!

"

% &

International Masters Program in Environmental Sustainable Development Master Thesis

!'()*+,-./01 , - 2 3

Study of Factors Affecting Social Participation Towards Recycling in Guatemala City, Guatemala
456789:;<=>?@ABCDEF

G H IJKLM (Jorge Mario Matute Davila) NOPQJRSI (Kuen-Sheng Wang, Ph.D.)

# T 9 !

99

11

2010

10

28

Study of Factors Affecting Social Participation towards Recycling in Guatemala City, Guatemala 456789:;<=>?@ABC DEF

Jorge Mario Matute Dvila

Advisor: Kuen-Sheng Wang Date: November, 2010 National Central University, Taiwan (R.O.C)

!"
#$%&'()*+,-./'01234567108/'9:;<= (Municipal Solid Waste, MSW) >?@ABCDEFGH0IJKLMN)OP0Q' RS MSW .TUVGWXYZ[\]^_F`abcdefghij^kljmn Uopqr0stuivNwx^. MSW TUym0z{|}(,i~.cd0 iop[RS MSW TU.H(l\.F>" .Sph[0u#$%&';<=z{ (Source Separation of Waste, SSW) y ,i".F.p

12-U0o# $%&''RS;<=>h>.Fy[ mu.> i 446 10,i 4.5%F zF,

st#$%&''>)x 30.5% .12h[ SSWF N0"0$( SSW >h [wu,`,>12-F Ufgi,"[,.0vix 76.1% .Sh[ SSW0HSh[ SSW .0 18.5%FN1[ SSW .!S 92% " 96%>0GH#Sz {|}$z{|}%&[z MSW >m'[.p(]) *.+,>\]0fgi".-./F,001u#$%&' 2x`[ SSW0GH$y34c567z89Sh:0;78 <=z{>?S@.ArBCDEFGHI$JKnU0L#$%& ')i5MNiOP.IQ/'9:;<=TURNwuNx^.cdF

STz{|}0;<=0[0U1[VF
Translated by Chen Yuen-Tsai (W{X, from Graduate Program of English and American Literature, NCU)

Abstract
Guatemala City is the largest city in Central America reaching more than 1 million inhabitants with an increasing generation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), but as in many developing countries, its management still remains primitive and inefficient. High tech strategies have proven ineffective or have failed to deal with this problem, showing that the most suitable strategy to develop effective MSW management is Recycling, for this social participation is required and crucial to its success. The main purpose of this thesis is to assess the actual social participation and identify the most important factors that influence Guatemala Citys population towards Source Separation of Waste (SSW). The factors assessed by this study were Socio-demographic, Psychological and Economical & Normative Factors and their relationship with Guatemala City citizens actual waste separation attitude and willingness. Chi-square tests and Logistic Regression were used to analyze the information gathered by a face-to-face survey to the people above 15 years old chosen by a random size sampling method. The final total sample size was 446, with a final 4.5% error in the estimate. Results showed that only 30.5% of the sampled Guatemala City population is actually participating in SSW. It was found that age, gender and socio-economical status, in order of importance, are the socio-demographical factors showing more relationship or influence with the actual social participation in SSW. Psychological factors, as environmental concern, altruism and intrinsic satisfaction, prove to be the most important and influential reasons why people are participating in SSW with 76.1% of all respondents followed by Economical factors with only 18.5%. It was found that the grade of peoples willingness to participate in SSW is between 92% and 96%, but the lack of incentives due to the lack of recycling programs, education and information about recycling and the lack of laws and regulations regarding MSW prove to be the main limiting variable. The results finally suggest that Guatemala City people has high willingness to participate in SSW, but its imperative that local authorities and decision makers take this information into action and focus their efforts and resources into designing new agendas in which these flaws can be addressed integrally to develop more effective strategies for a sustainable integrated municipal solid waste management system in Guatemala City. Keywords: recycling, waste separation, social participation, personal and situational factors.

ii

Acknowledgements
First of all I want to thank God for his many blessings and guidance through this experience of life. I want to extend my gratitude to the Taiwan Government through the ICDF for allowing me to come to Taiwan and fulfill my goal of higher education. I want to extend my deep gratitude to my advisor Professor Kuen-Sheng Wang, who kindly accepted me as his advisee and patiently guide me and taught me how to put my ideas into action and kindly share all his knowledge and experience for the development of this thesis. Im also thankful to the thesis oral-examination committee, Prof. Ray-Shyan Wu and Prof. Shuh-Woei Yu, for their valuable recommendations, questions, encouragements and insightful comments. I specially want to show my appreciation and thanks to my father Jorge Arturo Matute Flores and his wife Olga Torres de Matute, for giving me their unconditional support, love, knowledge, patience, time and resources for the development of this research. Much appreciation goes to CIENSA personnel, family and friends who without their support this thesis wouldnt have been possible: my brothers Juan Carlos, Pablo Arturo, Julio Roberto and Luis Enrique Matute, my cousins Maria Jos, Pedro Pablo and Sofia Torres, Fabiana Flores, Nancy and Pamela Alay, my dear friend Karina Pirola, the families Barrera and Burkhard, David Guzman, Karen Arroyo and Aiken Chew. Special thanks also to Maria Ligia Rodriguez de Morales and Yuen-Tsai Chen for their kind support and friendship. I want to thank the Professors of the Environment Sustainable Development Program for their teachings and its managers, Sy-Jia Chiu (Diana) and Hung-Pei Chen (Novia) for their friendship. Thanks to all my classmates and friends, especially Oscar Rodriguez, Diego Ayala and Guillermo Esquivel for their unconditional friendship and support. A deeply grateful appreciation to Mirshe Sukanto, for her love and support during all those days of hard work and uncertainty, you kept my faith alive. And last, but not least, I want to express the greatest thanks to my mother Sylvia Lorena Dvila Arroyo for the strength she transmitted to me every time even though the distance. Thanks to everybody that is not mentioned in this acknowledgments, but with your good thoughts and prayers help me to accomplish this journey of success.

iii

Table of Contents
!" .............................................................................................................................. i Abstract ....................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................ vii List of Tables .............................................................................................................viii Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Importance of this Study ................................................................................... 1 1.2. Research Purpose ............................................................................................ 2 1.3. Research Scope ............................................................................................... 3 1.4. Research Difficulties and Limitations ................................................................ 3 Chapter 2 Conceptual Framework .............................................................................. 5 2.1. Solid Waste Management, Integrated Solid Waste Management and Sustainable Development ........................................................................................ 5 2.2. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries .......................... 7 2.2.1. Factors Affecting the Development of SWM Systems Developing Countries .............................................................................................................. 8 2.2.1.1. Technical Constraints .......................................................................... 8 2.2.1.2. Financial Constraints ........................................................................... 9 2.2.1.3. Institutional Constraints...................................................................... 10 2.2.1.4. Economic Constraints ........................................................................ 10 2.2.1.5. Social Constraints .............................................................................. 11 2.2.2. Actual SWM Practices in Latin American Developing Countries .............. 11 2.2.2.1. Collection and Transfer ...................................................................... 12 2.2.2.2. Composting........................................................................................ 12 2.2.2.3. Incineration ........................................................................................ 13 2.2.2.4. Landfilling........................................................................................... 13 2.2.2.5. Recycling ........................................................................................... 14 2.3. The Importance of Social Participation in Recycling Programs....................... 15 2.4. Factors Affecting Social Participation in Recycling Programs ......................... 18 2.4.1. Psychological Factors .............................................................................. 20 2.4.2. Socio-demographic Factors...................................................................... 21 2.4.2.1. Age .................................................................................................... 22 2.4.2.2. Education ........................................................................................... 22 2.4.2.3. Gender ............................................................................................... 23 iv

2.4.2.4. Income ............................................................................................... 23 2.4.3. Economical & Normative Factors (Incentives & Law) ............................... 24 Chapter 3 Referential Background ........................................................................... 26 3.1. Guatemala General Facts ............................................................................... 26 3.1.1. Geography and Climate ......................................................................... 26 3.1.2. Divisional and Political Organization ...................................................... 26 3.1.3. Demography, Education and Socio-Economical Facts .......................... 26 3.1.4. Economy ................................................................................................ 27 3.2. Guatemala City General Facts........................................................................ 28 3.3. Guatemala City Municipal Solid Waste Overview ........................................... 29 3.3.1. Guatemala City MSW Generation ............................................................ 29 3.3.2. Guatemala City MSW Composition .......................................................... 29 3.3.3. Guatemala City MSW Collection and Final Disposal ................................ 30 3.3.4. Waste Recovery and Recycle in Guatemala ............................................ 33 3.3.4.1. Recovery and Recycle in Guatemala City.......................................... 35 3.4. Political Status and Policies Concerning MSW in Guatemala ......................... 37 3.5. Guatemala City Solid Waste Management Modernization Program ............... 38 Chapter 4 Methodology ............................................................................................ 40 4.1. Research Object and Framework ................................................................... 40 4.2. Research Procedure ....................................................................................... 42 4.3. Surveying Tools .............................................................................................. 43 4.3.1. Sampling Design ...................................................................................... 43 4.3.2. Questionnaire design ............................................................................... 44 4.3.2.1. Personal Information Section ............................................................. 45 4.3.2.2. Actual Attitude Section....................................................................... 46 4.3.2.3. Scenarios Section .............................................................................. 46 4.3.2.4. Reliability of the Instrument................................................................ 48 4.4. Survey Implementation (Interviews) ................................................................ 48 4.5. Data coding and validation.............................................................................. 50 4.6. Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 54 4.6.1. Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................ 54 4.6.2. Pearsons Chi-square Test ....................................................................... 54 4.6.3. Logistic Regression Model ....................................................................... 56

Chapter 5 Results and Discussion ........................................................................... 58 5.1. General Information and Survey Results ........................................................ 58 5.2. Social Participation in Source Separation of Waste (SSW) in Guatemala City ............................................................................................................................... 60 5.3. Analysis of Socio-demographic Factors and their Relationship with Social Participation in Source Separation of Waste.......................................................... 62 5.3.1. Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................ 62 5.3.2. Pearsons Chi-square Test ....................................................................... 64 5.3.3. Multivariate Analysis (Logistic Regression) .............................................. 66 5.4. Analysis of Psychological and Economic & Normative Factors and their Relationship with Social Participation in Source Separation of Waste ................... 73 5.5. Final Analysis and Discussion ........................................................................ 78 Chapter 6 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 82 6.1. Conclusions .................................................................................................... 82 6.2. Recommendations .......................................................................................... 84 References ................................................................................................................ 85 Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 88 Appendix B ................................................................................................................ 90 Appendix C ................................................................................................................ 92 Appendix D ................................................................................................................ 96

vi

List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Three pillars of Integrated Solid Waste Management ............................................ 6 Figure 2.2. Integrated Solid Waste Management .................................................................... 7 Figure 2.3. Lund's three reasons that incentive recycling. ..................................................... 19 Figure 3.1. Forms of waste disposal in the Department of Guatemala, 2006. ........................ 31 Figure 3.2. Percentage of waste disposal by municipality in El Trbol landfill, 2002 ............ 32 Figure 4.1. General research framework. .............................................................................. 41 Figure 4.2. Questionnaire general framework. ...................................................................... 45 Figure 4.3. Group of volunteers and CIENSA staff participating in the survey. .................... 49 Figure 4.4. Data analysis general flow diagram. ................................................................... 55 Figure 5.1. Percentage of households were source separation is practice in Guatemala City . 60 Figure 5.2. Percentages of people participating in SSW in Guatemala City .......................... 61 Figure 5.3. Materials currently being separated at household level in Guatemala City .......... 62 Figure 5.4. Logistic regression model function for probability of participation in source separation of waste............................................................................................................... 70 Figure 5.5. People willingness to participate in SSW according to three different scenarios . 74 Figure 5.6. Principal reasons why people separate their garbage in Guatemala City.............. 76 Figure 5.7. Principal reasons why people dont separate their garbage in Guatemala City .... 76 Figure 5.8. Principal reasons why people think other people dont separate their garbage in Guatemala City .................................................................................................................... 77 Figure A.1. Guatemala geographical location ....................................................................... 88 Figure A.2. Departments of Guatemala ................................................................................ 88 Figure A.3. Map of the Municipalities of the Department of Guatemala. .............................. 89 Figure A.4. Zones of Guatemala City and El Trbol landfill location. .................................. 89 Figure B.1. Letter for Commercial Centers and Malls in Guatemala City ............................. 90 Figure B.2. Letter for Markets in Guatemala City................................................................. 91

vii

List of Tables
Table 2.1. Twelve factors influencing recycling in developing countries .............................. 16 Table 3.1. School enrollment for Guatemala ........................................................................ 27 Table 3.2. Total residential solid waste generation in GMA, 1995 ........................................ 29 Table 3.3. Waste composition in GMA, 1991 ....................................................................... 30 Table 3.4. Solid waste chemical content in GMA, 1991 ....................................................... 30 Table 3.5. Prices for some recoverable materials in Guatemala City ..................................... 36 Table 4.1. Location of sampling areas in Guatemala City ..................................................... 44 Table 4.2. Summary of questions related to attitude towards source separation of waste....... 46 Table 4.3. Summary of questions related to scenarios on source separation of waste ............ 48 Table 4.4. Coding of independent and dependant variables for data input ............................. 51 Table 4.5. Averaged socio-economical level by zone in Guatemala City .............................. 53 Table 5.1. Guatemala City population distribution for the year 2002 .................................... 58 Table 5.2. Summary of basic research data of total surveyed population............................... 59 Table 5.3. Peoples participation in SSW by socio-demographic factor ................................ 63 Table 5.4. Summary of Chi-square tests results for socio-demographic factors ..................... 65 Table 5.5. Logistic regression results for socio-demographic factors and their relationship with social participation on source separation of waste in Guatemala City............................ 67 Table 5.6. Possible combinations and their respective probability and significance according to the logistic regression prediction model ........................................................................... 69 Table 5.7. Logistic regression results for standardized values from prediction model ........... 71 Table 5.8. Willingness of people to participate in SSW according to the three scenarios under study .................................................................................................................................... 73 Table 5.9. Results of chi-square test and logistic regression for the three scenarios studied .. 75 Table C.1. Final Questionnaire Ballot .................................................................................. 92 Table C.2. Composition of the socio-economic levels en the City of Guatemala by zones and by Municipalities in the Guatemala Metropolitan Area......................................................... 95 Table D.1. Final coded results from survey per ballot........................................................... 96 Table D.2. Chi-square test results for socio-economic factors and social participation in source separation of waste............................................................................................................. 110 Table D.3. Results of the prediction model and standardized values for all the combinations found and their probabilities of anticipating in source separation of waste .......................... 112

viii

Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1. Importance of this Study
Guatemala is a middle-income developing country, with the largest city in Central America (Guatemala City) reaching more than 1 million inhabitants (INE, 2002). The rapid population growth, urbanization, social migration, production patterns and consumption of todays Guatemalan society has caused an increase in the extension of the urban area of Guatemala City into what is now called Guatemala Metropolitan Area (GMA), and therefore increased the generation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Even so, as many other developing countries, its management still remains primitive and inefficient, relying mostly on collection, transportation and disposal with minor advances in recycling as waste management strategies. Guatemalas Municipalities are responsible of Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) in their jurisdiction; however lack of government legislation and scarce local regulations limits the capability to force Municipalities to take individual actions to face and solve the waste management problem. Guatemala City Municipality is one of the few that has establish its own regulations and tried to find effective solutions; but with short budget, a low-tech collection system, a very informal recycling system, low social participation, hundreds of illegal dump yards around the city and only one centralized approved landfill site: El Trbol Landfill, whose useful life is estimated to end before 2018, the development of new more efficient MSWM strategies is becoming an important issue. As in many other developing countries around the world, Guatemala City Municipality developed the Guatemala City Solid Waste Management Modernization Program in 2002 1, which emphasized its objectives in technical improvements and the relocation of El Trbol city landfill, reaching limited results as the relocation has been delay indefinitely 2. This reinforces the idea that in developing countries Solid Waste Management (SWM) is definitely not only a technical challenge. Most waste management strategies are not sustainable because

1 Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID). Project: Modernizacin Manejo Desechos Slidos Ciudad de Guatemala. http://www.iadb.org/projects/project.cfm?language=Spanish&project=TC0006010 2 El Peridico, Guatemala. News article: Vertedero de la zona 3 seguir dentro de la ciudad. http://www.elperiodico.com.gt/es/20100405/pais/144131/

they only offer technical solutions and not really address the root cause of the problem which is the disposal practices of the waste generators. Some attempts to introduce new technology to the actual system had failed as Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) established went bankrupt or work at limited capacity because of none or low incomes due to the high expenses in waste separation and sorting (IARNA 2006). Also incinerators established in some municipalities never worked or were shut down due to high cost of maintenance and nuisance 3. All this limitations come from Guatemalan societys lack of culture on waste separation and recycling, giving as a result an informal recycling, mainly maintained by scavengers in the landfills and door to door collectors. Even though some schools, NGOs and government agencies programs have tried to introduce recycling practices to society, the efforts are usually scattered and isolated, sometimes badly organize among participating sectors and somehow limited in their future vision, not being able to transcend in time and worsened by the lack of legislation, government support and enforcement. These practices are scarcely done or have been simply dismissed or forgotten. As it has already been established source separation is the milestone to develop any successful Recycling system in developing countries. Therefore, all mentioned above point to gather crucial information to educate and sensitize people to collaborate in the separation phase. In order to do this there is a need to conduct a social research to establish effective and successful waste recycling programs in Guatemala. This study intends to establish and determine the actual social participation, willingness and the factors related with Guatemala City citizens attitude towards Source Separation of Waste (SSW) and recycling.

1.2. Research Purpose

Planning and targeting recycling schemes is a mayor priority in developing countries where technological systems are not feasible or adjustable to the current environment. To achieve desired recycling objectives a higher social participation is needed and expected. It has been suggested that a portion of the public will participate in recycling programs no matter how well promoted they are, usually motivated by environmental ethics or altruism. On the other
3 El Peridico, Guatemala. News article: Plantas de tratamiento de desechos slidos caen en desuso. http://www.elperiodico.com.gt/es/20090405/pais/97191

hand another segment of population will be unlikely to participate regardless of their background. Still, the majority of the population can be affected by different factors that can influence their attitude and willingness to participate, and is this larger segment of the population that is the most important to know more about and to understand in order to identify who is a potential recycler. The main purpose of this thesis is to assess the actual social participation and identify the most important factors that influence Guatemala Citys population towards recycling of MSW. This with the goal of providing local authorities and decision makers with tools and information that can help them to identify where and how to target the different sectors of the population regarding the factors that affect them more to participate in the first phase of recycling (source separation). The information on this study is aimed to help develop better information campaigns, effectively improve the quality of participation of society and hence promote future more efficient waste recycling strategies for Guatemala City.

1.3. Research Scope

This thesis scope is set into the boundaries of GMA. It settles its target on the opinion of citizens 15 years old and above. The study comprises a face to face interview that intends to include a representative sample of the different social-demographic variables: gender, age, education and socio-economic status of Guatemala City society. The study will narrow its analysis on defining the actual participation of citizens towards SSW by establishing and analyzing the factors that affect peoples actual and future attitudes on recycling activities as a first approach to generate information for further studies and the establishment of future recycling programs.

1.4. Research Difficulties and Limitations

During the elaboration of this study, scarcity of data and updated information related to SWM in Guatemala was frequently a mayor problem, the necessity to collect own data became a requirement. The process of acquiring the data was also difficult because this research was conducted from Taiwan. 3

Some assumptions regarding socio-economical status of the population surveyed had to be taken, due to limitations for the collection of this kind of information. For the classification of socio-economical level of citizens, their area of dwelling was taken as indicator. This was mostly owed to the delicate matter of security prevailing in the country that limits the possibility of talking about personal economical issues between the citizens, which could have eventually jeopardized the development of this study. The sampling design and survey had to be adjusted to the available means but still trying to preserve an acceptable level of confidence. Surveying process was coordinated via remote control and utilizing the internet. Hence, the collaboration of a private institution (NGO) was needed to pass the survey and handle the information before analysis. CIENSA was the institution that kindly approved to help in the development of this study. Although more research has to be conducted to validate the results obtained in this study, this research objective aims to give a first approach into understanding Guatemalan peoples attitude and willingness towards recycling.

Chapter 2 Conceptual Framework

2.1. Solid Waste Management, Integrated Management and Sustainable Development Solid Waste

Solid Waste Management (SWM) is a polite term for garbage management. As long as humans have been living in settled communities, solid waste or refuse has been an issue, and modern societies generate far more solid waste than early humans ever did. Tchobanoglous, 1993, defines SWM as the discipline associated with the control of generation, storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing and disposal of solid waste in a manner that is in accord with the best principles of public health, economics, engineering, conservation, aesthetics, and other environmental and social considerations. In short terms, SWM is a system for handling garbage. In the past, SWM primarily included collection, incineration and landfilling. After the green revolution during the end of the 60s and beginning of the 70s the concept of Sustainable Development (SD) emerge focusing on advances towards environmental problems; established by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 is defined as Development that meets the needs of present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It became apparent that besides landfilling and incineration, solid waste can be managed by other means less harmful to the human health and the environment. This helped foster the idea of Sustainable Solid Waste Management, with the main goal of recovering more valuable products from waste by Recycling, using less energy and a more positive environmental impact (Bagchi, 2004). The practice of the three Rs (reduction, reuse and recycle) also fitted very well with the SD concept. It settled that Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) should follow or pursue the optimization of the system in what respects to reducing human and environmental impact and optimizing the use of resources and energy. With these concepts taken, ISWM is a comprehensive waste prevention, recycling & composting, and disposal program (Figure 2.1). It involves evaluating local needs and

conditions, and then selecting and combining the most appropriate waste management activities for those conditions (Tchobanoglous, 1993). As shown in figure 2.1, EPAs three main pillars in ISWM are described below: !" Waste Prevention. Waste preventionalso called source reductionseeks to prevent waste from being generated. Waste prevention strategies include using less packaging, designing products to last longer, and reusing products and materials. Waste prevention helps reduce handling, treatment, and disposal costs and ultimately reduces the generation of methane. !" Recycling and Composting. Recycling is a process that involves collecting, separating, reprocessing, and/or recovering certain waste materials (e.g., glass, metal, plastics and paper) to make new materials or products. Some recycled organic materials are rich in nutrients and can be used to improve soils. The conversion of waste materials into soil additives is called composting. Recycling and composting generate many environmental and economic benefits, as they create jobs and income, supply valuable raw materials to industry, produce soilenhancing compost, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the number of landfills and combustion facilities.

Figure 2.1. Three pillars of Integrated Solid Waste Management (EPA, 2002).

!" Disposal (landfilling and combustion). These activities are used to manage waste that cannot be prevented or recycled. One way to dispose of waste is to place it in properly designed, constructed, and managed landfills, where it is safely contained. Another way to 6

handle this waste is through combustion. Combustion is the controlled burning of waste, which helps reduce its volume. If the technology is available, properly designed, constructed, and managed landfills can be used to generate energy by recovering methane. Similarly, combustion facilities produce steam and water as a byproduct that can be used to generate energy. Figure 2.2 presents the major ISWM activities in its hierarchical structure. Its important to say that implementing a ISWM plan is essentially a local activity that involves the right selection of the proper legislative mandates, alternatives and technologies and most important the social acceptance and participation to be able to minimize land disposal. People knowledge, behavior and attitude, not only form citizens but also from community leaders and policy makers towards waste plays a key factor on the success of any ISWM program.

Land Disposal
Incineration
(withoutenergy recovery)

Incineration
(withEnergyREcovery)

Recycle
(MaterialrecoveryandComposting)

Reuse WasteMinimization
Figure 2.2. Integrated Solid Waste Management (Bagchi, 2004).

2.2. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is one of the major global environmental problems, especially in developing countries. Its considered the most important solid waste because of its nature and impact to the community. Its a fact that solid waste composition differs from one 7

community to another according to their culture and socioeconomic level. However, solving the problem of MSW in general is very challenging because of its heterogeneous nature especially in developing countries. El-Haggar, 2007, mentions two main factors: the low socioeconomic level of the majority of the population and their lack of awareness of the size of the problem as well as the lack of a suitable technology platform needed to face it. As urbanization continues to take place due to the increasing economic development, the management of solid waste is becoming a major public health and environmental concern in urban areas of many developing countries. A typical solid waste management system in these countries displays an array of problems including: low collection coverage and irregular collection services, crude open dumping and burning without air and water pollution control, the breeding of flies and vermin, and the handling and control of informal waste picking or scavenging activities. These public health, environmental, and management problems are serious, particularly in the capital cities. A large number of developing countries have established SWM programs to improve solid waste management in their cities. Although some projects succeeded in providing lasting positive impacts on the management of solid waste, many failed to continue activities, mostly because of their lack of sustainability caused by various factors which constrain the development of effective solid waste management systems (UNEP, 1996).

2.2.1. Factors Affecting the Development of SWM Systems Developing Countries

Hisashi, 1996, categorized the factors that affect the development of SWM systems into technical, financial, institutional, economic, and social constraints.

2.2.1.1. Technical Constraints In most developing countries, there is typically a lack of human resources at both the national and local levels with technical expertise necessary for solid waste management planning and operation. Another technical constraint in developing countries is the lack of overall plans for solid waste management at the local and national levels. As a result, a solid

waste technology is often selected without due consideration to its appropriateness in the overall solid waste management system making them not cost-effective (Hisashi, 1996). Research and development activities in solid waste management, is also a low priority in developing countries. The lack of research and development activities leads to the selection of inappropriate technology in terms of the local climatic and physical conditions, financial and human resource capabilities, and social or cultural acceptability. unsustainable (Hisashi, 1996 & UNEP, 1996). As a result, the technology selected can never be used, wasting the resources spent and making the project

2.2.1.2. Financial Constraints In general, solid waste management is given a very low priority in developing countries, except perhaps in capital and large cities. As a result, very limited funds are provided to the solid waste management sector by the governments, and the levels of services required for protection of public health and the environment are not attained. The problem is acute at the local government level where the local taxation system is inadequately developed and, therefore, the financial basis for public services, including solid waste management, is weak. This weak financial basis of local governments can be supplemented by the collection of user service charges. However, users' ability to pay for the services is very limited in poorer developing countries, and their willingness to pay for the services which are irregular and ineffective is not high either (UNEP, 1996). An effective strategy for raising funds needs to be searched in any collaborative project to ensure its sustainability. In addition to the limited funds, many local governments in developing countries lack good financial management and planning. For instance, in a town in a developing country, over 90% of the annual budget provided for solid waste management was used up within the first six months (Hisashi, 1996). The lack of financial management and planning, particularly cost accounting, depletes the limited resources available for the sector even more quickly, and causes the solid waste management services to halt for some periods, thus losing the trust of service users.

2.2.1.3. Institutional Constraints The lack of effective legislation for solid waste management (Laws and Regulations), which is a norm in most developing countries, is usually fragmented and several laws (e.g., Public Health Act, Local Government Act, Environmental Protection Act, etc.) include some clauses on rules and regulations regarding solid waste management. The rules and regulations are enforced by the different agencies. However, there are often duplication of responsibilities of the agencies involved and gaps in the regulatory provisions for the development of effective solid waste management systems (UNEP, 1996). At municipal level, the institutional capacity of local government in solid waste management is generally weak, particularly in small cities and towns, due to the low priority given to the sector by the central government. Local regulations on solid waste management are also not well developed. These weak local government institutions are not provided with clear mandates and sufficient resources to fulfill the mandates. The lack of coordination among local governments often leads to disintegrated and unsustainable programs for solid waste management where projects are usually detained by the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) syndrome, when no local government is willing to locate waste management facilities within its boundary (Zurbrgg, 1998). It should be also noted that legislation is only effective if it is enforced. Therefore, comprehensive legislation will fill in the gaps of important regulatory functions, avoiding duplication of functions, and its enforcement is required for sustainable development of SWM systems. 2.2.1.4. Economic Constraints Economic and industrial development plays key roles in solid waste management. An enhanced economy enables more funds to be allocated for solid waste management, providing a more sustainable financial basis. However, developing countries have weak economic bases and, hence, insufficient funds for sustainable development of solid waste management systems. Also in small developing countries, waste recycling activities are affected by the availability of industry to receive and process recycled materials. For instance, the recycling of waste

10

paper is possible only when there is a paper mill within a distance for which the transportation of waste paper is economical (UNEP, 1996). The weak industry base for recycling activities is a common constraint for the improvement of solid waste management in developing countries.

2.2.1.5. Social Constraints Because of insufficient resources available in the government sector, collaborative projects often have attempted to mobilize community resources and develop community selfhelp activities. Results are a mixture of success and failures. Failed projects usually did not provide people in the community with economic as well as social incentives to participate in activities. The social incentive is based on the responsibility of individuals as part of the community for the improvement of the community, and is created by public awareness and school education programs. The lack of public awareness and school education about the importance of proper solid waste management for health and well-being of people severely restricts the use of community-based approaches in developing countries (UNEP, 1996). At dump sites, transfer stations, and street refuse bins, waste picking or scavenging activities are common scenes in developing countries. People involved have not received school education and vocational training to obtain knowledge and skills required for other jobs. They are also affected by limited employment opportunity available in the formal sector. The existence of waste pickers/scavengers creates often an obstacle to the operation of solid waste collection and disposal services. However, if organized properly, their activities can be effectively incorporated into a waste recycling system. Such an opportunistic approach is required for sustainable development of solid waste management programs in developing countries (Zurbrgg, 1998).

2.2.2. Actual SWM Practices in Latin American Developing Countries

Below its a description of the actual situation of different strategies of waste management in Latin American development nations.

11

2.2.2.1. Collection and Transfer A number of large cities in Latin America and the Caribbean have fairly good waste collection coverage. Buenos Aires, Santiago, and Havana claim to collect essentially all of their wastes. So Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Bogot, Medelln, Caracas, Montevideo, La Paz, and Port of Spain claim more than 90% coverage. It is not clear, however, whether these figures really include collection from squatter settlements. The waste collection system of all other cities in the region is still deficient (UNEP, 1996). Regular trucks are used when compactor trucks are not working or funds do not allow for the purchase of compactor trucks. Compactor trucks usually function in large cities. However, there is a common problem throughout the region with respect to the efficient use of this equipment: both the equipment and maintenance are very expensive. Thus, a large portion of these trucks do not operate due to lack of parts or trained personnel. In many large cities this problem has been resolved by privatizing the collection services, usually by concession contracts with the local government. Still, local government officials are interested in purchasing compactor trucks, even if this implies large debts, due to the 'modern' image that this equipment brings (UNEP, 1996). Throughout South America, Mexico, and Costa Rica, transfer stations have been installed or are in the process of being installed, as the distance between the city and the disposal sites grows. Transfer stations have proven to be much more cost-effective than trucks going to the landfill. These stations are usually owned and operated by the agency responsible for solid waste management in the city (UNEP, 1996). 2.2.2.2. Composting Centralized composting has not been successful in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Pan American Health Organization estimates that in the last 20 years, at least 30 plants were purchased, some of which were never installed. Approximately 15 closed only a few years after installation. By 1996, one plant owned and subsidized by the municipal government of So Paulo was reported in operation. This plant is interested in its continued operation due to the lack of landfill space in the metropolitan area. Four large composting

12

plants operated in Mexico, but none of these is still working. Two others were purchased there, but were never installed (UNEP, 1996). There are a number of reasons why centralized compost plants have not been successful in the region, the most important ones being the operating cost and the lack of segregation of the waste (UNEP, 1996). Many of these plants were purchased without a feasibility study and without an existing market for the product. Some community composting projects have proven successful when public participation is high. In most cases, however, these have been demonstration projects sponsored by NGOs or municipalities that wanted to create compost for parks and gardens. Usually self sustaining small-scale enterprises that sell compost are struggling (Zurbrgg, 1998).

2.2.2.3. Incineration Virtually no incinerators operate in Latin America or the Caribbean, although there have been a number of feasibility studies. To date, however, the costs of this technology are far too high to be considered by local governments as an appropriate waste management technology (UNEP, 1996). The main difficulty in waste incineration in developing countries has been that the major portion of the MSW is biodegradable with relatively high moisture content, making the calorific value (CV) of the waste low. Hence it is found that the technology is unsuitable unless the bio-wastes are separated at the source and the calorific value is suitable for the purpose (Visvanathan, 2003). 2.2.2.4. Landfilling The use of landfills in Latin America and the Caribbean has increased significantly in the last decade. All capital and other large cities in South America, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Trinidad and Tobago have landfills of some sort. Many of these landfills, however, are more like controlled dumps: someone checks (but does not weigh) trucks entering the site and waste pickers do not actually sleep on the site. In many cases, the wastes are covered daily. However, there is neither clay nor a synthetic lining, often no leachate collection system, and 13

no environmental monitoring. Altogether, approximately 60% of the waste generated in the region is disposed of in such "landfills" and the other 40% is thrown into illegal or inappropriate dump-sites (UNEP, 1996). Financial and institutional constraints are the main reasons for inadequate disposal of waste especially were local governments are weak or underfinanced and rapid population growth continues (EAWAG-SANDEC, 2008). Such inadequate waste disposal creates serious environmental problems that may impair health of humans and animals and cause economic and other welfare losses. This situation is expected to deteriorate even more in the near future when centralized dumping sites that enabled governments to dispose of the municipal solid waste at little cost, will need to be closed, relocated or completely filled up. Finding new sites that are not too far away from the collection areas becomes a mayor problem as sitting landfills at greater distances will also imply higher transfer costs as well as additional investments in the infrastructure of roads hence intensifying the financial problems of the responsible authorities, not to mention the difficulties of finding the location considering the NIMBY syndrome. In addition to all this, an increase in service coverage will even aggravate the disposal problem if the amount of waste cannot be reduced by waste recovery (EAWAG-SANDEC, 2008).

2.2.2.5. Recycling Materials recovery is widespread in Latin America and the Caribbean. Recycling occurs in all large cities and in most medium to large-sized cities. Materials most often recycled are paper and cardboard, glass, metals (mostly aluminum) and plastics. All of these materials, except plastics, are recycled by large to medium-scale industries. In the case of plastics, recycling industries are usually small. These industries shred the plastics and manufacture plastic bags and containers (EAWAG-SANDEC, 2008). Collection of materials at the source is done in a variety of ways, ranging from individual itinerants to municipally managed and segregated source collection. Although the number of itinerants is decreasing, their presence is widespread and, in general, they handle the largest volume of recyclable materials. It is not known how many people are involved in informal recycling in the region, but the number of people picking wastes on the streets is quite high. Approximately 100,000 people pick wastes at dump sites (UNEP, 1996).

14

In the case of domestic wastes, materials recovery occurs at all phases of the management chain (at the source, during transportation, and at the disposal sites), though there is a trend toward source separation. This trend has been driven by three factors: an improvement in the management of dumps, which has forced waste pickers to find work elsewhere; factories that pay more for cleaner materials; and households in the poorer countries getting paid a small amount of money for their recyclable materials (UNEP, 1996). Dakalopoulous, E., Badr., & Probert, D., 1997, identified the factors influencing recycling programs as: composition of the waste, degree of the material contamination and the technically-obtainable recycling rates for individual waste fractions. They also observed that the level of public participation and markets for recycled products greatly influence the economic viability of recycling programs.

2.3. The Importance of Social Participation in Recycling Programs

Tchobanoglous, 1993, defines recycling as the second highest rank element in ISWM, which involves the separation and collection of waste materials, the preparation of these materials for reuse, reprocessing, and remanufacture. Recycling is an important factor in helping to reduce the demand on resources and the amount of waste requiring disposal by landfilling. As other SWM strategies have failed or work with limited results and only in certain conditions (due to the difficulties and constraints already mentioned in point 2.2), and landfilling becomes a less and less wanted and difficult SWM activity in growing urban cities in developing countries, the situation calls for low tech solutions (UNEP, 1996). Recycling becomes the most suitable and sustainable MSWM strategy for developing countries. The handling and separation of solid waste at the source becomes a critical step in the recycling process. Separation of waste components including wastepaper, cardboard, aluminum/tin cans, glass, and plastic containers at the source of generation is one of the most positive and effective ways to achieve the recovery and reuse of materials (Tchobanoglous, 1993). This cant be done without social participation, as its critical to the success of a recycling program (Lund, Herbert F., et al., 2001).

15

Troschinetz, 2009, made a qualitative analysis of 23 case studies identifying barriers or incentives to recycling, which resulted in the development of a list of factors influencing recycling in developing countries. The factors are government policy, government finances, waste characterization, waste collection and segregation, household education, household economics, MSWM administration, MSWM personnel education, MSWM plan, local recycled-material market, technological and human resources, and land availability (See table 2.1). He mentions that necessary and beneficial relationships drawn among these factors revealed the collaborative nature of sustainable MSWM and that the functionality of the factor relationships greatly influenced the success of sustainable MSWM. He continues to say that a correlation existed between stakeholder involvement and the three dimensions of sustainability: environment, society, and economy and that waste collection and segregation was one of the three factors requiring the greatest collaboration.
Table 2.1. Twelve factors influencing recycling as an element of sustainable SWM in developing countries.

Factors

Description

Presenceofregulations,enforcementoflaws,anduseof Governmentpolicy incentiveschemes. Costofoperation,budgetallocationtoMSWM, Governmentfinances stability/reliabilityoffunds Assessmentofgenerationandrecoveryrates,andcomposition Waste ofwastestream characterization Presenceandefficiencyofformalorinformalcollectionand Wastecollectionand separationbyscavengers,themunicipality,orprivate segregation contractors Extentofknowledgeofwastemanagementmethodsand Householdeducation understandinglinkagesbetweenhumanbehavior,waste handlingandhealth/sanitation/environmentwithinhouseholds Individualsincomeinfluencingwastehandlingbehavior(reuse, Household recycling,illegaldumping),presenceofwastecollection/disposal economics fees,andwillingnesstopaybyresidents MSWM administration MSWMpersonnel education MSWMplan Localrecycled materialmarket Technologicaland humanresources Landavailability Presenceandeffectivenessofprivateand/orpublic managementofwaste(collection,recovery,disposal) ExtentoftrainedlaborersandskilledprofessionalsinMSWM positions Presenceandeffectivenessofanintegrative,comprehensive, longtermMSWMstrategy Existenceandprofitabilityofmarketsystemsrelyingon recycled/materialthroughput,involvementofsmallbusiness, middlemen,andlargeindustries/exporters Availabilityandeffectiveuseoftechnologyand/orhuman workforceandthesafetyconsiderationsofeach Landattributessuchasterrain,ownership,anddevelopment dictatingMSWM

Source: adapted from Troschinetz, 2009.

16

Literature mentions repeatedly the issue of stakeholder involvement and collaboration as a way to improve the various aspects of MSWM. Rotich, Zhao and Dong, 2005, state that involvement of stakeholders is important to achieve any meaningful and sustainable MSWM in developing countries. Sidique, Lupi and Joshi, 2009, sustain that the success of a recycling program largely depends on household participation and sorting activities. Cointreau-Levine, 1994, says that the highest recovery of recyclable materials is possible only if source separation is practiced, leading to a reduction in the quantity of waste local government must collect and dispose. Troschinetz, 2009, point out that participation by the whole community for the MSWM program is essential to bring about changes in the management with respect to source segregation, recovery of reusable and recyclables and storage of the garbage prior to collection. Finn, 2007, cited that, waste management is not only a technical problem, but is also strongly influenced by cultural, social and economic circumstances. It should be recognized that ultimately only the people of a nation can solve waste management problems in their country. Waste management strategies can only be effective if all the stakeholders work in tandem for a successful venture. However, the main barriers are lack of financial resources for the MSWM sector, regulations and their enforcement, and community awareness, involvement and participation (Visvanathan, 2003). Finally, as a last remark, Ancheta, 2005, noted that solid waste management is definitely not only a technical challenge but argues that solid waste disposal is a behavioral problem but commonly studied from a quantitative perspective. She further states that one of the reasons why most waste management strategies are not sustainable is because they try to offer technical solutions and do not really address the root cause of the problem which is the disposal practices of the waste generators. Considering the above stated and despite procedural differences, most recycling programs have one thing in common-reliance on individual participation. An active participation of stakeholders will influence the success of any Recycling Program and by it affect the total MSW system in their countries. In attempting to develop effective and sustainable ways to reduce the amount of trash being buried in landfills, scientists, policy-makers and community leaders need to understand the factors that lead to people to recycle (Schultz, 1995). The question now is what factors affect people willingness to participate in recycling programs? 17

2.4. Factors Affecting Social Participation in Recycling Programs

Planning and targeting recycling schemes is a mayor priority in developing countries where technological systems are not feasible or adjustable to the current environment. To achieve desired recycling objectives a higher social participation is needed and expected. It has been suggested that a portion of the public will participate in recycling programs no matter how well promoted they are, usually motivated by environmental ethics or altruism. On the other hand another segment of population will be unlikely to participate regardless of their background. Still, the majority of the population can be affected by different factors that can influence their attitude and willingness to participate, and is this larger segment of the population that is the most important to know more about and to understand in order to identify who is a potential recycler (Lund, Herbert F., et al., 2001). Its a fact that the behavior and attitude of people are mayor elements that can explain their willingness towards recycling, and they can differ widely from one community to another according to their culture and socioeconomic status. There are many factors that influence social behavior and attitude and is risky to say that every country, developed or not develop, will have the same patterns of behavior and attitude that will eventually affect their willingness to participate in recycling programs. Studies have been held in order to try to identify and explain these factors and study them more closely in each society. According to Lund, et al, 2001, recycling occurs for three basic reasons: altruistic reasons, economic imperatives, and legal considerations (figure 2.3). In the first instance, environmental concern as to protect the environment and conserving resources, have become a general interest. Second, the avoided cost of environmentally acceptable disposal of waste has risen to a level where when combined with the other costs associated with recycling, it now makes economic sense to recycle many materials. Finally, in responding to both public demand and a growing lack of alternative waste disposal methods, governments are requiring recycling and providing for a wide variety of economic and civil penalties and incentives in order to encourage recycling. Gandy, cited by Daskalopoulos, E., Badr, O., Probert, D., 1997, resume three main factors that affect the willignes and level of public participation into: psychological aspects, encouraging or inhibiting participation in the different types of schemes; socio-demographic

18

of householders, characterizing their likelihood to participate; and level of environmental concern.

Altruism

Recycling

Economics

Law

Figure 2.3. Lund's three reasons that incentive recycling.

At the individual level, Li, 2003, settled that the reasons for individual participation in household recycling are determined generally to environmental motivation, social pressure and economic incentives. Also, to investigate the range of influences involved whenever individuals choose to participate or not in recycling, Martin, M., William, I. D., Clark, M., 2006, cited the work of Barr, et al. that posited a framework for recycling behavior based upon three groups of factors: environmental values, situational variables and psychological variables. The first group relates to an individuals environmental beliefs and whether or not the activity accords with those beliefs. The second group is the factors that enable and facilitate the activity, e.g. scheme design, socio-demographics and prior knowledge and experience of the activity. Finally, the third group is formed from the many psychological factors which influence motivation, including social norms, incentives, response efficacy (a belief that the individual can make a difference), self-efficacy (belief in ones ability to succeed), any perceived threat posed by not acting, personal satisfaction, altruism and citizenship. Thus, the basic intention to act stems from an individuals environmental beliefs, but whether or not that behavioral intention proceeds to actual behavior will depend upon the modifying effects of the situational and psychological factors (though these two last groups of factors can also initiate behavior directly). 19

As observed in literature, regularly factors affecting peoples participation in recycling are separated in three common groups, and as to characterize and describe them in this study they will be categorize in psychological factors, socio-demographic factors and economical & normative factors.

2.4.1. Psychological Factors

Among the mayor three factors, psychological factors are the most delicate and influence in greatly matter peoples willingness to participate in recycling programs. Research taking the personal approach to the study of recycling behaviors has explored several different types of variables. These personal variables can be broken down into four basic classes: environmental concern, knowledge, attitudes, and personality variables (Schultz, 1995). The majority of reported studies investigating the ability of general environmental concern to predict recycling behaviors had found significant though relatively small relationships. Schultz, 1995, reviewed eight assessments of the relationship between environmental concern and recycling behaviors. Of the eight assessments, five reported a positive relationship, whereas three reported no significant relationship. However, the proliferation of recycling programs brought incentives, both monetary and social, along with a reduction in the amount of effort required to recycle. Because more people are recycling today and doing so for more reasons than just altruistic concern for the environment the relationship between general environmental concern and recycling seems to have diminished. Despite the decreasing trend in the relationship between general environmental concern and recycling, concerns for specific related issues remain significant predictors. Several studies reported significant relationships between recycling and specific beliefs (Schultz, 1995). Dasakalopoulus, E., 1997, cited that intrinsic satisfaction; associated with environmentallyresponsible behavior, contributed to citizens well being and that conservation behavior might be carried out without the need of an external financial reward. He continued saying that

20

financial inducements are always necessary to gain the participation of the less environmentally motivated recyclers, as it will be shown later on in this chapter. In exploring the relationship between environmental knowledge and action, factors influencing environmental behavior and the ways to motivate environmental attitudes and behavior, Troschinetz, 2009 cited that residents of China possess greater knowledge of environmental issues and are more willing to participate in activities like recycling than US citizens. On the other hand, knowledge about the recycling program has been found to correlate with recycling. In general, the more information a person has about which materials are recyclable or where recyclables are collected, the more likely that person is to recycle (Schultz, 1995). Oskamp, et. al. (1991), cited by Schultz, 1995, suggested that recycling behaviors may be less related to knowledge about global environmental issues than to knowledge about the specifics of recycling. In what regard to attitudes and personality variables, scientificly three factors accounted to be the ones that affect more the participation of peole in recycling programes: nuisance, location, and indifference. Items measuring aspects of nuisance, location, and indifference have all been found to be related to recycling. However, there are not established scales for measuring specific attitudes pertaining to recycling (Schultz, 1995). Webster, 1975, argued that recyclers can be characterized as socially conscious consumers who have a high level of social responsibility. That is, recyclers participate in recycling programs because they believe they have a duty to society, and because they feel they can make a difference. In a sample of 250 urban households, Webster found that recyclers scored higher than nonrecyclers on both a socially conscious consumerism scale and a measure of social responsibility.

2.4.2. Socio-demographic Factors

In studies on recycling behavior, the four most often reported demographic variables are age, gender, income, and education (Schultz, 1995).

21

2.4.2.1. Age The findings for age are rather contradictory. Schultz, 1995, reports that Vining and Ebreo (1990) and Lansana (1992) both reported a positive relationship between age and recycling behavior, indicating that older residents are more likely to recycle. At the same time, in a study of recycling behavior in Wuhan, Chinas fifth largest city, it was found that gender, age, and household income were the three factors most influential to the activity of recycling. Particularly, elderly females responsible for the household duties of low-income families were most likely to recycle (Troschinetz, 2009). At the same time Ekere, 2009, indicate that, gender among other factors explain household waste utilization and separation behavior. Martin, M., Williams, I., Clark, M., 2006, also found in their study that recycling participation tends to be higher among the more affluent and older people, but lower among less affluent and younger households. On the other hand, Momoh, J., and Oladebeye, D., 2010, in their survey found that there were no significant relationships between respondents willingness to participate and age. Even though, it was revealed that the middle aged of 22-50 years old were the most willing to participate in the recycling programs, while the younger and older respondents were less willing. In the same way, five Studies cited by Shultz, 1995, reported negative or no relationships between age and recycling behavior as Gamba and Oskamp (1994), reported a small significant negative correlation of age to self-reported recycling; Oskamp et al. (1991) found no relationship between age and self-reported recycling; Folz and Hazlett (1991) found that, across communities where recycling was mandatory, the median age was significantly negatively related to recycling as measured by the rate of waste diversion, but significantly positively related in communities having voluntary recycling programs. Overall, the results of these studies makes difficult and ambiguous as to both the existence and direction of the relationship between age and recycling. Still is interesting, due that confirms the fact of interrelationships among factors and the differences between societies, influencing more research on this topic. 2.4.2.2. Education Research findings on education are less uniform but suggest the possible existence of a relationship between greater education and recycling. Scott, D and F. K. Willits, 1994, state 22

that educational level is a great determinant of responsible consumption with people having higher education levels investing great effort in recycling activities. Education has been investigated as a possible predictor of recycling behavior. Shultz, 1995 cited that six studies reported on the relationship between education and recycling; three found no relationship (Hopper & Nielson, 1991; Oskamp et al., 1991; Gamba & Oskamp, 1994), whereas the other three reported a positive relationship (Webster, 1975; Vining & Ebreo, 1990; Lansana, 1992). The disparate results may be due to the range of education levels included in the samples, because all three studies that failed to find a relationship between education and recycling were based on fairly affluent samples, whereas the three studies that found positive relationships were based on samples with a wider range in education levels. On the other hand, a study done in Nigeria by Momoh, J., and Oladebeye, D., 2010, discovered that the respondents with university degrees were most willing to participate, closely followed by the respondents with High school diplomas. 2.4.2.3. Gender Researches findings regarding the relationship of gender to recycling have been clearer and have given more defining results. Shultz, 1995, cited five studies that focused on the relationship between genders and recycling were unanimous in finding no significant relationship (Webster, 1975; Vining & Ebreo, 1990; Hopper & Nielson, 1991; Oskamp et al., 1991; Gamba & Oskamp, 1994). The study done by Momoh, J., and Oladebeye, D., 2010, also confirmed this relationship in which their study revealed that recycling was not significantly related to the peoples gender. Thus, men and women are equally likely to recycle. Still, it is needed to show that because recycling is often a household behavior, usually the person doing the recycling process is the woman, still on given occasion may be replaced by a person of the opposite gender. 2.4.2.4. Income Overall, research on demographic variables has found that higher income appears to predict recycling behavior. In literature, income has consistently been found to correlate positively with recycling behavior. Jacobs et. al. (1984), Vining and Ebreo (1990), Oskamp et. al. (1991), and Gamba and Oskamp (1994), all cited by (Schultz, 1995) reported a significant 23

positive relationship among income and recycling behavior. As already mentioned before Martin, M., Williams, I., Clark, M., 2006, found in their study that recycling participation tends to be higher among the more affluent and older people, but lower among less affluent and younger households. Socioeconomic and demographic variables like high, medium and low socioeconomic levels were also studied by McGuinness, 1997, on which higher socioeconomic levels were significantly related to attitudes towards ecology in general, recycling in particular and towards others in the community. In contrast, Momoh, J., and Oladebeye, D., 2010, found no significant relationship between willingness to participate in recycling and income. But interestingly, it is the medium-income earners the ones that had the highest scores and tended to be more willing to participate than the low and high income earners in Nigeria. In resume, people who make more money are more likely to recycle than people who make less money.

2.4.3. Economical & Normative Factors (Incentives & Law)

Schultz, 1995, cited that on an analysis of community characteristics that predict recycling, Folz and Hazlett (1991) concluded: recycling success, as measured by participation and diversion, is clearly not only dependent upon city socio-economic characteristics or other psychological features of the community. What explained large portions of the variance in recycling performance among cities with different programs were the specific recycling policies adopted.... and other features related to the programs operation. This means the approaches on laws, regulations and incentives. The effect of rewards (positive incentives) on recycling will make a behavior more appealing and induce behavior change, Geller (1989) cited by Schultz, 1995. In all eight studies review by Schultz, it was found that offering rewards (e.g. money, coupons, or lottery tickets) significantly increased the amount of material people will recycle. Furthermore, chances to win lottery prizes generally had stronger effects than did small cash payments or discounts, and individuals rewards typically produced larger increases in recycling behavior than did group rewards. Momoh and Oladebeye, 2010, found that young people of 18-21 years age bracket recycle more when they receive money in exchange for recycling products. However, despite the potential of reward interventions, there are several drawbacks observed. The first was that the change in behavior produced by the reward programs was short/lived, 24

for after termination of a reward program, recycling behavior typically returned to baseline levels. The rewards may not have been meaningful to all participants or substantial enough to catch their interest; this poses the problem of developing attractive incentives for diverse groups of people. Furthermore, the cost of supplying rewards and organizing their advertisement and distribution often outweigh the economic benefits of recycling itself. The attitudes found in no recyclers are often to be more concerned with financial issues than recyclers. This finding leads to the hypothesis that offering rewards will be more effective with people who are not currently doing recycling (Schultz, 1995). Finn, 2007, found that even though economic incentives are important for a successful SWM program, they are not the only determinant behind the observed reduction in MSW. The study showed that if a community was given the proper infrastructure that facilitates recycling, the residents in that community are willing to invest more time than can be motivated purely by savings on their waste management bill, Sterner (1999) cited by Finn, 2007. The implication is that participation in recycling can be increased where local authorities mount effective and continuous promotion of their recycling schemes (Robinson, 2005). As generators of MSW, the public must be aware of the hazards posed by ineffective management of the refuse. Hence the government, environmental organizations and others groups are required to play a key role in bringing about this awareness through role play in the MSWM programs which in turn creates a sense of ownership among the individuals thus developing keen interest for shouldering responsibilities. Unless the public are involved throughout the MSWM programs by the implementing agencies, awareness cannot be achieved.

25

Chapter 3 Referential Background

3.1. Guatemala General Facts
3.1.1. Geography and Climate
Guatemala occupies the northern tip of Central America, bordered to the North and West with the Republic of Mexico; north east with the republics of Belize, East and Southeast with the republics of Honduras and El Salvador and the Caribbean Sea; and to the South with the Pacific Ocean (Appendix A, Figure A.1). The Superficial extension of Guatemala is 108,889 km. At least 70% of the area is mountainous and 62% jungle; heights ranging from 0 to 4,210 meters. The average country's annual rainfall can reach 2,200 mm. Average annual temperatures in the main areas of the country are as follows: Pacific 26.7C, Central 18.7C and Atlantic area 25.5C. In this relatively small extension, the geology, topography, climate and soils are product of large volcanic and seismic activity due to its location between three tectonic plaques, and all are combined in a large diversity of ecological conditions, features that give Guatemala its natural richness.

3.1.2. Divisional and Political Organization

For administrative and political purposes, the Republic of Guatemala is divided into 8 regions, 22 departments and 331 municipalities (Appendix A, Figure A.2). There are three levels of government: national, departmental and municipal levels, and the governors of the departments appointed by the President and the authorities of municipalities to have autonomy, are democratically elected.

3.1.3. Demography, Education and Socio-Economical Facts

The 2,002 X national population census (INE, 2002) 4 , reported a total population of 11,237,196 inhabitants, which represents a population density of 103 inhabitants per km2, with a total population growth rate of 2.2%. Of the total population, 61.5% is rural areas and 38.5% in urban areas, 40% of the total population is indigenous.

4 INE, acronym in Spanish for National Statistics Institute.

26

The World Bank, 2,009, estimates that Guatemala population by 2,009 is in 14 million inhabitants with a population density of 128 inhabitants per km2 and a population growth rate of 2.4%. In terms of literacy in the year 2,000 was estimated that 67.8% of the population was literate, while in 2,004 the value increased by around 73% (IARNA, 2006) 5 . Even though, school enrollment is still low after primary school, as shown in table 3.1, the net enrollment rate goes down from 95.02% in primary school to 36.36% in basic school and goes down to 20.67% in high school, MINIEDUC, 2009 6.
Table 3.1.2School enrollment for Guatemala.

Indicator Gross enrollment rate Net enrollment rate

Elementary School 50.38% 48.21%

Primary School 113.44% 95.02%

Basic School 60.54% 36.36%

High School 32.23% 20.67%

Source: MINIEDUC, 2009.

The above is primary due that only primary schools are available for the majority of rural towns in Guatemala. Students that wish to continue their studies must go out to main towns or even major cities if they wish to pursue a University career. Taking into account that 61.5% of the population lives in rural areas, these limitations in education are one of the major factors of low development in Guatemala.

3.1.4. Economy
The composition of Guatemalas GDP is focused primarily around the Agricultural and Services sectors. The World Bank, 2009, describes Guatemala as a multi-cultural middleincome country that faces some particular difficult development challenges. Its economic growth recovered from negative growth before the year 2,000 to a 6.3% growth rate in 2006, but had a downfall to 4.0% in 2008 due to the world economic crisis. Even though is expected that it will maintain a steady tendency and recover from 2010. Unfortunately, Guatemala poverty is still high and deep, due to a remarkably unequal distribution of income, resources and opportunities. About 56% of all Guatemalans, especially indigenous, lived in

5 IARNA, acronym in Spanish for Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment Institute. 6 MINIEDUC, acronym in Spanish for Ministry of Education of Guatemala. Reporte Estadstico Anual. Consulted January 2009. http://www.mineduc.gob.gt/estadistica/2008/anuario/main.html

27

poverty by the year 2,000 and about 15.7% live in extreme poverty. Sadly, these numbers have not improve but risen, population in poverty rose to 57% and population in extreme poverty rose to 21.5% increasing the gap between the poor and the rich (IARNA, 2006). Some light at the end of the tunnel is still seen due that Guatemala has had a long track record of responsible fiscal and monetary management, and its ratio of public debt is one of the lowest in Latin America and the Caribean region. Still, Guatemala has a low level of tax revenue (around 10% of total GDP) and a bad history of government corruption. This constrains public investment in social and natural services and infrastructure which are critical to poverty reduction.

3.2. Guatemala City General Facts

Guatemala City is the capital of Guatemala and is one of the seventeen municipalities that constitute the Department of Guatemala (Appendix A, figure A.3). Its located in the hearth of this department and it concentrates the highest population of all municipalities in the nation, with more than 942,248 inhabitants by 2002 (INE, 2002). Rough estimations account the city has already reached over two million inhabitants by 2009. By 1995 the City had already surpassed its jurisdictional boundaries over 8 of its neighboring municipalities, forming what is now called Guatemala Metropolitan Area (GMA 7), which is comprised by the Municipalities of Guatemala, Santa Catarina Pinula, San Jos Pinula, Chinautla, Mixco, Villa Nueva, Villa Canales, Fraijanes and San Miguel Petapa. By 1995 it was estimated that the total population in the GMA was of 2,237.700 (Organizacin Mundial de la Salud (OMS) & Organizacin Panamericana de la Salud (OPS), 1995), actually can be near to 4 million. In what respects of geography and weather conditions, Guatemala City is located on the Ermita Valley at around 1,592 meters above sea level, with average mild temperatures that oscillate between 15C and 25C with an average yearly temperature of 19.5C and an average yearly precipitation of 1,214mm, INSIVUMEH 8.

7 GMA, referring to the Area Metropolitana de Guatemala (AMG) in Spanish. 8 INSIVUMEH, acronym in Spanish for Guatemalas National Institute of Seismology, Vulcanology, Meteorology and Hydrology. Estadsticas Climticas de Guatemala. http://www.insivumeh.gob.gt/meteorologia.html

28

3.3. Guatemala City Municipal Solid Waste Overview

3.3.1. Guatemala City MSW Generation
The OMS, 1995, defined that eight Municipalities of the GMA (excluding Fraijanes in that time), were producing a total of 1,212.80 tons of waste daily (see table 3.2). The municipalities of Guatemala, Mixco and Villa Nueva were the most densely populated areas and generated the highest amount of waste of all the GMA with a total of 1,044.2 tons/day. In contrast, for 2002 the total estimated waste generation for the Department of Guatemala was 1,249.87 tons/day, representing an increase rate of 2.9% between 1995 and 2002 (IARNA, 2006).
Table 3.2.3Total residential solid waste generation in GMA, 1995.

Municipality Guatemala Santa Catarina Pinula San Jos Pinula Chinautla Mixco Villa Nueva Villa Canales Petapa Total
Source: OMS, 1995.

tons/day 1995 679.2 26.7 19.4 47.3 229.2 135.8 47.3 27.9 1,212.80

The generation rate per capita by 1991 registered an estimate of 0.542 Kg per person per day (JICA, 1991). More actual numbers calculated by the OMS, in 1995, estimated that the total generation per capita of municipal solid waste in the GMA had rose to 0.7 Kg per day (1.54 lb/day). Non-official data projections from the Guatemala Municipality estimate that by 2007 that number has risen to 0.9 kg per day.

3.3.2. Guatemala City MSW Composition

Regarding the composition by weight of MSW in GMA, JICA, 1991, concluded that from the total domestic, market, street and garden waste, the organic matter (specially from food waste) accounted 63.3%, 14% was from paper and cardboard, 8.1% from plastics, 3.6% from textiles, 3.2% from glass, 3.0% were land and ashes and the remaining 5% comprises wood, leaves, rubber, metals, stone, ceramics and leather. The complete description can be seen in table 3.3. 29

Its Important to emphasize that a large percentage of waste of this materials have the potential to be reused and recycled.
Table 3.3.4Waste composition in GMA, 1991.

Component Organic Mater Paper and Cardboard Wood and leaves Textiles Plastics Glass Leather and gums Metals Stone, ceramics(construction debris) Dirt and Ash TOTAL
Source: JICA, 1991.

Fraction of Waste Stream (%) 63.3 13.9 0.9 3.6 8.1 3.2 0.8 1.8 1.4 3 100

JICA, 1991, also reported that the humidity content of MSW in the GMA were between 47.5% and 65.2%, considering waste from commercial and markets sources respectively. The study also determined that for both sources of waste the Heat Value was between 1,993cal/kg and 835cal/kg., respectively, table 3.4. In average the water content established was of 61.8% and a non compacted density of 248 kg/m3 was determined. They considered in their study that the highly contain moisture of markets waste were more eligible for organic composting than for incineration purposes.
Table 3.4.5Solid waste chemical content in GMA, 1991

Material Variable Water content Combustible materials Ashes Carbon Nitrogen Ratio Heating Value

Sources Commerce Markets 47.50% 65.20% 46% 27.30% 6.50% 7.5 12.58 9.06 1,933cal/kg 835 cal/kg

Source: Adapted from JICA, 1991.

3.3.3. Guatemala City MSW Collection and Final Disposal

Guatemala Metropolitan Area has different disposition characteristic comparing to the general country statistics. Collection rates coming from private and municipal collection have moved 30

from 71% in 1994 to more than 81% in 2002. These collection rates are high compared to national rate of collection of 22.1% in 2002 (IARNA, 2006 & INE 2008 9). Other disposal techniques for the metropolitan area includes burning the trash with 8%, throwing the waste anywhere with 7%, other ways of disposal represent 4%, 1% is buried and less than 1% is being composted. This data is shown on figure 3.1. Guatemala City has only one approved landfill, El Trbol landfill, and its where mostly all the waste generated in the GMA are finally disposed. Its has been in operation for more than 50 years and its located on a private piece of land on the center of Guatemala City (See Appendix A, figure A.4). It is important to not be fooled by the above numbers. From the 81% actual collected waste, not all of it is disposed regulated sites. JICA, 1991, determine that about 59% of all waste collected where deposited in El Trbol landfill, the rest were mainly deposited in illegal sites and gullies. Actually there are no data regarding to the actual percentage of waste collected being deposited in the site. The collection of the garbage is mostly done by curbside collection in residential and commercial dwellings, and in large containers in public markets and public places where is the municipality the entity in charge of providing the service.

Formsofwastedisposalinthedepartmentof Guatemala,2006
Thrownanywhere 7% Compostingor Other recycling 4% 0.3% IsBuried 1% IsBurned 8% Municipal recolectionservice 24%

Privaterecolection service 56%

Figure 3.1.4Forms of waste disposal in the Department of Guatemala, 2006.

9 Instituto Nacional de Estadstica (National Statistics Institute) Anuario Estadstico Ambiental, 2008. http://www.ine.gob.gt/descargas/ambientales/Anuario_Ambiental_2008/index.html

31

Estimations from the Programa Modernizacin del Manejo de Desechos Slidos en Ciudad de Guatemala, 2004
10

(study that will be later discussed), indicated that a total of 1,536 tons/day

of MSW was being disposed in the site by 2006. Still, more recent numbers from the Guatemala City Municipality (known as MUNI) estimate around 1,935 to 2,000 tons/day. The percentage of waste dispose by each municipality in the GMA by 2002 is showed in figure 3.2. The Programa Modernizacin del Manejo de Desechos Slidos en Ciudad de Guatemala, 2004, mentions another important landfill managed by the Autoridad para el Manejo Sustentable de la Cuenca del Lago de Amatitaln (AMSA), on the 22 kilometer road to the pacific, that actually receives 500 tons/day of waste from the municipalities of Villa Nueva, Villa Canales, San Miguel Petapa and Amatitln. Still this landfill, that captures less than 20% of the total waste perceived by El Trbol landfill, is predicted to be closed by 2011. Both landfills are considered controlled sites only, as some activities done for their management like creating cells and laying a daily cover on the wastes are done, but still cannot be considered as sanitary landfills.

Figure 3.2.5Percentage of waste disposal by municipality in El Trbol landfill, 2002 (Programa Modernizacin del Manejo de Desechos Slidos en Ciudad de Guatemala, 2004)

10 Programa de Modernizacin del Manejo de Desechos Slidos en Ciudad de Guatemala, 2004. http://www.infoiarna.org.gt/media/file/areas/desechos/documentos/pres/(2)%20Presentaci%C3%B3n%20Cap% C3%ADtulo%204%20Desechos%20S%C3%B3lidos.pdf

32

Virtually all the MSW collected in the GMA is being disposed in El Trbol landfill. Considering this fact, its worrying that its lifetime has been established to come to an end on the year 2018 (SCS Engineers, 2005). Regarding to illegal dump yards, Guatemala City Municipality has been keeping a record of these sites in the latest years, information that is available in its website (www.muniguate.com) and shows the total number of illegal dump yards identified from 1992 to 1997. This number has varied between 487 in 1994 to 450 in 1997, but actually is believed that more than 500 illegal dump yards can be found in all the GMA.

3.3.4. Waste Recovery and Recycle in Guatemala

In Guatemala much of the Agricultural and Domestic wastes generated could be reused as they are mostly organic matter. However, no concrete actions in this regard have been taken. There are estimates of percentage of waste recovery only for the GMA but none estimations are available at national, departmental or municipal level. Generally, paper and cardboard are the most recovered materials still, there is no data actually concerning the amounts of material being recovered. Also, there is an estimated 20% recovery of generated volumes of wood, plastic, glass and metals, and a 50% recovery of textiles. Still, in the case of textiles, recycling is mostly done in the sources (PROARCA 2004
11

& IARNA, 2006).

Concerning to the recovery of paper and cardboard, there is already an industry created in this matter. There are several collection centers, among these are FUMETE and RECYCLA, part of PAINSA corporation. These centers receive and buy for local distribution and exportation. There are other enterprises dealing with collection, compacting and distribution as Clasificadora Centroamericana, RECIPA, RECICLA, COPROVE, GUAMOLSA, PULPATISA, DISO S.A., Centro Papelero, Kimberly Clark, Arimany, Etc. Most of these companies recover their materials in the sources (PROARCA, 2004).

11 PROARCA, acronym in Spanish for Regional Environmental Program for Central America.

33

IARNA, 2006, indicates that there are currently seven garbage treatment plants in Guatemala. However, only two are in proper functioning conditions: IRTRA 12 plant in the department of Retalhuleu and another in the Kilometer 22.5 road to the pacific in de municipality of Villa Nueva, Guatemala. Two other plants in Almolonga and Quetzaltenango operate partially; while others located in Flores (Petn) and San Marcos are not in use. According to an article published by El Peridico 13, other municipalities with similar projects have had the same problems. Technicians from the National Commission for Management of Solid Waste (CONADES) say is the lack of will of the majors of each municipalities that dont care about environmental issues and only care about projects were they can get popularity to gain votes. Still, a major of one of this municipalities explained that is the local government fault that this projects are not sustainable due that population is not being educated and there is no culture of source separation at household level. The reality is that some projects already installed in some municipalities like Almolonga and Quetzaltenango invested more than seven million Quetzales in the construction of a Classifying Facility for waste, and this was given in concession to a private company who was unable of keeping it working, due to the lack of profits and high cost of maintenance. The article points out that the municipalities of San Cristbal, Alta Verapaz and San Juan Ostuncalco, Quetzaltenango have had similar experiences, stressing the need of public participation in source separation. On the other hand, several municipalities bought electric waste incinerators, for more than 1.2 million Quetzales each, but none have been utilized. The reason pointed in the article explains that this projects are born Dead because the lack of studies and vision, were one of the incinerators was installed close to a school and created nuisance and pollution due to the lack of a proper filter that was not available in the market. Other is not in use because it needed too much electricity and the bills were too high for the municipality to bear, and others because the bad smell and parasites like flies became a mayor problem around the communities were the plants were installed. Still, other projects with international

12 IRTRA, acronym in Spanish for the Institute of Recreation for Private Enterprise Workers of Guatemala. 13 El Peridico, Guatemala. News article: Plantas de tratamiento de desechos slidos caen en desuso. http://www.elperiodico.com.gt/es/20090405/pais/97191

34

cooperation under planning expect to build more recycling plants in different regions but these projects require a large investment (more than US$50 million) and are still on hold.

3.3.4.1. Recovery and Recycle in Guatemala City The actions of recovery are carried out from the sources, during the collection, transportation, but mainly at the end of the process, directly in the final disposal site (El Trbol Landfill). This final collection activity is still informal and primitive, done completely by hand. The people that take care of this informal duty are called Guajeros (Scavengers in English), and actually in El Trbol landfill Guatemalan City Municipality (MUNI) has one of the most organized programs for registration and protection of these scavengers that separate and collect the recyclable materials. It is estimated that by 2005 more than 2,000 scavengers work on the site. Most of them already registered by the MUNI that has already created a regulation that prohibit children to participate in these activities. The usual action for the recovery of the materials takes place in a specific site inside the El Trbol landfill. Waste loads are spread out along the road by MUNI with bulldozers, and the scavengers recover metal, glass, and other materials considered to have value. The MUNI bulldozers then push the waste to the north off of the road and onto a level area known as la playa that is situated at the same elevation as the road. As waste accumulates on the playa, it is subsequently pushed by MUNI bulldozers off of the north end of the playa into the canyon where it is compacted with a bulldozer before laying a final cover of material, often dirt or clay, to cover it up and prevent the escape of gases, the proliferation of rats, dogs and other scavenger animals and insects that can be vectors of diseases. These activities that have permitted a more controlled landfill initiated over a decade ago, and were enforced when in 2002 the Reglamento de Manejo de Desechos Slidos para El Municipio de Guatemala, 0282002 (Municipal Agreement and Resolution for MSW Management in the Municipality of Guatemala), was approved, and stated all the regulations and norms regarding solid waste management in Guatemala City (Carranza, 2003). According to JICA, in 1991, around 1,420 scavengers recovered an equivalent of 29.5 tons of materials and 12,000 bottles, which represented an estimated 5% of all solid waste deposit in the site by weight. Among the recoverable materials are: all kind of glass bottles, 35

low and high density polyethylene plastic containers, polypropylene, aluminum, bronze, copper, other ferrous metals, paper and cardboard. Mostly these scavengers are organized by private intermediary companies that buy these products from them and resell them to formal recycling companies that transform, reuse or simply export the material recovered. This system of collection at site has allowed these companies to reduce their production cost and increase the income margin. Sadly the income for the people that recollect the materials is around Q.10.00 a day (about $1.20 USD), really low compared to the risks they face physically and in health issues. Some prices of some recoverable materials can be seen in table 3.5. Considering the low income of these people and their high vulnerability due to their unhealthy working environment, the MUNI during the 2000-2004 administration, with some foreign aid, have been developing some projects like capacitating the scavengers in order to give them knowledge in the fields of plumbing, masonry, carpentry, among other specialties, with the idea of raising their opportunities of earning a better living.

Table 3.5.6Prices for some recoverable materials in Guatemala City.

Type of material Paper Cardboard Injected plastic* Glass bottles Aluminum Ferrous materials Copper Leather

Price per 100 pounds Q20.00 Q10.00 Q60.00 Q9.00 Q260.00 Q7.00 Q460.00 Q100.00

Source: (PROARCA 2004). * Average Price of mainly plastic bottles.

The Programa de Modernizacin del Manejo de Desechos Slidos en Ciudad de Guatemala, 2004, expects to integrate into this program a total of 1,000 of this scavengers in different activities related with Integrated Waste Management.

36

3.4. Political Status and Policies Concerning MSW in Guatemala

As already mentioned before in 2.2.1.3, one of the most important restrictions for developing effective programs is the lack of effective legislation for solid waste management (Laws and Regulations), which is a norm in most developing countries, and Guatemala is not an exception. Actually Guatemala lack of a solid waste law, and it norms and regulations are fragmented in several laws. In what respects to solid waste management, the Codigo de Salud (Health Code Decree), Legislature Decree 90-97, define the responsibilities regarding to solid waste management. It established in article 103 that reads It is prohibited to throw or accumulate any solid waste in unauthorized places, areas inhabited and on locations that can cause health damage to the population, ornamental or landscape; use of improper means to transport and storage or to make use, treatment and disposal, without the appropriate permission of the municipal authority, which must take into account the implementation of health measures designed to prevent pollution to the environment,.. This article gives all the municipalities the responsibility to create and execute their own Regulation for Solid Waste Management. By 2004, the Comision Nacional de Desechos Solidos (CONADES) estimated that around 20 municipalities of the total 331 had a regulation for solid waste management, but by that time, CONADES considered that no more than 3 municipalities apply it (IARNA, 2006). In this context, one of the greatest deficiencies in this subject is the lack of a Law Framework that will control and obligate municipalities to establish and execute their own Regulation for Solid Waste Management. To this day the absence of this regulation hasnt created the pressure for majors to take action in this topic. In 2007, a proposal for a Residues and Solid Waste Management Law was elevated to congress, with unsuccessful results. Some of the most important and influential laws and policies in this matter are: ! ! ! Costitucin Poltica de la Repblica (Republic Constitution), 1985. Ley General del Ambiente (General Law of Environment), Legislature Decree 68-86. Codigo Municipal (Municipal Code), Legislature Decree 12-2002. 37

! ! !

Codigo de Salud (Health Code Decree), Legislature Decree 90-97. Reglamento para el Manejo de Desechos Slidos Hospitalarios, Acuerdo Gubernativo 509-2001 (Hospital Solid Waste Regulation, Government agreement 509-2001). Politica Nacional para el Manejo Integral de los Desechos Slidos, Acuerdo Gubernativo 111-2005 (National Policy for Integral Residues and Solid Waste Management, Government agreement 111-2005).

Ley de Fomento al Desarrollo de Fuentes Nuevas y renovables de Energa, Decreto Gubernativo 52-2003 (Law of incentives for the Development of Renewable Energy Resources, Government decree 52-2003).

And all the regulations for solid waste management of the Municipalities that actually count with them.

Sadly the rules and regulations enforced by these laws are responsibility and force the involvement of different local and central government agencies, and they are still gaps in the regulatory provisions for the development of effective solid waste management programs (UNEP, 1996).

3.5. Guatemala City Solid Waste Management Modernization Program

As it was already mentioned, during the 2000-2004 administration, the MUNI worked on the formulation of a new model for the final disposition of the Municipal Solid Waste of the GMA with the collaboration of international agencies and the local private sector. Searching to achieve success in this endeavor, the Municipality with the finance of the Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), the USAID and the Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD), initiated what it is now called as Programa de Modernizacin del Manejo de Desechos Slidos en Ciudad de Guatemala
14

(Guatemala City Solid Waste

Management Modernization Program). The loan for this Program was authorized by the BID on December 17, 2001, with the project file number TC0006010, for a total amount of $600,000 USD, and it was expected to end on March 6 of 2009.

14 Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID). Project: Modernizacin Manejo Desechos Slidos Ciudad de Guatemala. http://www.iadb.org/projects/project.cfm?language=Spanish&project=TC0006010

38

The purpose of the technical cooperation is to support the MUNI in hiring a private company to provide services technologically efficient and environmentally safe for disposal of solid waste from the GMA. The Program is form by four components. The first component is designated to finance all the technical work until the selection and confirmation of final destinations of waste, and, if necessary, transfer of the municipal solid waste. The second component is designated to finance all the post-ratification of the final destination of the waste until the formal allocation of operations to one or more private companies. The third component is expected to build the institutional capacity of private solid waste collectors to help them adjust to changes resulting from the new arrangements for final disposal of the residues. The fourth and final component is focused on strengthen the capacity of municipalities to monitor and regulate the services. About the advances and results of this program, little information has been published or is available. Some of the reports concerning these advances can be located on the MUNI website. To mention one these results, concerning the third component of the program, from September to December, 2007 a training workshop was developed to gather entrepreneurs of the solid waste collection system of the GMA with the main objective of train them in developing a more modern and sustainable collection system service by developing micro and medium enterprises. The activity gathered several associations of collectors; between this where ARTREDESGUA, URBAGUA and ARDSGUA. As for the first component, which is a topic of more interest for this thesis purpose and objective, the identification of the potential sites for waste disposition where released and presented to the MUNI and financing authorities on January 2004 were five sites where identified inside the boundaries of the GMA. In April 2010, an article in the Newspaper El Peridico
15

established that the relocation of El Trbol Landfill was delayed indefinitely

because the MUNI was unable to find a new land for the relocation of the Landfill, establishing that no Local authority wanted to allow the construction in their jurisdiction because of the NIMBY syndrome. No other results of this program had yet been published.

15 El Peridico, Guatemala. News article: Vertedero de la zona 3 seguir dentro de la ciudad.

http://www.elperiodico.com.gt/es/20100405/pais/144131/

39

Chapter 4 Methodology
4.1. Research Object and Framework
Recycling, one of the basic elements of sustainable SWM is becoming the most feasible solution and approach for attacking the problem of waste in developing countries. Literature resumes that many projects in different developing nations in Latin America involving high level of technification have failed, mainly due to lack of social participation especially in source separation activities among others. As it is common characteristic in developing countries, Guatemala lacks of information about waste and the few already generated are of dated or are incomplete, especially in the social behavior and recycling. As we understand the importance of recycling as the main strategy for waste management in developing nations we also encounter that lack of information becomes a main threat and limitation to the development of effective and integrated plans or programs for MSWM. The knowledge from this study is needed in order to plan effective actions in the future and to fortify the already running and new recycling programs by providing decision makers and leaders the information needed to focus them on the right targets to change the way people dispose their garbage. This is why the object of this thesis is to generate a first array of data related to social attitude and willingness towards recycling in Guatemala City and its Metropolitan Area, specifically targeting which sector of the population have the higher recycling profile by identifying which are the factors that majorly influence or are associated among them. The general framework of this thesis is first based on research and reference of related literature focused on the SWM in developing countries and the factors related to social participation in recycling activities; second, its focused on the actual situation of waste management in GMA; and third, assessing the actual social participation of its citizens in recycling and establishing the main factors that explain their participation and behavior. The general research framework can be seen on Figure 4.1.

40

Figure 4.1.6General research framework.

41

4.2. Research Procedure

This research used both qualitative and quantitative methods. The methodological process is composed by literature review and survey analysis. The literature review was done through books, journal articles, scientific papers, newspaper reports, magazines and other publications available concerning ISWM principles, sustainable SWM concepts and MSW management in developing countries, the importance of social participation on recycling programs and the factors that affect their participation; as well as the general background facts of Guatemala City and its MSWM history and actual limitations. The survey analysis was a cross sectional, aimed to measure the actual social participation in recycling activities at Guatemala City and to establish which factors affect or explain the attitude of people towards recycling. In order to accomplish this objective a questionnaire was developed, to gather information to answer the following general research questions: 1. Are citizens actually participating in any recycling activities in Guatemala City? 2. Which are the main reasons people participate in recycling activities? 3. Which are the main reasons people are not involved in recycling activities? 4. Which factors will affect more peoples willingness to participate in waste recycling activities?

The questionnaire was answer by a random sample of people following the sampling design describe in point 4.3.1. The activity was developed in GMA under the coordination and supervision of a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) which kindly accepted to help and support the development of this research as it has experience in doing field studies such as the one proposed. The name of the NGO is CIENSA which will be fully described in point 4.4.
16

(Centro de Investigacin en Nutricin y

Salud). This NGO gave assessment in the surveying process and in the validation of the data,

16 CIENSA, Spanish acronym for Nutrition and Health Investigation Center.

42

4.3. Surveying Tools

4.3.1. Sampling Design
As this research intends to study people and not households, the sampling was made at public locations. Originally it intended to collect the information in shopping malls, as those are the most frequently visited sites in the city. Letters were sent to this Malls to obtain the required permission as they have private administration (Appendix B, figure B.1), sadly the permission was denied, according to security regulations. Because of this situation the collection of the data was done in public areas such as markets (most of the sample) and parks used for leisure or to exercise, letters were sent to the administrators to let them know of the nature of the activity (Appendix B, figure B.2). The survey design was a random sample design, aimed to gather information from a determine target population, these are Guatemala City citizens with ages from 15 years old. The only criterion for a person to be included in the sample was the desire to participate in the interview after an explanation of the studys objectives. Sample size was calculated by: ! ! ! ! ! ! An infinite population was assumed. There is no previous knowledge on the variables to be measured, so to attain maximum variance a P = 0.5 was assumed. A 95% confidence in the estimation, this means a Z value or 1.96. A 5% error in estimate (0.05). Design effect = 1, as the sample is completely random. The formula utilized for the estimation of sample size is the following:

!=

"#$%&'($"( ) *+,-&,$"( .--#- )

* /0123!044056

(1)

Leading to an expected sample size of 384 people using equation (1) as:

43

Where:

1.967 80.25 != 81 = 384.2 9 420 0.057

Confidence = Zalfa=0.05 = 1.96 Variance is unknown. So maximum value of variance for a categorical variable is used, following Matute 17: Variance = PQ = where P = 0.5, and Q = (1 P); therefore Variance = 0.25. Design effect = 1 Error = 0.05%

The sample size was adjusted to 420 people to fit a homogeneous amount for every market and park to be sampled as this study used a survey to collect its data for analysis. The survey was conducted via face-to-face interviews. This guaranteed a full 100% recovery rate of data. For the execution of the survey a questionnaire was design and will be explained later. The markets selected for sampling are the 6 main markets of Guatemala City, and the parks varied between locations around the city. Following the sample size the distribution of people within a market and parks was sought but was not limited to 60 samples per place, as shown in table 4.1, to establish goals for the interviewing teams.
Table 4.1.7Location of sampling areas in Guatemala City.

Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Location Mercado La Florida, Zone 19 Mercado Villa de Guadalupe, Zone 10 Mercado La Palmita, Zone 5 Mercado Justo Rufino Barrios, Zone 21 Mercado Rossevelt, Zone 11 Mercado San Martn de Porres, Zone 6 Parks around the city Total

Number of samples 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 420

4.3.2. Questionnaire design

For the collection of the data for analysis the survey was conducted via face-to-face interviews, this represented a challenge to design a questionnaire short and concise that
17 Matute, J. Cuntas Repeticiones Tengo que Hacer en mi Ensayo?. 1990. Nutricin al Da.Vol IV, No. 2. Julio-Diciembre: p.29-50.

44

wouldnt take more than 5 minutes to explain and answer, that could collect enough samples and the necessary information needed for the analysis with not more than 15 questions. For collecting the desired information the questionnaire was design in three sections as seen in figure 4.2. The three sections were separated according to the different information intended to be collected. Section one retrieved information regarding socio-demographic characteristics; section two collected information of the actual behavior and attitudes of people towards recycling activities, in this case source separation of their domestic residues; and section three tried to establish the willingness of people to recycle according to three different scenarios. The sections were: personal information section (Independent Variables), actual attitude section and scenarios section (Dependent Variables).

Questionnaire framework

Independent Variables

Section 1 Sociodemographicaspects

Section 2 Actualattitudeaspects Dependent Variables Section 3 Scenariosaspects(willigness)

Figure 4.2.7Questionnaire general framework.

4.3.2.1. Personal Information Section The Personal Information collected all the information regarding the independent variables of this study. They are related to one of the three main factors affecting social

45

participation in recycling programs, which are the socio-demographic factors of each respondent. The information registered for each person was: 1. Gender: male or female 2. Socio-economic status: according to the area they live (Municipality and Zone). 3. Age: how old were they. 4. Education: last academic degree obtained. 4.3.2.2. Actual Attitude Section The actual attitude section represent the first dependent variable section design to collect relevant data on the actual participation of citizens in recycling activities and to examine which are the psychological, normative or economical reasons that explain the current peoples attitude and behavior towards recycling in Guatemala City. This section is composed of closed and mixed questions of simple (yes/no) and multiple selection answers. The purpose of this section is to determine the actual participation of citizens in recycling activities, being more precise in Source Separation of Waste (SSW). It also tries to identify which are the most frequently separated materials for recycling, which is the main reason why people participate in those activities and if they dont, why and which is main reason they dont participate. At the same time, it was asked to the people that currently participate in SSW what was, on their knowledge, the main reason people are not participating in recycling activities. A summary of the questions designed for this section is showed on table 4.2.

4.3.2.3. Scenarios Section The scenarios section was design to assess and compare the way people change their attitude or willingness to do SSW according to three different case scenarios in which the benefit corresponds to distinct characteristics.

Table 4.2.8Summary of questions related to attitude towards source separation of waste.

46

Question Is waste separated in your household for recycling purposes?

Answers

Question Purpose Both questions are intended to assess the actual percentage of people participating in recycling activities, in this case Source Separation of waste, at personal and household level.

Yes / No

Do you participate in source separation of waste for recycling purposes?

Yes / No

From the following, Which is the main reason you separate your waste for recycling?

Environmental and health concern This question tries to establish the actual causes that make people Receiving a payment or benefit for practice source separation of waste. This question tries to the classified material identify the psychological and Self motivation to separate waste economical factors affecting people's participation in I fulfill what I have been asked recycling. Other

News Paper This question determines the Cardboard and other paper actual residues being separated Glass Which of these residues are being separated gives you a hint of the actual Metal Cans (Aluminum, tin) in your household? people participating in source Plastics separation and the actual Organics recycling industry in the country. Other It's not important to do it No need to do it The is no benefits from it This question tries to establish the It's an obl igation of the municipal actual causes that make people to authorities not participate in recycling From the following, Which are the main There is lack of activities or the reasons they think reasons why you believe that you or others knowledge/information about people dont want to participate. do not separete their waste for recycling? recycling It tries to identify the psychological and economical It causes discomfort to do it factors affecting people's Dont have time to do it participation. There are no rules or regulations that requiring or enforcing it There are no recycling programs

47

In this case, as literature mentions, these scenarios correspond to two of the three major factors that can influence or determine peoples participation in recycling programs: psychological factors and economical & normative factors; specifically in the environmental concern and the positive and negative economical incentives. A summary of the questions designed for this section is showed on table 4.3.
Table 4.3.9Summary of questions related to scenarios on source separation of waste.

Scenario

Question If by separating your garbage you will improve your environment, will you separate your garbage? If you could get a discount on your monthly waste collection bill, will you separate your garbage? If a tax or fee should be added to your waste collection bill if you dont recycle, will you separate your garbage?

Answers

Question Purpose Establishing the effect of environmental improvement on peoples participation in recycling activities. Establishing the effect of positive economic incentives on peoples participation in recycling activities. Establishing the effect of negative economic incentives on peoples participation in recycling activities (laws and regulations).

Yes / No

Yes / No

Yes / No

4.3.2.4. Reliability of the Instrument Before the final format of the questionnaire was used in the survey it was review and corrected by this thesis advisor and the committee of CIENSA, as they offer assistance to evaluate the validity of the instrument. The questionnaire reliability and validity was tested previously in a preliminary random sample to make adjustments in form and word structure to be legible and understandable to every person surveyed. This test was carried out by personnel of CIENSA in Guatemala City. The final Ballot design can be seen in Appendix C, table C.1.

4.4. Survey Implementation (Interviews)

Due that this research was settled in Guatemala City but conducted from Taiwan, a third party was needed in order to develop the actual survey. As the method of data collection defined was face to face interviews a group of people with trained experience was needed to conduct 48

such exercise. It was because of this situation that CIENSA (Centro de Investigaciones en Nutricin y Salud), a NGO located in Guatemala City, doing research in the areas of nutrition and health, was contacted and gladly offered their services and help toward the realization of this study. CIENSA, from its formation has performed a several surveys in Guatemala to the Minister of Health, international organizations such as: SHARE, Mercy Corps, FANTA, and World Vision, as well as projects funded by USAID. Knowing of the relevance of recycling to health, CIENSA agreed to help on the coordination and implementation of this research survey. In order to do so, CIENSA established the sampling method, worked on the field instrument to adapt it according to local terms and ways of speaking, and trained a team of 22 people (volunteers: friends and family of the mine, as well as CIENSA Staff), see figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3.8Group of volunteers and CIENSA staff participating in the survey.

The field team was organized into seven different groups; each group had a supervisor among the volunteers. Six of the groups went to the selected markets on Saturday September 4, 2010(see table 4.1), and one team worked on Sunday September 5, 2010 collecting data at the streets in a zone dedicated by the MUNI to exercise during Sundays. Weekend was chosen to do the sampling as there are more people are available to obtain a representative sample. 49

The sample method was an auto-selection randomized sampling, to eliminate bias by subjective selection. This means that people are not selected directly by the interviewers but they auto select themselves as a circle is established in the floor and every person passing on the circle is a potential candidate with the only criteria of selection that the person must be at least 15 years old and show desire to participate in the interview after an explanation of the studys objectives. All this activity was held in different sites at each market. The collection of the data was made in two days. In the whole process there was a very small rejection attitude to answer to the interview from selected people.

4.5. Data coding and validation

Information collected by the volunteers (enumerators and supervisors) was reviewed by each group supervisor and then handed in to CIENSAs headquarters. The first step of data validation was the revision of all questionnaires for any missing or incongruent data. Questionnaires with unanswered questions or unclear information were considered void. As the scope of this research settles its boundaries on Guatemala City and its Metropolitan Area, all questionnaires responded by people living outside this boundaries were also eliminated. To be more precise only respondents from the municipalities of Guatemala, San Miguel Petapa, Fraijanes, Chinautla, Santa Catarina Pinula, San Jos Pinula, Mixco, Villa Canales and Villa were taken into consideration in the study. Once the collected valid questionnaires were at CIENSA, an entry data to the computer was made by means of the software EPI INFO. Data entry was made twice by two different people, so information was validated (correction of data entry errors), until a zero entry errors was held. During the data entry information was coded to be able to perform the statistical analysis. The independent variables were coded according to the following: gender (Male and Female), age (young adult (15-29), adult: 30-49, elderly: (> 50), education (primary school or less, high school or technical and university degree), and socio-economical status (low level, medium level and high level). The dependant variables were coded according to their answer, in this case yes/no or multiple selection answers, as seen in table 4.4.

50

Table 4.4.10Coding of independent and dependant variables for data input. Independent Variable names Gender Socio-demographic Factors Male Female Socio-economic status High level Middle level Low level Age ranges Elderly (50 >) Adult (30-49) Young adult (15-29) Education Primary school or less High school or technical University degree Dependent Variables Question Is waste separated in your household for recycling purposes? Psychological and Economical & Normative Factors Do you participate in source separation of waste for recycling purposes? Answers Yes No Yes No Environmental and health concern Receiving a payment or benefit for the From the following, Which is classified material the main reason you separate Self motivation to separate waste your waste for recycling? I fulfill what I have been asked Other News Paper Cardboard and other paper Which of this residues are being separated in your household? Glass Metal Cans (Aluminum, tin) Plastics Organics Other From the following, Which are the main reasons why you believe that you or others do not separate their waste for recycling? It's not important to do it No need to do it The is no benefits from it Analysis Code 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Analysis Code 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3

51

It's an obligation of the municipal authorities There is lack of knowledge/information about recycling It causes discomfort to do it Dont have time to do it There are no rules or regulations that requiring or enforcing it There are no recycling programs If by separating your garbage you will improve your environment, will you separate your garbage? If you could get a discount on your monthly waste collection bill, will you separate your garbage? If a tax or fee should be added to your waste collection bill if you dont recycle, will you separate your garbage? Yes No Yes No Yes No

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 0 1 0

Socio-economical status of the respondents couldnt be defined directly by asking their average income or by any other way that inferred economical characteristics of the respondent. The reason of these limitations dwells on the actual security status of Guatemala in general. People in Guatemala are actually in permanent fear towards organized crime as robberies, assaults, extortions and kidnappings had become common. Therefore, asking questions regarding to economical income, personal property or others became a matter of insecurity and fear among the interviewed that could have jeopardize the entire survey. This represented a huge limitation to recover this information which is one of the 4 mayor socio-demographic factors intended to study on this research. Due to the above mentioned, an alternate mean to inferring peoples social-economical status was used. People were categorized into three average levels of socio-economical status by means of land or property value of the area or zone where they live. This relationship was possible thanks to information provided by a private Real Estate company (Asesora Inmobiliaria de Guatemala, S.A.) who has established socio-economic levels of each area in GMA, according to the value of the land and properties in the zone. This table can be found 52

in Appendix C, table C.2. Utilizing the data from table C.2, three average categories were built: high level, medium level and low level (see table 4.5). The results of this categorization were used for the coding of each respondent.
Table 4.5.11Averaged socio-economical level for each zone in Guatemala City and Municipalities in GMA.

Municipalities in GMA 1 Mixco 2 Villa Canales 3 Villa Nueva 4 Petapa 5 Chinautla 6 San Jos Pinula 7 Santa Catarina Pinula 8 Fraijanes 9 Guatemala City (zones) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 21

Average Socio-economic Level High Medium Low

* * * * * * * *
High Medium Low

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
53

Source: Extracted from Asesora Inmobiliaria de Guatemala S.A. (table D.1).

4.6. Data Analysis

The main goal of this research was to assess the actual participation of Guatemala City citizens in SSW, identify which socio-demographic factors are associated with it and which ones are actually the most important. Also determine the importance of psychological and economical & normative factors on peoples attitude and willingness to participate in SSW by assessing which ones are more influential or can explain better the reasons why people in Guatemala City participate or not in recycling activities. A flow diagram of the general data analysis is showed in figure 4.4. To be able to achieve these goals, several analysis tools were needed and used, these were: descriptive statistics, Pearsons chi-square test and logistic regression. Softwares used for inputting, processing and analyzing the information were EPI INFO, Microsoft Excel, and SPSS version 18.0.

4.6.1. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics were used as this analysis gives a first glimpse of the behavior of the data; it establishes measurable differences between variable results. Using frequencies and percentages for independent (socio-demographic), dependent variables and their relationships as a preliminary view for the data behavior, this step creates the first basis of analysis as to where the tendencies may go, and to help pinpoint the mayor factors that will need special attention during the further statistical tests.

4.6.2. Pearsons Chi-square Test

This test was used for single factor analysis between the relationship of independent (sociodemographic factors) and dependent variables; in this case, the current participation of people in SSW and their willingness to participate on source separation according to the three specific scenarios evaluated.

54

DataAnalysis workflow

Descriptive statisticsforindependant variables,dependantvariablesandtheir relationshipsinactualandfuturewillignessto participateinsourceseparationofwaste

Pearson's Chi2 testfor singlefactoranalysis betweenindependant variablesand dependantvariables

LogisticRegresion Modelformultifactor analysisbetween independantand dependantvariables

FinalAnalysisandDiscusion ofthe actualsocial participationandprincipal factorsaffectingit

Figure 4.4.9Data analysis general flow diagram.

55

Significance for this test was settled for a p = 0.10 instead to the usual p = 0.05 to be able to control the type II error in the hypothesis test. Any value obtained below p = 0.10 is considered significant. This is to avoid not rejecting the null hypothesis when this one is false. The analysis is settle to determine if the differences observed in the preliminary descriptive statistics have or not significant statistical differences among the studied factors. Significant evidence of differences will prove that there are factors affecting in higher or lower scales people participation. performed. If this significance is to be found, a multivariate analysis will be

4.6.3. Logistic Regression Model

A logistic regression model was used to predict the probability of a person with specific socio-demographic factors (independent variables) of doing SSW, by fitting the data to a logit function logistic curve. It is a generalized linear model used for binomial regression. The objective of this procedure was to identify the importance of each factor by evaluating them and their interrelationships with the probability of doing or not source separation of waste. To be able to do this, all qualitative variables were transformed into quantitative binomial factors of 1 or 0. The logistic function for this model is:

(2)

The logistic function is useful because it can take as an input any value from negative infinity to positive infinity, whereas the output is confined to values between 0 and 1. The variable z represents the exposure to some set of independent variables (in this case the participation of citizens in source separation of waste), while (z) represents the probability of a particular outcome, given that set of explanatory variables (in this the socio-demographic factors). The variable z is a measure of the total contribution of all the independent variables used in the model and is known as the logit. 56

The variable z is usually defined as:

(3)
Where #0 is the "intercept" and #1, #2, #k, are called the "regression coefficients" of x1, x2, xk respectively, which are the factors under study or independent variables, which will take a value of 1 or 0 depending on their occurrence. The intercept is the value of z when the value of all independent variables is zero. To be able to explain in more accurate detail the effect of every variable on the data, the results were standardized to identify the different trends produce by every factor, in this case a z model using the standardization formula,

Where: zis the calculates standardized value x is a raw score to be standardized (in this case z); ! is the mean of the population; " is the standard deviation of the population.

(4)

Each of the regression coefficients describes the size of the contribution of that factor. A positive regression coefficient means that the explanatory variable increases the probability of the outcome, while a negative regression coefficient means that the variable decreases the probability of that outcome; a large regression coefficient means that that factor strongly influences the probability of that outcome; while a near-zero regression coefficient means that that factor has little influence on the probability of that outcome. Logistic regression is a useful way of describing the relationship between one or more independent variables (in this case age, gender, education and socio-economic status) and a binary response variable expressed as a probability, that has only two possible values, in this case the participation or not in SSW as 1 or 0.

57

Chapter 5 Results and Discussion

5.1. General Information and Survey Results
This section focuses on the general results obtained from the survey performed. A

representative sample of the population was seek to asses according to the current population conditions in the different socio-demographic factors and how they interact with the different variables intended to be investigated and analyzed in this research. The socio-demographic factors were gender, age, socio-economic status and education. The total amount of samples achieved by the survey were 467 interviews, from which 21 had to be removed due that they represented people from locations outside the area of study. No questionnaires were void because of missing or incongruent data, proving this way the effectiveness of using face to face interviews. The final total sample for analysis was 446, which lead to a final 4.5% error in the estimate, improving the statistical accuracy originally established for this survey. Table 5.1 shows the latest data from 2002 Guatemala population census and shows the distribution of the population according to their gender and age. Similar results were expected for this survey as to have an accurate representative sample of the actual population.

Table 5.1. Guatemala City population distribution for the year 2002 (INE, 2002).12

By Age Ranges
0-15 Frequency Percentage 301,457 32.0% 18-30 250,193 26.6% 31-59 306,829 32.6% > 60 83,869 8.9% Total Population 942,348 100%

By Gender
Male Frequency Percentage 444,429 47.2% Female 497,919 52.8% Total Population 942,348 100%

58

Table 5.2, shows the summary of the basic research data collected. It can be observed that females had a higher representation than males with 59.4% and 40.5% of the total sample respectively. This is consistent with the distribution values presented in table 5.1, even though they are slightly higher than the information from the census; this can be explained as markets are usually more frequented by woman than man. Low socio-economic level had the highest representation for the socio-economic status with 47.3%, this is also consistent with the fact that more than 56% of Guatemala population is on or under the poverty line and also that urban areas are richer than the rural areas. In what respects to age distribution the information recovered is also consistent with 2002 census as young adults presented the highest amount of participants with 38.3% followed by adults with 37.4% and finally elderly with 24.2%. Overall, the survey is found reliable and provided with a well distributed sample. The entire database can be found in Appendix D, table D.1.
Table 5.2. Summary of basic research data of total surveyed population. 13

Independent Variables 1 Gender Male Female 2 Socio-economic status High level Middle level Low level 3 Age Elderly (50 >) Adult (30-49) Young adult (15-29) 4 Education Primary school or less High school or technical University degree Total number of surveys

Frequency

Percentage % 40.6% 59.4% 25.3% 30.9% 43.7% 24.2% 37.4% 38.3% 28.5% 43.5% 28.0% 100%

181 265 113 138 195 108 167 171 127 194 125 446

59

5.2. Social Participation in Source Separation of Waste (SSW) in Guatemala City

During the survey, people were asked if source separation was being practiced in their household. Form the 446 persons interviewed, a total of 205 answered that some kind of SSW is being practice in their homes, representing 46% of the total population, see figure 5.1. From this 46% of the respondents that say that source separation is done in their households, only 66.3% is currently participating or practicing this activity.

Q.Issourceseparationofwastepracticedatyour household?

54%

46%

Yes No

Figure 5.1. Percentage of households where source separation is practiced in Guatemala City.10

Figure 5.2, shows that people when asked if they personally participate in SSW only 136, representing 30.5% of the total population responded that they actually participate in recycling activities in Guatemala City. This data confirms that the tendency of low social participation has been maintained from almost 2 decades as (JICA, 1991), (Martnez Lopez, 1996), (Carranza, 2003) to (IARNA, 2006), stated in their reports and researches that low social participation was common in Guatemala City. Up to the development of this study we confirm that social participation is still low, even though that in recent years this subject has become of mayor interest locally and worldwide. This situation, as in other developing countries, can be due to different causes, as already been explained in chapter 2, and as we also will address further in this chapter.

60

Q.Doyouparticipateinsourceseparationofwaste?

30%
Yes

70%

No

Figure 5.2. Percentages of people participating in SSW in Guatemala City. 11

From the information above we can see that currently in Guatemala City it would be easier to find a household doing some sort of SSW than a specific person participating in it. As the average number of people in a household in Guatemala is 5 persons per home (INE, 2002), the chances are that for every 2 houses currently doing recycling only 3 persons from them are the ones actually caring out the activity. In what regards to which materials are currently being separated? The survey showed that newspaper and cans are the most popular items with 73% and 69% respectively of the entire interviewed population actually separating them in their households. Plastics and glass came in second with 55% and 52% respectively, followed by cardboard and other papers and organic materials with 41% and 36% respectively. Others occupy only 7% of the entire respondents (See figure 5.3A). In figure 5.3B it can be observed that by importance, newspaper represents 22% of the entire recyclables actually being separated at household level, followed by Cans with 21%, Plastics and glass with 16%, cardboard and other papers with 12% and organic material with 11%. This correlates with was exposed in chapter 3, in what regards to the low developed recycling industry in Guatemala City, and its very limited recycling capability. The results show that the materials being separated are simply the most common materials collected by the door to door collectors and scavengers in Guatemala City. 61

Figure 5.3. Materials currently being separated at household level in Guatemala City.12

During the interview, people were asked about which organic materials they were recycling. Mostly people recycle their own food, as to eat it later or as to give it to poor people or door to door collectors. Some of the people even responded that they give them to their animals. Some persons interviewed also reported doing composting in their own households as to produce fertilizer for their gardens and personal cops. As we analyze the data above the question rises now as whom are the persons actually doing source separation of waste? Which socio-demographic characteristics do they posses? And why do they do it?

5.3. Analysis of Socio-demographic Factors and their Relationship with Social Participation in Source Separation of Waste
After reviewing the results of general social participation in source separation, results showed that only 30.5% of the total surveyed population is participating in source separation of waste. As this thesis main objective is to study the factors related with peoples participation in recycling, this section covers the relationship between socio-demographic factors (gender, age, education and socio-economic status) and its relationship with peoples participation in SSW.

5.3.1. Descriptive Statistics

62

Table 5.3 shows the data obtained from the survey in what respects of SSW and its relationship with each socio-demographic factor. It can be observed that for gender, females have a higher percentage of participation in proportion than males, with 35.1% of all woman interviewed participating in SSW compared to a lower 23.8% of the entire men interview. This is a considerable difference as females go above the general average of 30.5% and men fall almost ten percentage points behind the general average.
Table 5.3. Peoples participation in source separation of waste by socio-demographic factor.14

Socio-demographic factors (independent variables) Gender Male Female Socio-economic status High level Middle level Low level Age Elderly (50 >) Adults (30-49) Young adults (15-29) Education Primary school or less High school or technical University degree Total number of surveys

Frequency No 138 172 72 94 144 62 113 135 84 135 91 310 Yes 43 93 41 44 51 46 54 36 43 59 34 136 Total 181 265 113 138 195 108 167 171 127 194 125 446 No 76.2% 64.9% 63.7% 68.1% 73.8% 57.4% 67.7% 78.9% 66.1% 69.6% 72.8% 69.5%

Percentage Yes 23.8% 35.1% 36.3% 31.9% 26.2% 42.6% 32.3% 21.1% 33.9% 30.4% 27.2% 30.5% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

The socio-economic status factor also revealed a marked difference between high level socioeconomic status and low level socio-economic status with 36.3% and 26.2% of all respondents respectively. Middle level economic-status stayed slightly above the average and in the middle of the two groups with 31.9%. In this case the considerable differences are marked between high and low level socio-economical statuses. High and middle levels have more similarities as both of them are higher than the general average, but low level follow below by almost four percent points.

63

Age in the other hand showed the most dramatic differences between its three groups. It is noticeable that elderly people (50 >) have the higher percentage of participation among all the Socio-demographic factors with 42.6% participating in source separation, followed by adults (30-49) with 32.3% and relegated to the last position, and way under the general average, young adults (15-29) with 21.1% participation, the lowest percentage of all sociodemographic factors. This shows that elderly people have more willingness on participating in recycling activities than young adults as is evident that belonging to the elderly group has more than twice the probability of being a recycler than a young adult. On the other hand, table 5.3 shows that education didnt show mayor differences in social participation between their groups. The values of participation found are 33.9% for primary school or less, 31.4% for high school and technical degree students and 27.2% of participation for people belonging to the university level group. Even though the differences among the groups are not as dramatic as the other factors, it is interesting to see that is the lowest educated people the ones that have higher participation than highly educated people, meanwhile middle level educated people fall between the middle averages. Observing what descriptive statistic can offer, its evident that for Guatemala City, age, gender and socio-economical status are the factors tend to have effect on the probability of a person of doing or not doing SSW, and by this have more relationship between them than the education factor who showed no relevant differences. Its also noticeable at this point that being an elderly female with high socio-economical status maximizes the probabilities of being a recycler than a young adult male with a low socio-economical status independent of their education.

5.3.2. Pearsons Chi-square Test

Descriptive statistics helped to make a first assessment of the differences among the groups in each socio-demographic factor under study and give a first glimpse of the possible relationships among the factors and source separation of waste. To assess with statistical significance the relationship between the variables under study, a Pearsons Chi-square test was executed for each factor and their respective groups, as to be able to verify if there is any statistically significant relationship between socio-demographic factors and source separation of waste. A p-value < 0.100 was considered significant as to avoid error type II. Table 5.4 64

shows a summary of the results of the chi-square test evaluation for each of the factors and their groups related with the dependent variable participation in SSW, the full tables can be seen in Appendix D, table D.2.
Table 5.4. Summary of chi-square tests results for socio-demographic factors and participation in SSW.15

Factors (Independent variables) Gender Male Female Age

Groups

Participation in source separation (Frequency) Yes No

df

P value (Significance)

43 93 46 54 36 41 44 51 43 59 34

138 172 62 113 135 72 94 144 84 135 91

0.011

Elderly (50 >) Adults (30-49) Young adults (15-29)

0.001

Socio- Economic Status

High level Middle level Low level

0.162

Education

Primary school or less High school or technical University degree

0.517

The p-value of the Chi-square test obtained for the factor gender (p = 0.011), shows that there is a significant relationship between gender and peoples participation in source separation of waste, showing significant differences between the groups. As this factor only includes two groups (male and female), and refereeing to the data in table 5.3, its easier to see that being a female has a more positive trend for doing SSW with 35.1% of participation compared with the 23.8% of male participation in the survey. Thus, it can be asses that for the factor gender, the group female has a positive relationship while the male group has a negative relationship in what concerns to SSW. For the factor age, the p-value of the Chi-square test obtained was p = 0.001, showing a high significant relationship between age and peoples participation in SSW. The results show that there are statistically significant differences between the three groups of the factor age. As 65

shown in table 5.3, the group elderly (50 >) has the highest rate of participation with 42.6% compared to the young adult group 21.1%. Adults fall in the middle and just in the average with 32.3% of participation. As to this point it can be assessed that elderly people has a higher and positive trend towards SSW than young Adults, which present a negative trend, meanwhile the group adult just falls a little above the neutral average (32.3%) but still with a slight tendency towards a positive relationship. For socio-economic status, the p-value of the Chi-square test showed no significant relationship between socio-economic status and peoples participation in source separation of waste. The test showed no significant differences among groups with a p = 0.162. Although the p-value score is not significant is slightly above the significance limit. This can be explain by looking at the data in table 5.3 were the differences between the groups high level and low level are actually considerable 36.3% and 26.2% respectively but still not perceptible by the test. Still, it can be assessed that having a higher economic status do have a positive tendency towards source separation and low economic status has a negative tendency, meanwhile middle economical status falls just between average. Education on the other hand didnt show any significant relationship between education and peoples participation in SSW, as the p-value of the Chi-square test was high above to be significant (p = 0.517). This result confirms the already observed in table 5.3 and shows that for source separation, currently education is not a factor influencing peoples participation. Overall the results from the Chi-square test revealed and give statistical certainty of the relationship between age and gender with the SSW in Guatemala City. Socio-economic status shows no significant relationship, even so, the results were near to significant values that need to be considered. Education on the other hand proves to have no relationship.

5.3.3. Multivariate Analysis (Logistic Regression)

Results provided by the Chi-square test established significant differences between age and gender in what respects to social participation in SSW. To study the interrelationships among factors and their effect on peoples participation on SSW, a multivariate analysis was performed using a Logistic Regression. To perform this analysis the encoded data recovered from the survey were used to develop a prediction model (Appendix C, table C.1). 66

This model studies the relationships between the different factors, groups and their combinations, and establishes their effects on the probability of participating in source separation of waste. As well as in the Chi-square test, for this analysis a p-value of 0.100 was considered significant as to avoid type II error in the estimations. The results of logistic regression and model can be seen in table 5.5.
Table 5.5. Logistic regression results for socio-demographic factors and their relationship with social participation on source separation of waste in Guatemala City.16

Codes X1 X2 X3

Factors (independent variables) Gender Male Socio-economic status High level Middle level Age ranges

! -0.438 0.489 0.364

df 1

p-value (Sig.) 0.051 0.141

"#$%&'( 0.645 1.631 1.439

0.066 0.149 0.003

X4 X5 Education X6 X7 Constant Prediction model:

Elderly (50 >) Adults (30-49) Primary school or less High school or technical

0.971 0.621

0.001 0.016 0.447

2.641 1.861

0.262 2 0.333 -1.623 1

0.367 0.213 0

1.3 1.395 0.197

z = -1.623 - 0.438(X1) + 0.489(X2) + 0.364 (X3) + 0.971 (X4) + 0.621 (X5) + 0.262(X6) + 0.333(X7)

Table 5.5 show that the factor gender presented significant values as the group male obtained a p-value of 0.051, indicating a relationship among males and the probability of participating in SSW. At the same time, the factor age proved also to be highly significant with a p-value of 0.003, from its groups, the group elderly (50 >) show to be more relationship with a pvalue of 0.001, followed by the group adults (30-49) with a p-value of 0.016, indicating that being elderly or an adult also has a high relationship that affects the probability of participating in SSW. These results come to ratify with a more specific level of detail the results found in the Chi-square test. 67

The factor socio-economic status didnt prove significant by itself, but the group high level presented a significant p-value of 0.066, indicating as well a relationship between high level socio-economic status and the probability of participating in SSW. For this factor, the logistic regression allowed to detect the relationships missed or overseen with the Chi-square test. It also explains why the significance in the Chi-square test was so close to the significant level (see table 5.4). The factors described above and their groups have showed their significant relationship between them and the probability of participating in separation of waste, meaning that being part of one of these groups could increase or decrees significantly the probability of participating or not in SSW. On the other hand, the factor Education or any of its groups didnt show any significant evidence what so ever, so at has been showed in the Chi-square tests, this indicates that it doesnt affect the probability of participation of people in source separation of waste. To observe with more detail the relationships already found and discussed previously, the establish prediction model was used to predict the probability for each of the 54 possible combinations among the Socio-demographic factors studied in what respect to their probability of doing source separation of waste. This combinations as are: (Gender (2 groups) * Age (3 groups) * Education (3groups) * Socio-economic (3groups) = 54 possible combinations. From this 54 possible combinations, one didnt show any observations during the survey and 5 groups showed lower than 2 observations, for which they were neglected from the analysis. Results of the application of the model as well as their significance level are shown on table 5.6 and figure 5.4.

68

Table 5.6. Possible combinations and their respective probability and significance on participating in source separation of waste according to the logistic regression prediction model.17
Group Gender No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Age Socio economic Education Freq Probability Probability zvalue f(z)value % 0(no) 1(yes) Total observed 71.4% 66.7% 66.7% 58.3% 60.0% 47.4% 50.0% 43.8% 50.0% 44.4% 41.2% 41.7% 50.0% 40.0% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5% 33.3% 40.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 30.0% 26.7% 33.3% 33.3% 25.0% 25.0% 22.2% 22.2% 25.0% 20.0% 20.0% 18.2% 20.0% 20.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 15.0% 14.3% 8.7% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.339 0.163 0.251 0.170 0.045 0.669 0.319 0.513 0.288 0.997 1.364 0.740 0.601 0.743 0.026 0.652 1.697 0.390 0.814 0.305 0.638 0.180 0.801 1.178 0.689 0.757 1.440 0.828 1.361 2.061 1.310 0.926 1.107 1.239 0.464 1.134 0.618 1.002 1.076 1.728 0.376 1.290 162.3% 0.726 0.951 1.259 1.435 1.572 0.339 1.799 0.268 0.393 0.872 1.090 0.416 0.459 0.438 0.542 0.511 0.339 0.421 0.374 0.428 0.270 0.204 0.323 0.354 0.322 0.494 0.343 0.155 0.404 0.307 0.424 0.346 0.455 0.310 0.235 0.334 0.319 0.192 0.304 0.204 0.113 0.212 0.284 0.248 0.225 0.386 0.243 0.350 0.269 0.254 0.151 0.407 0.216 16.5% 0.326 0.279 0.221 0.192 0.172 0.416 0.142 0.433 0.403 0.295 0.252 41.6% 45.9% 43.8% 54.2% 51.1% 33.9% 42.1% 37.4% 42.8% 27.0% 20.4% 32.3% 35.4% 32.2% 49.4% 34.3% 15.5% 40.4% 30.7% 42.4% 34.6% 45.5% 31.0% 23.5% 33.4% 31.9% 19.2% 30.4% 20.4% 11.3% 21.2% 28.4% 24.8% 22.5% 38.6% 24.3% 35.0% 26.9% 25.4% 15.1% 40.7% 21.6% 16.5% 32.6% 27.9% 22.1% 19.2% 17.2% 41.6% 14.2% 43.3% 40.3% 29.5% 25.2% pvalue (Sig.) 0.021 0.034 0.034 0.036 0.062 0.069 0.083 0.096 0.099 0.114 0.114 0.123 0.13 0.147 0.188 0.188 0.188 0.191 0.199 0.217 0.236 0.27 0.284 0.325 0.352 0.352 0.378 0.41 0.476 0.476 0.482 0.497 0.538 0.597 0.598 0.598 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.706 0.788 0.905 0.912 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

Female 50> High Primary 2 5 7 Female 50> High University 2 4 6 Female 3049 High Primary 2 4 6 Female 50> High Highschool 5 7 12 Female 50> Middle Highschool 2 3 5 Female 3049 Low Highschool 10 9 19 Female 50> Low Highschool 4 4 8 Female 3049 High University 9 7 16 Female 50> Middle University 3 3 6 Female 1529 Middle Primary 5 4 9 Male 1529 Middle Highschool 10 7 17 Female 3049 Low Primary 7 5 12 Male 50> High University 2 2 4 Male 3049 Middle Highschool 6 4 10 Female 50> Middle Primary 5 3 8 Female 50> Low University 5 3 8 Male 1529 Middle University 5 3 8 Female 50> Low Primary 14 7 21 Male 3049 Middle Primary 3 2 5 Female 3049 Middle Highschool 8 4 12 Female 3049 Middle University 6 3 9 Female 3049 High Highschool 4 2 6 Female 1529 High Highschool 7 3 10 Male 3049 Low Primary 11 4 15 Male 3049 High Primary 2 1 3 Male 50> Low Highschool 2 1 3 Male 3049 Low University 9 3 12 Male 50> Low Primary 6 2 8 Female 1529 Low Primary 7 2 9 Male 1529 Low University 7 2 9 4 Male 1529 High Primary 3 1 Female 1529 Middle Highschool 16 4 20 Male 3049 Low Highschool 8 2 10 Male 1529 High Highschool 9 2 11 Male 50> Middle Primary 4 1 5 Female 1529 High University 4 1 5 Male 3049 High Highschool 5 1 6 Female 3049 Low University 5 1 6 Male 3049 Middle University 5 1 6 Male 1529 Low Highschool 17 3 20 Female 3049 Middle Primary 6 1 7 Female 1529 Low Highschool 21 2 23 Female 1529 Low University 9 1 10 Male 50> Middle University 3 0 3 Male 3049 High University 7 0 7 Female 1529 Middle University 4 0 4 Male 1529 Middle Primary 3 0 3 Male 1529 High University 6 0 6 Male 50> High Primary 2 0 2 Male 1529 Low Primary 2 0 2 Male 50> High Highschool 1 0 1 Male 50> Middle Highschool 0 1 1 Female 1529 High Primary 0 1 1 Male 50> Low University 0 0 0 Groupswithhighsignificance. Groupsremovedbecauselackofrepresntativity(lessthan2observations) Groupnotpresentinthesurvey(noobservations)

69

ProbabilityofSourceSeparationPerCombinaton
0.600 0.500
Probabilityf(z) f(z)=1/(1+ez)

0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.300

-2.200

-1.200 -0.700 -0.200 Zvaluepergroup z=1.623 0.438(X1)+0.489(X2)+0.364(X3)+0.971(X4)+0.621(X5)+0.262(X6)+0.333(X7)

-1.700

Figure 5.4. Logistic regression model function for probability of participation in source separation of waste.13

Figure 5.4 shows the general distribution of each combination into the logistic curve. Table 5.6 shows that according to the model, the combinations containing the groups elderly (50 >), adults (30-49), female and high socio-economic level are the ones that present the highest probabilities of participating in source separation of waste. To make these results more clear, table 5.6 also highlights the 9 combinations that gave p-values with statistical significance, (below 0.100). These combinations are the ones with the higher relationship and the ones that presented the higher probabilities of doing source separation of waste. It can be seen that in general, the characteristics of these combinations include the groups of elderly (50 >), adult (30-49), females and high socio-economic level, indicating a positive relationship. On the other hand the combinations containing the groups male, young adult and middle and low level socio-economic status show the lowest probabilities of participation in source separation of waste, suggesting a negative relationship. To be able to assess precisely the respective relationship of each group, the z values obtained by the prediction model were standardized and recalculated. The raw data and the results of the Logistic Regression for the standardized values can be seen in table 5.7 and Appendix D, table D.3.

70

Table 5.7. Logistic regression results for standardized values from prediction model.18

Codes Gender X'1 X'2

Factors (independent variables) Male Female Socio-economic status High level Middle level Age ranges Elderly (50 >) Young Adults (15-29) Education Primary school or less University Constant

)*+,-+.-/01-%' -0.683 0.001 0.447 0.143 0.855 -0.577 -0.139 -0.314 0.338

X'3 X'4 X'5 X'6 X'7 X'8 Standardized model:

z' = 0.338 - 0.855(X'1) + 0.001(X'2) + 0.447(X'3) + 0.343(X'4) + 0.683(X'5) -0.577(X'6) - 0.139(X'7) - 0.314(X'8)

Table 5.7 presents the results of the standardized logistic regression, and shows the correlation coefficients (') of each group. As already explained in point 4.6.3, a positive regression coefficient means that the explanatory variable increases the probability of the outcome, while a negative regression coefficient means that the variable decreases the probability of that outcome; a large regression coefficient means that that factor strongly influences the probability of that outcome; while a near-zero regression coefficient means that that factor has little influence on the probability of that outcome. The results reveal that the factor Gender is significant in its relationship with SSW as the group Male has a strong and negative influence on the probability of doing it with a ' of 0.683. The group Female with a ' of 0.001 indicates that it increases the probabilities of participation in waste separation but shows a small influence. For the factor socio-economic status, high level and middle level showed a positive ' (0.447 and 0.147 respectively), indicating that belonging to any of each group increases the probability of participating in SSW, and still high level has the higher influence. 71

The factor age was the more complex between its groups and it showed to be the most important factor among all the Socio-demographic factors under study. The group elderly showed the highest influence on the probability of participating in SSW with a ' of 0.855, in contrast the group young adults also showed a high influence to the probability of practicing source separation but in a negative manner with a ' of -0.577. Factor education has showed no significant relationship what so ever in the probability of participation in source separation in both chi-square test and logistic regression. Still is interesting to see that the most educated people in the group university have a higher negative influence on the probability of participation in SSW than people of primary education or lower, with a ' of -0.139 and -0.314 respectively. After reviewing the results, it can be asses that the factors age with their groups elderly (50 >) and adults (30-49) are the most important and are more associated with high participation in SSW in Guatemala City, followed by gender, in which is noticeable the negative influence between the group male and the probability of doing SSW, which increases dramatically the probabilities of participation if a person is a female. Finally but no less important the factor socio-economic status with the group high level, which also showed that when associated with the other factors can represent a higher probability of participation in source separation. After all, from the results of table 5.5 the following definitions can be assessed: ! ! ! ! Elderly people (50 >) have 2.641 more probability of doing source separation than young adults (15-29). Adults (30-49) have 1.861 more probability of doing SSW than young adults (15-29). Males have 0.645 probability of doing source separation of waste, meaning than females have 1.55 more probabilities of classifying their waste than men. People with high level socio-economical status have 1.645 more probabilities to recycle than people on low level socio-economical status.

72

5.4. Analysis of Psychological and Economic & Normative Factors and their Relationship with Social Participation in Source Separation of Waste
To be able to assess and compare the psychological and economical & normative factors, the survey contained a section in which three different scenarios where proposed to people to assess their determination to participate in SSW according to three different situations: environmental concern, positive incentives (economical) and negative incentives (Normative). The results from the survey can be seen in table 5.8.
Table 5.8. Willingness of people to participate in SSW according to the three scenarios under study.19

Scenarios 1 2 3

Frequency Yes No

Percentage % Yes No

If by separating your garbage you will improve your environment, will you separate your garbage? All respondents 430 16 96.40% 3.60% Only Recyclers 201 4 98.10% 2.00% Only Non-recyclers 229 12 95.00% 5.00% If you could get a discount on your monthly waste collection bill, will you separate your garbage? All respondents 413 33 92.60% 7.40% Only Recyclers 195 10 95.12% 4.88% Only Non-recyclers 218 23 90.46% 9.54% If a tax or fee should be added to your waste collection bill if you dont recycle, will you separate your garbage? 415 194 221 31 11 20 93.05% 91.70% 94.63% 6.95% 8.30% 5.37%

All respondents Only Recyclers Only Non-recyclers

Results of the survey as seen in table 5.8 shows that the grade of willingness of people to do SSW increase considerably from 30.5% to more than 92% of all respondents, not mattering in which case scenario they were asked. Doing SSW for environmental benefit show the highest willingness among all the respondents with 96.4%, followed by normative incentives with 93.05% and economical incentives with 92.60% of all respondents respectively (see figure 5.5). 73

Table 5.8 also shows that there are no major differences between the willingness to participate in SSW among the three case scenarios and the responses given by actual recyclers and norecyclers. For the scenario environmental improvement, recyclers show 98.1% of willingness to participate and no-recyclers show a 95% of possible participation, economical incentives show 95.12% willingness for recyclers and a 90.46% for no-recyclers and normative incentives showed a 91.70% for recyclers and 94.63% for no-recyclers. Willingness according

People'swillingnesstodosourceseparationofwaste accordingtothreedifferentscenarios
3.6% 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 96.4% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Environmental improvement EconomicIncentive (positive) LegalIncentive (negative) 92.60% 93.05% no yes 7.40% 6.95%

Figure 5.5. Peoples willingness to participate in SSW according to three different scenarios.14

To assess if there is any particular relationship or significant differences among the responses in the three scenarios a chi-square test and a logistic regression was performed. The results of these analyses can be seen in Table 5.9, and they show that there are no significant evidence of differences among the three scenarios and the grade of peoples willingness to participate in source separation of waste. The chi-square test showed no significant differences between scenarios with a p-value of 0.629 and the logistic regression also failed found any significant relationship between sociodemographic factors and the willingness of people to participate in source separation of waste.

74

Table 5.9. Results of chi-square test and logistic regression for the three scenarios studied.20

Chi-square Scenarios 1,2 and 3 Pearson Chi-square Test Value 16.000a df 1 Significance (p-value) 0.629

Logistic Regression Factors (independent variables) Gender Male Socio-economic status High level Middle level Age Elderly (50 >) Young Adults (15-29) Education Primary school or less High school or Tech. 0.923 0.808 0.905 0.905 0.964 0.772 0.583 0.251 0.138 0.242 0.253 0.762 0.201 0.247 0.751 0.533 0.61 0.451 Significance (p-value) Groups Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 0.413 0.487 0.472

Even though the statistical analysis revealed no significant differences among the three scenarios the current factors that affect peoples attitude and willingness to participate in SSW can be assess by the responses to the following questions asked to the people: If they actually participate in waste separation: 1. What is the principal reason you do source separation of waste? 2. What do you think is the principal reason people dont participate in source separation of waste? If they actually dont participate in waste separation: 1. What is the principal reason you dont participate in source separation of waste? The results from these questions can be seen in figures 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8. 75

Whatistheprincipalreasonyouseparate yourwaste?
5.4% 4.4% Environmentalconcern 18.5% 49.3% Selfmotivation Getbenefitorprofit 22.4% Forcedtodoit Other

Figure 5.6. Principal reasons why people separate their garbage in Guatemala City.15

Figure 5.6 shows the main reasons why people actually participate in source separation of waste, showing that environmental concern with 49.3% of all respondents is the principal reason, followed by self motivation (altruism) with 22.4% of all respondents. Getting some kind of benefit or profit represented 18.5% of the total population, and 5.4% of the people responded that they are forced to practice it. Nuisance

Whatwouldyousayistheprincipalreason whyyoudontrecycle?
1.7% 6.2% 2.5% 1.7% 1.2% Don'thavetime Norecyclingprograms 36.1% Noeducationorinformation Nolawsorregulations 15.8% 21.6% Itsnotimportant Nobenefitfromit It'sMunicipalobligation Nuisance Noneedtodoit Figure 5.7. Principal reasons why people dont separate their garbage in Guatemala City.16

13.3%

76

Figure 5.7 shows the main reasons why people actually dont participate in source separation of waste, showing that having not enough time to do the activity is the main reason with 36.1% of all respondents; 21.6% responded that is because of the lack of recycling programs, 15.8% said that the reason is the lack of information or knowledge on recycling and another 13.3% responded that they dont participate because they are not being force to do it because there is no laws or regulations. The rest responded that it was because it is not important, with 6.2%, they dont get any benefit from it with 2.5% and the rest 4.8% said its because its municipal obligation, they found it nuisance or they dont need to do it.

Whatwouldyousayistheprincipalreason whypeopledontrecycle?
2.07% 2.90% 2.90% 1.66% 24.07% Noeducationorinformation Nolawsorregulations Norecyclingprograms Itsnotimportant Don'thavetime 8.71% 10.79% 12.03% Noneedtodoit Nobenefitfromit It'sMunicipalobligation Other Nuisance Figure 5.8. Principal reasons why people think other people dont separate their garbage in Guatemala City.17

5.81% 8.71%

Figure 5.8 shows why people doing recycling think that people dont participate in source separation of waste. The fact that people dont have knowledge or lack of information came as the main reason with 24.07%, the lack of laws and regulations came in second with 12.03% followed closely by the lack of recycling programs with 10.79%. Not having enough time or thinking is not important came out with 8.71% of all respondents and 5.81% of the people think is because people believe they dont need to do it. The rest 8.56% is distributed in the thought that they dont get any benefit from it, its municipal obligation, nuisance or other reasons.

77

As we review the above results, its evident that actually psychological factors are the ones affecting in a higher percentage peoples participation in SSW, as environmental concern and self motivation are the main reasons observed. Also the 4.4% of people that responded other they also express that they do it to give an example to their children, because they want to do well to the community and have desire to help other people; altogether this factors represent 82.1% of all people actually doing SSW in Guatemala City. Economical & normative factors represented only 23.9% of all respondents actually participating, being economical benefits the most important with 18.5%, followed by force to do it with only 5.4%. It is interesting to pin point that this 5.4% of the population that responded they are being force to do it, expressed to the interviewers that their place of living (condominium) has a special policy in which their waste have to be separated if the garbage is going to be picked up by the garbage truck, if not they will leave it there. This results show clear evidence that the only laws or regulations actually affecting peoples attitude to do SSW in Guatemala City come from private and not public laws or regulations. As we review the reasons why people think or actually dont participate in SSW (figures 5.7 and 5.8), is noticeable that the three main and common answers were: no knowledge or information about recycling activities, the fact that there are none recycling programs and the lack of laws and regulations. Contrasting the answers from the three scenarios in table 5.9, which show high willingness of people to participate in SSW no matter which of the three scenarios(more than 92%), we can deduce that establishing laws and regulations, creating recycling programs and increasing education of population on recycling activities could eventually increase the participation of people significantly.

5.5. Final Analysis and Discussion

UNDP, 2006; Ancheta, 2005 and Cointreau-Levine, 2008; pointed out the fact that many high tech project strategies have failed or have been ineffective to deal with the problems of waste in development countries and that the most suitable strategy to develop sustainable SWM is Recycling. They also concurred with Rotich, K. Henry, Zhao, Yongsheng, Dong, Jun 2006; Troschinetz, 2009; Lund and Herbert F., 2001; Sidique, Shaufique and Lupi, 2007; Finn, 2007; and Schultz, 1995; that social participation is required and crucial to the success of any 78

recycling program. This situation has proven true in Guatemala as Martinez, 1996; Carranza, 2003; IARNA, 2006 and some articles in local newspapers mention that many projects involving high tech solutions have failed or are working at limited capacity in Guatemala, mostly because of the lack of SSW due to low social participation. As the above problematic becomes evident in Guatemala, and considering that each population has its own characteristics independent from others, the results from this research assess the social participation in SSW in Guatemala City and examines the actual factors affecting peoples attitude and willingness to participate, with the objective of providing key information to decision makers and planners for actual or future recycling programs. The results have showed that only 30.5% of the sampled Guatemala City population is participating in source separation of their waste, and that in at least 46% of Guatemala City households some kind of recycling activity is being done. The statistical tests revealed that socio-demographic factors related with social participation in SSW are age, gender and socio-economic status. On one side, belonging to elderly (50 >), adults (30-49), females, and high level socio-economical status groups increases the probability of participating in SSW. People above 30 years old especially elderly females have the highest probability to perform SSW and having a high level socio-economic status in combination with the above variables also increases the probability of participation. On the other hand, the results also showed that being a male decreases considerably the probability of participation in SSW as also belonging to the group young adults (15-29). Even though, the relationship among gender and recycling behavior in literature review showed that most of studies havent found significant relationship among them, this study concurred with the studies cited by Shultz, 1995; Troschinetz, 2009; and Martin, Williams, and Clark, 2006, on the fact that elderly females are usually the ones responsible for the recycling behavior as they are the ones usually doing the household duties and this behavior also tends to be higher among the more affluent, older people. On the other hand, the factor age prove to have more relationship with the tendencies seen in the studies mentioned above, in accordance that social participation is higher in elderly citizens and lower among lower less affluent younger adults. 79

Contraire to the findings of Scott, 1994; Momoh and Oladebeye, 2010; and some studies cited by Schultz, 1995; education didnt show any relationship what so ever with the actual participation of people in SSW. This could be explained as the mentioned studies had been performed after a recycling programs were established or already running in the countries of study. Actually, in Guatemala City there are no formal recycling programs. It is a possibility that after recycling programs are established in the city, education can eventually become another important variable that could reflect peoples participation in SSW. As for psychological and economical & normative factors, psychological factors showed to have the highest influence on Guatemala Citys peoples participation in SSW, with environmental concern, altruism and intrinsic satisfaction being the most important responses with 76.1% of the entire population, followed by 18.5% claiming to do it because of economical reasons and finally only a 5.4% of the people doing it because of some kind of normative or regulation, that has been assessed came from specific private and not public policies. This results show clearly that sampled Guatemala Citys population participating in SSW are more concerned and aware about the problems of their environment and they do it mostly because of self satisfaction than for economical or normative reasons. This has sense, considering that the populations actually participating in source separation are adults and elderly people, mostly females with high level socio-economic status. Its interesting to see that from the three scenarios proposed in the survey, there were no statistical differences between them, as 92% to 96% of the sampled Guatemala City population responded to be willing to participate in SSW if any environmental or economical benefits could be gained or if they would be forced by some law or regulation. Regardless of the lack of statistical significance, the results showed a high willingness to participate in recycling among the population of Guatemala City. If the willingness shown in the results show so high percentages, what is the reason that actually so few people participate in SSW (30.5%)? 36.1% of people not participating in recycling programs responded that they dont do this activity because of lack of time. This response is quite interesting as we see that the next three more common answers were lack of recycling programs with 21.6%, lack of education or information about recycling with 15.8% and lack of laws and regulations with 13.3%.

80

The last three answers concur with the responses given by the people actually participating in SSW when they were asked why they think people are not participating, with lack of education or information about recycling with 24.07%, lack of laws and regulations with 13.3% and lack of recycling programs with 10.79% resulted to be the more important answers. Contrasting the answers of both groups of people (participating and not), it can be observed that not having time to do it correlates with the actual persons not participating in SSWsource separation of waste, which are mostly male young adults (15-29) who havent develop that sense of altruism and social responsibility or simply they keep themselves more busy in school, work or universities. Also that people actually participating are mostly woman, who are usually the persons responsible for the household duties of these young adults, and because of that are more actively participating in recycling activities. As the general results from the three case scenarios revealed a high willingness of participation, it seems that actually Guatemala City population not participating in recycling are mostly pending of changes in the actual SWM system that will motivate them to change their habits and start participating in recycling activities. The truth cannot be foreseen, but as the data shown here speaks, the possibilities lye on the responsibility of actual authorities and public and private sectors to develop newer and more effective strategies, create educational programs about recycling, as environmental concern is evident but lack of knowledge and information about recycling has proven to be a major flaw. Developing and enforcing laws and regulations is also a great step to take, as they are needed to create the legal framework and markets for the recyclable products that could eventually be obtained. All of this is part of what its called sustainable integrated municipal solid waste management.

81

Chapter 6
6.1. Conclusions

Conclusions

High tech strategies for solid waste management in Guatemala have proven a failure or inefficient to face the problem of waste management, as is common in developing countries. It is evident that future programs must rely on recycling as the major strategy to face the overwhelming demand for effective sustainable MSWM systems. It has also been assessed that social participation is a major factor for the success of any sustainable MSWM system and that knowing the actual attitudes and willingness of people towards recycling becomes an important task that must be assessed to be able to direct efforts on the right direction. Results have showed that only 30.5% of sampled Guatemala City population is participating in source separation of their waste, and that in at least 46% of Guatemala City households some kind of recycling activity is being done. It has been found that age, gender and socio-economical status, in order of importance, are the socio-demographical factors that influence or have relationship with the actual social participation in SSW in Guatemala City. Belonging to the groups elderly (50 >), adults (3049), female and high level socio-economic status increases the possibility and has greater influence on the probability of participation. On the other hand, belonging to the groups males and young adults (15-29) have more influence in decreasing the probability of social participation in SSW. It was found that 68% of the citizens participating in SSW are women, inferring that women have 1.6 more probabilities of participating in recycling than men. Elderly citizens (50 >) and adults (30-49) have 2.6 and 1.8 more probability of doing source separation of their waste than young adults (15-29) respectively; and that people with high level socio-economical status have 1.6 more probabilities to recycle than people with low level socio-economical status. The results showed no significant differences among the scenarios proposed in the study, but still showed a high grade of willingness to participate in SSW, as 92% to 96% of the sampled 82

Guatemala City population is willing to participate if any environmental or economical benefits could be gained or if they would be obligated by some law or regulation. Psychological factors have proven to be the most important and influential reasons why people are currently participating in SSW in Guatemala City. Environmental concern, altruism and intrinsic satisfaction are the most important reasons found with 76.1% of the entire population, followed by 18.5% claiming to do it because of economical factors and finally only a 5.4% of the people doing it because of some kind of normative or regulation, that comes from specific private sectors, like condominiums, that are actually obligating their residents to separate their waste. Sadly these regulations are not being enforced by the local authorities (Municipality). As it has been found that the grade of willingness of people to participate in SSW is between 92% and 96%, the lack of incentives proves to be a main reason of the actual low social participation in SSW. The study revealed that recycling and not recycling citizens concur that lack of recycling programs, lack of education and information about recycling activities, and the lack of laws and regulations regarding waste management are the main reasons why SSW is not been practiced. It was also observed that 36.1% of sampled people not participating in SSW say they dont do it because of lack of time. This can be explained as the study shows that the main reasons people actually participate in SSW are environmental concern and self motivation, so people without the proper incentives are not attracted to do recycling activities when they put their priorities of time and effort in other issues. The results of this study finally suggest that Guatemala City population has a high grade of willingness to do SSW but they are not participating due to the lack of proper incentives, specifically recycling programs, laws and regulations and education and information regarding recycling activities.

83

6.2. Recommendations
As the major objective of this study was to assess and provide useful information to local authorities and decision makers about the factors affecting social participation in recycling activities such as the ones studied herein, this study have showed that even though the current status of social participation in recycling activities is low, and that is mostly being performed because of environmental concern and altruistic reasons, Guatemala City population have a high grade of willingness to participation in recycling activities, but it is being restricted or limited mostly by the lack of incentives due to the absence of recycling programs, laws and regulations and low education and information programs concerning recycling activities. It is imperative that local authorities and decision makers take this information into action and focus their efforts and resources into designing a new agenda in which these flaws can be addressed integrally to be able to develop new more effective strategies for a more sustainable integrated municipal solid waste management system in Guatemala City. The agenda should contain but not be limited to: the creation of new and more effective education and information programs related to recycling at every level and strata in society; promoting and pressuring the approval of the Solid Waste Management Law in Guatemala and the enforcement of the actual regulations at municipal level; designing integrated recycling programs in which the public and private sector participate integrally and are supported by local authorities (government); design priority areas and zones on which the first efforts have the highest probability of success that can serve as an example that can be copied all over the country. For all of this examples can be seek in developed countries like Taiwan, were most of its population participates actively in recycling as the government and public organization enforces laws and programs to achieve high goals of recycling. It is important that studies like this one be done in every area where recycling activities want to be pursued because each community has different characteristics and this study dont represent the reality of the entire nation. Last but not least, whenever the above activities take place, similar studies most been performed after, as to follow and assess the effectives of the strategies that had been put into action. This type of studies also serves as monitoring and evaluation techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of recycling programs.

84

References
Ancheta, Arlen A. Power and Claims-making in the Social Construction of Solid Waste in Metropolitan Manila. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of the Graduate, University of the Phillippines Los Baos: Manila, Phillippines, 2005. Bagchi, Amalendu. Design of Landfills and Integrated Solid Waste Management. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. Carranza, J. Evaluacin del Transporte y Disposicin Final de los Desechos Slidos en los 331 Municipios de la Repblica de Guatemala. Edited by USAC-INFOMMARN. 2003. Cointreau-Levine, Sandra. Private Sector Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Services in Developing Countries. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C. U.S.A: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ THE WORLD BANK, 1994. Daskalopoulos, E., Badr, O., Probert, D. Economic and Environmental Evaluations of Waste Teatment and Disposal Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste. Edited by Elsevier Science Ltd. Journal of Applied Energy 58, no. 4 (1997): 209-255. EAWAG, SANDEC. Global Waste Challenge, Situation in Developing Countries. Switzerland: CWG, Collaborative Working Group, 2008. Ekere, W., Mugisha, J., Drake, L. Factors influencing waste separation and utilization among households in the Lake Victoria crescent, Uganda. Edited by Elsevier. Journal of Waste Management 29 (2009): 3047-3051. El-Haggar, Salah. Sustainable Industrial Design and Waste Management. Cradle-toCradle for Sustainable Development. Edited by Elsevier. Cairo, Egypt: Academic Press, 2007. Finn, Katrina. A Study of the Housholds' Willigness to Contribute to an Improved SWM Program in Kratovo, Macedonia. Master Thesis: Michigan Technological University, U.S.A., 2007. Hisashi, Ogawa. Sustainable Waste Management in Developing Countries. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: WHO Western Pacific Regional Environmental Health Centre (EHC), 1996. IARNA. Perfil Ambiental de Guatemala 2006; tendencias y Reflexiones Sobre La Situacin Ambiental. Guatemala: Universidad Rafael Landivar, Instituto de Incidencia Ambiental, 2006. INE. X Censo Nacional de Poblacin y VI de Habitacin 2002. Edited by Instituto Nacional de Estadstca. 2002. http://www.ine.gob.gt/index.php/demografia-ypoblacion/42-demografiaypoblacion/75-censo2002 (accessed 2010). 85

JICA. The Study on Solid Waste Management in Metropolitan Area of Guatemala City (Final Report). Japan International Cooperation Agency -JICA- 2 (1991). Li, S. Recycling Behavior Under China's Social and Economic Transition: the case of Metropolitan Wuhan. Journal of Environment and Behavior 35, no. 6 (2003): 784-801. Lund, Herbert F., et al. The McGraw-Hill Recycling Handbook. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001. Martin, M., Williams, I. D., Clark, M. Social, Cultural and Structural Influences on Household Waste Recycling: A Case Study. Edited by Elsevier. Journal of Resources Conservation & Recycling 48 (2006): 357-395. Martnez Lopez, J. F. La Situacin de la Basura en la Ciudad de Guatemala. Edited by Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala. Centro de Estudios Urbanos y Regionales Boletn No. 30 (1996): 58. McGuinness, J., Jones, Allan P., Cole, Steven G. Attitudinal Correlated of Recycling Behavior. Edited by Journal of Applied Psycology. 62, no. 4 (1976): 376-384. Momoh, J. J., and Oladebeye, D.H. Assessment of Awareness, Attitude and Willingness of People to Participate in household Solid Waste Recycling Programme in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation 5, no. 1 (2010): 93-105. Organizacin Mundial de la Salud (OMS) & Organizacin Panamericana de la Salud (OPS). Anlisis Sectorial de Residuos Slidos en Guatemala. 1995: 183. PROARCA. Reporte Nacional de Manejo de Residuos en Guatemala. Guatemala: USAID-P+L, 2004. Robinson, G., Read, A. Recycling behavior in a London Borough: Results from largescale household surveys. Edited by Elsevier. Journal of Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005): 70-83. Rotich, K. Henry, Zhao, Yongsheng, Dong, Jun. Municipal Solid Waste Managemetn Challenges in Developing Countries: Kenyan Case Study. Edited by Elsevier. Journal of Waste Management 26 (2006): 92-100. Schultz, P. W., Oskamp, S., Mainieri, T. Who Recycles and When? A Review of Personal and Situation Factors. Edited by Academic Press Limited. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15 (1995): 105-121. Scott, D. and Willits, F.K. Environmental Attitude and Behavior. A Pennsilvania Survey. Journal of Environmental and Bahavior 26, no. 1 (1994): 239-260. SCS Engineers. Report of the Pump Test and Pre-feasibility. Vol. File No. 02200903.00. Guatelama City: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Lanfill Methane Outreach Porgram, 2005. 86

Sidique, Shaufique F., Lupi, Frank, Joshi, Satish V. The Effects of Behavior and Attitudes on Drop-off Recycling Activities. Edited by Elsevier. Journal of Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010): 163-170. Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Vigil, S. A. Integrated Solid Waste Management: engineering principles and management issues. Singapore: McGraw-Hill, 1993. Troschinetz, A., Mihelcic, J. Sustainable Recycling of municipal solid waste in developing countries. Edited by Elsevier. Journal of Waste Management 29 (2009): 915-923. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). International Source Book on Environmentally Sound Technologies (ESTs) for Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM). International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC), 1996. United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. What is Integrated Solid Waste managemement?. Factsheet No. EPA530-F-02-026a, 2002: 6 pages. Visvanathan, C., Trankler, J. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Asia: A Comparative Analysis. Workshop on Sustainable Landfill Management, December 2003: 3-15. Webster, F. Determining The Characteristics of the Socially Concious consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 1975: 2,188-1,196. World Bank. World Bank Development Indicators. 2009. http://ddpext.worldbank.org/ext/ddpreports/ViewSharedReport?&CF=&REPORT_ID=914 7&REQUEST_TYPE=VIEWADVANCED (accessed December 2009). Zerbock, Olar. Urban Solid Waste Management: Waste REduction in Developing Nations. Michigan: School of Forest Resources & Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University, 2003. Zurbrgg, C., Schertenleib, R. Main Problems and Issues of Municipal Solid Waste Management in developing Countries with Emphasis on Problems Related to Disposal by landfill. Sweden: EAWAG/SANDEC, 1998.

87

Appendix A

Figure A.1.18Guatemala geographical location. 19 18

Figure A.2.19Departments of Guatemala. Source: self made.

18 Guatemala Geographical location. http://kidsblogs.nationalgeographic.com/you-are-here/guatemala/aboutthis-blog.html

88

Figure A.3.20Map of the Municipalities of the Department of Guatemala.

El Trbol landfill location

21

Figure A.4.21Zones of Guatemala City and El Trbol landfill location.

89

Appendix B
Guatemala, 1 de septiembre de 2010 Seor Administrador Centro Comercial Miraflores Presente Estimado Administrador:
El Centro de Investigaciones en Nutricin y Salud, CIENSA, es una Organizacin No Gubernamental (ONG) que inici labores en el ao 2007. En estos aos hemos llevado a cabo estudios que han requerido la colecta de informacin a nivel comunitario y de servicios de salud de diferentes regiones de Guatemala. Estos estudios han sido solicitados y financiados por agencias internacionales tales como USAID u otras ONG tales como SHARE, Save The Children, Visin Mundial, y el Ministerio de Salud Pblica de Guatemala. En esta ocasin un estudiante guatemalteco estudiando su postgrado en Taiwan (becado por el Gobierno de ese pas), Jorge Mario Matute, se ha comunicado con CIENSA solicitando ayuda para que, en forma voluntaria llevemos a cabo un estudio rpido asociado a su tesis de grado. Jorge Mario estudia el manejo de desechos slidos y su estudio de tesis requiere de una encuesta sencilla para establecer el porcentaje de personas en la ciudad de Guatemala que clasifica su basura. Por este medio queremos solicitar la colaboracin del Centro Comercial que usted dirige, a travs de permitirnos llevar la colecta de informacin requerida por la encuesta en una muestra de personas visitantes al comercial. Adjunto copia del instrumento que se estara pasando, con el objetivo de lograr entrevistar entre 60 y 100 personas el prximo sbado 4 de septiembre. No est dems mencionar que el personal que estar levantando la informacin es voluntario, siendo en su mayora amistades y familiares de Jorge Mario. El grupo que estar trabajando en su comercial ser de alrededor de 5 personas, coordinadas por un supervisor. Todos ellos se identificarn con un gafete de nuestra parte y se comunicarn con la administracin del comercial antes de iniciar la actividad y al finalizar. Desde ya agradecemos que nos permita llevar a cabo el estudio en el centro comercial que usted dirige. Cualquier duda puede comunicarse con mi persona. Atentamente, Licda. Olga Torres Presidente

Figure B.1. Letter for Commercial Centers and Malls in Guatemala City.22

90

Figure B.2. Letter for Markets in Guatemala City.23

91

Appendix C
Table C.1. Final Questionnaire Ballot21

Market:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Number of Ballot:___________

National Central University College of Engineering International Program in Environment Sustainable Development Questionnaire about the actual attitude towards recycling of the citizens of Guatemala City
Supervisor: Prof. Wang Kung-Sheng Estudiante de Maestra: Jorge Mario Matute Dvila

Note: All the information recorded in this questionnaire is confidential and will be used only for
research purposes.

I.
# 1 Question Gender of interviewedperson

Personal Information
Answers 1. Male 2. Female Codes _____

the

In which municipality is Municipality yourhouseholdlocated? _________________ If you are from Guatemala City, In Zone whichzonedoyoulive? ________________

__________ __________

Whatsyourage?

Which is your latest academic degree obtained?

1. PrimarySchoolorless 2. HighSchoolortechnical degree 3. University degree or higher ______

92

II.
# 5

Actual behavior towards recycling of waste

Answers 0. No!question9 1. Yes Codes _____ _____

Question Is waste separated in your household for recyclingpurposes? Do you participate in waste separation of waste for recycling purposes? Fromthefollowing, Whichisthemain reasonyouseparateyour wasteforrecycling? Readthequestionsand letthepersonchoose themainreason.

0. No 1. Yes

1. Environmentalandhealthconcern 2. Receivingapaymentorbenefitforthe classifiedmaterial 3. Selfmotivationtoseparatewaste ______ 4. IfulfillwhatIhavebeenasked

5. Other__________________ 8 Which of these residues are being separated in yourhousehold? 1. NewsPaper 2. Cardboardandotherpapers 3. Glass 4. Metalcans(Aluminum,Tin,etc) 5. Plastics 6. Organics 7. Other__________________ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

93

From the following, Which are the main reasons why you believe thatyouorothersdonot separate their waste for recycling? Read the answers and checkalloptionsselected by the person. At the end ask the person to selectthemainreason.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

It'snotimportanttodoit Noneedtodoit Thereisnobenefitsfromit It's an obligation of the municipal authorities Thereislackofknowledge/information aboutrecycling Itcausesdiscomforttodoit Donthavetimetodoit There are no rules or regulations that requiringorenforcingit Therearenorecyclingprograms

1_____ 2_____ 3_____ 4_____ 5_____ 6_____ 7_____ 8_____ 9_____ Main: _____

III.

Future Scenarios
Answers 0. No 1. Yes 0. No 1. Yes 0. No 1. Yes _____ _____ Codes _____

# Question 10 Ifbyseparatingyourgarbageyouwillimprove yourenvironment,willyouseparateyour garbage? 11 Ifyoucouldgetadiscountonyourmonthly wastecollectionbill,willyouseparateyour garbage? 12 Ifataxorfeeshouldbeaddedtoyourwaste collectionbillifyoudontrecycle,willyou separateyourgarbage?

Thank you for your participation in this survey!

94

Table C.2. Composition of the socio-economic levels en the City of Guatemala by zones and by Municipalities in the Guatemala Metropolitan Area.22

COMPOSICINDELOSNIVELESSOCIOECONOMICOS,ENLACIUDADDEGUATEMALA,PORZONASY MUNICIPALIDADESDENTRODELAREAMETROPOLITANA

MUNI /ZONA Mixco

VillaNueva
VillaCanales SnMig.Petapa

NIVELS.E."AB"

NIVELS.E."C+"

NIVELS.E."C"

NIVELS.E."C"

NIVELS.E."D"

X X X

Chinautla
SanJosPinula Sta.Cat.Pinula

X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

Fraijanes

Guatemala

1 X 2 X 3 4 5 X 6 7 X 8 9 X 10 X X 11 X 12 X 13 X X 14 X X 15 X X 16 X X 18 19 21 Source: Asesora Inmobiliaria de Guatemala, S.A.

X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

95

Appendix D
Table D.1. Final coded results from survey per ballot.23
Q.1 Market Ballot Gender Zone 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 5 3 2 3 5 7 3 7 7 7 5 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 11 11 7 5 7 18 7 7 14 11 11 11 7 12 7 7 13 10 11 11 11 S.M.Petapa S.M.Petapa S.M.Petapa S.M.Petapa Fraijanes S.J.Pinula Municipality SocioecSt. 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Age Age 53 38 67 33 38 33 45 30 57 60 18 36 36 35 35 48 37 16 21 19 46 19 22 18 49 35 60 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 Education 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 3 2 3 1 1 4 1 Q.2 Q.3 Q.4 Q. 5 Q. 7 P8X1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Q.8 Q.9 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 7 9 9 9 9 7 9 2 5 7 1 2 1 5 8 3 9 5 6 7 3 7 1 8 Esc.1 Esc.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Esc.3 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q.10 Q.11 Q.12

Q.6

96

Market Ballot 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Q.1 Gender Zone 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 11 11 11 11 7 12 11 11 11 18 11 11 11 12 12 12 15 11 7 12 11 11 11 11 11 Mixco

Q.2 Municipality SocioecSt. 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1

Q.3 Age Age 21 27 38 20 22 38 30 51 17 56 33 53 49 33 25 68 57 24 18 18 20 60 50 25 50 40 19 37 38 15 37 58 15 26 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 3

Q.4 Education 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1

Q. 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1

Q.6 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1

Q. 7 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2

Q.8 P8X1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q.9 8 8 5 5 7 9 2 7 9 9 8 1 5 5 7 1 1 1 7 1 1 7 7 5 3 8 9 5 8 2 7 7

Q.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

Q.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.12 Esc.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Esc.1 Esc.2

VillaNueva Mixco S.M.Petapa Mixco VillaNueva S.M.Petapa Mixco Mixco

97

Market Ballot 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 7 7 7 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Q.1 Gender Zone 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 7 11 11 12 11 11 11 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 11 18 18 21 21 21 21 21 21 12 21 21 21 21 21 21

Q.2 Municipality SocioecSt. 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

Q.3 Age Age 45 27 27 35 31 62 35 27 21 85 81 15 18 32 15 45 80 23 24 24 23 28 25 25 21 65 30 18 55 23 60 32 23 68 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1

Q.4 Education 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1

Q. 5 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

Q.6 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Q. 7 1 5 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 3

Q.8 P8X1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q.9 8 1 9 1 1 5 5 1 2 1 4 5 9 5 3 5 2 9 3 9 5 9 7 2 5 7 1 8 6 7 7 1

Q.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.11 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

Q.12 Esc.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Esc.1 Esc.2

VillaNueva Mixco Mixco S.M.Petapa

98

Market Ballot 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129

Q.1 Gender Zone 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 11 21 7 11 12 7 11 21 11 19 19 19 19 19 5 Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco

Q.2 Municipality SocioecSt. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3

Q.3 Age Age 48 50 15 23 66 56 52 60 60 28 23 23 22 21 34 27 19 19 23 20 19 20 49 22 23 38 29 37 34 40 22 30 55 38 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2

Q.4 Education 1 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 3

Q. 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1

Q.6 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Q. 7 3 3 3 1 3 1 5 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

Q.8 P8X1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q.9 2 2 9 2 7 1 1 1 7 1 7 8 8 7 5 8 7 9 7 5 8 5 7 9 4 5 7 7 5 5 4 2 9

Q.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.12 Esc.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

Esc.1 Esc.2

VillaCanales Mixco

99

Market Ballot 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163

Q.1 Gender Zone 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 18 19 19

Q.2 Municipality Chinautla Chinautla Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco SocioecSt. 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2

Q.3 Age Age 24 16 29 15 38 58 24 47 48 78 52 45 67 43 31 15 79 50 50 22 15 33 45 23 49 25 15 15 34 22 18 22 18 21 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3

Q.4 Education 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 2

Q. 5 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1

Q.6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Q. 7 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1

Q.8 P8X1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Q.9 7 8 9 4 9 1 4 7 1 3 2 1 7 1 2 1 5 5 7 7 7 7 5 8 9 9 8 1 2 8 9

Q.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.12 Esc.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

Esc.1 Esc.2

100

Market Ballot 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197

Q.1 Gender Zone 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 19 19 19 19 1 8 11 16 16 3 2 6 19 19 19 19 18 Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco

Q.2 Municipality SocioecSt. 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 3

Q.3 Age Age 22 43 50 52 48 45 35 28 30 50 52 40 19 54 51 52 51 41 17 20 20 28 43 24 59 59 55 24 29 39 54 26 55 57 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 3 1 1

Q.4 Education 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 3 2

Q. 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

Q.6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1

Q. 7 1 5 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3

Q.8 P8X1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q.9 5 9 5 9 9 5 7 1 9 6 5 7 5 9 6 1 8 7 7 5 7 7 5 8 7 8 7 7 9 9 8 5

Q.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.12 Esc.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Esc.1 Esc.2

S.M.Petapa VillaNueva Mixco Mixco Mixco VillaCanales S.C.Pinula VillaCanales VillaCanales Mixco

101

Market Ballot 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231

Q.1 Gender Zone 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 11 19 19 19 6 6 6 19 19 19 19 19 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 12 11 11 11 21 12 6 12 12 7

Q.2 Municipality SocioecSt. 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2

Q.3 Age Age 76 43 24 21 15 16 26 17 30 38 80 50 51 15 45 33 15 39 39 64 32 62 32 27 26 29 28 39 15 15 26 25 38 21 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3

Q.4 Education 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Q. 5 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Q.6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Q. 7 2 1 4 4 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 5 3 3 1 2

Q.8 P8X1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q.9 4 8 7 1 6 5 7 8 8 5 1 5 9 8 7 5 7 5 5 9 8 5 5 8 5 5 5 8 9 7 7 8 7

Q.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.12 Esc.3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Esc.1 Esc.2

VillaNueva VillaNueva VillaCanales VillaNueva

102

Market Ballot 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265

Q.1 Gender Zone 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 7 7 5 11 18 12 11 18 11 10 11 3 12 12 1 18 19 11 5 Mixco

Q.2 Municipality SocioecSt. 3 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 2 2 3 3

Q.3 Age Age 38 40 46 35 31 70 55 25 61 42 51 15 15 31 29 61 20 33 51 30 48 71 22 25 27 49 62 47 49 20 33 27 70 64 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 1

Q.4 Education 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2

Q. 5 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1

Q.6 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q. 7 2 3 3 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 5 1 1 2 4 2 1

Q.8 P8X1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q.9 5 7 8 8 7 5 7 5 7 9 5 9 9 3 7 5 9 7 9 5 5 6 5 7 7 4 8 3 8 7 8 9 5 5

Q.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.11 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.12 Esc.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Esc.1 Esc.2

VillaNueva VillaNueva VillaNueva Mixco S.J.Pinula VillaNueva VillaNueva VillaNueva S.C.Pinula Mixco Mixco VillaNueva VillaNueva

103

Market Ballot 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 2 7 7 7 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299

Q.1 Gender Zone 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 12 11 7 5 12 6 6 12 18 18 10 14 19 14 14 10 10 14 6 10 14 Mixco Mixco

Q.2 Municipality SocioecSt. 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

Q.3 Age Age 15 29 47 42 32 35 37 55 27 45 21 21 39 15 45 43 45 65 27 18 19 30 15 75 42 56 52 56 36 45 66 19 50 15 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 3

Q.4 Education 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 2

Q. 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1

Q.6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Q. 7 1 2 2 1 3 4 1 1 1 4 2 1 3 3 3 1 3 1

Q.8 P8X1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q.9 8 8 8 9 7 8 7 9 5 8 7 8 7 5 9 5 9 5 7 7 7 2 7 1 3 9 8 9 8 7 9 8 7 6

Q.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1

Q.12 Esc.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Esc.1 Esc.2

VillaNueva VillaNueva VillaNueva Mixco Mixco Mixco S.J.Pinula Mixco Mixco S.C.Pinula

104

Market Ballot 2 2 2 2 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333

Q.1 Gender Zone 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 10 10 16 14 15 10 10 14 10 3 10 10 15 13 14 14 10 10 14 10 13 13 14 14 7 10 10 Mixco

Q.2 Municipality SocioecSt. 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3

Q.3 Age Age 42 29 25 48 29 50 15 24 24 48 58 59 45 34 48 30 44 50 52 34 60 38 50 32 40 50 24 47 61 48 17 40 39 23 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 3

Q.4 Education 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 2

Q. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0

Q.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0

Q. 7 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1

Q.8 P8X1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q.9 7 9 7 9 9 9 5 9 7 8 5 9 5 7 9 7 9 5 7 5 7 9 4 9 3 5 5 5 5 5

Q.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.12 Esc.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Esc.1 Esc.2

VillaNueva VillaCanales S.C.Pinula S.C.Pinula Mixco VillaNueva

105

Market Ballot 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367

Q.1 Gender Zone 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 10 14 14 10 14 14 19 14 14 15 12 5 5 7 2 5 5 5 12 5 5 16 14 5 16 5 6 5

Q.2 Municipality SocioecSt. 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 3

Q.3 Age Age 42 60 40 58 50 42 28 37 18 30 15 66 18 28 71 49 48 63 32 55 27 49 39 51 55 30 28 17 38 35 59 43 35 59 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1

Q.4 Education 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 2

Q. 5 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Q.6 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Q. 7 1 4 1 1 2 3 4 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1

Q.8 P8X1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q.9 9 5 9 9 7 5 7 1 7 5 3 1 7 9 3 7 1 7 7 5 7 7 7 2 5 3 7 8 7 9 9 9 8 5

Q.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.12 Esc.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Esc.1 Esc.2

S.J.Pinula Mixco Mixco S.J.Pinula Mixco Mixco

106

Market Ballot 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 1 1 1 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401

Q.1 Gender Zone 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 18 5 16 5 5 14 5 5 5 9 5 18 5 5 3 19 5 5 18 18 18 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 11 3 19 Mixco

Q.2 Municipality SocioecSt. 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 2 2

Q.3 Age Age 68 47 49 49 37 50 43 20 27 47 21 45 44 33 29 45 62 70 52 70 23 64 30 40 32 33 67 21 19 21 40 40 40 23 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 3

Q.4 Education 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 3

Q. 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Q.6 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Q. 7 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 3 3 1 2 2

Q.8 P8X1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q.9 7 9 8 5 9 5 5 7 4 5 9 8 1 5 9 8 7 5 9 1 7 7 8 5 9 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 8 1

Q.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.11 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.12 Esc.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1

Esc.1 Esc.2

VillaCanales Mixco

107

Market Ballot 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 7 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432

Q.1 Gender Zone 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 19 19 19 19 19 7 19 5 5 7 19 19 19 5 7 19 12 19 7 19 19 19 7 7 19

Q.2 Municipality Chinautla Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco Mixco SocioecSt. 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 2

Q.3 Age Age 33 73 21 29 45 36 27 72 60 35 32 38 36 16 45 29 19 15 34 15 24 19 65 27 33 20 63 20 30 38 19 2 1 3 3 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 2 3

Q.4 Education 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2

Q. 5 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Q.6 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Q. 7 1 3 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 1 2 5 1 5 1

Q.8 P8X1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q.9 7 1 9 1 7 9 7 8 5 7 5 7 7 7 2 5 5 8 8 8 8 1 8 5 5 5 9 5 5

Q.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q.11 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

Q.12 Esc.3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

Esc.1 Esc.2

108

Market Ballot 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446

Q.1 Gender Zone 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 11 7 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 7 10 7 16

Q.2 Municipality Mixco SocioecSt. 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 1

Q.3 Age Age 18 18 36 45 42 43 27 17 39 48 46 18 26 75 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 1

Q.4 Education 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 1

Q. 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

Q.6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Q. 7 2 1 1 1 2 1

Q.8 P8X1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 P8X2 P8X3 P8X4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 P8X5 P8X6 P8X7 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q.9 4 6 5 4 5 8 7 5 8 7 7 8 5 1

Q.10

Q.11

Q.12 Esc.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Esc.1 Esc.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

109

Table D.2. Chi-square test results for socio-economic factors and social participation in source separation of waste.24

Age*Q.6
Contingency Table Recount Age 1 Q.6 0 1 Total 62 46 108 2 113 54 167 3 135 36 171 Total 310 136 446

Chi-square tests Sig. asinttica Valor Chi-cuadrado de Pearson Razn de verosimilitudes Asociacin lineal por lineal N de casos vlidos 14.918a 15.005 14.871 446 gl 2 2 1 (bilateral) .001 .001 .000

Socio-economic status *Q.6

Contingency Table Recount Socio-economic status 1 Q.6 0 1 Total 72 41 113 2 94 44 138 3 144 51 195 Total 310 136 446

Chi-square tests Sig. asinttica Valor Chi-cuadrado de Pearson Razn de verosimilitudes Asociacin lineal por lineal N de casos vlidos 3.646a 3.639 3.618 446 gl 2 2 1 (bilateral) .162 .162 .057

110

Education*Q.6
Contingency Table Recount P4 1 P6 0 1 Total 84 43 127 2 135 59 194 3 91 34 125 Total 310 136 446

Chi-square tests Sig. asinttica Valor Chi-cuadrado de Pearson Razn de verosimilitudes Asociacin lineal por lineal N de casos vlidos 1.319
a

gl 2 2 1

(bilateral) .517 .517 .251

1.320 1.315 446

Gender*Q.6
Contingency Table Recount P1 1 P6 0 1 Total 138 43 181 2 172 93 265 Total 310 136 446

Chi-square tests Sig. asinttica Valor Chi-cuadrado de Pearson Correccin por continuidad Razn de verisimilitudes Estadstico exacto de Fisher Asociacin lineal por lineal N de casos vlidos 6.507 446 1 .011
b

Sig. exacta (bilateral)

Sig. exacta (unilateral)

gl 1 1 1

(bilateral) .011 .014 .010

6.522a 5.998 6.642

.012

.007

111

Table D.3. Results of the prediction model and standardized values for all the combinations found and their probabilities of anticipating in source separation of waste.25
Group 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 MALE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FEMALE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SEHIGH SEMIDDLE SELOW 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 ELDERLY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ADULTS 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Y.ADULT PRIMARY HIGHSCHOOL UNIVERSITY Zestimated Z'estandarized 0 0 0 1 0.6010 0.4707 0 1 0 0 0.6890 0.2989 0 0 1 0 0.6180 0.4375 0 0 0 1 0.9510 0.2123 1 1 0 0 1.3100 0.9129 1 0 1 0 1.2390 0.7744 1 0 0 1 1.5720 1.4242 0 1 0 0 0.4640 0.7380 0 0 0 1 0.7260 0.2267 0 1 0 0 0.8140 0.0550 0 0 1 0 0.7430 0.1936 0 0 0 1 1.0760 0.4563 1 1 0 0 1.4350 1.1569 1 0 1 0 1.3640 1.0183 1 0 0 1 1.6970 1.6682 0 1 0 0 0.8280 0.0277 0 0 1 0 0.7570 0.1662 0 1 0 0 1.1780 0.6553 0 0 1 0 1.1070 0.5168 0 0 0 1 1.4400 1.1666 1 0 1 0 1.7280 1.7287 1 0 0 1 2.0610 2.3785 0 1 0 0 0.3390 0.9820 0 0 1 0 0.1700 1.9753 0 0 0 1 0.1630 1.3254 0 1 0 0 0.2510 1.1537 0 0 1 0 0.1800 1.2922 0 0 0 1 0.5130 0.6424 1 0 1 0 0.8010 0.0804 1 0 0 1 1.1340 0.5695 0 1 0 0 0.0260 1.5928 0 0 1 0 0.0450 1.7313 0 0 0 1 0.2880 1.0815 0 1 0 0 0.3760 0.9098 0 0 1 0 0.3050 1.0483 0 0 0 1 0.6380 0.3985 1 1 0 0 0.9970 0.3021 1 0 1 0 0.9260 0.1636 1 0 0 1 1.2590 0.8134 0 1 0 0 0.3900 0.8824 0 0 1 0 0.3190 1.0210 0 0 0 1 0.6520 0.3711 0 1 0 0 0.7400 0.1994 0 0 1 0 0.6690 0.3380 0 0 0 1 1.0020 0.3119 1 1 0 0 1.3610 1.0125 1 0 1 0 1.2900 0.8739 1 0 0 1 1.6230 1.5237 Average 0.8422 Standv 0.5124

112