Philippine Journal of Science

148 (1): 73-97, March 2019

ISSN 0031 - 7683
Date Received: 02 Aug 2018

Synergy in the Urban Solid Waste Management

System in Malolos City, Philippines

Marion Micah R. Tinio1*, Analiza P. Rollon2, and Tolentino B. Moya3

1Department of Geography, University of the Philippines Diliman,

Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
2Department of Chemical Engineering, University of the Philippines Diliman,

Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

3Institute of Environmental Science and Meteorology,

University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

The paper demonstrates through system dynamics modelling how the following variables
work together in the urban solid waste management (USWM) system: population, city income,
public participation, composting and recycling, and greenhouse gas emissions. Malolos City,
Philippines, is used as a case study for three ten-year model scenarios: (1) USWM with no
composting and recycling, (2) USWM with an operational materials recovery and composting
facility (MRCF), and (3) USWM with operational MRCF and incorporated effects of public
participation towards solid waste management practices. The operation of the MRCF in
Scenario 2 reduced total volume of disposed solid waste by about 25,000 tons but increased
total expenses for solid waste management by about Php 37M. The incorporation of the effects
of public participation in Scenario 3 further reduced the volume of disposed solid waste by
about 103,900 tons; reduced the volume of generated solid waste by around 101,000 tons; and
allowed the informal collection of 9,966 tons of recyclables. Estimates of CH4 and CO2 emissions
also decreased in Scenario 3. The results revealed how composting and recycling and public
participation affects the USWM through reduced waste volumes and increased savings.

Key words: system dynamics, urban solid waste

INTRODUCTION primarily on collection and removal services: source

collection, transport, and disposal (Wilson 2007).
Solid waste affects land, water, and air; it also has implications
Collection and removal services constitute 80–95% of
to human health. In 2050, it is anticipated that two-thirds of
total city SWM budget (Guerrero et al. 2013).
global population will live in cities (UN 2013). With growing
population and continuous urbanization, waste generation is Environmental quality suffers due to unsustainable solid
projected to increase – waste in Asia alone is estimated to waste management practices (Chandrappa and Das 2012,
reach 1B tons by 2030 (Okumura et al. 2013). Chiemchaisri et al. 2007). Activities in waste storage,
collection, transfer and transport, recycling and composting,
Solid waste management systems (SWMS) in developing
and final disposal have impacts toward the air, water, and
cities are dominantly characterized by mixed collection,
land. Chandrappa and Das (2012) present a comprehensive
minimal recycling, and uncontrolled final disposal (UN
summary of the environmental impacts of different stages
Habitat 2010). SWMS in developing cities also focus
of waste management. The current solid waste management
*Corresponding author: mmrtinio@[Link]
system in the Philippines contributes to human-induced

73
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

greenhouse gas emissions – 11% of national total according The synergy is characterized through exploring the
to the Climate Change Commission of the Philippines (2010) intersections of economy, environment, and society in
– and to water pollution [e.g., solid waste accounts for 7% of the USWM (Figure 1).
total Pasig River water pollution according to Gorme et al.
(2010)]. Public spaces with unmanaged waste are breeding An ecological solid waste management system (ESWMS)
grounds for disease vectors (e.g., Hoornweg & Bhada-tata considers societal influences, primary of which are
2012). The environmental risks of solid waste management population and existing laws. The characteristics of the
can cause health risks (Bridges et al. 2000, Gorme et al. population, also influenced by current economy, affects
2010, Mor et al. 2006). The current model is limited in that waste generation and composition. Developing cities
it measures environmental quality using greenhouse gas
emissions only.
The complexity of solid waste management problems has
stimulated interest in studies using different quantitative
and qualitative approaches, particularly in system
dynamics modeling (SDM). The SDM approach has
been used to study fast-growing urban centers both in
developed (e.g., Dyson and Chang 2005) and developing
(e.g., Guzman et al. 2010) regions because through SDM,
interactions among a variety of factors can be explored
even with data scarcity issues (Dyson and Chang 2005).

Municipal Solid Waste Management in the Philippines

Average per capita waste generation in cities and provincial
capitals in the Philippines is 0.50 kg/cap/day (NSWMC 2015).
Municipal solid waste is composed of 52.31% biodegradables,
27.78% recyclables, 17.98% residual waste, and 1.93% special
waste (NSWMC 2015). The Philippine law Republic Act 9003
or the “Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000” Figure 1. Conceptual framework of an ecological solid waste
management system.
envisions a “systematic, comprehensive, and ecological solid
waste management program.” City governments are only
mandated to collect non-recyclable materials and special experience increasing waste generation due high population
wastes; however, because of budget constraints, the City growth, improving living standards, and changing activities
Government of Malolos provides financial assistance to (e.g., Dyson and Chang 2005, Sufian and Bala 2007, Tanaka
barangays struggling to perform mandated responsibilities. 2007). Institutional and commercial centers generate mostly
plastic and paper waste (e.g., Al-Salem et al. 2009), while
Solid waste management research in the Philippines covers residential centers generate mostly food and yard waste
technical and socio-demographic themes, including: (e.g., Guzman et al. 2010). Different waste generation and
compliance with laws and ordinances (e.g., Bernardo 2008, composition scenarios affect the environment differently.
Irene 2014, Premakumara et al. 2014); implementation of Laws and institutions set rules about solid waste and public
low-cost technologies for composting and recycling (e.g., participation in USWM. For example, providing markets for
Paul et al. 2012); and assessment of knowledge, attitudes, compost and recyclables will likely encourage composting
and practices of citizens and officials (e.g., Del Mundo et and recycling. Changes in regulations for manufacturing
al. 2009, Macawile and Su 2009, Tatlonghari and Jamias e.g., packaging standards, will change composition and
2010). System dynamics modelling can incorporate the volume of generated waste.
interrelated themes of solid waste management, but only a
few studies in the Philippine context have been undertaken Urban environmental quality can be measured using
(e.g., Guzman et al. 2010). indicators for water, land, soil, and air. The model
uses primary greenhouse gases – CH4, CO2, and N2O
– to measure environmental quality in different waste
Conceptual Framework
management scenarios. Urban economy is complex, so
T h e p a p e r d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e s y n e rg y i n t h e
the model uses city budget plus capital and operation costs
interrelationships among solid waste management,
and benefits to demonstrate economic affordability of the
population, city budget, environmental quality (measured
ESWMS. An efficient waste infrastructure system (e.g.,
in greenhouse gas emissions), marketability of recovered
collection equipment, disposal and recovery facilities,
waste, and public participation (of waste generators).

74
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

roads) needs capital investment – thus, its implementation and Farahbakhsh 2013, Wilson et al. 2012). Four final
would be impossible without sufficient financial budget. destinations are possible for solid waste in the current
Waste management costs and benefits, however, are not waste management system: informal collection, waste
contained to the economy – these also have societal and diversion, waste disposal, or unmanaged waste.
environmental impacts. Recycling can give additional
income to the community, inducing public participation Households are assumed to perfectly segregate generated
while diverting waste from direct disposal. waste according to composition: recyclables, compostables,
residuals, and special waste. When a barangay is unable
An ESWMS, similar to the integrated solid waste management to manage solid waste, the City is relayed with the
system (ISWMS) of Tammemagi (1999), seeks to “maximize responsibility to collect all generated waste. Special
the useful life of the resources” (Tammemagi 1999) and waste is directly brought to the disposal site; the rest
satisfy environmental effectiveness, social acceptability, and undergoes the whole waste management system. City
economic affordability (Marshall and Farahbakhsh 2013). waste collection is the process in which the city formally
collects generated waste. Remaining material after city
The participation of waste generators is an evidence of the waste collection either becomes unmanaged waste (litter)
social acceptability and behavior change towards ESWMS or managed when waste generators participate in SWM.
(e.g., Rahardyan et al. 2004, Shaw and Maynard 2008), Collection ability and public participation (in Scenario 3
reducing waste generation and increasing the possibility only) influences waste collection. Remaining uncollected
of proper waste segregation, waste recovery (e.g., Dyson waste becomes unmanaged solid waste (which represents
and Chang 2005, Jacobi 2002, Lavee 2007) and waste litter). Collected waste is brought to the final disposal site,
disposal (e.g., Troschinetz and Mihelcic 2009). unless it is diverted by another waste intervention – the
current model uses a Materials Recovery and Composting
Facility (MRCF) for waste diversion. The MRCF consists
of the composting and recycling elements of the urban
MATERIALS AND METHODS SWMS. Both composting and recycling practices have
four stages: collection, processing, production, and sale.
System Dynamics Model Waste is brought to the MRCF only if the MRCF is
Flow of solid waste material. Figure 2 illustrates the operational and funding is sufficient for current expenses;
framework of Philippine urban solid waste management otherwise, waste is directly brought to the final disposal
based on various literature (EcoGov 2011, Guerrero et site. Waste is only considered “diverted” when it is
al. 2013, Guzman et al. 2010, Magalang 2014, Marshall converted into either compost or processed recyclables.

Figure 2. Framework of solid waste generation and management.

75
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Informal collection is the volume of recyclable solid expenses outflowi = respective expenses formula
waste collected by door-to-door collectors – active for i SWM item
only in Scenario 3. Recyclable waste that is collected
informally is considered diverted from waste disposal. Public participation. The current model defines public
Waste disposal consists of: (1) collected waste that has participation as the involvement of waste generators in
been directly disposed; (2) residual from composting and different stages of waste management. The activated
recycling processes (assumed 1% of the material that is participation of waste generators in Scenario 3 is
processed); and (3) waste transported to the MRCF but expected to (1) reduce per capita waste generation
was not converted to compost and processed recyclables. rate, (2) activate participation of waste generators with
The current model assumed that the city disposal site is a informal collectors of recyclables, (3) add value to
semi-aerobic managed solid waste disposal site (described collection ability for formal waste collection, (4) activate
in IPCC 2006). management of waste generators of waste uncollected
by the city, and, (5) add value to the marketability of
Four sets of emissions were estimated: (1) CH4 emission from recovered waste. The effect of public participation
disposed waste; (2) CH4 emission from biodegradation of converter (Table 3) encapsulates the additional effects
compostable fraction of unmanaged waste; (3) N2O emission of the participation of waste generators.
from composting; and (4) CO2 emission from open-burning
of plastic and paper fraction of unmanaged waste. All Marketability of recovered waste. Marketability of
emission estimates assumed waste volumes in wet weight. recovered waste (mrw) is the likelihood of selling
recovered waste, which is expected to increase with
Model structure. The system dynamics model, constructed the same rate as effect of public participation. MRW
using STELLA ([Link]), consists of eleven is expected to affect selling times and selling prices of
sectors (Table 1). Appendix I shows the stock and flow produced compost and processed recyclables. Table 4
structure of the model. Appendix II contains detailed summarizes the corresponding selling prices and selling
descriptions of all model variables. Three SWM items are times for respective mrw converter values.
identified (Table 2); each item is represented by equations
similar to Equation 1. Greenhouse gas emissions. Three sets of emission
estimates were evaluated: (1) total CH4 emission from
Fundi (t) = Fundi (t-dt) + (budget inflowi – expenses outflowi ) * dt (1) disposed waste and organic portion of unmanaged waste,
(2) total CO2 emission from open-burning of plastic and
where: Fundi = available fund for i SWM item paper contents of unmanaged waste, and (3) total N2O
budget inflowi = SWM Fund*ALLOCATION from the compostable fraction of waste that underwent
FOR i SWM item composting. Formulae were derived from IPCC (2006).

Table 1. Sectors of the system dynamics model.

Sector Purpose
Population Sector Contains constants for population, growth rate, and initial public participation
SWM Budget Sector Encapsulates the influence of city income and budget for SWM to the urban SWMS
Waste Composition Constants Sector Contains values of waste composition fraction of SW
Public Participation Sector Encapsulates the change in collective public participation of waste generators due to changes in
allocation for information, education, and communication campaigns (IECs)
Marketability of Recovered Waste Sector Encapsulates the level of acceptance for recovered waste in the market, measured as 0–100%
Solid Waste Management Sector Encapsulates the material flow from waste generation to waste disposal, as well as the influence
of the other sectors
Composting Sector Contains the default structure of composting. Inputs for elements are in the Composting Facility
sector.
Recycling Sector Contains the default structure of recycling. Inputs for elements are in the Recycling Facility
sector.
Jagna Composting Facility Contains input values for the Composting Facility, based on the Jagna Facility in EcoGov (2011)
ADB Recycling Facility Contains input values for the Recycling Facility, based on the Semi-automated Recycling
Facility in ADB (2013)
GHG Emission Sector Encapsulates the emission of CH4,CO2, and N2O

76
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Table 2. Solid waste management items in the study. Table 3. Range of values for effect of public participation converter.
SWM Item Funding and Expenses Effect of public participation = GRAPH (current public participation
Represented level)
Transport equipment City collection of waste and transport Based on authors’ judgement, there is an assumption that a 1.0 increase
to waste diversion and disposal in the level of public participation is equivalent to 25% increase in
facilities variables affected by public participation.
MRCF equipment Construction and operation of the Current Public Effect of Public Participation
MRCF Participation Level
Information, Education IEC campaigns aimed at raising 0 0.00
and Communication (IEC) public participation towards USWMS 1 0.25
2 0.50
3 0.75
4 1.00

Table 4. Corresponding selling prices and selling prices for mrw values.
mrwa Selling Price of Compostb Selling Time for Selling Price of Selling Time for
(Php/50 kg Sack) Compostc Recyclablesd (Php/kg) Recyclablesc
0.00 0 7 days 0 3 days
0.25 50 4 days 20 2 days
0.50 75 4 days 40 1 day
0.75 150 2 days 60 1 day
1.00 250 2 days 80 1 day
Notes:
aMarketability of recovered waste
bBased on experience of Maddela Quirino of Php 250 per 50 kg sack (EcoGov 2011)
cAuthors’ judgement
dBased on EMB recyclables selling price of Php 80/kg (EMB n/d)

Case Study Model validation and scenarios. Table 7 compares

Brief profile of Malolos City. The system dynamics the waste generation simulated in Scenario 1 with a
model was tested using Malolos City parameters (Table computed projection of waste generation; the small
5). Malolos City is the capital of the Province of Bulacan. difference between values mean the results of model
A no-segregation, no-collection policy is implemented simulations are acceptable. Similar to Sufian and Bala
in the city (personal communication, City of Malolos (2007), the behaviors of following key variables are
Development Authority); the City General Services Office examined in Scenario 1 to validate the system dynamics
(CGSO) collects non-segregated waste on curbsides model: volumes of Disposed Waste, Unmanaged Waste,
and brings it directly to the MRCF for separation and and Diverted Waste; expenses and savings in Transport
processing. It is assumed that CGSO budget (12% of city Equipment, MRCF, and IECs (information, education, and
budget) is fully allotted for solid waste management. To communication campaigns); and volume of N2O, CH4,
imagine the worst-case, the model also assumes that all and CO2 emissions.
barangays are unable to manage solid waste and the City
Government of Malolos City manages all generated waste. The changes were compared in all three scenarios (Table
8). Scenario 1 simulates the Malolos City SWM without
The materials recovery and composting facility (MRCF) the MRCF to show the full potential of waste diversion
of Malolos City. Malolos City operates a five-hectare City in Scenario 2. Composting and recycling strategies
Materials Recovery and Composting Facility (MRCF); are mandated by RA 9003 as a responsibility of the
however, baseline data was unavailable. To compensate barangay through the establishment of MRCFs. Many
for this data gap, the Materials Recovery and Composting barangays, however, are unable to construct and operate
Facility (Table 6) was derived from two references: for MRFs because of budget limitations. City governments,
the composting facility, the experience of Jagna, Bohol then, have the succeeding responsibility to establish a
described in EcoGov (2011); for the recycling facility, the central MRCF for the city and its barangays. Scenario
Semi-Automated MRF Facility described in ADB (2013). 2 measures the effect of establishing an MRCF in terms
of: (1) the reduction in volume of waste disposed and

77
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Table 5. Input parameters for Malolos City.

Variable Name Input Value Data Source/Reference
City Government of Malolos 2014 Waste
Initial Population (2014)
264,182 Analyses and Characterization Study
(in persons)
(WACS)
Growth fraction +1.19% City Government of Malolos 2014 WACS
Rounded Malolos City 2015 Statement
Yearly city budget(pesos) Php 972,000,000.00 of General Fund (City Government of
Malolos Website)
2015 Budget for City General Services
SWM budget allocation (percentage) 12% Office (City Government of Malolos
Website)
Initial SW generation per capita rate (tons) 0.0036 City Government of Malolos 2014 WACS
Quezon City experience (Wilson et al.
Fraction of recyclables recovered by informal collectors 30%
2012)
City Government of Malolos, Personal
Cost of collection and disposal per ton of SW (pesos) 1,322
interview
Initial Public Participation Level (unitless) 0 n/a
31.1% compostables, 19.5% recyclables
48.2% residual
Initial Waste Composition 1.19% special waste City Government of Malolos 2014 WACS
(10.42% plastic
7.21% paper)
Collection ability (percentage) 98% City Government of Malolos 2014 WACS
Initial Marketability (percentage) 50% Authors’ judgement
TE MOOE FRACTION (additional cost for the
maintenance and other operating expenses of transport 20% Authors’ judgement
equipment)

Table 6. Characteristics of the composting facility and the recycling facility.

Compost Being Processed Recyclables Being
Parameter Reference Reference
Conveyor Processed Conveyor
Inflow limit Infinite Infinite
45 days (represented by 1 day (represented by
Transit Time COMPOSTING TIME RECYCLING TIME
converter) converter)
Capacity 1.5 tons Jagna, Bohol experience 15 tons Semi-Automated MRF
(EcoGov 2011) (ADB 2013)
Capital Cost Php 550,000 Php 24.8M
Operating Expenses Php 20,000/mo Php 2.5M/y
Facility Count 1 1
Facility Effectiveness 100% 100%

GHG emissions, and (2) additional income. The MRCF construction period. Scenario 3 simulates the effect of
Sector (along with the Recycling Facility and Composting public participation of waste generators to the SWM. The
Facility sectors), is turned on at the start of the simulation. Public Participation Sector is turned on to consider effects
The City realigns funds for transport equipment to of public participation to the system. The City realigns
satisfy capital costs of the MRCF. The MRCF becomes funds for transport equipment to generate IECs.
operational only in Year 2 to simulate planning and

78
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Table 7. Computed vs. simulated waste generation.

Volume of
Volume of Waste Generation –
Waste Generation – Difference Difference
Year Computationa
Scenario 1 (in Tons) (in %)
(in Tons)
(in Tons)
1 34,713.51 34,920.31 206.29 0.59%
2 35,126.61 35,338.34 206.27 0.59%
3 35,544.61 35,761.37 206.22 0.58%
4 35,967.59 36,189.46 206.14 0.57%
5 36,395.61 36,622.68 206.03 0.57%
6 36,828.72 37,061.09 205.88 0.56%
7 37,266.98 37,504.74 205.71 0.55%
8 37,710.45 37,953.71 205.49 0.54%
9 38,159.21 38,408.05 205.25 0.54%
10 38,613.30 38,867.83 204.97 0.53%
TOTAL 366,326.59 368,627.58 2,300.99 0.63%
Notes:
Initial population = 264,182.00
Per annum growth rate = +1.19%
Per capita waste generation fraction = 0.36 kg/cap/day
aPopulation*(per capita waste generation/1000) x 365

Table 8. Summary of scenarios.

Sectors Turned SWM Budget Allocation
On or Off
Scenario Justifications IPPL
CS RS MRW PP Other TE MRCF IEC
Sectors
Baseline Run/Scenario • To isolate the OFF OFF OFF OFF ON 0 100% 0 0
1: effects of waste
No composting and diversion and public
recycling strategies participation to the
All SWM budget SWM, these were
towards collection and turned off.
disposal (Guerrero et
al. 2013)
Scenario 2: • MRCF allocation ON ON ON OFF ON 0 80% 20% 0
With active composting is based on needed
and recycling strategies, capital costs of
but no participation of CF and RF (Php
waste generators. 25,350,000).
Scenario 3: • Portion of TE ON ON ON ON ON 1 70% 20% 10%
With active composting allocation is
and recycling strategies, transferred to IEC
and with participation allocation.
of waste generators. • Waste generators
only participate in
SWM in Scenario 3.
• Lowest level of
public participation
given to not
overestimate.
Notes: CS – Composting Sector; RS – Recycling Sector; MRW – Marketability of Recovered Waste Sector; PP – Public Participation Sector; IPPL – Initial Public
Participation Level; TE – Transport Equipment; MRCF – Material Recovery and Composting Facility; IEC – Information Education, and Communication Campaign

79
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

RESULTS
Figures 3 to 7 show ten-year trends for Scenarios 1, 2, and
3. The annual volumes of disposed waste in Scenario 1 are
slightly lower than in Scenario 2 because of the MRCF.
Scenario 3 has remarkable difference because of the effect
of public participation. Only Scenario 3 exhibits changes
in volumes of generated waste, informal collection of
recyclables, and unmanaged waste; these changes are
due the effect of public participation in the USWM (see
Public Participation section). Scenarios 2 and 3 have equal
volumes of diverted waste because the MRCF has similar
characteristics in both scenarios. Simulation results of
Figure 5. Ten-year values of diverted waste.
waste management for each scenario in Year 10 are in
Table 9. Activating the MRCF in Scenario 2 reduced the
volume of disposed waste (by 24,911 tons), yet ~7,400
tons of wastes remain unmanaged. Among the three
scenarios, Scenario 3 generated the least volume of waste
(~101,000 tons less), lowest percentage of unmanaged
waste (0.01% in S3 vs 2% in S1 and S2), and least volume
and percentage of disposed waste; it likewise diverted a
total of ~13% of waste through composting and recycling
(9.26%) and informal collection of recyclables (3.73%).
Scenario 3 generated 69% more expenses than Scenario
1 but it also generated 25% more savings (Table 10). The
increase in expenses is imputed to allocation to IECs;

Figure 6. Ten-year values of informal collection of recyclables.

Figure 3. Ten-year values of generated waste.

Figure 7. Ten-year values of unmanaged waste.

the increase in savings is attributed to the reinforcing

effect of public participation towards marketability of
waste and other waste management stages. Composting
and recycling reduced CH4 and CO2 emission of the
system but it also increased N2O emission (Table 11); the
reinforcing effect of public participation further reduced
CH4 emission and eliminated CO2 emission (because there
was negligible unmanaged waste percentage).

Figure 4. Ten-year values of disposed waste.

80
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Table 9. Comparison of waste composition distribution in three scenarios in Year 10.

% of % of % of % of % of
Scenario TGSWa TICWb TDivSWc TDisSWd TUSWe TWTf
TGSW TGSW TGSW TGSW TGSW
S1 368,627.58 0.00 0 0 0 361,045.07 97.94% 7,368.27 2.00% 214.24 0.06%
S2 368,627.58 0.00 0 24,721.50 6.71% 336,134.06 91.19% 7,368.27 2.00% 403.75 0.11%
S3 267,254.99 9,966.78 3.73% 24,721.50 9.26% 232,254.78 87.00% 31.78 0.01% 280.15 0.10%
Notes:
aTotal Generated Solid Waste
bTotal Informally Collected Waste (recyclables only)
cTotal Diverted Solid Waste
dTotal Disposed Solid Waste
eTotal Unmanaged Solid Waste
fTotal Waste in Transit

Table 10. Comparison of total SWM expenses and savings in three Lavee 2007, Shaw and Maynard 2008) because citizens
scenarios in Year 10. themselves will buy merchandise from recycled materials;
Total SWM Total SWM Savings (in
in effect, public participation is expected to increase the
Scenario Expenses (in Php) Php) marketability of recovered waste. The study showed
S1 572,809,619.73 3,419,688,285.95
how recycling sustained the synergy of the urban solid
waste management system – recycling provided financial
S2 609,676,674.59 4,354,495,021.04
support for SWM items. With profit from recycling and
S3 968,208,599.94 4,266,563,095.69 composting, city budget increases and more budget is
S2 vs S1 36,867,054.86 934,806,735.09 available for SWM items. Because of the operation of
S3 vs S2 358,531,925.35 (87,931,925.35) the MRCF, waste that previously goes directly to disposal
S3 vs S1 395,398,980.21 846,874,809.74
is processed. The profit from selling recovered waste
becomes additional SWM fund available for utilization
in any of the four SWM items. Troschinetz and Mihelcic
Table 11. Comparison of total greenhouse gas emission estimates in
(2009) identified personnel education, waste collection
three scenarios in Year 10. and segregation, and government finances as the three
biggest barriers to recycling in developing countries. The
Total Total CO2 Total N2O
Scenario CH4Emission Emission (in Emission (in model simulations reveal how additional income from
(in Tons) Tons) Tons) composting and recycling translate to effects in various
S1 10,263.98 920.60 0.00 elements of the USWMS because of increase in SWM
fund. Additional SWM Fund could provide additional
S2 9,558.17 920.60 25,920.00
budget for personnel education through trainings and
S3 6,580.70 3.97 25,920.00 seminars, encourage the improvement of convenience
S2 vs S1 (705.81) - 25,920.00 of recycling and composting through the purchase of
S3 vs S2 (2,977.47) (916.63) - community bins, and enable the incentivization of local
S3 vs S1 (3,683.28) (916.63) 25,920.00
agencies for participation in sound waste management.
As a waste diversion strategy, composting has been found
to be not as profitable as recycling (Eriksson et al. 2005,
Tonjes and Mallikarjun 2013); however, it is practiced for
DISCUSSION its environmental benefits and reduced costs for collection
and disposal (Tonjes and Mallikarjun 2013). In the current
Synergy in the Urban Waste Management System study, composting reduced the volume of unmanaged
The interlinkages and interactions among urban solid organic waste that may emit CH4. Eriksson et al. (2005)
waste generation, urban solid waste management, found out that recycling is a more beneficial alternative to
population, city budget, marketability of recovered direct disposal than incineration and biological treatment
waste, public participation, composting and recycling, in terms of larger financial returns and minimal pollution
and GHG emissions defines the urban solid waste contribution. Malolos City can greatly benefit from a semi-
management system (Figure 8). Feedback effects in automated recycling facility, with specifications similar
the system are primarily caused by public participation to that described in ADB (2013).
and waste diversion. Public participation is expected to
decrease the uncertainty of recycling profitability (e.g.,

81
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Figure 8. Causal loop diagram.

Reinforcing Effect of Public Participation feedback into various aspects of the system. With public
Scenario 3 yielded the following additional effects besides participation active, the income from composting and
Scenario 2 improvements: recycling are translated into effects to waste generation,
collection, and diversion.
• reduced volume of total waste generation by
101,373 tons (–28% than in S1 and S2), Marketability of recovered waste (MRW) is a function
of public participation. Additional SWM fund from
• reduced percentage of waste disposed (87% in S3 composting and recycling income allows for realignment
vs. 91% in S2), of funds from transport equipment to IECs. With public
• handling by the informal sector of 9,966.78 tons participation incorporated and increasing because of IEC
of recyclables (3.7% of total waste generation), funding, mrw value increases, selling time for recovered
waste is reduced and selling price is increased. The selling
• reduced percentage of unmanaged waste (0.01% of recovered waste is quickened. Because of decreased
in S3 vs. 2% in S2), and volumes of generated waste, the waste collection system
• further reduction of total CH4 emission by ~2,977 needs to manage less waste. A portion of budget allocation
tons and almost elimination of total CO2 emission for transport equipment and MRCF equipment – the
(3.97 tons remained). two largest shares – can be transferred to funding for
IECs. Additional funding for IECs is directly related to
Public participation in sustainable SWM practices additional public participation points, which echoes effect
decreases waste generation (e.g., Bernardo 2008, Del in waste generation, informal collection, formal collection,
Mundo et al. 2009). The decrease in volume of waste and marketability of waste. Scenario 3 gives a snapshot of
generation not only impacts waste collection, but also the quantified effect of public awareness on the additional
succeeding stages of SWM – diversion and disposal. income of the USWMS because of changes in mrw. The
Public participation provides opportunity for informal effect of public participation must be calibrated to increase
collection of recyclables. Public participation reinforces precision in simulation results.
the effects of composting and recycling to the urban
solid waste management system. A change in public
participation level means a direct change towards formal
waste collection, participation in informal waste collection, CONCLUSIONS
and marketability of waste; it also means an inverse
The constructed system dynamics model demonstrated
change towards waste generation. The incorporation of
the synergy in the urban solid waste management
public participation into the model provides reinforcing
system through exhibiting the effect of waste diversion

82
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

(composting and recycling) and public participation on BERNARDO E. 2008. Solid-waste management practices
the volume of disposed waste. Through waste diversion of households in Manila, Philippines. Ann. N.Y. Acad.
and public participation, the volume of disposed waste can Sci. 1140: 420–424.
be reduced with increased total savings. The application BRIDGES O, BRIDGES J, POTTER J. 2000. A generic
of the model to Malolos City quantified the value added comparison of the airborne risks to human health from
by the incorporation of public participation – lower landfill and incinerator disposal of municipal solid
volumes of generated solid waste and disposed waste waste. The Environmentalist 20: 325–334.
and higher total savings. The behaviors of key variables
illustrate that the impact of allocating budget for technical CHANDRAPPA R, DAS DB. 2012. Chapter 12
improvements like composting and recycling facilities can Environmental Issues. Solid Waste Management.
be reinforced by allocating budget for increasing public Environmental Science and Engineering. Heidelberg
participation towards solid waste management practices. (Germany): Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Many variable relationships based on authors’ judgement can CHIEMCHAISRI C, CHIEMCHAISRI W, KUMAR
be studied empirically: the relationship of marketability of S, HETTIARATCHI JPA. 2007. Solid waste
recovered waste to selling prices of compost and recyclables; characteristics and their relationship to gas production
the effect of IECs to level of public participation; and the in tropical landfill. Environmental Monitoring and
effect of public participation to different elements of the Assessment 135: 41–48.
SWMS. The model can also be expanded to include other CITY GOVERNMENT OF MALOLOS. 2014. Waste
treatment options, particularly for managing residual waste Analyses and Characterization Study (WACS) of
and leachate treatment. Malolos City solid waste consists of Malolos City. Bulacan, Philippines. Raw tables
48.2% residual waste (City Government of Malolos 2014 obtained from City Government of Malolos.
WACS), which is expected to affect the lifespan of the city
disposal site unless policy interventions are established. CITY GOVERNMENT OF MALOLOS. Retrieved from
[Link]
[CCC] Climate Change Commission of the Philippines.
2010. National Framework Strategy on Climate
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Change 2010–2022. Manila, Philippines.
The first author expresses gratitude to the Science DEL MUNDO DM, REBANCOS C, ALAIRA S. 2009.
Education Institute of the Department of Science and Correlation of socio-economic status, environmental
Technology (DOST-SEI) for providing financial assistance awareness, knowledge, and perception on solid waste
for graduate studies and thesis grant. Special appreciation management practices in barangays Talisay and
is also conveyed to the Institute of Environmental Balibago, Calatagan, Batangas, Philippines. Journal of
Science (UP Diliman) and Department of Geography Environmental Science and Management 12(2): 27–37.
(UP Diliman).
DYSON B, CHANG N. 2005. Forecasting municipal
solid waste generation in a fast-growing urban region
with system dynamics modeling. Waste Management
NOTE ON APPENDICES 25: 669–679.

The complete appendices section of the study is accessible [EcoGov] Philippine Environmental Governance Project.
at [Link] A copy of the model is 2011. Good Practices in SWM—A Collection of LGU
also accessible at [Link] Experiences. Pasig City, Philippines.
[EMB] Environmental Management Bureau. n/d. Price
of Recyclables (Based on EMB Central Office MRF).
Quezon City, Philippines.
REFERENCES
ERIKSSON O, CARLSSON REICH M, FROSTELL
AL-SALEM SM, LETTIERI P, BAEYENS J. 2009. B, BJORKLUND A, ASSEFA G, SUNDQVIST
Recycling and recovery routes of plastic solid waste J-O, GRANATH J, BAKY A, THYSELIUS L. 2005.
(PSW): A review. Waste Management 29: 2625–43. Municipal solid waste management from a systems
[ADB] Asian Development Bank. 2013. Materials perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 13: 241–252
Recovery Facility Toolkit. Retrieved from [Link]. FAHY F, DAVIES A. 2007. Home improvements:
org/sites/default/files/.../materials-recovery-facility- household waste minimization and action research.
[Link] on Mar 2016. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 52(1): 13–27. In:

83
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

O’Connell E ed. 2011. Increasing public participation waste landfill site. Environmental Monitoring and
in municipal solid waste reduction. The Geographical Assessment 118: 435–456
Bulletin 52: 105–118.
[NSWMC] National Solid Waste Management
GORME J, MANIQUIZ M, SONG P, KIM LH. 2010. Commission. 2015. Final Draft NSWMC Report
The water quality of the Pasig River in the City of 2008–2014. Retrieved from [Link]
Manila, Philippines: Current status, management and Portals/38/Solid%20Wastefinaldraft%[Link]
future recovery. Environmental Engineering Research on 15 Mar 2017.
15 (3): 173–179.
O’CONNELL EJ. 2011. Increasing public participation
GUERRERO L, MAAS G, HOGLAND W. 2013. Solid in municipal solid waste reduction. The Geographical
waste management challenges for cities in developing Bulletin 52:105–118.
countries. Waste Management 33: 220–232.
OKUMURA S, TASAKI T, MORIGUCHI Y. 2013.
GUZMAN J, PANINGBATAN E JR., ALCANTARA Economic growth and trends of municipal waste
A. 2010. A geographic information systems-based treatment options in Asian countries. J Mater Cycles
decision support system for solid waste recovery and Waste Manag 16: 335–346. DOI 10.1007/s10163-
utilization in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Philippines. 013-0195-9
Journal of Environmental Science and Management
PA U L J , H A N U S C H K E K , S A N C H E Z L ,
13(1): 52–66.
BATOMALAQUE A. 2012. Increase of bio-waste
HOORNWEG D, BHADA-TATA P. 2012. What a waste: recovery with low-cost technologies in San Carlos City,
A global review of solid waste management. Urban Philippines. Proceedings of International Conference
Development Series (Mar 2012, No. 15). Washington, ORBIT 2012, Rennes, France.
DC (USA): World Bank.
PAUL J, JARENCIO M, BOORSMA J, LIBRADILLA
[IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. E. 2008. Assessment of composting approaches to
2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas enhance waste management systems in rural areas
Inventories. Geneva, Switzerland. in the Philippines. Proceedings Internat. Conference
ORBIT 2008, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
IRENE E. 2014. Solid waste management in an upland
urban village of Samar Philippines. The Countryside [RA 9003] Philippines. 2000. Republic Act No. 9003:
Development Research Journal 2: 93–100. Ecological Solid Waste Management Act. Quezon
City, Philippines.
JACOBI P. 2002. Agenda 21 and cities in developing
countries. Politics and the Life Sciences 21(2): 61–65. PREMAKUMARA D. CANETE A, NAGAISHI M,
KURNIAWAN T. 2014. Policy implementation of
LAVEE D. 2007. Is municipal solid waste recycling
the Republic Act (RA) No. 9003 in the Philippines:
economically efficient? Environmental Management
A case study of Cebu City. Waste Management 34(6):
40: 926–943.
971–979.
MACAWILE J, SU G. 2009. Local government officials
PIETERS R. 1991. Changing garbage disposal patterns
perceptions and attitudes towards solid waste
of consumers: motivation, ability and performance.
management in Dasmarinas, Cavite, Philippines.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 10(2): 59–76.
Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental
Sanitation 4(1): 63–69. RAHARDYAN B, MATSUTO T, KAKUTA Y, TANAKA
N. 2004. Residents’ concerns and attitudes towards
MAGALANG A. 2014. Municipal solid waste management
solid waste management facilities. Waste Management
in the Philippines. In: Pariatamby A, Tanaka M eds.
24(5): 437–451.
2014. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Asia
and the Pacific Islands. Environmental Science and SHAW PJ, MAYNARD SJ. 2008. The potential of
Engineering. Basel (Switzerland): Springer Nature. financial incentives to enhance householders’ kerbside
recycling behaviour. Waste Management 28: 1732–41.
MARSHALL R, FARAHBAKHSH K. 2013. Systems
approach to integrated solid waste management SUFIAN MA, BALA BK. 2007. Modeling of urban solid
in developing countries. Waste Management 33: waste management system: The case of Dhaka City.
988–1003. Waste Management 27(7): 858–868.
MOR S, RAVINDRA K, DAHIYA RP, CHANDRA TAMMEMAGI H. 1999. The Waste Crisis: Landfills,
A. 2006. Leachate characterization and assessment Incinerators, and the Search for a Sustainable Future.
of groundwater pollution near municipal solid New York: Oxford University.

84
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

TANAKA M. 2007. Waste management for a sustainable

society. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 9: 2–6.
TATLONGHARI R, JAMIAS S. 2010. Village-level
knowledge, attitudes and practices on solid waste
management in Sta. Rosa City, Laguna, Philippines.
Journal of Environmental Science and Management
13(1): 35–51.
TONJES D, MALLIKARJUN S. 2013. Cost effectiveness
of recycling: A systems model. Waste Management
33: 2548–56.
TROSCHINETZ A, MIHELCIC J. 2009. Sustainable
recycling of municipal solid waste in developing
countries. Waste Management 29: 915–923.
[UN HABITAT] United Nations Human Settlements
Programme. 2010. Solid Waste Management in the
World’s Cities: Water and Sanitation in the World’s
Cities 2010. London: UN-HABITAT/Earthscan 2010.
[UN] United Nations. 2013. World Population Prospects:
The 2012 Revision. New York: Population Division of
the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
WILSON D. 2007. Development drivers for waste
management. Waste Manage Res 25: 198–207.
WILSON D, RODIC L, SCHEINBERG A, VELIS C,
ALABASTER G. 2012. Comparative analysis of solid
waste management in 20 cities. Waste Management &
Research 30(3): 237–254.

85
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Appendix 1. Model Structure

Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Appendix II. Model variables.

Sector Name Type of Description (Units) Value of Equation Supporting Data Source
Element Reference

ADB Recycling TOTAL RF Stock Current amount of expenses for TOTAL RF EXPENSES(t) = TOTAL ADB (2013) N/A
Facility EXPENSES construction and operation of RF EXPENSES(t - dt) + (RF expenses)
Recycling Facility (pesos) * dt

ADB Recycling RF expenses Flow Daily expenses of Recycling PULSE(RF CAPITAL ADB (2013) N/A
Facility Facility, including capital outlay COST,365,0)+((PULSE(RF DAILY
and daily operating expenses OPERATING EXPENSE,365,1)*RF
(pesos) COUNT))

ADB Recycling return of investment of Converter Fraction of return of investment IF TOTAL RF EXPENSES > 0 ADB (2013) N/A
Facility recycling facility of Recycling Facility (unitless) THEN ((Total Sale from Recycling-
TOTAL RF EXPENSES)/TOTAL RF
EXPENSES)*100 ELSE 0

ADB Recycling RF CAPITAL COST Converter Capital outlay for the Constant Value ADB (2013) ADB (2013)
Facility construction of the Recycling
Facility (pesos)

ADB Recycling RF COUNT Converter Number of existing Recycling Constant Value ADB (2013) ADB (2013)
Facility Facilities (unitless)

ADB Recycling RF DAILY Converter Expected daily operating Constant Value/365 ADB (2013) ADB (2013)
Facility OPERATING expenses of the Recycling
EXPENSE Facility (pesos)

ADB Recycling RF EFFECTIVENESS Converter Measure of effectiveness of the Constant value between 0 and 1. ADB (2013) ADB (2013)
Facility Recycling Facility on a 0-100%
scale (unitless)

Composting Available Stock The current volume of waste Available Compostables(t) = Available EcoGov (2011) N/A
Sector Compostables in the MRCF available for Compostables(t - dt) + (collected
composting (tons) for composting - to composting -
unprocessed compostables) * dt

Composting Compost Sold Stock The volume of compost sold Compost Sold(t) = Compost Sold(t - dt) EcoGov (2011) N/A
Sector (tons) + (compost for selling) * dt

Composting Total Residual from Stock The current volume of residual Total Residual from Composting(t) = EcoGov (2011) N/A
Sector Composting waste from composting process Total Residual from Composting(t - dt)
(tons) + (daily residual from composting) * dt

Composting Total Sale from Stock The current amount of money Total Sale from Compost(t) = Total Sale EcoGov (2011) N/A
Sector Compost from selling produced compost from Compost(t - dt) + (daily sale from
(pesos) composting) * dt

Composting compost for selling Flow Process of selling produced Outflow from the Compost Produced EcoGov (2011) N/A
Sector compost (tons/day) conveyor. Transit Time = 7, if mrw = 0;
4, if mrw ≤ 0.5; else 2.

Composting daily residual from Flow Residual compostable material to compost stock*0.01 EcoGov (2011) N/A
Sector composting after composting process;
assumed 1% of every batch
(tons/day)

Composting daily sale from Flow Amount of money from selling (compost for selling*1000)/50)*selling EcoGov (2011) N/A
Sector composting produced compost in 50kg sacks price of compost
(pesos)

Composting to compost stock Flow volume of compost that is added The outflow from the Compost Being EcoGov (2011) N/A
Sector to saleable compost (tons/day) Processed conveyor.

Composting to composting Flow volume of compostables in the IF MRCF Fund > CF DAILY EcoGov (2011) N/A
Sector MRCF that undergo composting OPERATING EXPENSE
process; a function of RF AND CF expenses > 0 THEN
characteristics Available Compostables*(CF
EFFECTIVENESS*CF COUNT)
ELSE 0

Composting unprocessed Flow volume of compostables in the Remaining material in Available EcoGov (2011) N/A
Sector compostables MRCF that do not undergo Compostables stock
composting process because of
MRCF capacity constraints (tons)

Composting waste collected for Flow Material brought into the MRCF waste to MRCF*(COMPOSTABLE EcoGov (2011) N/A
Sector composting for composting (tons) FRACTION/100)

Composting COMPOSTING TIME Converter Time for composting process Constant value EcoGov (2011) EcoGov (2011)
Sector to be completed and produce
saleable compost (days)

Composting Compost Being Stock - The current volume of waste Compost Being Processed(t) = Compost EcoGov (2011) N/A
Sector Processed Conveyor undergoing composting process Being Processed(t - dt) + (to composting
in the MRCF (tons) - to compost stock) * dt
Transit Time is equal to the value of
COMPOSTING TIME * CF COUNT.
Capacity is 1.5 tons per day.
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Appendix II. Model variables.

Sector Name Type of Description (Units) Value of Equation Supporting Data Source
Element Reference

Composting Compost Produced Stock - The volume of compost produced Compost Produced(t) = Compost EcoGov (2011) N/A
Sector Conveyor (tons) Produced(t - dt) + (to compost stock -
compost for selling) * dt
Transit Time is equal to the value of
mrw converter.
Capacity is infinite.

GHG emission Total Compost Stock Current volume of compost that Total Compost Producing N2O(t) = IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector Producing N2O emits N2O Total Compost Producing N2O(t - dt) +
(to N2O emission count) * dt

GHG emission to N2O emission count Flow Process of accounting waste Equal to the value of to composting flow IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector that undergoes composting and
emits N2O

GHG emission carbon emission for Converter Carbon emission resulting from paper fraction of unmanaged solid IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector paper open-burning of Paper Fraction waste*OXIDATION FACTOR FOR
of SW (tons) OPEN BURNING*FRACTION OF
DRY MATTER CONTENT IN WET
WEIGHT FOR PAPER*DEFAULT
VALUE OF FCF FOR
PAPER*DEFAULT VALUE OF CF
FOR PAPER*DEFAULT VALUE OF
CF FOR PAPER

GHG emission carbon emission for Converter Carbon emission resulting from plastic fraction of unmanaged solid IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector plastic open-burning of Plastic Fraction waste*FRACTION OF DRY MATTER
of SW (tons) CONTENT IN WET WEIGHT FOR
PLASTIC*OXIDATION FACTOR
FOR OPEN BURNING*DEFAULT
VALUE OF FCF FOR
PLASTIC*DEFAULT VALUE OF CF
FOR PLASTIC*DEFAULT VALUE OF
CF FOR PLASTIC

GHG emission CH4 emission from Converter CH4 emission resulting from CH4 Emission of Disposed Solid Waste IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector disposed waste disposed waste (tons) = (Disposed Solid Waste * Methane
Correction Factor * Degradable Organic
Carbon * Fraction of DOC dissimilated
* Fraction of CH4 in Landfill Gas*
Conversion Factor of C to CH4-
Recovered CH4)*(1 - Oxidation Factor)

GHG emission CH4 Emission from Converter CH4 emission resulting from CH4 Emission of Unmanaged Solid IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector organic fraction of organic fraction of unmanaged Waste = (Unmanaged Solid Waste
unmanaged waste waste (tons) * COMPOSTABLE FRACTION
* Methane Correction Factor *
Degradable Organic Carbon * Fraction
of DOC dissimilated * Fraction of CH4
in Landfill Gas* Conversion Factor
of C to CH4- Recovered CH4)*(1 -
Oxidation Factor)

GHG emission CO2 emission for Converter CO2 emission resulting from carbon emission for IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector paper burning open-burning of Paper Fraction paper*CONVERSION FACTOR
of SW FROM C TO CO2

GHG emission CO2 emission for Converter CO2 emission resulting from carbon emission for IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector plastic burning open-burning of Plastic Fraction plastic*CONVERSION FACTOR
of SW FROM C TO CO2

GHG emission CONVERSION Converter Conversion factor from C to 16/12 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector FACTOR FOR C TO CH4, according to IPCC 2006
CH4

GHG emission CONVERSION Converter Conversion factor from C to 44/12 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector FACTOR FROM C CO2, according to IPCC 2006
TO CO2

GHG emission DEFAULT DOCF Converter DOC dissimilated, according to 0.5 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector IPCC 2006

GHG emission DEFAULT Converter Default fraction of CH4 in 0.5 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector FRACTION OF CH4 generated landfill gas, according
IN GENERATED to IPCC 2006
LANDFILL GAS

GHG emission DEFAULT VALUE OF Converter Default value for fraction of 0.46 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector CF FOR PAPER carbon in dry matter of Paper
Fraction of SW, according to
IPCC 2006

GHG emission DEFAULT VALUE OF Converter Default value for fraction of 0.75 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector CF FOR PLASTIC carbon in the dry matter of
Plastic Fraction of SW
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Appendix II. Model variables.

Sector Name Type of Description (Units) Value of Equation Supporting Data Source
Element Reference

GHG emission Default Value of DOC Converter Default Value of DOC for bulk 0.17 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector for Bulk MSW in MSW in Southeast Asia
SEAsia

GHG emission DEFAULT VALUE OF Converter Default Value of DOC for 0.15 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector DOC FOR ORGANIC Organic in Southeast Asia
IN SEASIA

GHG emission DEFAULT VALUE OF Converter Default value for fraction of 0.01 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector FCF FOR PAPER fossil carbon in the total carbon
of Paper Fraction of SW

GHG emission DEFAULT VALUE OF Converter Default value for fraction of 1 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector FCF FOR PLASTIC fossil carbon in the total carbon
of Plastic Fraction of SW

GHG emission FRACTION OF DRY Converter FRACTION OF DRY MATTER 0.9 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector MATTER CONTENT CONTENT IN WET WEIGHT
IN WET WEIGHT FOR PAPER
FOR PAPER

GHG emission FRACTION OF DRY Converter FRACTION OF DRY MATTER 0.4 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector MATTER CONTENT CONTENT IN WET WEIGHT
IN WET WEIGHT FOR FOOD WASTE
FOR FOOD WASTE

GHG emission FRACTION OF DRY Converter FRACTION OF DRY MATTER 1 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector MATTER CONTENT CONTENT IN WET WEIGHT
IN WET WEIGHT FOR PLASTIC
FOR PLASTIC

GHG emission METHANE Converter METHANE CORRECTION 0.5 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector CORRECTION FACTOR FOR MANAGED
FACTOR FOR SEMIAEROBIC SWDS
MANAGED
SEMIAEROBIC
SWDS

GHG emission METHANE Converter METHANE CORRECTION 0.6 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector CORRECTION FACTOR FOR
FACTOR FOR UNCATEGORIZED SWDS
UNCATEGORIZED
SWDS

GHG emission N2O EF Converter N2O EF COMPOSTING DRY 0.6 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector COMPOSTING DRY WEIGHT
WEIGHT

GHG emission N2O emission for Converter Current volume of N2O emission N2O emission from composting = IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector composting from the composting process (FRACTION OF DRY MATTER
(tons) CONTENT IN WET WEIGHT
FOR FOOD WASTE)* N2O EF
COMPOSTING DRY WEIGHT* (Total
Compost Producing N2O*1000)

GHG emission organic fraction of Converter Fraction of organic material Unmanaged Solid IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector unmanaged solid waste in the unmanaged solid waste Waste*(COMPOSTABLE
(unitless) FRACTION/100)

GHG emission OXIDATION Converter OXIDATION FACTOR FOR 0 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector FACTOR FOR METHANE
METHANE

GHG emission OXIDATION Converter OXIDATION FACTOR FOR 0.58 IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector FACTOR FOR OPEN OPEN BURNING
BURNING

GHG emission paper fraction of Converter Fraction of paper material in the Unmanaged Solid Waste*PAPER IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector unmanaged solid waste unmanaged solid waste (unitless) FRACTION

GHG emission plastic fraction of Converter Fraction of plastic material in the Unmanaged Solid Waste*PLASTIC IPCC (2006) N/A
Sector unmanaged solid waste unmanaged solid waste (unitless) FRACTION

Jagna Composting TOTAL CF Stock Current volume of expenses for Total Expenses of Composting EcoGov (2011) N/A
Facility EXPENSES construction and operation of Facility(t) = Total Expenses of
Composting Facility (pesos) Composting Facility(t - dt) + (CF
expenses) * dt

Jagna Composting CF expenses Flow Daily expenses of Composting PULSE(CF CAPITAL EcoGov (2011) N/A
Facility Facility, including capital outlay COST,365,0)+((PULSE(CF DAILY
and daily operating expenses OPERATING EXPENSE,365,1)*CF
(pesos) COUNT))

Jagna Composting CF CAPITAL COST Converter Capital outlay for the Constant value EcoGov (2011) EcoGov (2011)
Facility construction of the Composting
Facility (pesos)
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Appendix II. Model variables.

Sector Name Type of Description (Units) Value of Equation Supporting Data Source
Element Reference

Jagna Composting CF COUNT Converter Number of existing Composting Constant value EcoGov (2011) EcoGov (2011)
Facility Facilities (unitless)

Jagna Composting CF DAILY Converter Expected daily operating Constant value/30 EcoGov (2011) EcoGov (2011)
Facility OPERATING expenses of the Composting
EXPENSE Facility (pesos)

Jagna Composting CF EFFECTIVENESS Converter Measure of effectiveness of the Constant value between 0 and 1 EcoGov (2011) EcoGov (2011)
Facility Composting Facility on a 0-1
scale (unitless)

Jagna Composting return of investment of Converter Fraction of return of investment IF Total Expenses of Composting EcoGov (2011) N/A
Facility composting facility of Composting Facility (unitless) Facility > 0 THEN ((Total Sale from
Compost-Total Expenses of Composting
Facility)/Total Expenses of Composting
Facility)*100 ELSE 0

Marketability of mrw Converter Marketability of recovered (INITIAL Shaw and Maynard N/A
Recovered Waste waste: the level of acceptance for MARKETABILITY/100)+((INITIAL (2008)
Sector recovered waste in the market MARKETABILITY/100)*effect of
(unitless) public participation)

Marketability of selling price of Converter The price at which sacks of GRAPH (mrw) EcoGov (2011) N/A
Recovered Waste compost produced compost are sold
Sector (pesos)

Marketability of selling price of Converter The price at which processed GRAPH (mrw) EMB (n/d) N/A
Recovered Waste recyclables recyclables are sold (pesos)
Sector

Marketability of INITIAL Converter Initial level of acceptance for Constant value between 0 and 100. Lavee (2007); Authors’
Recovered Waste MARKETABILITY recovered waste in the market Shaw and Maynard judgement
Sector (unitless) (2008); Pieters
(1991)

Population Sector Population Stock Current population (persons) Population(t) = Population(t - dt) + Guzman et al. N/A
(growth) * dt (2010)

Population Sector growth Flow Growth rate of population Population*((GROWTH Guzman et al. N/A
(persons/day) FRACTION/100)/365) (2010)

Population Sector GROWTH Converter Number of persons added to the Constant value Guzman et al. City
FRACTION population because of natural (2010) Government of
growth (persons) Malolos WACS
(2014)

Population Sector INITIAL PUBLIC Converter Initial collective level of public Constant value between 0 and 4. Guerrero et al. Authors’
PARTICIPATION participation of waste generators (2013); Lavee judgement
LEVEL on the effects of solid waste (2007); Shaw and
management (unitless) Maynard (2008);
O'Connell (2001);
Pieters (1991)

Public current public Converter The present collective level of INITIAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Lavee (2007); N/A
Participation participation level public participation of waste LEVEL+additional public participation Pieters (1991);
Sector generators towards the effects of Shaw and Maynard
USWM (unitless) (2008)

Public effect of allocation Converter Value added to another variable Equal to ALLOCATION FOR IEC/100) Authors’ judgement N/A
Participation for IEC because of change in the
Sector allocation for IECs (unitless)

Public effect of public Converter Value added to another variable GRAPH (current public participation Authors’ judgement N/A
Participation participation because of present public level)
Sector participation level (unitless)

Public additional public Converter Value of public participation (INITIAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Shaw and Maynard N/A
Participation participation added due to allocation for IECs LEVEL*effect of allocation for IEC) (2008); Lavee
Sector (unitless) (2007); Pieters
(1991)

Recycling Sector Available Recyclables Stock The current volume of waste in Available Recyclables(t) = Available ADB (2013) N/A
the MRCF available for recycling Recyclables(t - dt) + (collected for
(tons) recycling - to recycling - unprocessed
recyclables) * dt

Recycling Sector Total Residual from Stock The current volume of residual Total Residual from Recycling(t) = Total ADB (2013) N/A
Recycling waste from recycling process Residual from Recycling(t - dt) + (daily
(tons) residual from recycling) * dt

Recycling Sector Total Sale from Stock The current amount of money Total Sale from Recycling(t) = Total ADB (2013) N/A
Recycling from selling processed Sale from Recycling(t - dt) + (daily sale
recyclables (pesos) from recycling) * dt

Recycling Sector daily residual from Flow Residual recyclable material after to recyclables stock*0.01 ADB (2013) N/A
recycling recycling process; assumed 1%
of every batch (tons/day)
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Appendix II. Model variables.

Sector Name Type of Description (Units) Value of Equation Supporting Data Source
Element Reference

Recycling Sector daily sale from Flow Amount of money from selling recyclables for selling*1000*selling ADB (2013) N/A
recycling processed recyclables (pesos) price of recyclables

Recycling Sector recyclables for selling Flow Process of selling processed The outflow of Recyclables Produced ADB (2013) N/A
recyclables (tons/day) conveyor. Transit Time = 3, if mrw = 0;
1, if mrw ≥ 0.5; else 2.

Recycling Sector to recyclables stock Flow volume of compost that is added The outflow from the Recyclables Being ADB (2013) N/A
to saleable processed recyclables Processed conveyor.
(tons/day)

Recycling Sector unprocessed Flow volume of recyclables in the Remaining material in Available ADB (2013) N/A
recyclables MRCF that do not undergo Recyclables stock
composting process because of
MRCF capacity constraints (tons)

Recycling Sector waste collected for Flow Material brought into the MRCF waste to MRCF*(RECYCLABLE ADB (2013) N/A
recycling for recycling (tons) FRACTION/100)

Recycling Sector to recycling Flow volume of recyclables in the IF MRCF Fund > RF DAILY ADB (2013) N/A
MRCF that undergo recycling OPERATING EXPENSE
process; a function of RF AND RF expenses > 0 THEN
characteristics Available Recyclables*(RF
EFFECTIVENESS*RF COUNT)
ELSE 0

Recycling Sector RECYCLING TIME Converter Time for recycling process to be Constant Value ADB (2013) ADB (2013)
completed and produce saleable
recyclables (days)

Recycling Sector Recyclables Sold Stock The volume of processed Recyclables Sold(t) = Recyclables ADB (2013) N/A
recyclables sold (tons) Sold(t - dt) + (recyclables for selling)
* dt

Recycling Sector Recyclables being Stock - The current volume of waste Recyclables being Processed(t) = ADB (2013) N/A
Processed Conveyor undergoing recycling process in Recyclables being Processed(t - dt)
the MRCF (tons) + (waste to recycling process - to
recyclables stock) * dt
TRANSIT TIME is equal to the value
of RECYCLING TIME
Capacity is 15 tons per day.

Recycling Sector Recyclables Produced Stock - The volume of processed Recyclables Produced(t) = Recyclables ADB (2013) N/A
Conveyor recyclables produced (tons) Produced(t - dt) + (to recyclables stock -
recyclables for selling) * dt
INIT Recyclables Produced = 0
TRANSIT TIME is equal to the value
of mrw converter.
Capacity is infinite.

Solid Waste Disposed Solid Waste Stock Current volume of waste in Disposed Solid Waste(t) = Disposed Magalang (2014); N/A
Management disposal facilities (tons) Solid Waste(t - dt) + (daily city waste City Government
Sector disposal + unprocessed waste from of Malolos WACS
MRCF + direct disposal of special (2014); personal
waste) * dt communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist

Solid Waste Diverted Solid Waste Stock Current volume of waste that Diverted Solid Waste(t) = Diverted Magalang (2014); N/A
Management completed diversion process Solid Waste(t - dt) + (city waste City Government
Sector (tons) diversion) * dt of Malolos WACS
(2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist

Solid Waste Generated Solid Waste Stock Current volume of waste Generated Solid Waste(t) = Generated Magalang (2014); N/A
Management generated by total population Solid Waste(t - dt) + (daily waste City Government
Sector (tons) generation - separation of special waste of Malolos WACS
- informal collection of recyclables - (2014); personal
daily waste for city collection) * dt communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist

Solid Waste Informal Collection of Stock Current volume of waste Informal Collection of Solid Waste(t) = Magalang (2014); N/A
Management Solid Waste collected by informal collectors Informal Collection of Solid Waste(t - City Government
Sector (tons) dt) + (informal collection of recyclables) of Malolos WACS
* dt (2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Appendix II. Model variables.

Sector Name Type of Description (Units) Value of Equation Supporting Data Source
Element Reference

Solid Waste Solid Waste Available Stock Current volume of waste in Solid Waste Available for Diversion(t) Magalang (2014); N/A
Management for Diversion the MRCF that is available for = Solid Waste Available for Diversion(t City Government
Sector composting and recycling (tons) - dt) + (waste to MRCF - city waste of Malolos WACS
diversion - unprocessed waste from (2014); personal
MRCF) * dt communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist

Solid Waste Total Collected Solid Stock Current volume of waste Total Collected Solid Waste(t) = Total Magalang (2014); N/A
Management Waste collected through formal Collected Solid Waste(t - dt) + (city City Government
Sector collection (tons) waste collection + litter management of Malolos WACS
- waste to MRCF - daily city waste (2014); personal
disposal) * dt communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist

Solid Waste Total Special Waste Stock Current volume of special waste Total Special Waste(t) = Total Special Magalang (2014); N/A
Management (tons) Waste(t - dt) + (separation of special City Government
Sector waste) * dt of Malolos WACS
(2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist

Solid Waste Uncollected Solid Stock Current volume of waste Uncollected Solid Waste(t) = Magalang (2014); N/A
Management Waste uncollected by the city (tons) Uncollected Solid Waste(t - dt) + (daily City Government
Sector uncollected waste - litter management - of Malolos WACS
daily rate of remaining uncollected city (2014); personal
waste) * dt communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist

Solid Waste Unmanaged Solid Stock Current volume of unmanaged Unmanaged Solid Waste(t) = Magalang (2014); N/A
Management Waste waste (tons) Unmanaged Solid Waste(t - dt) + (daily City Government
Sector rate of remaining uncollected city waste of Malolos WACS
+ uncollected special waste) * dt (2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist

Solid Waste Waste for Formal Stock Current volume of waste the city Waste for Formal Collection(t) = Waste Magalang (2014); N/A
Management Collection should collect (tons) for Formal Collection(t - dt) + (daily City Government
Sector waste for city collection - daily city of Malolos WACS
waste collection - daily uncollected (2014); personal
waste) * dt communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist

Solid Waste city waste diversion Flow Sum of produced compost and to compost stock + to recyclables stock Magalang (2014); N/A
Management processed recyclables (tons/day) City Government
Sector of Malolos WACS
(2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist

Solid Waste city waste collection Flow Process of transporting waste IF effect of public participation Magalang (2014); N/A
Management collected by city (tons/day) > 0 AND Transport Equipment City Government
Sector Fund > 0 THEN Waste for Formal of Malolos WACS
Collection*((COLLECTION (2014); personal
ABILITY/100)+((COLLECTION communication
ABILITY/100)*effect of public with City
participation)) ELSE IF effect of Environmental
public participation = 0 AND Transport Specialist; Guerrero
Equipment Fund > 0 THEN Waste for et al. (2013)
Formal Collection*(COLLECTION
ABILITY/100) ELSE 0

Solid Waste daily city waste Flow Process of disposing city waste Total Collected Solid Waste+daily Magalang (2014); N/A
Management disposal (tons/day) residual from composting+daily residual City Government
Sector from recycling of Malolos WACS
(2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Appendix II. Model variables.

Sector Name Type of Description (Units) Value of Equation Supporting Data Source
Element Reference

Solid Waste daily rate of Flow Waste that is left uncollected Total Collected Solid Waste+daily Magalang (2014); N/A
Management unmanaged waste even after the second city residual from composting+daily residual City Government
Sector collection (tons/day) from recycling of Malolos WACS
(2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist

Solid Waste daily uncollected waste Flow Waste that the city is unable to Remaining material in Waste for Formal Magalang (2014); N/A
Management collect (tons/day) Collection stock City Government
Sector of Malolos WACS
(2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist; Guerrero
et al. (2013)

Solid Waste daily waste for city Flow Waste left for city collection after (Generated Solid Magalang (2014); N/A
Management collection informal collection of recyclables Waste*(COMPOSTABLE City Government
Sector and separation of special waste FRACTION/100))+(Generated of Malolos WACS
(tons/day) Solid Waste*(RECYCLABLE (2014); personal
FRACTION/100))+(Generated Solid communication
Waste*(RESIDUAL FRACTION*100)) with City
Environmental
Specialist; Guerrero
et al. (2013)

Solid Waste daily waste generation Flow Process of waste generation by current SW generation per capita Magalang (2014); N/A
Management current population (tons/day) rate*Population City Government
Sector of Malolos WACS
(2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist; Guzman
et al. (2010)

Solid Waste informal collection of Flow Process of recyclable waste being IF effect of public participation Magalang (2014); N/A
Management recyclables collected by informal collectors >0 THEN (Generated Solid O' Connell (2011);
Sector (tons/day) Waste*(RECYCLABLE Fahy and Davies
FRACTION/100))*((FRACTION OF (2007)
RECYCLABLES RECOVERED BY
INFORMAL COLLECTORS/100) +
((FRACTION OF RECYCLABLES
RECOVERED BY INFORMAL
COLLECTORS/100)*effect of public
participation)) ELSE 0

Solid Waste litter management Flow Process of management of IF effect of public participation > 0 Magalang (2014); N/A
Management uncollected waste (tons/day) THEN Uncollected Solid Waste*effect Guerrero et al.
Sector of public participation ELSE 0 (2013)

Solid Waste separation of special Flow Process of separating special Generated Solid Waste*(SPECIAL Magalang (2014); N/A
Management waste waste fraction of generated solid WASTE FRACTION/100) City Government
Sector waste (tons/day) of Malolos WACS
(2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist

Solid Waste unprocessed waste Flow Waste that the MRCF is unable Remaining material in Solid Waste Magalang (2014); N/A
Management from MRCF to process because of capacity Available for Diversion stock City Government
Sector limits; brought directly to of Malolos WACS
disposal facilities (tons/day) (2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist

Solid Waste waste to MRCF Flow Waste that is transported to the IF MRCF Fund >0 and Transport Magalang (2014); N/A
Management MRCF (tons/day) Equipment Fund > 0 THEN Total City Government
Sector Collected Solid Waste*(COLLECTION of Malolos WACS
ABILITY/100) ELSE 0 (2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Appendix II. Model variables.

Sector Name Type of Description (Units) Value of Equation Supporting Data Source
Element Reference

Solid Waste direct disposal of Flow disposal of special waste fraction IF Transport Equipment Fund > 0 THEN Magalang (2014); N/A
Management special waste collected (tons/day) Total Special Waste*(COLLECTION City Government
Sector ABILITY/100) ELSE 0 of Malolos WACS
(2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist; Guerrero
et al. (2013)

Solid Waste uncollected special Flow Special waste that is uncollected Remaining material in Total Special Magalang (2014); N/A
Management waste (tons/day) Waste stock City Government
Sector of Malolos WACS
(2014); Guerrero et
al. (2013)

Solid Waste daily rate of remaining Flow Remaining uncollected solid Remaining material in Uncollected Magalang (2014); N/A
Management uncollected city waste waste that is unmanaged because Solid Waste stock City Government
Sector of insufficient litter management of Malolos WACS
(tons/day) (2014); personal
communication
with City
Environmental
Specialist; Guerrero
et al. (2013)

Solid Waste COLLECTION Converter Fraction of collected material that Constant value between 0 and 100. Magalang (2014); City
Management ABILITY is transferred to the next process City Government Government of
Sector (unitless) of Malolos WACS Malolos WACS
(2014) (2014)

Solid Waste current SW generation Converter Current volume of waste IF effect of public participation > 0 Del Mundo et al. N/A
Management per capita rate generated by a person (tons/day) THEN (INITIAL SW GENERATION (2009)
Sector PER CAPITA RATE/1000)-
((INITIAL SW GENERATION PER
CAPITA RATE/1000)*effect of
public participation) ELSE INITIAL
SW GENERATION PER CAPITA
RATE/1000

Solid Waste FRACTION OF Converter Fraction of recyclable waste that Constant value between 0 and 100. Magalang (2014); Wilson et al.
Management RECYCLABLES informal collectors can collect Wilson et al. (2012) (2012)
Sector RECOVERED (unitless)
BY INFORMAL
COLLECTORS

Solid Waste INITIAL SW Converter Starting volume of waste Constant value Del Mundo et al. City
Management GENERATION PER generated by a person (tons/day) (2009) Government of
Sector CAPITA RATE Malolos WACS
(2014)

SWM Budget City Budget Stock The annual amount of budget for City Budget(t) = City Budget(t - dt) + Magalang (2014); N/A
the City (pesos) (yearly budget inflow - SWM budget Guerrero et al.
inflow) * dt (2013)

SWM Budget IEC Fund Stock The current amount available for IEC Fund(t) = IEC Fund(t - dt) + (to Magalang (2014); N/A
funding information education IEC fund - IEC expenses) * dt Guerrero et al.
and communication campaigns (2013)
for solid waste management
practices (pesos)

SWM Budget MRCF Fund Stock The current amount available for MRCF Fund(t) = MRCF Fund(t - dt) + Magalang (2014); N/A
funding the MRCF (pesos) (to MRCF fund - MRCF expenses) * dt Guerrero et al.
(2013)

SWM Budget SWM Expenses Stock The total amount of SWM SWM Expenses(t) = SWM Expenses(t - Magalang (2014); N/A
expenses (pesos) dt) + (MRCF expenses + IEC expenses Guerrero et al.
+ transport expenses) * dt (2013)

SWM Budget SWM Fund Stock The current amount available for SWM Fund(t) = SWM Fund(t - dt) + Magalang (2014); N/A
SWM items (pesos) (SWM budget inflow + daily income Guerrero et al.
from waste diversion - to MRCF fund (2013)
- to IEC fund - to transport equipment
fund - to government incentives fund)
* dt

SWM Budget Transport Equipment Stock The current amount available Transport Equipment Fund(t) = Magalang (2014); N/A
Fund for funding transport Transport Equipment Fund(t - dt) + (to Guerrero et al.
equipment(pesos) transport equipment fund - transport (2013)
expenses) * dt

SWM Budget daily income from Flow The profit gained daily from (daily sale from composting-CF DAILY Magalang (2014); N/A
waste diversion selling produced compost and OPERATING EXPENSE)+(daily Guerrero et al.
recyclables (pesos) sale from recycling-RF DAILY (2013)
OPERATING EXPENSE)
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Appendix II. Model variables.

Sector Name Type of Description (Units) Value of Equation Supporting Data Source
Element Reference

SWM Budget IEC expenses Flow Daily expenses for information IEC Fund Magalang (2014); N/A
education and communication Guerrero et al.
campaigns (pesos/day) (2013)

SWM Budget MRCF expenses Flow Daily expenses for operating the CF expenses+RF expenses Magalang (2014); N/A
MRCF (pesos/day) Guerrero et al.
(2013)

SWM Budget SWM budget inflow Flow The annual inflow of money from SWM budget inflow = PULSE((SWM Magalang (2014); N/A
the City Budget into the SWM BUDGET ALLOCATION/100)*City Guerrero et al.
Budget (pesos/yr) Budget,(365),(365)) (2013)

SWM Budget to IEC fund Flow Daily flow of money into SWM Fund*(ALLOCATION FOR Magalang (2014); N/A
funding for information IEC/100) Guerrero et al.
education and communication (2013)
campaigns (pesos/day)

SWM Budget to MRCF fund Flow Daily flow of money into SWM Fund*(ALLOCATION FOR Magalang (2014); N/A
funding for the MRCF(pesos/ MRCF/100) Guerrero et al.
day) (2013)

SWM Budget to transport equipment Flow Daily flow of money into SWM Fund*(ALLOCATION FOR Magalang (2014); N/A
fund funding for transport equipment TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT/100) Guerrero et al.
(pesos/day) (2013)

SWM Budget transport expenses Flow Daily expenses for funding (daily actual cost of collection+daily Magalang (2014); N/A
transport equipment (pesos/day) actual cost of disposal)+((daily Guerrero et al.
actual cost of collection+daily (2013)
actual cost of disposal)*(TE MOOE
FRACTION/100))

SWM Budget yearly budget inflow Flow The annual inflow of money into yearly budget inflow Magalang (2014); City
the City Budget (pesos/yr) = PULSE(BUDGET Guerrero et al. Government of
CONSTANT,365,365) (2013) Malolos 2015
Budget

SWM Budget ALLOCATION FOR Converter The fraction of the solid waste Constant value Magalang (2014); Authors’
IEC management budget allocated Guerrero et al. judgement
for information education and (2013) based on City
communication campaigns Government of
(unitless) Malolos 2015
Budget

SWM Budget ALLOCATION FOR Converter The fraction of the solid waste Constant value Magalang (2014); Authors’
MRCF management budget allocated Guerrero et al. judgement
for the material recovery and (2013) based on City
composting facility (unitless) Government of
Malolos 2015
Budget

SWM Budget ALLOCATION Converter The fraction of the solid waste Constant value Magalang (2014); Authors’
FOR TRANSPORT management budget allocated for Guerrero et al. judgement
EQUIPMENT transport equipment (unitless) (2013) based on City
Government of
Malolos 2015
Budget

SWM Budget BUDGET CONSTANT Converter The amount of money that enters Constant value Magalang (2014); City
the city budget annually (pesos) Guerrero et al. Government of
(2013) Malolos 2015
Budget

SWM Budget COST OF Converter The cost of collection and Constant value Paul et al. (2008) City
COLLECTION AND disposal per ton of solid waste in Government
DISPOSAL PER TON the city (pesos) of Malolos,
OF SOLID WASTE Personal
interview

SWM Budget daily actual cost of Converter The actual cost of collecting (city waste collection)*(COST OF Paul et al. (2008) N/A
collection waste daily (pesos) COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL PER
TON OF SOLID WASTE*percent
of cost for collection)+(separation
of special waste)*(COST OF
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL PER
TON OF SOLID WASTE*percent of
cost for collection)
Philippine Journal of Science Tinio et al.: Synergy in the USWM System in Malolos City
Vol. 148 No. 1, March 2019

Appendix II. Model variables.

Sector Name Type of Description (Units) Value of Equation Supporting Data Source
Element Reference

SWM Budget daily actual cost of Converter The actual cost of disposing (daily city waste disposal*(COST OF Paul et al. (2008) N/A
disposal waste daily (pesos) COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL PER
TON OF SOLID WASTE*percent
of cost for disposal))+(unprocessed
waste from MRCF*(COST OF
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL PER
TON OF SOLID WASTE*percent
of cost for disposal))+(direct
disposal of special waste*(COST OF
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL PER
TON OF SOLID WASTE*percent of
cost for disposal))

SWM Budget percent of cost for Converter The fraction of waste expenses 2/3 Paul et al. (2008) Paul et al.
collection that is spent for collection (2008)
(unitless)

SWM Budget percent of cost for Converter The fraction of waste expenses 1/3 Paul et al. (2008) Paul et al.
disposal that is spent for collection (2008)
(unitless)

SWM Budget SWM BUDGET Converter The fraction of City Budget that Constant value between 0 and 100. City Government City
ALLOCATION is allocated for SWM (unitless) of Malolos 2015 Government of
Budget Malolos 2015
Budget

SWM Budget TE MOOE Converter The fraction of additional cost Constant value between 0 and 100. Authors’ judgement Authors’
FRACTION for transport equipment towards judgement
maintenance and operation
(unitless)

Waste COMPOSTABLE Converter Fraction of compostable material Constant value between 0 and 100. City Government City
Composition FRACTION in solid waste (unitless) of Malolos WACS Government of
Constants Sector (2014) Malolos WACS
(2014)

Waste PAPER FRACTION Converter Fraction of paper material in Constant value between 0 and 1 City Government City
Composition solid waste (unitless) of Malolos WACS Government of
Constants Sector (2014) Malolos WACS
(2014)

Waste PLASTIC FRACTION Converter Fraction of plastic material in Constant value between 0 and 1 City Government City
Composition solid waste (unitless) of Malolos WACS Government of
Constants Sector (2014) Malolos WACS
(2014)

Waste RECYCLABLE Converter Fraction of recyclable material in Constant value between 0 and 100. City Government City
Composition FRACTION solid waste (unitless) of Malolos WACS Government of
Constants Sector (2014) Malolos WACS
(2014)

Waste RESIDUAL Converter Fraction of residual material in Constant value between 0 and 100. City Government City
Composition FRACTION solid waste (unitless) of Malolos WACS Government of
Constants Sector (2014) Malolos WACS
(2014)

Waste SPECIAL WASTE Converter Fraction of special waste material Constant value between 0 and 100. City Government City
Composition FRACTION in solid waste (unitless) of Malolos WACS Government of
Constants Sector (2014) Malolos WACS
(2014)