Kementerian Kesejahteraan Bandar, Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa

Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan Pepejal Negara

Survey on Solid Waste Composition, Characteristics &

Existing Practice of Solid Waste Recycling in Malaysia

MAIN REPORT

JABATAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL NEGARA

KEMENTERIAN KESEJAHTERAAN BANDAR,

PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

PREAMBLE

Malaysia is a developing country that has recorded remarkable economic development

consistently since its independence. The economic growth has brought prosperity,
population increase, accelerated urbanisation and industrialisation. However, with the
increase in population and affluence of the society, there has also been substantial increase
in the amount of solid waste generated in the country. In recognising the urgent need to
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of solid waste management, the Solid Waste and
Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Act 672) was gazetted in 2007 and was
enforced on 1st September 2011, the main tenets of which underpin the institutionalisation of
policies, strategies and plan of actions for solid waste management. Jabatan Pengurusan
Sisa Pepejal Negara (JPSPN), created to integrate solid waste management system at the
national level, was established under this Act.

The National Solid Waste Management Policy aims to establish a solid waste
management system which is holistic, integrated, cost effective and sustainable while being
acceptable by the public. To develop and implement an effective solid waste management
system requires comprehensive data on present conditions. Composition studies and
surveys for household waste are an essential component for proper and effective
management of solid waste. The studies provide vital information in estimating materials
recovery potential, identifying sources and components of the waste, facilitating in the design
of processing equipment, implementing appropriate technologies in treating and disposing
Malaysian waste, and estimating physical, chemical, and thermal properties of the waste.

JPSPN commissioned GSR Environmental Consultancy Sdn. Bhd. (GSR) to conduct a

comprehensive Survey on Solid Waste Composition, Characteristics and Existing
Practice of Solid Waste Recycling in Malaysia in July 2011. The study was undertaken
from September 2011 to September 2012. A Technical Committee appointed by the Ministry,
consisting of representatives from the Government Agencies as well as experts from local
universities and Non-governmental Organisations, was tasked to examine and review the
study report prepared by the Consultant.

The approach and methodology for the Survey was approved after the presentation to the
Technical Committee on the 9th September 2011. The Draft Final Report was presented to
the Technical Committee at a meeting on 25th March 2013, after which the Survey was
finalised and the findings and recommendations accepted.

Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara

Kementerian Kesejahteraan Bandar,
Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan

June 2013 Putrajaya

Page i
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to extend our heart-felt gratitude to the following persons for their advice,
support and contribution to complete the project activities: Waste Composition, Waste
Characterisation and Recycling Survey.

Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara or National Solid Waste Management

Department, Kementerian Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan,
Malaysia

Y. Bhg. Dato Dr. Nadzri Yahya, Director General

En. Azahar Bin Mohd
Puan Fathiah Abdullah
En. Nazari bin Hj. Mat Saat

Members of Steering Committee

 En. Abdul Nasir Abdul Aziz

Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara
 Dr. Mohd. Pauze bin Mohd. Taha
Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam
 Prof. Dr. Mohd. Rozainee bin Taib
Universti Teknologi Malaysia
 En. Mohd Nadzeri bin Salleh
Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia
 En. Sivapalan Kathiravale
Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology
 Dr. Zulkifli B. Abdul Rahman
Jabatan Alam Sekitar
 YM Tunku Khalkausar Bt Tunku Fathahi
Jabatan Alam Sekitar
 Puan Dzuriyati Noor binti Yaakob
Jabatan Alam Sekitar
 Dr Noor Zalina binti Mahmood
Universiti Malaya
 Dr. Theng Lee Chong
Penasihat, MHLG-MOEJ Collaboration Project
 En. Ho De Leong
Waste Management Association of Malaysia
 Puan Sarifah binti Yaacob
Waste Management Association of Malaysia

Page ii
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREAMBLE………………………………………………………………..…..…………………… ... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………..…..……………... ii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………..…..……………... v
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………….……….. ....... vii
ACRONYMS………………………………………………………………………….…..………….. xi

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2 OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY ................................................................................... 3
3 SURVEY AREAS ........................................................................................................... 4
4 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................. 9
5 SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................................................................... 10
6 CRITERIA USED FOR AREA SELECTION IN EACH LOCAL AUTHORITY ............... 11
6.1 Households for Recycling Survey .................................................................. 11
6.2 Households for Waste Composition Survey .................................................. 16
6.3 Industrial establishments ............................................................................... 17
6.4 Commercial and Institutional (CI) establishments .......................................... 18
7 METHODOLOGY OF THE SURVEY ............................................................................ 20
7.1 ACTIVITY 1: Waste Composition Study ......................................................... 20
7.2 ACTIVITY 2: Waste Characterisation Study ................................................... 32
7.3 ACTIVITY 3: Survey on Existing Recycling Practice ...................................... 37
8 WASTE GENERATION ................................................................................................ 43
8.1 Waste Generation from Household ................................................................ 43
8.2 Waste generation by Industrial, Commercial and Institution ........................... 48
8.3 Overall Waste Generation .............................................................................. 52
9 RECYCLING RATE ...................................................................................................... 56
9.1 Household Recycling Rate ............................................................................. 56
9.2 Industrial Recycling Rate ............................................................................... 60
9.3 Commercial and Institution Recycling Rate .................................................... 62
9.4 Overall Recycling Rate ................................................................................... 64
10 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY .............................................................................. 68
10.1 Overall Household Waste Composition .......................................................... 68

Page iii
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

10.2 ICI Waste Composition .................................................................................. 79

10.3 Recyclables in the Landfill Waste................................................................... 83
10.4 Hazardous Material ........................................................................................ 83
11 WASTE CHARACTERISATION STUDY .................................................................. 85
11.1 Household Waste Characterisation ................................................................ 85
11.2 ICI Waste Characterisation ............................................................................ 90
11.3 Individual Waste Component Analysis ........................................................... 93
12 RECYCLING SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................ 96
12.1 Household Survey ......................................................................................... 96
12.2 Industry Survey ............................................................................................ 112
12.3 Commercial and Institutions Survey ............................................................. 125
12.4 Recycling Players Survey ............................................................................ 128
12.5 Material Flow ............................................................................................... 135
12.6 Recyclable material being Imported and Exported ....................................... 142
13 WASTE FLOW ....................................................................................................... 144
14 COMPARISON OF RESULTS TO THE STUDY CONDUCTED BY JICA (2006) ... 146
15 LIMITATIONS AND ISSUES .................................................................................. 148
16 DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................... 150
17 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 152
18 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ...................................................................................... 154
18.1 Detailed waste composition and characteristics data ................................... 154
18.2 Waste Generation Rates .............................................................................. 163
18.3 Existing recycling practices in the markets ................................................... 164
19 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 171

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: WASTE COMPOSITION & CHARACTERISATION FORMS

APPENDIX 2: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
APPENDIX 3: LABOUR FORCE INFORMATION
APPENDIX 4: RECYCLING SURVEY - RECYCLING PLAYERS DATA
APPENDIX 5: SURVEY LIST OF RECYCLING PLAYER

Page iv
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Solid Waste Survey Locations in Peninsular Malaysia ......................................... 7

Figure 2: Solid Waste Survey Locations in East Malaysia ................................................... 8
Figure 3: The Solid Waste Composition, Characteristics and Existing Practice of
Solid Waste Recycling Components .................................................................. 10
Figure 4: Sampling method for households according to housing types and location. ....... 11
Figure 5: Model to estimate the Recycling Rate from Households, Industries, CI
Establishments .................................................................................................. 38
Figure 6: Malaysian Household Waste Composition (As Generated) ................................ 69
Figure 7: Peninsular Malaysia Household Waste Composition (As Generated) ................ 74
Figure 8: Klang Valley Household Waste Composition (As Generated) ............................ 75
Figure 9: East Coast Household Waste Composition (As Generated)............................... 75
Figure 10: Northern Zone Household Waste Composition (As Generated) ......................... 76
Figure 11: Southern Zone Household Waste Composition (As Generated)......................... 76
Figure 12: Sarawak Household Waste Composition (As Generated) .................................. 77
Figure 13: Sabah Household Waste Composition (As Generated) ...................................... 77
Figure 14: Malaysia ICI Waste Composition ....................................................................... 79
Figure 15: Composition of Institutional Waste for Malaysia ................................................. 80
Figure 16: Composition of Commercial Sector Waste for Malaysia ..................................... 81
Figure 17: Average Composition of Industrial Waste in Malaysia ........................................ 82
Figure 18: Recycling practices of respondents in percentages (n=1,013) ......................... 112
Figure 19: Composition of recyclables of Malaysian industries based on weight of
recyclables ....................................................................................................... 114
Figure 20: Percentage contribution of different industry types toward the total weight of
recyclables ....................................................................................................... 117
Figure 21: The percentage contribution of different sized industrial firms toward the
total weight generated by Malaysian industries ................................................ 118
Figure 22: Percentage contribution of different sized firms toward the total weight of
recyclables ....................................................................................................... 119
Figure 23: Composition of recyclables removed from production waste of Malaysian
Industries ......................................................................................................... 123
Figure 24: Percentage contribution of different industrial sectors toward types of
recyclables removed from the production waste .............................................. 124

Page v
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)

Figure 25: Collection Method Used by Recycling Players in Malaysia............................... 130

Figure 26: Storage method practised by Recycling Players in Malaysia ............................ 131
Figure 27: Factors that may affect recycling activity .......................................................... 132
Figure 28: Type of recyclables collected by Recycling Players in Malaysia ....................... 134
Figure 29: Material flow chart for paper in Malaysia .......................................................... 136
Figure 30: Material flow chart for plastic in Malaysia ......................................................... 137
Figure 31: Material flow chart for glass in Malaysia ........................................................... 138
Figure 32: Material flow chart for ferrous in Malaysia ........................................................ 140
Figure 33: Material flow chart for non-ferrous in Malaysia ................................................. 141
Figure 34: Overall Waste Flow for Malaysia ...................................................................... 145
Figure 35: Malaysian Household Waste Composition (As Generated) .............................. 154
Figure 36: Malaysia ICI Waste Composition ..................................................................... 155
Figure 37: Type of Recyclables collected by Recycling Players in Malaysia ..................... 165

Page vi
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Breakdown of Local Authorities in Malaysia ......................................................... 4

Table 2: Locations of the Study areas................................................................................ 5
Table 3: Distribution of Rural and Urban areas by LA ........................................................ 6
Table 4: Number of household surveys needed for each housing type from each
local authority..................................................................................................... 13
Table 5: Number of Samples for each Housing Type ....................................................... 14
Table 6: Number of Households in each Housing type and the ratio for the interval
between households .......................................................................................... 15
Table 7: Number of Household from which waste is collected at each site per day.......... 16
Table 8: Industrial Sector Categories ............................................................................... 17
Table 9: Commercial and Institutional Categories ............................................................ 18
Table 10: Socio-economic Status and Housing Stratification Matrix .................................. 20
Table 11: Breakdown of the Quantity of ICI waste collected in each LA............................. 24
Table 12: Sampling Plan for the Compositional Analysis ................................................... 28
Table 13: List of Waste Components and its description.................................................... 30
Table 14: Sampling Plan for Waste Characterisation ......................................................... 32
Table 15: Waste Components Analysed ............................................................................ 33
Table 16: Waste Characteristics, Parameters and Test Methods ....................................... 35
Table 17: Number of Samples for each Recycling Player for each Region ........................ 42
Table 18: Average Household Waste Generation in 2012, Peninsular Malaysia ................ 44
Table 19: Average Household Waste Generation in 2012, Sabah and Sarawak ................ 45
Table 20: Average Household Waste Generation in 2012, Malaysia.................................. 47
Table 21: Average Municipal Waste Generation by Industrial, Commercial and
Institution in Peninsular Malaysia in 2012 .......................................................... 49
Table 22: Average Municipal Waste Generation by Industrial, Commercial and
Institution in Sabah and Sarawak in 2012 .......................................................... 49
Table 23: Average Municipal Waste Generation by Industrial, Commercial and
Institution in Malaysia in 2012 ............................................................................ 50
Table 24: Waste Generation Rate by of Commercial and Institution Sub-sectors .............. 51
Table 25: Waste Generation by Housing type and Strata in Peninsular Malaysia .............. 53
Table 26: Waste Generation by Housing type and Strata in Sabah and Sarawak .............. 53
Table 27: Waste Generation by Housing type and Strata in Malaysia ................................ 54
Table 28: Waste Generation by Region ............................................................................. 55
Table 29: Quantity of Household Waste and Recyclable Materials Generated in 2012 ...... 57
Table 30: Household Recycling Rate by Region ................................................................ 58

Page vii
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)

Table 31: Household Recycling Rate (RR) by Housing Type ............................................. 59

Table 32: Industrial Non Production Waste, Recyclable Materials and Recycling Rate ...... 61
Table 33: Commercial and Institutional Waste, Recyclable Materials and Recycling
Rate ................................................................................................................... 63
Table 34: Recycling Rate of Peninsular Malaysia .............................................................. 64
Table 35: Recycling Details of Peninsular Malaysia ........................................................... 65
Table 36: Recycling Rate of Sabah and Sarawak .............................................................. 65
Table 37: Recycling Details of Sabah and Sarawak........................................................... 66
Table 38: Recycling Rate of Malaysia ................................................................................ 66
Table 39: Recycling Details of Malaysia ............................................................................ 67
Table 40: Waste Components Generated, Discarded and Disposed from Malaysian
Households ........................................................................................................ 70
Table 41: Household Waste Composition for Low, Middle and High cost houses in .......... 72
Table 42: Comparison of the Malaysian Urban and Rural Household Waste (As
Generated) ........................................................................................................ 73
Table 43: Breakdown of Household Waste Components generated by each person
for six Regions ................................................................................................... 78
Table 44: Quantity of Recyclable Material found in the As Disposed Waste ...................... 83
Table 45: Percentage of Hazardous Material found in the MSW ........................................ 83
Table 46: Moisture Content - Malaysian Household MSW, in per cent............................... 85
Table 47: Average Proximate Analysis Results for Malaysian As Discarded and As
Disposed Waste in per cent, Wet basis .............................................................. 86
Table 48: Average Ultimate Analysis Results for Malaysian As Discarded and As
Disposed Waste................................................................................................. 86
Table 49: Average Heavy Metal results of the As Discarded and As Disposed Waste ....... 87
Table 50: Average Bulk Density measurements As Discarded and As Disposed
Waste ................................................................................................................ 87
Table 51: Average Calorific Value Results As Discarded and As Disposed Waste ............ 88
Table 52: Average NPK value of the organic fraction of the Waste .................................... 88
Table 53: Potential Biodegradability of Each Waste Component ....................................... 89
Table 54: Moisture Content - Malaysian ICI Waste ............................................................ 90
Table 55: Average Proximate Analysis Results for Malaysian ICI Sector Waste ................ 90
Table 56: Average Ultimate Analysis Results for ICI sector waste ..................................... 91
Table 57: Average Heavy Metal results of the ICI Waste ................................................... 92
Table 58: Bulk Density measurements of the ICI Waste .................................................... 92
Table 59: Average Calorific Value of the ICI Waste ........................................................... 93

Page viii
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)

Table 60: Proximate, Ultimate analysis and Calorific Value of the Individual
Components ...................................................................................................... 94
Table 61: Metal Analysis of the Individual Components ..................................................... 95
Table 62: Distribution of Respondents and Recycling Practice by Region ......................... 96
Table 63: Reasons for Recycling ....................................................................................... 97
Table 64: Reasons for Recycling by Strata ........................................................................ 98
Table 65: Reasons for Recycling by Housing Type............................................................ 99
Table 66: Reasons for Not Recycling............................................................................... 100
Table 67: Reasons for Not Recycling by Strata ............................................................... 101
Table 68: Reasons for Not Recycling by Housing Type ................................................... 102
Table 69: Most Effective Ways to Further Promote Waste Minimization and Recycling
by Region ........................................................................................................ 103
Table 70: Most Effective Ways to Further Promote Waste Minimization & Recycling
by Strata .......................................................................................................... 104
Table 71: Most Effective Ways to Further Promote Waste Minimization and Recycling
by Housing Type .............................................................................................. 105
Table 72: Support Additional Day for Collection of Recyclables by Region ...................... 106
Table 73: Support Additional Day for Collection of Recyclables by Strata ........................ 107
Table 74: Support Additional Day for Collection of Recyclables by Housing Type ........... 108
Table 75: Types of Recyclable Items retained by Household ........................................... 109
Table 76: Recyclables Composition by Region ................................................................ 110
Table 77: Destination of Recyclables by Region .............................................................. 111
Table 78 : Distribution of respondents sampled in the industry survey according to
industry type and their recycling practices ........................................................ 113
Table 79: Distribution of respondents sampled in the industry survey according to firm
size and their recycling practices ..................................................................... 113
Table 80: Ranking of reasons for not practicing recycling for different industry types ...... 115
Table 81: Total weight of recyclables generated per day (kg/day) by Malaysian
industries according to firm size and types of recyclables ................................ 116
Table 82: Price ranges for different recyclables generated from municipal waste of
Malaysian industries ........................................................................................ 120
Table 83: Price ranges of recyclables according to region ............................................... 121
Table 84: Distribution of Commercial and Institutions Respondents by Participating in
Recycling ......................................................................................................... 126
Table 85: Composition of recyclables of Malaysian Commercial and Institutions based
on weight of recyclables ................................................................................... 127
Table 86: Types of recycling players................................................................................ 128

Page ix
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)

Table 87: Number of Respondents for each category of recycling players ....................... 129
Table 88: Number of Collection Points Provided by Trader/Middle Men/Buy Back
Center .............................................................................................................. 131
Table 89: Malaysia External Trade of Recyclable Materials for year 2011 ....................... 142
Table 90: Top 10 Countries Export to Malaysia by Type of Waste and Scrap .................. 143
Table 91: Top 10 Countries Received Import from Malaysia by Type of Waste and
Scrap ............................................................................................................... 143
Table 92: Comparison of the Waste Composition between 2004 and 2012 ..................... 146
Table 93: Waste Composition for Low, Middle and High cost houses (As Generated), .... 156
Table 94: Waste Composition for Institutional, Commercial and Industrial waste ............. 157
Table 95: Waste Components for As Discarded and As Disposed in Malaysia ................ 158
Table 96: Average Proximate Analysis Results for Malaysian As Discarded and As
Disposed Waste............................................................................................... 159
Table 97: Average Ultimate Analysis Results for Malaysian As Discarded and As
Disposed Waste............................................................................................... 159
Table 98: Average Heavy Metal results of the As Discarded and As Disposed Waste ..... 160
Table 99: Proximate, Ultimate analysis and Calorific Value of the Individual
Components .................................................................................................... 161
Table 100: Heavy Metal Analysis of the Individual Components ........................................ 162
Table 101: Average Household Waste Generation in 2012, Malaysia................................ 163
Table 102: Waste Generation Rate by Commercial and Institution Sub-sectors ................ 164
Table 103: Industrial Non Production Waste Generation Rate ........................................... 164
Table 104: Price ranges for different recyclables generated from municipal waste of
Malaysian industries ........................................................................................ 166
Table 105: Quantity of Household Waste and Recyclable Materials Generated in 2012 .... 167
Table 106: Breakdown of the Recycling Rate of Malaysia ................................................. 167
Table 107: Quantity of Recyclable Material found in the As Disposed Waste .................... 168
Table 108: Malaysia External Trade of Recyclable Materials for year 2011 ....................... 168
Table 109: Top 10 Countries Export to Malaysia by Type of Waste and Scrap .................. 169
Table 110: Top 10 Countries Received Import from Malaysia by Type of Waste and
Scrap ............................................................................................................... 169
Table 111: Recycling Rate of Malaysia .............................................................................. 170

Page x
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

ACRONYMS

ASTM American Standard Testing Method

DOE Department of Environment
FMM Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers
GMAM Glass Manufacturers Association of Malaysia
GSR GSR Environmental Consultancy Sdn. Bhd.
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
ICI Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
JPSPN Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara
National Solid Waste Management Department
KPKT Kementerian Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan
Ministry Of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government
LA Local Authority
LDPE Low Density Polyethylene
MIDA Malaysian Industrial Development Authority
MITI Ministry Of International Trade And Industry
MPMA Malaysian Plastics Manufacturers Association
MPPMA Malaysian Pulp & Paper Manufacturers Association
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MT Metric Tonne
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
ONP Old Newspaper
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
SOWACO Solid Waste Contractors’ Association
SEDC Sarawak Economic Development Corporation
SMIDEC Small And Medium Industries Development Corporation
SWM Solid Waste Management
TOR Terms Of Reference
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Page xi
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

1 INTRODUCTION

Effective solid waste management begins with the adequate and reliable information of what
is in the waste stream entering from the Households, Industries, and Commercial and
Institutional entities and ending up at the Landfills/Dumpsites, which in Malaysia is the
primary mode of disposal. This basic information is essential to all aspects of policy and
program implementation. The collected information can be used for purposes such as:

• Obtaining information to quantify recyclables and to prioritize recovery opportunities;

• Establishing a baseline for continued long-term measurement of system
performance;
• Understanding the differences between waste sub streams so targeted recycling
programs can be designed, implemented, and monitored;
• Comparing waste composition and waste diversion accomplishments among
jurisdictions with different solid waste policies.

Since the 21st century, proper management of a nation’s municipal solid waste (MSW) has
become and continues to be a high priority area for every country’s government. Stemming
from the current problems of disposing MSW, a holistic concept of integrated solid waste
management has become a necessity in planning for the future. This includes source
reduction of waste before entering the waste stream, recovery of generated waste for
recycling and composting and environmentally sound disposal through combustion facilities
and sanitary landfills that comply with best management practices.

A historical perspective is particularly beneficial as it establishes trends and highlights the

changes, of types of waste generated and the ways they are managed over the years. This
perspective on MSW and its management is valuable in assessing national solid waste
management needs and policies, and setting realistic national targets for recycling rates.

Findings from future studies, following the same methodology and scope used in this survey,
will serve as a useful method in reporting waste generation patterns over time and forecast
future trends. This baseline is achieved by conducting a comprehensive investigation on
solid waste composition, characteristics and current practices of recycling activities.

Information currently available on solid waste composition and recycling in Malaysia is based
on previous ad hoc studies done by Kementerian Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan
Dan Kerajaan Tempatan (KPKT) (and various aid partners), individual local authorities,
research institutions and universities. These studies were mainly conducted in the last
decade hence are not a true representation of the current rates of recycling in the whole
country.

Page 1
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

The approach taken was to first confirm commitment and ownership of the study by the key
stakeholders, i.e. JPSPN and KPKT. This is mandatory, in view of the anticipated changes
and reforms of the overall SWM and recycling system in Malaysia, as a result of the findings
of the overall study. Other stakeholders that closely worked with the team included select
local governments, particularly the sections that are in-charge of solid waste recycling, non-
governmental organisations, residents’ associations or public participation apart from key
institutions that are in-charge of overall solid waste recycling and management and
Concessionaires.

The purpose of the Survey is to establish a reliable baseline that can be used in the planning
for an Integrated Solid Waste Management of both the collection and disposal of solid waste
in Malaysia.

Page 2
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

2 OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY

The aim of Survey on Solid Waste Composition, Characteristics and Existing Practice
of Solid Waste Recycling in Malaysia was to achieve the following main objectives:

 To obtain information on the household solid waste composition at different stages of

solid waste management, i.e. from generation to disposal.

 To analyse household solid waste samples for physical, chemical and biological
characteristics at different stages of solid waste management, i.e. from generation to
disposal.

 To obtain information on the solid waste generation at Industrial (non-production

waste), Commercial and Institution (ICI) sectors but not including Construction and
Demolition Waste (C&D).

 To determine the existing recycling practices in the market, including identification of

the main recycling players, informal sectors and the recyclable material flows.

 To determine the existing recycling rate and total recyclable materials remaining in
the waste disposed off at the landfill.

 To update information on the household waste generation rate in terms of per capita
generation based on number of household members.

The overall Survey comprised of three main activities namely:

 Waste Composition (Activity 1)

 Waste Characterisation (Activity 2)

 Recycling studies (Activity 3).

These activities resulted in findings that were then pieced together to create a clearer
understanding of waste stream. The stream which is the composition of waste generated
and their characteristics at various stages of the process (from collection to disposal) and the
volume and type of materials that are taken out of the waste stream for recycling becomes
quantifiable. The findings of these three activities, namely Waste Composition (Activity 1),
Waste Characterisation (Activity 2) and Recycling studies (Activity 3) are presented in
Chapter 10, Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 respectively.

Page 3
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

3 SURVEY AREAS

The survey areas covered Peninsular Malaysia and the states of Sabah and Sarawak. The
study areas for detailed survey included 18 sites or locations which were selected taking into
account the following:

 Geographical distribution covering both Peninsular Malaysia and the states of Sabah
and Sarawak;

 Regional distribution which includes one location in each state and covering:
- the Northern, Central (Klang Valley), Southern regions, East Coast states and the
state of Sabah and Sarawak;
 Size variation by including:
- City-centres or Dewan/Majlis Bandaraya, Municipal Councils or Majlis
Perbandaran and Districts or Majlis Daerah as shown in Table 1;

Table 1: Breakdown of Local Authorities in Malaysia

Breakdown of Local Authorities(LA)/

Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan (PBT) Total
Number of LAs Number of
Dewan / Majlis Majlis LAs
Majlis Daerah
Bandaraya Perbandaran
Peninsular
Malaysia
8 34 57 99

LAs in each Sabah 1 2 21 24

region in
Malaysia Sarawak 3 3 20 26

Total 12 39 98 149

Peninsular
Malaysia
2 6 4 12

LAs selected Sabah 1 1 1 3

for the Study
in each
region Sarawak 1 1 1 3

Total 4 8 6 18

Percentage of LAs
33.3% 20.5% 6.1% 12.1%
represented
Source: Jabatan Kerajaan Tempatan, Jun 2013 (http://www2.epbt.gov.my)

 Socio-economic groupings as roughly represented by housing type; and

 Sectoral diversity by households, Industrial, Commercial and Institutional sectors.

Page 4
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

The 18 Local Authorities (LAs) selected as part of the Survey, cover approximately 35 per
cent of the total population of Malaysia. It also represents the different levels of urbanisation
and standard of living as it categorised income levels, i.e. high, medium or low income areas
based on the housing types. Taking into account these characteristics in the selection of the
18 sites facilitates an all-encompassing coverage of waste composition, waste
characteristics and recycling practices in the country.

The Terms of Reference provided at the inception of the project divided Malaysia into 5
regions, namely Northern, Southern, Central and the states of Sabah and Sarawak. The
Central region comprised of the states of:

 Kelantan
 Terengganu
 Pahang
 Selangor
 The Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya

However, due to the income disparity in the Central region between the three East Coast
states and the more urbanised state of Selangor, and Federal Territories of Putrajaya and
Kuala Lumpur, this document further divides the Central region into Central Region / Klang
Valley and East Coast. The locations of these 18 sites are presented in Table 2 and in
Figures, Figure 1 & Figure 2 below.

Table 2: Locations of the Study areas

Region State Local Authority Population* Area (km²)*

Central/ Selangor MP Klang 832,600 636
Klang WP Kuala Lumpur
Valley DBKL 1,722,500 243
/Putrajaya
Kelantan MP Kota Bharu 509,400 403
East Coast Pahang MP Kuantan 416,000 3,067
Terengganu MD Besut 142,500 1,234
Kedah MD Kubang Pasu 230,100 954
Perak MD Tanjong Malim 85,200 189
Northern
Perlis MP Kangar 237,000 821
Pulau Pinang MP Pulau Pinang 740,200 297
Johor MB Johor Bahru 1,463,800 1,865
Southern Melaka MP Jasin 128,700 301
Negeri Sembilan MD Kuala Pilah 75,700 1,031
MD Beaufort 75,900 1,735
Sabah Sabah DB Kota Kinabalu 436,100 351
MP Sandakan 453,500 2,266
MB Miri 281,300 4,707
Sarawak Sarawak MD Samarahan 54,700 407
MP Sibu 257,800 2,230
*Source: Basic Population Characteristics by Administrative Districts, Department of Statistics, 2010

Page 5
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

The choice of the 18 locations or sites represents a well-distributed baseline that shall be
used in future studies.

Apart from the Regional Classification, the LAs were regrouped into Urban and Rural areas.
There are few proxy variables in classification of rural and urban areas. In this study, state
capitals or main towns were the main criteria for the classification. Of the total 18 LA(s) in
this study, 11 of them were classified as urban areas while the other 7 LA(s) were classified
as rural areas. The details are as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Distribution of Rural and Urban areas by LA

Strata Local Authority Areas

MB Johor Bahru,
MP Kangar,
MP Klang,
MP Kota Bharu,
DB Kota Kinabalu,
Urban DB Kuala Lumpur,
MP Kuantan,
MB Miri,
MP Pulau Pinang,
MP Sandakan,
MP Sibu

MD Beaufort,
MD Besut,
MP Jasin,
Rural MD Kuala Pilah,
MD Kubang Pasu,
MD Samarahan,
MD Tanjung Malim,

Page 6
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report
Figure 1: Solid Waste Survey Locations in Peninsular Malaysia

PERLIS

KEDAH

PULAU
PULAU PINANG
PINANG

KELANTAN

TEREN GGANU
PERAK

PAHANG

SEL ANGOR

WILAYAH
PERSEKUTUAN

NEGERI
SEMB ILAN

MELAKA

JOHOR

Page 7
 Figure 2: Solid Waste Survey Locations in SW
Survey on East Malaysia
Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Page 8
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

4 DEFINITIONS

Solid waste and Controlled solid waste

The Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management (SWPCM) Act 2007 Part I:
Preliminary - Interpretation defines solid waste and controlled solid waste as;

“Solid waste” includes—

(a) any scrap material or other unwanted surplus substance or rejected products
arising from the application of any process;
(b) any substance required to be disposed of as being broken, worn out, contaminated
or otherwise spoiled; or
(c) any other material that according to this Act or any other written law is required by
the authority to be disposed of, but does not include scheduled wastes as
prescribed under the Environmental Quality Act 1974 [Act 127], sewage as
defined in the Water Services Industry Act 2006 [Act 655] or radioactive waste as
defined in the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984 [Act 304].

“Controlled solid waste” means any solid waste falling within any of the following categories:
 Commercial solid waste
 Construction solid waste
 Household solid waste
 Industrial solid waste
 Institutional solid waste
 Imported solid waste
 Public solid waste
 Solid waste which may be prescribed from time to time

As Generated Waste

As Generated Waste is solid waste produced from its source. It is also the summation of
waste retained by the generator for other purposes and waste discarded for collection.
Generation refers to the weight of materials and products as they enter the waste
management system from residential sources but before recovery or combustion. Pre-
consumer (industrial) scrap is not included in the generation estimates. Source reduction
activities (e.g., backyard composting of yard trimmings) take place ahead of generation.

As Discarded and As Disposed Waste

As Discarded waste are solid waste placed at the collection point (e.g. Kerbside, Roll-off
Roll-on (RoRo) Bins) and to be collected by licensed waste collector/contractor.

As Disposed waste are solid waste taken from the collection points and delivered to solid
waste management facilities (e.g. Sanitary Landfill).

Page 9
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

5 SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work for the study included sampling of waste for compositional analysis and
characteristic analysis at the laboratory as well as on the ground survey through
observations and interview questionnaires. As per the Terms of Reference, there were four
parts to this survey that have been divided into 3 distinct activities.

PART 1:
 Waste Composition and Waste Characteristic Study at Households
 Waste Composition and Waste Characteristic Study at Landfill Site

PART 2:
 Waste Generation and Composition from Commercial and Institutions

PART 3:
 Waste Generation and Composition from Industries

PART 4:
 Survey on Existing Recycling Practice

The survey comprised of three (3) activities as presented in Figure 3:

 The composition of waste at different stages of the waste stream, from collection to
disposal (Waste Composition Study- Refer Chapter 10);

 The characteristics of the generated waste at different stages of the waste stream,
from collection to disposal (Waste Characterisation Study- Refer Chapter 11); and

 The recycling rate i.e. volume and type of materials that are taken out from the waste
stream for recycling (Existing Recycling Practice Study- Refer Chapter 12).

Figure 3: The Solid Waste Composition, Characteristics and Existing Practice of Solid
Waste Recycling Components

Composition
Reuse Burning
Characterisation

Household Bins Rubbish Landfills

Purchase
and ICI Trucks

Rate of
Recycling

Recyclables
 Plastic
Existing  Paper
Recycling  Aluminium
Practices
 Tins and Metal

Page 10
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

It must be noted that not all solid waste and controlled solid waste is included in this survey.
Although defined as solid waste in the SWPCM Act 2007, this study did not include
construction and demolition debris, bio-solids (sewage sludge), automobile bodies, municipal
sludge, combustion ash, wastes from imports or exports, production waste from industries
and industrial waste including waste sludge being disposed of at landfills in Malaysia.

6 CRITERIA USED FOR AREA SELECTION IN EACH LOCAL AUTHORITY

6.1 Households for Recycling Survey

The selection criteria used in identifying the locations of the samples (both for the waste
composition and the recycling survey) for the LAs was based on two scenarios. These two
scenarios are the consequence of the basic housing information available at each Local
Authority (LA) and as follows:

 LAs with detailed housing type information according to geographical location; and

 LAs with general housing type information.

Accordingly, two different sampling methods were used in this study and they are presented
in Figure 4 and described in following section.

Figure 4: Sampling method for households according to housing types and location.

Scenario (a) Scenario (b)

If geographical data If geographical data
of housing areas is of housing areas is
complete, incomplete, Sorted
Sorted into clusters according to BP

Housing Types:
 Low Cost – Landed and High rise
 Medium Cost – Landed Sorted into Housing Type Randomly select 3 to 6 BPs
 High Medium Cost – High rise for each housing type
 High Cost - Landed

Randomly select 3 or more

Sorted into Housing Type
Clusters for each housing type

Sample every fixed interval

Sample Households in each Household within each
randomly selected BP until
cluster according to a ratio
a target number is achieved
according to a ratio

Sample
Note: BP = Blok Perancang /
Planning Blocks in each LA

Page 11
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

6.1.1 Scenario (a) - LAs with detailed housing type information

 Areas that are geographically proximate to each other were grouped into clusters.

 Within each cluster, the households were sorted into housing types. These housing
types are assumed to represent the income level of the household.

 Each cluster was then coded, after which three clusters were randomly selected
within each housing type, by using the random number generator in Microsoft Excel.
These housing types represented the housing type for the LA.

 The total number of samples is then divided proportionately to determine the number
of sample (n) in each cluster i.e. if there were three clusters representing each
housing type, n/3 samples was taken from each cluster.

 Both the teams for the Waste Composition Survey and the Recycling Survey
collected the samples from the houses within the same clusters; however the
number of houses in each cluster for these surveys differed.

 For the Survey on Existing Recycling Practice, 5 main housing types were
identified, namely low-cost landed, low-cost high rise, medium-cost landed, high-
medium cost high rise and high-cost landed. As a general guideline, 30 samples
were needed for each housing type in a local authority (LA). Therefore, 150
households (HHs) per LA were needed in general for LAs with 5 housing types. The
high-medium cost high-rise were split and combined into the medium and high cost
housing for the Waste Composition and Waste Characterisation Survey.

 The housing data used for this Survey was extracted from the Residential Property
Stock Report which has comprehensive classification for the housing sector. Using
the above matrix as a guide, the table, Table 4 shows the classification of housing
type for each LA (the lowest level of disaggregation). With this kind of stratification, a
quota of 30 households per cell is acceptable as it is the minimum (recommended)
size for examining variations within the stratified cell.

 In order to compensate for all “inappropriate” cases (e.g. migrant workers’ house,
respondent is under 18), 50% over sampling was applied. In other words, a total of
45 households (n) were sampled per housing type in this survey. These 45
households included all households that agreed to participate, irrespective of
whether they recycle or not.

 In some LAs, certain household types were not available (e.g. high-rise high income
units in rural areas) or they contributed to less than 3% of the total households in that
LA. In such cases, these housing types were not chosen in that LA and the 30
samples originally allocated for these housing types was reallocated to the five larger
LAs namely Penang, Kuala Lumpur, Johor Bahru, Kota Kinabalu and Miri.

Page 12
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

The reason for the increase in the sample size in the more populated LAs was to
capture the greater diversity and to analyse that diversity in greater detail. The total
number of samples for each housing type from each LA is shown in Table 4.

 Specifically for the Survey on Existing Recycling Practice, to evenly spread out
the sampling effort in each cluster, a ratio was calculated for each cluster by dividing
total households of that particular housing type by total number of targeted samples
in each cluster. This ratio was then used as the interval by which every ith household
within cluster was taken.

Table 4: Number of household surveys needed for each housing type in each local authority

High-
Medium High
Low income Med
income income
Region Local Authority Income Total
High High
Landed Landed Landed
rise rise
MP Kangar 45 45 45 0 45 180

MD Kubang Pasu 45 0 45 0 45 135

Northern
MP Pulau Pinang 45 195 60 90 60 450

MD Tanjung Malim 45 0 45 0 45 135

MP Klang 45 0 45 45 45 180

DB Kuala Lumpur 60 60 150 60 75 405

Central MD Besut 45 0 45 0 45 135

MP Kota Bharu 45 45 45 45 45 225

MP Kuantan 45 0 45 45 45 180

MP Jasin 45 0 45 0 45 135
Southern MB Johor Bahru 0 75 135 75 75 360

MD Kuala Pilah 45 45 45 0 45 180

MD Beaufort 45 0 45 0 0 90
Sabah DB Kota Kinabalu 0 90 180 45 45 360

MP Sandakan 45 45 45 45 45 225

MB Miri 45 45 90 0 90 270
Sarawak MD Samarahan 45 45 45 45 45 225

MP Sibu 45 45 45 0 45 180

Total 735 735 1200 495 885 4050

Page 13
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

For example, a selected cluster has 300 medium landed households and a total of 15
samples must be taken from this cluster. The ratio (i) that is used for sampling will therefore
be

i = 300 / 15
= 20

In other words, after randomly choosing a household to start sampling, the sample is taken
on every 20th household in that cluster until 45 households was sampled.

To illustrate the methodology further, a typical example of a Local Authority for which
samples have been defined is shown in Table 5, where the various clusters and the selected
clusters for sampling are shown for each type of housing. Table 6 presents the actual
number of households in the selected clusters in each housing type along with the interval
between each household, calculated by dividing the number of household by the number of
samples.

Table 5: Number of Samples for each Housing Type

Low Cost Medium Cost High Cost

Areas in MD Kubang Pasu
Landed Landed Landed
Kepala Batas
1 15 15
Tok Jalai
Jenan- Tanah Merah
2 15
Tanjung Pauh
3 Bandar Darul Aman 15 15
4 Jitra 15
Jitra Utara
5 15
Hosba
Tunjang
Megat Dewa
7 15
Padang Sera
Kodiang
Sanglang
8 Kerpan 15
Air Hitam
Total (N) 45 45 45

Page 14
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 6: Number of Households in each Housing type and the ratio for the interval between
households

Areas in MD Kubang Low Medium High

Ratio Ratio Ratio
Pasu- All Landed Cost Cost Cost
Kepala Batas
1 1,250 83 180 12
Tok Jalai

Jenan- Tanah Merah

2 204 13
Tanjung Pauh

3 Bandar Darul Aman 102 6 1,179 78

4 Jitra 3,000 200

Jitra Utara
5 761 50
Hosba

Tunjang

Megat Dewa
7 361 24
Padang Sera

Kodiang

Sanglang

8 Kerpan 104 6

Air Hitam

6.1.2 Scenario (b) - LAs with general housing type information

 The LA was first sorted into Blok Perancang or Planning Blocks (BP) in the LA,
obtained from the Local Plan.
 Each BP was numbered using a random number that was generated from Microsoft
Excel. Depending on the number of BPs in a LA, between 2 to 6 BPs were chosen to
represent each housing type.
 The presence of the housing types required in a certain BP was determined in the
field.
 Specifically for the Survey on Existing Recycling Practice, where the housing type
was available, samples were selected by randomly selecting a starting point and
taking every kth (a pre-fixed interval) household in that BP until approximately 15
households of that housing type were sampled. If the housing type required was
unavailable in the selected BP, the interviewer contacted the Consultant for further
instructions.

Page 15
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

6.2 Households for Waste Composition Survey

For the Waste Composition Study, the Number of Households for each LA to make
one daily sample, for each housing type, was based on the Draft Malaysian
Standard 10Z011R0 (2011). This Standard recommends that the waste be taken
from a minimum of 1,250 houses. The minimum number of houses for each LA was
set at 30. The distribution of the households was set based on the population of each
LA. The number of housing type in each LA is then equally distributed within the
same clusters selected for the Recycling Survey to ensure the at least 30% of the
houses are common between the 2 surveys.

The breakdown for which is as presented in Table 7.

Table 7: Number of Household from which waste is collected at each site per day

Housing Types (No. of Houses)

Site Location
Low Medium High
Beaufort 30 30 30
Besut 30 30 30
Jasin 30 30 30
Johor Bahru 177 239 318
Kangar 30 30 30
Klang 146 178 114
Kota Bharu 30 30 30
Kota Kinabalu 30 30 30
Kuala Lumpur 313 319 266
Kuala Pilah 30 30 30
Kuantan 52 33 58
Kubang Pasu 30 30 30
Miri 30 30 32
Pulau Pinang 172 91 102
Samarahan 30 30 30
Sandakan 30 30 30
Sibu 30 30 30
Tanjung Malim 30 30 30
Total 1,250 1,250 1250

Page 16
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

6.3 Industrial establishments

Taking into account that LAs may have different types of industries, samples were selected
according to industrial categories. As a general guideline, 50 samples per industrial category
were sampled for the Recycling Survey. A total of 11 industrial categories were identified
as shown in the Table 8. In other words, a total of 550 industrial establishments were
sampled for this study. 54 samples were collected for the Waste Composition Survey
within the 18 LAs. The selection criteria ensured at least 3 samples in each category were
selected of the 54 samples.

Table 8: Industrial Sector Categories

Industrial Categories:
 Food and beverage
 Textile and Apparel
 Fabricated metal
 Basic metal
 Machinery, motor vehicles and transport equipment
 Electrical and electronic products
 Wood and product of wood and cork, except furniture;
manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting materials
 Paper and paper product
 Chemical, petrochemical and plastic products
 Non-metallic mineral product
 Other industries

Note:
 For LAs that mainly produced rice or palm oil, rice mills or palm oil mills was sampled under
the Food and Beverage.
 The number of samples needed refers to the number of establishments that practice recycling
and not the number of establishments that were approached for the survey because no
oversampling is done for this survey.

To integrate information collected by the Waste Composition team and the Recycling team,
a number of industrial samples were shared between both teams per LA. First, the Recycling
Team provided the Waste Composition team with a list of companies/factories that were
surveyed and currently practice recycling. Next, the Waste Composition team selected
company/factory on that list to sample and these were the shared samples.

Using a list of industries from the Local Authority, companies were asked if they practiced
recycling. If no, the interviewer would ask for the type of business activity and the reason for
not recycling before ending the call. If yes, an appointment will be made for an interview with
the establishment. Face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted.

Page 17
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

For companies that only have addresses, the interviewer will try to go to the address and
obtain the phone numbers before trying walk-in interviews or calling to ask if they practice
recycling or not. If yes, an appointment for an interview would be made.

6.4 Commercial and Institutional (CI) establishments

A total of 8 main CI categories were identified for this survey with 50-60 samples in each
category. This amounts to 470 establishments as the total number of samples needed for
this survey. While the categories were not listed in the TOR, the establishment types (as
agreed in the Inception Report) belonging to these categories will be followed as closely as
possible. The CI categories that were identified for this study and the types of
establishments belonging to each category are as presented in Table 9. 108 samples were
collected for the Waste Composition Survey within the 18 LAs. The selection criteria
ensured at least 3 samples in each category were selected of the 108 samples.

Table 9: Commercial and Institutional Categories

CI Categories Type of establishments sampled

Supermarkets, hypermarkets, shopping complex,

Wholesale and retail, motorised vehicle repair
sundry shop, convenience stores etc

Transportation and storage Central bus station, Train station, Airports etc

Accommodation and food services Hotel, eatery

Health and Social work Clinics / hospitals

Business offices Private offices

Public administration Government offices, army camps, police stations

Education Schools, Colleges/Universities

Other services Wet Markets, Stadiums, Mosques etc

To integrate information collected by the Waste Composition team and the Recycling team,
at least six (6) samples per LA were shared between the teams conducting the waste
composition analysis and the recycling survey. In the fieldwork, these shared samples were
completed first. Sampling for CI was conducted through face-to-face interviews without
making prior arrangements to interview the establishment. Note: Samples refer to the
establishments that practice recycling and not the establishments who were approached for
the survey because no oversampling is done for this survey.

Page 18
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

If there was only one establishment of the required type available in that LA and does not
practice recycling, this sample was replaced with another establishment type in the same CI
category. For example, in Kubang Pasu LA the only army camp did not practice recycling
and it was replaced with another Public Administration establishment (e.g. Police station,
Government Office).

After completion of the 6 shared samples, the interviewer continued to select for the
remaining samples until the total samples needed for each CI category in that LA was
collected. For example, 8 CI samples are needed from Kubang Pasu.

The interviewer selected 6 establishment types that will be the shared samples. After
submitting a name list of the 6 establishments to the supervisor, the interviewer then did
another 2 more samples. Table 9 shows the categories and establishment types associated
with them.

Page 19
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

7 METHODOLOGY OF THE SURVEY

The methodology is discussed based on 3 main activities, namely, Waste Composition,

Waste Characterisation and Recycling survey.

7.1 ACTIVITY 1: Waste Composition Study

Waste collected from Households, Institutions, Commercial and Industries (As

Generated and As Discarded) and Landfills (As Disposed)

This Section discusses the methodology used in the Waste Composition Survey. The
objective of the compositional study was to determine the current composition of solid waste
as generated, discarded and disposed off from the generation sources. Four types of waste
generation sources were identified:

 Waste generated, discarded and disposed from households

 Waste generated from industries
 Waste generated from commercial sectors
 Waste generated from institutional establishments

The study area was identified and is as presented in Table 2: Locations of the Study
areas. The study covered the following criteria:

 Each state in northern, central/Klang Valley and southern region, Sabah and
Sarawak.

 Study areas included district councils, municipal councils and city areas.

 The solid waste sample for composition from households was taken from high,
medium and low income areas (based on housing types such as bungalows,
apartments, terrace houses, squatters etc.).

 3 solid waste samples in each LA for composition from the Commercial sector. The 3
samples were from a different category e.g. Shop lots, Hotels, Shopping Complexes,
Hypermarkets and Offices. All the categories were covered with a minimum of 3 in
each category.

 3 solid waste samples in each LA for composition from the Institutional sector. The 3
samples were from a different category e.g. Schools/Universities and Hospitals. All
the categories were covered with a minimum of 3 in each category.

 A mixed solid waste sample for composition from Industries was taken from Heavy
and Light industries.

 The selected landfill sites were correlated with the study areas presented in Table 2.

Appendix 1 presents the forms used for the Waste Composition Study

Page 20
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Standards/documents used as reference:

The Sampling and Analysis Methodology was based on the following documents:

 Draft Malaysian Standard 10Z011R0 (2011): Guidelines for sampling of

household solid waste – Composition and characterisation analysis. This
Malaysian Standard specifies the sampling methodology for household solid waste
composition and characterisation analysis which applies to waste As Generated, As
Discarded and As Disposed; reporting format after sampling and characterisation
analysis; and the minimum number of components for household solid waste
composition.

 ASTM D 5231-92: The Test Method to determine the Composition of

Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste. This standard describes the procedures for
measuring the composition of unprocessed municipal solid waste (MSW) by
employing manual sorting. This test method is used to determine the mean
composition of MSW based on the collection and manual sorting of a number of
samples of waste over a selected time period covering one week.

 HANDBOOK 1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, Solid Waste Stream

Composition Analysis, COWI, 2002.

7.1.1 Sampling protocol

a) Households

When calculating waste compositions from households, a three-way stratification method

was developed to account for variations between:

 Seasons
 Geographical regions
 Socio-economic grouping

The first level of stratification was the seasonal stratification. The waste composition study
was conducted to include the maximum and minimum rainfall period in at least 2 sites, to
account for the wet season and the dry season. Part of the study was also conducted during
the festive/holiday season.

The second level is geographical stratification which takes into consideration the 18 sites
identified by JPSPN and presented in Table 1. The survey also stratified each local authority
into housing types and selected the sample based on the housing mix as presented in Table
10.

Page 21
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 10: Socio-economic Status and Housing Stratification Matrix

Low Income Medium Income High Income

Low cost houses,

Terrace, Detached,
Landed units Squatters, kampong
town house semi- detached
and traditional houses

High rise units Low cost flats Apartments and Condominiums

The waste was collected and sorted for each of the housing type. As the number of low,
medium and high cost households in each LA varied considerably, the number of
households in each housing type, from which the As Generated and As Discarded waste
was collected to make the 3 composite samples for sorting, followed a similar proposition.

The overall objective of this study was to obtain the average waste composition information
of the nation, using the 18 sites to represent that average. The Draft Malaysian Standard
10Z011R0 (2011): Guidelines for sampling of household solid waste – Composition
and Characterisation analysis recommends that if the number of households involved is
greater than 50,000, the minimum number of households from which the waste shall be
collected is 1,250.

As each of the 3 housing types (Low, Medium and High) in the 18 sites exceeded the 50,000
threshold, the number of households in each housing type from which waste was collected
was at least 1,250. It was observed that when the minimum value of 1,250 households was
distributed over the sites based on the number of housing units in each LA and the three
housing types, most of the waste would be collected from more urbanised sites.

The total number of households from which waste was taken increased from the original
planned number of 1,620 to 3,750 and redistributed into each housing type and site. Apart
from increasing the total number, a minimum threshold of the number of households in each
housing type was set at 30.

Table 7 shows the number of low, medium and high cost households required in each site to
form a sample. The generation rate from the households was calculated based on the waste
collected from the As Generated waste at the low, medium and high income households.

Page 22
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

b) Institutional, Commercial and Industry (ICI)

Two levels of stratification were used in the Institutional, Commercial and Industry (ICI)
study:

 Seasonal
 Geographical

For the seasonal stratification, the Waste Composition study was conducted to determine
the maximum and minimum rainfall period in at least 2 sites, to account for the wet and dry
seasons. Part of the study was also conducted during the festive/holiday season. The
geographical stratification considers the 18 sites identified by JPSPN and presented in Table
2.

 Commercials and Institutions were sub-divided into the following categories:

- Offices (office complexes, shop lots)

- Hotels
- Transport hubs (railway stations, bus stations, airports)
- Shopping areas and markets (shopping complexes, hypermarkets, supermarkets,
wet markets, night markets)
- Shop lots (restaurants)
- Hospitals and clinics
- Stadiums
- Army camps
- Government complexes
- Police stations
- Mosques
- University, colleges, schools

Waste from at least 5 premises (if available in LA) from each of the above sources was
collected to form a sample in a day for each site.

 Industrial was divided into 2 categories (Heavy and Light industry) – for each
category, a minimum of 5 premises was sampled. The priority areas were palm oil
processing mills, rice processing mills and animal slaughtering houses.

For the ICI, unlike the households where distinct housing units were used as a measure,
total weight of the waste collected was the basis of measurement. The amount of waste
collected in each site was based on the size and population of the LA.

Table 11 presents the minimum quantity of ICI waste collected in each site per day.

Page 23
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 11: Breakdown of the Quantity of ICI waste collected in each LA

Source (Kgs.)
District
Industrial Institutional /Commercial

Beaufort 200 200

Besut 200 200

Jasin 200 200

Johor Bahru 1,000 1,000

Kangar 200 200

Klang 1,000 1,000

Kota Bharu 200 200

Kota Kinabalu 500 500

Kuala Lumpur 500 1,000

Kuala Pilah 200 200

Kuantan 1,000 1,000

Kubang Pasu 200 200

Miri 1,000 500

Pulau Pinang 1,000 1,000

Samarahan 200 200

Sandakan 500 500

Sibu 500 500

Tanjung Malim 1,000 1,000

Total 9,600 9,600

Page 24
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

7.1.2 As Generated Sampling (Sampling at Source)

Procedure of Obtaining the Composition of Waste from Households

Households were divided into 3 types based on housing type (Low, Medium & High
Cost). The number of households by category sampled is presented in Table 7.

The procedure for carrying out collection of waste for composition analysis at source in
Households was as follows:

 Each of the selected households was contacted and notified about the study, and
their cooperation sought to participate in the survey.

 The selected households were asked to retain their wastes that are normally
discarded, including the recyclable components that are kept for separate disposal
with the recyclers.

 The sample representative per sampling area of selected households was at least 30
residents.

 The activity carried out in groups of 3 persons. One person (recorder) recorded the
number of premises visited.

 The compositional analysis done in groups of 9 persons. One person (recorder)

recorded the number of households according to the categories.

 Two persons bagged the waste, weighed the contents and recorded in the data
sheets provided.

 The information on the number of newspapers and magazines was also logged.

 The recorder recorded the information of the premises and passed this information to
the data analyst.

 Waste collected was placed on trucks and transported to the landfill site, where the
quantity of collected waste was weighed, sorted into its components and the sorted
components weighed to record the waste composition.

 Six persons conducted the sorting of the waste, weighing the sorted waste and
recording of the waste composition by weight.

 A laboratory sample of about 1 kg per component was placed in a sample bag and
sealed. The sample bag was weighed and marked before it was wrapped in boxes.
The whole sample was boxed and couriered to the laboratory the same day.

 The survey duration covered a one-week cycle to identify the weekly trend of the
waste composition and generation rate.

Page 25
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

7.1.3 As Discarded Sampling (Sampling at kerbside)

Procedure of Obtaining the Composition of Waste from Households, Industry, Commercial

and Institution

Each LA was divided into the following different categories of sources:

 The Households in each LA was divided into 3 types based on housing types (Low,
Medium & High Income). Housing type is assumed to represent the income level of
the household.

 Commercials was divided into categories which included offices (office complexes,
shop lots), hotels, transport hubs (railway stations, bus stations, airports), shopping
areas and markets (shopping complexes, hypermarkets, supermarkets, wet markets,
night markets), shop lots (restaurants), hospital and clinics, stadiums, army camps,
Government complexes, police stations, Mosques, (universities, colleges, schools).
Waste from at least 5 premises (if available in LA) from each of the above sources
was collected to form a sample in a day for each LA.

 Industrial was divided into 2 categories (Heavy and Light industry) – for each source
a minimum of 5 premises were sampled to form a specific sample in a day for each
LA. The priority areas were palm oil processing mills, rice processing mills and
animal slaughtering houses.

The locations of the households, industry, commercial and institution were determined using
information obtained from the LA; collection was done based on the collection frequency of
the specified area. The survey’s sampling truck first collected the waste from the kerbside
before the daily waste collection trucks did the normal collection.

Activities that were carried out during the sampling period were as follows:

 The activity carried out in groups of 3 persons. One person (recorder) recorded the
details of the premises.
 Two persons bagged the waste, weighed the content and recorded it in the data
sheet provided.
 The recorder recorded the information of the premise and passed this information to
the data analyst.
 Waste collected was placed on trucks and transported to the landfill site, where the
quantity of collected waste is weighed, sorted into its components and the sorted
components weighed to record the waste composition.
 Six persons conducted the sorting of the waste, weighing the sorted waste and
recording of the waste composition by weight.

Page 26
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

 A laboratory sample of about 1 kg per component was placed in a sample bag and
sealed. The sample bag was weighed and marked before it was wrapped in boxes.
The waste samples in boxes were couriered to the laboratory the same day.
 The survey duration covered one-week cycle to identify the weekly trend of the waste
composition and discarded rate.
 Where possible and practicable, the quantity of water collected at the bottom of the
waste receptacle was measured and logged.

7.1.4 As Disposed Sampling (Sampling at landfill)

Procedure of Obtaining the Composition of Incoming Waste at Landfills

The composition of the waste at the landfills requires sampling of only one main landfill that
receives the largest amount of waste from the predetermined LA. The quantity of waste
disposed and location of illegal dumpsites were not part of the study. However, the waste
collection trucks servicing these sites arriving at the landfill were randomly selected for the
composite samples.

The method of “Random Sampling” was used to form the representative samples. This is
where the waste was extracted from multiple waste collecting trucks that service the same
areas as the samples collected for the As Generated / As Discarded waste. A grab sample
of 50 to 100 kgs was taken from 10 trucks before the “cone and quarter” method for
extracting sub-samples from the sample material collected was employed. The procedure for
carrying out composition analysis at source at the landfill was as follows:

 Waste trucks entering the landfill site with solid waste collected from same household
areas as the As Generated / As Discarded sampling was selected for the survey.
 The waste from the trucks was directed to a pre-prepared sampling site and the
waste unloaded onto the tip floor.
 Bulky items, medical waste or scheduled waste found in the waste was separated
from the load, weighed and logged in the datasheets.
 The remaining material was mixed by mechanical shovel, or manually using rakes or
shovels, into a uniform, homogeneous pile approximately 0.8 m high.
 The pile was then divided into two equal portions by drawing a straight line through
the centre of the pile. The pile was further divided by drawing a second line roughly
perpendicular to the first.
 A pair of opposite quarters was removed, leaving half the original sample.
 The steps d) through f) were repeated until the required amount of sorting sample of
200kgs remained.

Page 27
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

 The sorting sample was then sorted into the different components, weighed and each
waste component’s weight was recorded.
 Two persons bagged the waste, weighed the content and recorded it in the data
sheet provided.
 A laboratory sample of about 1 kg per component was placed in a sample bag and
sealed. The sample bag was weighed and marked before it is wrapped in boxes. The
whole sample in boxes was couriered to the laboratory the same day.
 The survey duration covered a week cycle to identify the weekly trend of the waste
composition and disposal rate.

7.1.5 Sampling Plan

The Sampling Plan for the Compositional Analysis was devised to reach the objectives,
cover the scope and deliver the outputs of the Terms of Reference of the Study. The
Sampling Plan for the Compositional Analysis is presented in Table 12. With this Sampling
Plan, the composition of the Solid Waste from the various categories and the differences in
the generated and disposed waste in the Household category can be determined.

Table 12: Sampling Plan for the Compositional Analysis

Days Number of Samples

Category taken for Composition
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Analysis for the Study

Household (HH) One week cycle – As Generated 126

High One week cycle – As Discarded 126

Household (HH) One week cycle – As Generated 126

Med One week cycle – As Discarded 126

Household (HH) One week cycle – As Generated 126

Low One week cycle – As Discarded 126

Landfill (LF) 1 1 1 1 1 1 108

Institutional /
1 1 1 1 1 1 108
Commercial (IC)
Industrial (IND) 1 1 1 54
Total 1026

The ASTM standard D 5231-92: The Test Method to determine the Composition of
Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste and Aarne Vesilind et al. in his book “Solid Waste
Engineering”, recommend that 50 samples of 91 kgs. each will give a precision better than
±5 per cent for food waste and ±15 per cent newsprint, aluminium and ferrous components.

Page 28
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Based on this information, the Sampling Plan was designed with each stratum having at
least 50 samples.

7.1.6 Sorting Sample weight

The waste sample was mixed, coned and quartered to get a Sorting Sample. The Sorting
Sample weight for waste composition analysis was based on Draft Malaysian Standard
10Z011R0 (2011): Guidelines for sampling of household Solid Waste – Composition
and characterisation analysis that recommends Sorting Sample weight be a minimum of
200 kg.

7.1.7 Field protocol - Sorting

The Field Sorting procedure of waste was as follows:

 The bulk density of every waste sample was measured. The bulk density was
measured by filling a 250-liter standard container/bin with the waste.
 The container was lifted and dropped 3 times from a height of about 100 mm. Each
time additional waste was added to the top before repeating the process.
 The weight of the waste divided by the volume gave the bulk density.
 The As Generated and As Discarded waste material from the sampling truck carrying
the waste collected from households, industry, commercial or institutional was
unloaded at the working area at the landfill site.
 A bucket front-end loader removed the material longitudinally along one entire side of
the discharged load in order to obtain a representative cross-section of the material.
 The sorting sample was mixed, coned, and quartered before selecting one quarter as
the Sorting Sample.
 A random method of selection was used to eliminate or minimize bias of the sample.
 All bulky waste were noted of in datasheet and weighed.
 The sample was then transferred to the sorting area, while the remainder of the
material was disposed off at the landfill.

The Sorting Waste Sample was then segregated into the waste components, as presented
in Table 13 by the Sorters at the landfill. In the case a composite item is found in the waste,
the individual materials was separated and placed into the appropriate storage containers.
Sorting continued until the maximum particle size of the remaining waste particles was
approximately 12 mm. At this point, the remaining material was apportioned into the storage
containers corresponding to the waste components represented in the remaining mixture.
The As Disposed waste material collection was done at the landfill from waste collection
trucks from the same geographical area as the waste collected for the As Generated / As
Discarded waste.

Page 29
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

The truck drivers were interviewed to collect information on the areas the waste load was
collected. Once the waste from the selected truck was unloaded on to the floor, steps of
quartering, coning and sorting followed the same Field Sorting protocol for As Generated.

Table 13: List of Waste Components and its description

Components Description
Food material resulting from the processing, storage, preparation, cooking,
handling or consumption of food. This type includes material from industrial,
commercial or residential sources and other food items from homes, stores
Food waste and restaurants.
Vegetable peelings & trimmings, including cooked vegetables etc.
kitchen waste that contains or is potentially contaminated with meat/meat
products etc.
Branches, twigs, leaves, grass, and other plant material (Branches < 4 inches
Garden waste
in Diameter)
Low density
Films such as plastic bags/films, polystyrene, foam, garment and produce
polyethylene,
bags, refuse sacks, packaging films, bubble wrap.
LDPE [Type 4]:
Packaging household and industrial chemicals (e.g. detergents, bleaches),
High density
snack and food packages, cereal box liners, milk and non-carbonated
polyethylene,
drinks bottles, margarine tubs, toys, buckets, rigid pipes, crates, garden
HDPE [Type 2]:
furniture & flower pots
Polyethylene Mineral water bottles, Fizzy drink, pre-prepared foods trays and boil in the bag
terephthalate,
food pouches, shampoo & vegetable oil bottles.
PET [Type 1]:
Plastic

Poly (vinyl
Pipes & fittings, credit cards, shampoo & vegetable oil bottles, synthetic leather
chloride),
products.
PVC [Type 3]:
Large moulded products such as battery casings, bottle tops, ketchup &
Polypropylene,
pancake bottles, yoghurt & margarine containers, crisp bags, drinking
PP [Type 5]:
straws, medicine containers.
Yoghurt pots, fast food trays, disposable cutlery, video cases, vending
Polystyrene, cups, seed trays, coat hangers, low cost brittle toys. Expanded polystyrene
PS [Type 6]: is also used for egg boxes food trays, hot drink cups, protective packaging for
fragile items and insulation.
Other plastic Plastic where type is not readily recognisable and polymers other than the six
most common.
Newsprint / old
Newsprint Newspaper
newspaper
Other recyclable paper:
Office quality paper: letter/writing paper, computer paper, loose leaf paper,
photocopies
Mixed paper Other unused wall paper, paper bags, paper packaging, mail in an envelope,
diaries, envelopes, posters, books, travel tickets, non-glossy pamphlets,
Paper

telephone directories, yellow pages, glossy magazines, catalogues, travel

brochures.
Non-recyclable paper
Wall paper removed from walls, photos, facial and toilet tissues, kitchen paper
Boxes and packets for:
cereal, washing powder, eggs, tissues, powdered milks, washing soda,
Cardboard
biscuits, ice cream, fruit juice, milk, fabric conditioner.
Corrugated card, greetings cards, postcards, beer mats, files.
Rubber All rubber including gloves, handbags, shoes, rubber mat etc

Wood Lumber, wood products, pallets

Page 30
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 13: List of Waste Components and its description (Cont’d)

Components Description

Leather Leather products e.g. Bags, leather coats, shoes, belts

Diapers Disposable diapers for babies and elderly, ladies sanitary napkins
All textiles including clothes, shirt, bed sheet, curtains, pants and other
Textiles
household items made from man-made or natural fibres.
©
Tetra Pak Carton used for packaging liquids: Milk, juices, coconut milk etc.
Food, beverage bimetal cans & aerosols: canned drinks, pet food, food,
perfume, hairspray etc.
Ferrous metal Other ferrous material: keys, cutlery, bike locks, ring pulls, paper clips,
safety pins, tools, car parts, oil filters, biscuit tins, radiators, saucepans,
bike parts, metal shelving units etc.
Food, beverage cans & aerosols: canned drinks, ring pulls etc.
Aluminium
Foil: aluminium foil, milk bottle tops, yoghurt tops etc.
Other non-ferrous metal: copper pipe, wires, brass, washers, old metal pipe
Other non-ferrous metals
fittings etc.
All non-packaging glass e.g. Mirrors, reinforced glass, non-fluorescent light
Sheet glass
bulbs.
Glass bottle All glass bottles such as brown, green, clear, other coloured glass
Consumer electronics :
Vacuum cleaners, carpet sweepers ,appliances for sewing, knitting, , irons,
toasters, fryers, grinders, coffee machines, hair dryers, toothbrushes, shavers,
massage and other body care appliances, clocks, watches etc.
Electric stoves, microwaves, electric heating appliances, printers, personal
computers, laptops and accessories (CPU, mouse, screen and keyboard
E-waste
included), electrical and electronic typewriters, calculators, fax machines, telex,
telephones (including cordless & cellular), answering machines radio, video,
cameras, video recorders, Hi-fi systems, audio amplifiers, musical instruments
(electric, e.g. keyboards) Toys electric trains, car racing sets, hand-held video
games & consoles; video games, sports related electronic equipment, smoke
detectors, thermostats etc.
Fluorescent tube
Any type of battery including both dry cell and lead acid. Examples include car
Batteries battery, flashlight battery, small appliance battery, watch battery, and hearing
aid batteries.
Containers with paint in them. Examples include latex paint, oil based paint,
Paint container and tubes of pigment or fine art paint. This type does not include dried paint,
empty paint cans, or empty aerosol containers.
Aerosol cans
Bulky waste means oversize household solid waste which cannot be placed in
the receptacle (mobile garbage bin, MGB 120 L or 240 L) provided for residual
waste including appliances, furniture, tree trunks and stumps.
Bulky waste Furniture:
Bed, mattress, cupboard, sofa, chairs, table
Garden waste
Tree Trunks, Branches > 4 inches in Diameter
Rocks

Porcelain / ceramic/china

Fruit peel /Husk Durian peels, Tender coconut husk, coconut shell etc

Page 31
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

7.2 ACTIVITY 2: Waste Characterisation Study

Waste collected from Households, Institutions, Commercial areas & Industries
(Generation) and Landfills (Disposal)

The waste samples collected in the Waste Composition phase were sent for analysis to
laboratories. The parameters of analysis to determine the physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of the waste samples were the same for waste samples from the households,
industries, commercial/ institutional and landfills.

Table 14 presents the Sampling plan for the waste characterisation.

Table 14: Sampling Plan for Waste Characterisation

Sampling Days Total No

No. Category Source Tests of
Samples
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Low income,
1 1 1
sampling at homes
Household - As
Medium income,
1 generated / 1 1 1 162
sampling at homes
discarded Proximate
High income, Analysis, 1 1 1
sampling at homes
Institutional / Composite Sample Ultimate
2 Commercial - As from Institutions and Analysis, 1 1 1 1 1 1 108
discarded sample commercial areas
Calorific
Industrial - As Composite sample Value,
3 1 1 1 54
discarded from industries
Landfill - As Metals
18 components from
Disposed 18 90
Landfill
Taken from 5 LAs

4 Composite from
1 1 1 1 1 1 108
Landfill - As Landfill
disposed Composite sample
NPK 1 1 1 1 1 1 108
from Landfill

Total 630

The Sampling plan for waste characterisation primarily focussed on the analysis on
composite samples. However, at 5 of the 18 landfill sites, a sample from the landfill was
sorted into 18 components (See Table 14 Item no. 4 and Table 15) for the proximate
analysis, Ultimate analysis and metals analysis.

Page 32
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 15: Waste Components Analysed

Components

Food waste Garden waste LDPE

HDPE PET PVC

PP PS Other plastic
Newsprint / old
Mixed paper Cardboard
newspaper
Rubber Wood Leather
©
Textiles Diapers Tetra Pak

To take into account the possible future diversion of Solid Waste from the current method of
disposal i.e. landfill disposal to thermal treatment of the solid waste by incineration or the
biological treatment of the organic fraction of the waste by composting, additional tests to
determine the Calorific Value and the NPK value were included in this study.

The following analysis was conducted for each of the parameters to achieve the
requirements of the TOR:

 Physical parameters – Specific weight, Proximate analysis

 Chemical parameters – Ultimate Analysis, Calorific Value and Metals
 Biological parameters – NPK value

Biodegradability is an important parameter when using treatment techniques such as

composting. If a large fraction of the Solid Waste is not biodegradable, then this fraction will
have to be disposed off by other means if composting is the primary mode of treatment. The
potential biodegradability of the waste samples was determined using the estimated
percentage of degradation of the individual components of the waste sample as
recommended by Aarne Vesilind et al. in his book “Solid Waste Engineering”.

7.2.1 Laboratory Analysis Procedure

The wet waste sample was prepared by drying and size reducing before the analysis. The
following were the pre-treatment processes of the waste sample:

 From the sorted waste components (sorted into the individual waste composition
category), each component was taken with an estimated weight of about 1 kg. This 1
kg sample was then put into air-tight plastic bags and weighed accurately prior to
sending to the laboratory. The exact weight of the sample was recorded.

Page 33
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

 At the laboratory, the sealed containers were opened and dried at 85oC for 24 hrs
until constant weight to determine the moisture content. The dried composite sample
was then processed to obtain an analysis stock of about 200 gram by coarse and fine
shredding and fine grinding.

 Coarse Shredding - Shear mill/shredder was used to reduce the size of the waste
when samples contain particles larger than 40 mm in size. The cutting action of the
shredder also achieves some degree of mixing of the samples.

 Fine Shredding – This stage of size reduction process reduces the particle size from
50 mm to 1 mm. The size reduction is achieved using a general purpose hammer mill
(1400 rpm), suitable for either pellets or coarsely shredded materials with a maximum
size of 40 mm.

The following are the analyses that were performed on the sample:

 Specific gravity – This is to measure the ratio of density of the waste sample.

 Proximate Analysis - This analysis is carried out to obtain the Moisture Content,
Fixed Carbon, Ash Content and Volatile Matter of a waste sample. This testing is
performed according to ASTM standards, E949, E830-81 and E891.

 Ultimate Analysis - This analysis is carried out to obtain the elementary components
of C, H, O, N, S, Organic Chlorine, and heavy metals present in a waste sample. This
testing is in accordance to ASTM the standards, E777-81, E778-81, E775, E776-81
and E885-82.

 Metals – The laboratory analysis for heavy metal content of the waste samples shall
include Magnesium, Vanadium, Silver, Copper, Aluminium, Iron, Lead, Mercury, Zinc,
Chromium, Arsenic Cobalt, Manganese and shall be tested according to the ASTM
standards E 926-94 and E 885-96.

 Calorific Value - This analysis is carried out in an apparatus known as a bomb

calorimeter to obtain the heating value of a waste sample. This test is performed in
accordance to the ASTM standard E711-81.

Table 16 presents the ASTM standard test methods that were used to analyse the collected
waste samples from the households, institutional / commercial areas, industries and landfills.

Appendix 1 presents the forms used for the Waste Characterisation Study.

Page 34
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 16: Waste Characteristics, Parameters and Test Methods

Waste
No. Parameters Test Method
Characteristics

1 Proximate Total Moisture Content ASTM D 3172-89,

Analysis Volatile Matter ASTM D 3175-89a,
Fixed Carbon ASTM D 3171-97,
Ash Content ASTM E 949-88,
ASTM E 897-88, and
ASTM E 830-87

2 Ultimate Carbon and Hydrogen ASTM D 3176-89,

Analysis Nitrogen ASTM D 3178-89,
Sulphur ASTM D 3179-89,
Organic Chlorine ASTM D 3177-89,
Oxygen ASTM E 777-87,
ASTM E 778-87, and
ASTM E 775-87

3 Metals Magnesium, Vanadium, Silver, ASTM E 926-94

Copper, Aluminium, Iron, Lead, ASTM E 885-96/ USEPA 6010B,
Mercury, Zinc, Chromium, Arsenic, USEPA 7471A
Cobalt, Manganese

4 Calorific Value HHV, LCV ASTM D 3286-96

ASTM E 711-87

7.2.2 Calorific Values Calculations

The energy value of the waste components depends on its calorific value (CV). There
are two types of CV:

 The Higher Heating Value (HHV)

 The Lower Calorific Value (LCV)

The Higher Heating Value (HHV) is the gross heat released when a small bone-dry sample
of the material is burned in a test calorimeter at a reference temperature (usually 25°C) and
all products are in their standard states at that temperature. The HHV includes the heat of
condensation of water vapour formed in the combustion reaction, which is not realistic for
Waste to Energy plant design calculations.

Page 35
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

In calculating the initial heat balance, to determine the amount of supplemental fuel required,
the usable heat released from the waste must be calculated or analysed.

The Lower Calorific Value (LCV) may be defined as the Usable heat less the heat required
to vapourise any free water in the waste. The effect of the elemental hydrogen from the
ultimate analysis is taken into consideration in the formula.

The formulas for determining the calorific value of waste components are:

HHVwet = HHVdry x (1 – W/100)

LCVwet = HHVwet - 219** x (%H2) x (1 – W/100) – 24.41* x W

Where:

LCVwet = Lower calorific value of “as-is” wet sample in kJ/kg

%H2 = %age of Hydrogen in the Wet MSW obtained from the Ultimate analysis

HHVdry = Higher Heating Value of dried sample in kJ/kg

HHVwet = Higher Heating Value of “as-is” wet sample in kJ/kg

W = %age of Moisture content of the wet sample

* Vapourisation enthalpy of water (2441 kJ/kg at 25 °C) /100

** Vapourisation enthalpy of water (2441 kJ/kg at 25 °C) x 18 moles of water / 2 moles of H2 /100

Equations adapted from the “Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Volume 1: Waste
Characterisation and Quantification with Projections for Future”, UNEP. 2009 .

Page 36
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

7.3 ACTIVITY 3: Survey on Existing Recycling Practice

This Section discusses the methodology of the recycling study, with a focus on the approach
and assumptions. The objective of this Study is to estimate the recycling rates and practices
by households in the selected local authority areas; understand the channels of recycling
network and structure; and examine the recycling patterns of industrial, commercial and
institutional establishments.

Four (4) types of surveys were carried out under the Survey on Existing Recycling
Practice, viz.

 Household survey
 Commercial and Institutional establishments survey
 Industrial establishment survey
 Recycling players survey

Appendix 2 presents the Survey Instruments used for the Survey on Existing Recycling
Practice.

7.3.1 Households and ICI Surveys

These surveys gathered background information on households and ICI establishments. For
example, information on household monthly income, number of household members, type of
housing and reasons for recycling were collected for households. Information such as type of
business, type of premise, the capacity of the premise and reasons for recycling was
attained for ICI. All these data are necessary to determine the potential factors that influence
current recycling practices.

Coupled with the amount of waste generated in households and establishments taken from
the Waste Composition Study (r1 + w1), the recycling rates (RR) of each establishment were
estimated. The model for estimating the recycling rate is illustrated in Figure 5.

where,

r1 = source-segregated recyclables (e.g. old newspapers, aluminium cans, etc)

r2 = comingled recyclable items in the waste bin
w1 = waste generated as in the waste bin.

Page 37
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 5: Model to estimate the Recycling Rate from Households, Industries, CI

Establishments

Purchase Consumption

r2 Bin
W1
Households (HH) &
ICI Establishments

r1
Recyclable
Fractions

Using this model (Figure 5), the following recycling rates were estimated:

Household recycling rate is the amount (weight) of recyclable items as a proportion of total
solid waste generated at source, which can be represented as

(HRR) Household ∑ (THCh) Total household recyclables (r1)

recycling rate (%) =
∑ (TWGh) Total waste generated by household (r1 +w1)

Where:

THCh = total amount of recyclables segregated at source (household) for recycling (kg)
TWGh = total amount of waste generated (kg) based on unit amount generation

ICI recycling rate is the amount (weight) of recyclable items as a proportion of total solid
waste generated at source (i.e. source separated by the establishments). The rates are
calculated as follows:

(IndRR) Industrial ∑ (THCi) Total Industrial recyclables (at source)

recycling rate (%) by =
industry sub-sectors ∑ (TWGi) Total waste generated by Industries

Page 38
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

(CRR) Commercial and

Institutional recycling rate ∑ (THCc) Total Commercial and Institutional recyclables
(%) by commercial sub- =
sectors ∑ (TWGc) Total waste generated by Commercial & Institutional

Where:

THC = total amount of recyclables sorted at source for recycling (kg) for each sector
TWG = total amount of waste generated/computed based on unit amount generation for each sector

7.3.2 Recycling Players

The survey is used to understand the current recycling system by determining the functions
played by the various categories of recycling players in the collection, transportation,
processing and trading of recyclables. Data is also collected from households, commercial,
institutions and industries. Information about types and amounts of recyclables gathered and
traded between recycling players include:

 Recycling activities

 Imported or exported recyclables and the material

 Price flow of recyclables

7.3.3 Total Recycling Rate (Overall)

The information above would then be used to estimate the overall recycling rate of Malaysia
as follows:

∑ household + ∑ ICI establishment + ∑ scavenged

recyclables recyclables recyclables*
(TRR) Total recycling rate (%)
= ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total solid waste generated**

Note:
 ICI establishment recyclables = THCi + THCc + THCs

 *scavenged recyclables are items that are retrieved outside of the household or ICI establishments by
municipal waste collectors, waste pickers or scavengers at the landfill (as obtained from the recycling
players survey).

 **total solid waste generated from household and ICI only. This excludes special waste e.g. C&D, tyres,
bulky waste etc.

Page 39
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

7.3.4 Survey Methodology

7.3.4.1 Survey Design

This section provides information on the sampling methodology used in each survey of the
Recycling Study and details out the method used to select samples for interview.

7.3.4.2 Households

Household samples were first to be grouped according to geographical location before

sorting into housing types (Figure 3). For this portion of the survey, 5 main housing types
have been identified namely:

 Low cost landed

 Low cost high rise
 Medium cost landed
 High-medium cost high rise
 High cost landed
As a general guideline, 30 samples are needed for each housing type in a LA. Therefore,
150 households (HHs) per local authority (LA) are needed in general. In order to
compensate for “outliers” (e.g. cases where houses for migrant workers, respondent in the
house are under 18), 50 per cent over sampling was applied. In other words, a total of 45
households will be sampled per housing type in each LA in this survey. These 45
households include all households that agree to participate, irrespective of whether they
recycle or not.

Selecting samples in the field for the Recycling Survey

 When in the field, samples were selected by randomly choosing a house to be the
starting point or the first sample.
 If the survey was successfully conducted, we moved on to the next block of houses
for the second sample.

Note: Only one sample can be chosen from one interval block. As an example, a random
starting point is chosen for high cost houses in Cluster 1 of Kubang Pasu with an interval
block of 12 houses (Table 6). In other words, a total of 15 interval blocks of 12 houses are
needed to obtain 15 samples. If a successful survey is conducted for the first house chosen,
we move on to the 13th house to choose the second sample.

7.3.4.3 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) establishments

The sample sizes of Recycling Players 2 had to be readjusted given that previous efforts to
survey this category indicated that:

Page 40
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

a) there are fewer players than expected,

b) there are only a few companies and have secured a significant portion of the market-
share within a region and
c) recyclables movement were concentrated mostly in the Central region/Klang Valley.

Therefore, a total of 450 Recycling Player 2 samples were shifted to:

a) Industrial samples (220 additional samples)

b) Commercial and Institutional (CI) samples (230 additional samples).

A total of 570 establishments were sampled for the ICI category with the original distribution
of samples being 540 establishments for industries and 30 establishments from commercial
and institutions respectively. A revision of the sample sizes for industries and for commercial
and institutional establishments were made with the approval of our request to redistribute
the samples amongst the ICI establishments as suggested in the Inception Report and
Progress Report 2. After the revision, a total of 550 industrial establishments and 470
commercial and institutional establishments were sampled.

7.3.4.4 Recycling Players

As there is very little information about how many and who the recycling players are in each
LA, sampling was done using the “snowball method” where information about the recycling
players was built up gradually. Known recycling players were first approached and
information about other recycling players was collected from them. These other recycling
players were then contacted for the survey and subsequently provided more information
about the other recycling players. The Direktori Kitar Semula, a telephone directory
produced by Yellow Pages and Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan was
used as an additional source of information for recycling players in a LA.

Taking into account that recycling players may not be confined to a single LA, recycling
players were surveyed as an entire region. As a general guideline, ten players from Recycle
Player 1 (RP1) and five players from Recycle Player 2 (RP2) were sampled from each LA.
This ensured that all LAs were included in the regional sampling of recycling players.
Recycling Players 1 and 2 are defined follows:

 Recycling Players 1 (RP1) are street collectors, waste pickers at collection vehicles,
and scavengers at landfills.
 Recycling Players 2 (RP2) are traders, middle man and junk shops that collect, buy
and deal recyclables, recycling drop-offs such as recycle bins at NGO or charity-
based collection points and buy back centres, recyclers that convert recyclables into
raw/intermediate material and that manufacture new products from recycled material.

A total of 450 Recycling Players were sampled for this survey. Table 17 presents the
number of samples for each Recycling Player in each Region.

Page 41
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 17: Number of Samples for each Recycling Player for each Region

Region RP1 RP 2 Total RP

Northern 40 75 115

Central 50 100 150

Southern 30 45 75

Sarawak 30 25 55

Sabah 30 25 55

Total 180 270 450

RP1 -street collectors, waste pickers at collection vehicles, and scavengers at landfills
RP2 - traders, middle man, recycling drop-off and buy back centres, recyclers that
convert recyclables into raw/intermediate material, manufacture new products
from recycled material

The major cities/towns sampled included Penang (Northern region), Klang Valley (Central
region), Johor Bahru (Southern region), Kuching (Sarawak region) and Kota Kinabalu
(Sabah region). The selection of major city/town in a region was based on the fact that the
rate of recyclables in a region and recycling players of higher recycling function are expected
to be higher in the major cities in each region. The remainder of the regional samples were
then taken from the major city/town in a region.

Due consideration was also given to the fact that a single player, particularly in the Recycling
Players 2 category may play multiple functions in the recycling industry. Therefore, players
were identified according to their highest hierarchical function. Based on the highest function
played, Recycling Players 2 can be further sub-grouped into:

Sub-group Function

Players that are solely involved in trading of recyclables. This

Agents, buyers and includes players that do not buy the recyclables collected (e.g.
collectors drop-off centres) and players that are mobile or have a fixed
place to buy recyclables.

Players that do processing of recyclables such as crushing,

Processors
washing, baling etc

Recyclers that are involved in converting recyclables into

Converters and
raw/intermediate material and that manufacture new products
Manufacturers
from recycled material

Page 42
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

8 WASTE GENERATION

Waste generation is the solid waste produced from its source. It is the summation of waste
retained by the generator for other purposes and waste discarded for collection. The waste
generation refers to the weight of materials and products as they enter the waste
management system from sources but before being subjected to treatment which includes
materials recovery or combustion processes. Source reduction activities (e.g., backyard
composting) and industrial scrap are not included in the generation estimates.

The generation rate is the amount of waste generated by one person or other appropriate
units, which includes employees, square metres, etc. in one day and is presented as kg per
capita per day (based on population) or kg per employee per day. The generation rates are
influenced by:

 Societal affluence
 The standard of living and urbanisation
 The degree of industrialisation
 Public habits
 Local climate

Generally, the higher the economic development and extent of urbanisation, the greater the
amount of solid waste produced.

A recent study by the World Bank (What a waste: a global review of solid waste
management. Hoornweg, Daniel; Bhada-Tata, Perinaz, The World bank 2012) reports the
current global MSW generation level as being approximately 1.3 billion metric tonnes (MT)
per year or 1.2 kg per person per day on average.

The MSW is defined in the World Bank report as encompassing residential, industrial,
commercial, institutional, municipal, and construction and demolition (C&D) waste. It must be
noted that in this report, construction and demolition waste is not included.

The World Bank report expects the MSW generation to increase to approximately 2.2 billion
metric tonnes per year by 2025.

8.1 Waste Generation from Household

Table 18 and 19 show the household waste generation per capita by strata and housing
type in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak. The household waste generation is
about 18,000 metric tonnes per day in Peninsular Malaysia. With the population 22 million,
the per capita waste generation is about 0.8 kg/capita/day.

On average, the waste generation by urban (0.83 kg/capita/day) is relatively higher than the
waste generation by rural (0.73 kg/capita/day). The results show that the per capita waste
generations of medium and high cost housing types is higher than the low cost housing
types as well.

Page 43
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 18: Average Household Waste Generation in 2012, Peninsular Malaysia

PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

Urban Rural Overall

Housing
Type Per Capita Total Per Capita Total Per Capita Total
Population Population Population
(kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day)

Low cost
2,284,650 0.78 1,772 1,395,530 0.73 1,024 3,680,180 0.76 2,797
Landed

Low cost
3,279,077 0.65 2,139 452,967 0.77 350 3,732,044 0.67 2,490
High-rise

Medium cost
6,888,828 0.93 6,414 2,298,782 0.72 1,647 9,187,610 0.88 8,061
Landed
High-Medium
cost High- 2,012,187 0.91 1,826 - - 2,012,187 0.91 1,826
rise
High cost
2,526,676 0.76 1,933 1,430,647 0.72 1,023 3,957,324 0.75 2,956
Landed

Total 16,991,419 0.83 14,083 5,577,926 0.73 4,045 22,569,345 0.80 18,129

Note: the population of each housing type by urban and rural was estimated based on the ratio in Property Stock Report 2010 and Census 2010.

Page 44
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 19: Average Household Waste Generation in 2012, Sabah and Sarawak

Sabah and Sarawak

Urban Rural Overall

Housing
Type Per Capita Total Per Capita Total Per Capita Total
Population Population Population
(kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day)

Low cost
388,369 0.59 229 618,650 0.61 375 1,007,019 0.60 604
Landed

Low cost
488,638 0.49 241 403,683 0.61 244 892,321 0.54 486
High-rise

Medium cost
1,279,249 0.62 796 1,077,513 0.58 629 2,356,762 0.60 1,425
Landed
High-Medium
cost High- 352,379 0.73 256 - - 352,379 0.73 256
rise
High cost
624,916 0.61 380 531,393 0.61 326 1,156,309 0.61 706
Landed

Total 3,133,551 0.61 1,902 2,631,239 0.60 1,575 5,764,790 0.60 3,477

Note: the population of each housing type by urban and rural was estimated based on the ratio in Property Stock Report 2010 and Census 2010.

Page 45
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 20 shows the household waste generation in Malaysia. The per capita waste
generation rate comes down marginally with the addition of the population of approximately
6 million people from Sabah and Sarawak. The household waste generation rates for the
states of Sabah and Sarawak is lower compared to the household waste generation rate in
Peninsular Malaysia. The per capita household waste generation rate for Malaysia is 0.76
kg/capita/day, which is slightly lower than that of the rate in Peninsular Malaysia (0.8
kg/capita/day).

In terms of strata, the urban household waste generation rate (0.8 kg/capita/day) is higher
than the rural household waste generation rate (0.68 kg/capita/day). In terms of housing
type, the pattern follows that of Peninsular Malaysia, where the per capita household waste
generation rate for medium-high cost housing types is higher than the low cost housing
types.

Page 46
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 20: Average Household Waste Generation in 2012, Malaysia

MALAYSIA

Urban Rural Overall

Housing
Type Per Capita Total Per Capita Total Per Capita Total
Population Population Population
(kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day)

Low cost
2,675,954 0.74 1,988 2,019,579 0.69 1,397 4,695,533 0.72 3,384
Landed

Low cost
3,778,052 0.63 2,394 830,781 0.71 586 4,608,833 0.65 2,981
High-rise

Medium cost
8,167,292 0.89 7,245 3,377,231 0.67 2,276 11,544,523 0.82 9,521
Landed

High-Medium
2,366,232 0.89 2,095 - - 2,366,232 0.89 2,095
cost High-rise

High cost
3,137,440 0.73 2,303 1,981,574 0.68 1,343 5,119,014 0.71 3,646
Landed

Total 20,124,970 0.80 16,025 8,209,165 0.68 5,601 28,334,135 0.76 21,627

Note: the population of each housing type by urban and rural was estimated based on the ratio in Property Stock Report 2010 and Census 2010.

Page 47
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

8.2 Waste generation by Industrial, Commercial and Institution

Waste generation by Industrial, Commercial and Institution (ICI) encompasses municipal

waste but exclude construction and demolition waste and industrial scrap. The types of
municipal waste generated by ICI includes housekeeping wastes, packaging, food wastes,
paper, cardboard, plastics, wood, glass, metals and etc.

Table 21 and Table 22 show the municipal waste generated by the ICI in Peninsular
Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak respectively. Based on the survey results, it is estimated
that the total waste generated from the Industrial sector in Peninsular Malaysia is about
2,100 metric tonnes per day whereas about 7,500 metric tonnes are generated per day for
the Commercial and Institution. In total, the waste generation of ICI sector in Peninsular
Malaysia is 9,600 metric tonnes per day. The waste generation is further divided by strata
based on the ratio obtained from the Labour Force Survey 2010 (see Appendix 3).

In order to obtain per capita waste generation rate for the ICI sector, the total waste
generated daily is divided by the population.

 Per capita waste generation for the Industrial sector is 0.09 kg/capita/day
 Per capita waste generation for Commercial and Institution is 0.34 kg/capita/day

On average, the per capita waste generation for ICI sector is 0.43 kg/capita/day.

Overall, per capita waste generation in the urban area is relatively higher than the rate in the
rural area. This holds true due to the influence of economic development and the degree of
industrialisation. The degree of industrialisation in the urban area is greater than that of in
rural area.

Table 23 shows the waste generation by ICI in Malaysia. The waste generation is estimated
at 11,500 metric tonnes per day. The average ICI per capita waste generation is 0.41
kg/capita/day.

Page 48
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 21: Average Municipal Waste Generation by Industrial, Commercial and Institution in Peninsular Malaysia in 2012

PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

Urban Rural Total

Population 16,991,419 5,577,926 22,569,345

Waste Per Capita Waste Per Capita Waste Per Capita
Waste Generation
(MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day)
Industrial 1,564 0.09 521 0.09 2,086 0.09

Commercial and Institutions 5,965 0.35 1,622 0.29 7,587 0.34

Overall 7,529 0.44 2,143 0.38 9,673 0.43

Table 22: Average Municipal Waste Generation by Industrial, Commercial and Institution in Sabah and Sarawak in 2012

SABAH and SARAWAK

Urban Rural Total

Population 3,133,551 2,631,239 5,764,790

Waste Per Capita Waste Per Capita Waste Per Capita
Waste Generation
(MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day)
Industrial 125 0.04 68 0.03 193 0.03

Commercial and Institutions 1,187 0.38 451 0.17 1,638 0.28

Overall 1,312 0.42 519 0.20 1,830 0.32

Page 49
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 23: Average Municipal Waste Generation by Industrial, Commercial and Institution in Malaysia in 2012

MALAYSIA

Urban Rural Total

Population 20,124,970 8,209,165 28,334,135

Waste Per Capita Waste Per Capita Waste Per Capita
Waste Generation
(MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day)
Industrial 1,689 0.08 590 0.07 2,279 0.08

Commercial and Institutions 7,152 0.36 2,072 0.25 9,224 0.33

Overall 8,841 0.44 2,662 0.32 11,503 0.41

Page 50
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 24 presents the waste generation by sub-sector of CI.

The waste generation rate for the CI sub-sectors is calculated based on the waste collected
and weighed from the various sub-sectors. Wet market has the highest waste generation per
kg per employee per day compared to all the other sectors.

Table 24: Waste Generation Rate by of Commercial and Institution Sub-sectors, in

kg/employee/day

CI Sub sectors Waste Generation

Business offices 1.07

Education 1.32

Health 2.18

Hotel 3.68

Public Administration 1.02

Restaurant 3.92

Transportation 1.56

Wet Market 11.87

Page 51
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

8.3 Overall Waste Generation

As presented in the Table 25 and Table 26, the overall waste generation in Peninsular
Malaysia, i.e. combining household and ICI, is about 28,000 metric tonnes per day. Per
capita waste generation ranges from 1.10 to 1.37 kg per person per day, with an average of
1.23 kg/capita/day.

It was also found that urban residents produce more waste as compared to their rural
counterparts.

On average, the housing type group from Medium Cost Landed, High-Medium Cost High-
rise and High Cost Landed produce more waste than that of Low Cost Landed and Low Cost
High-rise.

Table 27 presents the overall waste generation for Malaysia.

The waste generation for the whole of Malaysia is approximately 33,000 metric tonnes per
day, with per capita waste generation ranging from 1 to 1.33 kg per person per day across
the strata and housing type, with an average of 1.17 kg/capita/day.

Overall, the urban residents generate more waste, 1.24 kg/capita/day as compared to their
rural counterparts, 1.01 kg/capita/day.

On average, the housing type group from Medium Cost Landed, High-Medium cost high rise
and High Cost Landed produce more waste than the Low Cost Landed and High-rise
housing types.

Page 52
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 25: Overall Waste Generation from Households and ICI in Peninsular Malaysia

URBAN RURAL OVERALL

Per Capita Total Per Capita Total Per Capita Total

Population Population Population
(kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day)

16,991,419 1.27 21,613 5,577,926 1.11 6,188 22,569,345 1.23 27,802

Source: Waste Composition Study, 2012

Table 26: Overall Waste Generation from Households and ICI in Sabah and Sarawak

URBAN RURAL OVERALL

Per Capita Total Per Capita Total Per Capita Total

Population Population Population
(kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day)

3,133,551 1.04 3,252 2,631,239 0.79 2,076 5,764,790 0.92 5,328

Source: Waste Composition Study, 2012

Page 53
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 27: Overall Waste Generation from Households and ICI in Malaysia

URBAN RURAL OVERALL

Per Capita Total Per Capita Total Per Capita Total

Population Population Population
(kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day)

20,124,970 1.24 24,866 8,209,165 1.01 8,264 28,334,135 1.17 33,130

Source: Waste Composition Study, 2012

Page 54
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 28 shows waste generation per capita by region. Klang Valley residents produce more
waste, 1.35 kg/capita/day than the other regions whereas East Coast has the lowest waste
generation rate 0.95 kg/capita/day.

Table 28: Waste Generation by Region

Per Capita
Region Population Total (MT/day)
(kg/capita/day)

Northern 6,093,318 1.10 6,724

Klang Valley (KL and

7,209,175 1.35 9,702
Selangor)

East Coast 4,076,395 0.95 3,862

Southern 5,190,457 1.28 6,657

Sarawak 2,471,140 1.04 2,571

Sabah 3,293,650 0.98 3,220

Total 28,334,135 32,736

Please note that there is a slight discrepancy in the total quantity of waste presented in
Table 27 and Table 28. This slight difference is due to the number and characteristics of
samples. As an example, the Klang Valley region consists of two LAs, DBKL and Majlis
Perbandaran Klang. These two LAs are classified as urban areas and therefore the rural
characteristics of Klang Valley were not captured. Thus, the estimation for Klang Valley is
based on the urban samples only. However, the estimation based on the Housing Types and
strata has wider coverage and more samples. The problem of limited data in each region’s
estimation is leveraged if the estimation is calculated in wider scope i.e. by housing types
and strata.

Page 55
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

9 RECYCLING RATE

9.1 Household Recycling Rate

As described in Section 7, the methodology for calculating household recycling rate is

based on estimation of household recyclables and waste generated. Household recycling
rate is the amount (weight) of recyclable items as a proportion of total solid waste generated
at source, which can be represented as

(HRR) Household ∑ (THCh) Total household recyclables (r1)

recycling rate (%) =
∑ (TWGh) Total waste generated by household (r1+w1)

Where:
THCh = total amount of recyclables segregated at source (household) for recycling (kg)
TWGh = total amount of waste generated (kg) based on unit amount generation

The Household Recycling Practice Survey and Waste Composition Study form the base for
the household recycling rate estimation.

Table 29 shows the household waste and recyclable materials Nationwide and in Peninsular
Malaysia. The total recyclable materials retained by the total households in Peninsular
Malaysia were about 1.8 million kg per day, whereas the total waste generated were about
18.1 million kg per day. The 2010 census reported 22.5 million in population in Peninsular
Malaysia. In average, recyclable materials weight per capita is estimated about 0.08
kg/capita/day. The recycling rate for Peninsular Malaysia is estimated at about 10 per cent.

With the population in Sabah and Sarawak, the recycling rate in Malaysia is about 9.7 per
cent, slightly lower than the recycling rate of Peninsular Malaysia. The decrease is due to the
lower recycling rate in Sabah.

Table 30 presents the household recycling rate by region. The household recycling rate for
the nation is 9.7 per cent. The East Coast region leads the way with the highest household
recycling rate of 11.4 per cent followed by the Southern region with 10.6 per cent. The East
Coast region has the highest household recycling rate due to high volume of recyclables
materials retained and lowest waste generation. Sabah has the lowest household recycling
rate compared to other regions.

Page 56
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 29: Quantity of Household Waste and Recyclable Materials Generated in 2012

Peninsular Malaysia Sabah and Sarawak Malaysia

Generation Generation Generation

Total Total Total
Rate Rate Rate
(kg/day) (kg/day) (kg/day)
(kg/capita/day) (kg/capita/day) (kg/capita/day)

Recyclable materials
1,821,735 0.08 245,911 0.04 2,101,129 0.07
retained by the household

Waste discarded 16,306,919 0.72 3,230,883 0.56 19,525,600 0.69

Waste generated
(waste discarded + 18,128,654 0.80 3,476,794 0.60 21,626,729 0.76
recyclables)

Recycling rate 10.0% 7.1% 9.7%

Population (2010 Census) 22,569,345 5,764,790 28,334,135

Page 57
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 30: Household Recycling Rate by Region, in per cent

Region Selected LAs Recycling rate Overall Recycling Rate

Kangar 9.7

Penang 11.0
Northern 9.0
Kubang Pasu 5.7

Tanjung Malim 3.0

Kuala Lumpur 10.4

Klang Valley 10.0
Klang 9.4

Kuantan 18.4

East Coast Kota Bahru 15.7 11.4

Besut 4.4

Jasin 13.2

Southern Johor Bharu 10.2 10.6

Kuala Pilah 11.5

Samarahan 4.3

Sarawak Sibu 15.6 9.4

Miri 13.2

Beaufort 2.0

Sabah Sandakan 3.7 2.9

Kota Kinabalu 4.5

Malaysian Household
9.7
Recycling rate

There are few proxy variables in classification of rural and urban areas. In this study, state
capital or the main town is the main criteria for the classification. Of total 18 LA(s) in this
study, 11 of them are classified as urban area whereas another 7 LA(s) are classified as
rural area and is as presented in Table 3.

Page 58
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 31 shows the Household Recycling Rate by Housing Type. The urban household
recycling rate (10.6 per cent) is higher than the rural household recycling rate (7.3%). In
Peninsular Malaysia, the recycling rate for the middle class group (those from Medium
Income and Medium-High Income groups) is higher than other groups.

Table 31: Household Recycling Rate (RR) by Housing Type, in per cent

Low Medium Medium-High

Low Cost High Cost Household
Region Cost Cost Cost High-
High-rise Landed RR
Landed Landed rise

Urban 8.6 11.6 10.0 12.3 11.8 10.6

Peninsular
Malaysia Rural 7.0 10.9 9.0 - 6.7 8.1
(PM)
Overall
PM RR
8.0 11.5 9.8 12.3 10.1 10.0

Urban 8.4 7.5 10.6 1.8 13.8 9.4

Sabah and
Sarawak Rural 4.9 7.7 2.6 - 4.3 4.3
(SS)
Overall
SS RR
6.2 7.6 7.1 1.8 9.4 7.1

Urban 8.6 11.4 10.0 11.9 12.2 10.6

Malaysia
Rural 6.7 8.3 8.0 - 6.3 7.3
Overall
Malaysia 7.8 10.8 9.5 11.6 10.1 9.7
RR

Page 59
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

9.2 Industrial Recycling Rate

The recycling rate for the industries is estimated based on the recyclables removed by the
industry, only from the non-production portion of the total generated waste. This study does
not take into account the production waste, i.e. waste generated during the manufacturing of
their products, generated within the industry. The formula to calculate the industrial recycling
rata is as below:

(IndRR) Industrial
recycling rate (%) by ∑ (THCi) Total recyclables of non-production waste
industry sub-sectors =
∑ (TWGi) Total non-production waste generated by Industries

Where:
THC = total amount of recyclables sorted at source for recycling (kg) for each sector
TWG = total amount of waste generated/computed based on unit amount generation for each
sector

The non-production waste, recyclable materials and recycling rates by firm size are
presented in Table 32. The recycling rate for non-production waste was estimated by firm
size and total number of employees in each firm size. The firm size was categorised as
micro, small, medium and large firms where:

a) micro firms are firms with less than 5 employees,

b) small firms with 5 to 50 employees,
c) medium firms with 51 to 150 employees, and
d) large firms are those with more than 150 employees.

On average, the weight of recyclable materials per employee per day retained in micro firms
was higher than the small, medium and large firms. But, at the same time the average waste
generated per employee per day for micro firms was higher than the other size of firms.

Using the formula shown above, it was deduced that the recycling rate for micro firms is the
lowest compared to other firm size. The recycling rate for large firms (25.8%) was higher
than the micro (2.4%), small (5.3 per cent) and medium (11.9 %) firms. Overall, the recycling
rate for Malaysian Industries sector was calculated to be 9.7 per cent.

Page 60
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 32: Industrial Non Production Waste, Recyclable Materials and Recycling Rate

Micro Small Medium Large Overall

Recyclable materials retained by the

0.33 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.12
Industries (kg/employee/day)

Waste discarded (kg/employee/day) 13.39 2.73 1.11 0.29 1.14

Waste generated
(waste discarded + recyclables) 13.72 2.88 1.26 0.37 1.26
(kg/employee/day)

Total Weight of Recyclable Materials,

17,665 36,623 45,471 121,345 221,103
(kg/day)

Total Weight of Discarded Waste,

712,406 660,286 335,773 349,327 2,057,793
(kg/day)

Total Weight of Generated Waste,

730,071 696,909 381,244 470,672 2,278,896
(kg/day)

Recycling rate 2.4% 5.3% 11.9% 25.8% 9.7%

Number of employees – based on

53,193 242,184 303,531 1,213,452 1,812,360
firm size*
Source: * Economic Census 2011: Manufacturing, Dept of Statistics.

Page 61
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

9.3 Commercial and Institution Recycling Rate

The Commercial and Institutional Recycling Rate is estimated based on the weight of
recyclables and total waste generated by Commercial and Institution.

(CRR) Commercial and

Institutional recycling rate ∑ (THCc) Total Commercial and Institutional recyclables
=
(%) by commercial sub-
sectors ∑ (TWGc) Total waste generated by Commercial & Institutional

Where:
THC = total amount of recyclables sorted at source for recycling (kg) for each sector
TWG = total amount of waste generated/computed based on unit amount generation for each
sector

Table 33 shows the recyclable materials and recycling rate of the Commercial and Institution
(CI) which includes public administration, business offices, education, health, hotel,
restaurant, transportation, wholesale and retail and wet markets.

On average, the recycling rate for CI is about 7.4 per cent. Recyclable materials per
employee were estimated at 0.12 kg/employee/day, whereas waste generated per employee
was estimated at 1.94 kg/employee/day.

In the survey sample, recyclable materials (mainly cardboard) per employee for
hypermarkets (part of wholesale and retail trades) (0.8 kg/employee/day) was relatively high
compared to other types of CI, so not to distort overall average, wholesale and retail trades
has been removed from the estimation of recyclable materials per employee.

However, the weight of recyclable materials and waste discarded of wholesale and retail
trades were estimated and added into the total weight of all selected CI for estimation of
nation recycling rate in next section.

Page 62
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 33: Commercial and Institutional Waste, Recyclable Materials and Recycling Rate

Total Weight
excluding Total Weight
wholesale and excluding
#
retail trades but wholesale and Kg/employee/day
include retail trades
hypermarket (kg/day)
(kg/day)
Recyclable materials retained by the
selected Commercial and 678,482 571,482 0.12
Institutional

Waste discarded 8,545,993 8,438,993 1.82

Waste generated
9,224476 9,010,476 1.94
(waste discarded + recyclables)

Recycling rate - 7.4%

Total Number of Employees working

in the selected Commercial and - 4,640,523
Institutions*

Source: Number of Employees from Economic Census 2011, Dept of Statistics

#
Note : the estimation of kg/employee/day excludes wholesale and retail trades.

Page 63
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

9.4 Overall Recycling Rate

The overall recycling rate is estimated based on the total recyclables from the household,
industrial, commercial and institutions (ICI). The overall recycling rate also includes the
recyclables collected by scavengers and total waste generated by household, industrial,
commercial and institutions. As described in the earlier section, below is the formula for
overall recycling rate.

∑ household + ∑ ICI non production waste + ∑ scavenged

(TRR) Total recycling rate (%) recyclables recyclables recyclables*
= ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total solid waste generated**

9.4.1 Recycling Rate in Peninsular Malaysia

The recycling rate for Peninsular Malaysia for 2012, presented in Table 34, is about 10.8 per
cent. Of the total waste generated, estimated to be 27,801,612 kg/day (or about 27,800
metric tonnes /day), the recyclable materials extracted were about 3,000,897 kg/day (or
about 3,000 metric tonnes /day). The recyclable materials retained by waste collection truck
workers and scavengers were estimated based on secondary data.

Table 34: Recycling Rate in Peninsular Malaysia,

Waste
Overall at Collection Scaven-
Households ICI Overall
source Truck gers
Workers
Recyclable materials,
1,821,735 760,427 2,582,162 406,693 12,042 3,000,897
in kg/day

Waste discarded, in
16,306,919 8,912,530 25,219,449 - -
kg/day
Waste generated
(waste discarded + 18,128,654 9,672,958 27,801,612 - - 27,801,612
recyclables) , in kg/day
Recycling rate, in per
10.0% 7.9% 9.3% - - 10.8%
cent

Note:
1. Projections are made based on the findings of Existing Practise on Solid Waste Recycling Survey of this
study and population data published by DOS.
2. Estimation for waste collection truck workers was based on secondary data.
3. Estimation for scavenger was based on primary data and secondary data.
4. ICI - Industrial, Commercial and Institutions

As shown in Table 35, the average recyclables, materials retained in households in

Peninsular Malaysia was about 0.08 kg/capita/day whereas for the ICI, the recyclable
materials were about 0.03 kg/capita/day. The estimated recyclable materials collected by
waste collection truck workers and scavengers were about 0.02 kg/capita/day. Overall, the
average weight of recyclables material is 0.13 kg/capita/day.

Page 64
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 35: Recycling Details for Peninsular Malaysia, in kg/capita/day

Waste
Industrial,
Collection
Households Commercial and Overall
Truck Workers
(a) Institutions (a+b+c)
and Scavenger
(b)
(c)

Recyclable materials 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.13

Waste discarded 0.72 0.39 - 1.18

Waste generated 0.80 0.43 - 1.23

9.4.2 Recycling Rate in Sabah and Sarawak

The recycling rate for Sabah and Sarawak for 2012, presented in Table 36, is about 8.6 per
cent. Of the total waste generated, estimated to be 5,307,208 kg/day (or about 3,475 metric
tonnes /day), the recyclable materials that was extracted about 456,519 kg/day (or about
450 metric tonnes /day). The recyclable materials retained by waste collection truck workers
and scavengers were estimated based on secondary data.

Table 36: Recycling Rate in Sabah and Sarawak

Waste
Overall at Collection Scaven-
Households ICI Overall
source Truck gers
Workers
Recyclable materials,
245,911 139,158 385,069 69,396 2,055 456,519
in kg/day

Waste discarded, in
3,230,883 1,691,256 4,922,139 - -
kg/day
Waste generated
(waste discarded + 3,476,794 1,830,414 5,307,208 - - 5,307,208
recyclables) , in kg/day
Recycling rate, in per
7.1% 7.6% 7.3% - - 8.6%
cent

Note:
1. Projections are made based on the findings of Existing Practise on Solid Waste Recycling Survey of
this study and population data published by DOS.
2. Estimation for waste collection truck workers was based on secondary data.
3. Estimation for scavenger was based on primary data and secondary data.
4. ICI - Industrial, Commercial and Institutions

Page 65
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

As shown in Table 37, the average recyclables, materials retained in households in Sabah
Sarawak was about 0.04 kg/capita/day whereas for the ICI, the recyclable materials were
about 0.02 kg/capita/day. The estimated recyclable materials collected by waste collection
truck workers and scavengers were about 0.01 kg/capita/day. Overall, the average weight of
recyclables material is 0.08 kg/capita/day.

Table 37: Recycling Details for Sabah and Sarawak, in kg/capita/day

Waste
Industrial,
Collection
Households Commercial and Overall
Truck Workers
(a) Institutions (a+b+c)
and Scavenger
(b)
(c)

Recyclable materials 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.08

Waste discarded 0.56 0.29 - 0.85

Waste generated 0.60 0.32 - 0.92

9.4.3 Recycling Rate in Malaysia

Table 38 shows the recycling rate and Table 39 shows the recycling details in Malaysia. The
recycling rate is 10.5 per cent.

Table 38: Recycling Rate in Malaysia

Waste
Overall at Collection Scaven-
Households ICI Overall
source Truck gers
Workers
Recyclable materials,
2,101,129 899,585 3,000,714 476,089 14,097 3,490,899
in kg/day

Waste discarded, in
19,525,600 10,603,786 30,129,386 - -
kg/day
Waste generated
(waste discarded + 21,626,729 11,503,372 33,130,100 - - 33,130,101
recyclables) , in kg/day
Recycling rate, in per
9.7% 7.8% 9.1% - - 10.5%
cent

Note:
1. Projections are made based on the findings of Existing Practise on Solid Waste Recycling Survey of
this study and population data published by DOS.
2. Estimation for waste collection truck workers was based on secondary data.
3. Estimation for scavenger was based on primary data and secondary data.
4. ICI - Industrial, Commercial and Institutions

Page 66
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

As shown in Table 39, the average recyclables, materials retained in households in Malaysia
was about 0.07 kg/capita/day whereas for the ICI, the recyclable materials were about 0.03
kg/capita/day. The estimated recyclable materials collected by waste collection truck workers
and scavengers were about 0.02 kg/capita/day. Overall, the average weight of recyclables
material is 0.12 kg/capita/day.

Table 39: Recycling Details for Malaysia, in kg/capita/day

Waste
Industrial,
Collection
Households Commercial Overall
Truck Workers
(a) and Institutions (a+b+c)
and Scavenger
(b)
(c)

Recyclable materials 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.12

Waste discarded 0.69 0.37 - 1.06

Waste generated 0.76 0.41 - 1.17

Page 67
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

10 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY

The Tables and Figures in this chapter present the results of the Waste Composition Study
for Household and Institutional, Commercial and Industrial (ICI) waste. The first section of
this chapter presents the findings of the Household waste for Malaysia, Peninsular Malaysia,
Urban/Rural, and the 6 zones, namely Northern, Southern, East Coast, Klang Valley,
Sarawak and Sabah. This Section also presents results from the As Generated, As
Discarded and As Disposed waste. The second section discusses the findings from the ICI
sectors.

10.1 Overall Household Waste Composition

The waste composition data from the 18 Local Authorities (LAs) and number of households
were used to develop the waste composition for the waste in Malaysia, Peninsular Malaysia
and the 6 zones. The waste composition study data collection was by housing types, namely
Low, Medium and High in each of the 18 LAs over a week cycle. The results for the week
were averaged to obtain the waste composition result of each housing type of a LA.

This data was further aggregated into either national or regional, housing type or level of
urbanisation by giving due weightage on the waste generation rate as well as the population
in these 18 LAs. Consequently, the final waste composition for Malaysia would therefore
incline towards the waste composition of the more populated urbanised areas, due to the
higher waste quantities generated.

Figure 6 presents the average waste composition of the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
generated in Malaysian Household.

Page 68
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 6: Malaysian Household Waste Composition (As Generated)

Textiles Tetra Rubber Leather Wood HHW

3.1% Pak 0.4% 1.4% 1.3%
1.6% 1.8% Others
Metal 0.5%
Glass 2.7%
Garden Waste 3.3%
5.8%

Food Waste
44.5%
Diapers
12.1%

Paper
8.5%
Plastic
13.2%

HHW – Household Hazardous waste

Wood – Wood + Peel / Husk

The biggest component in the national waste composition is food waste constituting about
44.5 per cent. Plastics and paper were 13.2 per cent and 8.5 per cent respectively. The
biggest deviation in the waste composition is the quantity of the waste component “Diapers”
found in the waste. About 12.1 per cent of the waste contained disposable diapers and
disposable feminine sanitary products. This is the consequence of the cheaper and more
easily accessible diapers in the market.

Page 69
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 40 presents the breakdown of the waste components from all the “As Generated
waste”, all the “As Discarded” in the households and all the “As Disposed” at the Landfill in
the country. It is assumed that the composition study conducted on the incoming waste at
the landfill sites was primarily from the households.

Table 40: Waste Components Generated, Discarded and Disposed from Malaysian
Households

As Generated As Discarded As Disposed

Waste Components
MT/day MT/day MT/day
Food Waste 9,685 8,563 8,492
Organics

Garden Waste 1,252 1,240 1,445

Wood 88 88 92
Peel / Husk 206 217 248
Mixed Paper 310 286 273
Paper

Newsprint / Old Newspaper 677 475 360

Cardboard 841 697 567
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) 538 463 374
High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 774 610 604
Plastics

Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 107 92 90

Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) 832 782 717
Polypropylene (PP) 290 263 188
Polystyrene (PS) 293 293 299
Other Plastics 16 16 33
Glass Bottle 707 528 521
Glass

Sheet Glass 12 30 59
Ferrous Metal 383 336 211
Metals

Aluminium 197 160 85

Other Non-Ferrous Metals 15 15 16
Batteries 23 22 22
Hazardous Waste

Fluorescent Tube 56 48 48
Household

E-Waste 30 52 52

Aerosol Cans 155 140 140

Paint Container 20 20 20
Tetra Pak 343 308 282
Diapers 2,625 2,625 2,625
Rubber 309 309 399
Others

Textiles 661 660 660

Leather 84 85 99
Porcelain / Ceramic/Stones 93 95 289
Other Minor components 5 8 48
Total 21,627 19,526 19,358

Page 70
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Food waste generated from the households daily is about 9,685 MT. This quantity reduces
to 8,563 MT and 8,492 MT as the waste moves from the point of generation to point of
disposal at the landfills. This reduction in the food waste is attributed to the rapid degradation
of the waste over time and the release of the inherent moisture content as leachate. The
second highest component in the Malaysian waste is the diapers totalling about 2,625 MT
daily.

Using the information on the total number of newspaper printed in 2010 provided by the
Audit Bureau of Circulations, Malaysia and the actual weight of the newspaper, it was
determined that the total weight of all newspapers produced was approximately 1,100 MT
per day. Assuming about 10% of this gets used for other purposes the average amount of
newspaper waste generated daily is 990 MT. The above table shows that 677 MT of
newspaper waste is generated from households, while the balance of 313 MT is from the ICI
sector. The daily amount of 360 MT of newspaper from the households lands up at the
disposal site. The difference in the amount of newspaper (317 MT/day) is the quantity
collected by the recycling players from the households and goes back into the recycling
sector.

It was also observed that there was an unexpected increase in quantity of

porcelain/ceramic/stones by the time the waste reached the landfill. This could be caused
by the contamination of the waste and collection methods used in areas where the waste is
not placed in bins but on the ground.

Table 41 presents the average quantity of household waste generated by each person in a
day based on the housing types.

The amount of food waste, garden waste, newspaper, HDPE and diapers generated is found
to be increasing as the type of housing moves from low cost to high cost housing. The
waste composition from each of the housing type includes both landed property and high
rise buildings.

Page 71
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 41: Household Waste Composition for Low, Middle and High cost houses in
grams/capita/day (As Generated)

Waste Components Low cost Medium cost High cost

Food Waste 299.21 337.95 358.79

Organics

Garden Waste 30.68 47.50 55.34

Wood 3.52 3.39 1.98
Peel /Husk 8.22 5.91 5.94
Mixed Paper 10.83 9.44 13.63
Paper

Newsprint / Old Newspaper 23.51 33.49 39.95

Cardboard 23.88 31.02 34.67
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) 14.77 20.03 13.48
High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 20.86 29.73 31.25
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 2.51 1.82 7.15
Plastics

Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) 28.44 28.80 27.76

Polypropylene (PP) 10.07 10.49 7.98
Polystyrene (PS) 8.34 10.83 12.04
Other Plastics 0.50 0.77 0.27
Glass Bottle 22.59 24.91 26.26
Glass

Sheet Glass 0.20 0.33 1.26

Ferrous Metal 13.55 12.52 13.83
Metals

Aluminium 6.94 5.55 9.72

Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.27 0.07 1.56
Batteries 0.57 0.50 2.08
Hazardous Waste
Household

Fluorescent Tube 2.17 1.14 3.49

E-Waste 1.08 0.71 1.92
Aerosol Cans 5.59 4.85 6.04
Paint Container 0.13 1.12 0.71
Tetra Pak 11.21 9.64 14.59
Diapers 78.94 93.79 106.53
Others

Rubber 12.08 13.41 14.51

Textiles 22.78 22.98 21.36
Leather 3.58 2.13 3.34
Other Minor components 3.05 2.11 7.83

Page 72
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 42 presents the average quantity of Malaysian waste components for waste
generated in the urban and rural households as defined in Table 3. The amount of waste
generated daily by a person in the urban area is approximately 0.8 kg. as compared to the
rural area where it was found to be only 0.68 kgs. The major difference between the 2
groups, Rural and Urban, is the increase in Food waste showing with the increase in
urbanisation, households waste more food.

Table 42: Comparison of the Malaysian Urban and Rural Household Waste (As Generated)

Urban Rural Urban Rural

MT/day grams/capita/day
Food Waste 7,435.9 2,180.7 369.49 265.64
Organics

Garden Waste 910.0 341.8 45.22 41.64

Wood 67.3 20.7 3.35 2.52
Peel / Husk 152.4 53.1 7.57 6.47
Mixed Paper 213.7 96.4 10.62 11.75
Paper

Newsprint / Old Newspaper 477.7 199.5 23.74 24.30

Cardboard 603.3 237.7 29.98 28.95
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) 352.3 187.6 17.50 22.86
High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 541.2 232.5 26.89 28.32
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 78.9 28.1 3.92 3.42
Plastics

Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) 575.1 257.1 28.57 31.32

Polypropylene (PP) 220.1 69.9 10.93 8.51
Polystyrene (PS) 182.6 110.8 9.07 13.50
Other Plastics 4.7 12.6 0.23 1.54
Glass Bottle 516.5 190.4 25.67 23.19
Glass

Sheet Glass 6.3 5.3 0.31 0.65

Ferrous Metal 262.5 120.5 13.04 14.68
Metals

Aluminium 153.4 43.1 7.62 5.25

Other Non-Ferrous Metals 6.7 4.5 0.34 0.54
Batteries 16.6 6.2 0.83 0.76
Household
Hazardous

Fluorescent Tube 39.8 16.2 1.98 1.97

Waste

E-Waste 22.5 7.8 1.12 0.95

Aerosol Cans 118.4 36.6 5.88 4.46
Paint Container 12.8 6.8 0.64 0.83
Tetra Pak 250.7 91.8 12.46 11.18
Diapers 1,928.3 697.3 95.82 84.95
Rubber 288.9 92.2 14.36 11.23
Others

Textiles 473.2 188.1 23.51 22.91

Leather 59.7 24.8 2.96 3.02
Porcelain / Ceramic 60.7 32.3 3.02 3.93
Other Minor components 5.1 0.7 0.26 0.09
Total 16,037.3 5,593.1 796.9 681.33

Page 73
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 7 to Figure 13 present the average waste composition of the Municipal Solid Waste
generated in Households in Peninsular Malaysia, Klang Valley, East Coast, Northern Zone
and Southern Zone, Sarawak and Sabah respectively. The biggest component in the waste
is food waste which ranges between 44 per cent and 46 per cent except in the East Coast,
Sarawak and Sabah where it was below 40 per cent. As seen in the average Malaysian
waste, the quantity of diapers was 9.0 per cent to 13.0 per cent of the waste inside the
household.

Figure 7: Peninsular Malaysia Household Waste Composition (As Generated)

Rubber , 1.7 % Leather, 0.4 %Wood, HHW, 1.3 %

1.3 %
Metal, Tetra Pak , 1.5 %
Textiles , 3.0 % Others, 0.5 %
2.6 %
Glass, 3.2 %
Garden Waste,
5.9 %
Food Waste, 44.4 %

Diapers , 12.2 %

Paper , 9.4 %

Plastic, 12.6 %

HHW – Household Hazardous waste

Wood – Wood + Peel / Husk

Page 74
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 8: Klang Valley Household Waste Composition (As Generated)

Rubber Leather, 0.3 %

Tetra Pak , 1.4 % HHW, 1.5 %
, 2.1 %
Wood, 1.4 % Others, 0.6 %
Metal, 2.2 % Textiles , 3.9 %

Glass, 3.5 %

Garden
Waste,
Food Waste, 44.3 %
5.9 %
Diapers , 11.7 %

Paper , 9.4 %
Plastic, 11.7 %

HHW – Household Hazardous waste

Wood – Wood + Peel / Husk

Figure 9: East Coast Household Waste Composition (As Generated)

Wood, 2.3 %
Leather, 0.4 % HHW, 1.4 %
Tetra Pak , 1.8 %
Rubber
Others, 0.4 %
Textiles , 2.7 % , 2.2 %
Metal, 3.3 %
Glass, 4.1 %

Garden Food Waste, 37.7 %

Waste,
5.5 %
Diapers , 12.5 %

Paper , 11.9 % Plastic, 13.8 %

HHW – Household Hazardous waste

Wood – Wood + Peel / Husk

Page 75
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 10: Northern Zone Household Waste Composition (As Generated)

Rubber , 1.5 % Leather, 0.6 %

HHW, 0.9 %
Wood, 1.4 %
Textiles , 2.4 % Tetra Pak , 1.6 % Others, 0.4 %
Metal, 2.9 %
Glass, 2.4 %
Garden Waste,
5.8 %

Food Waste, 44.1 %

Diapers , 12.4 %

Paper , 9.4 %

Plastic, 14.2 %

HHW – Household Hazardous waste

Wood – Wood + Peel / Husk

Figure 11: Southern Zone Household Waste Composition (As Generated)

Tetra Pak , Rubber , 1.2 % Leather, 0.4 % Wood, 1.0 %

1.4 % HHW, 1.2 %
Textiles , 1.9 % Others, 0.3 %
Metal, 2.8 %
Glass,
3.1 % Garden Waste,
5.9 %

Food Waste, 46.3 %

Diapers , 13.0 %

Paper , 8.7 %

Plastic, 12.8 %

HHW – Household Hazardous waste

Wood – Wood + Peel / Husk

Page 76
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 12: Sarawak Household Waste Composition (As Generated)

Leather, 0.4 % Wood, 1.9 %

Rubber , 2.2 % HHW, 1.8 % Others, 0.8 %
Tetra Pak , 1.6 %
Textiles , 4.2 %
Metal, 5.5 %

Garden Glass, 5.0 % Food Waste, 37.6 %

Waste,
2.8 %
Diapers , 9.0 %

Paper , 10.8 %
Plastic, 16.4 %

HHW – Household Hazardous waste

Wood – Wood + Peel / Husk

Figure 13: Sabah Household Waste Composition (As Generated)

Wood, 1.9 %
Leather, 0.2 %
Tetra Pak , 1.4 % Rubber , 1.9 % HHW, 0.7 %
Others, 0.1 %
Textiles , 3.3 %
Metal, 3.9 %
Glass, 3.9 %

Garden
Waste, Food Waste, 39.4 %
3.5 %
Diapers , 12.7 %

Paper , 9.6 %

Plastic, 17.6 %

HHW – Household Hazardous waste

Wood – Wood + Peel / Husk

Page 77
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 43 presents the average quantity of household waste generated by each person in a
day based on the 6 zones. The amount of food and garden waste, newspaper, HDPE and
noticeably diapers generated by one person was highest in the Klang Valley followed by
Southern Zone (which comprises of the states of Negeri Sembilan, Melaka & Johor).

Table 43: Breakdown of Household Waste Components generated by each person for six
Regions, in grams/capita/day
Klang East
Waste Components Northern Southern
Valley Coast
Sarawak Sabah

Food Waste 307.51 405.82 416.21 204.27 238.44 225.35

Organics

Garden Waste 40.51 52.06 55.42 29.63 17.57 19.88

Wood 2.41 2.23 4.71 3.01 5.06 1.52
Peel / Husk 7.60 6.20 8.01 9.21 6.70 9.10
Mixed Paper 15.52 13.43 8.69 12.74 10.34 7.53
Paper

Newsprint / Old newspaper 25.41 32.27 41.92 27.02 27.09 22.31

Cardboard 24.38 30.73 38.03 24.86 31.24 25.01
PET 21.29 18.18 19.11 12.70 15.34 19.17
HDPE 22.38 31.71 33.35 17.32 31.44 28.23
PVC 4.46 2.07 3.44 3.17 1.47 3.23
Plastics

LDPE 27.18 35.85 32.13 24.30 31.82 27.84

Polypropylene (PP) 9.45 13.79 11.13 7.29 10.87 5.95
Polystyrene (PS) 12.17 10.02 10.39 10.16 13.26 15.68
Other Plastics 2.13 0.82 - - - 0.48
Glass Bottle 16.23 27.08 32.64 21.00 31.40 21.97
Glass

Sheet Glass 0.56 0.43 0.29 1.17 0.37 0.16

Ferrous Metal 14.59 15.44 12.72 13.35 22.21 15.16
Metals

Aluminium 5.18 8.72 7.76 4.68 12.91 6.21

Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.41 0.47 0.44 - 0.05 1.14
Batteries 0.32 0.39 1.51 0.46 1.46 0.14
Hazardous Waste
Household

Fluorescent Tube 2.32 2.43 2.48 0.30 1.23 0.42

E-Waste 0.07 0.54 2.12 1.68 0.32 0.29
Aerosol Cans 3.12 5.26 7.87 4.59 8.31 3.19
Paint Container 0.13 1.94 0.54 0.29 - -
Tetra Pak 11.41 12.07 13.52 10.02 10.02 7.94
Diapers 86.35 113.73 109.93 67.49 57.36 72.59
Components
Other Waste

Rubber 10.74 10.23 19.73 11.93 13.99 10.61

Textiles 16.74 16.78 37.01 14.66 26.73 19.15
Leather 3.91 3.94 2.84 2.04 2.45 0.93
Porcelain / Ceramic 2.40 2.31 5.47 1.56 4.79 0.35
Fine 0.62 - 0.03 0.60 - -

Page 78
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

10.2 ICI Waste Composition

This section presents the results of the waste composition study for the ICI sectors.

10.2.1 Malaysia ICI Waste Composition

The waste composition data from industries, commercial and institutional in the 18 LAs were
used to develop the ICI waste composition for Malaysia.

Figure 14 below presents the average waste composition of the Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) generated in Malaysian ICI. The biggest component in the waste is Food waste.

Figure 14: Malaysia ICI Waste Composition

Tetra Wood HHW, 1.1 %

Leathe
Textiles , 2.2 % Pak , Rubber , 1.5
r, 0.5 Others, 0.6 %
3.0 % , 1.6 % %
Metal, 4.9 % %

Garden Glass,
Waste, 3.2 %
2.8 %
Food Waste, 31.4 %
Diapers ,
0.8 %

Paper , 20.5 %

Plastic, 25.9 %

Page 79
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

10.2.2 Institutional Waste Composition

The main Institutional sector comprised of the following categories; government offices,
schools, college, universities, polytechnics, hospitals, clinics, and public transportation
facilities.

Figure 15 presents the average composition of the waste collected from the various
institutions in Malaysia. Food Waste was recorded to be the highest average with an
average of 32 per cent followed by plastics at 22 per cent and paper at 18 per cent.

Figure 15: Composition of Institutional Waste for Malaysia

Rubber Wood, 0.9 % HHW, 1.2 %

, 2.6 % Leather,
Tetra Pak , 2.9 % Others, 0.8 %
0.6 %
Textiles , 3.2 %
Metal, 4.6 %
Glass, 3.5 %
Food Waste, 32.3 %
Garden Waste,
6.0 %

Diapers ,
1.6 %
Paper , 18.1 %

Plastic, 21.8 %

Page 80
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

10.2.3 Commercial Waste Composition

The Commercial sector comprises of the following categories:

 Markets
 Supermarkets
 Shopping complexes
 Hotels
 Food courts
 Restaurants
 Business lots

Figure 16 presents the average composition of the waste collected from the various
Commercial facilities in Malaysia. Food Waste was the highest component with an average
of 40 per cent followed by plastics at 23 per cent and paper at 16 per cent.

Figure 16: Composition of Commercial Sector Waste for Malaysia

Tetra Pak , 3.6 % Leather, 0.4 % Wood

Rubber , 0.8 HHW, 1.0 %
Textiles , 1.7 % , 1.5 % %
Glass, 3.9 %
Metal Others, 0.8 %
Garden , 4.1
Waste, %
1.7 %
Diapers ,
0.7 % Food Waste, 40.4 %

Paper , 16.3 %

Plastic, 23.2 %

Page 81
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

10.2.4 Industrial Waste Composition

The waste samples were taken from various Industrial sectors which included:

 Food and beverages

 Textile apparel
 Chemical
 Petrochemical
 Plastic products
 Electrical and electronics products
 Fabricated metal
 Basic metal and non-metallic mineral products
 Paper and paper products
 Wood and products of wood

Figure 17 presents the Average Composition of the waste collected from the various
industries in Malaysia. For industrial waste, the highest components were plastics at 39 per
cent and paper at 35 per cent. Food waste comprised of only 6 per cent of the total waste.

Figure 17: Average Composition of Industrial Waste in Malaysia

Rubber , 0.6 % Leather, 0.5 % Wood, 4.5 % Others, 0.0 %

HHW, 1.2 % Food Waste, 5.8 %
Tetra Pak , 1.4 %
Glass, 1.0 %
Textiles ,
1.9 %
Garden
Waste, Metal, 7.7 %
1.1 %

Diapers ,
0.0 % Plastic, 39.1 %

Paper , 35.1 %

Page 82
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

10.3 Recyclables in the As Disposed Waste

Table 44 presents the amount of selected recyclable material present in the incoming waste
at the landfill or the Transfer Station. The total quantity of recyclable material is estimated to
be 6,500 MT of which the plastics fraction makes up almost 45%.

Table 44: Quantity of Recyclable Material found in the As Disposed Waste

Recyclable Components Quantity in the As Disposed waste

percentage of total
MT/day
waste
Mixed Paper 418 1.41%
Newsprint / Old Newspaper 551 1.86%
Cardboard 868 2.93%
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) 573 1.93%
High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 925 3.12%
Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) 1098 3.70%
Polypropylene (PP) 288 0.97%
Glass Bottle 798 2.69%
Ferrous Metal 323 1.09%
Aluminium 130 0.44%
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 24 0.08%
E-Waste 80 0.27%
Paint Container 31 0.10%
Tetra Pak 432 1.46%
6,539 22.05%

10.4 Hazardous Material

During the sorting activity, some hazardous waste was observed in the MSW. The quantity
of the hazardous waste from Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah is presented in
Table 45.

Table 45: Percentage of Hazardous Material found in the MSW

Household Household
Hazardous Material
Generated, % Generated, MT/day

Peninsular Malaysia 1.31% 235.5

Sarawak 1.78% 28.4

Sabah 0.71% 13.8

Page 83
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

The items commonly found during the sorting activities of MSW in the 18 sites are as
follows:-

 Batteries – Alkaline batteries, Ni-Cd/Li-ion rechargeable batteries, small lead

batteries.
 Fluorescent Tube / bulbs – mostly broken.
 E waste – Electronic components like printed circuit boards, computer parts, radio,
CD/DVD players and parts.
 Aerosol cans including insect repellent spray, detergent, household chemical
containers and cans.
 Paint spray cans and containers.
 Medical waste – cough syrup bottles, swabs, a few syringes (with and without
needles), some expired pills.
 Motor service waste – oil and air filters, plugs, oil and grease containers.
 Others – asbestos sheet, fire extinguishers.

Although the amount of this type of waste was small, the presence of these items in the
waste stream was noted and should be removed systematically. Most of these types of
wastes originate from the households and shop-lots. Some of these could however, be
removed from the waste stream by having collection centres and buy back systems.

Page 84
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

11 WASTE CHARACTERISATION STUDY

The Tables and Figures in this chapter present the results of the waste characterisation
study for Household and ICI waste. The first section presents the findings of the Household
waste for Malaysia. This Section also presents results from the As Generated, As Discarded
and As Disposed waste. The second section discusses findings from the ICI sector. The
Section 11.3 presents the results from the individual waste component analysis.

11.1 Household Waste Characterisation

The field samples taken from the households were analysed for its moisture content, calorific
value and Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium (NPK) values. Apart from these, proximate
and ultimate analysis was also conducted to get the various constituents in the samples. The
following section discusses the findings from these analyses.

11.1.1 Moisture Content

The average Moisture content of the household samples from various groupings is as
presented in Table 46. The average moisture content for the generated waste varied from
52 per cent to 54 per cent for the household waste in urban areas while the average
moisture content for the generated waste varied from 42 per cent to 47 per cent for rural
household waste. The moisture in the waste is clearly increasing as the waste moves from
the point of generation to the point of disposal. This can be attributed to increase of food
content with the reduction in recyclable material and the precipitation.

Table 46: Moisture Content - Malaysian Household MSW, in per cent

Malaysian
Urban Household Rural Household
Average
Low Medium High Low Medium High
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

As Generated 53.84 52.30 51.95 43.92 46.96 42.03 52.10

As Discarded 56.53 59.13 58.87 48.18 50.35 47.01 57.34

As Disposed 59.65 60.55 59.45

11.1.2 Proximate Analysis

The Proximate analysis was carried out to obtain the Fixed Carbon, Ash Content and
Volatile Matter of the combustible fraction of the household waste sample. The average
proximate analysis results for the As Discarded and As Disposed waste is presented in
Table 47.

Page 85
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 47: Average Proximate Analysis Results for Malaysian As Discarded and As Disposed
Waste in per cent, wet basis (n=54)

As Discarded As Disposed

Moisture Content 57.34 59.45

Volatile Matter Content 22.79 20.79

Fixed Carbon Content 11.48 11.10

Ash Content 8.39 8.65

Note: Non-combustible fraction of the waste removed before analysing the sample

11.1.3 Ultimate Analysis

The Ultimate analysis was carried out to obtain the elementary components of Carbon,
Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulphur and Organic Chlorine present in the combustible
fraction of the waste sample. The major chemical constituents of the As Discarded and As
Disposed waste are presented in Table 48. These results are shown on wet basis.

Table 48: Average Ultimate Analysis Results for Malaysian As Discarded and As Disposed
Waste in per cent, wet basis (n=54)

As Discarded As Disposed

Moisture Content 57.34 59.45

Carbon Content 21.57 17.36

Sulphur Content 0.05 3.35

Hydrogen Content 4.29 5.89

Nitrogen Content 1.37 1.05

Oxygen Content 7.47 5.89

Organic Chlorine Content 0.06 0.04

Ash Content 7.85 6.96

Note: Non-combustible fraction of the waste removed before analysing the sample

11.1.4 Metals

The minor chemical constituents of Metals, of the As Discarded and As Disposed waste
samples are presented in Table 49. These results are shown on wet basis.

Page 86
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 49: Average Heavy Metal results of the As Discarded and As Disposed Waste in ppm,
wet basis (n=54)

As Discarded As Disposed
Mercury 0.084 0.092
Vanadium 2.859 3.590
Chromium 37. 46 46.58
Manganese 15.17 21.97
Iron 269.34 318.27
Cobalt 0.30 0.53
Copper 6.46 5.92
Zinc 18.50 19.35
Arsenic 0.18 0.66
Silver 0.41 0.66
Cadmium 0.29 2.38
Lead 1.43 1.98
Aluminium 143.65 148.23
Magnesium 56.98 88.30
Nickel 2.49 1.94

11.1.5 Bulk Density

The average Bulk Density of the As Discarded and As Disposed waste samples measured at
the Landfill/Dumpsite are presented in Table 50.

Table 50: Average Bulk Density measurements As Discarded and As Disposed Waste in
kg/m3, (n=54,108)

As Discarded As Disposed

Bulk Density 185.33 202.54

Page 87
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

11.1.6 Calorific Value

The average Higher Heating Value or also known as Calorific Value of the As Discarded and
As Disposed waste samples analysed at the laboratory are presented in Table 51.

Table 51: Average Calorific Value Results As Discarded and As Disposed Waste (n=54,108)

As Discarded As Disposed

Higher Heating Value, HHVdry

21,671 (5,176) 21,185 (5,060)
dry basis, kJ/kg (kcal/kg)

Lower Heating Value, LHVwet wet

6,950 (1,660) 6,325 (1,511)
basis, kJ/kg (Kcal/kg)

11.1.7 NPK and Biodegradability

The average Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium content of the organic fraction of the dry
As Disposed waste samples analysed at the laboratory are presented in Table 52.

Table 52: Average NPK value of the organic fraction of the Waste in per cent, dry basis
(n=108)

NPK As Disposed

Total Nitrogen 3.88

Phosphorous (P2O5) 3.46

Potassium (K2O) 2.42

Biodegradability is an important parameter when using treatment techniques such as

composting. If a large fraction of the solid waste is not biodegradable, then this fraction will
have to be disposed off by other means if composting is the primary mode of treatment. The
potential biodegradability of the waste samples were determined using the estimated
percentage of degradation of the individual components, as presented in Table 53, of the
waste sample as recommended by Aarne Vesilind et al. in his book “Solid Waste
Engineering”.

Page 88
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 53: Potential Biodegradability of Each Waste Component

Waste Components Bio Fraction

Food Waste 0.82

Garden Waste 0.72

Paper 0.5

Plastics 0

Textile 0.5

Rubber & Leather 0.5

Wood 0.7

Glass 0

Ferrous Metal 0

Aluminium 0

Other non-Ferrous Metal 0

Miscellaneous inorganic 0.8

Other Material 0.5

Source: Solid Waste Engineering, Aarne Vesilind et al.

Using the data provided in the above table, the average waste composition of the As
Disposed Waste was used to compute the biodegradability of the sample.

The average biodegradability of Malaysian waste calculated from 54 samples was found to
be 61.2 per cent with a median value of 61.4 per cent.

Page 89
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

11.2 ICI Waste Characterisation

The field samples taken from the ICI were analysed for its moisture content and calorific
values. Apart from these, proximate and ultimate analysis was also conducted to get the
various constituents in the samples. The following section discusses the findings from these
analyses.

11.2.1 Moisture Content

The average Moisture content of the ICI samples from various categories are presented in
Table 54. The average moisture content varies from 47 per cent to 54 per cent.

Table 54: Moisture Content - Malaysian ICI Waste (n=54)

Institutional Commercial Industry Overall ICI Sector

50.49% 54.19% 47.02% 51.75%

11.2.2 Proximate Analysis

The Proximate analysis was carried out to obtain the Fixed Carbon, Ash Content and
Volatile Matter of the combustible fraction of the ICI waste samples. The average proximate
analysis results for the various sectors are presented in Table 55.

Table 55: Average Proximate Analysis Results for Malaysian ICI Sector Waste, in per cent,
Wet basis (n=54)

Overall ICI
Institutional Commercial Industry
Sector
Moisture Content 50.49 54.19 47.02 51.75

Volatile Matter Content 27.74 25.10 28.84 26.57

Fixed Carbon Content 13.07 12.91 14.60 13.28

Ash Content 8.70 7.80 9.55 8.40

Note: Non-combustible fraction of the waste removed before analysing the sample

Page 90
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

11.2.3 Ultimate Analysis

The Ultimate analysis was carried out to obtain the elementary components of Carbon,
Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulphur and Organic Chlorine present in the combustible
fraction of the ICI waste sample. The major chemical constituents of the ICI Sector waste are
presented in Table 56. These results are shown on wet basis.

Table 56: Average Ultimate Analysis Results for ICI sector waste, in per cent, wet basis
(n=54)

Overall ICI
Institutional Commercial Industry
Sector
Moisture Content 50.49 54.19 47.02 51.75

Carbon Content 24.49 23.09 26.26 24.11

Hydrogen Content 5.30 4.72 5.31 5.00

Oxygen Content 9.33 8.68 9.83 9.09

Nitrogen Content 1.39 1.29 1.54 1.37

Organic Chlorine Content 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.07

Total Chlorine Content 0.16 0.13 0.31 0.17

Sulphur Content 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.08

Ash Content 8.65 7.80 9.54 8.36

Note: Non-combustible fraction of the waste removed before analysing the sample

11.2.4 Metals

The minor chemical constituents of metals, of the ICI waste samples are presented in Table
57. These results are shown on wet basis.

Page 91
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 57: Average Heavy Metal results of the ICI Waste in ppm, wet basis (n=54)

Overall ICI
Institutional Commercial Industry
Sector
Mercury 0.127 0.112 0.174 0.127
Vanadium 1.895 1.425 0.382 1.371
Chromium 24.59 22.16 16.86 21.94
Manganese 10.80 6.77 5.71 7.71
Iron 172.02 163.17 146.73 163.17
Cobalt 0.79 0.47 0.17 0.51
Copper 6.83 3.74 3.77 4.59
Zinc 10.52 7.99 15.59 10.06
Arsenic 0.76 0.44 0.28 0.50
Silver 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.31
Cadmium 1.04 0.57 0.23 0.64
Lead 1.47 1.67 1.52 1.59
Aluminium 128.93 90.90 184.79 118.27
Magnesium 22.31 27.30 56.38 31.22
Nickel 2.80 2.22 1.71 2.29
Note: Non-combustible fraction of the waste removed before analysing the sample

11.2.5 Bulk Density

The average Bulk Density of the ICI sector waste samples are presented in Table 58.

Table 58: Bulk Density measurements of the ICI Waste, in kg/m3 (n=54)

Overall ICI
Institutional Commercial Industry
Sector

Bulk Density 137.09 145.18 101.56 134.38

Page 92
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

11.2.6 Calorific Value

The calorific value, also known as higher heating value, is analysed on a dry basis. The
average higher heating value of the ICI samples from various categories are presented in
Table 59.

Table 59: Average Calorific Value of the ICI Waste (n=54)

Overall ICI
Institutional Commercial Industry
Sector

Higher Heating Value, HHVdry 21,192 20,542 20,757 20,765

dry basis, kJ/kg (kcal/kg) (5,061) (4,906) (4,958) (4,960)

Lower Heating Value, LHVwet 8,165 7,121 8,755 7,727

wet basis, kJ/kg (kcal/kg) (1,950) (1,701) (2,091) (1,846)

11.3 Individual Waste Component Analysis

Apart from analysis of the co-mingled waste samples from the various sectors, 17 individual
waste components extracted from 5 disposal sites were also analysed for their major and
minor chemical constituents. Components which are inert or metals were not analysed.

Table 60 presents the Proximate Analysis, Ultimate Analysis and the Calorific Value of the
individual waste components of the As Disposed Samples from the disposal sites.

Table 61 presents the Metal analysis of the individual waste components of the As Disposed
Samples from the disposal sites.

Page 93
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 60: Proximate, Ultimate analysis and Calorific Value of the Individual Components

Moisture
Proximate Analysis Ultimate Analysis Calorific Value
content
Volatile Lower
Fixed Ash Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulphur Higher Lower
Moisture Matter, Calorific
Carbon, Content, Content, Content, Content, Content, Content, Heating Calorific
content, wet Value
wet wet wet wet basis wet wet wet Value Value
% basis wet,
basis % basis % basis % % basis % basis % basis % dry,kJ/kg wet,kJ/kg
% kcal/kg
Food 82.00 14.30 1.54 2.16 7.88 1.20 5.60 1.09 0.05 12,427 229 55
Garden 30.85 50.46 11.14 7.55 30.70 3.01 26.88 0.81 0.20 17,522 11,356 2,712
Mixed
54.57 34.51 3.70 7.22 21.63 3.20 12.39 0.79 0.20 20,536 7,988 1,908
Paper
Newsprint 22.73 74.33 1.03 1.90 37.78 6.50 29.50 1.35 0.23 16,209 11,953 2,855
Cardboard 12.17 72.53 7.36 7.94 37.39 7.15 33.18 1.61 0.56 16,466 14,148 3,379
Tetra Pak 14.70 71.20 7.33 6.78 38.41 6.39 32.21 1.20 0.32 14,884 12,323 2,943
PET 5.69 92.46 0.93 0.92 79.37 8.06 4.95 0.88 0.12 33,755 31,678 7,566
HDPE 5.65 91.64 1.30 1.41 76.24 9.26 6.40 0.74 0.30 34,706 32,584 7,783
PVC 7.29 79.78 3.77 9.17 69.58 7.30 4.17 1.17 1.33 32,143 29,607 7,072
LDPE 44.69 50.40 0.96 3.95 40.62 6.14 3.72 0.74 0.14 29,924 15,443 3,688
PP 24.52 61.93 6.45 7.10 49.46 7.14 9.99 1.65 0.14 30,620 22,498 5,373
PS 10.32 88.19 0.29 1.20 67.79 8.37 10.33 1.42 0.58 31,725 28,180 6,731
Diapers 76.69 19.91 1.72 1.68 9.93 2.26 9.10 0.26 0.08 25,434 4,049 967
Textile 53.80 37.86 7.31 1.03 25.39 3.19 15.83 0.56 0.21 18,185 7,079 1,691
Rubber 2.96 87.76 0.92 8.36 66.58 5.14 13.51 0.99 2.47 23,092 22,323 5,332
Leather 4.66 81.54 4.86 8.95 58.74 8.64 16.56 1.53 0.93 26,337 24,977 5,966
Wood 15.92 72.07 10.89 1.11 43.65 6.52 31.34 1.21 0.25 20,092 16,488 3,938
 Non-combustible fraction of the waste removed before analysing the sample

Page 94
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 61: Metal Analysis of the Individual Components, in ppm

Mercury Vanadium Chromium Manganese Iron Cobalt Copper Zinc Arsenic Silver Cadmium Lead Aluminium Magnesium Nickel

Food 0.005 0.081 5.46 13.91 31 0.07 0.63 2.95 0.067 0.100 0.010 0.077 - 9.20 2.88

Garden 0.018 0.837 4.68 92.71 226 0.20 3.69 17.15 1.218 0.188 0.030 0.851 - 35.89 0.22
Mixed
- 0.796 59.22 19.20 137 0.62 7.38 109.69 0.760 0.205 0.177 0.245 - 23.59 1.14
Paper
Newsprint 0.022 1.412 57.89 35.99 535 0.32 9.68 16.93 0.524 0.349 0.082 2.108 - 39.41 1.18

Cardboard 0.033 1.447 12.55 44.23 174 0.57 15.71 14.78 0.566 0.848 0.051 0.263 - 45.32 0.64

Tetra Pak 0.036 0.616 18.52 29.25 4,597 1.07 2.57 75.87 0.679 0.587 0.206 0.092 3,262 45.12 19.20

PET 0.034 0.986 134.06 6.21 2,706 0.34 6.19 200.20 1.173 0.504 0.106 2.490 - 51.17 2.90

HDPE 0.023 1.347 90.00 1.23 148 5.03 2.84 368.04 0.351 0.504 4.057 0.900 - 50.33 2.96

PVC 0.022 1.396 87.49 1.82 141 7.32 1.94 358.41 0.295 0.536 3.197 0.510 - 51.43 3.75

LDPE 0.029 0.698 108.88 4.14 1,019 0.52 2.44 149.89 1.034 0.878 0.046 3.094 - 30.31 1.77

PP 0.027 1.632 75.16 1.59 122 2.82 3.30 271.74 0.257 0.456 1.096 0.507 - 42.89 0.59

PS - 1.322 6.78 37.56 231 1.05 3.12 33.88 1.343 0.500 0.084 0.737 - 49.12 1.45

Diapers - 0.358 1.76 0.46 32 0.10 0.43 9.74 0.093 0.135 0.070 0.669 - 12.14 0.13

Textile 0.017 0.235 69.49 2.52 89 0.08 0.96 11.66 0.455 0.222 0.030 0.877 3,225 24.61 0.23

Rubber 0.037 6.121 - 30.89 841 1.43 227.44 1,714.35 1.432 0.398 0.670 1.461 2,069 41.79 2.68

Leather 0.048 8.345 - 35.71 1,139 2.79 278.44 2,188.07 2.059 0.473 0.040 1.770 2,541 51.19 3.04

Wood 0.044 0.281 50.84 3.13 78 0.37 3.95 13.48 0.309 0.264 0.045 1.130 3,455 44.31 0.84

 Non-combustible fraction of the waste removed before analysing the sample

Page 95
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

12 RECYCLING SURVEY RESULTS

12.1 Household Survey

12.1.1 Introduction

This section discusses the household survey results. A total of 4,258 households were
visited provided information for the Recycling Survey. The survey covered:

 917 in Northern region

 670 households in the Central Zone/ Klang Valley Region
 495 in East Coast and 690 in the Southern region.
 2,772 households from the Peninsular
 676 from Sarawak
 810 from Sabah

The distribution of interviewed households for each region was weighted by the household
population distribution of the Local Authorities. Of a total of 4,258 households interviewed,
about 67.8% practice recycling, whereas about 32.2% of the total household interviewed did
not practice any form of recycling.

The Distribution of the respondents, by region is presented in Table 62.

Table 62: Distribution of Respondents and Recycling Practice by Region

Number of
Central East Peninsular
Households Zone Coast
Northern Southern
Malaysia
Sarawak Sabah Malaysia
interviewed

Those who
435 238 611 487 1771 532 582 2885
separate their
(64.9%) (48.1%) (66.6%) (70.6%) (63.9%) (70.6%) (71.9%) (67.8%)
waste

Those did not

235 257 306 203 1001 144 228 1373
separate
(35.1%) (51.9%) (33.4%) (29.4%) (36.1%) (29.4%) (28.1%) (32.2%)
waste

Total No. of
Households 670 495 917 690 2772 676 810 4258
Interviewed (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)
(n)

The rest of this section discusses some of the key survey results.

Page 96
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

12.1.2 Reasons for Practising Recycling at Home

About 67.8 per cent of the respondents reported they practiced recycling at home. Overall,
about 34.7 per cent or one third of them said that “money” or financial incentive was the
main motivator. The respondents will sell the accumulated recyclables for financial gain.
While there were variations across the regions, about half of Sabah households said that this
was the main reason for recycling.

The second most important reason was environmental protection with about 32 per cent of
all households citing this reason. Almost 48 per cent of households in the East Coast gave
this reason.

The third reason was also altruistic – they did it for charity. Almost 20 per cent of all
households gave this reason. The proportion of households that cited this reason in the
Northern region and Central Zone / Klang Valley was higher than the average.

The fourth reason was, interestingly, “upon request” by friends or relatives or by collectors
and street pickers. Such networks were strongest in the Klang Valley and East Coast.

The reasons cited for recycling by the respondents, by region is presented in Table 63.

Table 63: Reasons for Recycling, in per cent

Reasons for Central East

Northern Southern Peninsular Sarawak Sabah Total
recycling Zone Coast

Money 25.8 35.9 16.0 34.5 29.4 35.0 50.7 34.7

Environmental
35.3 24.7 47.9 29.6 32.8 41.1 21.8 32.1
protection
Upon request by
collectors, street
6.7 15.4 13.9 9.0 10.5 8.1 11.1 10.1
pickers, friends
and relatives

For charity 29.2 21.9 17.6 20.3 23.4 13.0 13.3 19.5

For cleanliness 1.6 1.2 2.9 5.5 2.8 0.4 0.2 1.8

Others 1.3 0.9 1.7 1.0 1.2 2.4 2.9 1.8

Number of
609 434 238 487 1,768 531 578 2,877
respondents (n)
Note: 8 households did not respond

Page 97
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

For urban respondents in Peninsular Malaysia, the most important reason for recycling was
because of:

a) environmental protection (29.8%)

b) charity (29.7%)
c) money incentive (26.1%)

However, the percentage gaps of these three most important reasons were relatively close.

For rural respondents in Peninsular Malaysia, similar to the urban respondents, the most
important reason is for:

a) environmental protection (36.5%)

b) money incentive (36.5%)
c) charity (9.6%)

The results show that both urban and rural respondents were concerned about the impact of
solid waste to the environmental protection. However, apart from the reasons of
environmental protection and money incentives, urban respondents indicated recycling for
charity was relatively equally important whereas the rural respondent’s results suggested
that recycling for charity was less important.

The reasons cited for recycling by the respondents, by strata is presented in Table 64.

Table 64: Reasons for Recycling by Strata, in per cent

Peninsular Malaysia Sabah & Sarawak Malaysia

Recyclables
Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural

Money 26.1 36.5 42.8 45.3 33.3 38.7

Environmental protection 29.8 39.4 28.4 44.2 29.2 40.6

Upon request by
collectors, street pickers, 9.9 11.6 11.0 2.8 10.4 9.4
friends and relatives
For Charity 29.7 9.6 14.2 7.7 23.0 9.2

For cleanliness 3.6 0.9 0.3 0.0 2.2 0.7

Others 0.8 2.0 3.2 0.0 1.9 1.5

Number of respondents (n) 1217 551 928 181 2145 732

Note: 8 households did not respond

Page 98
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 65 shows reasons for recycling by housing type. In Peninsular Malaysia, most of the
respondents from low cost landed and high rise indicated the money incentive was the most
important reason for recycling, whereas most of the medium and high cost landed
respondents said environment protection was the most important reason. It is noted that for
respondents from high rise residential, either low cost or medium-high cost high rise,
recycling for charity was the most important reason. This may be due to the commonality of
the recycling bin placed by the charity organisation in the compound of high rise building.

Table 65: Reasons for Recycling by Housing Type, in per cent

Medium Medium-
Low Cost Low Cost High Cost
Cost High Cost
Landed High-rise Landed
Landed High-rise
Money 39.5 29.6 30.9 22.1 22.0
Environmental protection 31.9 26.3 34.3 28.2 39.5
Peninsular Malaysia

Upon request by collectors,

street pickers, friends and 12.2 9.6 12.1 6.7 9.4
relatives
For Charity 13.4 29.6 18.4 41.0 24.6
For cleanliness 0.9 4.2 3.2 2.1 2.9
Others 2.1 0.6 1.1 - 1.6

Number of respondents (n) 329 334 528 195 382

Money 47.8 44.7 41.6 51.6 37.4

Environmental protection 34.3 30.5 28.7 20.0 36.6
Sabah & Sarawak

Upon request by collectors,

street pickers, friends and 7.0 9.1 11.5 17.9 6.2
relatives
For Charity 7.5 11.7 14.7 10.5 17.7
For cleanliness 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.4
Others 3.5 3.6 3.2 0.0 1.6

Number of respondents (n) 201 197 373 95 243

Money 42.6 35.2 35.3 31.7 28.0

Environmental protection 32.8 27.9 32.0 25.5 38.4
Upon request by collectors,
street pickers, friends and 10.2 9.4 11.9 10.3 8.2
Malaysia

relatives
For Charity 11.1 23.0 16.9 31.0 21.9
For cleanliness 0.6 2.8 2.0 1.4 1.9
Others 2.6 1.7 2.0 - 1.6

Number of respondents (n) 530 531 901 290 625

Note: 8 households did not respond

Page 99
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Of the total interviewed households, about 32.2 per cent of the total households did not
practice recycling (see Table 62). Table 66 shows the reasons for not recycling by region.

Of all households that did not practice recycling, more than one-third of the respondents
gave the excuse that they had “no time” to recycle. This was clearest in the Klang Valley
(43%) for Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah in East Malaysia (54%).

About one-fifth or 21 per cent of all households “don’t see a need” to recycle. However, this
survey result is not evenly distributed across the regions. For instance, only 7.5 per cent of
households in Sabah felt this way. Interestingly 31 per cent of households in the East Coast
gave the same excuse.

The third important reason was the lack of recycling facilities or services. About 18 per cent
of all households indicated this to be the case. Again, this result was not evenly distributed
across the regions. Almost 25 per cent of households in the Sabah said “no facility/service”
was available in their area, while in the Klang Valley and Southern Region, less than 10 per
cent stated this as a reason.

Another reason given was that there was “no space in the house”, which was about 10 per
cent of all households. This means that as more and more households move into high rise
accommodation, it is important to ensure that facilities or services for recycling are provided
outside or near to these homes. Just below 5 per cent of all households needed an incentive
to recycle.

The reasons cited for not recycling by the respondents, by region is presented in Table 66
while Table 67 presents the reasons given for not recycling by strata.

Table 66: Reasons for Not Recycling, in per cent

Central
Reasons for East
Northern /Klang Southern Peninsular Sarawak Sabah Total
not Recycling Coast
Valley
No time 32.4 42.6 18.3 32.5 31.2 45.8 53.9 36.5
Don't see a
14.4 25.5 31.1 33.5 25.2 13.2 7.5 21.0
need
No facility
24.5 9.4 21.8 3.4 16.0 22.9 25.4 18.3
/service
No space in
6.2 12.3 13.2 10.3 10.3 14.6 7.0 10.2
house
No volume 14.7 2.1 3.9 9.4 7.9 0.7 1.8 6.1
No incentive 3.9 8.1 8.2 2.5 5.7 1.4 2.2 4.7
Others 3.9 0.0 3.5 8.4 3.8 1.4 2.2 3.3
Number of
respondents 306 235 257 203 1001 144 228 1373
(n)

Page 100
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 67: Reasons for Not Recycling by Strata, in per cent

Peninsular Malaysia Sabah & Sarawak Malaysia

Reason for recycling

Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural

No time 36.4 20.1 52.2 43.3 41.4 23.8

Don't see a need 23.6 28.5 6.7 25.0 18.3 27.9

No facility/service 12.5 23.2 26.9 11.7 17.1 21.4

No space in house 11.8 7.1 10.9 5.0 11.5 6.8

No volume 5.2 13.6 1.9 1.7 3.6 12.5

No incentive 6.2 4.6 0.3 6.7 4.8 4.2

Others 4.3 2.8 1.0 6.7 3.2 3.4

Number of
678 323 312 60 990 383
respondents (n)

Table 68 shows the reasons for not recycling by housing type. In general, most of the
respondents from medium-high cost high rise and high cost landed stated they did not
practice recycling because they do not have the time to do so, whereas for respondents from
low cost landed, most of them do nothing as they did not see a need to recycle.

Page 101
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 68: Reasons for Not Recycling by Housing Type, in per cent
Low Medium Medium-
Low Cost High Cost
Cost Cost High Cost
High-rise Landed
Landed Landed High-rise
No time 19.9 32.1 30.3 36.9 37.7

Don't see a need 28.6 20.8 27.3 21.3 25.0

Peninsular Malaysia

No facility/service 19.9 17.9 13.7 13.1 15.6

No space in house 9.2 20.2 7.7 13.1 5.7

No volume 8.2 4.2 9.2 2.5 11.5

No incentive 8.2 1.8 7.7 8.2 2.9

Others 6.1 3.0 4.1 4.9 1.6

Number of
196 168 271 122 244
respondents (n)

No time 13.0 33.0 22.8 50.0 22.4

Don't see a need 40.7 44.0 58.4 0.0 55.2

No facility/service 18.5 14.7 4.7 50.0 5.2

Sabah & Sarawak

No space in house 11.1 6.4 10.7 0.0 12.1

No volume 7.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.7

No incentive 3.7 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.7

Others 5.6 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.7

Number of
54 109 149 2 58
respondents (n)

No facility/service 24.4 36.8 40.2 36.3 41.1

No time 27.8 15.2 21.4 21.0 22.5

No space in house 18.4 23.8 16.9 13.7 16.9

Don't see a need 11.2 18.1 6.7 13.7 5.6

Malaysia

No incentive 7.2 2.5 6.4 2.4 9.6

No volume/do not
8.0 1.8 5.0 8.1 2.6
cook
Others 6.0 1.8 3.3 9.6 1.7

Number of
250 277 420 124 302
respondents (n)

Page 102
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

12.1.3 Most Effective Ways to Further Promote Waste Minimisation and Recycling

In general, majority of the respondents across the region selected the method of “raise
awareness on recycling” (mean scores: 2.42) as the most effective ways to promote
recycling and waste minimisation. The second important way is “strict enforcement of the law
or regulations” (mean score: 2.02). The results indicate that making recycling a habit should
come from “inside”, rather than be imposed from outside with stricter enforcement of health
and safety regulations and imposition of penalties. (These may be more related to littering
than enforced recycling. e.g. RM500 fine for throwing rubbish on the road etc.). However,
there is a problem with law enforcement overall with reference to littering also i.e. laws are
not enforced. Table 69 presents the most effective way to further promote waste
minimisation and recycling, by region.

Table 69: Most Effective Ways to Further Promote Waste Minimisation and Recycling by
Region
East Peninsular
Northern Central Southern Sarawak Sabah Malaysia
Coast Malaysia
Description
Mean Score (3=most effective  1=least effective)
Raise awareness
2.48 2.36 2.23 2.41 2.39 2.36 2.53 2.42
on recycling
Strict
enforcement of
2.14 2.00 1.78 1.90 2.00 2.18 1.91 2.02
the law or
regulations
Introduce
incentives
1.96 1.80 1.81 1.96 1.90 1.92 1.87 1.90
(example: buy
back)
Introduce
penalties if don't 1.71 1.81 1.70 1.68 1.73 1.82 1.69 1.73
recycle
Set up more
recycling 1.86 1.97 2.08 1.93 1.94 1.80 1.72 1.88
facilities
Door to door
collection of 1.68 1.66 1.90 1.75 1.73 1.96 1.82 1.79
recyclables

Others 2.10 1.83 2.50 1.78 1.96 1.75 - 1.88

Table 70 presents the most effective ways to further promote waste minimisation and
recycling, by strata. Overall, both urban and rural respondents ranked the method of “raise
awareness on recycling” as the most effective ways to further promote waste minimisation
and recycling.

Table 71 presents the most effective ways to further promote waste minimisation and
recycling, by housing type.

Page 103
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

For housing type, there is no significant difference for the reason for recycling across the
housing type. Raise awareness on recycling is selected as the most effective way to further
promote waste minimisation and recycling, followed by “Strict enforcement of the law or
regulations”.

Table 70: Most Effective Ways to Further Promote Waste Minimisation & Recycling by Strata

Peninsular
Sabah & Sarawak Malaysia
Malaysia

Description Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural

Mean Score (3=most effective  1=least effective)

Raise awareness on recycling 2.36 2.48 2.44 2.58 2.39 2.50

Strict enforcement of the law

2.02 1.97 2.08 1.75 2.05 1.91
or regulations
Introduce
incentives(example: buy 1.88 1.94 1.93 1.71 1.90 1.89
back)
Introduce penalties if don't
1.73 1.73 1.76 1.50 1.75 1.66
recycle

Set up more recycling

1.95 1.91 1.73 1.92 1.87 1.91
facilities

Door to door collection of

1.77 1.65 1.88 1.98 1.81 1.72
recyclables

Others 2.00 1.83 1.87 1.00 1.91 1.63

Page 104
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 71: Most Effective Ways to Further Promote Waste Minimisation and Recycling by
Housing Type

Medium-
Medium High
Ways to Further Promote Waste Low Cost Low Cost High
Cost Cost
Minimisation Landed High-rise Cost
Landed Landed
High-rise
Mean Score (3= most effective  1=least effective)
Raise awareness on recycling 2.40 2.35 2.40 2.34 2.45
Strict enforcement of the law
2.01 2.01 1.95 2.12 1.98
Peninsular Malaysia

or regulations
Introduce incentives(example:
1.88 1.94 1.94 1.77 1.90
buy back)
Introduce penalties if don't
1.81 1.70 1.81 1.64 1.64
recycle
Set up more recycling facilities 1.83 1.96 1.92 2.07 1.96
Door to door collection of
1.80 1.78 1.68 1.70 1.70
recyclables
Others 2.00 2.00 2.11 1.29 2.60

Raise awareness on recycling 2.56 2.53 2.47 2.10 2.49

Strict enforcement of the law
2.09 1.89 2.00 1.90 2.18
or regulations
Sabah & Sarawak

Introduce incentives(example:
1.77 1.70 1.96 2.30 1.85
buy back)
Introduce penalties if don't
1.67 1.80 1.67 1.86 1.75
recycle
Set up more recycling facilities 1.70 1.93 1.75 1.84 1.71
Door to door collection of
1.99 1.71 1.95 1.78 1.94
recyclables
Others 1.89 1.89 1.60 - 2.00

Raise awareness on recycling 2.45 2.42 2.43 2.26 2.46

Strict enforcement of the law
2.04 1.97 1.97 2.04 2.08
or regulations
Introduce incentives(example:
1.84 1.86 1.95 1.99 1.87
Malaysia

buy back)
Introduce penalties if don't
1.75 1.74 1.73 1.75 1.70
recycle
Set up more recycling facilities 1.78 1.95 1.85 2.03 1.88
Door to door collection of
1.86 1.75 1.78 1.72 1.78
recyclables
Others 1.91 1.92 1.79 1.29 2.16

Page 105
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

In terms of increasing the facilities for recycling, another method that has yet to be tried on a
national scale is to have an additional day where only recyclables are collected. Hence,
households were asked whether they would support this service in three ways –

 Would they be willing to separate the recyclable materials

 Would they be willing to pay for this service
 Whether they expected payment for the recyclables

The responses to these questions are tabulated in Tables, Table 72, Table 73 and Table
74. Surprisingly, households did not want to pay for the additional service. Almost half or 48
per cent of them said that they are willing to separate the recyclables (thus indicating
minimum support). 31 per cent or almost one third said that they would be willing to separate
only if they are paid for them. Less than 10 per cent said that they would be willing to pay for
this service. About 5 per cent were not willing to separate but were willing to pay for this
service. Hence, 15 per cent of households were willing to pay for the service. About 5 per
cent of households said that they did not support this service.

Table 72: Support Additional Day for Collection of Recyclables by Region, in per cent

Peninsular
Type of support Northern Central East Coast Southern
Malaysia
Sarawak Sabah Malaysia

Willing to pay for add

service and also
6.4 14.3 7.6 5.8 8.3 15.6 9.1 9.8
separate the
recyclables
Willing to pay for
service and but not 2.6 10.3 10.1 4.3 6.0 3.6 6.7 5.7
willing to separate

Not willing to pay for

add service but willing 53.5 40.7 45.0 43.8 46.6 51.4 49.7 48.1
to separate

Not willing to pay for

add service but 33.9 23.7 34.5 40.7 33.3 24.9 32.4 31.6
collector pay

Do not support this

3.6 11.0 2.9 5.3 5.8 4.5 2.1 4.8
service

Number of
611 435 238 486 1770 531 581 2882
respondents (n)

Note: 3 households did not respond

Page 106
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

More than half of total urban respondents in Peninsular Malaysia (52.3%) are not willing to
pay for the additional service but they are willing to separate the recyclables, whereas for
rural respondents, most of them (50.2%) are not willing to pay for the additional service and
also not willing to separate the recyclables for free. The results show that most of the rural
respondents will separate the recyclables items if collectors buy them.

Table 73: Support Additional Day for Collection of Recyclables by Strata, in per cent

Peninsular Sabah &

Malaysia
Malaysia Sarawak
Type of support
Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural

Willing to pay for the additional

service and also separate the 9.9 4.7 11.2 17.7 10.5 7.9
recyclables
Willing to pay for the additional
service and but not willing to 5.6 6.9 4.6 8.3 5.2 7.2
separate
Not willing to pay for the
additional service but willing to 52.3 33.9 52.6 39.8 52.4 35.3
separate
Not willing to pay for the
additional service, but willing to
25.7 50.2 28.7 29.3 27.0 45.0
separate only if collectors buy
them
Do not support the additional
6.5 4.3 2.9 5.0 4.9 4.5
service

Number of respondents (n) 1218 552 931 181 2149 733

Note: 3 households did not respond

Table 74 shows the survey result of support additional day for collection of recyclables by
housing type. There is no difference across the housing type on the view of the additional
day for collection of recyclables. Most of them are not willing to pay for the additional service
but willing to separate the recyclables.

Page 107
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 74: Support Additional Day for Collection of Recyclables by Housing Type, in per cent

Medium-
Low Low Medium
High High Cost
Type of support Cost Cost Cost
Cost Landed
Landed High-rise Landed
High-rise
Willing to pay for additional service &
6.1 7.5 7.8 13.3 9.1
also separate recyclables

Willing to pay for additional service and

4.2 3.9 5.5 8.2 8.9
Peninsular Malaysia

but not willing to separate

Not willing to pay for additional service

41.5 51.2 48.4 56.1 39.4
but willing to separate

Not willing to pay for additional service,

but willing to separate only if collectors 43.0 29.6 33.0 16.3 37.3
buy them

Do not support the additional service 5.2 7.8 5.3 6.1 5.2

Number of respondents 330 334 527 196 383

Willing to pay for additional service &

6.4 7.7 9.0 12.0 14.7
also separate recyclables

Willing to pay for additional service and

4.7 4.5 5.4 7.9 6.9
but not willing to separate
Sabah & Sarawak

Not willing to pay for additional service

44.9 53.4 49.4 54.1 41.6
but willing to separate

Not willing to pay for additional service,

but willing to separate only if collectors 38.5 28.6 32.3 21.2 32.1
buy them

Do not support the additional service 5.5 5.8 3.9 4.8 4.8

Number of respondents (n) 530 532 901 292 627

Willing to pay for additional service &

6.4 7.7 9.0 12.0 14.7
also separate recyclables

Willing to pay for additional service and

4.7 4.5 5.4 7.9 6.9
but not willing to separate

Not willing to pay for additional service

Malaysia

44.9 53.4 49.4 54.1 41.6

but willing to separate

Not willing to pay for additional service,

but willing to separate only if collectors 38.5 28.6 32.3 21.2 32.1
buy them

Do not support the additional service 5.5 5.8 3.9 4.8 4.8

Number of respondents (n) 530 532 901 292 627

Note: 3 households did not respond

Page 108
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

12.1.4 Types of Recyclable Materials Retained for Recycling

Most of the households retained more than one type of recyclable materials for recycling.
Table 75 shows that about 76 per cent of total households retained old newspaper for
recycling. Other paper products that were retained include: coloured paper, black and white
paper, and cardboard.

At the same time, almost half of the total households kept aside aluminium cans for recycling
whereas only about 39 per cent of total households retained PET plastic bottles for recycling.
For glasses, 16 per cent of total households said that they retained clear glass for recycling
and another 4 per cent retained coloured glass for recycling. Only a very small percentage of
households retained cooked or uncooked food for recycling (used as feed for livestock).

Table 75: Types of Recyclable Items retained by Household, in per cent

East Peninsular
Recyclables Central
Coast
Northern Southern
Malaysia
Sarawak Sabah Total

Aluminium can 44.4 28.2 31.3 40.7 36.6 78.4 66.7 50.4

Black & white paper 12.9 17.6 9.3 20.1 14.3 30.6 14.8 17.4

Cardboard 13.1 10.9 18.5 16.2 15.5 25.4 13.1 16.8

Coloured paper 17.7 16.8 18.2 22.4 19.0 26.9 10.8 18.8

Cleared glass 17.2 26.1 12.9 19.9 17.7 23.9 7.0 16.7

Coloured glass 1.6 0.4 1.0 4.7 2.1 12.8 5.3 4.7

Metal can 22.5 22.7 17.0 25.3 21.4 19.5 9.3 18.6

Old newspaper 84.4 69.3 84.5 85.0 82.6 77.8 54.8 76.1

Non-PET plastic 21.1 13.4 15.4 26.5 19.6 15.8 4.8 15.9

PET plastic 44.1 40.3 51.2 51.5 48.1 28.0 20.1 38.8

Cooked food 9.7 31.9 6.5 15.2 13.1 9.2 12.0 12.2

Uncooked food 0.7 3.8 0.7 9.9 3.6 7.3 1.5 3.9

Others 0.2 0.8 2.0 0.8 1.1 0.4 3.1 1.4

Note: Some households retained more than one type of recyclable materials for recycling.

Page 109
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 76 presents the composition of the recyclable material collection from each region. In
terms of composition of recyclable materials, on average, about two thirds of the total
retained recyclable materials in a household are old newspaper. Inclusion of other forms of
paper products would increase retention by the households of the paper products to 75 per
cent. The recycling rate for old newspaper in the Klang Valley and the Northern Region (both
80%) are the highest. While it is comparatively lower in Sabah (42%), Sarawak (53%) and
the East Coast states (56%).

Table 76: Recyclables Composition by Region, in per cent

East Peninsular
Recyclables Central
Coast
Northern Southern
Malaysia
Sarawak Sabah Total

Aluminium can 2.1 1.2 0.9 1.8 1.6 9.1 18.2 4.4
Black & white
2.5 3.4 2.5 3.2 2.8 3.1 4.9 3.1
paper
Cardboard 2.1 1.8 3.1 1.9 2.3 4.5 6.1 3.0
Coloured
3.6 1.9 3.3 2.4 2.9 3.1 3.8 3.0
paper
Cleared glass 1.3 6.1 1.1 1.1 1.8 2.4 1.8 1.9

Coloured glass 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.1 1.1 0.4

Old newspaper 80.3 56.5 80.2 64.8 72.3 53.3 42.3 66.2

Metal can 1.2 3.1 1.6 3.3 2.2 2.4 1.9 2.2
Non-PET
0.6 0.4 1.0 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.8
plastic
PET plastic 2.5 2.1 2.7 3.2 2.7 1.6 4.7 2.7
Uncooked
0.3 2.6 0.1 5.3 2.2 7.6 0.7 3.0
food
Cooked food 3.2 20.6 2.8 10.2 7.6 10.6 12.8 8.6

Others 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.6 1.3 0.7

Page 110
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

12.1.5 Destination of Recyclable Materials Collected or Traded

The most common methods to “dispose” the recyclable materials are:

a) “sell to private recyclers or collectors”

b) “given free” to recyclers or collectors”

Overall, two thirds of households sold their recyclables whereas another 40 per cent of total
households gave away the recyclables “for free”. And 16 per cent of households had other
channels of recycling.

Table 77 shows the how the recyclables reach their destination. There are distinct ways in
which recycling is being done for the various types of recyclables. For items that have
monetary value, there is an extensive network of private recyclers and collectors who are
quite efficient in their system of collecting items that are valuable. Such items would be the
paper and paper products, plastic and metal (including aluminium).

For items that have little or no commercial value (glass, food), the main way is either to give
it away or through other means (probably for animal feed). As can be seen, about one-third
goes through the “give away for free” route.

Table 77: Destination of Recyclables by Region, in per cent

East
Type of destination Northern Central Southern Sarawak Sabah
Coast

Sell to private
28.4 34.0 33.0 56.6 46.5 46.2
recycles/collectors

Take and sell to nearest buy-

16.0 15.7 10.3 3.5 10.4 16.3
back centre

Taken by recyclers/
collectors/waste collection truck 39.3 33.9 36.0 22.3 16.0 20.3
with no payment

Take to nearest drop off point/

11.1 12.5 7.5 9.1 18.1 7.8
centre(no payment)

Others 5.2 3.9 13.3 8.5 8.9 9.5

Note: Answer was provided in multiple choices, e.g. one household may gave away the recyclables
for free and may also sold their recyclables to different canter.

Page 111
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

12.2 Industry Survey

12.2.1 Introduction

This section describes the recycling practices of industries by looking at the percentage of:

a) respondents that practice recycling,

b) the total weight of recyclables generated by Malaysian industries according to
industrial type and firm size,
c) the composition of recyclables in Malaysian industries and
d) the percentage contribution of different industries towards the recycling of each
recyclables types and the prices of recyclables.

This section first examines the recycling practices of non-production waste (municipal waste)
and the second, recyclables from production waste.

12.2.2 Percentage of Respondents that Recycle

A total of 1013 industrial establishments were approached in this survey with 73 per cent of
the respondents practicing recycling while 27 per cent do not. The 73 per cent that practice
recycling comprises of respondents that recycle both municipal and production waste (27%),
respondents that recycle only municipal waste (24%), respondents that recycle only
production waste (13%) and respondents that claim to practice recycling but do not have
information about the recyclables (9%) as shown in Figure 18. Tables, Table 78 and Table
79 show a breakdown of the respondents and their recycling practices according to industry
type and firm size respectively.

Figure 18: Recycling practices of respondents in percentages (n=1,013)

both waste

municipal waste only

27.20% 27.10%

production waste only

recycle but no information

8.61%
about recyclables available

24.33%
do not recycle
12.76%

Page 112
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 78 : Distribution of respondents sampled in the industry survey according to industry

type and their recycling practices, in per cent (n=1013)

Recycle but
Municipal
Both Production no Do not
Industry categories solid waste Total
waste waste only information recycle
only
available
Food and beverage 11.2 24.1 4.7 16.1 21.1 16.6
Textile and Apparel 4.3 8.6 2.3 5.7 7.6 6.1
Fabricated metal 15.5 2.4 20.9 17.2 10.5 11.8
Basic metal 8.7 2.9 11.6 1.1 3.6 5.6
Machinery, motor
vehicles and
7.6 6.5 10.9 8.0 6.5 7.5
transport
equipment
Electrical and
11.9 7.3 5.4 10.3 6.2 8.3
electronic products
Wood and wood
6.9 6.9 9.3 1.1 12.0 8.1
based products *
Paper and paper
6.5 5.7 11.6 3.4 2.2 5.5
products
Chemical,
petrochemical and 15.5 15.5 14.7 21.8 14.2 15.6
plastic products
Non-metallic
6.9 9.0 3.9 3.4 10.2 7.6
mineral product
Others 5.1 11.0 4.7 11.5 5.8 7.2
Total respondents
277 245 129 87 275 1013
(n)
* - product of wood and cork, manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting materials, furniture

Table 79: Distribution of respondents sampled in the industry survey according to firm size
and their recycling practices, in per cent (n=1013)

Recycle
Municipal
Both Production but no Do not % of Total
Firm size solid
waste waste only information recycle Respondents
waste only
available
Micro 4.0 11.8 14.0 9.2 9.1 9.0
Small 50.9 55.1 62.0 55.2 54.5 54.7
Medium 18.4 20.8 14.0 18.4 18.5 18.5
Large 26.7 12.2 10.1 17.2 17.8 17.9
Total
277 245 129 87 275 1013
respondents (n)

Page 113
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

12.2.3 Reasons for not practicing recycling

Reasons for not practicing recycling amongst industries were examined as shown in Table
80. Most industries ranked “No time”, “No reason” and “Do not see a need” as the main
reasons for not practising recycling. Only the electrical and electronics industry had ranked
“Not enough volume of recyclables” as a rank 1 reason. The breakdown of different reasons
according to industries may suggest different needs of industry types for encouraging more
recycling practices.

Figure 19 shows the composition of recyclables generated from municipal solid waste of
Malaysian Industries. 60 per cent of the recyclables generated originates from paper with 27
per cent being cardboard, 23 per cent being black and white paper, 6 per cent newspaper
and about 4 per cent being coloured paper. 37 per cent of the recyclables are other
recyclables which include metals (apart from metal cans), wood pallets and other packaging
while plastics contribute about 3 per cent of the total recyclables. The remaining recyclables
types contribute about 0.3 per cent of the total recyclables generated.

Figure 19: Composition of recyclables of Malaysian industries based on weight of

recyclables

Newspaper Colour paper 3.9%

Others 13% 7.5%

Mixed Plastics
6.1%

Metal can 8.0% Black and white

paper 25.1%

Aluminium
0.3%
Non PET 0.8%
PET 1.6%

Cardboard 33.3%

Page 114
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 80: Ranking of reasons for not practicing recycling for different industry types (n=275)

Industry category Reason Rank 1 Reason Rank 2 Reason Rank 3 Reason Rank 4 Reason Rank 5 n
No facility/service (22%);
Not enough volume of
Basic metal No time (33%) 9
recyclables (22%);
No reason (22%)
Chemical, petrochemical No facility/service
Don't see a need (28%) No reason (23%) No time (21%) 43
and plastic products (12%)
Not enough volume of No facility/service
Electrical and electronic
recyclables (24%); Don't see a need (18%) (12%); 17
products
No reason (24%) No time (12%)
No facility/service (19%); No
Fabricated metal Don't see a need (30%) No reason (26%) 27
Time (19%)
Not enough
Don't see a need (14%); No volume of
Food and beverage No time (30%) No facility/service (18%) 56
reason (14%) recyclables
(13%)
Machinery, motor
No time (29%);
vehicles and transport No reason (24%) 17
Don't see a need (29%)
equipment
Non-metallic mineral Don't see a need (25%); No facility/service
No time (14%) 28
product No reason (25%) (11%)
No time (17%);
Don't see a need (33%);
Paper and paper product Not enough volume of 6
No reason (33%)
recyclables (17%)
No time (24%); Reuse, own used
Textile and Apparel Don't see a need (19%) 21
No reason (24%) (14%)
No space in premises
Wood and wood based
No time (49%) No facility/service (14%) (11%); Don’t see a need 35
products *
(11%)
Don't see a need (19%); Not
No time (25%);
Others enough volume of 16
No reason (25%)
recyclables (19%)
* - of wood and cork, manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting materials, furniture

Page 115
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

As shown in Figure 20, there are certain recyclables that are mainly generated by specific
industries. For example, the paper and paper product industry generates about 70 per cent
of the black and white paper recycled though there are 8 other industries that contribute to
the total amount of black and white paper generated. There are approximately 7-8 industries
that recycle all papers, cardboard, aluminium cans and plastics as shown by their
contributions in Figure 20. In comparison, coloured glass is only recycled by 3 industries
namely the food and beverage, textile and apparel and machinery, motor vehicles and
transport equipment industries.

12.2.4 Recyclables generated by Malaysian industries according to firm size

Table 81 shows the total weight and the breakdown of the weight according to types of
recyclables generated by different sized Malaysian industrial firms. In total, 221,103kg is
generated per day. 65 per cent of this total originates from large firms that have more than
150 staff followed by small firms that have more than 5 but less than 50 staff contributing 16
per cent of the total recyclables generated daily. Medium sized firms that have more than 50
staff but less than 150 contribute 14 per cent of the total recyclables generated daily from
municipal waste of industries while micro sized firms with less than 5 staff contribute 5 per
cent of the total (Figure 21).

Table 81: Total weight of recyclables generated per day (kg/day) by Malaysian industries
according to firm size and types of recyclables

Type of recyclables Micro Small Medium Large Total

Aluminium can 163 459 15 73 710

Black and white paper 671 4,976 6,929 42,893 55,469
Cardboard 12,416 8,733 23,143 29,228 73,521
Clear glass 39 2 6 - 48
Coloured glass - 5 - - 5
Coloured paper 340 5,072 920 2,346 8,678
Metal can 54 12,080 3,898 1,674 17,706
Mixed Plastics 222 1,480 2,503 9,262 13,466
Newspaper 2,047 1,949 7,504 5,157 16,657
Non PET 19 40 47 1,644 1,750
PET 254 434 461 2,331 3,480
Others 1,440 1,393 43 26,735 29,612
Total recyclables generated
17,665.1 36,622.6 45,470.7 121,345.2 221,103.5
per day (kg/day)

Number of Employees 53,193 242,184 303,531 1,213,452 1,812,360

Page 116
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report
Others
Figure 20: Percentage contribution of different industry types toward the
Coloured total weight of recyclables
glass
Clear glass
Others Metal can
Coloured glass Aluminium can
Mixed Plastic
Clear glass
Non PET
Metal can PET
Others
Aluminium can Coloured glass Cardboard
Colour paper
Mixed Plastic Clear glass
Metal can Black and white paper
Non PET Newspaper
Aluminium can
PET Mixed Plastic 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Cardboard Non PET Food and beverage

PET Textile and Apparel
Colour paper
Cardboard Fabricated metal
Black and white paper Colour paper Basic metal
Newspaper
Newspaper
Black and white paper
Machinery, motor vehicles and transport equipment
Newspaper
Newspaper
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Electrical
60% and electronic
70% products
80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Wood and 60% 70%
product of wood 80%
and cork, 90%
manufacture 100%
of articles of straw and p
Food and beverage
Food and beverage Paper and paper product
Textile and Apparel
Textile and Apparel Chemical, petrochemical and plastic products
Fabricated metal Non-metallic mineral product
Fabricated metal
Basic metal Others
Basic metal Machinery, motor vehicles and transport equipment
Electrical
Machinery, motor and electronic
vehicles products
and transport equipment
Wood and product of wood and cork, manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting materials, furniture (wood based)
Electrical and electronic products
Paper and paper product
Wood and product of wood
Chemical, and cork,and
petrochemical manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting materials, furniture (wood based)
plastic products Page 117

Non-metallic
Paper and paper product mineral product
Others
Chemical, petrochemical and plastic products
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 21: The percentage contribution of different sized industrial firms toward the total
weight generated by Malaysian industries

Micro
17,665 kg/day
8%
Small
36,623 kg/day
16%

Large
121,345 kg/day
55%
Medium
45,471 kg/day
21%

Looking at the percentage contribution of different sized firms to the amount of recyclables
generated according to types of recyclables in Figure 22, large firms contribute the most to
recycling of papers, plastics and other recyclables. Aluminium cans, metal cans and
coloured glass is recycled mainly by small firms while micro firms contribute most to the
recycling of clear glass.

12.2.5 Price range of recyclables generated from municipal waste of Malaysian

industries

Table 82 shows the price ranges for different types of recyclables generated from municipal
waste of Malaysian Industries. The inter-quartile range (IQR) indicates the price range in
which 50 per cent of the samples lie in between. While paper generally is sold at RM0.20-
0.30/kg, cardboard obtains a higher price of RM0.35/kg. Plastics generally have higher
prices than paper with the IQR being between RM0.20-0.50/kg for PET plastics and RM0.25
to 0.70/kg for Non-PET plastics. Aluminium cans obtain a higher price between RM 2.35-
3.80/kg and metal cans obtain a price of RM0.55 – 0.83/kg. Other recyclables also obtain
different prices depending on the items as shown below. When the prices are examined at
regional levels, the prices of papers and plastics are lower in Sabah and Sarawak compared
to the Peninsula Malaysian regions as shown in Table 83.

Page 118
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 22: Percentage contribution of different sized firms toward the total weight of recyclables

Others
Mixed Plastics
Coloured glass
Clear glass
Metal can
Aluminium can
Non PET
PET
Cardboard
Black and white paper
Colour paper
Newspaper

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Micro Small Medium Large

Page 119
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 82: Price ranges for different recyclables generated from municipal waste of
Malaysian industries, in RM/kg

IQR (50%of
Types of recyclables Min Max Average Median
samples)
Aluminium can 0.40 5.00 2.84 3.30 2.35 - 3.80
Black and white paper 0.02 1.00 0.27 0.25 0.20 - 0.30
Cardboard 0.10 0.70 0.29 0.30 0.20 - 0.35
Clear glass 0.1 0.4 0.25 0.25 --
Coloured glass 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 --
Colour paper 0.03 0.70 0.24 0.25 0.20 - 0.30
Metal can 0.2 1.5 0.74 0.65 0.55 - 0.83
Newspaper 0.05 0.80 0.23 0.20 0.20 - 0.30
Non PET 0.05 1.15 0.48 0.55 0.25 - 0.70
PET 0.05 1.30 0.40 0.40 0.20 - 0.50

IQR (50% of
Other recyclables Min Max Average Median
samples)
E-waste 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 --
Guni (Gunny sack) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 --
HDPE/PVC/PP/ABS/PS 0.10 15.87 2.15 0.50 0.14 - 1.30
Mixed metals 0.60 1.10 0.83 0.83 --
Mixed papers 0.15 1.00 0.35 0.30 0.25 - 0.40
Plastic stretch film, plastic
foam films, plastic bags, 0.05 1.60 0.56 0.40 0.28 - 0.80
plastic sheets
Scrap metal (Ferrous) 0.05 25.00 4.16 0.90 0.41 - 1.28
Used Oils 0.74 0.80 0.77 0.77 --
Wood 0.01 20.00 2.83 1.10 0.30 - 1.80
Others (cloth gloves, rubber,
3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 --
yarn waste)

Page 120
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 83: Price ranges of recyclables according to region, in RM/kg

Newspaper
IQR (50%of
Region Min Max Average Median Mode
samples)
Central 0.10 0.80 0.26 0.20 0.20 0.20 - 0.30
Northern 0.08 0.40 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 - 0.30
Sabah 0.10 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10
Sarawak 0.05 0.45 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 - 0.20
Southern 0.12 0.40 0.26 0.25 0.20 0.20 - 0.34
Coloured paper
Central 0.08 0.70 0.26 0.25 0.20 0.20 - 0.30
Northern 0.05 0.40 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.20 - 0.30
Sabah 0.03 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 - 0.10
Sarawak 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.07 -- --
Southern 0.12 0.43 0.27 0.27 0.30 0.20 - 0.33
Black and White paper
Central 0.05 1.00 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.20 - 0.30
Northern 0.10 0.80 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.20 - 0.35
Sabah 0.02 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 - 0.15
Sarawak 0.05 0.70 0.27 0.30 0.30 0.20 - 0.30
Southern 0.12 0.43 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.21 - 0.39
Cardboard
Central 0.10 0.70 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.20 - 0.33
Northern 0.20 0.50 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.23 - 0.40
Sabah 0.10 0.50 0.28 0.20 0.20 0.20 - 0.40
Sarawak 0.10 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.10 - 0.35
Southern 0.12 0.43 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.22 - 0.33
PET
Central 0.10 0.90 0.42 0.40 0.20 0.20 - 0.50
Northern 0.05 2.00 0.80 0.65 0.50 0.43 - 1.20
Sabah 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 --
Sarawak 0.05 0.20 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 - 0.16
Southern 0.12 0.70 0.36 0.30 0.30 0.17 - 0.60

Page 121
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 83: Price ranges of recyclables according to region, in RM/kg (Cont’d)

Aluminium can
IQR (50%of
Region Min Max Average Median Mode
samples)
Central 0.60 4.00 1.42 1.05 -- 0.68 - 3.30
Northern 0.70 3.00 1.85 1.85 -- --
Sabah 0.80 4.50 3.23 3.80 3.80 3.00 - 3.80
Sarawak 2.20 3.80 3.22 3.30 3.30 3.00 - 3.40
Southern 0.80 5.00 2.40 1.90 -- 0.80 - 4.50
Metal can
Central 0.20 0.70 0.53 0.60 0.6 0.30 - 0.68
Northern 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 -- --
Sabah -- -- -- -- -- --
Sarawak 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 -- --
Southern 0.40 1.22 0.81 0.81 -- --

12.2.6 Recyclables from Production Waste of Malaysian Industries

A total of 5,365,466.45 kilograms of recyclable material is generated out of the production

waste of the Malaysian industries per day in 2012. Of this total, 29.3 per cent of the
recyclables were ferrous metals, 22.5 per cent wood pallets and wooden frames, 20 per cent
biomass, 8 per cent plastics, 6.5 per cent cardboard or corrugated boxes and 5.7 per cent
papers. The remainder comprised of non-ferrous metals (4.2%), food waste (3.5%), other
recyclables (2%) and glass (0.4%). The biomass primarily consists of the husks “kulit padi”
and oil palm empty fruit bunches “tandan kelapa sawit”.

Figure 23 presents the Composition of recyclables removed from production waste of

Malaysian Industries.

Page 122
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 23: Composition of recyclables removed from production waste of Malaysian

Industries

Paper
2.0%

5.7% Cardboard/carton boxes/

6.5% paper core
Plastics
22.5%
8.0%
Ferrous metal

Non-ferrous metal

Glass

20.0% Food waste

29.3%

Biomass

4.2% Wood pallets, wooden frames

3.5% 0.4%
Others

Figure 24 shows the percentage contribution of various industries to different recyclables

generated from production waste of Malaysian industries. Food waste and biomass are
solely from the Food and Beverage industry. Glass is recycled largely by the food and
beverage industry, as well as the electronics and electrical industry. Paper and cardboard is
recycled largely by the paper and paper products industry. Plastics and other materials are
recycled mainly by the chemical, petrochemical, plastics and pharmaceutical products
industry. The fabricated metal industry recycles the highest amount of ferrous metals,
followed by the electrical and electronics industries. Non-ferrous metals, on the other hand,
are largely recycled by the basic metals industry followed by the machinery, motor vehicles
and transport equipment industries.

Page 123
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 24: Percentage contribution of different industrial sectors toward types of recyclables removed from the production waste

Food and beverage

Others
Textile and Apparel
Wood pallets,
wooden frames
Fabricated metal
Biomass
Basic metal
Food waste
Machinery, motor vehicles and
transport equipment
Glass
Electrical and electronic products

Non-ferrous metal
Wood and product of wood and
cork, manufacture of articles of
Ferrous metal straw and plaiting materials,
furniture (wood based)
Paper and paper product
Plastics
Chemical, petrochemical and
plastic products
Cardboard/carton
boxes/ paper core Non-metallic mineral product

Paper
Others

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Page 124
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

12.3 Commercial and Institutions Survey

12.3.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the commercial and institutions survey results. A total of
794 Commercial and Institutions (CI) were surveyed. The key survey results are discussed
in the following sections.

12.3.2 Survey Results

The survey covered 794 commercial enterprises and institutions. It was found that only 538
firms/agencies/organisations (67.8%) practiced recycling in their premises, whereas 256
firms/agencies/organisations (32.2%) do not recycle waste (Refer Table 84). Among all CI
contacted, transportation hubs/stations had the highest percentage of un-recycled waste,
followed by sundry/retail stores, government offices, and clinics (Refer Table 85).

Page 125
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 84: Distribution of Commercial and Institutions Respondents by Participating in

Recycling

Total
Practice recycle Do not recycle
Commercial and Institutions respondents
n % n % n %

Sundry/Retail store 13 40.6 19 59.4 32 100

Wholesale and Supermarket 25 86.2 4 13.8 29 100
retail (exclude
wet market Hypermarket 14 87.5 2 12.5 16 100

Convenience store 18 90.0 2 10.0 20 100

Airport 3 50.0 3 50.0 6 100

Transport Train station 2 33.3 4 66.7 6 100
sector.
(stations) Bus terminal 14 41.2 20 58.8 34 100

Ferry terminal 1 50.0 1 50.0 2 100

Hotels Hotels 42 89.4 5 10.6 47 100

Food outlet/coffee
Restaurants 53 74.6 18 25.4 71 100
shop
Clinic 29 58.0 21 42.0 50 100
Health
Hospital 20 83.3 4 16.7 24 100
Private offices
Private offices in
in office 59 62.1 36 37.9 95 100
office complex
complex
Government
Government office 68 57.1 51 42.9 119 100
offices
School 40 69.0 18 31.0 58 100

Education College 23 74.2 8 25.8 31 100

University 11 78.6 3 21.4 14 100

Wet market Wet market (stall) 91 74.6 31 25.4 122 100

Others Others 12 66.7 6 33.3 18 100

Grand Total 538 67.8 256 32.2 794 100

The main recyclable material for private offices is newspaper whereas for wholesale and
retail sector (excluding wet market), their main recyclables is cardboard. For wet markets,
their main recyclable material is raw food. For restaurant, cooked food and aluminium cans
were the two major recyclable materials.

Page 126
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 85: Composition of recyclables of Malaysian Commercial and Institutions based on

weight of recyclables, in per cent

Private offices in office

Transports (stations)
(exclude wet market)
Wholesale and retail

Government offices
Restaurants

Wet market
Education
complex

Others
Hotels

Health
Waste Composition

Newspaper 1.51 57.4 47.1 3.4 28.2 95.7 30.5 20.0 1.1 44.2

Colour paper 0.00 11.1 11.0 0.1 15.3 2.9 2.3 15.6 0.4 30.7

Black and white paper 2.42 10.5 6.7 0.1 6.9 0.9 58.3 34.8 0.0 14.2

Cardboard 92.25 10.4 13.9 8.2 33.1 0.3 6.4 9.4 19.0 9.8

PET 0.62 3.2 12.6 10.2 4.3 0.0 0.6 11.3 0.1 0.0

Non PET 0.00 0.0 0.6 0.6 7.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2

Aluminium can 0.00 7.3 4.5 22.9 2.6 0.3 0.6 8.1 0.1 0.5

Metal can 0.01 0.0 3.0 16.1 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3

Clear glass 0.00 0.0 0.1 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0

Coloured glass 0.00 0.0 0.1 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cooked food 0.00 0.0 0.3 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

Raw food 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.6 0.0

Others 3.19 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Note: Others for wholesale and retail, mainly mix plastics

Page 127
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

12.4 Recycling Players Survey

12.4.1 Introduction

This section discusses the results from the recycling players’ survey. The survey was divided
into two components:

 Recycling player 1 (RP1) which involved the street picker and scavenger
 Recycling player 2 (RP2) which involved the drop-off centre, middle man, buy back
centre and recyclers

The details of the two components are tabulated in the Table 86 below.

Table 86: Types of recycling players

Recycling Player 1, RP1 Recycling Player 2, RP2

Door-to-door collector Drop off centre

Street collector Middle man

Waste collection workers Junk shop who deals recyclables

Scavengers Buy back centres

Recycler (End user or buyers of recyclable materials)

The data on the Recycling Players are presented in Appendix 4.

The total number of respondents for each category of recycling players is shown in Table
87.

The RP1 survey was carried out at the landfills, streets, and with known recycling players.
Both RP1 and RP2 were interviewed face-to-face, and via telephone interview with some
RP2. The RP2 list was compiled from the Directori Kitar Semula, recycling players
introduced by contacts, internet search, and on the ground listing exercise. At least 700
recycling players of the category RP2 were contacted for the survey. Some contact numbers
listed in the phone directory were found to be no longer in service, whilst some on the list
refused to be interviewed. The final number of respondents under recycling players, RP2,
that were successfully interviewed was 225. The list of RP2 is presented in Appendix 5.

Page 128
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 87: Number of Respondents for each category of recycling players

Number of Respondents

RP1 RP2
Region Total

centre, etc.
Scavenger
collection

Buy-back
collector

collector

Recycler
Door-to-

Drop off

Trader,
worker

centre
Waste
Street
door

Sub Sub
Total Total

Northern 14 20 2 5 41 8 21 37 66 107

Central 2 19 - 1 22 3 23 23 49 71

East Coast 6 17 1 9 33 1 6 13 20 53

Southern 7 1 - 22 30 7 15 20 42 72

Sarawak 4 20 - 8 32 2 15 10 27 59

Sabah - 17 7 13 37 0 17 4 21 58

Total 33 94 10 58 195 21 97 107 225 420

12.4.2 Collection Method

There are three common methods to collect recyclable items from the sources, these could
be:

 Collection by own organisation’s lorries/vans

 Collection by another company selling recycling materials to buy back centre/recycler
 Direct individual delivery to recycling drop-off centre

For the drop-off centre, about 86 per cent of the recyclables were delivered directly by
people to the centres while the remaining 14 per cent was collected by vans/lorries (Figure
25). Some charity associations conducted recycling campaigns to collect recyclables from
public.

The most common collection method for middle men, junk and buy-back centres was by
directly buying from individual customers who sold the recyclables to them (49%), followed
by door-to-door collections made by vans/lorries (33%), and other collectors/companies (e.g.
street-pickers, scavengers, etc.) (19%).

For the recyclers, most of the recyclables were bought from other collectors/companies
(44%), followed by individual direct delivery to their premises (29%), and lastly door-to-door
collection by vans/lorries (27%).

Page 129
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 25: Collection Method Used by Recycling Players in Malaysia

28.9%
48.3%

86.4% 27.0%

18.8%

44.1%
32.9%
13.6%

Drop off centre Trader, Middle man, Buy back centre Recycler

Send directly by people to premise Collected by own lorries/van

Buy from other company

12.4.4 Storage Method

The recycling players store the collected recyclables either in open/semi open areas or
enclosed spaces. The survey shows most of RP1 (street collectors, waste collection workers
and scavengers) store their recyclables in open areas; some of them will sell these
immediately after making the collection.

A majority of the drop-off centres and recyclers stored their recyclables in enclosed places
while most middle men, junk shops and buy-back centres kept their recyclables in open
areas, either in an open field, shed with/without walls, under a canopy, canvas, in containers,
a roofed-place or bin as showed in Figure 26.

Page 130
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 26: Storage method practised by Recycling Players in Malaysia

33.6%
39.6%
57.9%

53.3%
58.3%
36.8%

13.1%
5.3% 2.1%
Drop off centre Trader, Middle man, Buy back centre Recycler

Both Open/Semi open area Enclosed space

12.4.5 Collection Points

Majority of the traders, middle men and buy back centres (61%) have one collection point to
buy the recyclables. This may indicate that most traders, middle men, and buy back centres
are small scale. The number of collections points in the various regions is as presented in
Table 88.

Table 88: Number of Collection Points Provided by Trader/Middle Men/Buy Back Centre, in
per cent

Number of East
Northern Central Southern Sarawak Sabah Total
Collection Points Coast

1 89.5 38.8 100.0 92.9 66.7 6.7 61.2

2-5 10.5 27.8 - 7.1 33.3 40.0 21.3

6 - 10 - 16.7 - - - 33.3 10.0

11 and above - 16.7 - - - 20.0 7.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Page 131
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

12.4.5 Factors Affecting the Recycling Activity

Figure 27 Shows how respondent recycling players from different categories perceived the
factors that could affect recycling activities in their company or organisation. Respondents
were asked to rate the importance of each factor listed in the questionnaire. RPs with drop
off centres, thought the level of public awareness of recycling and availability of recyclers to
buy the recyclables was the most important factor. The second most important factor that
may affect recycling activity is the volume of recyclables capable of being collected (or
supplied by the public).

For the traders, middle men and buy back centres, the most important factor affecting their
recycling activity is an unstable market demand and, hence, price instability. Similarly for
drop off centres, the second most important factor was the volume of collectable recyclables.

Figure 27: Factors that may affect recycling activity

Drop off centre

Trader, Middle man, Buy back centre

Recyclers

Page 132
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Recyclers also rated unstable market demand and price as the most important factor
affecting their recycling activity, and cited the volume of collectable recyclables as the
second most important factor. They saw the level of public awareness on recycling as the
least important factor affecting recycling activity.

Compared to the drop off centre, the recycling activities carried out by the traders, middle
men, buy back centres and recyclers, are more market driven. Unstable market demand and
price of recyclables has caused the group to be sceptical about expanding or continuing their
recycling activity or businesses.

12.4.5 Type of Recyclables Collected by Recycling Players

Figure 28 shows the distribution of type of recyclable items collected by recycling player
respondents. For group of RP1 (Scavengers/street collectors/waste collection workers), the
most collected recyclable items was paper (39.1%), followed by plastic (31.4%) and ferrous
(22.5%). Glass (3.8%) and non-ferrous (3.2%) materials are the items least collected by the
RP1 group.

Compared to other types of recycling players, the drop-off centres have the highest
percentage of paper recyclable items, followed by ferrous items. This shows that most
people give away paper products for recycling for free to the drop off centres.

Ferrous items are the type most collected (54.7%) by the traders, middle men and buy back
centres, followed by paper (33.5%). The survey shows that a very minimal volume of glass
(0.02% of total recyclable materials) was collected by them.

For recyclers, paper (44.6%) is the most collected recyclable material followed by plastics
(28.8%).

Page 133
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 28: Type of recyclables collected by Recycling Players in Malaysia

Scavenger/Street Collector/Waste Collection Worker Drop off centre

Non - Ferrous, Non - Ferrous,
3.2% 3.8%
Ferrous, 7.8%

Glass, 7.4%

Ferrous, 22.5% Paper,

39.1% Plastic, 8.8%
Glass, 3.8% Paper,
72.3%
Plastic, 31.4%

Trader, Middle man, Buy back centre Recycler

Non - Ferrous, Non - Ferrous,

6.2% 8.6%

Ferrous, 17.9%
Paper, Paper,
33.3% 44.6%
Ferrous, 55.0%

Glass, 0.1% Plastic, 28.8%

Plastic, 5.4%
Glass, 0.1%

Page 134 Page 134

 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

12.5 Material Flow

The following section presents the recyclable materials flow from household and ICI to the
recycling players, and from recycling players to other RPs.

Five main recyclable materials discussed are:

 Paper
 Plastics
 Glass
 Ferrous and non-ferrous materials

The weight of recyclable materials referred to in the following section, relate to the weight of
recyclable materials retained in households and ICI for recycling.

12.5.1 Paper

Figure 29 shows the material flow chart for paper in Malaysia. The flow chart shows that
about 25 per cent of the papers from households are left outside of their houses to be
collected by RP1, 12 per cent are sent to drop-off centres, while 62 per cent are sold to
traders, middle men and buy-back centres. Less than one per cent of the recyclable paper
products were sold to recyclers directly.

As in households, most of the papers from the commercial and institutional sector, (CI)
(75%) and industries (71%) were sold to traders, middle men and buy-back centres. It was
assumed that all the collected papers from RP1 and drop off centres, were sold to traders
and middle men. About 4 per cent of the waste paper material collected and/or received by
the trader, middle men and buy-back centres are exported, while 96 per cent are sold to
local recyclers for processing.

Page 135
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 29: Material flow chart for paper in Malaysia

Material Flow Chart for Paper

HH CI IND
12.6% 2.8% 16.1%

HH 1,855.1 MT/day RP2 (DOC)

CI 369.1 MT/day HH CI IND 268.3 MT/day
IND 154.3 MT/day 62.2% 75.4 70.6% 100%

HH CI IND
0.03% 3.7% 0.00% 4.4%

HH CI IND RP2 (2,3,4) 2,364.4 MT/day

Export
25.2% 18.2% 13.3% 104.1 MT/day
95.6% 0%

100%
100.00
%
RP2 (5,6) 2,260.3 MT/day Local 2,260.3 MT/day
RP1 555.1 MT/day

Note:
HH denotes ‘Household’, CI denotes ‘Commercial and Institution’, IND denotes ‘Industry’,
RP1 denotes ‘Recycling Player 1: Door-to-door Collector, Street Collector, Waste collection worker & Scavenger’,
RP2 DOC denotes ‘Recycling Player 2: Drop off Centre’, RP2 (2,3,4) denotes ‘Recycling Player 2:Trader, Middle
Man, Junk shop and etc’ and RP2 (5,6) denotes ‘Recycling Player 2: Recycler’

12.5.2 Plastic

As presented in Figure 30, the most common way for households to handle their plastic
recyclables was:

a) to sell them to the traders, middle men or buy-back centres (59.1%),

b) leaving these outside their houses for door-to-door collectors or waste collection
workers (28.3%) and
c) sending them to drop-off centres (12.6%).

The CI handled their plastic recyclables by:

a) selling plastic to traders, middle men and buy-back centres (92.4%),

b) leaving it to street-pickers or waste collection workers (7.6%) and
c) less than one per cent sent their plastics to drop-off centres.

Page 136
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 30: Material flow chart for plastic in Malaysia

Material Flow Chart for Plastic

HH CI IND
12.6 0.05% 2.5%

HH 76.2 MT/day RP2 (DOC)

CI 27.6 MT/day HH CI IND 9.8 MT/day
IND 5.9 MT/day 59.1% 92.4% 97.3% 100%

6.8%

HH CI IND RP2 (2,3,4) 109.8 MT/day

28.3% 7.6% 0.3% Export
93.2% 34.8% 43.1 MT/day
43,119 kg

100%
65.2%

RP2 (5,6) 102.3 MT/day Local 66.7 MT/day

RP1 23.7 MT/day

Note:
HH denotes ‘Household’, CI denotes ‘Commercial and Institution’, IND denotes ‘Industry’,
RP1 denotes ‘Recycling Player 1: Door-to-door Collector, Street Collector, Waste collection worker & Scavenger’,
RP2 DOC denotes ‘Recycling Player 2: Drop off Centre’, RP2 (2,3,4) denotes ‘Recycling Player 2:Trader, Middle
Man, Junk shop and etc’ and RP2 (5,6) denotes ‘Recycling Player 2: Recycler’

For Industries, plastic recyclables were:

a) sold to traders, middle men and buy-back centres (97.3%),

b) sent to drop-off centres (2.5%) and
c) collected by street-pickers or waste collection workers (0.26%).

Overall, 93.2 per cent of plastics collected by traders, middle men and buy-back centres
were sold to recyclers for further processing, and the remaining 6.8 per cent exported. For
RP2 (5,6), about one third (34.8%) of recycled plastics were exported and 65.2 per cent of
processed plastic was used locally (Figure 30).

12.5.3 Glass

As shown in Figure 31, the most common way for households to handle their glass
recyclables was:

a) to sell them to the traders, middle men or buy-back centres (47.1%),

b) leaving these outside their houses for door-to-door collectors (42%) and

Page 137
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

c) sending them to drop-off centres (10.9%)

The CI handled their glass recyclables by:

a) selling plastic to traders, middle men and buy-back centres (79.3%),

b) leaving it to street-pickers or waste collection workers (3.8%) and
c) sent their plastics to drop-off centres (16.9%)

For Industries, plastic recyclables were:

a) disposed off glass in municipal waste bins for street-pickers or waste collection
workers (51.4%) and
b) sold to traders, middle men and buy-back centre (48.6%)

All glass collected by traders, middle men and buy-back centres are sold to local recyclers.
Recyclers only buy glass from middle men, junk shops dealing with recyclables, and buy-
back centres. The recyclers sell processed glass locally (Figure 31).

Figure 31: Material flow chart for glass in Malaysia

Material Flow Chart for Glass

HH CI IND
10.9% 16.9% -

HH 50.8 MT/day RP2 (DOC)

CI 21.1 MT/day HH CI IND 9.1 MT/day
IND 13.5 MT/day 47.1% 79.3% 48.6% 100%

HH CI IND RP2 (2,3,4) 85.4 MT/day

Export
42.0% 3.8% 51.4%
100% 0.00%

100%
100%

RP2 (5,6) 85.4 MT/day Local 85.4 MT/day

RP1 29.1 MT/day

Note:
HH denotes ‘Household’, CI denotes ‘Commercial and Institution’, IND denotes ‘Industry’,
RP1 denotes ‘Recycling Player 1: Door-to-door Collector, Street Collector, Waste collection worker & Scavenger’,
RP2 DOC denotes ‘Recycling Player 2: Drop off Centre’, RP2 (2,3,4) denotes ‘Recycling Player 2:Trader, Middle
Man, Junk shop and etc’ and RP2 (5,6) denotes ‘Recycling Player 2: Recycler

Page 138
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

12.5.4 Ferrous Metals

As with other recyclables, households handled ferrous items by:

a) more than half of households sold their ferrous items to traders, middle men and buy-
back centres (59.5%),
b) disposing off the rest in waste bins for door-to-door collectors or waste collection
workers (30%),
c) sent these to drop-off centres (10.5%) and
d) a very small percentage sold them directly to recyclers (0.01%).

CI handled ferrous recyclables by:

a) selling their ferrous recyclables to traders, middle men and buy-back centres
(84.1%),
b) disposal in waste bins (15.8%) and
c) delivery to drop-off centres (0.16%).

For Industries, ferrous recyclables were:

a) sold directly to recyclers (51.6%),

b) sold to traders, middle men and buy-back centres (48.3%) and
c) disposed in waste bins (0.11%).

About 97.3 per cent of ferrous recyclables collected by traders, middle men and buy-back
centres were sold to the recyclers while the remaining 2.71 per cent were exported. The
ferrous materials collected by recyclers are processed and sold locally (Figure 32).

Page 139
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 32: Material flow chart for ferrous in Malaysia

Material Flow Chart for Ferrous

HH CI IND
10.5% 0.16% -

HH 50.8 MT/day RP2(DOC)

CI 26.9 MT/day HH CI IND 5.4 MT/day
IND < 1 MT/day 59.5% 84.1% 48.3% 100%

HH CI IND
0.01% - 51.6% 2.7%

HH CI IND RP2 (2,3,4) 77.6 MT/day

Export
30.0% 15.8% 0.11%
2.1 MT/day
97.3 0.00%

100%
100%

RP2 (5,6) 75.5 MT/day Local 75.5 MT/day

RP1 19.4 MT/day

Note:
HH denotes ‘Household’, CI denotes ‘Commercial and Institution’, IND denotes ‘Industry’,
RP1 denotes ‘Recycling Player 1: Door-to-door Collector, Street Collector, Waste collection worker & Scavenger’,
RP2 DOC denotes ‘Recycling Player 2: Drop off Centre’, RP2 (2,3,4) denotes ‘Recycling Player 2:Trader, Middle
Man, Junk shop and etc’ and RP2 (5,6) denotes ‘Recycling Player 2: Recycler’

12.5.5 Non-Ferrous Metals

Households handled non-ferrous recyclables by:

a) selling more than three quarters to traders, middle men and buy-back centres
(80.5%),
b) disposing off in waste bins for door-to-door collectors or waste collection workers
(13.8%) and
c) sending the recyclables to drop-off centres (5.7%).

For both CI and Industries, non-ferrous recyclables were:

a) sold to traders and middle men (more than half of their non-ferrous recyclables)
(89.3%),
b) sold to buy-back centres (56.1%),
c) sent to drop-off centres - 0.25% (CI) & 42.6% (Industries) and

Page 140
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

d) collected by the street collectors and waste collection workers - 10.5% (CI) &1.3%
(Industries).

The received non-ferrous (100%) at drop-off centres was assumed to be sold to the middle
men and buy-back centres. 57.7 per cent were sold to the local recyclers and 42.3 per cent
were exported. The processed non-ferrous was all for local use (Figure 33).

Figure 33: Material flow chart for non-ferrous in Malaysia

Material Flow Chart for Non-Ferrous

HH CI IND
5.7% 0.3% 42.6%

HH 68.1 MT/day RP2 (DOC)

CI 45.2 MT/day HH CI IND 11.5 MT/day
IND 17.7 MT/day 80.5% 89.3 56.1% 100%

42.3%

HH CI IND RP2 (2,3,4) 131 MT/day

Export
13.8% 10.5% 1.3% 55.4 MT/day
57.7% 0.00%

100%
100%

RP2 (5,6) 75.6 MT/day Local 75.6 MT/day

RP1 14.4 MT/day

Note:
HH denotes ‘Household’, CI denotes ‘Commercial and Institution’, IND denotes ‘Industry’,
RP1 denotes ‘Recycling Player 1: Door-to-door Collector, Street Collector, Waste collection worker & Scavenger’,
RP2 DOC denotes ‘Recycling Player 2: Drop off Centre’, RP2 (2,3,4) denotes ‘Recycling Player 2:Trader, Middle
Man, Junk shop and etc’ and RP2 (5,6) denotes ‘Recycling Player 2: Recycler’

Page 141
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

12.6 Recyclable material being Imported and Exported

Table 89 shows the Malaysia import and export of waste and scrap in year 2011. Recyclable
ferrous materials formed the largest volume, of the four types of imported scrap materials
assessed. Plastic waste was the highest in volume for export, whilst ferrous scrap was the
largest export in terms of monetary value (USD). Overall, the imported volume of recyclable
materials was less than the exported volume; however, in terms of value, the value of
imported recyclables was more than the value of the exported recyclables. Consequently,
there was a deficit in the balance of trade for all types of recyclables, except for plastic
waste.

Table 89: Malaysia External Trade of Recyclable Materials for year 2011

Type of Import Export Trade

Waste
Balance
and Quantity USD/ Total Quantity USD/ Total (USD)
Scrap in MT MT (USD) in MT MT (USD)

Paper 218,929 326 71,370,854 214 1,159 248,026 (71,122,828)

Plastic 142,860 456 65,144,160 153,865 695 106,936,175 41,792,015

Ferrous 2,050,146 527 1,080,426,942 70,107 306 21,452,742 (1,058,974,200)

Non-
104,829 2,566 268,987,672 57,058 2,786 158,978,345 (110,009,327)
ferrous

Total 2,522,800 - 1,507,912,740 301,015 - 292,538,267 (1,215,374,473)

Source: International Trade Centre (UN Commodity Trade Database) Year 2011

Table 90 shows the top 10 countries exporting recycling material to Malaysia by type of
waste and scrap. Australia supplied the highest volume of paper waste and scrap to
Malaysia. Most plastics came from the United Kingdom which is a major country for plastic
waste and scrap exports to this country. United States of America exported the largest
volume of ferrous and non-ferrous metals to Malaysia.

Page 142
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 90: Top 10 Countries Export to Malaysia by Type of Waste and Scrap

Type of Rank
Waste and
Scrap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Singa- United Nether- New

Paper Australia
pore Kingdom
Japan USA
lands
Belgium
Zealand
Italy Sweden

United Singa- Phil- Republic Hong

Plastic Kingdom
USA Germany
pore
Spain
ippines
Belgium Japan
of Korea Kong

United United
South Singa- Phili- New Chinese
Ferrous USA
Africa pore
Kingdo Australia
ppines
Germany Arab
Zealand Taipei
m Emirates

Non- United United

South Singa- Phili- New Chinese
USA Kingdo Australia Germany Arab
ferrous Africa pore ppines Zealand Taipei
m Emirates
Source: International Trade Centre, (UN Commodity Trade Database) Year 2011

Table 91 shows that Malaysia largely sells paper waste to Singapore and Thailand. China is
the main importer of Malaysia’s plastic waste. India is the main importer for Malaysia's
recyclable ferrous materials. Japan imports most non-ferrous recyclables from Malaysia.

Table 91: Top 10 Countries Received Import from Malaysia by Type of Waste and Scrap

Type of Rank
Waste and
Scrap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Singa-
Paper pore
Thailand - - - - - - - -

Hong Indo- Chinese Viet Sing-

Plastic China
Kong nesia
India
Taipei
Estonia Thailand
Nam apore
Pakistan

Republic Chinese
Ferrous India
of Korea
Thailand China Brunei
Taipei
Viet Nam Oman Japan Spain

Non- Japan China India

Republic
Thailand
Hong Singa- Chinese
Viet Nam USA
ferrous of Korea Kong, pore Taipei

Source: International Trade Centre (UN Commodity Trade Database), Year 2011

Page 143
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

13 WASTE FLOW

Figure 34 presents the overall waste flow for Malaysia. The amount of household waste
generated from the 6 regions and the waste generated from the ICI sectors is the total waste
generated in Malaysia and is estimated to be 33,130 Mt/day.

Approximately 3,500 Mt/day is extracted from this waste as recyclable material, while the
balance primarily gets disposed off in Sanitary landfills or dumpsites around the country.

It must be noted that the values for the overall waste generation was taken from the housing
types. As previously explained some variations between the housing types and regions were
noted but these were adjusted so that the quantity of waste distribution is consistent in this
waste flow diagram.

Page 144
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 34: Overall Waste Flow for Malaysia

Southern East Coast Klang Valley Scavenging:

Household Household Household Recyclables 14.1 MT/day
Waste Waste Waste Collectors
3,491 MT/day Tailgate recovery:
4,635 MT/day 2,248 MT/day 6,901 MT/day
476 MT/day

Total ‘As Generated’ Recyclables:

Household Waste 2,101 MT/day
21,627 MT/day

Recyclables:
Recyclables
900 MT/day
Northern Sabah Sarawak
Household Household Household
Waste Waste Waste
As Discarded
4,329 MT/day 1,917 MT/day 1,596 MT/day Waste
Waste Discarded: Municipal
19,526 MT/day Solid
Waste Discarded: Waste
10,603 MT/day Trucks

Total ‘As Generated’

ICI Waste
11,503 MT/day

Institutional
Industrial and
Waste Commercial Waste Disposed: Sanitary Landfill/
2,279 MT/day Waste 29,653 MT per day Dumpsite
9,224 MT/day

As Generated As Disposed
waste Waste

Page 145
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

14 COMPARISON OF RESULTS TO THE STUDY CONDUCTED BY JICA

The following section compares the results obtained from Waste Composition Survey with
the survey conducted by JICA in September to November 2004 under the “The Study on
National Waste Minimisation in Malaysia”. The report was published in 2006.

The JICA’s Survey was carried out continuously for 8 days, during which period 100
samples were collected for analysis. Following were the objectives of the survey:

• To estimate the amount and composition of waste generated from households with
identification of recyclable and currently recycled materials

• To identify and understand the existing storage and collection manner of waste and
recyclables from households.

The Table 92 presents the waste components that have changed over the last 8 years in
Malaysia.

Table 92: Comparison of the Waste Composition between the years 2004 and 2012

JICA (Waste composition for Present Study (Waste

Categories
the year 2004) composition for the year 2012)
Combustible % MT/day % MT/day
1 Food waste 48.04 7,718 44.50 9,624
2 Bones 1.26 202 - -
3 Mix paper 17.09 2,746 8.50 1,838
4 Plastics (Film) 5.35 860 3.85 833
5 Plastics (Rigid) 3.73 599 7.98 1,726
6 Polystyrene 0.58 93 1.35 292
7 Textile 1.85 297 3.06 662
8 Rubber & Leather 1.82 292 2.15 465
9 Wood 0.22 35 1.35 292
10 Yard waste 6.58 1,057 5.79 1,252
11 Diapers 5.06 813 12.14 2,626
12 TetraPak - - 1.58 342
Sub-total for combustible 91.57 14,712 92.25 19,951
Incombustible % MT/day % MT/day
13 Glass 3.71 596 3.32 718
14 Ferrous 1.61 259 1.77 383
15 Non-ferrous 0.02 3 0.05 11
16 Aluminium 0.37 59 0.91 197
17 Batteries 0.03 5 0.11 24
18 Electrical & Electronics 0.18 29 0.40 87
19 Others 2.55 410 1.19 257
Sub-total for Incombustible 8.47 1,361 7.75 1,676
Total 100.00 16,066 100.00 21,627
Recyclable fraction* 31.88 5,122 27.96 6,048
* - Paper, Plastics (film and rigid), TetraPak, Glass and metals

Page 146
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

The waste components were firstly grouped into the categories used in the JICA for direct
comparison. The Food waste, Paper and yard waste were the largest components of the
waste generated by weight in 2004. However, in 2012, after Food waste, which still
remained the highest, the next 3 highest components were diapers, paper and rigid plastics
(HDPE, PP, PVC and other plastics). In the last 8 years, there is more than a 400% jump in
the amount of Diapers and almost 300% jump in the rigid plastics generated daily.

The overall average combustible waste generated over the 8 years seems to be consistent
and is approximately 92% and the balance 8% being non-combustible waste.

In terms of recyclable materials, it was found that about 31.88% or 5,122 MT/day of major
recyclable materials were generated at the households in 2004, this included mixed papers,
mixed plastics, glass, ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals. By 2012 these recyclable
material have increased to 6,048 MT/day representing almost 28% of the total household
waste generated.

Page 147
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

15 LIMITATIONS AND ISSUES

Every possible effort was taken to ensure that the quality of samples collected for this study
was reliable, representative and accurate. Nevertheless, there were some uncertainties
identified during the course of the study as summarised below:

 The results and conclusions made in this report are based on the samples obtained
during the survey. These samples included interviews conducted in Households,
Industries, Commercial and Institutional sectors and the recycling players. It must be
noted however, the interviews conducted for the recycling players did not cover all of
them in this study. The primary reason being the lack of available information on this
sector. The assumption is that the samples or interviews taken were an adequate
representation of the recycling activities in Malaysia.

 Not all recycling players interviewed were obliging and forthcoming with information
for this study. Therefore, some information used in the study was based on
estimates. Many of them were offended when the surveyors tried to approach them
and did not want to disclose any information, particularly related to business
performance. This may be due to the following reasons:

- The respondents were afraid of releasing information, especially matters related to

prices and income due to tax issues.

- Some recycling players were frustrated and reluctant in taking part in the recycling
survey as they feel have not gained any support from both, the Local Authorities
and Kementerian Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan, for
their efforts in the recycling programme/businesses.

- Some respondents were operating without proper licenses or permits and were
afraid of being issued with summonses or incurring other legal issues.

 Collectors or companies such as traders or middle men do not have a proper record-
keeping system and therefore the data provided by them were based on estimates
rather than actual figures.

 Results obtained from interviews and from on-site observations and discussions with
recycling players have limitations in that the reported data may have slight variations
to the actual amount handled by the recycling players.

 A total of 421 recycling players samples were collected in this study, which covered a
large part of the entire recycling system. However the exact size or market of the
recyclable materials cannot be determined. Therefore, some assumptions and
estimations were used to generate the amounts of recyclable material.

Page 148
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Based on the uncertainties summarised above, the key assumptions were:

 In the estimation of the amounts of material flows in the study, all the recyclable
materials from the recycling centres were assumed to be sold to the middlemen.

 The selling prices and amounts of recyclable materials sold by the middlemen /
traders / junkshops were used and assumed to be the purchasing prices and
amounts of recyclable materials bought by the industries.

Page 149
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

16 DISCUSSION

The information provided in this Study is a nation-wide picture of municipal solid waste
generation, recycling practices and characteristics of the waste. The current study is a snap
shot of the actual waste characteristics of the country and establishes a comprehensive
baseline. Future studies may employ the same methodology used in this study lending a
historical perspective to establish trends and changes that have occurred over the years,
both in types of wastes generated and in the ways they are managed. In addition, the
information in this study can also be used to develop approximate and quick estimates of
MSW composition and characteristics in a defined area for the local or regional level. That is,
the data on generation of MSW per capita nationally may be used to estimate generation in
a local area based on the population in that area.

In summary, the data in this study can help in local planning by:

 Developing approximate estimates of total MSW generation in the various zones,

level of urbanisation and housing types.
 Being used as a benchmark for the data from future MSW studies that are more
localised for accuracy and consistency.
 Accounting for trends in total MSW generation and the generation of individual
components.
 Assisting in forecasting, setting goals and measuring progress in source reduction
and recycling (including composting).
There are many regional variations which require each area to independently monitor and
determine its waste profile so that the waste management requirements are fulfilled based
on its unique waste. Such factors are local availability of suitable landfill space, alternate
technologies for waste recovery and recycling, proximity of markets for recovered materials,
population density, commercial and industrial activity, and climatic and groundwater
variations. While the national and zonal average data are useful as a checkpoint against
local MSW characterisation data, any differences between local and national data should be
examined carefully.

In relation to household recycling practices, a recycling rate of 9.7 per cent was estimated
for Malaysia (refer Table 31 and Table 38 for details).

The main reasons for households not recycling were attributed to lack of time (or interest)
and that they don’t see a need for it. Poor recycling practices were also attributed to the
availability of recycling services and facilities. The main reasons why households recycled,
was attributed to monetary benefit, while others, also a significant number of people, gave it
away as charity and some cited that they were asked to do so.

Page 150
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

About 67.8 per cent of the respondents reported they practiced recycling at home, whereas
about 32.2 per cent of the total households did not practice any recycling.

The respondents in urban areas of Peninsular Malaysia stated their primary reason for
recycling was to protect the environment (29.8%), followed by charity (29.7%) and monetary
incentive (26.1%). However, the percentage gaps between these three most important
reasons were relatively small.

The respondents in rural areas of Peninsular Malaysia similarly stated that the main reason
was to protect the environment (36.5%). The second most important recycling motivator for
the rural respondents was monetary incentive (36.5%), followed by the reason of charity
(9.6%).

The result shows that both urban and rural respondents were concerned for the environment
and the impact caused by solid waste. Charity seems to take precedence over monetary
benefits in the urban areas.

Primary reason cited by the respondents in households for not practicing recycling, which
was than one-third of the respondents, was that they had “no time” to do recycling. This was
clearly evident in the Klang Valley (43%) for Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah in East
Malaysia (54%). It was also concluded from the Survey that Households are not interested in
paying an additional amount for recycling services. They are however, more willing to
support the recycling efforts, by separating their waste, more so if there was a monetary
incentive. Only 15 per cent of households would be willing to pay extra for the service. This
is an encouraging sign but it would not be enough to sustain a material recovery facility
business (if privatised) without a larger section of community following suit.

In terms of more effective ways to promote recycling, many pointed to “awareness raising”
and increasing facilities or even to have door-to-door collection, thus suggesting a
willingness to change their habits rather than having authorities force them to do so.
However, 20 per cent of households agreed that there should be strict regulations or
penalties in-place to enforce recycling.

There appears to be a vast recycling network of private collectors and recyclers that are
efficient in terms of collecting this recyclable material. However, this network does not
stretch into the rural regions including Sabah, Sarawak and the East Coast states.

It would appear that households are conservative. Therefore, to increase the recycling rate
for households, it is evident that they prefer the change to come from increased awareness
rather than having to pay for the change or be imposed on by any particular party.

Page 151
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

17 RECOMMENDATIONS

Waste Composition and Characterisation:

 A more detailed sampling and analysis (time series) plan needs to be carried out. In
order to get an accurate and updated statistics on the Waste Composition and
Characterisation, survey should be conducted every 3 years. This may be
accomplished by employing the following collaborations:

- Coordination with all public and private universities who carry out Waste
Composition and Characterisation studies at Degree, masters and PhD levels. All
universities have to use a standard protocol and the report should be in a format
that could then go into a national data base which is updated continuously.
- All service providers & facility operators must provide the same data on operation
and the kind of waste being handled before their licences is renewed.
- Funding from MOHE and MOSTI to all public and private Universities and
Research Institutes, specifically for waste management must have a
representative from JPSPN / PPSPPA in order to coordinate the research and the
data flows back to the agencies.
- Establishment of a Waste Centre of Excellence.
- The data coordinating section must also be able to indicate to the various
universities in which areas that need to be studied and the scope of work to be
done in collaboration with the universities.

 To co-ordinate this task and to establish a national database maintained under

JPSPN / PPSPPA.

 Frequent review of the completeness of the national database is required. There are
many data banks on MSW around the world. Malaysia has taken the first step in
moving towards the national data bank. However, the current information system
has not been established and needs to be looked at in a holistic manner to provide
input for decision makers.

 MSW database is also linked with health and environmental (climate change)
effects. The national data base should also address these issues.

Recycling Survey

 Given the sentiment of the households, the existing collection network of the private
recyclers needs to be improved so that they can have a greater coverage of the
recycling market. It could come from providing facilities in the less urban areas, so
that the private recyclers can operate. However, it is important to note that current
limitation of the private recycling network is that they collect items with commercial
value and not all items gets picked.

Page 152
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

 Provide training of licensed recyclers on available technologies, international

experiences in the field of recycling and environmental issues.

 The proposed licensing and permit system by JPSPN may only “upgrade” recycling
players in the urban and metropolitan areas. The licensing system is needed in order
to ensure that solid waste is properly managed. Due consideration must be given in
the implementing of the licensing system to avoid lack of interest from players in the
rural sector. It is recommended that the roll-out be done in phases and in zones
rather than a national roll-out. A separate exercise is suggested on the precise
phasing, coverage and the effectiveness of the recycling activities.

 It would be necessary to ensure that planning regulations be changed to require

developers to provide space and facilities for recycling, just as they are required to
set aside space for waste collection. Such a requirement would add little cost to the
entire (high-rise) development but would facilitate recycling practices for those who
want to start it within their own housing area.

 As there seems to be varied levels of awareness already among households, it is

important that the local authorities set aside resources to guide resident associations
to start recycling practices and initiatives. It is therefore recommended that resources
are provided to Local Authorities and NGOs to initiate recycling practices within their
areas and on a voluntary basis. Local Authorities apply for funds and resources for
this activity while the government provide the allocation and other support.

 A major revamp of the current recycling practices, especially among the private
recyclers and collectors, would not be possible in the immediate future. It would
require a phased approach and implemented first in the urban areas while providing
resources based on the gained experience to the remaining Local Authorities to
develop the practices.

 Aggressive 3R awareness programs using social media (facebook, twitter etc.); to

initially guide interested household members and business entities on how and what
to recycle, closest recycling collection points and the benefits of recycling. Forums for
people to share ideas and success stories must also be provided. The administrator
of the social media must be well versed with Solid Waste Management and must be
in the position to reply promptly.

 The Survey results indicate that making recycling a habit should come from “inside”,
rather than be imposed from outside with stricter enforcement of health and safety
regulations and imposition of penalties. (Respondents may have related this to
littering rather than enforced recycling. e.g. RM500 fine for throwing rubbish on the
road etc.). Incentives and awards may be given to regularly complying recycling
companies and developers.

 Overall, both urban and rural respondents ranked the method of “raising awareness
on recycling” as the most effective way to further promote waste minimization and
recycling.

Page 153
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

18 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The following section presents the summary of the findings and results of the Survey as
required in the Terms of Reference of this Survey.

18.1 Detailed waste composition and characteristics data

18.1.1 Waste composition of the As Generated/As Discarded waste at the various

sources

a) Households

Figure 35: Malaysian Household Waste Composition (As Generated)

Textiles Tetra Rubber Leather Wood HHW

3.1% Pak 0.4% 1.4% 1.3%
1.6% 1.8% Others
Metal 0.5%
Glass 2.7%
Garden Waste 3.3%
5.8%

Food Waste
44.5%
Diapers
12.1%

Paper
8.5%
Plastic
13.2%

 HHW – Household Hazardous waste

 Wood – Wood + Peel / Husk

Page 154
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

b) Commercial, institutions and industries

Figure 36: Malaysia ICI Waste Composition

Tetra Wood HHW, 1.1 %

Leathe
Textiles , 2.2 % Pak , Rubber , 1.5
r, 0.5 Others, 0.6 %
3.0 % , 1.6 % %
Metal, 4.9 % %

Garden Glass,
Waste, 3.2 %
2.8 %
Food Waste, 31.4 %
Diapers ,
0.8 %

Paper , 20.5 %

Plastic, 25.9 %

 HHW – Household Hazardous waste

 Wood – Wood + Peel / Husk

Page 155
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

18.1.2 Breakdown of the waste composition for the households – based on the
different housing types / income levels

Table 93: Waste Composition for Low, Middle and High cost houses (As Generated), in
gms./capita/day

Waste Components Low cost Medium cost High cost

Food Waste 299.21 337.95 358.79

Organics

Garden Waste 30.68 47.50 55.34

Wood 3.52 3.39 1.98
Peel /Husk 8.22 5.91 5.94
Mixed Paper 10.83 9.44 13.63
Paper

Newsprint / Old Newspaper 23.51 33.49 39.95

Cardboard 23.88 31.02 34.67
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) 14.77 20.03 13.48
High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 20.86 29.73 31.25
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 2.51 1.82 7.15
Plastics

Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) 28.44 28.80 27.76

Polypropylene (PP) 10.07 10.49 7.98
Polystyrene (PS) 8.34 10.83 12.04
Other Plastics 0.50 0.77 0.27
Glass Bottle 22.59 24.91 26.26
Glass

Sheet Glass 0.20 0.33 1.26

Ferrous Metal 13.55 12.52 13.83
Metals

Aluminium 6.94 5.55 9.72

Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.27 0.07 1.56
Batteries 0.57 0.50 2.08
Hazardous Waste
Household

Fluorescent Tube 2.17 1.14 3.49

E-Waste 1.08 0.71 1.92

Aerosol Cans 5.59 4.85 6.04

Paint Container 0.13 1.12 0.71
Tetra Pak 11.21 9.64 14.59
Diapers 78.94 93.79 106.53
Others

Rubber 12.08 13.41 14.51

Textiles 22.78 22.98 21.36
Leather 3.58 2.13 3.34
Other Minor components 3.05 2.11 7.83

Page 156
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

18.1.3 Breakdown of the waste composition for the commercial, institutions and
industries

Table 94: Waste Composition for Institutional, Commercial and Industrial waste, in MT/day

Institutional Commercial Industry

Food Waste 1,005.77 2,381.99 132.32
Organics

Garden Waste 194.05 105.76 24.20

Wood 29.16 46.93 103.23
Mixed Paper 214.55 353.66 260.61
Paper

Newsprint / Old Newspaper 115.48 238.35 72.76

Cardboard 254.53 404.93 466.61
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) 142.37 311.24 82.74
High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 175.91 339.82 202.13
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 18.16 29.86 200.04
Plastics

Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) 184.15 363.49 166.70

Polypropylene (PP) 69.87 139.08 15.73
Polystyrene (PS) 109.82 201.65 214.97
Other Plastics 5.38 35.55 9.44
Glass Bottle 109.88 226.28 21.42
Glass

Sheet Glass 3.51 10.33 1.03

Ferrous Metal 76.29 61.49 46.95
Metals

Aluminium 72.71 185.64 87.41

Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.29 0.90 42.21
Batteries 1.31 16.48 2.21
Hazardous Waste
Household

Fluorescent Tube 8.97 1.78 -

E-Waste 14.07 21.39 13.94

Aerosol Cans 12.74 14.08 9.36
Paint Container 1.09 9.53 2.62
Tetra Pak 93.39 218.69 31.13
Diapers 50.31 40.55 -
Rubber 85.17 89.36 14.52
Others

Textiles 104.28 106.03 42.87

Leather 18.76 25.02 11.74
Porcelain / Ceramic 8.13 3.57 -
Other Minor Components 16.5 44.40 -

Page 157
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

18.1.4 Waste composition for As Discarded waste and As Disposed waste at the
landfill site

Table 95: Waste Components for As Discarded and As Disposed in Malaysia, in MT/day

Waste Components As Discarded As Disposed

Food Waste 8,563 8,492

Organics

Garden Waste 1,240 1,445

Wood 88 92
Peel / Husk 217 248
Mixed Paper 286 273
Paper

Newsprint / Old Newspaper 475 360

Cardboard 697 567
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) 463 374
High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 610 604
Plastics

Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 92 90

Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) 782 717
Polypropylene (PP) 263 188
Polystyrene (PS) 293 299
Other Plastics 16 33
Glass Bottle 528 521
Glass

Sheet Glass 30 59
Ferrous Metal 336 211
Metals

Aluminium 160 85
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 15 16
Batteries 22 22
Hazardous Waste

Fluorescent Tube 48 48
Household

E-Waste 52 52

Aerosol Cans 140 140

Paint Container 20 20
Tetra Pak 308 282
Diapers 2,625 2,625
Rubber 309 399
Others

Textiles 660 660

Leather 85 99
Porcelain / Ceramic/Stones 95 289
Other Minor components 8 48

Note: the incoming waste sampled at the landfill were primarily from trucks that collected waste
from Households and therefore only the weight of household waste disposed is considered

Page 158
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

18.1.5 Analytical report on the waste characteristics - As discarded and As disposed

of at the landfill site

Table 96: Average Proximate Analysis Results for Malaysian As Discarded and As Disposed
Waste in per cent, Wet basis (n=54)

As Discarded As Disposed

Moisture Content 57.34 59.45

Volatile Matter Content 22.79 20.79

Fixed Carbon Content 11.48 11.10

Ash Content 8.39 8.65

Non-combustible fraction removed before analysing the sample

Table 97: Average Ultimate Analysis Results for Malaysian As Discarded and As Disposed
Waste in per cent, wet basis (n=54)

As Discarded As Disposed

Moisture Content 57.34 59.45

Carbon Content 21.57 17.36

Sulphur Content 0.05 3.35

Hydrogen Content 4.29 5.89

Nitrogen Content 1.37 1.05

Oxygen Content 7.47 5.89

Organic Chlorine Content 0.06 0.04

Ash Content 7.85 6.96

Non-combustible fraction removed before analysing the sample

Page 159
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 98: Average Heavy Metal results of the As Discarded and As Disposed Waste in ppm,
wet basis (n=54)

As Discarded As Disposed
Mercury 0.084 0.092
Vanadium 2.859 3.590
Chromium 37. 46 46.58
Manganese 15.17 21.97
Iron 269.34 318.27
Cobalt 0.30 0.53
Copper 6.46 5.92
Zinc 18.50 19.35
Arsenic 0.18 0.66
Silver 0.41 0.66
Cadmium 0.29 2.38
Lead 1.43 1.98
Aluminium 143.65 148.23
Magnesium 56.98 88.30
Nickel 2.49 1.94

Page 160
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

18.1.6 Waste characteristics (ultimate and proximate analysis), for the individual components

Table 99: Proximate, Ultimate analysis and Calorific Value of the Individual Components
Volatile Fixed Ash Carbon Oxygen Nitrogen Sulphur Higher Lower Lower
Hydrogen
Moisture Matter, Carbon, Content, Content, Content, Content, Content, Heating Calorific Calorific
Content,
content, % wet wet basis wet basis wet basis wet basis wet basis wet basis Value Value Value wet,
wet basis %
basis % % % % % % % dry,kJ/kg wet,kJ/kg kcal/kg
Proximate Analysis Ultimate Analysis Calorific Value
Food 82.00 14.30 1.54 2.16 7.88 1.20 5.60 1.09 0.05 12,427 229 55
Garden 30.85 50.46 11.14 7.55 30.70 3.01 26.88 0.81 0.20 17,522 11,356 2,712
Mixed
54.57 34.51 3.70 7.22 21.63 3.20 12.39 0.79 0.20 20,536 7,988 1,908
Paper
Newsprint 22.73 74.33 1.03 1.90 37.78 6.50 29.50 1.35 0.23 16,209 11,953 2,855
Cardboard 12.17 72.53 7.36 7.94 37.39 7.15 33.18 1.61 0.56 16,466 14,148 3,379
Tetra Pak 14.70 71.20 7.33 6.78 38.41 6.39 32.21 1.20 0.32 14,884 12,323 2,943
PET 5.69 92.46 0.93 0.92 79.37 8.06 4.95 0.88 0.12 33,755 31,678 7,566
HDPE 5.65 91.64 1.30 1.41 76.24 9.26 6.40 0.74 0.30 34,706 32,584 7,783
PVC 7.29 79.78 3.77 9.17 69.58 7.30 4.17 1.17 1.33 32,143 29,607 7,072
LDPE 44.69 50.40 0.96 3.95 40.62 6.14 3.72 0.74 0.14 29,924 15,443 3,688
PP 24.52 61.93 6.45 7.10 49.46 7.14 9.99 1.65 0.14 30,620 22,498 5,373
PS 10.32 88.19 0.29 1.20 67.79 8.37 10.33 1.42 0.58 31,725 28,180 6,731
Diapers 76.69 19.91 1.72 1.68 9.93 2.26 9.10 0.26 0.08 25,434 4,049 967
Textile 53.80 37.86 7.31 1.03 25.39 3.19 15.83 0.56 0.21 18,185 7,079 1,691
Rubber 2.96 87.76 0.92 8.36 66.58 5.14 13.51 0.99 2.47 23,092 22,323 5,332
Leather 4.66 81.54 4.86 8.95 58.74 8.64 16.56 1.53 0.93 26,337 24,977 5,966
Wood 15.92 72.07 10.89 1.11 43.65 6.52 31.34 1.21 0.25 20,092 16,488 3,938

Page 161
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

18.1.7 Waste characteristics (heavy metals analysis), for the individual components:

Table 100: Heavy Metal Analysis of the Individual Components, in ppm

Mercury Vanadium Chromium Manganese Iron Cobalt Copper Zinc Arsenic Silver Cadmium Lead Aluminium Magnesium Nickel

Food 0.005 0.081 5.46 13.91 31 0.07 0.63 2.95 0.067 0.100 0.010 0.077 - 9.20 2.88
Garden 0.018 0.837 4.68 92.71 226 0.20 3.69 17.15 1.218 0.188 0.030 0.851 - 35.89 0.22
Mixed Paper - 0.796 59.22 19.20 137 0.62 7.38 109.69 0.760 0.205 0.177 0.245 - 23.59 1.14
Newsprint 0.022 1.412 57.89 35.99 535 0.32 9.68 16.93 0.524 0.349 0.082 2.108 - 39.41 1.18
Cardboard 0.033 1.447 12.55 44.23 174 0.57 15.71 14.78 0.566 0.848 0.051 0.263 - 45.32 0.64
Tetra Pak 0.036 0.616 18.52 29.25 ,597 1.07 2.57 75.87 0.679 0.587 0.206 0.092 3,262 45.12 19.20
PET 0.034 0.986 134.06 6.21 2,706 0.34 6.19 200.20 1.173 0.504 0.106 2.490 - 51.17 2.90
HDPE 0.023 1.347 90.00 1.23 148 5.03 2.84 368.04 0.351 0.504 4.057 0.900 - 50.33 2.96
PVC 0.022 1.396 87.49 1.82 141 7.32 1.94 358.41 0.295 0.536 3.197 0.510 - 51.43 3.75
LDPE 0.029 0.698 108.88 4.14 1,019 0.52 2.44 149.89 1.034 0.878 0.046 3.094 - 30.31 1.77
PP 0.027 1.632 75.16 1.59 122 2.82 3.30 271.74 0.257 0.456 1.096 0.507 - 42.89 0.59
PS - 1.322 6.78 37.56 231 1.05 3.12 33.88 1.343 0.500 0.084 0.737 - 49.12 1.45
Diapers - 0.358 1.76 0.46 32 0.10 0.43 9.74 0.093 0.135 0.070 0.669 - 12.14 0.13
Textile 0.017 0.235 69.49 2.52 89 0.08 0.96 11.66 0.455 0.222 0.030 0.877 3,225 24.61 0.23
Rubber 0.037 6.121 - 30.89 841 1.43 227.44 1,714.35 1.432 0.398 0.670 1.461 2,069 41.79 2.68
Leather 0.048 8.345 - 35.71 1,139 2.79 278.44 2,188.07 2.059 0.473 0.040 1.770 2,541 51.19 3.04
Wood 0.044 0.281 50.84 3.13 78 0.37 3.95 13.48 0.309 0.264 0.045 1.130 3,455 44.31 0.84

Page 162
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

18.2 Waste Generation Rates

18.2.1 Waste generation rate from the households in correlation with the levels of urbanisation and housing type of the study areas.
The results are presented in kg/capita/day.

Table 101: Average Household Waste Generation in 2012, Malaysia

Urban Rural Overall

Housing
Type Per Capita Total Per Capita Total Per Capita Total
Population Population Population
(kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day) (kg/capita/day) (MT/day)

Low cost
2,675,954 0.74 1,988 2,019,579 0.69 1,397 4,695,533 0.72 3,384
Landed

Low cost
3,778,052 0.63 2,394 830,781 0.71 586 4,608,833 0.65 2,981
High-rise

Medium cost
8,167,292 0.89 7,245 3,377,231 0.67 2,276 11,544,523 0.82 9,521
Landed

High-Medium
2,366,232 0.89 2,095 - - 2,366,232 0.89 2,095
cost High-rise

High cost
3,137,440 0.73 2,303 1,981,574 0.68 1,343 5,119,014 0.71 3,646
Landed

Total 20,124,970 0.80 16,025 8,209,165 0.68 5,601 28,334,135 0.76 21,627

Note: the population of each housing type by urban and rural was estimated based on the ratio in Property Stock Report 2010 and Census 2010.

Page 163
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

18.2.2 Waste generation rate from the industry, commercials and institutions

Table 102: Waste Generation Rate by Commercial and Institution Sub-sectors, in

kg/employee/day

CI Sub sectors Waste Generation Rate

Business offices 1.07

Education 1.32

Health 2.18

Hotel 3.68

Public Administration 1.02

Restaurant 3.92

Transportation 1.56

Wet Market 11.87

Overall 1.94

Table 103: Industrial Non Production Waste Generation Rate, in kg/employee/day

CI Industry by firm size Waste Generation Rate

Micro 13.72

Small 2.88

Medium 1.26

Large 0.37

Overall 1.26
Source: * Economic Census 2011: Manufacturing, Dept of Statistics.

18.3 Existing recycling practices in the markets

18.3.1 Detailed findings on the existing recycling practices in the markets - Types of
recyclable materials being collected / traded

Page 164
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Figure 37: Type of recyclables collected by Recycling Players in Malaysia

Scavenger/Street Collector/Waste Collection Worker Drop off centre
Non - Ferrous, Non - Ferrous,
3.2% 3.8%
Ferrous, 7.8%

Glass, 7.4%

Ferrous, 22.5% Paper,

39.1% Plastic, 8.8%
Glass, 3.8% Paper,
72.3%
Plastic, 31.4%

Trader, Middle man, Buy back centre Recycler

Non - Ferrous, Non - Ferrous,

6.2% 8.6%

Ferrous, 17.9%
Paper, Paper,
33.3% 44.6%
Ferrous, 55.0%

Glass, 0.1% Plastic, 28.8%

Plastic, 5.4%
Glass, 0.1%

Page 165
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

18.3.2 Detailed findings on the existing recycling practices in the markets – Pricing of
Recyclable Material

Table 104: Price ranges for different recyclables generated from municipal waste of
Malaysian industries, in RM/kg

IQR (50%of
Types of recyclables Min Max Average Median
samples)
Aluminium can 0.40 5.00 2.84 3.30 2.35 - 3.80
Black and white paper 0.02 1.00 0.27 0.25 0.20 - 0.30
Cardboard 0.10 0.70 0.29 0.30 0.20 - 0.35
Clear glass 0.1 0.4 0.25 0.25 --
Coloured glass 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 --
Colour paper 0.03 0.70 0.24 0.25 0.20 - 0.30
Metal can 0.2 1.5 0.74 0.65 0.55 - 0.83
Newspaper 0.05 0.80 0.23 0.20 0.20 - 0.30
Non PET 0.05 1.15 0.48 0.55 0.25 - 0.70
PET 0.05 1.30 0.40 0.40 0.20 - 0.50

IQR (50% of
Other recyclables Min Max Average Median
samples)
E-waste 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 --
Guni (Gunny sack) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 --
HDPE/PVC/PP/ABS/PS 0.10 15.87 2.15 0.50 0.14 - 1.30
Mixed metals 0.60 1.10 0.83 0.83 --
Mixed papers 0.15 1.00 0.35 0.30 0.25 - 0.40
Plastic stretch film, plastic
foam films, plastic bags, 0.05 1.60 0.56 0.40 0.28 - 0.80
plastic sheets
Scrap metal (Ferrous) 0.05 25.00 4.16 0.90 0.41 - 1.28
Used Oils 0.74 0.80 0.77 0.77 --
Wood 0.01 20.00 2.83 1.10 0.30 - 1.80
Others (cloth gloves, rubber,
3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 --
yarn waste)
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

18.3.3 Information on the recycling rates by different players

a) Total recyclable materials retained by the households for recycling purpose

Table 105: Quantity of Household Waste and Recyclable Materials Generated in 2012

Peninsular Malaysia Malaysia

Generation Rate Generation Rate

Total (kg/day) Total (kg/day)
(kg/capita/day) (kg/capita/day)
Recyclable materials
retained by the 1,821,735 0.08 2,101,129 0.07
household

Waste discarded 16,306,919 0.72 19,525,600 0.69

Waste generated
(waste discarded + 18,128,654 0.80 21,626,729 0.76
recyclables)

Recycling rate 10.0% 9.7%

Number of Population
in Peninsular Malaysia 22,569,345 28,334,135
(2010 Census)

b) Total recyclable materials recovered by the truck workers in terms of the percentage of
the total waste collected

Table 106: Breakdown of the Recycling Rate of Malaysia, in kg/day

Industrial, Waste
Commercial Collection
Households Scavengers Overall
and Truck
Institutions Workers
2,101,129 899,585 476,089 14,097
Recyclable materials 3,490,899
(60.2%) (25.8%) (13.6%) (0.4%)
Note:
1. Projections are made based on the findings of Existing Practise on Solid Waste Recycling Survey of this
study and population data published by DOS.
2. Estimation for waste collection truck workers was based on secondary data.
3. Estimation for scavenger was based on primary data and secondary data.
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

c) Total recyclable materials remained in the waste disposed at the landfill site

Table 107: Quantity of Recyclable Material found in the As Disposed Waste

Recyclable Components Quantity in the As Disposed waste at the landfill

MT/day Percentage of total waste
Mixed Paper 418 1.41%
Newsprint / Old Newspaper 551 1.86%
Cardboard 868 2.93%
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) 573 1.93%
High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 925 3.12%
Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) 1098 3.70%
Polypropylene (PP) 288 0.97%
Glass Bottle 798 2.69%
Ferrous Metal 323 1.09%
Aluminium 130 0.44%
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 24 0.08%
E-Waste 80 0.27%
Paint Container 31 0.10%
Tetra Pak 432 1.46%
Total 6,539 22.05%

d) Total recyclable materials being imported or exported, and their the destinations

Table 108: Malaysia External Trade of Recyclable Materials for year 2011

Type of Import Export Trade

Waste and Balance
Quantity USD/ Quantity USD/
Scrap Total (USD) Total (USD) (USD)
in MT MT in MT MT
Paper 218,929 326 71,370,854 214 1,159 248,026 (71,122,828)

Plastic 142,860 456 65,144,160 153,865 695 106,936,175 41,792,015

Glass 6,036 3,642 21,983,112 19,771 249 4,922,979 (17,060,133)

Ferrous 2,050,146 527 1,080,426,942 70,107 306 21,452,742 (1,058,974,200)

Non-
104,829 2,566 268,987,672 57,058 2,786 158,978,345 (110,009,327)
ferrous
Total 2,522,800 - 1,507,912,740 301,015 - 292,538,267 (1,215,374,473)
Source: International Trade Centre (UN Commodity Trade Database), 2011
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

Table 109: Top 10 Countries Export to Malaysia by Type of Waste and Scrap

Type of Rank
Waste
and
Scrap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Singa- United New

Paper Australia
pore Kingdom
Japan USA Netherlands Belgium
Zealand
Italy Sweden

United Republic Hong

Plastic Kingdom
USA Germany Singapore Spain Philippines Belgium Japan
of Korea Kong

Chinese Republic
Glass Japan Thailand Viet Nam Myanmar
Taipei
Indonesia Singapore
of Korea
Lithuania China

United
South Singa- United New Chinese
Ferrous USA
Africa pore Kingdom
Australia Philippines Germany Arab
Zealand Taipei
Emirates

United
Non- South Singa- United New Chinese
USA Australia Philippines Germany Arab
ferrous Africa pore Kingdom Zealand Taipei
Emirates
Source: International Trade Centre (UN Commodity Trade Database), 2011

Table 110: Top 10 Countries Received Import from Malaysia by Type of Waste and Scrap

Type of Rank
Waste
and
Scrap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Singa-
Paper pore
Thailand - - - - - - - -

Hong Indon- Chinese Singa-

Plastic China
Kong esia
India
Taipei
Estonia Thailand Viet Nam
pore
Pakistan

Indo- Singa- United Arab Banglad

Glass nesia
Thailand Japan USA
pore Emirates
Romania India
esh
China

Republic Chinese
Ferrous India
of Korea
Thailand China Brunei
Taipei
Viet Nam Oman Japan Spain

Non- Republic Chinese

Japan China India Thailand Hong Kong, Singa-pore Viet Nam USA
ferrous of Korea Taipei

Source: International Trade Centre (UN Commodity Trade Database), 2011

 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

e) The existing recycling rate by households, the business entities and the overall recycling
rate estimated for Malaysia.

Table 111: Recycling Rate of Malaysia

Industrial, Waste
Commercial Collection
Households Scavengers Overall
and Truck
Institutions Workers
Recyclable materials 2,101,129 899,585 476,089 14,097
3,490,899
(kg/day) (60.2%) (25.8%) (13.6%) (0.4%)

Waste discarded
19,525,600 10,603,786 30,129,386
(kg/day)
Waste generated (waste
discarded + 21,626,729 11,503,372 - - 33,130,101
recyclables) (kg/day)

Recycling rate 9.7% 7.8% 10.5%

Note:
1. Projections are made based on the findings of Existing Practise on Solid Waste Recycling Survey of this
study and population data published by DOS.
2. Estimation for waste collection truck workers was based on secondary data.
3. Estimation for scavenger was based on primary data and secondary data.
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

19 REFERENCES

1. AIT/UNEP Regional Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific. 2010. Municipal
Waste Management Report: Status-quo and Issues in Southeast and East Asian
Countries.

2. ASTM D 5231 - 92 (Reapproved 2008): Standard Test Method for the Determination
of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste.

3. Australian Government, Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator. March 2001.

Guideline for Determining the Renewable Components in Waste for Electricity
Generation.

4. Board of Engineers. June- August 2007. Ingeneiur : Waste Engineering.

5. Debra R. Reinhart, PhD and Pamela McCauley-Bell. January 1996. Florida Center
for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. Methodology for Conducting
Composition Study for Discarded Solid Waste.

6. Department of Statistics Malaysia. June 2010. Basic Population Characteristics by

Administrative Districts.

7. Draft Malaysian Standard 10Z011R0 (2011): Guidelines for sampling of household

solid waste – Composition and characterisation analysis.

8. JICA. July 2006. Guidelines for Formulation of Local Action Plan on Waste
Minimisation.

9. JICA. July 2006. The Study on National Waste Minimisation in Malaysia.

10. Jutta Laine-Ylijoki, Jari-Jussi Syrjä and Margareta Wahlström. Approved 2004-03.
Biodegradability Testing of the Municipal Solid Waste Reject. Nordic Innovation
Centre.

11. M.N. Hassan, T.L. Chong, M. Rahman, M.N. Salleh, Z. Zakaria and M. Awang.
Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Environmental
Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia. Solid Waste Management in Southeast Asian
Countries with Special Attention to Malaysia.

12. Matthew J. Fanchetti. 2009. Solid Waste Analysis and Minimization. A Systems
Approach. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

13. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia. August 2005. National
Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Management. The Strategic Plan.

14. MS 1785:2008. Malaysian Standard. Guide for General Planning of Waste

Sampling.
 Survey on SW Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of SW Recycling in Malaysia
GSR Final Report

15. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. April 2004. Feasibility Study and Master Plan for
Optimal Waste Treatment and Disposal for the Entire State of Delhi based on Public
Private Partnership Solutions, Volume 6 : Municipal Waste Characterisation Report.

16. P. Aarne Vesiland, William A Worrell and Debra R Reinhart, 2002. Solid Waste
Engineering, Brooks/Cole

17. Soon Hun Yang, Brian Chong. Emil Chong. March 2002. Handbook 1: Solid Waste
Management. Solid Waste Stream Composition Analysis. Chemsain Konsultant
Sdn.Bhd., COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners AS.

18. State of California. December 2004. Statewide Waste Characterization Study.

Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc.

19. Stephen Moore, Paul Grime, Benita Kung. Unban Solid Waste Characterisation.
CRC for Waste Management & Pollution Control Ltd.

20. Tang Hung Huong, Soon Hun Yang and Ib Larsen. August 2003. Solid Waste
Management in Kuching. With the assistance of COWI, DANWASTE, Chemsain
Consultant, University Putra Malaysia and Danida Copenhagen.

21. Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., & Vigil, S. (1993): Integrated Solid Waste
Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw- Hill, New
York.

22. UNDP. February 2008. Malaysia Developing a Solid Waste Management Model for
Penang.

23. UNEP. 2009. Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Volume 1:
Waste Characterization and Quantification with Projections for Future.

24. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Waste Generation,

Recycling and Disposal in the United States : Facts and Figures for 2008.

25. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States. Fact and Figure for 2009.

26. Waste Management Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1993. Residential
Waste Composition Study. Volume 1of the Ontario Waste Composition Study. Gore
and Storie Limited in association with Decima Research Limited.

27. Yinghui Zeng, Kathleen M. Trauth, Robert L. Peyton and Shankha K. Banerji
Characterization of solid waste disposed at Columbia Sanitary Landfill in Missouri.
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X05050995. Waste Management Research 2005; 23; 62. .
http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/1/62