Post on 27-Mar-2023
Please, cite this paper as follows:
M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, 2014. How to assess solid waste management in
armed conflicts? A new methodology applied to the Gaza Strip, Palestine.
Waste Management & Research, 32(9), 908-917.
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14543553
Introduction
Each solid waste management (SWM) system is usually complex and
composed of several parts. The waste flow can be backtracked from the
disposal site, which is usually known. In such a way we can identify several
activities carried out by different groups. Usually in low- and middle-income
countries (LMIC) one or more groups are in charge of the formal collection
service, while others have different roles: a network of informal workers (e.g.
waste pickers) provides a further collection, separation and processing of
recyclables (Wilson et al. 2006), while non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
and community based organizations (CBOs) usually try to formalize such
activities or to support the system in general (Ahsan et al. 2012).
SWM service providers have different managerial organizations, methods for
collection and haulage, machineries and equipment. Thus data collection is
challenging, and the impact of a specific action on the SWM system is difficult to
predict (Ali 2010).
Several factors affect system development: finance and economy; technical and
managerial capacity; machinery and equipment availability; material, fuel and
spare parts procurement; and socio-cultural aspects (Guerrero et al. 2013). A
good assessment should have a holistic and comprehensive view of the whole
system (Zurbrugg et al. 2012).
Municipal solid waste (MSW) management is becoming more and more of a
challenge for public authorities in the world (Wilson et al. 2012). SWM in LMICs
has already been widely studied, and the following challenges have been
identified:
production increases constantly: although the average annual per capita
waste generation in LMICs is far less than in high-income countries
(HICs) (Wilson et al. 2012), this figure is constantly rising in response to
economic growth (UNEP 2010);
organic content in MSW is very high, usually surpassing 60%, while
packaging and in particular paper content is lower than in HICs. Thus
waste is very dense, with a high moisture content and a reduced heating
value (Couth & Trois 2010, Wilson et al. 2012);
small and medium municipalities have little access to technology
innovation, financial resources and well-trained technicians (Diaz 2009,
Vaccari et al. 2013);
frequent constraints for the collection, recycling and management are:
scarce and inadequate equipment, budget deficiency, poor management,
poor community involvement and awareness. Such constraints depend
on specific site conditions, as largely documented in Henry et al. (2006),
Collivignarelli et al. (2010), and Di Bella & Vaccari (2013);
most of the MSW budget is spent on collection, with only a small fraction
spent on disposal. Only a part of produced waste is formally managed
(Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata 2012);
a complex informal economy usually manages the material recovery,
trading and recycling. Waste pickers, middlemen, and factories are the
main groups involved, while authorities, several NGOs and in general the
whole community are affected and somehow involved in this business
(Medina 2000, Vaccari et al. 2012);
limited or conflicting information is available, thus it is difficult to make
reliable decisions concerning management (Perkoulidis 2011).
During an emergency, due to either natural disasters or armed conflicts, a large
quantity of waste (e.g. debris, housing furnishings, hazardous substances) is
produced, called “disaster waste”, with serious impacts on health and the
environment (OCHA 2011a). Moreover it makes humanitarian intervention more
difficult. In the event of service provider collapse, waste would be left
unmanaged, but this situation is different, thus such a situation is not
considered in this paper. A natural disaster triggers an emergency situation
when there is population vulnerability and a scarce local response capacity
(IASC 2006). An armed conflict, internal or external, leads to complex
emergencies, which are multifaceted humanitarian crises with a considerable
breakdown of authority, requiring a multi-sectorial, international response
(OCHA 2004). An emergency requires immediate survival assistance for the
victims, usually initiated on short notice and having a short implementation
period (within a year), as the main purpose is to save lives (UNHCR 2006).
Conflicts are a major cause of direct and indirect land degradation, indeed they
consume a great amount of resources (Wisner & Adams 2002), but few studies
are available about SWM in such a situation (Brown et al. 2011).
We have developed a methodology to assess waste management in armed
conflicts, since to our knowledge none has ever been proposed. Some
assessment methodologies for developing countries are difficult to apply
because they are based on long and rigid questionnaires (Zurbrugg 2003,
Guerrero et al. 2013). The new methodology integrates different methods and
tools, that are selected considering their applicability in such contexts. Possibly
free-of-charge computer programs are suggested. We validated the
methodology in the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip is a very limited and densely
populated area, de facto controlled by Hamas, and is a well-known armed
conflict situation. The conflict has been going on for years, with a varying level
of intensity, generating a chronic emergency, affecting the population and the
environment (UNEP 2009).
Materials and methods
The methodology
We considered the whole SWM system in the Gaza Strip as a complex adaptive
system (Marshal & Farahbakhsh 2013), composed of a set of elements (e.g.
waste collection, haulage, disposal), each of them simpler and more
homogeneous, but requiring a deep analysis. Each element obviously has
different characteristics and we assumed that due to the conflict, it was not
subjected to the same level of instability: each element should be assessed
looking at the general drivers (Wilson 2007) and at the interactions with the
system.
The methodology proposed is composed of 6 assessment phases (Fig. 1):
preliminary activities aim to define the assessment conditions and objectives
(identification phase), and to collect and analyse all the available information,
and organize field activities (preparation phase); during the first field mission,
data are collected, and checked; the data process phase aims to analyse the
information collected, in order to understand what has been satisfactory
assessed, and what requires further investigations; during the second mission,
missing data are collected, while results are debriefed with local actors; in the
last phase the study is finalised and disseminated.
We suggest some methods and tools to implement the activities defined for
each phase (Table 1). Semi-structured interviews can be used to collect
different kinds of data, and to develop a trustful relationship with the
interviewee. In LMICs, in a stable situation, Zurbrugg (2003) suggests preparing
detailed questionnaires and lists of data to collect; in an unstable situation like
an armed conflict we think that semi-structured interviews would be more
appropriate and allow to collect further information, difficult to ascribe to a
specific topic. Such information can provide the actual reason for a certain
situation or challenge (Schiffer & Hauck 2010), or correlate a challenge with
different aspects (Matter et al. 2013). Questions should be prepared by the
surveyor according to the local conditions and the list of topics suggested in
Table 2. Stakeholders should be identified and evaluated in detail depending on
the SWM system and specific conditions (e.g. municipal level, regional level)
(Holland 2007). The stakeholder network should be assessed as well, since
several studies underline its importance for natural resource management
(Warner 2005, Parrot et al. 2012, Wyborn & Bixler 2013). Material flow analysis
(MFA) (Brunner 2001, Mastellone et al. 2009) and composition analysis (ASTM
2008) can address the evaluation of operational aspects, and data analysis.
Despite the scarcity of good data, spatial analysis can produce both important
results (e.g. distance calculation, identification of hot areas), and maps useful to
communicate with local stakeholders. Also block diagrams can help to develop
a system model and to facilitate the dissemination of results. Similarly problem
and objective/solution trees can facilitate the identification of challenges and
specific appropriate solutions. Regular debriefing with local partners is
suggested, while several free-of-charge computer programs (e.g. Google Earth,
QGIS, STAN, Ucinet, Coogle) are available on the web for activity
implementation.
Table 1 – Description of the assessment phases, with respective activities and suggested
methodology.
Step Assessment
phase Activity Methods and Tools
0 Identification Identification of area to assess, objectives and field counterpart
Meetings, VoIP software (e.g. Skype) and emails
1 Mission
preparation
Documents identification and analysis (from both primary and secondary sources)
Literature and desk review
Determination of general features of the area to assess (e.g. disposal sites, service providers, important points like transfer stations) and institutional aspects
Documents analysis (including indications from field counterpart and data collected by them)
Drawing of a draft scheme of the system, and possibly locating all the interesting points on a map
Block diagram (mind mapping software) and GIS (e.g. Google Earth, QGIS)
Identification of methods to apply, preparation of required data collection tools, and expected level of accuracy
Organizational aspects --> semi-structured interviews Operational aspects --> material flow analysis, production and composition analysis, list of assets, technical drawings Economic and financial aspects --> semi-structured interviews Social aspects --> stakeholder
identification (e.g. stakeholder analysis, social network analysis)
Preliminary discussion and mission planning with local counterpart
VoIP software (e.g. Skype) and emails with field staff
Preparation of draft work plan for I field mission
Gantt chart
2 I field mission
Data collection from primary sources and identification of further secondary sources
Meetings, interviews, documents collection, field visits, collection of GPS coordinates, sampling and analyses
Preliminary checking of collected data (completeness, reliability)
Regular debriefing with local staff and available data, specific questions to experts during interviews
Reorganization of activities Debriefing with local staff
3 Data process
Documents and data analysis Use of computer programs (e.g. QGIS, Google Earth, Spreadsheets, Ucinet)
Data cross-checking
Comparison of field data (either primary or secondary) among themselves (consistency) and with literature
Communication with local staff (if required)
VoIP software (e.g. Skype) and emails
Analysis of challenges and constraints, development of a first set of solutions
Problem and objective/solution tree analysis
Starting of study production Writing of findings, identification of still lacking or unclear information
Preparation of draft work plan for II field mission
Gantt chart
4 II field
mission
Final data collection
Meetings, interviews, documents collection, field visits, collection of GPS coordinates, sampling and analyses
Final debriefing with local staff, service providers and experts (results checking and discussion, including adequacy and feasibility of solutions proposed)
Meetings (eventually workshops)
Meetings with secondary stakeholders (e.g. community living close to disposal site, NGOs/CBOs potentially interested)
Meetings (eventually workshops)
Eventual preliminary results and data sharing with stakeholders
Meetings, workshops, conference
5
Final data process,
report production
and dissemination
Final data analysis Use of computer programs (e.g. GIS software, Spreadsheets, STAN, Ucinet)
Preparation of draft version of the report (including solutions finalisation)
Analysis of collected data, finalisations of problem and objective/solution tree analysis, comments and development of recommendations
Report checking with local counterpart and finalization
Report sending, Meetings, VoIP software (e.g. Skype) and emails
Report public presentation Workshops, conferences
Report and results dissemination Online publishing, scientific papers
Table 2 – List of topics for question preparation.
Topic Description
General data General information about the system and stakeholders
Population and area Characteristics of population and the covered area
Laws/regulations Regulation about the environment and waste management
Finance and economy Financial and economic aspects of the system
Waste production and composition
Waste characterization (available studies)
Waste collection Description of waste collection, including equipment and modality and informal sector
Waste disposal of Description of waste disposal including equipment and modality and informal sector
Personnel Details of involved personnel
Fuel Availability, cost and use of fuel
Waste treatment/recycling Description of treatment and recycling activities, including informal sectors
Organization and capacity building
Description of organization and available capacity
Awareness campaigns Description and impact of previous awareness campaigns
Description of the case study area
During armed conflicts even normal operation is often endangered, thus service
providers have to continuously adapt available equipment and personnel to
manage most of the waste. Sometimes service has to be suspended due to
staff security; in such conditions planning is very difficult, and SWM looks
confused and illogical. However the service can be provided in areas that are
not in the core of the conflict, if the authority in charge is still organized and
active. In case of chronic emergency, MSW service is usually somehow
provided.
We considered that some constraints are shared in any armed conflict situation:
Data and reliable sources are scarcely available, due to instability and
high staff turnover in local authorities, international and local
organizations.
The international community almost exclusively supports emergency
projects, with short planning and implementation periods; such conditions
are not appropriate in developing an integrated sustainable waste
management (Van de Kludert & Anschutz 2001).
In acute emergencies, sustainability is usually not the main priority.
Chronic emergency situations cannot be easily differentiated from
situations with chronic structural problems. Thus, in vulnerable contexts,
additional challenges compound the usual challenges towards
sustainability, and increase opportunities for failure (House 2007). We
consider the Gaza Strip a chronic emergency.
The Gaza Strip confirmed the challenges of LMICs and armed conflicts, with
even further constraints:
The area is very limited, and land availability is further reduced by the
conflict with Israel (UNOCHA 2011b).
Population density is 4,647 per/km2, one of the highest in the world, with
a growth rate of 3.5% (PCBS, 2012), with a great need of resources like
water (Feitelson et al. 2012).
The environment has been heavily loaded, spoiling and polluting natural
resources due to overuse and mismanagement of residues (Shomar
2005, Farouk et al. 2009). Thus population needs can no longer be
internally satisfied anymore (UNICEF & PHG 2010).
Due to the conflict, Israel has imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip,
with very strong limitations to importations, including construction
materials, equipment, and spare parts. Exportations are almost
completely forbidden (UNOCHA 2009).
Theoretically the Gaza Strip could be considered “a small island”, an
almost perfectly closed system (Owens et al. 2011). Actually, despite a
small quantity of legally imported material, much more is smuggled from
Egypt through tunnels (Pelham 2012), thus it is not possible to have
reliable information about the total import volume.
The internal political conflict between Hamas and Fatah caused a large
turn-over of technicians, with a consequent loss of experience and
capacity. Such a conflict still affects cooperation with authorities and
between different local administration units (Caniato et al. 2012).
The application in the Gaza Strip
We tested the methodology in the Gaza Strip, in cooperation with an Italian
NGO, COOPI, sharing activities and know-how about the context and SWM.
COOPI had supported municipalities in the Gaza Strip in MSW management for
years. The assessment was conducted between August 2011 and June 2012;
during that period, we had two field missions, in October-November 2011 and in
February 2012 respectively. We applied an open approach with an iterative
process during field missions: we debriefed any activity of data collection (e.g.
interview, visit) with the local COOPI technical staff to verify information; two
times per week, we crosschecked data more carefully to identify what
information was lacking and to reorganize activities. During the data process
phase, we crosschecked data more deeply, discussing unclear information with
field staff through internet. We considered the topics reported in Table 2 to
address the data collection activities. Each topic had a list of questions to
facilitate interviews. The general approach of the assessment was flexible, and
we tried to adapt the plan according to data and new contacts we could identify.
We assessed organizational and social aspects with interviews, by identifying
stakeholders and generally assessing their role and interest. In fact we did not
consider it necessary to carefully analyse each of them, as we focused on the
whole Gaza Strip and not on a particular area. Despite the possibility to apply
methods like stakeholder analysis (SA) and social network analysis (SNA), we
considered that the information collected during interviews was enough for the
purpose of the study: in the area we fully applied SNA and SA for healthcare
waste management only (Caniato et al. 2012). However we investigated the
relationships between service providers, with different administrative levels and
population. We visited garages, workshops, transfer stations, main collection
spots of all the main service providers, and 2 disposal sites out of 3. We had
complete interviews with managers of each of them, and specific interviews with
technicians, disposal site managers and operators. Then we met the
environmental authority, 7 experts/consultants, 3 donors, and 8 organizations
involved in recycling and composting.
We assessed operational aspects with specific questions and then we
processed data with MFA. We simply checked the available data about waste
generation and composition (AbdAlqader & Hamad 2012): in a complex area
like the Gaza Strip, generation and composition analysis would require lots of
time and effort to have reliable results, but fortunately we could compare data
available in the literature with internal reports and records of service providers,
especially related to the disposal sites. Despite some differences in the data,
waste generation and composition could be reasonably assumed.
We converted information (e.g. waste flows, equipment condition and specific
use, position of disposal sites and transfer stations) in a visual form or in tables
as much as possible, to better communicate with service providers, technicians
and local COOPI staff, using free software (e.g. Google Earth and QGIS for
GIS, STAN for MFA, Ucinet for SNA, mind mapping tools like Coogle). Also
problem and objective/solution tree analysis was useful in identifying
appropriate solutions.
Results and discussion
SWM characteristics in the Gaza Strip
MSW production exceeds 1,700 ton/day, while only about 1,300 are disposed of
(Caniato et al. 2013). The remaining part is illegally dumped by people or
companies or indefinitely stocked in transfer stations by service providers. In
transfer stations waste is stocked until the service provider moves it away,
therefore this temporary storage is legal. Some people or companies illegally
dispose of their waste in temporary dumpsites. Such dumpsites are considered
“temporary” because are well known and sometimes cleaned by the service
providers when budget is available. The MSW main component is organic
(52%), followed by plastic (13%), paper (11%), metal (3%) and glass (3%);
other waste (18%) is composed mostly of sand and fine materials (AbdAlqader
& Hamad 2012). Industrial and healthcare wastes are collected by the same
service providers, so they are mixed together and already included in the
previous figures. Organic waste produced by farmers (e.g. animal manure,
clippings) is either buried in fields, composted or burnt; only a very small part is
mixed with MSW flow.
A small quantity of plastic and metal is separated by collectors and waste
pickers, and sold to a few plastic factories and scrap yards. In fact only a small
amount of plastic is recycled in the Gaza Strip, while metal is stocked until the
end of the blockade. According to scrap yard owners, only a limited amount of
recyclables are smuggled to Egypt to finance scrap yard activities.
At the beginning of 2012, 3 composting plants operated in Beit Laiha (UNDP
2012), Khan Younis, and Rafah, with a global capacity of about 3.5 ton/day. A
sorting plant, with a composting area, was established in Rafah in 2012 (Afifi
2012): its capacity is still unknown, since the assessment was carried out before
the completion of the sorting plant. Fig. 2 summarises estimations of material
flows in the Gaza Strip.
Figure 2 – Estimated material flow analysis of SWM system in the Gaza Strip (sources: internal
reports, interviews, DHV et al., 2012) made with STAN.
3 disposal sites are present: one in Johr Al Deek, serving the North and Gaza
Governorates, one in Deir Al Balah, for the Middle and Khan Younis
Governorates, and the last in Sofa, for the Rafah Governorate (The World Bank
2012). The first two are not fenced, but are monitored and incoming waste is
weighed, disposed and covered. The third is fenced, lined and has a leachate
collection and treatment system (Taylor & Allen 2006, Aslaibi et al. 2010). All
the disposal sites are overloaded, thus are supposed to be closed soon, and 1
or 2 new ones should be built with international support (DHV et al. 2012).
Single municipalities, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees (UNRWA), and Solid Waste Management Councils (SWMCs) are the
service providers. A SWMC is a joint service council, an organization gathering
different municipalities to provide public services. Each service provider collects
and delivers waste to a single disposal site (Fig. 3). UNRWA is the only
exception: since it covers all the refugee camps, waste is disposed of in the
closest disposal site.
Figure 3 – SWM system in the Gaza Strip: communities, service providers and landfills.
All the service providers rely on support from international actors for future
planning. They would like to establish sorting and composting plants, with a
centralized and top-down approach, but they do not have enough budget. Some
pilot projects have already failed, like the introduction of a formalized separate
collection and small composting activities. Reasons are different, including
market instability, dependency on subsidies, poor planning and damages
caused by the conflict. In particular, international funding is a good opportunity
to improve SWM, but plants or systems introduced had poor organization and
management, and scarce attention for sustainability, also due to the typology of
funding. Some service providers are used to working in emergency situations,
thus with a short-term perspective. Moreover they are influenced by politics, are
not market-oriented and tend to centralize and control any new SWM activity.
However private companies could be involved, as they have access to financial
resources (Pelham 2012) and are generally more efficient than public
organizations in the Gaza Strip. Starting from the challenges, we applied a
problem and objective/solution tree analysis to identify a possible way forward:
Fig. 4 shows an example of how we have developed solutions starting from
problem identification.
Figure 4 – Process of intervention development for MSW management in the Gaza Strip,
applying problem and objective/solution analysis (example).
Discussion about methodology
We successfully tested all the methods and tools in the Gaza Strip, and we
confirmed both their applicability and effectiveness. The methodology can give
both a general picture of the situation and a specific view of each service
provider, providing a broad range of information, including operations, economy,
management, and social aspects. The level of detail of each aspect depends on
the specific case to analyse. It was not possible to compare the methodology
with standard procedures for areas in armed conflict, since to our knowledge
there are no procedures for this purpose. Questionnaires for developing
countries like those proposed by Zurbrugg (2003) and Guerrero et al. (2013)
were not performed because they are too long and complicated, as already
explained; however some questions were adapted to the local context,
according to the level of detail and either quantitative and qualitative data
available. Not all the information was readily available, but the flexible approach
and semi-structured interviews allowed to identify different sources, and make
some triangulations (e.g. waste production and composition, recycling activities
and quantity collected). In case of a complete lack of official data or
measurements, people directly involved can give at least a personal estimation
of the magnitude of certain practices; for example this approach was adopted to
estimate the quantity of metal stocked in the scrap yards. The methodology
cannot guarantee data reliability, but can give a reliable general picture of the
situation.
We identified all the main material flows, at both the general and the
municipality level, with the respective collection, transportation and disposal
practices. Even if a MFA with quantities is not feasible due to lack of reliable
data, it is still possible to understand the “weak points” of the system, and the
presence of hidden flows generated by informal economy. Bottlenecks,
expected future challenges and potentialities, identified by MFA, can be linked
to other aspects, and facilitate the identification of appropriate solutions.
Applying the methodology, we found that some aspects require particular
attention. All the integrative activities – either cooperative or competitive –, both
formal and informal, affecting SWM should be investigated. The level of
analysis and involvement of stakeholders depends on the case, but they should
be identified and at least briefly evaluated. Moreover, the majority of studies and
information are often available only onsite by asking specific people: reports
and documents written by authorities, NGOs and consultants are neither
published online nor gathered together. Thus sometimes meeting stakeholders
means identifying new documents, and getting information about data reliability
and current representativeness.
Spatial indications are particularly useful to understand the functioning of each
element of the system, and how it interacts with the others. The production of
maps, charts and tables is particularly useful and effective to check data and
discuss solutions with local technicians, experts and in general local people,
despite language barriers.
Data validation is a difficult task, but very important in order to get a realistic
picture of the SWM system. In general the methodology requires resources
(e.g. local and international staff, equipment, logistics) and time, usually not
largely used for assessment in armed conflicts. A surveyor also requires
communication skills and flexibility, to adapt to local conditions and to really
understand challenges and opportunities. However we believe that with a good
assessment we can suggest more effective and sustainable solutions. Flexibility
and adaptability can also help overcome assessment difficulties caused by the
conflict. Considering such positive aspects, we suggest testing such a
methodology in other situations, for instance when the emergency is not
chronic. Time and resources required to assess a SWM system depend on the
system itself.
The methodology requires the presence of a good local counterpart and a
certain stability. However local staff can eventually provide information not
collected during field missions, with indications and training provided by the
surveyor. As well as regular debriefing, such a training can build trust with local
staff, since it is very important to have a reliable local point of view.
Finally report and result sharing is very important for both written documents
(e.g. online publications, scientific papers) and public meetings (e.g.
conferences with donors, authorities, NGOs).
Conclusions
In emergency situations, like an armed conflict, funds are available almost only
for projects with short planning and implementation periods, and sustainability is
not a main priority. Reliable data are scarce or not easily available, and staff in
both local and international organizations have a high turnover. Despite the
challenges, a SWM system can be improved, if it is not directly involved in the
fight. Technicians should identify the actual drivers, including challenges and
potentialities, and propose effective, robust and sustainable solutions.
The methodology we developed has been applied in the Gaza Strip with good
results in terms of quantity and quality of collected data, flexibility and
interaction with stakeholders. Visualization and analysis of data (e.g. maps,
charts) facilitates data checking and communication with local technicians,
overcoming language barriers. Several easy-to-use computer programs are
freely available, and can support assessments even in remote areas. Starting
from the assessment results, COOPI is going to apply some solutions we
suggested in the next project about SWM in the Gaza Strip.
The methodology should be used in other situations, to check applicability in
other conflicts. We could define standard requirements in terms of time and
resources, in order to more easily include an assessment phase about SWM
humanitarian action.
Acknowledgements
This study has been developed within the activities of the “Support to vulnerable
households affected by limited livelihood opportunities in the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip, Occupied Palestinian Territories” project, funded by DG ECHO,
implemented by COOPI. The authors wish to thank all the COOPI staff, both in
Italy and in oPt, for their support in the research activities. Marco Caniato is a
Ph.D. trainee in “Appropriate Methods and Technologies for International
Development Co-operation” of the University of Brescia, supported by the
Alberto Archetti Fund.
References
AbdAlqader, A., & Hamad, J. (2012) Municipal Solid Waste Composition
Determination Supporting the Integrated Solid Waste Management in
Gaza Strip. International Journal of Environmental Science and
Development, 3 (2), 172-176.
Afifi, S. (2012) Enhancing Waste Reduction and Materials Recovery in
Gaza Strip – Palestine “Rafah City Case Study”. In Compendium of
Abstracts, 2nd SWEEP-Net Regional Forum on Integrated SWM,
Marrakech, 15-17 May, pp. 46-47. http://www.sweep-
net.org/sites/default/files/files/Compendium%20of%20Abstract_Second%
20SweepNet%20Forum%281%29.pdf (May 20, 2013).
Ahsan, A., Alamgir, M., Imteaz, M., Nik Daud, N. N., & Islam, R. (2012)
Role of NGOs and CBOs in Waste Management. Iranian Journal of
Public Health, 41 (6), 27-38.
Ali, A. (2010) Wasting time on solid waste in developing countries. Waste
Management, 30, 1437-1438.
Aslaibi, T. M., Mogheir, Y. K., & Afifi, S. (2010) Analysis of landfill
components in estimating the percolated leachate to groundwater using
the HELP model. Water Science & Technology, 62 (8), 1727-1734.
ASTM D5231 Standard Test Method for Determination on the
Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste. ASTM International,
1992 (2008), doi: 10.1520/D5231-92R08.
Brown, C., Milke, M., & Seville, E. (2011) Disaster waste management: A
review article. Waste Management, 31, 1085-1098.
Brunner, P. H. (2001) Materials Flow Analysis: Vision and Reality.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5 (2), 3-5.
Caniato, M., Collivignarelli, C., & Vaccari, M. (2012) Healthcare waste
management in Gaza Strip: challenges and way forward with a
participatory approach. Proceedings of 2012 EPFL – UNESCO
Conference on Technologies for Development “Technology for
sustainable development: a way to reduce poverty?”, EPFL, Lausanne,
29-31 May, ID: 338.
Caniato, M., Vaccari, M., & Collivignarelli, C. (2013) Solid Waste
Management in Gaza Strip: System Analysis, Challenges and
Opportunities. Proceedings of WasteSafe 2013 – 3rd International
Conference on Solid Waste Management in the Developing Countries,
Khulna, 10-12 February, P.26 (1-10).
Collivignarelli, C., Vaccari, M., Di Bella, V., & Giardina, D. (2010)
Techno-economic evaluation for the improvement of MSW collection in
Somaliland and Puntland. Waste Management & Research, 29 (5), 521-
531.
Couth, R., & Trois, C. (2010) Carbon emissions reduction strategies in
Africa from improved waste management: A review. Waste Management,
30, 2336-2346.
DHV, ENFRA, & TECC (2012) Feasibility Study and Detailed Design for
Solid Waste Management in the Gaza Strip. Deliverable of the project
Feasibility Study and Detailed Design for Short-Term and Long-Term
Solid Waste Management in the Gaza Strip assigned by UNDP-PAPP.
Di Bella, V., & Vaccari, M. (2014) Constraints for solid waste
management in Somaliland. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers:
Waste and Resources Management, published online on January 7th,
2014. DOI: 10.1680/warm.12.00023.
Diaz, L. F. (2009) Options for improving solid waste management in
economically developing countries. Waste Management, 29, 1.
Farouk, M., El-Naeem, A., Abu Heen, Z., & Tuball, K. (2009) Factors
behind groundwater pollution by nitrate in North Governorates of Gaza
Strip (1994-2004). Proceeding of Thirteen International Water
Technology Conference, Hurghada, pp. 925-938.
Feitelson, E., Tamimi, A., & Rosenthal, G. (2012) Climate change and
security in the Israeli-Palestinian context. Journal of Peace Research, 49
(1), 241-257.
Guerrero, L. A., Maas, G., & Hogland, W. (2013) Solid waste
management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste
Management, 33 (1), 220-232.
Henry, R. K., Yongsheng, Z., & Jun, D. (2006) Municipal solid waste
management challenges in developing countries – Kenyan case study.
Waste Management, 26 (1), 92-100.
Holland, J. (2007) Tools for institutional, political, and social analysis of
policy reform: a sourcebook for development practitioners. The World
Bank, Washington, USA.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTTOPPSISOU/Resources/1424002
-1185304794278/TIPs_Sourcebook_English.pdf (June 5, 2014).
Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012) What a waste: a global review of
solid waste management. Urban development series, knowledge papers
no. 15. - The World Bank, Washington, USA.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/03/16537275/waste-
global-review-solid-waste-management (June 5, 2014).
House, S. (2007) How to make WASH projects sustainable and
successfully disengage in vulnerable contexts, pp.16-39. ACF
International Network, Paris, France.
http://www.bvsde.paho.org/texcom/desastres/achproys.pdf (June 5,
2014).
IASC (2006) Protecting persons affected by natural disasters. IASC
Operational Guidelines on Human Rights and Natural Disasters, pp. 8-
11. Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement, Washington, USA.
http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/downloadDoc.aspx?docID=4463&re
f=4 (June 5, 2014).
Marshall, R. E., & Farahbakhsh, K. 2013. Systems approaches to
integrated solid waste management in developing countries. Waste
Management, 33, 988-1003.
Mastellone, M. L., Brunner, P. H., & Arena, U. (2009) Scenarios of waste
management for a waste emergency area: A substance flow analysis.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13 (5), 735-757.
Matter, A., Dietschi, M., & Zurbrugg, C. (2013) Improving the informal
recycling sector through segregation of waste in the household – The
case of Dhaka Bangladesh. Habitat International, 38, 150-156.
Medina, M. (2000) Scavenger cooperatives in Asia and Latin America.
Resources, Conversation and Recycling, 31, 51-69.
OCHA (2004) Glossary of Humanitarian Terms in relation to the
Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Policy Development and
Studies Branch, United Nations, New York, USA.
http://www.securitymanagementinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_doc
man&task=doc_download&gid=446&Itemid=28&lang=en (June 5, 2014).
Owens, E. L., Zhang, Q., & Mihelcic, J. R. (2011) Material flow analysis
applied to household solid waste and marine litter on a small island
developing state. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 137 (10), 937-
944.
Parrott, L., Chion, C., Gonzales, R., & Latombe, G. (2012) Agents,
Individuals, and Networks: Modeling Methods to Inform Natural Resource
Management in Regional Landscapes. Ecology and Society, 17 (3), 32.
PCBS (2012) Palestinians at the end of the year, 2012. Ramallah,
Palestine.
Pelham, N. (2012) Gaza’s tunnel phenomenon: The unintended
dynamics of Israeli’s siege. Journal of Palestine Studies, 41 (4), 6-31.
Perkoulidis, G., Karagiannidis, A., Kontogianni, S., & Diaz, L. F. (2011)
Solid waste management in developing countries. Present problems and
future perspectives. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 12
(2), 570-580.
Schiffer, E., & Hauck, J. (2010) Net-Map: Collecting Social Network Data
and Facilitating Network Learning through Participatory Influence
Network Mapping. Field Methods, 22 (3), 231-249.
Shomar, B. H., Muller, G., & Yahya, A. (2005) Geochemical features of
topsoils in the Gaza Strip: Natural occurrence and anthropogenic inputs.
Environmental Research, 98 (3), 372-382.
Taylor, R., & Allen, A. (2006) Waste disposal and landfill: Control and
protection. In: Schmoll, O., Howard, G., Chilton, J., & Chorus, I., (eds.):
Protecting Groundwater for Health: Managing the Quality of Drinking-
water Sources. IWA, London, UK.
The World Bank (2012) Environmental and social impact assessment for
Gaza solid waste management project: executive summary. The World
bank, Washington, USA.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/01/16565483/environm
ental-social-impact-assessment-gaza-solid-waste-management-project-
executive-summary (June 5, 2014).
UNDP (2012) Solid waste management and composting in Beit Lahia –
Gaza Strip. Final report.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/documents/projects/PAL/000590
90/final%20completion%20report%20ivan%20Aug%202012%20PAL10-
73819.pdf (June 5, 2014).
UNEP (2009) Environmental Assessment of the Gaza Strip. UNEP,
Nairobi, Kenya. http://www.unep.org/pdf/dmb/unep_gaza_ea.pdf (June 5,
2014).
UNEP (2010) Waste and Climate Change: Global trends and strategy
framework, pp.14-16. United Nations Environmental Programme,
Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, International
Environmental Technology Centre, Osaka/Shiga, Japan.
http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/spc/Waste&ClimateChange/Wast
e&ClimateChange.pdf (June 5, 2014).
UNHCR (2006) Master Glossary of Terms. UNHCR, Status
Determination and Protection Information Section, Division of
International Protection Services, Geneva, Switzerland.
http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/42ce7d444.pdf (June 5, 2014).
UNICEF & PHG (2010) Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Household
Survey, Gaza. http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/UNICEFWS&HReport.pdf (June
5, 2014).
UNOCHA (2009) LOCKED IN: The humanitarian impact of two years of
blockade on the Gaza Strip.
http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/Ocha_opt_Gaza_impact_of_two_yea
rs_of_blockade_August_2009_english.pdf (June 5, 2014).
UNOCHA (2011) Disaster Waste Management Guidelines, pp.3-6. Joint
UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit, Geneva, Switzerland.
https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/DWMG.pdf (June 5,
2014).
UNOCHA (2011) Easing the blockade.
http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_special_easing_the_blocka
de_2011_03_english.pdf (June 5, 2014).
Vaccari, M., Torretta, V., & Collivignarelli, C. (2012) Effect of improving
environmental sustainability in developing countries by upgrading solid
waste management techniques: A case study. Sustainability, 4, 2852-
2861.
Vaccari, M., Di Bella, V., Vitali, F., & Collivignarelli, C. (2013) From mixed
to separate collection of solid waste: Benefits for the town of Zavidovici
(Bosnia and Herzegovina). Waste Management, 33, 277-286.
Van de Kludert, A., & Anschutz, J. (2001) Integrated sustainable waste
management – the concept; tools for decision-makers – experiences
from the urban waste expertise programme (1995-2001). Waste, Gouda,
NL.
http://www.wastekeysheets.net/pdf/tools_iswm_concept_eng_ebook.pdf
(June 5, 2014).
Warner, J. (2005) Multi-stakeholder platforms: integrating society in
water resource management? Ambiente & Sociedade, 8 (2), 4-28.
Wilson, D. C., Velis, C., & Cheeseman, C. (2006) Role of informal sector
recycling in waste management in developing countries. Habitat
International, 30, 797-808.
Wilson, D. C. (2007) Development drivers for waste management. Waste
Management & Resource, 25 (3), 198-207.
Wilson, D. C., Rodic, L., & Scheinberg, A. (2012) Comparative analysis
of solid waste management in 20 cities. Waste Management &
Research, 30 (3) 237-254.
Wisner, B., & Adams, J. (2002) Environmental health in emergencies and
disaster: a practical guide, pp. 9-23. World Health Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2002/9241545410_eng.pdf (June 5,
2014).
Wyborn, C., & Bixler, R. P. (2013) Collaboration and nested
environmental governance: Scale dependency, scale framing, and cross-
scale interactions in collaborative conservation. Journal of Environmental
Management, 123, 58-67.
Zurbrugg, C. (2003) Municipal Solid Waste Management – Defining the
Baseline. EAWAG/SANDEC, Duebendorf, Switzerland.
http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/sandec/publikationen/swm/dl/Zurbruegg_
2003_Baseline.pdf (June 5, 2014).
Zurbrugg, C., Gfrerer, M., Ashadi, H., Brenner, W., & Kuper, D. (2012)
Determinants of sustainability in solid waste management – The Gianyar
Waste Recovery Project in Indonesia. Waste Management, 32, 2126-
2133.