Waste management and recycling in the former Soviet Union: The City of Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan)

Abstract

The UN-Habitat Integrated Sustainable Waste Management (ISWM) benchmarking methodology was applied to profile the physical and governance features of municipal solid waste (MSW) management in the former Soviet Union city of Bishkek, capital of the Kyrgyz Republic. Most of the ISWM indicators were in the expected range for a low-income city when compared with 20 reference cities. Approximately 240,000 t yr(-1) of MSW is generated in Bishkek (equivalent to 200 kg capita(-1) yr(-1)); collection coverage is over 80% and 90% of waste disposed goes to semi-controlled sites operating with minimal environmental standards. The waste composition was a distinctive feature, with relatively high paper content (20-27% wt.) and intermediate organic content (30-40% wt.). The study provides the first quantitative estimates of informal sector recycling, which is currently unrecognised by the city authorities. Approximately 18% wt. of generated MSW is recycled, representing an estimated annual saving to the city authorities of US$0.7-1.1 million in avoided collection/disposal costs. The waste management system is controlled by a centralised municipal waste enterprise (Tazalyk); therefore, institutional coherence is high relative to lower-middle and low-income cities. However, performance on other governance factors, such as inclusivity and financial sustainability, is variable. Future priorities in Bishkek include extending collection to unserved communities; improving landfill standards; increasing recycling rates through informal sector cooperation; improving data availability; and engaging all stakeholders in waste management strategy decisions. Extending the scope and flexibility of the ISWM protocol is recommended to better represent the variation in conditions that occur in waste management systems in practice.

Evaluating the Performance of 3Rs Waste Practices: Case Study-Region One Municipality of Tehran

“…First, households' participation in 3Rs options measured by nominal scale, Yes/No questions [24] and then, in the second part of the questions peoples who answered yes, selected how they did their practice and those answered No, in qualitative part of the questions, mentioned the reasons for non-participation.…”

Model of Integrated/Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Republic of Srpska – comparative analysis between two different municipalities

“…However, the implementation of effective and sustainable solid waste management in developing and transitional countries is an especially challenging process. A review of the literature suggests that cities and regions worldwide are making improvements, however development is a relatively slow process because of a number of factors [5,9,10,11,12,13,6,14]. Furthermore, solid waste management professionals have recognized that there is no single, simple solution to solid waste problems.…”

‘Wasteaware’ benchmark indicators for integrated sustainable waste management in cities

“…This assessment was originally at a nominal scale (yes/no, or latterly yes/maybe/no in Sim, et al (2013)); this has now been changed to an interval scale (Stevens, 1946), consisting of a standardised, five-fold scoring system with a score of 0, 5, 10, 15 or 20 being assigned against each criterion. The scores for each of the criteria comprising a qualitative indicator are summed together into a score for that indicator, which allows the very different aspects of performance -each ideally being assessed by its own distinct and traceable criterion -to be combined into one indicator.…”

“…The UN-Habitat methodology was tested on at least 25 cities, the results for 22 of which have been published Al Sabbagh, et al, 2012;Sim, et al, 2013). The cities were chosen to provide a wide representation across all six inhabited continents and the four standard categories of income level (low-, lower-middle-, upper-middle-and high-income;World Bank, 2012).…”

“…Consequently, the quantitative indicator ultimately selected was the percentage of total number of households both using and paying for waste collection services. For the remaining governance aspects, qualitative indicators were constructed for user and for provider inclusivity, and for sound institutions & pro-active policies, each comprising five or six criteria, which were assessed on a nominal scale (yes/no answers to a series of questions) al-Sabbagh, et al, 2012;Sim, et al, 2013).…”