Access to this full-text is provided by Canadian Center of Science and Education.
Content available from Journal of Sustainable Development
This content is subject to copyright.
Journal of Sustainable Development; Vol. 11, No. 1; 2018
ISSN 1913-9063 E-ISSN 1913-9071
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
1
Determinants of Household Waste Segregation in Gorkha
Municipality, Nepal
Bijan Maskey1
1 Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima,
Hiroshima, Japan
Correspondence: Bijan Maskey, Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima
University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan. Tel: 81-80-4558-3834. E-mail:
mr_bijan@hotmail.com
Received: November 28, 2017 Accepted: December 16, 2017 Online Published: January 4, 2018
doi:10.5539/jsd.v11n1p1 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v11n1p1
Abstract
Municipal solid waste management is a huge challenge specially in the developing countries. The first and
fundamental step to solve the problem of municipal solid waste management is by waste segregation at source
and separate collection of waste, which will help to recover recyclable materials and reduce the amount of waste
that needs to be disposed at the dumpsite or landfill site. In Nepal, waste segregation at source is mandated by
law but the government is not able to implement it successfully. This paper assesses the willingness of the
households to practice waste segregation in future if the government enforces the law and various factors that
influences the practice. Data was collected from 401 households which was selected using stratified sampling
technique from all the municipal wards, the lowest administrative units in Nepal. The finding shows that about
67% of the respondents are willing to segregate waste in future if the government enforces the law. Logit
regression model was employed to identify the factors that influence waste segregation practice. The significant
variables found from this study are environmental awareness, waste collection service, willingness to pay, make
compost, and segregated waste for a week variables, which are statistically significant at 1% level of significance.
Income variable is significant at 5% level of significance and gender variable is significant at 10% level of
significance. It is recommended that the concerned stakeholders should educate the households on the
importance of waste segregation and consider these traits of households before enforcing the law.
Keywords: Nepal, household waste segregation, municipal solid waste management, stratified sampling, logit
regression model
1. Introduction
With the rapidly increasing urbanization and population growth along with the changing consumption pattern,
the amount of global solid waste generation has increased significantly over the years. In 2012, 1.3 billion tonnes
of solid waste was generated by urban population globally which is about 48% increase over the past 10 years
and it is expected to increase to 2.2 billion tonnes by 2025 (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). Municipal Solid
Waste Management (MSWM) is a growing concern and to effectively manage solid waste is a major challenge
for any country. MSWM is inadequate in most of the cities of developing countries, where a significant portion
of the population does not have access to a waste collection service and only a fraction of the generated waste is
actually collected. Developing countries faces even bigger challenge as huge amount of investment is required
for MSWM. About 20-50% of municipal budget is spent on MSWM and in spite of spending almost half of the
municipal budget, about 30-60% of the wastes are uncollected and less than 50% of its population is served (The
World Bank, 2016). The uncollected waste, which is often mixed with human and animal excreta, is dumped
indiscriminately in the streets, banks of the river and in drains which contributes to flooding, breeding of insects
and rodent vectors leading to spreading of diseases. Furthermore, even collected waste is often disposed off in
uncontrolled dumpsites and/or burnt, polluting water resources, air and environment (Zurbrugg, 2002). Such
inadequate waste disposal creates serious environmental problems that affect health of humans and animals and
cause serious economic and other welfare losses. The environmental degradation caused by inadequate disposal
of waste can be expressed by the contamination of surface and ground water through leachate, soil contamination
through direct waste contact or leachate, air pollution by burning of waste, spreading of diseases by different
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 1; 2018
2
vectors like birds, insects and rodents, or uncontrolled release of methane by anaerobic decomposition of waste.
Nepal is one of the least developed countries in the world. With the total area of 147,181 square kilometers,
Nepal has the population of over 26 million (Central Bureau of Statistics [CBS], 2014b), which is 13.03%
increase over the past ten years. In nominal terms, per capita consumption increased from NRs. 6,802 in 1995/96
to NRs. 15,848 in 2003/04. Average household income grew by more than 80% from 1995/96 to 2003/04.
During the same period, per capita income increased from NRs. 7,690 to NRs. 15,162 (Central Bureau of
Statistics, 2004).
Population and purchasing power has a direct correlation with the generation of solid waste. With the increasing
population and purchasing power, more and more solid waste is being generated and Nepal is facing even more
difficulty and challenge to deal with solid waste. With urbanization, comes rise in the amount of municipal solid
waste generation and the problems of managing such waste. Waste can be a valuable resource if used properly
but if remained untreated, it can cause serious environmental and public health hazards. In Nepal, only about
62.3% of municipal waste is collected and managed by the municipalities (Asian Development Bank [ADB],
2013).
Segregation of waste at source and separate collection of waste is the first and fundamental step to solve
municipal household solid waste problem (Chu, Wang, Wang, & Zhuang, 2016). Waste segregation at household
level can preserve the quality of recyclables, which will improve the accessibility to informal recycling sectors
and help in overall reduction of waste for disposal (Matter, Dietschi, & Zurbrügg, 2013). In order to make
recycling a success, political, economic, social conditions and most importantly the attitudes of people plays a
crucial role (Ball & Lawson, 1990; De Feo & De Gisi, 2010a; Martin, Williams, & Clark, 2006; McDonald &
Oates, 2003; Perrin & Barton, 2001; Tonglet, Phillips, & Bates, 2004).
Policy implementation is a huge challenge for the government and it may not be successful if there is a lack of
clarity and awareness by the stakeholders and if it is not strictly enforced (Mani & Singh, 2016). Compulsory
recycling program implemented by the government can have a higher participation rate than voluntary recycling
by the resident (Everett & Peirce, 1993; Noehammer & Byer, 1997). Technological dimension has greatest
impact followed by political, economic and sociocultural dimensions on effectiveness of municipal household
solid waste separate collection (Chu et al., 2016).
Therefore, waste segregation at source, i.e. at the household level plays a very important role to effectively
manage municipal waste. Although Solid Waste Management Act of Nepal, 2011 has clearly stated the provision
for segregation of the solid waste, for which the local body is given the full responsibility to enforce segregation
of solid waste at source, it has hardly been made into practice. A study conducted by ADB (2013) in all the then
58 municipalities of Nepal found that only 30% of the surveyed households were segregating waste at source.
Waste segregation has not yet been implemented in the study area. Hence, this study makes an effort to
understand the current solid waste management situation and practices in Gorkha municipality of Nepal, and
assess the willingness of the household to practice waste segregation if the government enforces the law. There
have been no similar studies conducted in Nepal; hence the findings from this study can be taken into
considerations by the concerned stakeholders to implement waste segregation in the study area and other
municipalities of Nepal.
2. Material and Methods
2.1 Study Area
This study was conducted in Gorkha municipality of Nepal (Figure 1). It has an area of 83.55 square kilometers.
It has an average temperature of 25°Celsius with an average annual rainfall of 149.2 millimeter (mm). There are
15 wards, the smallest administrative units in Nepal, with a population of 39,172 residents and a total of 9,236
households. The average size of the household is 3.69, which is lower compared to the national average of 4.21
(CBS, 2014b).
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 1; 2018
3
Figure 1. Map of Gorkha municipality
Source: Housing Recovery and Reconstruction Platform – Nepal [HRRP] (2016)
2.2 Sampling Procedure and Data Collection
Sample was selected using stratified sampling technique where each ward was taken as a stratum. Sample size
was selected based on simplified formula for proportions by Yamane (1967).
According to Yamane, at 95% confidence level,
=
1+() (1)
Where n is the sample size, N is the population size, and e is the level of precision.
At 95% confidence level and 5% precision level, the required sample is 383 households. 383 households were
proportionally divided among 15 wards. Additional 10% of households from all 15 wards were selected to avoid
shortcomings of partly filled questionnaire and non-response. Final sample households selected for this study is
401 households that gives a 4.88% precision level at 95% confidence level and a response rate of about 95%.
Households were requested to segregate waste into degradable and non-degradable waste for a week to assess
waste generation and characterization of household waste in Gorkha municipality. After a week, the waste was
collected and waste generation and characterization study was conducted. All the participant households were
approached with the semi-structured questionnaire. The semi-structured questionnaire included questions related
to the socioeconomic characteristics of the households, current SWM practices, services provided by the
municipality, awareness about the impact of waste on environment, willingness to pay for improved waste
collection service, whether they segregated waste for a week or not, and willingness of the households to
segregate waste if the government enforces the law. This paper focuses on the willingness of the households to
segregate waste if the government enforces the law in near future and identify various factors that influences
households’ waste segregation practices.
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 1; 2018
4
2.3 Empirical Model
Logit regression model was used in this study to identify the determinants of households’ willingness to
segregate waste into degradable and non-degradable waste if the government enforces the law in near future.
Logit model was used because of its comparative mathematical simplicity and asymptotic characteristics, as has
been mentioned and used by many other authors (Addai & Danso-Abbeam, 2014; Aggrey & Douglason, 2010;
Anjum, 2013; Awunyo-Vitor, Ishak, & Jasaw, 2013; Bhattarai, 2015; Mary & Adelayo, 2014; Oteng-Ababio,
2010; Song, Wang, & Li, 2016). It has a cumulative probability function with the ability to deal with dependent
variable which allows for estimating the probability that an event will occur or not through prediction of a binary
dependent outcome from a set of independent variables (Aggrey & Douglason, 2010). The logit model to
identify factors influencing households’ willingness to segregate waste can be specified as:
= 1
1+exp (2)
where,
Y = Respondents’ response for willingness to segregate waste (Yes = 1, No = 0)
Z = Summation of explanatory variables multiplied by their coefficient, i.e.,
=
+
+
………++
(3)
where,
β0 = Constant
β1…… β9 = Coefficient of explanatory variables X1……X9
ε= Error term
To find out the probability of households’ willingness to segregate waste, the parameters from logit model cannot
be used to interpret effects of each of the explanatory variable as the model is nonlinear. In this case, marginal
effects are calculated to find the relative magnitude of effects of each of the explanatory variable. The effects of
the jth explanatory variable can be summarized as below:
1
[=1]
=
1
(
),
=2,…,. (4)
i.e., the mean marginal effects over the sample of n individuals.
Maximum likelihood method is used to estimate the parameters of the multiple logistic response function. The
log-likelihood function is as follows:
() = ()−[1+exp()]
(5)
2.4 Variables Selection
Financial incentive is one of the significant factor that influence separate waste collection. Financial incentive
policies should be made by the government to encourage more public participation for recycling (Steuteville,
1995). Economic incentives significantly influence recovery of recyclables at the household level (Yau, 2010).
Environmental awareness and concern influences the behavior of the people (Desa, Kadir, & Yusooff, 2011;
Minton & Rose, 1997) for effective recycling program to be successful (Derksen & Gartrell, 1993; Miafodzyeva
& Brandt, 2013),which can also have an impact on waste segregation for proper waste management.
Zhang and Wen (2014) found that waste segregation at household level is influenced by age, source separation
facilities and government policies. De Feo and De Gisi (2010b) found that older age group of participants were
more satisfied than the younger ones for separate waste collection programs for recycling. Convenience and
existence of infrastructure are important factors that can influence segregation of waste at source (Bernstad,
2014). Lack of knowledge is one of the major factors that prevents people from recycling and females are more
likely to participate in waste recycling than males (Otitoju, 2014). A study by Lober (1996) found that recycling
is more efficient and accepted by the participants than waste reduction activities at source.
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 1; 2018
5
Information about recycling, condition of recycling facility and personal recycling skills influence the recycling
behavior (Ittiravivongs, 2012). Number of household member and household who does environmental protection
activities such as waste water treatment and waste reduction influences recycling behavior of the household
(Kato, Tran, & Hoang, 2015). Households’ participation in solid waste segregation and recycling activities are
influenced by the promotional campaign, training programs and age of the residents (Atthirawong, 2016). Study
by Xu et al. (2017) found that the effect of governmental incentives on recycling behavior is greater on male than
female and income of the household negatively influences recycling behavior. Low income households are more
likely to recycle than higher income households.
The explanatory variables used in this study are based on the assumption that it will influence on the
respondent’s decision to segregate or not to segregate waste in the future. The explanatory variables used in this
study are described in Table 1.
Table 1. Description of explanatory variables used in this study
Variable Description Unit of Measure
Income Total average monthly income of household Nepalese Rupee (NRs.)
(1US$ = NRs. 102.13) *
Household size Total number of members currently residing in
the house
Number of individuals
Gender Gender of household head 1 = Male
0 = Female
House ownership Ownership of currently residing house 1 = Owned
0 = Rented
Environmental awareness Whether respondent is aware about
environmental impacts by waste or not
1 = Yes
0 = No
Waste collection service Have access to waste collection service or not 1 = Yes
0 = No
Willingness to pay Whether respondent is willing to pay for
improved waste collection service or not
1 = Yes
0 = No
Make compost Whether the household use their degradable
waste to make compost or not
1 = Yes
0 = No
Segregated waste for a week Whether the household segregated the waste
for a week or not
1 = Yes
0 = No
Note. *The exchange rate as of August 31, 2017 (Nepal Rastra Bank, 2017)
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Waste Generation and Waste Composition in the Study Area
This study found that the per capita household waste generation in Gorkha municipality is 0.24 kg/day and an
estimated total household waste generation is 9.4 tonnes/day. Organic waste constitutes the major share of
household waste, which is about 47.25%, followed by recyclable materials, which is about 37.52% and
remaining waste constitute about 15.23%. The detail composition of each waste types is presented in Table 2.
Organic waste if disposed indiscriminately, creates environmental and health hazards but can be managed
efficiently by making compost. If household waste is segregated at source then there is a huge potential to
recover quality recyclable materials. If organic waste and recyclable materials from household waste can be
managed properly, only a small fraction of household waste needs to be disposed and it reduces a huge burden
for the local government.
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 1; 2018
6
Table 2. Summary of continuous variables
Category Description
Organic waste Kitchen waste (vegetable and fruit peelings, eggshells, food leftovers,
tainted food, tea leaves, bones, oil, etc.) and yard waste (leaves,
grasses, weeds, plants, flowers, woods, branches, etc.)
Recyclable materials:
Metal Aluminum cans, broken construction steel rods, broken umbrella
metal rods and old utensils.
Paper and paper products Notebooks, books, newspapers and cardboards.
Plastic Polyethylene Terephthalate bottles such as beverage bottles;
low-density polyethylene such as trash bags and high-density
polyethylene plastics such as bags and sacks, sheets, toiletries
containers, condiment containers, water bottles, drums, toys; and
polystyrene such as food packages.
Glass Beer bottles, alcohol bottles, jars and medicine bottles.
Textile Old clothes.
Rubber and leather Slippers, shoes and belts.
Others Ceramics, medicines, light bulbs (Compact fluorescent, incandescent
bulbs), batteries, electronics (radios, wires) and inert waste.
Source: Field survey (2015)
3.2 Characteristics of Households in the Study Area
This study found that household heads are predominantly male (73.82%), and the average size of the household
is 3.72 that is similar to the national census result of 3.69 (Central Bureau of Statistics [CBS], 2014a). The
average monthly household income is found to be NRs. 36,854.20 (360.86 US$) but there is a huge difference
between the minimum [NRs. 8020 (78.53 US$)] and maximum [NRs. 244,083 (2389.92 US$)] household
income. One of the reasons for this huge difference is because poor households in very rural setting within the
municipality were also considered in this study. Majority of the households who participated in this study lives in
their own house (87.28%). Only about 36.66% of the households have the waste collection service provided by
the municipality. More than half of the surveyed households (58.35%) are aware about the environmental
impacts caused by waste, but the remaining households (41.65%) who are not aware about such adverse effects
also constitute a significant percentage.
About 61% of the respondents are willing to pay for the improved waste collection service. This finding is
somewhat similar to other similar studies where more than 60% of the respondents provided positive response
that they are willing to pay for improved waste management services (Anjum, 2013; Eshun & Nyarko, 2011;
Jones, Evangelinos, Halvadakis, Iosifides, & Sophoulis, 2010; Karthigarani & Elangovan, 2016; Mahima &
Thomas, 2013; Roy & Deb, 2013). The total number of households who use their waste to make compost is
slightly greater than those households who do not make compost. About 52% of the surveyed households make
compost and about 48% do not make compost. Most of the households segregated waste for a week (95.76%)
and they were very happy with the practice, because they saw changes in the cleanliness of the house and
surrounding as well as behavior among the household member to manage waste properly. Although, almost all of
the households segregated waste for a week, only 67.33% of them are willing to segregate waste in future if the
government enforces the law. Some of the main reasons for those households who do not want to segregate
waste in future are:
(i) Do not want to be forced to segregate waste.
(ii) Law implementation will not be successful because people will not obey the law.
(iii) Generate less amount of waste so it can be self-managed.
The summary of these characteristics of the households in this study are also summarized in Table 3 and Table 4.
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 1; 2018
7
Table 3. Summary of continuous variables
Variable Observation Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum
Income 401 36854.20 28509.48 8020 244083
Household Size 401 3.72 1.36 1 9
Source: Field survey (2015)
Table 4. Summary of categorical variables
Variable Observation (Percentage)
Gender:
Male 296 (73.82)
Female 105 (26.18)
House Ownership:
Owned 350 (87.28)
Rented 51 (12.72)
Waste Collection Service:
Have service 147 (36.66)
Do not have service 254 (63.34)
Environmental Awareness:
Aware 234 (58.35)
Not aware 167 (41.65)
Willingness to pay:
Yes 244 (60.85)
No 157 (39.15)
Make compost:
Yes 208 (51.87)
No 193 (48.13)
Segregated waste for a week:
Yes 384 (95.76)
No 17 (4.24)
Segregate waste if government enforces:
Yes 270 (67.33)
No 131 (32.67)
Source: Field survey (2015)
3.3 Factors Influencing Households’ Willingness to Segregate Waste if the Government Enforces Law
The results from the logit regression model is presented in Table 5. All 401 observations are used in this analysis.
The log likelihood for this fitted model is -185.59087 and the likelihood ratio (LR) chi-square of 135.53 (df=9)
with a p-value 0.0000 (significant at 1%) states that this model is statistically significant and as a whole fit
significantly better than an empty model, i.e., only with the dependent variable.
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 1; 2018
8
Table 5. Logit regression results of factors influencing willingness to segregate waste if the government enforces
Independent Variables Coefficient Standard Error Z-statistics Marginal Effect
Income -0.000011** 0.000005 -2.30 -0.000002
Household size -0.039201 0.096006 -0.41 -0.005904
Gender -0.517621* 0.311353 -1.66 -0.077964
House ownership -0.196384 0.389795 -0.50 -0.029579
Environmental awareness 1.740836*** 0.264437 6.58 0.262203
Waste collection service 1.117412*** 0.303545 3.68 0.168304
Willingness to pay 0.725199*** 0.272514 2.66 0.109229
Make compost 1.256562*** 0.274483 4.58 0.189262
Segregated waste for a week 1.874554*** 0.583208 3.21 0.282344
Constant -2.167573*** 0.783154 -2.77
Number of observations 401
Log likelihood -185.59087
LR chi2(9) 135.53
Probability > chi2 0.0000***
Pseudo R2 0.2675
Source: Field survey (2015)
Note. * significant at 10%, ** significant at 5% and *** significant at 1%
This study found that the significant variables that influence households’ willingness to segregate waste in future
if the government enforces the law are income, gender, environmental awareness, waste collection service,
willingness to pay, make compost and segregated waste for a week. Only Household size and house ownership
variables do not have any statistically significant influence on the households’ willingness to segregate waste.
The total average income of the household is statistically significant at 5% level and it negatively influences
households’ willingness to segregate decision. The marginal effect result shows that a unit increase in household
income would decrease the likelihood for households’ willingness to segregate waste by 0.000002%, i.e., if the
monthly household income increases by NRs. 100,000 (970.91 US$), the likelihood for households’ willingness
to segregate decreases by 0.2%. Even though, the effect is very less, it is important to understand the negative
effect of the income variable.
The gender variable is statistically significant at 10% level, with a negative coefficient value. This shows that
female household heads are more likely to segregate waste in future than male household heads. This could be
because in Nepal females are responsible to do household chores, which also includes management of household
waste. Hence, they are more effected and concerned for proper management of waste.
The environmental awareness variable has a positive coefficient and is statistically significant at 1% level. This
result shows that households are more likely to segregate waste if they are aware about the adverse impacts of
waste on environment by 26.22% than those households who are not aware.
The waste collection service variable is significant at 1% level of significance with positive coefficient. This
shows that the households who have the current waste collection service must be aware about the negative
consequences if they do not follow the law and that their waste may not be collected if they do not segregate
waste.
The willingness to pay variable is statistically significant at 1% level of significance with positive coefficient.
This implies that, households who are willing to pay for the improved services are more concerned about the
proper management of waste and they want to be a responsible citizen by obeying the law. The households who
are willing to pay for the improved service is likely to segregate waste than those who are not willing to pay by
10.92%.
Households who make compost are more likely to segregate waste than who do not make compost by 18.93%,
which is statistically significant at 1% level of significance. This could be because these households are using
their degradable waste to make compost and for that they might have already been segregating their waste.
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 1; 2018
9
Households who segregated waste for a week are also likely to segregate waste in future by 28.23% than those
households who did not segregate waste for a week. This variable is statistically significant at 1% level of
significance. This could be because, these households saw the changes in cleanliness of their house and also
could recover recyclable waste. They understood the benefit of waste segregate and so would like to continue
segregating waste if the government enforces the law.
Although the national government has enacted law for waste segregation at source, local government in the study
area has not implemented the law. The significant variables found from this study can be taken as a guiding tool
to understand the characteristics of the households before enforcing the law. Although household income
negatively influences the waste segregation behavior, environmental awareness and waste segregation practice
can positively influence the waste segregation behavior of the household. Therefore, concerned stakeholders
should educate and make households aware about the importance of waste segregation and environmental
impacts caused by waste. This would encourage the households with higher income and also the male household
heads to segregate waste. Households who make compost is highly statistically significant with willingness to
segregate waste. The concerned stakeholders should provide training programs so that quality compost can be
made and also to encourage other households to make compost. Furthermore, the concerned stakeholders should
also make a market to buy and sell the compost. Households who are willing to pay for the improved waste
collection service are also likely to segregate waste if the government enforces the law. Therefore, the
government should improve the current solid waste management services provided in the municipality to
encourage household waste segregation. Currently, waste collection service is provided only in few areas within
the municipality and households who have such service are willing to segregate waste. For the local government,
it may not be feasible to provide waste collection service to all the areas within the municipality. But, as a pilot
phase, the local government can enforce waste segregation to the areas where it provides the waste collection
service. In long term, after the municipality has enough technical, financial and manpower resources to provide
waste collection service to all the areas, waste segregation at source can be enforced for the whole municipality.
4. Conclusion
This study tried to highlight the importance of waste segregation at source for effective management and identify
the determinants for willingness of households to segregate waste in future if the government enforces the law.
This study found that environmental awareness, waste collection service, willingness to pay, make compost, and
segregated waste for a week variables are statistically significant at 1% level of significance. Income variable is
significant at 5% level of significance and gender variable is significant at 10% level of significance. Almost all
of the households (95.76%) segregated waste for a week for this study but only 67.33% of them wants to
segregate waste in future. The government should educate the households about the importance of waste
segregation and also provide relevant training to encourage households to segregate waste. Policy
implementation is a huge challenge for the government and so the findings from this study could be taken into
consideration to enforce the law of waste segregation at source in the study area as well as other municipalities in
Nepal and even in other developing countries.
Acknowledgments
I am very grateful to staffs of Gorkha municipality for their insightful information and support for this study. I
would like to thank all the enumerators who assisted in conducting fieldwork in all the wards of the municipality.
Sincere appreciation also goes to all the respondents for their valuable time.
References
Addai, K. N., & Danso-Abbeam, G. (2014). Determinants of willingness to pay for improved solid waste
management in Dunkwa-on-Offin, Ghana. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, 3(1), 1–9.
Aggrey, N., & Douglason, O. G. (2010). Determinants of willingness to pay for solid waste management in
Kampala City. Current Research Journal of Economic Theory, 2(3), 119–122.
Anjum, R. (2013). Willingness to pay for solid waste management services: A case study of Islamabad (No. 3).
Islamabad, Pakistan.
Asian Development Bank [ADB]. (2013). Solid waste management in Nepal: Current status and policy
recommendations. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Retrieved from
https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/30366/solid-waste-management-nepal.pdf
Atthirawong, W. (2016). Factors affecting household participation in solid waste management segregation and
recycling in Bangkok, Thailand. In 30th European Conference on Modelling and Simulation.
https://doi.org/10.7148/2016-0198
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 1; 2018
10
Awunyo-Vitor, D., Ishak, S., & Jasaw, G. S. (2013). Urban households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste
disposal services in Kumasi metropolis, Ghana. Urban Studies Research, 2013, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/659425
Ball, R., & Lawson, S. M. (1990). Public attitudes towards glass recycling in Scotland. Waste Management &
Research, 8, 177–192.
Bernstad, A. (2014). Household food waste separation behavior and the importance of convenience. Was te
Management, 34(7), 1317–1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.03.013
Bhattarai, K. (2015). Households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste management in Banepa
municipality, Nepal. Environment and Natural Resources Journal, 13(2), 14–25.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (2004). Nepal living standards survey, (December), 1–146. https://doi.org/november,
2011
Central Bureau of Statistics [CBS]. (2014a). National population and housing census 2011: Urban tables (Vol. 07,
Part I). Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau of Statistics.
Central Bureau of Statistics [CBS]. (2014b). Population monograph of Nepal (Vol. III). Kathmandu, Nepal:
Central Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from http://cbs.gov.np/image/data/Population/Population Monograph
of Nepal 2014/Population Monograph V03.pdf
Chu, Z., Wang, W., Wang, B., & Zhuang, J. (2016). Research on factors influencing municipal household solid
waste separate collection: Bayesian belief networks. Sustainability, 8(2), 152.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020152
De Feo, G., & De Gisi, S. (2010a). Domestic separation and collection of municipal solid waste: Opinion and
awareness of citizens and workers. Sustainability, 2(5), 1297–1326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2051297
De Feo, G., & De Gisi, S. (2010b). Public opinion and awareness towards MSW and separate collection
programmes: A sociological procedure for selecting areas and citizens with a low level of knowledge. Wa st e
Management, 30(6), 958–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.02.019
Derksen, L., & Gartrell, J. (1993). The social context of recycling. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 434–442.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095910
Desa, A., Kadir, N. B. A., & Yusooff, F. (2011). A study on the knowledge, attitudes, awareness status and
behaviour concerning solid waste management. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 18, 643–648.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.05.095
Eshun, T. B., & Nyarko, F. (2011). Willingness to pay for improved waste management services: The case of
Tarkwa-Nsuaem municipality. Asian-African Journal of Economic and Econometrics, 11(1), 187–196.
Everett, J., & Peirce, J. W. (1993). Curbside recycling in the U.S.A.: Convenience and mandatory participation.
Waste Management & Research. https://doi.org/10.1006/wmre.1993.1006
Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: A global review of solid waste management (Urban
Development Series - Knowledge Papers No. 15). Washington, DC, USA: World Bank.
Housing Recovery and Reconstruction Platform – Nepal [HRRP]. (2016). NEPAL: Gorkha District - Gorkha
Municipality. Retrieved October 2, 2016, from http://hrrpnepal.org/maps/
Ittiravivongs, A. (2012). Factors influence household solid waste recycling behaviour in Thailand: An integrated
perspective. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 167, 437–448.
https://doi.org/10.2495/ST110391
Jones, N., Evangelinos, K., Halvadakis, C. P., Iosifides, T., & Sophoulis, C. M. (2010). Social factors influencing
perceptions and willingness to pay for a market-based policy aiming on solid waste management. Resources,
Conservation & Recycling, 54, 533–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.10.010
Karthigarani, R., & Elangovan, V. (2016). Household willingness to pay for better solid waste management in
Sivagangai district, Tamil Nadu. In XVII Annual International Seminar Proceedings (pp. 171–182). Retrieved
from http://www.internationalseminar.org/XVII_AIS/TS1_PDF/10.R. Karthigarani & V. Elangovan.pdf
Kato, T., Tran, A. ., & Hoang, H. (2015). Factors affecting voluntary participation in food residue recycling: A case
study in Da Nang, Vietnam Nam. Sustainable Environment Research, 25(2), 93–101.
Lober, D. J. (1996). Municipal solid waste policy and public participation in household source reduction. Wa st e
Management & Research, 14(2), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X9601400203
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 1; 2018
11
Mahima, S., & Thomas, S. (2013). Estimating households willingness to pay for solid waste management with
special reference to Palakkad district in Kerala. International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary
Research, 2(1), 73–80.
Mani, S., & Singh, S. (2016). Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management in India: A Policy Agenda.
Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.064
Martin, M., Williams, I. D., & Clark, M. (2006). Social, cultural and structural influences on household waste
recycling: A case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 48(4), 357–395.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.09.005
Mary, O., & Adelayo, A. (2014). Household willingness to pay for improved solid waste management in Akinyele
local government area. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 4(18), 76–82.
Matter, A., Dietschi, M., & Zurbrügg, C. (2013). Improving the informal recycling sector through segregation of
waste in the household - The case of Dhaka Bangladesh. Habitat International, 38, 150–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.06.001
McDonald, S., & Oates, C. (2003). Reasons for non-participation in a kerbside recycling scheme. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 39(4), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(03)00020-X
Miafodzyeva, S., & Brandt, N. (2013). Recycling behaviour among householders: Synthesizing determinants via
meta-analysis. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 4(2), 221–235.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-012-9144-4
Minton, A. P., & Rose, R. L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer
behaviour: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 40(96), 37–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00209-3
Nepal Rastra Bank. (2017). Foreign exchange rates. Retrieved September 1, 2017, from
https://www.nrb.org.np/fxmexchangerate.php?YY=2017&MM=08&DD=31&B1=Go
Noehammer, H. C., & Byer, P. H. (1997). Effect of design variables on participation in residential curbside
recycling programs. Waste Management & Research, 15(4), 407–427.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/wmre.1996.0096
Oteng-Ababio, M. (2010). Solid waste management in Ghana: Willingness-to-pay for improved services. Ghana
Journal of Geography, 2, 85–107.
Otitoju, T. A. (2014). Individual attitude toward recycling of municipal solid waste in Lagos, Nigeria. American
Journal of Engineering Research, 3(7), 78–88.
Perrin, D., & Barton, J. (2001). Issues associated with transforming household attitudes and opinions into materials
recovery: A review of two kerbside recycling schemes. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 33(1), 61–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00075-1
Roy, A. T., & Deb, U. (2013). Households willingness to pay for improved waste management in Silchar municipal
area: A case study in Cachar District, Assam. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(5), 21–31.
Song, Q., Wang, Z., & Li, J. (2016). Residents’ attitudes and willingness to pay for solid waste management in
Macau. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 31, 635–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.02.116
Steuteville, R. (1995). The state of garbage in America. BioCycle, 4, 54–63.
The World Bank. (2016). Urban solid waste management. Retrieved July 21, 2016, from
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/EXTUSWM/0,,
menuPK:463847~pagePK:149018~piPK:149093~theSitePK:463841,00.html
Tonglet, M., Phillips, P. S., & Bates, M. P. (2004). Determining the drivers for householder pro-environmental
behaviour: Waste minimisation compared to recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 42(1), 27–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.02.001
Xu, L., Ling, M., Lu, Y., & Shen, M. (2017). External influences on forming residents’ waste separation behaviour:
Evidence from households in Hangzhou, China. Habitat International, 63, 21–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.03.009
Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
Yau, Y. (2010). Domestic waste recycling, collective action and economic incentive: The case in Hong Kong.
Waste Management, 30(12), 2440–2447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.009
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 1; 2018
12
Zhang, H., & Wen, Z.-G. (2014). Residents’ household solid waste (HSW) source separation activity: A case study
of Suzhou, China. Sustainability, 6(9), 6446–6466. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6096446
Zurbrugg, C. (2002). Solid waste management in developing countries.
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Content uploaded by Bijan Maskey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bijan Maskey on Jan 04, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
