==== Front J Environ Public Health J Environ Public Health JEPH Journal of Environmental and Public Health 1687-9805 1687-9813 Hindawi 10.1155/2020/7460356 Research Article Determinants of Household Solid Waste Generation and Composition in Homs City, Syria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8344-5042Noufal Mohamad mohmadnofal@hotmail.com 1 2 Yuanyuan Liu 1 Maalla Zena 2 3 Adipah Sylvia 1 1College of Environment and Ecology, Chongqing University, Chongqing City, China 2Faculty of Civil Engineering, Al-Baath University, Homs City, Syria 3College of Earth Environmental and Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou City, China Academic Editor: Jonathan Haughton 2020 26 11 2020 2020 746035623 9 2019 14 4 2020 24 4 2020 Copyright © 2020 Mohamad Noufal et al.2020This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.The absence of accurate information on the state of waste is a challenge to the solid waste management system in Syria. The local authorities commonly estimate the quantity of waste produced and its characterisation, which is the starting point for solid waste management planning. So, this paper aims to evaluate the generation and composition of household solid waste in Homs city, Syria. Also, the study presents factors influencing the waste generation rate and the waste composition. The study was carried out in 300 families from four zones in Homs city, and three sampling stages were conducted during the study duration, which started in July 2017 and ended in February 2019. The outcomes show that an average of 0.68 kg/per/day solid waste generated was calculated for the entire study area in Homs city. Also, the data analysis presents that organic waste constitutes the largest component in the waste mixture (69.1%) followed by plastic (10.6%), inert materials (8.7%), paper (4.6%), textile (2.5%), metal (1.2%), glass (1.1%), wood (0.6%), and hazardous materials (1.6%). The multiple linear regression results showed that the adjusted R2 value was found to be 0.557, 0.839, and 0.709 for the waste generation per capita, the daily household organic waste generation, and the daily household packaging waste generation, respectively. Also, according to Pearson's coefficient values, a positive correlation was found between household waste generation and monthly income (r = 0.626), household size (r = 0.37), and age of the household head (r = 0.517), whereas a negative correlation was found between household waste generation and the education level of the household head (r = −0.649). ==== Body 1. Introduction Solid waste problem is a significant concern for national and local authorities in many cities of developing countries [1]. The poor conditions of municipal solid waste (MSW) in these areas are represented by the accumulation of waste in the streets, a low waste collection rate, and the random dumping or burning trash in open spaces [2–5]. Improper waste disposal practices such as burning or dumping of waste at roadsides and vacant lands may cause environmental, health, and aesthetic damage, as well as depletion of natural and economic resources [6–12]. At first and before making decisions regarding improving the current waste practices or proposing new waste management scenarios, it is significant to have an overall perception of various aspects related to waste issues. The first and fundamental point is to know the amount and characteristics of waste generated in order to determine the most successful and efficient waste management plans [13–21]. Waste generation rates and composition differ from one nation to another and even between cities within a country since they are influenced by factors such as the level of industrialisation, the climate, and the nature of socioeconomic development [21]. It is common in developing countries that the daily amount of waste collected is not equal to the amount of actual waste produced by households. This can be attributed to inadequate waste collection services and informal waste picking activities. Thus, basic data on waste characteristics that are indispensable for the design and planning of the solid waste management facilities are absent [22], or at best, they are ambiguous and untrustworthy as they are derived from different sources based on estimates and judgments rather than correct measurements and field investigations [23]. Several research studies have been conducted to investigate the generation and composition of household solid waste in various regions over the world [24–35]. These studies indicated that waste characteristic study is critical for a few reasons, for example, the necessity to identify the potential of material recuperation from the waste mixture, to determine waste generation sources, and to ease the planning of treatment facilities. Furthermore, household solid waste is highly heterogeneous and is widely dependent on the socioeconomic status of the households [19, 36]. The combination of socioeconomic factors identifies how a social hierarchy is organised, one's position within this structure [37]. Although the features of urban areas in developing countries are common, waste management strategies should respond to local conditions and be inventive, decisive, and context-sensitive [9, 14]. Environment issues related to waste generation are part of societal changes where households play a significant role. These societal changes impact the characteristic of given households, including family size, monthly income, social status, education level, residential location, and community status. Many studies have been carried out to illustrate the relationship between socioeconomic factors of households and solid waste generation and composition [24, 30, 31, 38–43]. Syria is one of the countries lacking updated and reliable data on the composition and generation of household solid waste. Moreover, SWM issue and its adverse environmental impacts were present in Syria even before the conflict began [44]. In this context, around 80% of the domestic solid waste was disposed of at illegal dumpsites, which were situated in the surrounding areas of cities. Due to the damage of waste management infrastructure, a massive amount of solid waste has accumulated in the roads within the Syrian cities [45]. In many cases, the local authorities have resorted to alternative methods such as outdoor burning or illegal dumping [46]. It is worth mentioning that no research studies were undertaken to create accurate data on the characteristics of household waste generated as well as factors influencing waste generation trends in Syrian cities. So, this paper aims to evaluate the generation and composition of household solid waste and explores factors influencing waste generation rate and composition in order to propose new postwar strategies for solid waste management in Homs city. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Research Area Discretion The city of Homs is the third biggest city in Syria, after Damascus and Aleppo, where the population before the crisis was about 800,000 [47]. Homs city occupies a central and strategical location in the country's transportation network, links all major urban centres, and besides, it is an important industrial centre. Homs city is located in central-western Syria on the Orontes river about 192 km north of the capital Damascus and 96 km inland from the Mediterranean Sea, on a plateau 501 meters above sea level. The Mediterranean Sea climate generally prevails in Homs. This climate may be characterised by rainy winter and a hot-dry summer separated by two short transitional seasons [48]. The city was one of the major urban centres to be affected by the crisis like many Syrian cities. There is a significant scale impact of the ongoing crisis on the city's housing, economy, infrastructure, and services. As it usually happens in times of war, citizens from hot and unsafe areas were compelled to displace to safe districts of the city, and the same situation was in other cities. The sudden increase in the population in the safe areas of the city led to a high generation of waste which was not only a health issue but also an environmental concern to the authorities [47]. Figure 1 shows the geographical location and administrative division of Homs city. The study targeted households residing in 4 zones (areas were relatively safe during the study period) in Homs city, as shown in Table 1. 2.2. Methodology The authors used direct waste analysis as a methodology to determine waste characteristics, and this method includes sampling, sorting, and weighing the components of the waste stream [50]. The study was carried out in 300 families, which were chosen using the stratified random sampling method [51] from four zones in Homs city. The primary phase of the investigation is the sampling phase and the waste weighing, which started in July 2017 and ended in February 2019. The information from the household respondents was obtained by weighing of household waste (house-to-house) for 14 consecutive days. The sampling phase was carried out at the same time in all target zones, with a sum of three sampling stages conducted during the study duration. The first sampling stage was done in July 2017, the second stage was held in August 2018, and the last phase occurred in January and February 2019, with each period comprising 14 successive days. The house-to-house household waste weighing procedures were carried out by four teams (each team is responsible for one zone), and each team consisted of 3 individuals. The teams utilised electronic weighing scales (10 kg maximum capacity and α = 10 gr reading). To determine the amount and composition of household waste, collecting waste at the generation site and directly hand sorting method was adopted, which is known to be the most accurate method for reliable data collection [52]. The responsibilities of teams were to recognise and take the waste bag of responding households and then weigh these materials, which were weighed and sorted into particular categories, for example, metals, plastics, glass, and paper. The face-to-face technique was employed because it appeared to be the most reliable way of a questionnaire. The questionnaire was completed in August 2017, which continued for 25 days. The survey comprised inquiries relating to the demographic conditions, socioeconomic situation, and the practices of domestic waste management propensities at the household level in the studied areas. As a result, data were gathered on a wide range of subjects such as personal and household characteristics, income, wealth, access to infrastructure, and attitudes towards the environment. Hence, information on waste generation was collected and analysed with the objective to identify the waste generation rate per capita. Also, the socioeconomic information obtained from the survey was studied to understand the relation between the socioeconomic conditions of the respondents and the waste generation rate. 2.3. Empirical Model for Household Solid Waste Generation and Composition Notwithstanding the quantification of household solid waste, it is basic to model waste generation in order to identify the factors that influence the waste generation rate of the households selected and design policies to lessen it. The correlation analysis was employed to comprehend the independent variables that predict the quantity of waste generated. Then, linear regression analysis was used to find the relationship between waste generation and socioeconomic variables. The current research uses ordinary least squares as a multiple linear regression model which is the most commonly used technique for parameter estimation due to its simplicity [53, 54]. The model can be expressed as (1) yi=β0+xi∗βi+εi, where   yi = waste generation per capita/waste composition (dependent variable)   xi = independent variables   i = number of observations   β0 = constant term   βi = coefficient of independent variables   ε = the error or disturbance term In this regression analysis, waste generation per capita is regressed quantitatively by several independent variables. The independent variables are household size, monthly income, education level of the household head, age of the household head, and the gender of the household head. Empirical specification for the model can be explained by (2) waste generationper capita=β0+β1household size+β2monthly income+β3education level+β4gender+β5age+ε. 2.4. Data Analysis Data obtained from the waste characteristics and data generated from the questionnaire survey study were analysed using Microsoft Excel for Windows (Excel) and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Some of the data from the questionnaire survey were nominal in nature. As per [55, 56], such data are best analysed using inferential (correlation and regression models) and descriptive statistics. In the beginning, data were subjected to a test for normality which showed that data were approximately normally distributed. Then, descriptive statistics were assembled as the variables were nominal and ordinal. Analysis of such rating data was done using parametric statistical tests, namely, analysis of variance (ANOVA). Regression analysis was employed to assess the linear relationships for studied variables to identify the major factors impacting the waste generation rate. The Pearson correlation coefficient was utilised in correlation analysis before regression analysis to understand the relationship between the rate of waste generation and socioeconomic characteristics of households. Per capita waste generation and waste composition were considered as the dependent variables in the developed regression models. The socioeconomic characteristics of households (household size, monthly income, gender of the household head, education level of the household head, and age of the household head) were considered as independent variables. In regression models, standard criteria, R2, F, and t-tests, were used to test the significance of outcomes. The R2 value is the squared multiple correlation coefficients which represent the correlation between dependent and independent variables. In order to explain the predictive capacity of the regression models, F-test was used. The t-statistics were used to examine the significance of the correlation coefficients of the independent variables (β) estimated. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Target Households The characteristics of the sample studied are illustrated in Table 2. The gender distribution of the household head in the sample was found to be 179 (59.67%) males and 121 (40.33%) women. Concerning the age of the household head, 43 (14.30%) participants aged between 18 and 30 years, 100 (33.33%) respondents were between 31 and 45 years, 122 (40.70%) respondents were between 46 and 60 years, and the remaining 35 (11.67%) respondents were more than 60 years. With regard to family size, 44 (14.70%) households consisted of 1–3 people, 135 (45.00%) households consisted of 4–6 people, and 121 (40.30%) households included more than 6 people. With regard to monthly income, only 9 respondents (3%) earned less than 50,000 SYP per month, 135 respondents (45%) earned between 50,001 and 100,000 SYP per month, and 108 respondents (36%) earned between 100,001 and 150,000 SYP per month. On the contrary, 108 respondents (14%) earned between 150,001 and 200,000 SYP per month, and the remaining 6 respondents (2%) earned more than 200,000 SYP. Regarding the education level of the household head, 19 (6.33%) respondents had elementary education, 34 (11.33%) respondents went to middle schools, and 100 (33.33%) respondents obtained certificate from high school. On the contrary, 131 (43.00%) respondents received education at the university or institute level, and 16 (5.00%) participants completed the postgraduate level. 3.2. Average Daily Generation per Capita The per capita waste generation is calculated by dividing the total waste generated with the number of people living in that household that day [58]. According to results, 0.68 kg/person/day was calculated for the entire study area in Homs city. As it is shown in Table 3, zone 4 had the highest waste generation rate per capita daily (0.74 kg/capita/day), and zone 1 had the lowest waste generation rate per capita daily (0.61 kg/capita/day). ANOVA test results in Table 4 show that there is a significant difference in the waste generation per capita across the four sampling zones. According to the literature, the results of per capita daily waste generation studies for various cities in developing countries were 0.12 kg/per/day in Oyo city, Nigeria [59], 0.21 kg/per/day for Cape Haitian city in the Republic of Haiti [30], 0.25 kg/per/day for Chittagong in Bangladesh [38], 0.28 kg/per/day for Mekong Delta city in Vietnam [32], 0.34 kg/per/day for Olongapo city in the Philippines [60], 0.49 kg/per/day for Kathmandu in Nepal [58], 0.53 kg/per/day for urban areas in Bhutan [61], 0.62 kg/cap/day in Mostaganem city, Western Algeria [62], 0.634 kg/cap/day in Abuja city, Nigeria [63], 0.67 kg/per/day for Chihuahua in Mexico [64], and 0.82 kg/per/day in Nablus city, Palestine [33]. On the contrary, the results of per capita daily waste generation studies in European countries were 2.12 kg/per/day in Denmark, 1.75 kg/per/day in Norway, 1.56 kg/per/day in France, 1.4 kg/per/day in the Netherlands, and 1.28 kg/per/day in the United Kingdom [65]. Various values of per capita daily waste generation can be attributed to levels of urbanisation, lifestyles, and many other factors specific to particular areas. 3.3. Waste Composition The waste composition provides an insight that helps to improve the sustainability of waste management as the quantity and methods of solid waste diverted from landfills mainly depend on the composition of waste. Moreover, this aids in identifying the recycling possibilities to justify the need for recyclable waste collection services and to determine a charging method for mixed waste to encourage waste recycling programs. Waste composition analysis showed that most of the waste generated were organic wastes (69.1%) followed by plastic (10.6%), inert materials (8.7%), paper (4.6%), textile (2.5%), metal (1.2%), glass (1.1%), wood (0.6%), and hazardous materials (1.6%). As shown in Table 5, the portion of food and kitchen waste (organic part) found in the study has always been more than 2/3 of the total composition of waste in all selected zones. The high percentage of organic content in the household solid waste generated from Homs neighbourhoods can be attributed to the fact that Syria's economy is agro-based, and there is a high level of consumption. The high content of organic fraction can be used for composting as a possible method to diminish the quantity of waste that needs to be transported to the landfill, also to convert the organic part of waste into compost. In case the waste is not collected, the organic portion of waste will be increasingly disintegrated causing the release of unpleasant odours and ground and surface water pollution through leachates and attracting insects and rodents to piles of garbage in the street. Plastic and paper materials present a good existence in the waste stream in Homs city (10.60% and 4.60%, respectively) which causes a visual nuisance and crucial ecological issues incorporating the blockage of drainages, soil deterioration, and contamination of surface water. Inert materials which form 8.7% of the waste output in Homs city mostly arise from home and road sweeping activities, ashes, and residues of demolition and construction work. Other essential components in the waste mixture are textiles (rags, discarded clothes, and cuttings), metals (abandoned vehicles, white goods, and households' hardware), and glass (glass bottles and broken kitchen utensils). Broken glass and sharp metal piece are real perils and favourite reasons for injury, particularly for scavengers who scatter garbage pile dumps searching for saleable items and kids who play or stay close to the waste dumps. ANOVA test results from Table 6, however, showed that the means of six material components, which are plastics, paper, textile, glass, wood, and hazardous materials, differed or varied significantly across the sampling zones, while organic waste, inert materials, and metal had no significant statistical variations across the sampling zones. The composition of waste is different from place to place and relies on variables, for example, geographical location, climate condition, cooking and eating habits, cultural traditions, level of advancement of the nation, and socioeconomic status [66, 67]. Thus, the composition reported in our study was compared to other studies conducted in different countries (as shown in Table 7). 3.4. Factors That Affect Solid Waste Characteristics 3.4.1. Family Size Family size is an important component in determining the amount of household waste. In this research, family size refers to the overall people living in the same house. Previous studies [18, 20, 36–38, 59, 80–86] showed that household size had a positive influence on the waste generation rate. While it is apparent for more members of a family to generate more waste, some researchers described the phenomena of “group living” and “common consumption” of the family as the household operates as a unit and most of the food items are shared. Therefore, the fewer amount of food crumbs, leftovers, and packaging waste will be produced [40, 52]. On the contrary, many studies have also supported the negative relationship between the household size and the waste generation rate [19, 31, 32, 63, 82, 87–91]. The outcomes which are displayed in Figure 2 show that household size had a positive influence on the waste generation rate, and it is apparent for more members of a family to generate more waste. Also, a statistical method of bivariate analysis (Pearson's coefficient) was used to test the correlation between household waste generation and household size. In the present study, a medium positive correlation (r = 0.37, P < 0.01) was found between household waste generation and family size. 3.4.2. Monthly Income The affluence or income level of a household is one of the influencing factors believed to play a direct role in deciding waste generation rates and composition [92]. Medina [93] indicated that waste generation is directly linked to the income levels of households, and the higher-income members consume more products, and their waste includes more recyclable items. The increase in the income level leads to a clear difference in amounts and composition of waste generated due to changes in the pattern of households' consumption [63]. Many research studies [30, 32, 36, 38, 52, 58, 59, 63, 82–85, 87, 88, 94–98] supported the idea that the household income has a direct and positive relationship with the daily per capita waste generation. As per those studies, the higher the income of a household, the higher its purchasing power, and this can be the reason for income being a positive impact on the amount of waste. On the contrary, Qu et al. and Monavari et al. [31, 35] found that family income has a negative impact on the waste generation rate. Also, Trang et al. [20] indicated that higher-income households prefer to eat outside more frequently than cooking at home, thereby generating less waste. The outcomes which are displayed in Figure 3 show that monthly income had a positive influence on the waste generation rate, and it is apparent that high-income households generate more waste. Also, a statistical method of bivariate analysis (Pearson's coefficient) was used to test the correlation between household waste generation and monthly income. In the present study, a strong positive correlation (r = 0.626, P < 0.01) was found between household waste generation and monthly income. 3.4.3. Education Level The educational status amongst the inhabitants can notably influence the prosperity of awareness programs aimed at evolving solid waste management practices. The more a family gets educated and aware of the adverse impacts of improper solid waste management, the more it recognizes the importance of effective management of solid waste [88]. Gu et al. [52], in Suzhou city/East China, Benítez et al. [99], in Mexicali/Mexico, and Monavari et al. [35], in Ahvaz city/Iran, found that the education level of the household daily manager has a negative effect on the rate of household waste generation. On the contrary, Kayode and Omole [88] found a positive influence of educational status on the waste generation rate in Ibadan metropolis/Nigeria. Additionally, Sujauddin et al. [38] demonstrated households with a high level of education would generate more amount of household solid waste per capita in Bangladesh. Besides, Qu et al. [31] indicated that the highest rate of domestic waste generation was generated by households with advanced education, while households with secondary education had produced the lowest rate of waste generation in Beijing city/China. Usually, higher education is related with high level of awareness on environmental issues, but sometimes, it can have an opposite relation because of the cumulative nature of education that increases with the new number of graduates every year, but environmental awareness (such as impact of higher waste generation) does not increase at the same pace [100]. Figure 4 demonstrates that the education level of the household head was negatively correlated with the rate of domestic solid waste generation. This means that the higher the level of education of the household member is, the lower the amount of SW produced per day. Also, a statistical method of bivariate analysis (Pearson's coefficient) was used to test the correlation between household waste generation and the education level of the household head. In the present study, a strong negative correlation (r = −0.649, P < 0.01) was found between household waste generation and the education level of the household head. 3.4.4. Gender of the Household Head People (male or female) may have different attitudes towards environmental issues, and hence, a gender-sensitive approach in waste management plans can promote effectiveness in resource allocation and avoid unnecessary costs. According to Kayode and Omole [88], there is an adverse effect of sex on waste generation in Nigeria. From their side, Dalen and Halvorsen [101] indicated that there are some research studies confirming women (female) producing more waste, and yet, many others do not find significant gender effects in waste generation because it is the accumulated result of all family members' behaviour. Figure 5 demonstrates that male-headed households generate waste more than female-headed households. Also, a statistical method of bivariate analysis (Pearson's coefficient) was used to test the correlation between household waste generation and the gender of the household head. In the present study, a small positive correlation (r = 0.204, P < 0.01) was found between household waste generation and the gender of the household head. 3.4.5. Age of the Household Head The age of the household head is a continuous variable and is expected to have a correlation with the waste generation, as people may have different waste-generating behaviour according to age. Bartelings and Sterner [102] found that the elderly produce less amount of solid waste, which may be attributed to the rather modest way of life led by the aged. Furthermore, Kayode and Omole [88] noted that the age of the household head was negatively and weakly correlated with solid waste generation in Ibadan metropolis/Nigeria. Also, a study by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that middle-aged and older people are more likely to participate in waste separating and recycling programs. According to this study, the elderly are interested in and respond to social norms; so, it is likely that, with such a sense of responsibility, those people would generate lower solid waste [103]. As per Soukopová et al. [104], in the Czech Republic, the highest quantity of solid waste was generated by elder people reaching towards the end of their working career or around the time of their retirement because of different activities. Also, Talalaj and Walery [105] found that the greatest quantity of MSW is generated by the group of individuals aged 14 to 64; Beigl et al. [90] indicated that people aged 15–59 produce more waste, whilst Lebersorger and Beigl [106] found there is no significant relationship between older people and low MSW generation. The outcomes which are displayed in Figure 6 show that the age of the household head had a positive influence on the waste generation rate, where household waste generation increases with the age of the household head. Also, a statistical method of bivariate analysis (Pearson's coefficient) was used to test the correlation between household waste generation and the age of the household head. In the present study, a strong positive correlation (r = 0.517, P < 0.01) was found between household waste generation and the age of the household head. 3.4.6. Housekeeping Activities The research found that women are playing a significant role in waste management activities, whereas they have the essential responsibility regarding food preparation and house cleaning. Thus, they (mothers or housemaids) are directly engaged in the generation and management of household wastes. Within this context, the cleaning procedures of residential houses, which, in most of them, happen in the first part of the day (morning hours), affect the characteristics of waste as housewives mix wastes produced from house cleaning with food waste and other kinds of garbage in the same container or waste bag. This increases the weight and quantity of waste generated. The information obtained from the questionnaire and observations showed that floors and the courtyards around the houses are cleaned in the morning hours, and the trash is disposed of with other wastes in the same bags or containers. The study demonstrated that 15% of families do cleaning between 5.00 and 6.00 a.m., while 60% of households clean their houses between 7.00 and 10.00 a.m., and the rest of households (25%) demonstrated that the cleaning activities do not happen at a specific time during the day. Notwithstanding, as indicated by data from the study respondents, many families retrieve glass jars and plastic bottles and by keeping them for reuse, sell, or give away to waste pickers. Figure 7 illustrates how responding households in Homs city handle recyclable materials in the waste stream they generate. As shown in Figure 7, 31% of the respondents (93 households) kept the recyclable materials for their utilization, and 15% of the respondents (45 households) showed that they give these materials to waste pickers, while 19% of the respondents (57 households) indicated that they sell the recyclables, and finally, 35% of the respondent families (105 households) mix the recyclable materials with other materials of the waste stream in the same container or plastic bag. A chi-square test was carried out to define the degree of association between residential districts and dealing with recyclable materials. As shown in Table 8, there is no strong statistically significant relationship between the two variables, X2 (9, N = 300) = 10.826, P > 0.05. Waste separation at the source (at the family level) is easier, more straightforward, and effective than the separation at another level (final disposal site). Also, it reduces the separation cost and the pollution of recyclable materials that are sent to the industrial facilities. Therefore, waste separation practices should be explored at the source level. Moreover, it is difficult to detect a real situation in the study areas where families only apply the waste separation for the study period. Thus, dependence must be on the self-behaviour of families in the studied area. 3.5. Results of the Linear Regression Analysis The regression model for waste generation per capita (dependent variable), along with the household size, monthly income, education level, gender, and age of the household head, is presented in Table 9. The results indicated that adjusted R2 = 0.557, meaning 55.7% of the variance of the waste generation per capita could be explained by independent variables included in the model. The independent variables in the model, namely, household size, monthly income, education level, gender, and age of the household head, were significant as suggested by the t-test. Moreover, the F value of the model suggests that the estimated model is significant (F = 76.262, P < 0.01). According to the results, while holding other factors constant, a 1% increase in the monthly income of households contributed to a 0.04% increase in per capita waste generation, whilst a 1% increase in the number of household members contributed to a 0.009% increase in per capita waste generation. Also, a 1% increase in the age of households contributed to a 0.012% increase in per capita waste generation. On the contrary, a 1% increase in the education level of the household head resulted in a 0.035% decrease in per capita waste generation with other factors constant. The composition of waste can also be modelled with the socioeconomic variables of the households in order to understand the relationships. Studying these relationships is useful in planning waste collection and disposal methods. The regression analysis was used to model the daily quantity of both organic and packaging wastes (paper and cardboard, plastic, glass, textile, and metal). The regression model for daily household organic waste (dependent variable), along with the household size, monthly income, education level, gender, and age of the household head, is presented in Table 10. The results indicated that adjusted R2 = 0.839, meaning 83.9% of the variance of the daily household organic waste generation could be explained by independent variables included in the model. The independent variables in the model, namely, household size, monthly income, education level, and age of the household head, were significant as suggested by the t-test. Moreover, the F value of the model suggests that the estimated model is significant (F = 313.338, P < 0.01). According to the results, while holding other factors constant, a 1% increase in the monthly income of households contributed to a 0.098% increase in daily organic waste generation, whilst a 1% increase in the number of household members contributed to a 1.193% increase in daily organic waste generation. Also, a 1% increase in the age of households contributed to a 0.122% increase in daily organic waste generation. On the contrary, a 1% increase in the education level of the household head resulted in a 0.295% decrease in daily organic waste generation with other factors constant. The regression model for daily household packaging waste (dependent variable), along with the household size, monthly income, education level, gender, and age of the household head, is presented in Table 11. The results indicated that adjusted R2 = 0.709, meaning 70.9% of the variance of the daily household packaging waste generation could be explained by independent variables included in the model. The independent variables in the model, namely, household size, monthly income, education level, and age of the household head, were significant as suggested by the t-test. Moreover, the F value of the model suggests that the estimated model is significant (F = 146.983, P < 0.01). According to the results, while holding other factors constant, a 1% increase in the monthly income of households contributed to a 0.09% increase in daily packaging waste generation, whilst a 1% increase in the number of household members contributed to a 0.331% increase in daily packaging waste generation. Also, a 1% increase in the age of households contributed to a 0.031% increase in daily packaging waste generation. On the contrary, a 1% increase in the education level of the household head resulted in a 0.081% decrease in daily packaging waste generation with other factors constant. 4. Conclusions The study is an initial step to understand the household waste characteristics before starting to consider introducing a new strategy for waste management in Homs city. Characterization and quantification of household wastes play a significant role in estimating material recovery potential and determining sources of generation, treatment methods, and final disposal ways. The study outcomes, which serve as a reliable database, could be helpful for the environmental planners and decision makers in their strategies for dealing with solid waste in Homs city. In this context, the dominance of the organic fraction and recyclable materials on the waste mixture in Homs city illustrates that composting and recycling are the preferred methods for handling the generated waste. Moreover, part of the waste management costs can be recovered by selling recyclables and compost, and at the same time, the challenges (public health and environmental) of uncontrolled dumping can be mitigated by lessening the amount of the waste transferred to the final disposal sites. Like any other city in developing countries, Homs city is witnessing an increase in the amount of waste generated, but there is a lack of necessary information, infrastructure, and resources to establish an effective waste management strategy. Socioeconomic factors are key factors in behavioural studies, and the focus was on households among other groups of waste generators because, in Syrian cities, they are contributors to about 80% of the entire municipal waste generation. Looking at the socioeconomic factors, this research concluded that family size, monthly income, education level, gender of the household head, and age of the household head are significant factors to predict solid waste generation and composition trends. It is essential to promote the involvement of local NGOs (besides the local authorities) in working on various environmental awareness programs to convince the population that the solid waste problem can be converted from an obstacle to an extra income source through separation at the source (household level). Moreover, there is an urgent need to collect accurate data on the quantities, characteristics, and types of waste generated in Syrian cities. The national government should establish a national database on waste and also support local authorities to carry out regular research studies to provide accurate data on the waste problems within their jurisdictions to facilitate waste planning and management. Acknowledgments The authors would like to express their thanks to College of Environment and Ecology, Chongqing University, Chongqing City, China, and Faculty of Civil Engineering, Al-Baath University, Homs City, Syria, for their collaboration. Data Availability The datasets, used and/or analyzed during this study, are available from the corresponding author upon a justified request. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Authors' Contributions M. N. conceived and designed the study, reviewed outputs, defined key conclusions, and contributed to key inputs. M. N. and L. Y. prepared and revised the manuscript. Z. M. and S. A. reviewed and edited the paper. Supplementary Materials Supplementary Materials The supplementary materials file includes data obtained from the survey and waste characteristics study and later were inserted in SPSS to perform some statistical tests. Data collected include the demographic characteristics of the respondent households (household size, monthly income, gender, and education level) as well as their answers on questions about waste management practices applied at the household level. Besides, the file includes raw data obtained from field measurements (per capita waste generation and waste composition of each household) in order to determine the characteristics of household waste in Homs city, Syria. Click here for additional data file. Figure 1 The geographical location of Homs city [49]. Figure 2 The relationship between family size and per capita waste generation. Figure 3 The relationship between family income and per capita waste generation. Figure 4 The relationship between education level and per capita waste generation. Figure 5 The relationship between gender and per capita waste generation. Figure 6 The relationship between the age of the household head and per capita waste generation. Figure 7 Dealing with recyclable materials in Homs neighbourhoods. Table 1 Household selection for the study. Area Neighbourhoods Number of participants Family size Residential status Zone 1 Al Sabil, Al-Muhajirin, Al Abbasiah, Al Zahra, and Al Arman 75 6.10 Low-income areas Zone 2 Wadi Aldahab, New Akrama, Karam el-Zeitoun, and Karam el-Looz 75 6.15 Lower-middle-income areas Zone 3 Al Inshaat, Al-Mahatta, and Al-Shammas 75 5.95 Upper-middle-income areas Zone 4 Al-Ghouta and Al Boughtassia 75 5.90 High-income areas Table 2 Socioeconomic characteristics of the responding households.   Frequency Percentage (%) Gender of the household head      Male 179 59.67  Female 121 40.33 Age of the household head      18–30 43 14.30  31–45 100 33.33  46–60 122 40.70  >60 35 11.67 Family size (individual)      1–3 44 14.67  4–6 135 45.00  >6 121 40.33 Education level of the household head      Elementary school 19 6.33  Junior high or middle school 34 11.33  High school 103 34.33  College/institute 129 43.00  Postgraduate 15 5.00 Monthly income (SYP)      <50,000 9 3.00  50,000–100,000 135 45.00  100,000–150,000 108 36.00  150,000–200,000 42 14.00  >200,000 6 2.00 1 USD = 438 SYP [57]. Table 3 Average daily waste generation per capita in Homs neighbourhoods.   Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Total Waste generation per capita (kg/per/day) 0.61 0.67 0.72 0.74 0.68 Table 4 ANOVA test results for spatial variation in waste generation per capita.   Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Between groups 0.749 3 0.250 40.079 0.000 Within groups 1.844 296 0.006     Total 2.592 299       Table 5 Household solid waste composition in studied zones of Homs neighbourhoods.   Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Average (%) Organic waste (%) 72.10 71.00 66.95 66.35 69.10 Plastic (%) 8.10 9.50 12.20 12.60 10.60 Inert materials (%) 9.00 8.70 8.60 8.50 8.70 Paper (%) 3.60 4.00 5.20 5.60 4.60 Textile (%) 2.60 2.40 2.55 2.45 2.50 Metal (%) 1.30 1.20 1.15 1.15 1.20 Glass (%) 1.10 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.10 Wood (%) 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Hazardous materials (%) 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 Table 6 ANOVA test results for spatial variation in waste composition.     Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Organic Between groups 7.365 3 2.455 1.798 0.148 Within groups 404.148 296 1.365     Total 411.513 299       Plastic Between groups 3.649 3 1.216 32.561 0.000 Within groups 11.058 296 0.037     Total 14.707 299       Inert materials Between groups 0.148 3 0.049 2.263 0.081 Within groups 6.453 296 0.022     Total 6.601 299       Paper Between groups 0.698 3 0.233 33.210 0.000 Within groups 2.074 296 0.007     Total 2.772 299       Textile Between groups 0.016 3 0.005 3.012 0.030 Within groups 0.536 296 0.002     Total 0.552 299       Metal Between groups 0.001 3 0.000 0.683 0.563 Within groups 0.120 296 0.000     Total 0.121 299       Glass Between groups 0.007 3 0.002 5.808 0.001 Within groups 0.111 296 0.000     Total 0.117 299       Wood Between groups 0.001 3 0.000 3.915 0.009 Within groups 0.031 296 0.000     Total 0.032 299       Hazardous materials Between groups 0.009 3 0.003 3.915 0.009 Within groups 0.221 296 0.001     Total 0.230 299       Table 7 Waste composition (%) in developing countries. Area Organic Paper Plastic Glass Metal Others Source Phnom Penh/Cambodia 63.3 6.4 15.5 1.2 0.6 13.0 [68] Mekong Delta/Vietnam 80.0 4.7 6.3–7.1 0.7–1.0 0.5–0.7 0.9–1.4 [32] Bangkok/Thailand 43.0 12.1 10.9 6.6 3.5 23.9 [69] Bahrain/Bahrain Kingdom 59.6 9.9 13.4 5.5 3.4 9.2 [70] Baghdad/Iraq 70.0 5.0 5.3 2.2 2.2 15.3 [71] Amman/Jordan 54.4 14 13.2 2.8 2.4 13.2 [72] Abadan/Iran 66.9 11.2 14.3 2.8 1.35 3.45 [73] Chittagong/Bangladesh 62.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 9.0 3.0 [38] Kathmandu/Nepal 71.0 7.5 12.0 1.3 0.5 7.9 [58] Lagos/Nigeria 68.0 10.0 7.0 4.0 3.0 8 [74] Cape Haitian/Haiti 65.5 9.0 9.2 5.8 2.6 7.9 [30] Bhutan 62.2 15.2 13.1 2.7 0.7 6.1 [61] Chihuahua/Mexico 48.0 16.1 11.9 5.9 2.4 16.0 [64] Ghana 61.0 5.0 14.0 3.0 3.0 14.0 [19] Nablus/Palestine 65.1 9.1 7.6 2.9 2.8 5.4 [33] Moratuwa/Sri Lanka 90.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 — [75] Allahabad/India 45.3 4.69 2.86 0.73 2.54 43.88 [76] Portugal 35.5 25.9 11.5 5.4 2.6 19.1 [34] Kraków/Poland 36.2 19.9 14.4 7.8 2.9 18.8 [77] Castellón de la Plana/Spain 57.0 15.0 10.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 [78] London, Ontario/Canada 30.0 32.0 10.0 6.0 3.0 19.0 [79] Table 8 Chi-square test result for the relationship between dealing with recyclable materials and residential districts.   Value df Asymptotic significance (2-sided) Pearson chi-square 10.826 9 0.288 Likelihood ratio 11.097 9 0.269 Linear-by-linear association 0.373 1 0.542 Number of valid cases 300     Table 9 Per capita waste generation model. Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig. B Std. error Beta Constant 0.608 0.034   18.094 0.000∗∗∗ Gender 0.022 0.007 0.118 3.027 0.003∗∗∗ Education level −0.035 0.005 −0.357 −6.826 0.000∗∗∗ Monthly income 0.040 0.005 0.356 7.692 0.000∗∗∗ Household size 0.009 0.006 0.070 1.519 0.013∗∗ Age 0.012 0.006 0.116 2.172 0.031∗∗ ∗ P < 0.1, ∗∗P < 0.05, and ∗∗∗P < 0.01, significant level; adjusted R2 value = 0.557; F value = 76.262, P < 0.01. Table 10 Daily organic waste generation model. Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig. B Std. error Beta Constant 0.526 0.255   2.064 0.040∗∗ Gender 0.058 0.056 0.024 1.034 0.302 Education level −0.295 0.039 −0.241 −7.639 0.000∗∗∗ Monthly income 0.098 0.040 0.069 2.477 0.014∗∗ Household size 1.193 0.047 0.709 25.562 0.000∗∗∗ Age 0.122 0.043 0.092 2.838 0.005∗∗∗ ∗∗ P < 0.1, ∗∗P < 0.05, and ∗∗∗P < 0.01, significant level; adjusted R2 value = 0.839; F value = 313.338, P < 0.01. Table 11 Daily packaging waste generation model. Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig. B Std. error Beta Constant −0.125 0.116   −1.086 0.279 Gender 0.112 0.025 0.139 4.403 0.000∗∗∗ Education level −.081 0.018 −.195 −4.595 0.000∗∗∗ Monthly income 0.090 0.018 0.188 5.016 0.000∗∗∗ Household size 0.331 0.021 0.582 15.624 0.000∗∗∗ Age 0.031 0.020 0.070 1.608 0.100∗∗ ∗∗ P < 0.01, ∗∗P < 0.05, and ∗∗∗P < 0.01, significant level; adjusted R2 value = 0.709; F value = 146.983, P < 0.01. ==== Refs 1 Afroz R. Hanaki K. Tudin R. Factors affecting waste generation: a study in a waste management program in Dhaka City, Bangladesh Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2011 179 1–4 509 519 10.1007/s10661-010-1753-4 2-s2.0-79960423799 21046234 2 Ahmed S. A. Ali M. Partnerships for solid waste management in developing countries: linking theories to realities Habitat International 2004 28 3 467 479 10.1016/s0197-3975(03)00044-4 2-s2.0-2542466111 3 Wilson D. C. Rodic L. Scheinberg A. Velis C. A. Alabaster G. Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities Waste Management & Research 2012 30 3 237 254 10.1177/0734242x12437569 2-s2.0-84858419879 22407700 4 Lederer J. Ongatai A. Odeda D. Rashid H. Otim S. Nabaasa M. The generation of stakeholder’s knowledge for solid waste management planning through action research: a case study from Busia, Uganda Habitat International 2015 50 99 109 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.08.015 2-s2.0-84940179263 5 Scheinberg A. Wilson D. C. Rodic-Wiersma L. Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities 2010 London, UK UN Habitat-Earthscan 6 Henry R. K. Yongsheng Z. Jun D. Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries - Kenyan case study Waste Management 2006 26 1 92 100 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.03.007 2-s2.0-27744584026 16006111 7 Wilson D. C. Development drivers for waste management Waste Management & Research 2007 25 3 198 207 10.1177/0734242x07079149 2-s2.0-34249693070 17612318 8 Nemerow N. L. Agardy F. J. Salvato J. A. Environmental Engineering: Environmental Health and Safety for Municipal Infrastructure, Land Use and Planning, and Industry 2009 Hoboken, NJ, USA John Wiley & Sons 9 Marshall R. E. Farahbakhsh K. Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in developing countries Waste Management 2013 33 4 988 1003 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.023 2-s2.0-84875804038 23360772 10 Zorpas A. A. Lasaridi K. Voukkali I. Loizia P. Chroni C. Household waste compositional analysis variation from insular communities in the framework of waste prevention strategy plans Waste Management 2015 38 3 11 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.030 2-s2.0-84933677617 25690412 11 Cao R. Wang H. Research on the pollution hazard of municipal solid waste in china and its prevention and control legal countermeasures Nature Environment & Pollution Technology 2017 16 2 12 Babayemi J. Dauda K. Evaluation of solid waste generation, categories and disposal options in developing countries: a case study of Nigeria Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management 2009 13 3 13 Adeniran A. E. Nubi A. T. Adelopo A. O. Solid waste generation and characterization in the University of Lagos for a sustainable waste management Waste Management 2017 67 3 10 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.002 2-s2.0-85019397614 28532622 14 Aleluia J. Ferrão P. Characterization of urban waste management practices in developing Asian countries: a new analytical framework based on waste characteristics and urban dimension Waste Management 2016 58 415 429 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.008 2-s2.0-84969509076 27220609 15 De Vega C. A. Benítez S. O. Barreto M. E. R. Solid waste characterization and recycling potential for a university campus Waste Management 2008 28 S21 S26 18572396 16 Edjabou M. E. Jensen M. B. Götze R. Municipal solid waste composition: sampling methodology, statistical analyses, and case study evaluation Waste Management 2015 36 12 23 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.11.009 2-s2.0-84921434000 25483613 17 Gallardo A. Edo-Alcón N. Carlos M. Renau M. The determination of waste generation and composition as an essential tool to improve the waste management plan of a university Waste Management 2016 53 3 11 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.04.013 2-s2.0-84981765539 27107706 18 Khan D. Kumar A. Samadder S. R. Impact of socioeconomic status on municipal solid waste generation rate Waste Management 2016 49 15 25 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.019 2-s2.0-84979464603 26831564 19 Miezah K. Obiri-Danso K. Kádár Z. Fei-Baffoe B. Mensah M. Y. Municipal solid waste characterization and quantification as a measure towards effective waste management in Ghana Waste Management 2015 46 15 27 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.009 2-s2.0-84947048450 26421480 20 Trang P. T. T. Dong H. Q. Toan D. Q. Hanh N. T. X. Thu N. T. The effects of socio-economic factors on household solid waste generation and composition: a case study in Thu Dau Mot, Vietnam Energy Procedia 2017 107 253 258 10.1016/j.egypro.2016.12.144 2-s2.0-85015414041 21 Kolekar K. A. Hazra T. Chakrabarty S. N. A review on prediction of municipal solid waste generation models Procedia Environmental Sciences 2016 35 238 244 10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.087 22 Buenrostro O. Bocco G. Vence J. Forecasting generation of urban solid waste in developing countries-A case study in Mexico Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2001 51 1 86 93 10.1080/10473289.2001.10464258 2-s2.0-0035145769 11218430 23 Couth R. Trois C. Waste management activities and carbon emissions in Africa Waste Management 2011 31 1 131 137 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.08.009 2-s2.0-78149357280 20832276 24 Wang W. Wu Y. Succession of contemporary city waste policy and necessity of greeting the waste industry Ecological Economy 2001 10 34 37 25 Buenrostro O. Bocco G. Solid waste management in municipalities in Mexico: goals and perspectives Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2003 39 3 251 263 10.1016/s0921-3449(03)00031-4 2-s2.0-0141626492 26 Pokhrel D. Viraraghavan T. Municipal solid waste management in Nepal: practices and challenges Waste Management 2005 25 5 555 562 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.01.020 2-s2.0-19544366448 15925764 27 Yousuf T. B. Rahman M. Monitoring quantity and characteristics of municipal solid waste in Dhaka City Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2007 135 1 3 11 17503211 28 Burnley S. J. A review of municipal solid waste composition in the United Kingdom Waste Management 2007 27 10 1274 1285 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.06.018 2-s2.0-34547101219 17011771 29 Nas S. S. Bayram A. Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Gümüşhane, Turkey Waste Management 2008 28 12 2435 2442 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.09.039 2-s2.0-54149103306 18054476 30 Philippe F. Culot M. Household solid waste generation and characteristics in Cape Haitian city, Republic of Haiti Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2009 54 2 73 78 10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.06.009 2-s2.0-72049110801 31 Qu X.-y. Li Z.-s. Xie X.-y. Sui Y.-m. Yang L. Chen Y. Survey of composition and generation rate of household wastes in Beijing, China Waste Management 2009 29 10 2618 2624 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.05.014 2-s2.0-68249101042 19540101 32 Thanh N. P. Matsui Y. Fujiwara T. Household solid waste generation and characteristic in a Mekong Delta city, Vietnam Journal of Environmental Management 2010 91 11 2307 2321 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.016 2-s2.0-77955517424 20633978 33 Al-Khatib I. A. Monou M. Abu Zahra A. S. F. Shaheen H. Q. Kassinos D. Solid waste characterization, quantification and management practices in developing countries. A case study: Nablus District-Palestine Journal of Environmental Management 2010 91 5 1131 1138 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.01.003 2-s2.0-77649272165 20116162 34 Magrinho A. Didelet F. Semiao V. Municipal solid waste disposal in Portugal Waste Management 2006 26 12 1477 1489 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.03.009 2-s2.0-33750997285 16713239 35 Monavari S. M. Omrani G. A. Karbassi A. Raof F. F. The effects of socioeconomic parameters on household solid-waste generation and composition in developing countries (a case study: Ahvaz, Iran) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012 184 4 1841 1846 10.1007/s10661-011-2082-y 2-s2.0-84862889899 21713501 36 Sankoh F. P. Yan X. Conteh A. M. H. A situational assessment of socioeconomic factors affecting solid waste generation and composition in Freetown, Sierra Leone Journal of Environmental Protection 2012 3 7 p. 563 37 Senzige J. P. Makinde D. O. Njau K. N. Factors influencing solid waste generation and composition in urban areas of Tanzania: the case of Dar-es-Salaam American Journal of Environmental Protection 2014 3 4 172 178 10.11648/j.ajep.20140304.11 38 Sujauddin M. Huda S. M. S. Hoque A. T. M. R. Household solid waste characteristics and management in Chittagong, Bangladesh Waste Management 2008 28 9 1688 1695 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.06.013 2-s2.0-45849148117 17845843 39 Saeed M. O. Hassan M. N. Mujeebu M. A. Assessment of municipal solid waste generation and recyclable materials potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Waste Management 2009 29 7 2209 2213 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.02.017 2-s2.0-67349140950 19369061 40 Ojeda-Benítez S. Vega C. A.-d. Marquez-Montenegro M. Y. Household solid waste characterization by family socioeconomic profile as unit of analysis Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2008 52 7 992 999 10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.03.004 2-s2.0-43349083759 41 Márquez M. Y. Ojeda S. Hidalgo H. Identification of behavior patterns in household solid waste generation in Mexicali’s city: study case Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2008 52 11 1299 1306 10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.07.011 2-s2.0-53349103052 42 Banar M. Özkan A. Characterization of the municipal solid waste in Eskisehir City, Turkey Environmental Engineering Science 2008 25 8 1213 1220 43 Keser S. Duzgun S. Aksoy A. Application of spatial and non-spatial data analysis in determination of the factors that impact municipal solid waste generation rates in Turkey Waste Management 2012 32 3 359 371 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.017 2-s2.0-84856347762 22104614 44 Kasparek M. Dimashki M. Country Environmental Profile for the Syrian Arab Republic 2009 Brussels, Belgium AGRECO Consortium 45 Noufal M. Maalla Z. Adipah S. Households’ participation in solid waste management system of Homs city, Syria GeoJournal 2020 10.1007/s10708-020-10139-x 46 New-Zealand-Red-Cross Breakdown of Services Increases Suffering in Syria 2015 Wellington, New Zealand New-Zealand-Red-Cross 47 UN-Habitat City Profile Homs 2014 Homs City, Syria Multi Sector Assessment 48 WorldData.info Climate for Homs (Syria) 2019 https://www.worlddata.info/ 49 VOA-News Syrian Army Takes Last IS-held Town in Homs Province 2017 Washington, DC, USA VOA-News 50 Tchobanoglous G. Theisen H. Vigil S. A. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues 1993 New York McGraw-Hill 51 Manly B. F. Statistics for Environmental Science and Management 2008 London, UK Chapman and Hall/CRC 52 Gu B. Wang H. Chen Z. Characterization, quantification and management of household solid waste: a case study in China Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2015 98 67 75 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.03.001 2-s2.0-84961290008 53 Bosire E. Oindo B. Atieno J. V. Modeling Household Solid Waste Generation in Urban Estates Using SocioEconomic and Demographic Data, Kisumu City, Kenya 2017 Kisumu, Kenya Maseno University 54 Tassie Wegedie K. Households solid waste generation and management behavior in case of Bahir dar city, Amhara national regional state, Ethiopia Cogent Environmental Science 2018 4 1 p. 1471025 10.1080/23311843.2018.1471025 55 Tabachnick B. Fidell L. Using Multivariate Statistics 2001 56 Field A. P. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows: Advanced Techniques for the Beginner 2000 Thousand Oaks, CA, USA Sage Publications 57 Central-Bank-of-Syria Foreign Exchange Rates for Transfer 2019 Damascus, Syria Central-Bank-of-Syria 58 Dangi M. B. Pretz C. R. Urynowicz M. A. Gerow K. G. Reddy J. M. Municipal solid waste generation in Kathmandu, Nepal Journal of Environmental Management 2011 92 1 240 249 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.09.005 2-s2.0-77957812437 20880627 59 Afon A. O. Okewole A. Estimating the quantity of solid waste generation in Oyo, Nigeria Waste Management & Research 2007 25 4 371 379 10.1177/0734242x07078286 2-s2.0-34547855129 17874664 60 Bennagen M. E. C. Altez V. Impacts of Units Pricing of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal in Olongapo City, Philippines 2004 Singapore EEPSEA, IDRC Regional Office for Southeast and East Asia 61 Phuntsho S. Dulal I. Yangden D. Studying municipal solid waste generation and composition in the urban areas of Bhutan Waste Management & Research 2010 28 6 545 551 10.1177/0734242x09343118 2-s2.0-77953019357 19837708 62 Guermoud N. Ouadjnia F. Abdelmalek F. Taleb F. addou A. Municipal solid waste in Mostaganem city (Western Algeria) Waste Management 2009 29 2 896 902 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.03.027 2-s2.0-56749179152 18644707 63 Ogwueleka T. C. Survey of household waste composition and quantities in Abuja, Nigeria Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2013 77 52 60 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.05.011 2-s2.0-84879664690 64 Gomez G. Meneses M. Ballinas L. Castells F. Characterization of urban solid waste in Chihuahua, Mexico Waste Management 2008 28 12 2465 2471 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.10.023 2-s2.0-54149086166 18248808 65 Eurostat Municipal Waste Statistics 2018 Luxembourg City, Luxembourg Eurostat 66 Hoornweg D. Bhada-Tata P. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management 2012 Washington, DC, USA World Bank 67 Enayetullah I. Sinha A. M. M. Khan S. S. A. Urban Solid Waste Management Scenario of Bangladesh: Problems and Prospects 2005 Dhaka, Bangladesh Waste Concern 68 Seng B. Kaneko H. Hirayama K. Municipal solid waste management in Phnom Penh, capital city of Cambodia Waste Management & Research 2011 29 5 491 500 20813763 69 Chiemchaisri C. Juanga J. Visvanathan C. Municipal solid waste management in Thailand and disposal emission inventory Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2007 135 1–3 13 20 10.1007/s10661-007-9707-1 2-s2.0-36248971596 17492361 70 Al Sabbagh M. K. Velis C. A. Wilson D. C. Cheeseman C. R. Resource management performance in Bahrain: a systematic analysis of municipal waste management, secondary material flows and organizational aspects Waste Management & Research 2012 30 8 813 824 10.1177/0734242x12441962 2-s2.0-84864740526 22584268 71 Ayad S. M. Ahmed A. M. Layth N. A. “Management of municipal solid waste in Baghdad, Iraq,” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Environmental and Ecological Engineering 2017 11 7 72 Qdais H. A. Techno-economic assessment of municipal solid waste management in Jordan Waste Management 2007 27 11 1666 1672 17049834 73 Babaei A. A. Alavi N. Goudarzi G. Teymouri P. Ahmadi K. Rafiee M. Household recycling knowledge, attitudes and practices towards solid waste management Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2015 102 94 100 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.014 2-s2.0-84938117978 74 Kofoworola O. F. Recovery and recycling practices in municipal solid waste management in Lagos, Nigeria Waste Management 2007 27 9 1139 1143 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.05.006 2-s2.0-34250785521 16904308 75 Bandara N. J. Hettiaratchi J. P. A. Environmental impacts with waste disposal practices in a suburban municipality in Sri Lanka International Journal of Environment and Waste Management 2010 6 1-2 107 116 10.1504/ijewm.2010.033987 2-s2.0-77954449238 76 Sharholy M. Ahmad K. Vaishya R. C. Gupta R. D. Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Allahabad, India Waste Management 2007 27 4 490 496 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.03.001 2-s2.0-33846213980 16766176 77 Stypka T. Flaga-Maryańczyk A. Comparative analysis of municipal solid waste systems: Cracow case study Environment Protection Engineering 2013 39 4 78 Bovea M. D. Ibáñez-Forés V. Gallardo A. Colomer-Mendoza F. J. Environmental assessment of alternative municipal solid waste management strategies. A Spanish case study Waste Management 2010 30 11 2383 2395 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.03.001 2-s2.0-77957750471 20381331 79 Asase M. Yanful E. K. Mensah M. Stanford J. Amponsah S. Comparison of municipal solid waste management systems in Canada and Ghana: a case study of the cities of London, Ontario, and Kumasi, Ghana Waste Management 2009 29 10 2779 2786 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.06.019 2-s2.0-68049108238 19615883 80 Hong S. The effects of unit pricing system upon household solid waste management: the Korean experience Journal of Environmental Management 1999 57 1 1 10 10.1006/jema.1999.0286 2-s2.0-0032858170 81 Vidanaarachchi C. K. Yuen S. T. S. Pilapitiya S. Municipal solid waste management in the Southern Province of Sri Lanka: problems, issues and challenges Waste Management 2006 26 8 920 930 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.09.013 2-s2.0-33745197301 16298122 82 Bandara N. J. Hettiaratchi J. P. A. Wirasinghe S. Relation of waste generation and composition to socio-economic factors: a case study Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2007 135 1–3 31 39 10.1007/s10661-007-9705-3 2-s2.0-36248959668 17450419 83 Sivakumar K. Sugirtharan M. Impact of family income and size on per capita solid waste generation: a case study in Manmunai North Divisional Secretariat Division of Batticaloa Journal of Science, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka 2010 5 13 23 84 Afroz R. Tudin R. Hanaki K. Masud M. M. Selected socio-economic factors affecting the willingness to minimise solid waste in Dhaka city, Bangladesh Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2011 54 6 711 731 10.1080/09640568.2010.527472 2-s2.0-79959499152 85 Haider I. Haider M. Badami M. Household solid waste generation in urban Pakistan: a case study of Rawalpindi pakistan Journal of Urban Affairs 2013 1 6 3 22 86 Suthar S. Singh P. Household solid waste generation and composition in different family size and socio-economic groups: a case study Sustainable Cities and Society 2015 14 56 63 10.1016/j.scs.2014.07.004 2-s2.0-84926322343 87 Irwan D. Basri N. Watanabe K. Interrelationship between affluence and household size on municipal solid waste arising: evidence from selected residential areas of putrajaya Journal of Asian Scientific Research 2012 2 11 p. 747 88 Kayode A. Omole F. Some socio-economic factors affecting solid wastes generation and disposal in Ibadan metropolis, Nigeria Journal of Environmental Issues and Agriculture in Developing Countries 2011 3 1 55 64 89 Parizeau K. Maclaren V. Chanthy L. Waste characterization as an element of waste management planning: lessons learned from a study in Siem Reap, Cambodia Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2006 49 2 110 128 10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.03.006 2-s2.0-33749613155 90 Beigl P. Lebersorger S. Salhofer S. Modelling municipal solid waste generation: a review Waste Management 2008 28 1 200 214 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.12.011 2-s2.0-35548989352 17336051 91 Bolaane B. Ali M. Sampling household waste at source: lessons learnt in Gaborone Waste Management & Research 2004 22 3 142 148 10.1177/0734242x04044970 2-s2.0-3042811853 15253497 92 Zhu D. Asnani P. Zurbrugg C. Improving Municipal Solid Waste Management in India: A Sourcebook for Policymakers and Practitioners 2007 Washington, DC, USA The World Bank 93 Medina M. The effect of income on municipal solid waste generation rates for countries of varying levels of economic development: a model Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management 1997 24 3 94 Dennison G. J. Dodd V. A. Whelan B. A socio-economic based survey of household waste characteristics in the city of Dublin, Ireland. I. Waste composition Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1996 17 3 227 244 10.1016/0921-3449(96)01070-1 2-s2.0-0030222665 95 Visvanathan C. Trankler J. Municipal solid waste management in Asia: a comparative analysis Workshop on Sustainable Landfill Management 2003 3 15 96 Ojedabenitez S. Armijodevega C. Ramirezbarreto M. Characterization and quantification of household solid wastes in a Mexican city Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2003 39 3 211 222 10.1016/s0921-3449(03)00028-4 2-s2.0-0141738356 97 Grazhdani D. Assessing the variables affecting on the rate of solid waste generation and recycling: an empirical analysis in Prespa Park Waste Management 2016 48 3 13 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.028 2-s2.0-84952981079 26482808 98 Ramachandra T. V. Bharath H. A. Kulkarni G. Han S. S. Municipal solid waste: generation, composition and GHG emissions in Bangalore, India Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018 82 1122 1136 10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.085 2-s2.0-85030859488 99 Benítez S. O. Lozano-Olvera G. Morelos R. A. Vega C. A. d. Mathematical modeling to predict residential solid waste generation Waste Management 2008 28 S7 S13 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.03.020 2-s2.0-47649107692 18583125 100 Oribe-Garcia I. Kamara-Esteban O. Martin C. Macarulla-Arenaza A. M. Alonso-Vicario A. Identification of influencing municipal characteristics regarding household waste generation and their forecasting ability in Biscay Waste Management 2015 39 26 34 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.02.017 2-s2.0-84928051092 25769537 101 Dalen H. M. Halvorsen B. Gender Differences in Environmental Related Behaviour 2011 Oslo, Norway Statistics Norway 102 Bartelings H. Sterner T. Household waste management in a Swedish municipality: determinants of waste disposal, recycling and composting Environmental and Resource Economics 1999 13 4 473 491 10.1023/a:1008214417099 2-s2.0-0032906817 103 OECD Greening Household Behaviour 2014 Paris, France OECD 104 Soukopová J. Struk M. Hřebíček J. Population age structure and the cost of municipal waste collection. A case study from the Czech Republic Journal of Environmental Management 2017 203 655 663 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.03.030 2-s2.0-84962374857 27068276 105 Talalaj I. A. Walery M. The effect of gender and age structure on municipal waste generation in Poland Waste Management 2015 40 3 8 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.03.020 2-s2.0-84928695401 25843355 106 Lebersorger S. Beigl P. Municipal solid waste generation in municipalities: quantifying impacts of household structure, commercial waste and domestic fuel Waste Management 2011 31 9-10 1907 1915 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.05.016 2-s2.0-79960953003 21689921