See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319185682

Concept Paper Zero Waste: A Sustainable Approach for Waste Management

Working Paper · August 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19752.67847

CITATIONS READS

0 14,161

4 authors, including:

Panate Manomaivibool Pannipha Dokmaingam

Mae Fah Luang University Mae Fah Luang University
66 PUBLICATIONS   523 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   118 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mongkonkorn Srivichai
Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna Chiang Rai
22 PUBLICATIONS   141 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Case Study Project: Best Practices in Local Procurement and Employment in the Tourism Industry View project

Establishing the baseline for assessing the development of sustainable tourist destinations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Panate Manomaivibool on 20 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Concept Paper
Zero Waste: A Sustainable Approach for Waste Management
Prepared by

Dr. Panate Manomaivibool, School of Science,

Mae Fah Laung University

Ms. Pattayaporn Unroj, Division of Research

Services, Mae Fah Luang University

Dr. Pannipha Dokmaingam, School of Health

Science, Mae Fah Luang University

Dr. Mongkonkorn Srivichai, Faculty of

Engineering, Rajamangala University of
Technology Lanna (Chiang Rai)

* Corresponding author: panate.man@mfu.ac.th

1.0 Zero Waste

Zero waste is defined here as a concerted effort to minimize waste disposal with an
ultimate goal to avoid it completely. Although it is not possible to achieve zero waste generation,
landfill diversion should be encouraged as much as possible. Waste disposal can be avoided
through the 3Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. The 3Rs are most effective when implemented early in
the product’s life cycle. Therefore, source separation is a necessary component of zero waste and
in developing countries can best be promoted with community-based management (CBM).
2.0 Rationale
Traditional municipal solid waste management (MSWM) based on an outdated paradigm
of public health is not sustainable. Environmentally speaking, the focus of MSWM on waste
removal is nothing more than problem shifting. Waste is removed from the city to the rural areas.
Waste collection and a long-distance transportation to the disposal site contribute to climate
change. Worse still, waste disposal technologies such as incinerators and landfill can turn waste
into more hazardous pollution such as dioxins and furans from incineration and methane, a potent
greenhouse gases, and leachate from landfill. The hazard exemplified, if toxic waste is not
separately treated and mixed with municipal solid waste.
From an economic perspective, waste disposal is like burning or throwing away money
literally. Energy may be recovered from the waste but previous studies have consistently shown
that it is not profitable to make energy out of mixed waste by incinerating or landfilling it. Waste
disposal remains the primary function of incinerators and landfill, regardless of the fancier names
such as waste-to-energy facilities or bioreactors. These facilities rely heavily on tipping fees, not
the revenues from energy production. Waste disposal lead to loss of natural resources which
otherwise can be reused or recycled. Recycling industries are also more labor intensive and create
more jobs than waste disposal industries. Another social benefit from promoting the 3Rs is
environmental awareness and youth education. Source separation is one of the pro-environmental
activities that can easily be practiced by everyone.

1
3.0 Goal and Strategy
“0” waste disposal may sound too ambitious a goal. But by looking at the composition of
mixed solid waste (Figure 1), all can agree that a significant avoidance is possible. In developing
countries like Thailand, it is common to have between 50-60% of wet weight of waste consisted
of organic, compostable materials. Most of other inorganic fractions can be recycled if separated
and in good conditions. Community hazardous waste is normally no more than 3%. Therefore,
cutting waste disposal by half is not unrealistic. Some zero villages in Chiang Rai has achieved the
level of 90% reduction compared to the amount of waste it sent to landfill at the beginning of the
zero waste campaign in our action research.

Figure 1 A typical waste composition in Chiang Rai.

Source: (Manomaivibool 2015; Dokmaingam 2016)

A strategy is needed to meet this ambitious goal. It must be able to encourage source
separation by having households and other waste generators making curtailments and other
behavioral modifications. In order to foster a long-lasting behavioral changes, it is important to
target waste fraction strategically and design actions carefully. Many developed countries had
started by targeting recyclables but it was when they controlled the disposal of organic fractions
such as food waste that the largest impact could be seen in terms of landfill diversion. The waste
composition analysis shows that the potential for avoidance can be even higher in developing
countries. Once organic waste that has caused bad odors and other problems is separated, the
separation of the others is much easier. The fact that the actions are easy encourages households
to break the old habit. Community-based management of waste requires appropriate technologies
that are not alien but fit in with the local context. This will make source separation natural and
allows behavioral changes.
4.0 Case Study
Chiang Rai has limited capacity when it comes to traditional MSWM. Waste generation has
been increasing standing at 0.99 kg per person per day in 2015. But there are only two sanitary
landfill sites for 1.2 million people who live in the province. Only a quarter of the generated waste
is disposed of at these sites. In addition, 81 out of 143 did not have the capacity to provide waste
removal services. People in these sub-districts have to manage their own waste. While this can be
viewed as a shortcoming of the system, the fact that people have been taken care of their own
residues offers an opportunity for zero waste.
Since 2014, a group of researchers from Mae Fah Luang University (MFU) and
Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna (Chiang Rai – RMUTL) have been promoting zero

2
waste as an alternative framework for waste management. The research action was initially
supported by the Thai Health Promotion Foundation. In the first year 6 communities in Chiang
Rai passed the screening stage and participated in a national Zero Waste competition run by the
Department of Environmental Quality Promotion (DEQP). Baan Phong Srinakorn from Pa Dat
District eventually won the 1st prize for the small-sized class. Based on the initial success, the
academic team joined the Chiang Rai Provincial Administrative Organization (CR PAO) to form
Chiang Rai Zero Waste (CRZW) in 2015. CRZW encourages communities to manage waste at
source. The strategy is to first having households manage organic waste in their backyard, i.e. trying
to shift people’s attitude regrading waste known as NIMBY from “not in my backyard” to “now
in my backyard”.
The first project of CRZW was a provincial competition for home composters. People in
the north had an equipment called Sa-whieng (see Figure 2). It was traditionally made of bamboo
and used to temporary store rice after harvest in the old days. In a few pilot sites, households used
Sa-whieng to manage their own organic fraction. The research found that this simple technology
allows the owners to separate waste on a regular basis. The project increased public acceptance of
this appropriate technology. Within a period of 2 months, 105 villages in Chiang Rai participated
in the competition. CRZW in its second year has carefully selected 18 villages, one in each district
for the 18 districts in Chiang Rai to be developed as a model for sustainable community-based
waste management. In addition to having Sa-whieng in every household, the other two conditions
for the model villages are having households separating recyclables and grows home garden using
compost from Sa-whieng. On 16 September 2016, the work of the 18 villages will be displayed in
an exhibition at Central Plaza Chiang Rai.

Figure 2 Sa-whieng – and appropriate technology to

manage organic waste at home

The model of CRZW works well in an agricultural context which in turn allows it to spread.
In 2016 DEQP’s competition, Chiang Rai had 17 villages passed the screening stage out of 89
communities nationwide. This is the highest ever from one province since the start of the
competition. There are 4 villages from Pa Det District; 1 from Chiang Khong District; 5 from
Phan District (the working site of RMUTL); 2 from the Muang District and 1 from Mae Jan
District (the working site of MFU); and 4 from Theong District (the joint working site of the two
universities). Baan Don Yaeng from Theong District is a finalist for the medium-sized class. It is
worth noting that this was the outcome of work in previous years. Only 4 of 18 model villages of
CR PAO participated in this year competition. Baan Phong Srinakorn had already won and be lift
to the status of DEQP’s national learning center. Another 13 just started the project at the
beginning of the year and decided not to submit their application. However, the project evaluation

3
 in May 2016 shows that they have become as strong as the other 4 villages and should not have
any problem passing the screening stage if they join next year. The success of Chaing Rai is well
accepted and was selected as a case study for the special committee of National Assembly together
with Sakol Nakorn for lesson drawing.

Figure 3 The Governor of Chiang Rai and Mae Fah Luang University celebrated the success of 17 villages selected as one of
89 DEQP’s 2016 Zero Waste communities on 1 June 2016.

View publication stats