Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 992999

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ r esconr ec
Household solid waste characterization by family socioeconomic
prole as unit of analysis
Sara Ojeda-Ben tez
a,
, Carolina Armijo-de Vega
b
, Ma Ysabel Marquez-Montenegro
c
a
Engineering Institute, UABC, Boulevard Benito Ju arez y Calle de la Normal S/N, Col. Insurgentes Este, C.P. 21280 Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico
b
Engineering Faculty Ensenada, UABC, Km. 103 Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada, Ensenada C.P. 22860, Baja California, Mexico
c
PhD Program in Sciences and Engineering, Engineering Institute, UABC, Mexico
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 December 2007
Received in revised form 18 February 2008
Accepted 18 March 2008
Available online 5 May 2008
Keywords:
Per capita generation
Family typology
Household waste
Socioeconomic stratum
Proles of generation
a b s t r a c t
In this paper the behavior of household solid waste generation is analyzed, using as a unit of analysis the
garbage bags produced by a family during a week. For this analysis the category of family typology is used
where three different family types are included: nuclear, extended and mono-parental. The objective of
this research was to know the composition and quantity of solid waste generated by family typology.
For this study the waste produced by 125 families during eight days was analyzed. The total number
of households included in the study was 125, 67 of them were nuclear families, 45 were extended and
13 were mono-parental families. A total of 682 garbage bags were evaluated. Using the results it was
possible to determine the composition and quantity of solid waste generated by family typology and by
socioeconomic stratum. The results showed that the per capita and the average family waste generation
varies according to the family typology and to the socioeconomic stratum where the family belongs. Per
capita daily waste generationof the nuclear family was 1.10kg, the extendedfamily produced0.782kg and
the mono-parental family produced 1.35kg. In contrast waste composition did not show any difference,
except for some of the categories such as garden waste, newspaper, textiles and disposable diapers, these
wastes explain the lifestyles of the generators.
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The generation, management and nal disposal of Residential
Solid Waste (RSW) presents unique problems in most of Mexico.
This has been pointed out in different studies (Bernache, 2003;
Buenrostro et al., 2001; Buenrostro and Bocco, 2003; Ojeda-Ben tez
and Beraud-Lozano, 2003), and is evidenced by the impacts upon
human health and the environment. The rapid increase in the
quantities of RSW being generated and the vast diversity of mate-
rials demand a wider coverage of existing Municipal Solid Waste
Management Systems. RSW management programs that will pro-
vide for sustainable standards must include innovative treatment
alternatives and technologies. Achieving these standards requires
the acquisition of necessary data to determine the intrinsic, qual-
itative and quantitative characteristics of a given RSW stream,
as well as the integrated management systems associated with
it.
Various characterization and quantication studies have been
carried out in Mexico in order to understand the physical compo-

Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 686 5664150.

E-mail address: sojedab@uabc.mx (S. Ojeda-Ben tez).
sition of RSW. Among these studies are those by Bernache-Perez et
al. (2001), Buenrostro (2001), Escarimosa et al. (2001) and Ojeda-
Benitez et al. (2003). They are important because they include
analyses that determine the physical composition and chemistry of
RSW. Other studies quantify and evaluate RSW by class in order to
determine its composition and volume. Parizeau et al. (2006) point
out that characterization investigations are very useful to detect
the need for the establishment of waste management programs.
This information is most useful regarding RSW disposal, recycling,
planning, and overall management.
Bandara et al. (2007) conducted a research to establish the
relationship between waste generation and socioeconomic factors,
using regression analysis. In another study Bruvoll (2001) analyzed
the factors that inuence waste handling and generation, among
the variables analyzed were income and population density. It was
found that income did not inuence the total amount of municipal
waste generated. In a research by Dennison et al. (1996) statis-
tical analyses were applied to establish the relationship between
socioeconomic factors, and waste generation and composition; the
researchers found that a clear waste generation difference existed
between the more prosperous section of the population and the
less prosperous section in relation to the total and the individual
components of the waste stream.
0921-3449/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.03.004
S. Ojeda-Bentez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 992999 993
Additional studies (Bystr om and L onnstedt, 2000; Chung and
Poon, 2001; Nasir et al., 2000; Ojeda-Benitez et al., 2000 and
Tucker et al., 2000) stress the importance of RSWrecycling and the
environmental benets associated with recycling practices that
reduce the amount of garbage going to a disposal site. This paper
identies the generation and composition of RSW components by
socioeconomic stratum.
To date, studies to determine the relationship between solid
waste generation rates and composition and typological family
characteristics, have yet to be conducted. The importance of solid
waste characterization studies with emphasis on typological fea-
tures lies in the fact that individuals, as members of a given family
and as part of a given society, require certain amenities in order to
fulll their daily needs. While these basic amenities allow one to
achieve a level of comfort with regards to living conditions, they
also inuence the types and quantities of RSW generated. Infor-
mation based on RSW generation and composition proles based
on typological data will be useful in the development of municipal
solid waste management alternatives.
2. Family typology and its relationship to RSW generation
Environmental problems associated with the generation of
waste are part of societal changes where family units play an
important role. These population or societal changes inuence the
size, structure and composition of a given family unit. Societal
changes contribute tothe creationof newforms of organizationand
coexistence and to the development of new social rights and obli-
gations. Individuals and families immerse themselves into these
social transformations though their daily activities.
Generally speaking, socio-demographic studies concerning a
family or families have takenthe approachof analyzing the forms in
which domestic groups organize themselves to achieve their daily
subsistence and reproduction over time. Ahome, then, represents a
small social collectivity where all members share a common iden-
tity, generally sustained in kinship and certain sense of solidarity
derived from a common dwelling and economy. This is the rea-
son why it is important to include the family approach in waste
generation studies and determine composition proles.
According to Mexicos National Institute of Statistics, Geography
and Informatics, 2003 (INEGI, by its acronym in Spanish) the term
home denes a social space of the daily and generational repro-
duction of the population; it is a social space, both physical and
relational, in which the population gathers and organizes itself for
common goal in life. This denition encompasses the concept of
family.
According to Mexico National Population Council (CONAPO,
2001), homes can be classied as family homes and non-family
homes, with a blood type relation being present or absent between
all or almost all homes inhabitants. Family homes can also be sub-
divided as follows:
1. Nuclear: A home composed of a head of household, spouse (if
there is one) and unmarried children;
2. Extended: Extended family is when two or more family members
by direct line and of the same sex, along with their spouses and
descendents, share a house and are subject to a single authority
or head of the family. An example of this type of family would be
a group formed by a man, his wife, their married sons and their
wives and children.
3. Composed: A home composed of a nuclear or extended home,
with people without ties of kinship with the head of family. A
composed family is a group formed by nuclear families or by
part of these families. It could also be a family group integrated
by remarried widows or divorced woman with children.
Le Gall and Martin (1988), as quoted by Rodr guez and Luengo
(2003), utilize the concept of single parent family, or mono-
parental, and dene it as a home made up of one person (man or
woman) living on his or her own with one or more children.
Family type is a variable that must be consideredinwaste gener-
ation studies since waste generation starts at the very moment the
family fullls its necessities and eliminates or discards all that is of
no use anymore. Thus, when a family is considered a consumer of
goods andservices the relevance to involve it inenvironmental pro-
tection activities is evinced. A family should participate through an
attitude of responsible consumption and waste handling and dis-
position. This study is aimed to look if a relationship exists between
waste composition and total amount of waste generated by a fam-
ily based on its familiar typology with the purpose of determining
anenvironmental behavior patternaccording to the socioeconomic
strata of the family.
3. Methodology
The research was conducted in the city of Mexicali, capital of
the state of Baja California located in the Northwest part of Mexico
bordering to the North with the city of Calexico, California in the
United States. According to the II Population and Housing count
2005, Mexicali has a population of 855,962 which represents 30%
of the states population.
Mexicalis weather is arid-dry with scarce annual rain; its loca-
tion on the Tropic of Cancer makes this region a place with extreme
climate. This municipalityis characterizedbyits agricultural, indus-
trial and tourist activities, prominent activities are those of the
tertiary sector (commerce, services and tourism) that provides
employment to about 52% of the population.
One of the environmental problems of this city is soil pollution
generated in part by the inadequate solid waste disposition and the
lack of areas destined for landlls.
The research reported in this paper is an exploratory study in
which the unit of analysis is the family. Its completion required the
selectionof a non-probabilityfamilyunit sample fromthree socioe-
conomic levels represented by diverse Basic Geostatistic Areas
(AGEBs, by their acronym in Spanish) wherein each AGEB repre-
sented a distinct suburb within the area of study included in this
project. These suburbs or AGEBs were chosen according to resi-
dential dwelling models, available household utilities, and income
levels corresponding to low, mediumand high socioeconomic level
families.
4. Family unit selection process
In order to identify and select a given family unit for inclusion in
this research, a Basic Geostatistic Area (AGEB)
1
was used as strat-
ication criterion. This criterion is utilized by Mexicoss National
Institute of Statistical Geography and Informatics (INEGI, by its
acronyminSpanish) incompilingpopulationandhouseholdcensus
data (INEGI, 2003). The AGEB is the area that constitutes the mini-
mumunit of aggregation for delimiting a geographic area occupied
by an apple set, bounded by homogeneous social, economic and
geographic characteristics which are susceptible to be processed
statistically with greater trustworthiness. The AGEB was used in
order to be able to compare the results of this research with other
waste generation studies of Mexico.
The parameter used in classifying an AGEB as a low, medium, or
high stratumwas the general minimumwage (SMG, by its acronym
1
Geographic units classied as suburbs.
994 S. Ojeda-Bentez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 992999
Table 1
Descriptive RSW statistics by family typology and socioeconomic level
Socioeconomic
stratum
Family typology
Nuclear Extended Mono-
parental
Number of
samples
Average (g) Standard
deviation
Number of
samples
Average (g) Standard
deviation
Number of
samples
Average (g) Standard
deviation
Low 62 3877.57 5019.90 106 4092.13 4588.78
* * *
Medium 165 4673.84 3892.84 127 4411.75 3680.68 38 4426.58 3636.32
High 114 3940.72 3598.82 32 3667.78 2743.11 38 3890.35 4754.62
Sub-total by typology 341 4283.97 4034.67 265 4192.86 3976.57 76 4158.47 4212.91
Grand total 682 4234.58 4026.76
*
Note: No mono-parental families were identied within this socioeconomic stratum.
inSpanish). Familyunits includedinthelowAGEBstratumincluded
household whose members received from one to two minimum
wage salaries. In the case of middle AGEB residents, their income
varied from three to ve minimum wage salaries. The upper AGEB
grouping was composed of families whose members income was
greater than ve minimum wage salaries (or ve SMGs). INEGIs
software called SCIENCE was employed in selecting and compiling
Mexicos census for the year 2000.
The individuals who participated in this research were selected
in a non-probabilistic sample of the three AGEBs of the city, which
correspond to the three socioeconomic strata (high, medium and
low income). The size of the sample was 197 families; of these 57
families correspond to the high-income stratum, 97 to the medium
income stratum and 43 to the low-income stratum. It was decided
that only the families that delivered at least ve waste samples
would be included in this study. Considering this only the results
of 125 families were included: 31 correspond to the high-income
stratum, 56 to the medium income and 38 to the low income.
5. Materials
For the implementation of this research two survey forms or
eld instruments were developed, which were employed in the
process of compiling, organizing, and analyzing collected informa-
tion.
Obtaining demographic data and determining family unit struc-
ture in conjunction with selected households typology required a
project-specic survey formand the implementation of a eld sur-
vey. The survey questionnaire was applied to a family unit member
who was part of a selected household. It was designed to identify
familytypology, placement of eachfamilymember withinher or his
family structure, schooling level, and family unit income. In deter-
mining family unit typology three structures were used: nuclear,
extended and mono-parental family types.
It is important to dene the three family types that were
included in the research: nuclear family is composed of parents
and their children; extended family is composed of a nuclear fam-
ilyandrelative(s) fromone or bothparents; andthe mono-parental,
is the family formed by one of the parents (mother or father) and
their children.
Nuclear family units were composed only of parents and chil-
dren while extended families consisted of a family nucleus, which
included consanguineous relatives of one or both parents. In the
case of mono-parental family units, these were represented by
households composed of only one of the parents (or either one
of the spouses) and corresponding children. In order to label or
place a given family member within a family structure as head
of household, spouse, children, relatives and domestic employees
were considered as part of selected family units.
The second instrument used was called RSW characterization
card, which was used in the characterization study of the waste
produced by the families involved in the project.
6. Procedure
This research was divided in two phases or stages: the rst
entailed a sample identication and selection process aimed at
obtaining a representative group of suburbs or AGEBs involving the
three socioeconomic strata detailed above. The second stage of this
project corresponds to RSWwaste characterization and quantica-
tion. This phase required RSW collection and analysis of eld data,
as well as the designandlayout of a work area where collectedsolid
waste samples were characterized and quantied.
7. Field sample identication and selection
In order to identify and select AGEBs in accordance with the cri-
teria developed for this study, which included their grouping by
income level and the selection of family units to be surveyed. In
this stage the sample was selected considering only the socioeco-
nomic variable, the variable family typology was only identiable
in situ after visiting the households included in the sample, for
this reason the variable family typology was at random. Another
feature that came into play was the physical location of selected
family dwellings. Selected and surveyed residences fell within uni-
form surroundings. This was done for the purpose of carrying out
Table 2
Average number of inhabitants by family typology and socioeconomic stratum
Family typology Socioeconomic stratum Average number of inhabitants by typology
High Medium Low
Nuclear 3.65 4.28 3.65 3.90
Extended 4.20 5.50 5.50 5.36
Mono-parental 3.33 2.86
*
3.08
Average number of inhabitants by socioeconomic stratum 3.68 4.57 4.53 4.34
*
Note: No mono-parental families were identied this socioeconomic stratum.
S. Ojeda-Bentez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 992999 995
Table 3
ANOVA test results by RSW generation rates, family unit typology and socioeconomic level
Waste generation Variability Sum of square Degrees of freedom Mean of square Calculated F F
(0.05)
Family unit typology
Between groups 3,591,690.83 2 1,795,845.41 0.15 3
Among groups 8.28E+09 679 12,193,003.28
Total 8.28E+09 681
Nuclear family units by
income level
Between groups 57,992,278.37 2 28,996,139.19 2.43 3
Among groups 4.03E+09 338 11,922,274.40
Total 4.03E+09 340
Extended family units
by income level
Between groups 24,936,732.30 2 12,468,366.15 1.06 3
Among groups 3.11E+09 263 11,806,204.27
Total 3.11E+09 265
Mono-parental family
by income level
Between groups 2,073,104.51 1 2,073,104.51 0.14 3.960
Among groups 1.07E+09 74 14,445,180.51
Total 1.07E+09 75
the collection and analysis of representative RSW samples com-
ing from family units whose income levels corresponded to the
family structures and typology established within the scope of this
research.
The actual selection of the 197 households corresponding to the
AGEBs included in project was carried out by visiting the various
neighborhoods encompassed into each AGEB. This was done to ver-
ify if the data being generated in the ofce using INEGIs computer
software was indeed accurate. Once the eld status of all neigh-
borhoods falling into the selected AGEBs was veried, a plan to
distribute households or family units to be studied was devised.
This was done to avoid placement of too many or too few house-
holds into a single AGEB or specic neighborhood.
When visiting selected households or family units, the resi-
dents were informed of the project and their cooperation was
requested. They were asked if they were willing to provide demo-
graphic information by lling out a survey questionnaire, and their
interest in participating on the RSW generation and composition
aspects of the project. Selected householders were informed that
during nine consecutive days, their garbage would be picked up
by project staff. They were given 48-gal plastic bags in which
they were asked to deposit their daily trash. When a given plas-
tic bag containing their garbage was picked up, an empty one
was given to them so that the following day they would give it
back to a project staffer. Participating residents were told that
their garbage would only be weighed, but they were not told
that their discards would be classied in order to prevent biased
results.
8. Collected RSW samples composition and quantication
The collection of RSW samples (or 48-gal plastic bags with
garbage) was not made simultaneously in the three income level
family units. Sample collection was not carried out in a seasonal
fashion; samples were collected during March and April.
The rst samples were collected from the upper level house-
holds. A second series of samples came from waste and, nally,
the last set of RSW samples were extracted from low-income level
families. The collection of eld samples was done in this way for
practical reasons. For example, the simultaneous handling of the
197 family units or household was not possible due to equipment,
personnel and economic limitations. The 48-gal plastic bags were
collected from 6:30 to 9:30a.m. When collected from each house-
hold, these bags were labeled, and identied by family of origin.
This was done to keep track of the number of bags being recovered,
and the number of households returning requested RSW samples.
The label also included the date, ID number, and weight. The
weight pertaining to a given sample or plastic bag was recorded
at the location where RSW separation, quantication, and classi-
cation took place. The contents of each 48-gal plastic bag were
separated into categories recording the weight and characteristics
of each RSW item. This RSW characterization and quantica-
tion work was performed in accordance with Ojeda-Benitez et al.
(2000) guidelines. Only family units or households that provided
a minimum of ve 48-gal plastic bags containing the solid waste
generated on a daily basis were included in this study. Data was
archived for further analysis in an XP database program.
9. Results
The average size of the 125 households in the sample was 4.34.
A total of 682 plastic bags or RSW samples weighing 2674.31kg
were collected and characterized. Of the 125 households, 67 were
nuclear families, 45 were extended families and 13 were mono-
parental families. Table 1 shows the measures of central tendency
associated with the RSWstreamgenerated within the area of study
by family typology and socioeconomic level.
The results shows that on an average the number of inhabitants
in the nuclear family is four, mono-parental families are conformed
by three members and the extended families by ve members. The
data along with the socioeconomic strata variables are shown in
Table 2.
Using a signicance level () of 0.05% for RSW samples varying
in size, the ANOVA test was used in order to analyze the sample
population by socioeconomic level. Also, considering the average
RSW to be the same for all three socioeconomic strata, both a null
(H0) and an alternate hypothesis (H1) were developed as follows:
H0. 1
lower level
=2
middle level
=3
upper level
.
H1. 1
lower level
=2
middle level
=3
upper level
.
The results obtained through the ANOVA test linking RSW gen-
eration rates with socioeconomic levels indicate that average RSW
generation varies from stratum to stratum. It was concluded that,
under this assumption, no statistical analysis could be made by
socioeconomic level. The F statistic was applied to compare the
variability due to the differences between groups with the variabil-
ity due to the differences inside the groups. The results showed that
the calculated F (3.45) was higher than the F found in tables (3.0),
this implies that a greater difference between groups was found
(Gravetter and Wallnau, 2007). For this reason the null hypothesis
which stated that the mean waste generation is the same in the
three socioeconomic strata, was rejected for F distribution (0.05, 2,
679).
Information pertaining to RSWgeneration rates and family unit
typology was also analyzed through a null (H0) and an alternative
(H1) hypothesis shown below.
996 S. Ojeda-Bentez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 992999
Table 4
RSW composition by family typology
Category Complete sample Family typology
Nuclear (%) Extended (%) Mono-parental (%)
Organics
Food wastes 35.09 35.15 35.09 34.80
Garden wastes 16.27 15.71 18.15 12.45
Animal excrement 1.03 0.86 1.34 0.81
Wood 0.41 0.43 0.38 0.47
Miscellaneous cardboard 3.13 2.19 2.92 8.19
Newspaper 2.92 4.05 1.67 2.03
Magazines 0.59 0.78 0.42 0.32
Ofce paper 0.52 0.39 0.62 0.73
Miscellaneous paper 1.72 1.73 1.53 2.26
Non-organic
Textiles 4.35 3.20 6.00 4.02
Plastic bags 1.33 1.32 1.31 1.49
Parking material 0.16 0.14 0.20 0.08
Waxed paper 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.01
Cellophane paper 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Plasticized paper 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03
Miscellaneous plastic 1.99 2.35 1.54 1.95
Polystyrene 0.75 0.60 0.66 1.75
Miscellaneous aluminum 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.05
Copper 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miscellaneous metal 0.54 0.60 0.33 1.01
Aluminum paper 0.11 0.07 0.17 0.08
Miscellaneous glass 0.46 0.49 0.35 0.65
Other types of waste
Sanitation wastes 8.54 9.23 7.40 9.29
Disposable diapers 4.15 3.50 5.85 1.34
Inerts
Soil 2.21 2.82 2.00 0.17
Rocks 0.57 0.16 1.28 0.00
Containers
Plastic 4.94 5.44 4.01 5.83
Cardboard 1.69 1.91 1.10 2.77
Tin 2.21 2.27 2.12 2.19
Aluminum 0.33 0.35 0.35 0.13
Recycle 2.91 3.13 2.35 3.87
Non-recycle glass 0.31 0.34 0.22 0.52
Tetra pack 0.20 0.25 0.16 0.10
Paper 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.09
Rare package 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.01
Polystyrene 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01
Plasticized 0.31 0.34 0.22 0.52
(%) 100 100 100 100
H0. 1
nuclear family
=2
extended family
=3
mono-parental family
.
H1. 1
nuclear family
=2
extended family
=3
mono-parental family
.
The analysis of information concerning RSW generation rates,
socioeconomic category and family unit typology was evaluated
as follows:
Null hypothesis (H0):
H0. 1
lower level
=2
middle level
=3
upper level
.
Alternate hypothesis:
H1. 1
lower level
=2
middle level
=3
upper level
.
The ANOVA test results presented in Table 3 (which link RSW
generation rates, income level strata and family unit typology)
indicate that average RSW rates between the three socioeconomic
strata used in this study are similar.
Table 4 presents analysis of RSW stream generated by the
sample population, using family unit typology as stratifying crite-
rion. The information contained in this table highlights differences
among RSW components that were studied (i.e., garden wastes,
fabrics, diapers, etc.). This information illustrates how family
unit structure inuences lifestyle; and how both of these ele-
ments affect RSW composition generation rates within the area of
study.
Table 5 shows an analysis of the RSW stream being studied by
generation rate, family unit typology, day of the week in which a
given 48-gal plastic bag or sample was generated, and the socioe-
conomic stratum from which a given sample was extracted. The
arithmetic median was used in order to compare and contrast RSW
generation rates and composition between participating family
units.
These results indicate, for example, that a nuclear family unit
that falls into a middle socioeconomic level generates a rather
homogenous wasteowduringweek-days, but sucha wastestream
experiences highandlowvariations onweekends. It is believedthat
these types of changes in waste stream composition could indeed
represent city-specic behavioral patterns. It should also be noted
that those family units that t into a medium income level cate-
gory generate greater amounts of RSW regardless of their family
unit typology.
S. Ojeda-Bentez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 992999 997
Table 5
Average RSW generation rates by family typology, day of the week and socioeconomic level
Family unit typology Day of the week Socioeconomic level
Low Medium High
n Mean (g) n Mean (g) n Mean (g)
Nuclear
Monday 11 4549.93 21 4475.14 17 4833.23
Tuesday 6 3311.89 21 3857.77 15 3379.84
Wednesday 9 3116.49 22 4921.80 13 3354.40
Thursday 9 2380.95 16 3395.53 17 6168.42
Friday 7 2732.30 23 4494.71 17 2577.87
Saturday 4 3285.34 24 3872.17 12 3536.12
Sunday 6 4300.44 20 4217.86 7 1981.10
Total 52 3882.47 147 4176.42 98 3690.14
Extended
Monday 13 3383.10 15 4667.84 5 2499.71
Tuesday 14 5138.40 18 4463.23 4 3871.60
Wednesday 16 4019.61 15 6366.62 3 2565.61
Thursday 18 3604.51 13 3346.27 3 3346.98
Friday 6 2289.71 20 4044.34 5 4396.23
Saturday 10 2637.44 19 3607.06 3 2460.13
Sunday 13 2779.26 12 3914.87 4 3174.08
Total 90 3407.33 112 4344.31 27 3187.76
Mono-
parental
Monday
a a
3 2285.90 5 2218.14
Tuesday
a a
5 5176.41 6 4545.25
Wednesday
a a
6 4186.14 6 1517.45
Thursday
a a
5 4534.04 4 4299.42
Friday
a a
4 4075.70 5 5701.58
Saturday
a a
5 3108.68 4 7094.68
Sunday
a a
4 5425.55 2 2508.01
Total 32 4113.20 328 3983.50
Note: The table was developed using eld data collected during seven days of this study. This was done to draw comparisons between RSW amounts generated within the
area of study during week-days only. Data collected during two days of eld work is not tabulated above.
a
Family structure not found in the low socioeconomic level.
Table 6
Per capita RSW rates by family typology, day of the week and socioeconomic level
Socioeconomic
level
Number of
sample
Day of the
week
Per capita/day by
family typology
(kg)
Whole sample per day
(kg/per capita/day)
Nuclear (kg/per
capita/day)
Extended (kg/per
capita/day)
Mono-parental
(kg/per capita/day)
Lower
Sample 1 Thursday 0.696 0.606 0.00 0.699
Sample 2 Friday 0.735 0.429 0.00 0.594
Sample 3 Saturday 0.862 0.531 0.00 0.686
Sample 4 Sunday 1.148 0.531 0.00 0.769
Sample 5 Monday 1.263 0.692 0.00 0.973
Sample 6 Tuesday 0.873 1.177 0.00 1.250
Sample 7 Wednesday 0.845 1.102 0.00 1.141
Sample 8 Thursday 0.674 0.750 0.00 0.816
Per capita generation by level 0.891 0.763 0.00 0.886
Middle
Sample 1 Sunday 1.661 0.530 1.364 1.065
Sample 2 Monday 1.267 0.963 0.944 1.098
Sample 3 Tuesday 1.055 0.853 1.771 1.001
Sample 4 Wednesday 1.163 1.294 1.382 1.219
Sample 5 Thursday 1.202 0.670 1.476 0.969
Sample 6 Friday 1.125 0.824 1.323 0.988
Sample 7 Saturday 1.421 0.677 1.009 1.010
Sample 8 Sunday 1.018 0.753 2.183 0.979
Per capita generation by level 1.234 0.823 1.437 1.041
Upper
Sample 1 Wednesday 0.863 1.045 0.864 0.977
Sample 2 Thursday 1.639 0.653 1.404 1.529
Sample 3 Friday 0.746 0.820 2.103 1.041
Sample 4 Saturday 0.929 0.459 2.303 1.128
Sample 5 Sunday 0.530 0.592 0.818 0.672
Sample 6 Monday 1.305 0.494 0.794 1.116
Sample 7 Tuesday 0.947 0.731 1.480 1.065
Sample 8 Wednesday 0.888 0.490 0.496 0.760
Per capita generation by level 1.026 0.684 1.263 1.059
General by family typology 1.101 0.782 1.350
Complete simple 0.981
998 S. Ojeda-Bentez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 992999
In Table 6 the results of household solid waste generation per
person including the following categories: day of the week, socioe-
conomic stratum and family typology, demonstrate that it is in
the nuclear family of the medium socioeconomic stratum where
a waste generation greater than one kilogram is present.
10. Discussion
The results showthat the generation by socioeconomic strata is
different, alsothevariancewithineachgroupis high, for that reason
for analyzing the results of this research, family typology was used
as a baseline category of analysis, and based on this category the
stratication by socioeconomic strata was done.
Waste characterization indicates that no signicant differences
exist in relation to solid waste composition by family typology, dif-
ferences are only showed in some types of wastes such as garden
waste, cardboard, newspaper, sanitary waste and diapers.
However, there seems to be a strong correlation between fam-
ily unit typology and some of the RSW components originating
within the area of study. For instance, a nuclear family unit gener-
ates signicant quantities of newspaper while an extended family
unit discards more fabrics and diapers. A mono-parental family
unit, on the other hand, customarily disposes different types of
cardboard. In the case of the inert residues, both a nuclear and an
extendedfamilygeneratethelargest quantities. Thereare, however,
some similarities withrespect tospecic waste streamcomponents
among the generation of the three types of family units considered
in this research. This is especially true in the case of food waste,
wood waste, magazines, plain paper, and organic waste. These sim-
ilarities are also evident in the case of plastic bags, and food and
beverage containers (i.e., tin and glass).
The results indicate that family typology is a category that
shows a trend to explain relationships between waste generation
and lifestyle, this way belonging to a nuclear, extended or mono-
parental family can show a trend in composition, volume and
per capita waste generation patterns. As De-Pablos and S anchez
(2003) pointed out, lifestyle is reected as a group of practices that
an individual adopts to satisfy his necessities that bring material
shape to his identity. In this case the nuclear family is the one
that shows this relationship between lifestyle and waste generated
more clearly, nevertheless to determine the generation proles it
is necessary to apply tools that can explain both variables and to
include a more detailed analysis of the quantitative and qualitative
variables that are associated to the category of family typology. In
this sense diffuse logic allows including variables that are impre-
cise, for example Chen and Chang (2000) developed a dynamic
model where they applied diffuse logic to predict waste genera-
tion in an urban area taking a limited number of samples. Other
example is given by Karavezyris et al. (2002) who applied diffuse
logic to propose a model for the prediction of municipal solid waste
generation.
This studys ndings regarding organic waste agree with those
reported by Bernache (2003), and Ojeda-Benitez et al. (2000) in
that, percentage-wise, food scraps stand out as a major RSW com-
ponent whose potential as a local solid waste resource requires
further assessment.
Withrespect toaverage RSWgenerationbysocioeconomic level,
this paper shows differences in relationship with data previously
reported. For instance, contrary to this research, Escarimosa et al.
(2001) found out that an upper socioeconomic level stratumgener-
ated larger amount of RSW than middle-income level family units.
Using family unit typology and socioeconomic status, in con-
nection with discarded RSW, the results presented in this paper
indicate that lowand mediumlevel households behave in a similar
way. These ndings also point out that, followed by nuclear family
units; extendedfamily units that t intothese socioeconomic strata
generate the largest amounts of RSW. Mono-parental families, on
the other hand, emit the lowest amounts of discards. It should be
mentioned, however, that, whenit comes to families locatedwithin
ahighsocioeconomic level, mono-parental familyunits throwaway
the most waste. Within this stratum, nuclear family units generate
less RSW than mono-parental ones while extended family units
possess the lowest RSW generation rates.
But the above behavior changes if a similar analysis is done on
the basis of per capita RSW. On this case, a family member from a
middle or upper socioeconomic level appears to generate similar
amounts of discards while an individual coming from a mono-
parental family unit generates the most garbage. This study also
shows that, in terms of RSW quantities and components, it is a
nuclear family, the one that throws away the most unwanted items.
Whenaverage generationwas analyzedby socioeconomic strata
and familiar typology it was found that in the higher income strata,
nuclear and mono-parental families were the higher waste gen-
erators. By contrast in medium income stratum extended families
were the higher waste generators. Inrelationtothe per capita waste
generation in the three family types, it was found that it is the
higher income strata the one that generates more waste and the
lowest waste generations was made by the lowest income stra-
tum. These results showed that for the per capita waste generation
family typology is not a variable that affects the behavior of waste
generation.
11. Conclusions
Household solid waste generation and composition by family
typology and socioeconomic strata were analyzed. Evidence was
found that the average waste generation among socioeconomic
strata is different, based on this null hypothesis was rejected and
the alternate was accepted. Based on this it was concluded that
variability within groups does exist. Results of the ANOVA test to
familytypologycombiningtypologyandsocioeconomic strataindi-
cate that the average waste generationby family typology is similar.
For this reason family typology is a useful variable to explain waste
compositiontrends onlyif socioeconomic strata is included. Thus, it
is important that besides the analysis of waste generationby family,
the analysis of waste generation per capita should also be included.
In the case of waste generation by socioeconomic strata, it is
the medium socioeconomic strata the one that generates the most
waste, in contrast, considering family typology, the highest waste
generation is shown by the nuclear family.
Per capita waste generation of the complete sample is 0.981kg,
not considering typology andstrata variables, whensocioeconomic
strata was included in the analysis per capita waste generation
varies, inthe low-income strata is 0.886kg, inthe mediumis 1.04kg
and in the higher is 1.058kg. Per capita waste generation by fam-
ily typology is 1.10kg for the nuclear, 0.782 for the extended and
1.35kg for the mono-parental.
Infuture waste generationstudies more detailedanalysis should
be done about the inuence of socio-demographic proles of the
family members because family exerts a profoundandlasting inu-
ence on the perception and behavior of its members, both in the
consumption and in waste generation and handling, for this reason
it is necessary to focus on the family the environmental formation
programs.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank National Council of Science and
Technology (CONACYT) for nancially supporting this research
(SEP-2004-C01-46815).
S. Ojeda-Bentez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 992999 999
References
Bandara NJ, Hettiaratchim JP, Wirasinghe SC, Pilapiiya S. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment 2007;135(13):319.
Bernache-Perez G, S anchez CS, Garmendia AM, Davila-Villarreal A, S anchez-Salazar
ME. Solid waste characterization study in the Guadalajara Metropolitan zone,
Mexico. Waste Management and Research 2001;19:41324.
Bernache G. The environmental impact of municipal waste management: the case of
Guadalajara metro area. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2003;39:2337.
Bruvoll A. Factors inuence solid waste generation and management. The Journal of
Solid Waste Technology and Management 2001;27(34):15662.
Bystr omS, L onnstedt L. Paper recycling: a discussion of methodological approaches
Resources. Conservation and Recycling 2000;28(12):5565.
Buenrostro O. Municipal solid waste. Perspectives from multidisciplinary research.
Morelia, Mexico: University of Michoacan Publications; 2001.
Buenrostro O, Bocco G, Bernache G. Urban solid waste generation and disposal in
Mexico: a case study. Waste Management and Research 2001;19:16976.
Buenrostro O, Bocco G. Solid waste management in municipalities in Mexico: goals
and perspectives. Resources Conservation and Recycling 2003; 39(3):25163.
Consejo Nacional de Poblaci on, CONAPO, 2001. Deep trends of change
in Mexican homes and families. http://www.conapo.gob.mx/prensa/
boletin2001mayo2.htm.
Chen HW, Chang NB. Prediction analysis of solid waste generation based
on grey fuzzy dynamic modeling. Resource, Conservation and Recycling
2000;20(12):118.
Chung SS, Poon CS. Characterisation of municipal solid waste and its recyclable
contents of Guangzhou. Waste Management and Research 2001;19(6):47385.
Dennison GJ, Dodd VA, Whelas b. Asocioeconomic based survey of household waste
characteristics in the city of Dublin Ireland. I. Waste composition. Resource,
Conservation and Recycling 1996;17:22744.
De-Pablos JC, S anchez L. Lifestyles and revitalization of urban space. Revista
Sociol ogica Papers 2003;71:1131.
Escarimosa L, Franco G, Casta neda G, Quintal CA, 2001. Household waste manage-
ment in the City of Tuxtla Gutierrez Chiapas. Plaza y Valdez Editores Mexico.
Gravetter F, Wallnau L. Statistics for the behavioral sciences. 6th edition Wadsworth
Publishing; 2007.
Karavezyris V, Timpe KP, Marzi R. Application of systemdynamics and fuzzy logic to
forecasting of municipal solid waste. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation
2002;60:14958.
INEGI National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics (INEGI),
2003. Homes and families. http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/
espanol/temas/sociodem/intro hogares.asp?c=2.
Nasir M, Abdul R, Lee T, Zakaria Z, Muhamad A. Waste recycling in Malaysia: prob-
lems and propects. Waste Management and Research 2000;18(4):3208.
Ojeda-Benitez S, Ram rez-BarretoME, ArmijoC, 2000. Proper householdwaste man-
agement in an urban community. Final Research Report CONACYT.
Ojeda-Benitez S, Armijo de Vega C, Ram rez-Barreto ME. Characterization and quan-
tication of household solid wastes in a Mexican city. Resources Conservation
and Recycling 2003;39(3):21122.
Ojeda-Ben tez S, Beraud-Lozano JL. The municipal solid waste cycle in Mexico: nal
disposal. Resources Conservation and Recycling 2003;39(3):23950.
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;49:11028.
Rodr guez C, Luengo T. An analysis of the concept of mono-parental fam-
ily from a research about mono-parental family nuclei. Revista Sociol ogica
2003;69:5982.
Tucker P, Grayson J, Speirs D. Integrated effects of a reduction in collection fre-
quency for a kerbside newspaper recycling scheme. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 2000;31:14970.