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.

Figure 1 – Process diagram of the proposed methodology.

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.