Municipal Solid Waste Management

Using the assumptions all recorded waste was summed up for each category, including reused/recycled products.

Comparing waste streams in the dormitories in Ukraine and Hungary could be the most interesting result of the present study. Such comparison could highlight differences in consumption level in the same social group (students) in two countries. At the same time results for the dormitories will be compared to the waste data for a Ukrainian family.

Results

The composition of three waste streams is presented in Figure 1. The diagrams were obtained from basic records data (Annex 1). Percentage in the diagrams presents the share in the total volume of total waste stream. This evaluating approach was chosen because at households the domestic waste is usually estimated by volume (e.g. by waste bins).

The biggest difference between the three charts is the huge share of HDPE in Kerepesi dormitory, which is much higher than in other two cases. This can be explained by the fact that no food is prepared by students in the CEU dormitory. It is very hard to estimate the amount of food waste generated by the university canteen. High amount of different plastics is a result of rather poor practices in the university restaurants. Most of the plastic is Figure 1. Waste composition.

coming from different packaging used to serve butter or jam. This waste could be easily avoided if the food was served in saucers/plates instead of single-use package.The similar chart for the Kyiv Shevchenko University dormitory in Ukraine shows completely different situation. Almost 50% of the whole garbage is food waste and paper. More paper is wasted due to less availability of computers and therefore less opportunity to write academic assignments in electronic form. Since the students prepare food in the dormitory, organic waste takes a significant part of the whole stream. The share of plastic is rather low (except of polystyrene, which will be discussed later) because of rather low welfare of students and, therefore, lower consumption of expensive products packed with plastic. The consumed products are mostly raw food either purchased at marketplaces or brought directly from home in the countryside.

The third part of Figure 1 represents the case of a typical Ukrainian family. Food and other goods comes mostly from supermarkets with a lot of plastic package. Different kinds of plastic (mostly packaging) possess about the half of the garbage composition. Another reason for a big amount of package in the waste is that the record was kept during the Christmas holidays. Therefore, the level of consumption was much higher than usually. Packages of cakes, candies etc., which were composed of different materials, contributed to a large amount of non-recyclable waste,. Organic waste takes slightly less percentage comparing to the Kyiv dormitory. Again, this can be explained by the fact that food was mostly not prepared at that time, but processed food was purchased. Generally, the waste composition recorded for Cherkasy is not typical due to a high consumption level during Christmas holidays.

Though the composition of waste is very different for Kyiv, Cherkasy and Budapest, the amount of waste per one person for the case of family (Cherkasy) is higher than for the students living in dormitory – this can be explained by the Figure 2. Recycled/reused waste volume

different living standards and differences in products which are consumed. Zero amount of recycling at CEU dormitory is rather the result of poor university policies. Since the university canteen is the primary source of waste, students who live in the dormitory are largely dependent on the canteen’s waste policy. Single-use package from the restaurant is a significant contribution to the waste stream. Other possibilities for recycle (e.g. paper recycling) cannot be employed by students themselves because of language barrier. Thus, the only thing that could be done to reduce the amount of garbage by an individual student at CEU dormitory is to reduce consumption in general. The university is responsible for the lack of reuse/recycle options.

Though the volume of recycled waste is higher in Cherkasy than in Kyiv, the same data for the mass is slightly different (Table 2). The mass of recycled materials in Cherkasy is

Recycled/reused massRecycled/reused volume

Kerepesi0%0%

Kyiv9.51%21.36%

Cherkasy3.12%32.30%

Table 2. Volume and mass of recycled/reused waste.

actually ten times lower than its volume. This fact is a consequence of different materials reuse/recycle in two cases. In Kyiv dormitory almost 100% of paper was collected for recycling, or in the case of magazines, donated to the student library. At the same time the yogurt packs were collected to be used later to raise crops in the countryside. Since plastics are not recycled in Ukraine and composting the biodegradable waste is not possible in the city, the opportunity for reuse and recycle was almost fully employed in the Kyiv dormitory. However, in the case of Cherkasy plastic bottles from sparkling water were reused – this technique was not used in Kyiv. On the other hand, paper waste was not collected in Cherkasy and yogurt packs were not reused. The comparison of two cases (Kyiv and Cherkasy) shows that different techniques are possible for different living conditions. Though some education programs might be necessary to raise the reuse/recycle rates in Ukraine, the plastic recycling facilities are necessary for significant improvements in the waste management.

Conclusion