Waste Management 30 (2010) 921933

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

A comparison of municipal solid waste management in Berlin and Singapore

Dongqing Zhang a,*, Tan Soon Keat b, Richard M. Gersberg c
a

DHI-NTU Centre, Nanyang Environment and Water Research Institute, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore Maritime Research Centre, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore c Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Hardy Tower 119, 5500 Campanile, San Diego CA 92182-4162, USA
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
A comparative analysis of municipal solid waste management (MSWM) in Singapore and Berlin was carried out in order to identify its current status, and highlight the prevailing conditions of MSWM. An overview of the various aspects of MSWM in these two cities is provided, with emphasis on comparing the legal, technical, and managerial aspects of MSW. Collection systems and recycling practiced with respect to the involvement of the government and the private sector, are also presented. Over last two decades, the city of Berlin has made impressive progress with respect to its waste management. The amounts of waste have declined signicantly, and at the same time the proportion that could be recovered and recycled has increased. In contrast, although Singapores recycling rate has been increasing over the past few years, rapid economic and population growth as well as change in consumption patterns in this city-state has caused waste generation to continue to increase. Landlling of MSW plays minor role in both cities, one due to geography (Singapore) and the other due to legislative prohibition (Berlin). Consequently, both in Singapore and Berlin, waste is increasingly being used as a valuable resource and great efforts have been made for the development of incineration technology and energy recovery, as well as climate protection. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Accepted 21 November 2009

1. Introduction Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is an integral part of urban environmental planning. The characteristics and quantity of MSW arising from domestic, commercial and industrial activities in a region is not only the result of growing population, rising standards of living and technology development, but also due to the abundance and type of the regions natural resources. The collection, transport, treatment and disposal of solid wastes, particularly wastes generated in medium and large urban centres, have become a relatively difcult problem to solve (UNEP, 2005). To promote sustainable development, waste management has evolved into material ow management in many developed countries, and includes careful handling of raw materials and reduction of emissions as well as climate/environment protection. This study compares MSWM in two cities Singapore and Berlin, Germany with regard to MSW generation and composition, the methods of collection, disposal and recycling. The two cities were chosen for this comparative study due to their similar social-economic condition (e.g., population size and density, total geographic area and economic performance (Gross Domestic Product). The objective of this paper is to show, with respect to MSWM,

how the rather different geography (land availability), structure of urban housing, recent rates of population growth, and regulatory regimes, between the two cities might allow a better appreciation and understanding how MSWM is shaped by these external forces. 2. Demography of Singapore and Berlin, Germany Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of Berlin, Germany and Singapore. Berlin is Germanys largest city in terms of land area and the second most populous city in Germany. It covers a land area of 892 km2 with a population of 3.4 million within its city limits. Singapore is a small but highly urbanized and industrialized city-state with strong focus on the manufacturing and service sectors in Southeast Asia, located about 137 km north of the Equator, and has a total population of 4.84 million people (2008). Singapore has a land area of 682.7 km2 and faces severe land scarcity problem (Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, 2008). Since 1960, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) in Singapore has been responsible for planning and developing quality public housing and related facilities. With a very high population density of 7088 person/km2 and a land area of 682.7 km2 (see Table 1), Singapore can be considered a land-scarce country, and almost 83% of the residents live in multi-story high-rise public housing buildings (Kalaiarasan et al., 2009). In contrast, the typical German family often lives in a condominium, row house and/or a

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 8165 6212; fax: +65 6790 6620. E-mail address: dqzhang@ntu.edu.sg (D. Zhang). 0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.017

922

D. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 921933

Table 1 Geographical and social-economical data of Berlin and Singapore. Berlin (2005) Inhabitants Area (km2) Density (PE/km2) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (PPP)
a b c

3.2. Singapore In Singapore, the goal of waste management is to establish a sound material recycling society through the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, and recycle). The legislation dealing with solid waste management is the Environmental Pollution Control Act (EPCA). It came into force on the rst of May, 1999 and is a consolidation of existing legislations on the control of air, water and waste, including the Environmental Public Health Act (HPHA) and the regulations passed under EPHA (APCEL Report, 2006; Bai and Sutanto, 2002; Foo, 1997):  Environmental Public Health (Public Cleansing) Regulations (1970).  Environmental Public Health (Toxic Industrial Waste) Regulations (1988).  Environmental Public Health (General Waste Collection) Regulations.  Environmental Public Health (Corrective Work Order) Regulations. Solid waste management in Singapore is traditionally undertaken by the Ministry of Environment. Under the Public Cleansing and General Waste Collection Regulations, all generated solid waste has to be collected in Singapore. 4. Waste generation and composition 4.1. Berlin Different types of municipal solid waste in Berlin can be categorized in terms of their origins, as follows:  Domestic refuse waste: comes mainly from private households. The local authority takes solely the responsibility of the household waste management service. Some 70% of municipal waste in Berlin is domestic waste, and the rest 30% is trade or industrial waste.  Trade waste: produced by enterprises and comes mostly from service providers, retailers and small business.  Commercial waste: produced by small business, retail shops, service companies, public institutions or industrial rms.  Bulky waste: mainly comes from private household. This kind of solid waste is too bulky to t into the normal bins or containers, which is therefore collected separately from the other domestic waste.  Road sweepings: can include vehicle tyre particles and worn road surface, dead leaves, and grit spread in the winter. Fig. 1 illustrates the development of MSW generation over the period 19962005 in Berlin. In 1996, the overall quantity of MSW produced in Berlin, which includes both disposed and recycled waste, totaled 2.12 million tonnes. By 2005, this had been reduced to 1.68 million tonnes, a reduction of 20.75%. Since early 1990s, there has been a remarkable decline in the amount of disposed waste by incineration and landll. In 1992, there was 2.32 million tonnes of waste for disposal, and this had fallen by 2007 to only 0.97 million tonnes, which represents a reduction in the municipal waste disposed by incineration and landll in Berlin of approximately 60% (Schulze, 2009). In addition, as recyclable waste (e.g., organic waste, paper, light-packaging waste) accounts for approximately 80% of the total amount of commercial waste (Schwilling et al., 2004), great efforts have been made on separation and recycling of recyclable waste and therefore, commercial waste has reduced to 10-fold over the period 19922007.

Singapore (2008) 4839,400 682.7b 7088c 53,110b

b

3395,189 892a 3806c 39,004a

Thrmer (2007). Yearbook of Statistics Singapore (2008). Population density = inhabitants/area.

detached single-family home. The most common type of housing in Berlin is the 19th century block apartment with a primary and secondary courtyard. 3. Legislation on waste management 3.1. Germany Waste management in Germany has evolved substantially since the early 1970s. The rst independent Waste Disposal Act was adopted in Germany in 1972 and its primary aim was to shut down uncontrolled refuse dumps and replace them with central, regulated and supervised landll sites. The latter falls under the responsibility of the regional and local governments (Schnurer, 2002). Instead of creating new landll sites and incineration plants, the new Waste Avoidance and Management Act of 1986 was introduced, and stipulated by the principle that the avoidance and recycling of waste were to be given precedence over waste disposal. Thereafter, according to BMU (2009), a series of legislation, ordinances, administrative provisions and voluntary commitments of waste management has been put in place. In particular, these include the following:  German Packaging Ordinance (1991).  Technical Instructions on the Storage, Chemical, Physical and Biological Treatment, Incineration and Storage of Waste Requiring Particular Supervision (1991).  Technical Instructions on Waste from Human Settlement (1993).  Act for Promoting Closed Substance Cycle Waste Management and Ensuring Environmentally Compatible Waste Disposal (KrW-/AbfG) (1994).  Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act (1996).  Waste Storage Ordinance (2001). These ordinances and acts have been discussed by various authors such as Vehlow (1996), Schnurer (2002), Schulze (2009), Giegrich and Vogt (2005), and Municipal Solid Waste Management Report (2006), etc. In addition, European Union (EU) waste law forms the legally binding basis for waste legislation of the EU Member States and Germany is required to translate all EU Regulations and EU Directives, into national legislation within a stated period, e.g., European Landll Directive (1999), European Waste Incineration Directive (2000), and European Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (1994). In Berlin, the Act for Promoting Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management and Ensuring Environmentally Compatible Waste Disposal in Berlin came into force in 1999 (Schulze, 2009). Land Berlin is responsible for the disposal of the waste generated within the city. The duties relating to the collection and disposal of waste from private households and of disposable waste from other sources are entrusted to the Berliner Stadtreinigungsbetriebe (BSR). Construction waste is disposed of by the Berlin Department for Health, the Environment and Consumer Protection. At present, there is no specic legislative instrument that prevents Berlin from disposing of its waste outside its area.

D. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 921933

923

Tonnes/year
2,500,000
2,122,000 2,004,000 1,894,00

2,000,000

1,906,000 1,822,000 1,745,00 1,573,00 1,674,00

1,683,000 1,549,000

1,041,000

1,500,000

1,013,000 979,000 973,000 975,000 956,000 906,000 891,000 905,000 57,000

929,000

1,000,000

97,000

500,000

54,000 39,000 7,000 2,000 400,000 356,000 2,000 270,000 256,000 215,000 144,000 113,000 1,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 17,000 139,000 74,000

1,000 87,000 1,000

1,000 68,000 29,000

1,000 113,000 48,000

574,000 636,000 623,000 642,000 629,000 593,000 546,000 615,000 445,000 504,000

0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Recycled waste Disposed bulky waste

Disposed road sweeping Disposed commercial waste Disposed household waste

Fig. 1. Development of municipal solid waste generation 19962005 in Berlin. (Data source: Wowereit and Lopmscher, 2007.)

Tonnes/year 6,000,000
5,010,000 5,220,000

5,970,000 5,600,000 4,730,000 4,790,000 3,340,000

5,000,000 4,700,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000

1,310,000 1,530,000

1,860,000

2,220,000

2,310,000

2,470,000

2,660,000

3,030,000

1,070,000

1,070,000

1,130,000

1,100,000

1,070,000

1,140,000

1,440,000

1,410,000

1,410,000

1,460,000

1,500,000

1,480,000

0 1998 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Disposed domestic waste Disposed non-domestic waste Recycled waste

Fig. 2. Development of municipal solid waste generation 19982008 in Singapore. (Data source: Yearbook of Statistic Singapore, 2009.)

4.2. Singapore Solid waste in Singapore can be broadly classied into three main categories:  Domestic refuse (solid waste generated by households, markets, food centers and commercial premises such as hotels, restaurants, shops, etc.).  Industrial refuse (not including toxic and hazardous waste that requires special handling, treatment and disposal).  Institutional refuse (solid waste from various Government and Statutory Board installations, hospitals, schools, recreational facilities and public development project). Fig. 2 shows data for municipal solid waste generation from 1998 to 2008 in Singapore. The total annual generation of MSW has increased steadily from 4.70 million tonnes in 1996

to 5.97 million tons in 2008. Similarly, the generation of domestic waste also shows increasing tendency from 1.31 million tonnes in 1998 to 1.48 million tonnes in 2008. According to NEA and MEWR (2006), the daily output of solid waste in Singapore has escalated from an average refuse output of 1260 tonnes/day in 1970 to 7700 tonnes/day in 2001 and to 7000 tonnes/day in 2005. With the rapid economic and population growth, higher standard of living and changing lifestyles, the refuse output in Singapore has been increasing steadily. Statistics on demographics show that the Singapore population has increased from 3.17 million people in 1998 to 4.84 million people in 2008 (34.5% increase), including 1.2 million of non-resident population and 0.48 million of Permanent Residents. In addition, Singapores GDP has increased from $160 billion in 2000 to $257 billion in 2008 (61% increase) (Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, 1998; Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, 2008).

924

D. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 921933

Textile/leather, 1.56% Glass, 0.96% Sludge, 1.92%

Scrap tyres, 0.42%

Others, 5.16% Food waste, 9.51%

Used slag, 9.48% Paper/cardboard, 21.15%

Metals, 14.56%

Plastic, 11.46% Horticaltural waste, 3.84% Wood/timber, 4.52% Constructed debrits, 15.44%

Fig. 3. Composition of municipal solid waste in Singapore in 2008. (Data source: NEA National Environment Agency, 2008.)

However, according to the National Environment Agency Singapore (NEA, 2008), the waste disposal rate in 2006, 2007 and 2008 is 0.89, 0.88, and 0.84 kg/day/capita, respectively. By comparison, the domestic waste rate showed a similar value for Berlin 0.88 kg/ day/capita in 2007 (Schulze, 2009), pointing to the fact that population growth alone is most probably the major cause of the rapid growth of MSW in Singapore. Fig. 3 illustrates the typical municipal solid waste composition (excluding hazardous waste) in 2008 in Singapore. The highest proportion is made up of paper (21.15%), followed by construction debris (15.44%) and ferrous metals (13.14%). A signicant difference can be observed then this composition is compared to that of in 2000 (Bai and Sutanto, 2002). The latter indicated that the concentration of the kitchen waste in urban solid waste makes up the highest proportion (38.83%), and followed by paper (20.6%) and wood (8.91%). In Singapore, plastics make up only

11.46% of the total MSW (see Fig. 3). By comparison, the highest proportion of municipal solid waste in Berlin is plastics (23%), followed by paper (20%) and food waste (15%) (see Fig. 4). 4.3. Common features in Berlin and Singapore In both Berlin and Singapore, paper/cartons are the major fraction of the MSW. The higher percentage of plastics in Berlin shows increasing avoidance of using glass for beverage container which has been substituted by returnable plastic bottles. In contrast, there was no information to indicate that Singapore has any system of a bottle bill/deposit. If residents were required to pay deposits on glass and metal container, then the capture rates for these recyclable materials would increase. Alternatively, plastic rellable bottles could be encouraged as this would minimize the need for glass production.

Compound, 7% Other trade waste, 11% Mineral material , 2% Textile, 1% Plastic, 23% Organic waste, 15%

Wood, 13%

Metal, 2% Glass, 7% Paper/carton, 20%

Fig. 4. Composition of municipal solid waste in Berlin in 2003 (percentage in weight). (Data source: Schwilling et al., 2004.)

D. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 921933

925

5. Waste collection 5.1. Berlin In general, waste generated in Berlin is collected in the following ways:  Domestic refuse is regularly collected by public waste utilities in standard containers, and transported away for further treatment. All households are obliged to take part in this system and to pay the waste collection fees charged by the local public collection service supervised by the local or municipal authority. In Berlin, this is BSR.  Trade waste is collected together with household waste. In the typical residential buildings in Berlins inner-city, the small businesses frequently share the waste containers with the apartment dwellers in the same building.  Commercial waste is produced either by small business, service companies, public institutions or industrial rms, or is contracted by a specialist company for collection. It is mostly collected in large or small containers and taken by the producer or the contracted collection company to the waste disposal plant, where it is treated together with the household waste.  Bulky waste can be collected by BSR and taken for recycling or disposal. Usually there is a charge for this service.  Road sweepings are collected by the BSR road sweeping vehicles and disposed of. In order to reduce the quantities of household waste requiring treatment, in Germany many municipal authorities have adopted or are considering more far-reaching measures to separate/sort and recycle bulky waste, organic waste and other types of packaging waste (see Section 8).

For solid waste from institutional and commercial premises, SEMAC Pte Ltd. remains to be the main collector, while industrial solid waste is still collected by the licensed private waste contributors (Bai and Sutanto, 2002; NEA and MEWR, 2006). According to Foo (1997), the overall system of daily solid waste management begins with a network of collection vehicles, operated by both public and private sectors, to mechanical compactors, transfer stations and container trucks before reaching incineration plants or sanitary landlls. 6. Sanitary landll 6.1. Berlin The Municipal Solid Waste Management Report in Germany (2006) indicated that methane emissions from landlls have in the past account for about 25% of the total methane emissions in Germany. Therefore, landlling of untreated waste with high organic content or leakage of contaminants has been prohibited since June 2001 by the waste disposal act which specically refers to domestic waste in Germany (BMU, 2005; Hempen, 2005; Berghoff and Kim, 2006; Wagner and Bilitewski, 2009). In recent years, the need for landlls has been reduced significantly in Germany. Major reasons are the increasing amount of waste which has been channeled for recycling and recovery. The remaining solid waste goes to waste incineration, for coincineration in coal-red power-stations, cement kilns and for mechanical and biological treatment. After the above-mentioned deadline in 2005, only the low caloric fraction from mechanical biological treatment facilities, slag/ashes from waste incineration and construction/demolition waste are allowed in landlls. This development has led to a situation that no new landlls are necessary in Germany and several hundred old landlls need to be closed down. For example, in the 1970s, Germany had around 50,000 landlls, while in 2000 the number of landlls had reduced dramatically to 333 (Schnurer, 2002; Hempen, 2005). At present, there are only about 160 landll sites still in operation nationwide and in Berlin, there are currently three landll sites (Schulze, 2009). At the same time, there has been a signicant increase in the number of waste incineration plants (from seven incinerators with capacity of 718,000 tonnes/year in 1965 to 72 incinerators with capacity of 17,800,000 tonnes/year in 2007) (BMU, 2005), and also mechanicalbiological plants for municipal waste disposal. 6.2. Singapore In Singapore all three landlls in Singapore are outside the city limits. In addition, over the past 35 years, there has been a 2.09 million tonnes increase in the amount of solid waste generated (NEA, 2008). This growth in solid waste generation has imposed considerable demand on waste management and disposal facilities. Therefore, landlling is the last option in the MSW management decision in Singapore, although it still plays signicant roles in other countries. Because of limited land space, landll capacity in Singapore is principally reserved for the waste that cannot be treated or disposed of in any other way. About 91% of waste collected is incinerated, and the remaining 9%, along with the ash generated from incineration are disposed of at Semakau landll (NEA and MEWR, 2006). On the mainland, Singapore once had two landll sites. The Lim Chu Kang dumping ground in the north-western part of Singapore was lled in 1992, and the Lorong Halus dumping ground in the north-eastern part of Singapore reached its capacity in 1999 (Bai and Sutanto, 2002).

5.2. Singapore Two collection methods have been adopted in Singapore (Foo, 1997; Bai and Sutanto, 2002):  Direct collection: waste is directly collected from individual households, especially from private residential estates and shop houses. This method is time consuming and labor intensive.  Indirect collection: which includes two types: (i) as used in old high-rise apartment blocks where waste is stored in substantial amounts in bulk containers at the foot of the block; (ii) centralized refuse-chute (CRC) system that has been implemented in newer ats since 1989. Refuse is discharged directly through common hoppers located in individual ats to the central refuse container. Thereafter, waste is transferred from a central refusechute of each apartment block to the waste collection truck mechanically. The introduction of CRC system has greatly improved the efciency of domestic waste collection and increased the control of smell and leakage during collection and transportation. Prior to 1996, waste collection came under the responsibility of the Environmental Health Department (EHD) of ENV and the private waste collectors. EHD provided daily collection services to domestic households, trade and institutional premises, while the private waste collectors served mainly industrial premises, commercial buildings, shopping centers, construction sites, etc. (Bai and Sutanto, 2002; NEA and MEWR, 2006). To introduce competition, improve collection efciency and service quality, ENV started to liberalize the collection services in 1998 (Bai and Sutanto, 2002; NEA and MEWR, 2006).

926

D. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 921933

8,000 tonnes, 1%

7,000 tonnes, 1%

340,000 tonnes, 36%

505,400 tonnes, 54%

74,000 tonnes, 8% MA MPS MBT Incineration Landfill & others

Fig. 5. Waste disposal in 2008 in Berlin. (Data source: BSR, 2008) (MA: Mechanical treatment; MPS: Mechanicalphysical stabilization; MBT: Mechanicalbiological treatment.)

Presently, Semakau Landll, an offshore landll that is created to meet waste disposal needs, is Singapores only landll for waste disposal. The facility covers a total area of 350 ha and has a landll capacity of 63 million m3. Semakau landll is situated 25 km south of mainland Singapore (Khoo, 2009; Bai and Sutanto, 2002). According to the Ministry of Environment (1998), it is predicted that phase 1 will be lled by 2019, phase 2 by 2027 and phase 3 by 2045. However, the lifespan of the Semakau facility will largely depend on future solid waste generation and the disposal option. Only inorganic waste and ash are allowed at Semakau landll. 7. Incineration and other methods for solid waste disposal 7.1. Berlin Over the last years the need for landlls has been reduced signicantly in Germany and the major reasons are the increasing amount of waste that has been recycled and recovered (e.g., paper, light-packaging, construction waste, bio-waste, etc.). Much of the remaining solid waste not recycled, is incinerated, for co-incineration, mechanicalphysical stabilization (MPS) and for mechanical and biological treatment (MBT). Mechanicalphysical stabilization and mechanicalbiological treatment are innovative methods for solid waste treatment in an environmentally friendly manner. Both methods rely on sorting and separating the waste into either combustible fraction (that may be used for waste-to-energy recovery), or in the case of MBT, into a biodegradable fraction that is subjected to biological treatment and then composted under aerobic conditions. In Berlin, two MPS plants are in operation in Pankow (with a capacity of 160,000 tonnes/year) and Reinickendorf (with a capacity of 180,000 tonnes/year) with total capacities of 340,000 tonnes/year (approximately 36% of total amount of waste disposal in 2008). In addition, there is currently one MBT plant located on the outskirts of Berlin (Schneiche Plant with a capacity of 74,000 ton-

nes/year) (approximately 8% of total amount of waste disposal in 2008). Fig. 5 illustrates the waste disposal in 2008 in Berlin. The total amount of disposed waste is 934,400 tonnes, in which 505,400 tonnes went for incineration and accounted for 54% of the total amount of disposed waste in 2008. Currently, there is one incineration plant (The Ruhleben Incineration Plant) with a total annual capacity of up to 520,000 tonnes/year, and forms the center piece of Berlins waste disposal plan (Thrmer, 2007). In terms of by-products, metals are separated out for recycling, the slag can be reused after reprocessing, and the energy output can be used as heat and electric power. Only small quantities of scrubber residue are left over to be disposed of as waste. The remaining scrap metal is removed from the slag. This procedure contributes approximately 13,000 tonnes of ferrous scrap annually (Schulze, 2009). Most of the slag and ash are recovered for use in civil engineering projects (e.g., road construction). 7.2. Singapore At present, Singapore has four incinerators: Tuas (2000 tonnes/ day), Ulu Padan (1700 tonnes/day), Senoko (2400 tonnes/day), and Tuas South Incinerator (3000 tonnes/day) (see Table 2). The total capacity of 8200 tonnes/day was sufcient for incineration of all the solid waste in Singapore until 2007. With the anticipated average annual increase of 5% in waste generation, additional incineration capacity is necessary. A fth incineration plant (the waste-to-energy plant), located at Tuas South and run by Keppel Seghers Engineering Singapore Pte Ltd. and built under the PublicPrivate Partnership (PPP), has been in operation since early 2009 and is able to treat 800 tonnes/day of solid waste and generate more than 20 MW of green energy (Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR), 2008). In addition, one of the strategies to decrease the amount of waste to be disposed in landll is to recycle incineration bottom ash and non-combustible waste disposed of at the landll (Lang, 2007).

Table 2 Incineration plants in Singapore (NEA Singapore, 2008; Khoo, 2009; NEA and MEWR, 2006). Location of incineration plant Ulu Pandan Tuas Senoko Tuas South Year built 1979 1986 1992 2000 Construction cost (million) 130 200 560 900 Boiler/incinerator 4 5 6 6 units units units units Capacity (tonnes/day) 1100 1700 2400 3000

D. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 921933

927

Tonnes/year
2,500,000

2,000,000 Recycled waste Disposed waste 1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fig. 6. The development of recycled and disposed waste from 19922007 in Berlin. (Data source: Schulze, 2009.)

8. Waste recycling 8.1. Berlin Germanys high material, energy and labor and waste disposal costs favour the economics of recovering, reuse and recycling as much waste as possible. The waste management in Berlin has been developed towards resource management. Two main biodegradable municipal waste fractions are paper waste and bio-waste from households and municipal services. The strategies for waste recycling are: (1) to separate bio-waste collection and treatment to reduce biodegradable waste going to landlls; (2) to increase material recycling of paper, glass, plastic and metal; (3) to intensify the activities of waste-to-energy and climate protection. Fig. 6 illustrates the development of recycled and disposed waste from 19922007 in Berlin. While the amount of disposed waste has been declining, the amount of recycled waste has stea-

dily increased. Whereas only 269,000 tonnes was recovered in 1992, the amount of recycled waste has increased to 650,000 tonnes in 2007. The proportion being recycled rose from about 10% in 1992 to more than 40% in 2007 (Schulze, 2009). High recovery rates were achieved through separate collection of glass, paper, cardboard, light weight packaging and organic wastes. Table 3 presents the composition of Berlins disposed and recycled municipal solid waste in 2007. The total generation of municipal solid waste was 1618,000 tonnes in 2007, in which the total disposed of and recycled wastes were 968,000 tonnes and 650,000 tonnes, respectively, which accounted for 59.8% and 40.2% of the total generated waste respectively. In terms of domestic waste, the disposal and recycling percentage was 65% and 35%, respectively. Domestic bulky waste and road sweepings were completely recycled, while trade and commercial waste were completely disposed of by treatment by incineration plant, or MBT, or MPS. 8.1.1. Bio-waste recycling from domestic waste In Berlins inner-city area, organic waste is collected in separate brown bins by the BSR and taken to one of the composting sites or a fermentation plant. Krogmann (1992) indicated that in residential areas with gardens, considerable uctuations in bio-waste quantity can be detected, dependent on public relations work, available container volume, etc. Despite separate collection, the remaining MSW still contains considerable portions of bio-waste. On average, each individual using an organic waste bin disposes of about 15 kg of bio-waste annually, and a total of 53,000 tonnes of bio-waste is collected every year in Berlin (Schulze, 2009). Bergs (2005) also reported that the separated collected bio-waste has increased from 1 million tonnes in 1990 to 8 million tonnes in 2002 nationwide. In addition, Vogt (2009) reported that bio- and greenwaste are mainly composted in Germany and only bio-waste (from bio-waste bin) is anaerobically digested. Table 4 shows the biowaste generation and disposal in Berlin in 2007. 8.1.2. Packaging waste recycling from domestic waste In order to promote the collection, separation and recycling of packaging from both households and small business, the (Dual System Germany) Duales System Deutschland (DSD) was established. By participating in the DSD system program, manufacturers may attach the Green Dot label to their products. A Green Dot indi-

Table 3 The composition of Berlins disposed and recycled municipal waste in 2007 (Data source: Schulze, 2009). Type of waste Domestic waste For disposal For recycling Trade waste For disposal For recycling Waste recycled by Green dot1 Domestic bulky waste For disposal For recycling Commercial waste For disposal For recycling Road sweeping For disposal For recycling Total Of which disposed Of which recycled Amount in 2007 (tonnes) 1089,000 710,000 379,000 177,00 177,00 0 92,000 118,000 0 118,000 80,000 80,000 0 62,000 1000 61,000 1618,000 968,000 650,000 Percentage by weight (%) 67.3 43.9 (65%) 23.4 (35%) 10.9 10.9 0 5.7 7.3 0 7.3 4.9 4.9 0 3.8 >0.1 3.8 100,0 59.8 40.2 Amount per capita (kg/capitayear) 319.5 208.3 111.2 51.9 51.9 0 27.0 34.6 0 34.6 23.5 23.5 0 18.2 0.3 17.9 474.8 284.1 190.7

928

D. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 921933

Table 4 The amount of bio-waste generation and the disposal methods in 2007 (Data source: Thrmer, 2008). Types of bio-waste Bio-waste from household Leaves collected in bag Loose leaves in street Shrubs and bushes Christmas tree Total Generation amount in 2007 (Mg) 52,800 31,000 32,300 1500 3000400,000 trees 120,600 Percentage in 2007 (%) 44 26 27 1 2 100 Disposal methods Composting and anaerobic digestion Composting Composting Bulky material for composting and thermal utilization Balky material for composting

cates to the consumer that the manufacturer of the product is a participant in the program, and that instead of returning the packaging to the manufacturer or distributor the packaging should be collected, sorted, and recycled through the DSD system. Fig. 7 shows the development of separated collected and recycled packaging waste from households and small enterprises in Berlin 19972003. The total amount of separately collected packaging waste showed a declining trend, and has decreased by around 80,000 tonnes from 1997 to 2003 (20% reduction). Besides

changing packaging material, one of the main reasons for this is the above-mentioned one-way drink packaging, which resulted in the diversion of recycling ow of light-packaging and glass (recycled by the supermarket, shops, etc.). 8.1.3. Non-domestic waste recycling Materials resulting directly from demolition and construction site waste are both of higher value and more difcult to recover and process for reuse. Fig. 8 illustrates the development of non-

500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 99,000 99,000 99,000

90,000

89,000

88,000 80,000

Tonnes

300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1997 1998 Glass 1999 2000 2001 2002 134,000 123,000 119,000 108,000 92,000 85,000 205,000 215,000 214,000

210,000

215,000

212,000

204,000

74,000 2003

Papar/carton

Light-packaging

Fig. 7. Development of the recycled glass, paper and light-packaging waste in Berlin 19972003. (Data source: Schwilling et al., 2004.)

Milliontonnes/year
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 2.3 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 4.1 5.7 3.1 3.7 3.7 1.5 4.5 3.4 3.4 8.4 5.8 5.9 13.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 4.9 0.1 4.6 0.1 4.5 0.5 1.1

Recycled waste

Disposed waste

Fig. 8. Development of non-domestic waste in Berlin 19922003. (Data source: Schwilling et al., 2004.)

D. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 921933

929

domestic waste, namely construction and demolition (C&D) over the period 19922003 in Berlin. The total amount of C&D generation showed a declining tendency (with one exception in 1997, when many new residential buildings were constructed under a special building strategy). In 1992, the total amount of recycled C&D was 2.3 million tonnes and accounted for 35.9% of total C&D generation (6.4 million tonnes), while in 2003 recycled C&D waste increased to 4.6 million tonnes and accounted for 98% of total C&D generation. The percentage of recycling was 86.2% in 2003 in Germany. 8.1.4. Waste-to-energy and climate protection According to Thrmer (2008), the amount of CO2 emission attributable to solid waste in Berlin in 1999 was approximately 605,000 tons, while the amount of CO2 emissions in 2007 had decreased to 150,000 tons. This achievement was attributed to:  The utilization of heat for the generation of combined heating and power (CHP) in the Ruhleben incineration plant.  Generation of combustible material or fuel from household waste for the replacement of non-renewable energy, e.g., coal, natural gas etc.  The capture and utilization of methane from landll.  Energy efciency for construction management.  Application of natural gas for transportation. Table 5 illustrates the data on energy recovery through incineration and landlling in 2008 in Berlin. The electricity generated from incineration and landll gas were 235 million kWh (Thrmer, 2008). In comparison, according to Gamperl (2005), the total energy recovery from steam and landll gas is 307 million kWh in 2005 and the main reason for the reduction of energy recovery is that the amount of waste disposed by incineration and landll has been decreasing in Berlin. And the ash from incinerator used for road construction is 137,000 tonnes and scrap for steel production sum up to 10,000 tonnes in 2005. 8.2. Singapore 8.2.1. Domestic and non-domestic waste recycling Although Singapores NEA adopted the strategy focusing on volume reduction by incineration that relieved pressure for more land to be used for landlling, it is not suitable to rely completely on incineration and landlling to solve the solid waste problem due to rising costs and environmental concerns. Therefore, NEA adopted a multi-pronged approach focusing on recycling as it saves energy and conserves resources. The approach includes:  Minimization of waste generated at source.  Waste recycling to reduce the amount of waste that needs to be disposed of.

 Volume reduction of combustible waste through waste-toenergy incineration.  Reduction of waste to landlling in order to extend the life of the Semakau Landll. To overcome the problem of increasing solid waste, the National Recycling Progromme (NRP) was launched by the National Environment Agency (NEA) in April 2001 (Claudio, 2004). Under the NRP, recycling bins have been placed at public areas, such as the pedestrian walkways of busy street, petrol service stations, commercial areas and some of residential areas. According to Claudio (2004), since August 2001, 4100 sets of centralized recycling depositories have also been placed in public areas. The Housing Development Board (HDB) which provides public housing to approximately 85% of the population and provides similar recycling depository services to complement the door-to-door collections of recyclables. In addition, as Singapore has a highly industrialized economy with strong focus on the manufacturing, its approach to the greening industry is a two-spronged strategy: rst resource conservation through a more intensive and coordinated effort at developing the recycling industry; and second, waste reduction and elimination at source through product and process innovations as well as developing green technologies for industry through privatepublic collaborations (Lang, 2007). Two approaches are particularly signicant in accelerating the development of a viable recycling industry in Singapore: (i) the establishment of two recycling parks: rst, the Sarimbum Recycling Park was created to attract the setting up of recycling facilities with low cost rental. Twenty recycling plants are found on site currently and focus on the recovery of higher value-added secondary construction material. The second Ecopark is situated beside the Tuas incinerator sorting recyclable household refuse such plastics, glass and metals, (ii) the NEA is actively promoting recycling among small and medium-sized factories by collaborating with the Jurong Town Council which is critical as it is Singapores leading developer and manager of industrial facilities and business park. Construction and demolition (C&D) waste is one of the major waste streams to be disposed of at the landll in Singapore. In 2008, the total amount of generated constructed debris was 920,000 tonnes, in which 99% were recycled (Ministry of the Environment and Water Resource, 2008). To support recycling of C&D waste, the NEA set up several recycling facilities converting C&D waste into (the low value-added) secondary aggregates for further processing into non-structural concrete products for use in new buildings or as materials for temporary road access in construction sites. Hence, NEA also encouraged collaborations among recycling and construction companies and research institutions to explore the innovative use of recycled materials as substitutes for conventional construction material, and to examine the performance of these recycled building materials and products. In addition, used

Table 5 Waste-to-Energy in Berlin in 2008 (Data source: Thrmer, 2008). Waste disposal plants in Berlin Category Incineration plant (1): Ruhleben Landll plants (3): Shwanebeck, Werndorf, Schneicher Mechanicalphysical stabilization (2) Pankow Reinickendorf Mechanical treatment plant: (1) Kpenick Capacity (tonnes/year) 520,000 Electricity generation: 190 million GWh/year, Heat: 450 million GWh/year, Landll gas (CH4 + CO2) generation: 45 million m3/year, Combustible material and fuel generation: 160,000 Mg/year, which is equivalent 635 million GWh Waste generation

160,000 180,000 100,000

Combustible material and fuel generation: 50,000 Mg/year, which is equivalent 115 million GWh

930

D. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 921933

Table 6 Current status of municipal solid waste landlled and incinerated in Singapore (MEWR Ministry of the Environment and Water Resource, 2008). Solid waste treatment Total waste generated Total waste recycled Total waste landlled Total waste incinerated Total Energy produced from incineration Lifespan of landll Unit Million tonnes/year Million tonnes/year Million tonnes/year (%) Million tonnes/year (%) MWh Years 2006 5.22 2.66 (51%) 0.23 (4%) 2.33 (45%) 954,237 3540 2007 5.60 3.03 (54%) 0.19 (3%) 2.38 (43%) 974,945 3540 2008 5.97 3.34 (56%) 0.18 (3%) 2.45 (41%) 1048,072 3540

copper slag from the marine industry is also recycled to produce new slag, concrete paving blocks and ready mix concrete. Steel slag from the electric arc furnace of scrap iron mills, is also being recycled to produce road-building material. This strategy if it be successful, will enable Singapore to move towards zero landlling. Through these strategies, a signicant improvement in solid waste management has been achieved. According to NEA (2008), Singapores recycling rate has increased from 40% in 2000 to 54% in 2007. The results of great efforts in waste minimization and recycling have helped tremendously to divert waste from ending up in the landll. This has contributed directly to increasing the lifespan of the Semakau Landll from 2030 years to 3540 years, while the need for additional incineration plants has been reduced from one in every 57 years to one in every 710 years. Furthermore, the Singapore Green Plan 2012 proposed to increase the recycling rate to 60% by 2012 and strive towards zero-landll. Table 6 shows the composition of solid waste, actual amount of waste disposal, total waste recycled and total waste output in Singapore in 2008. Some 5.97 million tonnes of municipal waste were generated in 2008 in Singapore, 56% of which was recycled, 41% incinerated and 3% landlled. According to NEA and MEWR (2006), currently around 22,800 tonnes/year of scrap are recovered (by magnetic separation from incinerated ash) and 980 million KWh of electricity are generated per year, which could cover 2 3% of the electricity demand for Singapore. In contrast, approximately 23,000 tonnes of scrap metal were recovered and only some 391 million KWh of electricity were generated in 1992 (Leong and Quah, 1995). Table 7 presents the waste generation and recycling rate for 2008 in Singapore. The total waste generation was 5.97 million
Table 7 The waste generation and recycling rate for 2008 in Singapore (Ministry of the Environment and Water Resource, 2008). Waste stream Amount of waste generated (tonnes/ year) 570,000 920,000 780,000 30,000 90,000 270,000 1260,000 230,000 60,000 570,000 90,000 680,000 310,000 110,000 5970,000 Amount of waste recycled (million tonnes/year) 560,000 900,000 740,000 20,000 70,000 190,000 610,000 100,000 10,000 70,000 10,000 60,000 10,000 0.00 3340,000 Recycling rate (%) 99 98 94 88 85 71 48 42 18 12 12 8 3 0 56

tonnes and 3.34 million tonnes of total generated waste were recycled. The recycling rate of total municipal solid waste was 56%. In particular, used slag reached the highest recycling rate (99%), followed by construction debris (98%) and ferrous metals (94%). The recycling rate of paper was 48%, and the recycling rate for glass was relatively low (12%).

8.2.2. Impediment and challenge in waste recycling Waste recycling was started in early 1990s and currently most of the recycling practice is conned mainly in the industrial and commercial sectors (Foo, 1997; Claudio, 2004; Bai and Sutanto, 2002). There is certainly much space for the household and commercial sector to participate actively in recycling. Although a National Recycling Program for Households was launched in 2001, collection of recyclable waste and refuse had been promoted to 85% of the population and Green Bags have been distributed to residential households for door-to-door collection of the separated materials (Claudio, 2004), what to do with the separated materials is another challenge in Singapore. To sustain the waste separation and recycling programs, Singapore might need to set up its own waste recycling industry. According to Bai and Sutanto (2002), Singapore has only one recycling plant that produces compost and soil fertilizer. Meanwhile, according to NEA and MEWR (2006), the recycling rate for food waste is only 8% (while it is 90% in inner-city city area of Berlin and 47% nationwide in Germany). In terms of packaging waste recycling, Fig. 9 presents the development of recycled plastic, paper and glass in 1999, 2007 and 2008 in Singapore. Both Fig. 9 and Table 7, showed that in comparison with industrial solid waste (e.g., used slag, constructed debris, metals), solid waste such as paper, glass and plastics (which are widely used in our daily activities) showed the tendency of low recycling rate and had not been recycled to a satisfactory level in Singapore. According to the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resource, in 1999, 2007 and 2008, the recycling rate for paper was 40.3%, 51%

Used slag Construction debris Ferrous metals Scrap tyres Non-ferrous metals Wood/timber Paper/cardboard Horticultural waste Glass Food Textile/leather Plastics Others (e.g., ewaste) Sludge Total

Table 8 Charging fees of municipal solid waste from household and small trade in Berlin 20092010 (BSR, 2009). Volume of waste bin (litre) Price (Euro/quarter year) Regular collection 60 120 240 660 1100 60 (bio-waste) 120 (bio-waste) 240 (bio-waste) 660 (bio-waste) 1100 (bio-waste) Slag 63.5 75.3 98.6 220.8 303.8 30.5 31.4 35.4 77.9 93.4 94.7 For additional containers 20.2 21.1 22.9 32.2 38.6 17.6 17.7 18.0 21.3 22.5 22.6

D. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 921933

931

and 48%; 10%, 9% and 18% for glass; and for plastic it was 15.6%, 11%, and 8%, respectively. In the recycling project and survey of Tanjong Pagar, Foo (1997) concluded that paper was the type of material most frequently recycled, followed by drink cans, then plastic and other materials. The main reason was that the recycling bins located at the lift lobbies were mostly for the collection of paper and recycling of drink cans and plastics have to be rinsed and cleaned rst before being deposited into the various bins. He also indicated that all the recycling bins in Singapore should be conveniently located and preferably at the individual oors of residents blocks. It was suggested that door-to-door recycling could be implemented on a trial basis. Simple and convenient methods of separating and storing recyclable waste, and proper labeling of bins need to be further promoted. Ho (2002) reported that Singaporeans seems to think they have no time for recycling, and this suggests that either Singaporeans nd recycling to be a time-consuming activity or that Singaporeans lead a hectic life that leaves very little time for other activities. It is no doubt that Singaporeans works in a fast-paced environment and this is unavoidable for a country with no natural resources and only human resources to depend on. It is not possible to change a whole societys attitude towards work and time so that more time can be allocated for recycling. Both Foo (1997) and Ho (2002) suggested increasing accessibility of recycling facilities as an important factor to increase Singaporeans recycling behavior. Research has shown that knowledge about the specics of recycling is more closely related to recycling behavior than general environmental knowledge. Most importantly, recycling programs

in Singapore are reporting problem due to Singaporeans ignorance of what can or cannot be recycled. And a high percentage of Singaporeans believed recycling is an activity that is the responsibility of waste collection companies or other relevant authorities but not themselves. Therefore, Singapore needs to pay attention to how environmental education is being carried out in schools or conveyed to the public when promoting recycling behavior. Singapore may need to devote more efforts towards educating Singaporeans about proper household waste recycling etiquette in order to see progress in the recycling rate. While these are important strategies for Singapore to reduce the amount of waste that goes into landlls or incinerators, it does not help decrease the amount of waste generated. Singapore needs to consider introducing extended producer responsibility to get to the root of the waste management problem. Regarding the type of recycling program survey participants would like Singapore to adopt, Ho (2002) reported that an incentive program like the deposit refund with the return of drink cans and bottles (which is currently being used in Berlin) was frequently cited as a program participants say they would like to see Singapore adopt in future. In addition, extended producer responsibility can help. The real solution is found at the beginning of the life cycle stage, and true waste minimization happens when production decreases. To decrease production, consumption needs to decrease. 9. Charging fee system 9.1. Berlin The waste charging system in Berlin is a two-tier pricing system based on the PAYT system. Table 8 shows charge fees for municipal solid waste from households and small trades in Berlin. This is a volume-based fee system. The resident only pays for the service used and a resident can directly inuence the ensuing cost. In addition, in order to avoid waste generation and promote waste recycling, there are 15 recycling centres for drop-off waste within the city operated by BSR. Residents and small business enterprises can bring their recycles to the responding recycling centres near their resident location free of charge. 9.2. Singapore In Singapore, the system for waste collection and disposal is at rate system. The fee has to be paid regardless how much of the ser-

Table 9 Solid waste collection fee charged per month in Singapore (Bai and Sutanto, 2002). Type Pasir RisTampines Altvater Jakob Pte Ltd. ($) 8.63 23.93 42.66 108.68 277.6 426.34 447.35 Bedok sector (Colex holding Ltd.) ($) 6.23 22.95 40.23 101.53 253.6 370.62 378.14 Rest of Singapore (SEMAC Pte Ltd.) ($) 8.7 23.45 41.06 104.17 258.57 379.1 388.01

Residential Flats Landed residential Non-residential <170 litre/day 170<350 litre/day 350<700 litre/day 700<1000 litre/day >1000 litre/day

Tonnes/year
800,000 700,000 75000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 3400 1999 5800 2007 10000 2008 388800 29900 619000 610000 Plastic Paper/carton Glass 61200

Fig. 9. Development of recycled plastic, paper and glass in 1999, 2007 and 2008 in Singapore. (Data source: Ministry of the Environment and Water Resource, 1999, 2007, 2008.)

932

D. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 921933

vice is used by the generator. According to Foo (1997), domestic premises are charged a monthly at rate of either S$20 (for house-tohouse service) or S$8 per dwelling (central bin collection). In addition, the Ministry of Environment (MOE) also operates a special removal service for the disposal of bulky household wastes such as old furniture and electrical goods. The fee is charged S$ 50 per vehicle trip. Furthermore, in order to encourage waste recovery and recycling, waste disposal fees (mainly incineration) have been raised from S$ 67 in 2002 to S$ 87 in 2007 to reduce the need to subsidize. Table 9 shows the waste collection fees currently charged in Singapore (Ministry of Environment, 1999). For residential solid waste, the collection fee is charge per household, and for non-residential solid waste, the collection fee is charge on the basis of waste volume.

10. Conclusion Both Germany and Singapore are industrialized nations with well-developed economies and with GDP per capita among the highest in the world. Both have the common will to conduct high-level research and development for environmentally-sound solutions to their waste problem. With this as this background, the policies, regulations and legislation in both countries are aimed at closed cycles of materials and at the establishment of environmentally compatible methods for the disposal of wastes. Nevertheless, the rapid economic and population growth, and the increasing standard of living and changing lifestyles in Singapore make MSWM a more critical concern than that in Germany. Important conclusions from this comparative study can be drawn and include the followings: 1. Total annual generation of MSW in Singapore has increased steadily from 4.70 million tonnes in 1996 to 5.97 million tonnes in 2008, while Berlins MSW generation showed steadily decreasing tendency over the same period (from 2.12 million tonnes in 1996 to 1.68 million tonnes in 2005). The latter was achieved mostly because waste prevention measures have proved very effective, and because of the increasing amount of MSW that has been channeled for recycling and reuse, so that less and less waste needs to be disposed of. In addition to rapid economic and population growth in Singapore, change in consumption patterns also has increased waste generation that may outstrip the gains made with strategies on waste recycling and minimization. And the recent increase in solid waste generation has imposed a considerable burden on waste management and disposal facilities. Daily per capita MSW generation in Singapore (0.88 kg/capita/day) was similar to that of Berlin. 2. On the legislative front, Germany has promulgated a series of laws which addressed more extensive, detailed and specic issues relating to waste management. For instance, the provisions of The German Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act (1996) is a milestone introducing the polluter pays principle to its logical conclusion by reducing the onus on public authorities and making private sector generators of waste, not just municipalities, responsible for dealing with waste. The Waste Storage Ordinance (2001) mandated that any exemptions permitting untreated waste to be landlled cannot be granted. The German Packaging Ordinance (1991) addressed the fact that packaging materials have to be produced from environmentally compatible material, have to be reduced as far as possible and recovered before all other disposal options. In addition, Germany is required to keep conformity of laws with all EU legislations. 3. The Berlin strategy of MSW management comprises the separate collection and recycling of secondary raw materials, further

development of sorting technology for mixed domestic waste, pre-treatment of mixed household waste in mechanicalbiological treatment plants, recovering waste incineration residues, and energy recovery from incineration. Waste which can be recycled, in particular paper, glass, light-packaging and biodegradable waste, is separated in Berlin by private households and businesses. Approximately 50% of the households currently participate in separate bio-waste collection systems nationwide in Germany. On average, each individual using an organic waste bin collects about 15 kg of bio-waste annually, and a total of 53,000 tonnes of bio-waste is collected every year in Berlin. In contrast, the high-rise apartments in Singapore limited waste separation by private household. 4. Landlling is the last option in the MSW management decision in both cities: one due to geography (Singapore) and the other one due to legislative prohibition (Berlin). In Singapore, approximately 90% of the non-recyclable waste is incinerated and the remaining non-incinerable waste is landlled despite the extreme scarcity of land. In contrast, other than incineration and landlling, mechanicalphysical stabilization (MPS) and mechanical biological treatment (MBT) play a very important role and are practiced in Berlin. Approximately 54% of MSW goes for incineration while the remaining wastes are treated by MPS (36%), MBT (8%), and landlling & others (2%) respectively. 5. The key policies for waste management have given top priority to the recycling, recovery and reuse of waste materials in both cities. The total MSW recycling rate in Berlin in 2007 was 40.2%, while it was approximately 56% in 2008 for Singapore. However, the plethora of high-rise public apartments in Singapore and its consumer society have made waste recycling much more cumbersome and solid waste from each household is discharged directly through a common discharge chute. Therefore, waste recycling mainly takes place in the industry sector in Singapore. While industry associated material such as used slag (99%), constructed debris (98%) and metals (94%) show high recycling rates, those material widely used in our daily activities such as paper (48%) and plastic (8%) present low recycling rates. While those strategies for Singapore to reduce the amount of waste that goes into landlls or incinerators are important, they do not help decrease the amount of waste generated. Singapore needs to pay attention to how environmental education is being carried out in schools or conveyed to the public when promoting recycling behavior and to consider introducing extended producer responsibility to get to the root of the waste management problem. Increasing accessibility of recycling facilities is important factor to increase recycling. In addition, the real solution is found at the beginning of the life cycle production and true waste minimization happens when production decreases. To decrease production, consumption needs to decrease. 6. The two cities have adopted different charging fee systems: residential solid waste is currently charged at a xed rate of fee per household in Singapore, while solid waste is charged on the basis of volume (i.e., Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT)) in Berlin. Furthermore, even if such a PAYT waste charging system is adopted in Singapore, the scheme can be difcult to implement in densely populated high-rise buildings.

References
APCEL Report (Singapore), 2006. AsiaPacic Centre for Environmental Law. <http:// www.law.nus.edu.sg/apcel/dbase/singapore/reports.html#app1> (accessed 26.07.09). Bai, R., Sutanto, M., 2002. The practice and challenges of solid waste management in Singapore. Waste Management 22 (2002), 557567.

D. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 921933 Berghoff, R., Kim, J.G., 2006. Thermal treatment methods for waste recycling in Germany. In: International Symposium. Resource Recycling R&D Centre/ Chemistry Engineering Association in Korea, 21 April 2006. Bergs, C., 2005. Separate Collection of Organic Waste How Does It Work in Germany? Report for MBU Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. BMU Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 2009. <http://www.bmu.de/english/aktuell/4152.php> (accessed 15.07.09). BMU Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 2005. Waste Incineration A Potential Danger? Bidding Farewell to Dioxin Spouting (accessed 00.11.05). BSR (Berliner Stadtreinigung), 2009. Tarife und Entgelte 20092010 (charging fees of municipal solid waste from household and small trade in Berlin 20092010). <http://www.bsr.de/bsr/html/1024.htm> (accessed 17.10.09). BSR (Berliner Stadtreinigung), 2008. Entsorgungsbilanz (waste disposal in Berlin, 2008). <http://www.bsr.de/bsr/html/informationsmaterial.php> (accessed 17.10.09). Claudio, C., 2004. Singapores National Recycling Programme (NRP). APFED Good Practices Database. Foo, T.K., 1997. Recycling of domestic waste: early experience in Singapore. Habitat International 21 (3), 277289. Gamperl, G., 2005. International examples of waste management concept experience from Berlin (presentation), 2830 November 2005. <http://www. google.com.sg/search?hl=zh-CN&q=+International+examples+of+waste+ management+concept+%E2%80%93+experience+from+Berlin.&btnG=Google+%E6%90% 9C%E7%B4%A2&meta=&aq=f&oq=> (accessed 15.07.09). Giegrich, J., Vogt, R., 2005. The contribution of waste management to sustainable development in Germany Section on Municipal Waste. UBA-Texte, Final Report of Environmental Research Plan Commissioned by BMU Federal Environment Ministry and the Federal Environmental Agency, Project FKZ 203 92 309, IFEU Institute Heidelberg. Hempen, S., 2005. Status and trends of residual waste treatment in Germany. In: Conference The Future of Residual Waste Management in Europe, 1718 November 2005, Luxembourg. Ho, Y.Y., 2002. Recycling as a sustainable waste management strategy for Singapore: An Investigation to nd ways to promote Singaporeans household waste recycling behaviour. Master-thesis, Lund University. Kalaiarasan, M., Balasubramanian, R., Cheong, K.W.D., Tham, K.W., 2009. Particulate-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in naturally ventilated multi-storey residential buildings of Singapore. Building and Environment 44 (2009), 418425. Khoo, H.H., 2009. Life cycle impact assessment of various waste convention technologies. Waste Management 29 (2009), 18921900. Krogmann, U., 1992. Quantity and quality of separately collected biowaste in west Germany. Acta Horticulturae (ISHS) 302, 4550. Lang, J.C., 2007. Zero landll, aero waste the greening of industry in Singapore. In: Greening Industries in Newly Industrializing Economies, pp. 195221. Leong, L. T., Quah, E. (1995) Management of non-hazardous solid waste. In: Environment and the City. Sharing Singapores Experience and Future Challenges. Ooi Giok Ling, Institute of Policy Studies, Singapore. Ministry of Environment (Singapore), 1998. Ministry of Environment (Singapore), 1999. Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR), 1999. Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR), 2007. Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR), 2008. Municipal Solid Waste Management Report in Germany, 2006. TASi one year on no wastes landlled without pre-treatment in Germany since 1 June 2005 A

933

new era has dawned in municipal solid waste management. <http://www. google.com.sg/search?hl=zh-CN&q=<TASi+one+year+on+%E2%80%93+no+wastes+ landlled+without+pre-treatment+in+Germany+since+1+June+2005+%E2%80% 93+A+new+era+has+dawned+in+municipal+solid+waste+management.+amp;btnG= Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&meta=&aq=f&oq=> (accessed 17.10.09). NEA National Environment Agency (Singapore), 2008. Annual Report. <http:// www.app.nea.gov.sg/cms/htdocs/category_sub.asp?cid=77> (accessed 29.06. 09). NEA and MEWR National Environment Agency and Ministry of Environment and Water Resource, 2006. Integrated solid waste management in Singapore. In: Asia 3R Conference, October 301 November, Singapore (accessed 00.06.06). Schnurer, H., 2002. German Waste Legislation and Sustainable Development: Development of Waste Legislation in Germany towards a sustainable closed Substance Cycle. Work shop organized by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundational, the International Institute for Advance Studies (IIAS), in Kyoto, Japan, 29 November1 December, 2002. <http://www.google.com.sg/search? hl=zh-CN&q=Development+of+Waste+Legislation+>in+Germany+towards+a+ sustainable+closed+Substance+Cycle.&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2& meta=&aq=f&oq=> (accessed 17.10.09). Schulze, C., 2009. Municipal Waste Management in Berlin. Senatsverwaltung fr Gesundheit, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz. Berlin Senate Department for Health, the Environment and Consumer Protection, Environmental Policy, Section III B Waste Management. <http://www.berlin.de/sen/umwelt/ abfallwirtschaft/> (accessed 17.10.09). Schwilling, T., Mehner, H., Faysal, E., Edel, H., 2004. Vorlage des Abfallwirtschaftskonzepts im Abgeordnetenhaus Berlin (Draft of waste concept for Berlin City Parliament) Drucksache 15/3598, September 2004. <http://www.berlin.de/sen/umwelt/abfall/konzept_berlin/> (accessed 17.10. 09) (in German). Thrmer, A., 2007. Comparison of key gure in waste management -2007 Survey Berlin, safe and clean safety of disposal and clean city, 2628 November 2007. <http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=zh-CN&q=Andreas+Thuermer%2C+ Comparison+of+key+gure+in+waste+management+-%2C+Survey+Berlin%2C+ Ensuring+safety+of+disposal+in+other+cities+%28pdf%29&meta=&aq=o&oq=> (accessed 17.10.09). Thrmer, A., 2008. The contribution of waste management to Berlin climate politics. Der Beitrag der Abfallwirtschaft fr die Berliner Klimapolitik. 7. Fachkonferenz zur Abfallwirtschaft in der Region BrandenburgBerlin, Entsorgungsraum BrandenburgBerlin Klimawandel, Umweltschutz und demograsche Entwicklung wie begegnet unsere Region den Herausforderungen der Zukunft?, Joachimsthat, Germany, 20 November 2008. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2005. Principles of solid waste management. Solid Waste Management, 18. ISBN: 92-807-2675-5. Vehlow, J., 1996. Municipal solid waste management in Germany. Waste Management 16 (5/6), 367374. Vogt, R., 2009. Bio-waste and climate change. In: Proceedings: Bio-waste Need for EU-Legislation? Brussels, 910 June 2009. Wagner, J., Bilitewski, B., 2009. The temporary storage of municipal solid waste recommendations for a safe operation of interim storage facilities. Waste Management 29 (2009), 16931701. Wowereit, K., Lopmscher, K., 2007. Bericht ber das Abfallwirtschaftskonzept fr das Land Berlin (solid waste management for Berlin). Senatsverwaltung fr Stadtentwircklung (Prepared for Berlin City Parliament). Drucksache 15/5528. <http://www.berlin.de/sen/umwelt/abfall/konzept_berlin/> (accessed 17.10. 09) (in German). Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, 1998. Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, 2008. Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, 2009.