
fractions are expected to increase in Romanian rural areas
in the following years. This scenario is valid for other new
EU members where source-separate collection must be
improved in rural areas [14]. In 2012, the mixed waste
collection through ‘‘door-to-door’’ system prevailed in
rural communities (24) of Neamt County, followed by
special collection points (13) or a mixed situation between
these two options (11). Basically, there is no separate
collection at source, no reuse, or recycling facilities in
these 48 communities (61.5% of total) according to the
Fig. 4. The biowaste fraction of household waste is
Fig. 4 Waste collection facilities across rural municipalities (2011–2012)
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
123
Author's personal copy
diverted from wild dumpsites via home composting (open
piles) and animal feeding. The improvement of home
composting procedure in an organized manner will have a
better result in terms of compost quality and net GHG’s
emissions if 70% of biowaste is processed as a realistic
scenario [24]. On the other side, the pre-accession funds
helped the other rural communities to provide separate
collection services. The construction of sorting station in
Tasca commune (2400 t/year) has introduced regular waste
collection services in the mountain region of Bicaz Valley
covering one city (Bicaz) and six communes as follows:
Tarca
˘u, Tas¸ca, Bicazu Ardelean, Bicaz Chei, and Da
˘muc.
Such services are provided by SC Ave Huron SRL which
also operates the sorting plant. Waste collection from
households is done either by ‘‘door-to-door’’ method using
bags or bins or by collection points (containers—1.1 mc).
Recyclables (paper/cardboard, plastic/PET, metal) are
processed in sorting plant; the residual and household
wastes are transported to the Roman city landfill. Before
the sorting station, most of the rural communities were not
served by an organized waste collection service favoring
the waste dumping into Bicaz River and its tributaries. The
Bicaz landfill had to be closed in July 2009 which com-
plicated the situation in the region. The implementation of
sorting station in Targu Neamt city has introduced the
separate containers in the urban area and waste collection
services in surrounding localities (the city plus Ba
˘ltatesti,
Ghindaoani, Petricani, Brusturi, Draganesti, and Urecheni
communes). The sorting station processes the paper/card-
board, PET bottles, and plastics films collected from the
population (almost 300 tons/year). The sorting band has a
magnet for the metal fraction, and wastes are sorted man-
ually by the workers. The processed recyclables are further
sold to economic agents. The transfer station of Roznov
city and separate waste collection facilities (plus Piatra
Soimului, Borlesti and Rediu communes) are operational in
the south-western part of the county. Source-separated
collection points are placed across villages with four con-
tainers (1 paper/cardboard; 1 PET/plastics, 1 biowaste, 1
residual).
The collection of recyclables (from the commercial
sector and/or households) was performed in other several
communes in 2011–2012 as follows:
•Ghera
˘es¸ti commune: PET/plastics are separately col-
lected in special containers as 5.72 t in 2011 and 13.89 t
in 2012.
•Farcas¸a commune: 124 m
3
of plastics, 50 m
3
of
paper/cardboard; 12 m
3
of wood in 2011; 136 m
3
of
PET/plastics, 54 m
3
of paper/cardboard, and 14 m
3
wood in 2012; waste collection service is provided by
SC Agmady SRL.
•Tupilat¸i commune: 80 t of waste collected (in 2011) of
which 0.8 tons of paper/cardboard, 0.5 t PET/plastics
were separately collected; in 2012, 93.5 t of waste
collected of which 1.33 t of paper/cardboard and 2.8 t
PET/plastics were separately collected.
•Tazla
˘u commune (in 2012): 1.09 t of PET (six
containers); 0.455 t of paper/cardboard; 0.003 t of
metal (Al); 5 t of WEEE; the SC Ecorec Recycling SRL
recovers these recyclables.
These recyclables are sent to recovery units (companies)
by waste operators. Waste management services has expe-
rienced an emergent process between 2010 and 2012 when
all municipalities (urban and rural) signed the inter-munic-
ipal association agreement ‘‘ECONEAMT¸ ’’ under the
patronage of Neamt County Council which runs the project
‘‘Integrated Waste Management System in Neamt County’’.
Rural areas of Neamt county will be provided with waste
collection platforms with residual (mixed fraction) and
source-separated containers which are further discussed in
Section ‘‘Regional integrated waste management system’’ .
Waste collection costs
The costs of sanitation services (2009–2012) were sup-
ported by the local budget or by the population through
annual or monthly fees. For instance, according to the
Bahna Hall, the expenses of sanitation services (established
by contract with SC ROSSAL SRL Roman) were carried
from local budget as follows: 44,679 lei in 2010 (44,000
LEI =10,000 EUR), 44,407 in 2011, and 54,066 lei in
2012 varying according to the amounts of waste collected
(volumetric estimations) such as: 667/663/806 m
3
,withno
separate accounts for population and economic agents.
The taxation system and sanitation fees vary from case
to case (depending on the collection method, infrastructure,
waste operator, transport, and waste disposal site) for
population/households and businesses as follows (source of
data: local authorities)
•Brusturi—4.11 lei inhab month (4.4 lei =1 EUR),
12.48 lei for bin of 240 l/month (companies) in 2012;
•Dra
˘ga
˘nes¸ti—51 lei/m
3
(2012);
•Urecheni—2.4 lei inhab month; 45 lei/month (eco-
nomic agents) in 2012.
•Alexandru cel Bun—27.92 lei/household/month, 55.85
lei per economic agent/month (2012).
•Agapia—5 lei/family/month (2009).
•Pa
ˆnga
˘rat¸i—25 lei/household/bin of 240 l/month, 1.6
lei/inhab/month per euro container 1.1 m
3
(2010).
•Timis¸es¸ti—5 lei/family/month (15/09/2009).
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
123
Author's personal copy
Partial coverage of waste management services implies
a share of the population who do not pay these services. On
the other hand, although the full population may be served,
there are households who do not pay the charges for ser-
vices received and wastes are uncontrolled disposed into
the surroundings. The awareness of population to such
services plays a key role for the economic sustainability of
this activity and local environmental protection.
Seasonal variation of household waste collected
Rural waste generation rates are much lower than in urban
areas due to: the lower socio-economic conditions, and
poorer consumption power; a significant share of
biodegradable wastes (such as food waste) may be recov-
ered in households as compost or for livestock feed. The
recyclables (paper/cardboard, plastic, metal, wood, and
glass) textiles, or inert fractions (construction and demo-
lition) are usually discharged in bags or containers. How-
ever, some organic fraction from gardens, agricultural
sources, or manure may be encountered in the mixed
containers.
Per-capita, waste generation rates are frequently smaller
than 0.3 kg inhab day
-1
, but significant fluctuations may
appear across several communes in the county 0.01–0.9 kg
inhab day
-1
[25]. The most populated commune of the
county, Sabaoani commune (9901 inhab in 2011), has a
waste generation rate of 0.63 kg inhab day
-1
in 2009.
The waste management plans have a default value set to
0.4 kg inhab day
-1
for rural areas and of Romania and
0.9 kg inhab day
-1
for urban areas. Such fluctuations are
also encountered in rural areas of emerging economies. As
an example, in China, waste generation rates range from
0.25 to 2.1 kg inhab day
-1
[3]. Geographic and socio-
economical features of municipalities influence the waste
production per capita. For instance, in Greece, per-capita
municipal waste generation varies from 0.23 kg inhab
day
-1
in East Zagorio (Epirus) to 3.59 in Vari (Attica) and
the smaller rates (\0.8 kg inhab day
-1
) characterized the
small (1000–3000 inhabitants) and rural municipalities,
particularly those located in mountain regions [26].
The comparative analysis (annual and monthly)
regarding the amounts of waste collected reveals frequent
oscillations within a commune or between rural localities
served by the same waste operator (as shown in Figs. 5,6.)
There is a downward trend of household waste collected in
the cold season (November–February) and a progressive
trend in April–August. Monthly changes in 2011 are
stronger than in 2012, but the latter case reflects a more
homogeneous annual trend. In addition, the amounts of
waste collected in 2011 are lower with a maximum in July
and August, in contrast to 2012 when the peak is from May
to June. The oscillation of the amounts of waste collected
within a commune is derived from the data accuracy,
particularly in 2011. Major differences between communes
may be explained by the demographic factor and by the
coverage rate of waste collection services.
In the case of Brusturi commune, only 611 persons are
reported to be served by the waste operator in 2011 and 624 in
2012, although the total population was 3852 inhabitants
according to the Population Census in 2011. According to
these data, only 50% of the main village (Brusturi) is served
by the waste operator in 2012 compared to full coverage
(100%) in the case of Draganesti (1382 inhab), Baltatesti
(4090 inhab) and Ghindaoani (1807 inhab) communes.
There is a significant increase of household waste collected
in 2012 compared to 2011 in case of Brusturi commune
(193–353 t year
-1
) and Baltatesti commune (480–600 t
year
-1
), a relatively constant rate for Ghindaoani (170–176 t
year
-1
), and a decrease in case of Dra
˘ga
˘nes¸ti (264–234 t
year
-1
). The monthly data of 2011 are not available for
Urecheni commune, the amounts of waste collected in 2012
is 359 t year
-1
. This variation also depends on the accuracy
of data registered by the waste operator. The per-capita waste
generates rate range between 0.26 and 1.54 kg inhab day
-1
according to the Table 1. The total household waste col-
lected (HSW) by the waste operator is divided by the number
of population served by WCS which reflect the higher rates
of Brusturi and Urecheni communes.
Fig. 5 Household and similar waste monthly collected from com-
munes in 2011
Fig. 6 Household and similar waste monthly collected from com-
munes in 2012
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
123
Author's personal copy
If the full population of Brusturi commune is served by
WCS, the per-capita generation rate will decrease to
0.253 kg inhab day
-1
in 2012 and 0.138 in 2011 based on
actual data of HSW. The waste operator collected larger
amounts of household waste than those generated by 624
persons reported, or such amounts are overestimated. The
proper assessment of population served by WCS and the
amounts of household waste collected is crucial to obtain
reliable waste generation rates at commune level. Despite
the fact, the Baltatesti is the most populated commune
among these five localities, and on the other hand, it is a
national touristic spa resort, the per-capita generation rate
is much lower than Brusturi commune. The tourism input
could represent over 5% of total waste generation rate
within the commune [27]. There is a clear evidence that
data reported for Brusturi commune are questionable.
The calculation and mapping of rural waste generation
rates across the communes of a county have several chal-
lenges, because the lack of basic waste statistics database
broken down per local administrative levels [25]. Such
statistics must be supported by experimental studies across
rural municipalities.
Regional integrated waste management system
This major infrastructure project ‘‘Integrated Waste Man-
agement System in Neamt County’’ aims the full coverage
of county population to proper waste management services,
and it has several objectives such as (Source: http://
cjneamt.ro/smid/):
1. Full coverage of rural population to residual waste
collection via 3024 metallic containers (1.1 m
3
).
2. The expansion of source-separated waste collection
schemes in urban and rural areas through collection
points (plastic containers 1.1 m
3
): 1 container for
papers/cardboard; 1 plastics and metals; 1 glass);
3. Separate collection of biowaste in urban areas
(household areas) through plastic containers (240 l).
4. 52,000 of individual composting units (240 l) for
biodegradable waste covering 50% of the rural
population;
5. Building of 2900 waste collection platforms in rural
areas where containers (residual/dry recyclables)
will be located (other 154 in urban areas).
6. Sorting station in Cordun commune (in the vicinity
of Roman city)—sorting station has a designed
capacity 17,000 t year
-1
for source-separated waste
fraction such as paper, plastics, glass, and metals.
This station will serve Roman city and 26 communes
from southeast of county.
7. Transfer station with compaction in Cordun com-
mune—designed capacity 45 000 t year
-1
, the
residual waste generated by Roman city and 26
communes will be transported to the regional
sanitary landfill site.
8. Transfer station at Tasca commune (in the proximity of
Bicaz city)—9000 t year
-1
will serve Bicaz city and
rural communities from western part of the county.
9. Transfer station of Targu Neamt city—serving the
urban area and surrounding communes.
10. Regional landfill site (located in the Girov com-
mune—27 ha) which will serve all localities in the
county except Piatra Neamt city where a sanitary
landfill is operational until 2017. The total capacity
is 9 million of m
3
shared by 3 cells, first—980
000 m
3
.
11. The full closure of non-compliant landfills from
Bicaz, Targu Neamt, and Roman cities.
The project costs are estimated to be 176,992,016 lei.
The financial source is covered by European Regional
Development Fund (80%), Government Funds (18%), and
2% (local budget). The project is implemented during
February 2011 and June 2016. The county waste manage-
ment system will integrate the previous waste management
facilities implemented through Phare–CES such as sorting
stations (Tasca commune and Targu Neamt city), transfer
station (Roznov city), or ISPA funds (composting and
sorting plants—Piatra Neamt city).
The local garbage crisis
The closure of non-compliant landfills with EU Directive
1999/31, according to the calendar established by the G.D
Table 1 Waste collection data broken down per commune
Commune Pop.2011 (census)
inhab
Pop.
served
WCS
(%)
HSW 2011
(t year
-1
)
HSW 2012
(t year
-1
)
WGR 2011 kg inhab
day
WGR 2012 kg inhab
day
Brusturi 3812 624 26.23 193 353 0.847 1.54
Draganesti 1382 1382 100 264 234 0.523 0.463
Baltatesti 4090 4090 100 480 600 0.321 0.401
Ghindaoani 1807 1807 100 170 176 0.257 0.266
Urecheni 3343 2499 74 No data 542 0.594
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
123
Author's personal copy
nr. 345/2005, has created several dysfunctionalities of
municipal waste management services across urban and
rural municipalities during 2009–2014. Despite the fact
that the new regional sanitary landfill was finished in 2014,
the tender process, which delegates the site to a waste
operator, was contested by one participant to the court of
justice; therefore, the integrated waste management system
could not be operational. In this context, the County
Council had to pay from the public budget the conservation
and security of this facility until a legal waste operator is
finally nominated to manage the site. In the meantime, the
temporary sites were almost full of waste and further gar-
bages generated by cities and rural communities have no
place where to be disposed. This situation has severe
implications for the local environment. Mass media reveals
that some rural localities dispose their wastes on improper
sites, even they have been fined by the local environmental
guard. The transport of wastes is too expensive for local
budgets of rural councils to dispose the garbage to landfills
located in other counties. In March 2015, County Council
decided to start the procedure for a public administration of
Girov sanitary landfill as a temporary solution until a waste
operator is nominated by the tender procedure. The landfill
is operating from July 2015. This crisis highlights the gaps
between the EU deadlines concerning the closure of non-
compliant landfill sites (July 2012) and the construction of
new waste management facilities in the field (November
2014) with no suitable alternatives in this period than two
temporary dumps. Moreover, a court case prolonged this
garbage crisis across 2015. In this context, the most of the
municipal waste generated in the county (except Piatra
Neamt city) have been disposed in the non-compliant sites
during these 3 years. The lack of a coherent waste man-
agement policy and the bureaucracy between the EU
Commission, Government, and local authorities lead to
such situation.
Conclusions
This paper performs a depth analysis of rural waste man-
agement transition toward a sustainable system in the
context of EU region (NUTS3) and it points out the local
governance issues related to this sector.
The deadlines stipulated by G.D nr. 345/2005 for clo-
sure of wild dumps (16 July 2009) and non-compliant
urban landfills (Targu Neamt, Roman—16 July 2012;
Bicaz—16 July 2009) led to serious challenges in terms of
waste collection, transportation, and disposal of household
waste across Neamt County which are highlighted in the
paper (Sects. ‘‘The closure of wild dumps and non-com-
pliant urban landfills’’–‘‘Alternatives for non-compliant
landfills’’ ; ‘‘ The local garbage crisis’’). Most of rural
municipalities have a waste collection coverage over 70%,
but there are 7 communes with no such basic services in
2012. Mixed waste collection prevails in rural areas where
‘‘door-to-door’’ collection system is frequently used. There
is no separate collection at source, no reuse or recycling
facilities in 48 rural municipalities. Some municipalities
have implemented separate collection schemes via pre-
accession funds (e.g., Roznov city plus Borlesti, Piatra
Soimului, and Rediu communes). Taxation system and
sanitation fees vary from one municipality to another, and
private sector has expanded the waste management ser-
vices towards rural areas since 2009. Seasonal variation of
household waste generation (5 communes) reveals the
main peak during the warm season (May–July) and the
second one in October. The per-capita waste generation
rates range between 0.26 and 0. 6 kg inhab day
-1
, but an
overestimation is observed in case of Brusturi commune
due to the questionable raw data. The improvement of
waste statistics (based on weighings) at commune level is
imperative for future studies. The local garbage crisis led to
disposal of household waste in two temporary dumps
(Roman, Targu Neamt) and favored the illegal dumping
practices across rural areas. The new regional integrated
waste management system aims to cover all rural munici-
palities to proper waste management services. The regional
sanitary landfill (Girov commune), transfer stations (Tasca,
Cordun, Tirgu Neamt and Roznov) will provide the dis-
posal solutions for residual household waste collected
among rural localities via waste collection platforms.
Sorting stations (Piatra Neamt, Cordun, Tasca, and Targu
Neamt), composting plants (Piatra Neamt city), and indi-
vidual composting facilities will increase the recycling and
reuse rate of biowaste and dry recyclables across the
county. The rural waste management sector must be further
analyzed in a geographical context to provide a holistic
approach and to help the decision-makers to implement
viable waste management policies related to local, regio-
nal, and national features.
References
1. Lucendo-Monedero AL, Jorda
´-Borrell R, Ruiz-Rodrı
´guez F
(2015) Predictive model for areas with illegal landfills using
logistic regression. J Environ Plan Manag 58(7):1309–1326.
doi:10.1080/09640568.2014.993751
2. De Feo G, Cerrato F, Siano P, Torretta V (2013) Definition of a
multi-criteria, web-based approach to managing the illegal
dumping of solid waste in Italian villages. Environ Technol
35:104–114. doi:10.1080/09593330.2013.816328
3. Zeng C, Niu D, Zhao Y (2015) A comprehensive overview of
rural solid waste management in China. Front Environ Sci Eng.
doi:10.1007/s11783-015-0816-8
4. Taboada-Gonzalez P, Aguilar-Virgen Q, Ojeda-Benitez S,
Armijo C (2011) Waste characteristic and waste management
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
123
Author's personal copy
perception in rural communities in Mexico: a case study. Environ
Eng Manag J 10(11):1751–1759
5. Taghipour H, Amjad Z, Aslani H, Armanfar F, Dehghanzadeh R
(2016) Characterizing and quantifying solid waste of rural com-
munities. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 18(4):790–797. doi:10.
1007/s10163-015-0365-z
6. Dubravska
´M (2014) Recycling of the MSW in the Slovak
Republic. J Econ Dev Environ People 3(3):66–71
7. Gabrs
ˇc
ˇek AE, Is
ˇljamovic
´S (2011) Communal waste manage-
ment: case study for Slovenia. Manag c
ˇasopis za teoriju i praksu
menadz
ˇmenta 16(60):35–41
8. Stanic-Maruna I, Fellner J (2012) Solid waste management in
Croatia in response to the European Landfill Directive. Waste
Manag Res 30(8):825–838. doi:10.1177/0734242X12444897
9. Sza
´nto
´R (2011) Waste Management Facility Siting and Social
Conflicts—the Case of Hungary In: Kumar S (ed) Integrated
waste management—vol I. InTech, pp 41–55. http://www.inte
chopen.com/books/integrated-waste-management-volume-i/waste-
management-facilitysiting-and-social-conflicts-the-case-of-hungary.
Accessed 15 July 2016
10. Lasaridi K (2009) Implementing the landfill directive in Greece:
problems, perspectives and lessons to be learned. Geogr J
175(4):261–273. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4959.2009.00342.x
11. Cudecka-Purina N (2011) Evaluation of financial investment
effectiveness in Latvian waste management regions. Sci J Riga
Tech Univ Saf Technog Environ 1:14–20
12. Scheinberg A, Mol APJ (2010) Multiple modernities: transitional
Bulgaria and the ecological modernisation of solid waste man-
agement. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 28:18–36. doi:10.1068/
c0926
13. Podgaiskyte V (2014) Waste management sector value changes in
Lithuania along the last decade. Proc Soc Behav Sci 110:512–519
(Contemporary Issues in Business, Management and Educa-
tion 2013)
14. Dolez
ˇalova M, Benes
ˇova L, Zavodska A (2013) The changing
character of household waste in the Czech Republic between
1999 and 2009 as a function of home heating methods. Waste
Manag 33(9):1950–1957
15. Malinowski M, Kopytko AM (2014) Assessment of segregated
waste accumulation efficiency in selected suburban communities.
Polska Akademia Nauk Oddział w Krakowie s 6(3):1499–1512.
doi:10.14597/infraeco.2014.4.3.114
16. Steinhoff-Wrzes
´niewska A (2015) The pilot study of character-
istics of household waste generated in suburban parts of rural
areas. J Ecol Eng 16(2):92–100. doi:10.12911/22998993/1862
17. Mihai FC (2015) Spatial distribution of rural dumpsites param-
eters in Romania. Bollettino dell’Associazione Italiana di Car-
tografia 154:93–101. doi:10.13137/2282-472X/11830
18. Nenkovic
´-Riznic
´M (2011) Socio-cultural models as an important
element of the site selection process in rural waste management.
SPATIUM Int Rev 26:1–6. doi:10.2298/SPAT1126001N
19. Poldnurk J (2015) Optimisation of the economic, environmental
and administrative efficiency of the municipal waste management
model in rural areas. Resour Conserv Recycl 97:55–65
20. Government of Romania. Government Decision (G.D) nr.345/
2005 regarding the landfill of waste [in Romanian]. Published in
Official Monitor nr. 394 din 10 May 2005. Available at: http://
www.mmediu.ro/beta/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2012-05-17_
hg_349_2005.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2016
21. UNECE (2012) Environmental performance reviews, second
review, Romania. Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/
DAM/env/epr/epr_studies/Romania_II.pdf. Accessed 14 June
2016
22. Mihai FC, La
˘ma
˘s¸anu A (2013) Spatial analysis of dumpsites
volumes from rural territory case study: Neamt County, Romania.
Forum Geogr 12(1):59–60. doi:10.5775/fg.2067-4635.2013.063.i
23. ANRSC (2015) Decree No. 82 of 9 March 2015 approving the
framework-regulation regarding the sanitation services of local-
ities (in Romanian). Available at: http://www.ecoteca.ro/wp-
content/uploads/2011/01/Ordin-82-din-2015-privind-Regulamentul-
cadru-SALUBRIZARE-ANRSC.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2016
24. Mihai F-C, Ingrao C (2016) Assessment of biowaste losses
through unsound waste management practices in ruralareas
and the role of home composting. J Clean Prod. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.10.163
25. Mihai FC, Oiste AM, Chelaru DA (2014) Rural waste generation:
a geographical survey at local scale. In: 14th International mul-
tidisciplinary scientific geoconference on ecology, economics,
education and legislation SGEM 2014, Conference Proceedings,
vol 1, pp 585–593. doi: 10.5593/SGEM2014/B51/S20.080
26. Lasaridi KE, Rovolis A, Abeliotis K (2006) Waste management
costs in Greece: spatial patterns and causal factors. Environ Econ
Invest Assess 98:55–64 (WIT Transactions on Ecology and the
Environment)
27. Mihai FC (2013) Tourism implications on local waste manage-
ment. Case Study Neamt¸ County Present Environ Sustain Dev
7(1):214–221
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
123
Author's personal copy