Survey on Household Solid Waste Sorting at Source in Developing Economies: a Case Study of Nur-Sultan City in Kazakhstan

sustainability

Article Survey on Household Solid Waste Sorting at Source in Developing Economies: A Case Study of Nur-Sultan City in Kazakhstan

Yerbol Sarbassov 1,2 , Tolkyn Sagalova 1, Obid Tursunov 1 , Christos Venetis 3, Stefanos Xenarios 4,5 and Vassilis Inglezakis 2,5,*

1 Green Energy and Environment Laboratory, National Laboratory Astana, Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan 010000, Kazakhstan; [email protected] (Y.S.); [email protected] (T.S.); [email protected] (O.T.) 2 Environmental Science & Technology Group (ESTg), Chemical and Materials Engineering Department, School of Engineering, Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan 010000, Kazakhstan 3 Ingenieurgesellschaﬀt Prof. Czurda und Partner mbH (ICP), Auf der Breit 11, Karlsruhe 76227, Germany; [email protected] 4 Graduate School of Public Policy, Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan 010000, Kazakhstan; [email protected] 5 The Environment & Resource Eﬃciency Cluster (EREC), Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan 010000, Kazakhstan * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +7-7172-706534

Received: 28 August 2019; Accepted: 29 October 2019; Published: 18 November 2019

Abstract: The exponential population growth in urban areas makes existing solid waste management policies and strategies challenging. The situation becomes more strenuous in fast-growing cities where increasing waste production can hardly be met by the capacity of existing facilities. Practices like waste prevention, recycling, reuse, and recovery are fundamental elements needed for the reduction of solid waste disposed in landfills, especially in fast-growing cities where more sustainable management practices need to be adopted. This study investigated the behavioral attitudes of citizens of the capital of Kazakhstan, Nur-Sultan (former Astana), towards household solid waste disposal and separation at the source. The survey was conducted through stratified random sampling during April and July of 2018 with the participation of 3281 respondents. It is the first attempt, to our knowledge, of assessing recycling trends in Kazakhstan from the household perspective. The results showed that 24% of respondents were already sorting household solid waste despite the absence of a separation system at the source. The study further demonstrated that separation at source could be effective if the local authorities were to introduce sound public awareness campaigns and install recycling bins in close proximity to residential buildings.

Keywords: household solid waste; recycling; separation at source; survey

1. Introduction In Kazakhstan and neighboring post-Soviet countries, issues related to household solid waste (HSW) management have become serious concerns [1]. This has been mainly caused by insuﬃcient legislation and regulation [1]. In 2015, there were a total of 4284 landﬁlls and dumps in Kazakhstan, and only 459 met lawful requirements [1,2]. In 2017, there were 546 communal enterprises in total: 55 of them were state owned and 488 privately owned [3]. According to a national report from the Ministry of Energy, 4.3 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) was produced in 2018, out of which 3.4 million was delivered to HSW sites [3].

Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496; doi:10.3390/su11226496 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496 2 of 17

The prevailing management system of HSW in Kazakhstan is unsorted disposal to landfill sites, mainly because of the abundance of ample open space and the relatively low cost of disposal compared to other options [4–6]. However, the environmental impacts are manifold, such as, for instance, the continuous methane emissions and groundwater contamination due to leachate discharge [7,8]. Currently, about 95% of HSW in Kazakhstan is disposed into sanitary landfills, while the entire volume of HSW placed in landfills is estimated to be over 100 Mt [1,9]. The approximate annual production is 4–5 Mt, whereas by 2030 this number is expected to grow up to 7 Mt [10,11]. Under the current urban waste consumption trends, all landfills in Kazakhstan are projected to become saturated within the next decade. The construction of new regional sanitary landfills is required, while the existing ones should be closed and equipped with gas production units that could strongly support the economic sustainability of HSW management [12]. The potential economic opportunities from waste recycling in Kazakhstan has attracted private sector investments, and at present there are more than 130 small and medium sized enterprises dealing with sorting and processing waste of more than 20 types [3]. Promising examples of public–private collaboration are Raduga firm, which processes and manufactures household products from recycled polymers in North Kazakhstan, the Non-Woven Fabric Factory in the Kostanay region, the HILL Corporation in Shymkent, and the KazRecycleService waste recycling plant in Nur-Sultan [3]. In the case of the capital, Nur-Sultan, some private firms have initiated the setup of recycling systems for plastic and glass bottles in some residential buildings [13]. The private initiative in Nur-Sultan advocates the argument that urban waste separation at source could prove to be economically beneficial and environmentally friendly if well managed. Waste separation at source is not a new concept, and various scholars have mentioned the advantages since early 80s [14]. The success of separation methods depends to a great extent on the behavioral aspects of the citizens, whereas separation from mixed waste depends on the availability of technologies [14–17]. The opinions of the public regarding waste management are particularly crucial in developing countries where waste management plans are still in primary stages [18]. Several factors affecting HSW sorting have been investigated in the literature, and results have shown that certain attitudes and perceptions towards environmental concerns and recycling have significantly affected disposal and sorting behaviors [19–22]. Early studies, such as those of Taylor and Todd [23] and Vining and Ebreo [24], have illustrated that factors like cost, time, and the poor conditions of facilities were regarded as hindrances to pro-environmental behavior. Different behavioral models have been proposed since the 1990s in an attempt to understand how a number of different factors affect recycling behavior [25]. For instance, the motivation–ability–opportunity–behavior (MAOB) model showed that even if motivation is present, it is still not enough to support an environmentally friendly behavior. Assessment of sorting attitudes and participation were studied by Nixon and Saphores [26] and Almazán-Casali, Alfaro, and Sikra [17]. The objective of these studies was to identify the factors that may affect the participation of inhabitants in waste sorting schemes. In other studies, in-depth surveys were frequently employed to better comprehend respondents’ views on the barriers and success factors affecting HSW management so that relevant awareness campaigns could be adopted. In this regard, a survey carried out in Nigeria has revealed the need for a sustained public education program on waste prevention, promoting the idea of reuse, which could have a substantial effect on waste disposal [27]. Mathematical and causal effect models have also been adopted to stimulate HSW management behavior and promote the potential of adopting recycling schemes [28,29]. These models have shown that the tendency to recycle can be affected by social norms, pro-recycling attitudes, and perceived effectiveness. It was also noted that the tendency to recycle waste was not enough to cause recycling habits. Theoretical models, such as the theory of planned behavior (TPB), have also been employed in order to understand the motivation, intention, and behavior towards HSW sorting practices at the household level [30]. In this regard, the differences and similarities between the determinants of sorting behaviors in two highly developed cities, Singapore and Shanghai, China, have been explored in 2019 by Fan, Yang, and Shen [31]. The findings indicated that specific and general environmental motivations significantly influenced the behavioral intention. Another social Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496 3 of 17 study on HSW management, presented by Meng et al. [32] in Suzhou, China, showed that resident behaviors were highly connected to intrinsic subjective and external objective factors. The authors highlighted four main intrinsic subjective factors: willingness to participate, environmental awareness, social responsibility and behavioral attitudes [32]. As external objective factors, campaign information, accessibility to recycling facilities, influence from neighbors, time spent, economic cost and benefits, and prior knowledge on classification and recycling practices were taken [32]. In addition, the study mentioned that a close distance to recycling services and environmental facilities can be effective at promoting resident participation in HSW classification and recycling. Based on the abovementioned studies on HSW sorting, it could be concluded that there are different determinants and factors that may impact recycling and sorting behaviors of citizens. Also, literature review points out the need to engage citizens in the recycling of solid waste management as an essential component in the entire process. The surveying of citizens about their solid disposal habits and the potential of sorting waste at source can provide substantial information before the introduction of recycling initiatives. In this regard, this paper aims to evaluate, for the first time in Kazakhstan, the factors that attract citizens to implement separation at source and recycling. The methods of the survey are presented by describing the case study area with statistical data on population age, design of the applied survey, and the targeted participants. Social opinion of proactive and nonactive residents were discussed as well as effects of various factors such as age, income, and education. The results of this study are important for the municipality of Nur-Sultan city, and other municipalities in the region, towards the development of new waste management plans based on separation at source and for the improvement of resident participation within the existing HSW management systems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area The capital city of Nur-Sultan is a typical case of a developing city with a rapid increase in HSW generation because of population growth and economic prosperity [33]. In 2018, the city of Nur-Sultan had a population of 1,035,537 [34]. The city has four major administrative districts, namely Yessil, Saryarka, Almaty, and Baiqonyr [35], while the latest administrative district, named Baiqonyr, was created in 2018 (Figure1). Although relatively smaller in size compared to the other three districts, Saryarqa district is more populated. In 2018, roughly 312,000 people were residing in Saryarqa, 286,000 in Almaty, 218,000 in Baiqonyr, and 213,000 in Yessil. The population in 2016 and 2019 indicates that the age group of 16–62 was the most prevalent in both periods (see Table1). The three population classiﬁcation groups used in statistics by the government are the minors group (0–15 years), working active group (16–62 years), and pensioners (58–63 and older—the retirement age for females is 58 and males 62). It should also be noted that the female residents were found to be more than the male residents in the age groups of 16–62 and 58–62 and higher in 2016 and 2019 (see Table2).

Table 1. Age distribution of Nur-Sultan residents for 2016 and 2019 [34]. Data from 01 January of 2016 Data from January of 2019 Age distribution Total Male Female Total Male Female 0–15 years old 242,820 124,790 118,030 326,021 167,370 158,651 16–62 years old 567,491 278,805 288,686 671,977 327,121 344,856 58–62 and higher 62,273 17,100 45,173 80,386 23,131 57,255 Population 872,584 420,695 451,889 1078,384 517,22 560,762 Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496 4 of 17 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17

Figure 1. Map of Nur-Sultan city with four administrative districts. Figure 1. Map of Nur-Sultan city with four administrative districts. Table 2. Average annual household solid waste (HSW) composition in Nur-Sultan city [36]. Table 1. Age distribution of Nur-Sultan residents for 2016 and 2019 [34]. Fractions Annual, % (Standard Deviation)

OrganicsData from 01 January of 2016 47.2Data ( from1.6) January of 2019 ± Age distribution PlasticTotal Male Female Total 15.4 ( 1.4) Male Female ± 0–15 years old Paper242,820 124,790 118,030 326 12.5,021 ( 1.1)167,370 158,651 ± 16–62 years old Glass567,491 278,805 288,686 671, 6.2977 ( 1.2) 327,121 344,856 ± 58–62 and higher Diapers62,273 17,100 45,173 80,386 6.2 ( 0.4) 23,131 57,255 ± Fine (<12 mm) 3.5 ( 0.8) Population 872,584 420,695 451,889 1078,384 ± 517,22 560,762 Textile & Leather 3.4 ( 0.6) ± Currently, urbanFe solid Metals waste collection in Nur-Sultan city has been 2.0 undertaken ( 0.3) by a private firm ± C&D 0.9 ( 0.4) named Clean City [13]. Nur-Sultan city has 2565 HSW collection points, which± are served by 60 trucks Miscellaneous 0.8 ( 0.1) of the Clean City firm [13]. The tariffs of HSW are regulated by the municipality± and approved Wood 0.8 ( 0.4) ± separately for residentialNon-Fe Metals and commercial types. Billing is conducted 0.7 ( 0.2)on a monthly basis and ± delivered to householdsWEEE together with other communal bills. The collected 0.6 ( 0.2) HSW is delivered to the ± landfill siC&D—constructionte unsorted and then and is demolition forwarded waste, to a WEEE—electricalprimary mechanical andelectronic and manual equipment sorting waste plant, where 10% to 13% of initial HSW weight is recycled [13]. Recycled HSW fractions consist mainly of paper, plastic, and metal bottles [4,13]. After the primary recycling process, the HSW stream is then Currently, urban solid waste collection in Nur-Sultan city has been undertaken by a private briquetted and transported to the sanitary landfill for disposal. Table 3 presents the average annual firm named Clean City [13]. Nur-Sultan city has 2565 HSW collection points, which are served by HSW composition of Nur-Sultan city [36] for the year 2018. The average annual composition of HSW 60 trucks of the Clean City firm [13]. The tariffs of HSW are regulated by the municipality and showed roughly an amount 50% to be organic waste, a major part of which was food residuals. It is approved separately for residential and commercial types. Billing is conducted on a monthly basis then followed by recyclable plastic 15% and paper 12%, while the remaining is combustible and fine and delivered to households together with other communal bills. The collected HSW is delivered to fractions [36]. Because of the increase of materials suitable for recycling, the municipality of Nur- the landfill site unsorted and then is forwarded to a primary mechanical and manual sorting plant, Sultan city launched a sorting at source project in August 2018 by placing around 6200 containers for whereHSW separation10% to 13% near of initial selected HSW r weightesidential is recycled buildings [13 ].[37 Recycled]. In addition HSW fractions, 22 collection consist points mainly for of paper,recyclable plastic, fractions and metal (plastic, bottles paper [4,, 13and]. Afterglass materials) the primary as recyclingwell as free process, collection the service HSW streams for electrical is then briquettedand electronic and equipment transported waste to the (WEEE sanitary) were landfill setup for in disposal. the second Table half3 ofpresents 2018 [13 the]. average annual HSW composition of Nur-Sultan city [36] for the year 2018. The average annual composition of HSW showed roughly an amount 50% to be organic waste, a major part of which was food residuals. It is then followed by recyclable plastic 15% and paper 12%, while the remaining is combustible and fine fractions [36]. Because of the increase of materials suitable for recycling, the municipality of Nur-Sultan city launched a sorting at source project in August 2018 by placing around 6200 containers for HSW separation near selected residential buildings [37]. In addition, 22 collection points for Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496 5 of 17 recyclable fractions (plastic, paper, and glass materials) as well as free collection services for electrical and electronic equipment waste (WEEE) were setup in the second half of 2018 [13].

Table 3. Channels used for distributing the questionnaires.

Sustainability 2019Channels, 11, x FOR usedPEER DuringREVIEW the Survey Responds % 5 of 17 Electronic-KSK (Apartment Owner’s Association) 1021 31 Table 2. Averageapplication annual household (online) solid waste (HSW) composition in Nur-Sultan city [36]. Active cityFractions groups on Facebook (online)Annual, % (Standard 443 Deviation) 14 4 Staff of NazarbayevOrganics University (online) 47.2 (±1.6)102 3.1 4 Students ofPlastic Nazarbayev University (online) 15.4 (±1.4)239 7.3 Residents of residentialPaper complex “Vienna quarter” (online) 12.5 (±1.1)80 2.4 ResidentsGlass of “BI group” flats (online)6.2 (±1.2) 427 13.0 Paper-based survey of city residents (printed and Diapers 6.2 (±0.4)898 27.4 distributedFine (<12 onmm) the back side of bills) 3.5 (±0.8) Face-to-faceTextile interview & Leather (filled in printed questionnaire)3.4 (±0.6) 70 2.1 Fe Metals Total2.0 (±0.3) 3281 100 C&D 0.9 (±0.4) 4 StudentsMiscellaneous and staff of the university further discussed as residents0.8 (±0.1) of Nazarbayev University Wood 0.8 (±0.4) Non-Fe Metals 0.7 (±0.2) 2.2. Design of Survey andWEEE Survey Participants 0.6 (±0.2) C&D—construction and demolition waste, WEEE—electrical and electronic equipment waste A survey was designed by the authors to evaluate the HSW sorting attitude of Nur-Sultan citizens.2.2. Design Socio-demographic of Survey and Survey data Participants were collected to identify the profile of the participants, namely age, educationalA survey status, was family designed size, andby the type authors of housing. to evaluate Then, the the HSW habitual sorting practices attitude on of householdNur-Sultan waste as wellcitizens. as personal Socio-demographic preferences data were were reviewed, collected to such identify as the profile average of the amount participants, of HSW namely accumulated age, daily,educational the level status, of satisfaction family size on, and municipal type of housing. services, Then, and the awareness habitual practices on waste on sorting.household Based waste on the awarenessas well ofas respondentspersonal preferences on HSW were separation, reviewed, thesuch questionnaire as the average provided amount of a HSW follow-up accumulated question on the reasoningdaily, the level of this of satisfaction attitude and on themunicipal motivational services or, and discouraging awareness on factors. waste sorting. The selection Based on of the diff erent samplingawareness groups of respondents was conducted on HSW in a separation stratified, mannerthe questionnaire in order toprovided have representation a follow-up question from dionff erent residentialthe reasoning zones o andf this types attitude ofresidents. and the motivational Commercial or discouraging areas wereexcluded, factors. The as selection the survey of different was focused sampling groups was conducted in a stratified manner in order to have representation from different on residential areas. residential zones and types of residents. Commercial areas were excluded, as the survey was focused The first part of the socio-demographic data was based on close-ended questions. The second part on residential areas. was basedThe on first open-ended part of the questions socio-demographic by encouraging data was respondents based on close to describe-ended questions. their waste The managementsecond habits.part Finally, was based respondents on open-ended had an questions option toby express encouraging their respondents comments onto describe the improvement their waste of the currentmanagement waste management habits. Finally, system respondents in Nur-Sultan had city. an optionA flowchart to express of the theirquestionnaire comments is onpresented the in Figureimprovement2. of the current waste management system in Nur-Sultan city. A flowchart of the questionnaire is presented in Figure 2.

FigureFigure 2. 2Flowchart. Flowchart ofof the questionnaire employed employed during during the survey the survey..

The sample size required for the questionnaire was calculated using the following equation: Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496 6 of 17

The sample size required for the questionnaire was calculated using the following equation:

z2 p(1 p) ∗ − e2 SS = , (1) z2 p(1 p) + ∗ − 1 e2N

where: SS sample size; z confidence level (typically z-score equal to 1.96 for 95% confidence level); e acceptable level of sampling error (margin of error typically 0.05% 5%); ± N population size (p = 1,035,537); and P population proportion (50%; i.e., 0.5 by default). Based on the data obtained from the statistical agency, the population of Nur-Sultan was 1,035,537 as of 1 February 2018 [34]. There is no absolute rule on the number of participants in social surveys as it depends on the desirable margin of error and confidence interval [38,39]. In the present study, 3281 respondents participated in the survey, which corresponds to 1.7% and 2.3% error margins for confidence levels of 95% and 99%, respectively [40]. Different approaches have been applied by scholars to maximize the response rate of the questionnaire, which include online-based interviews, phone conversations, face-to-face interviews, and postal service [41]. In our case, the study was primarily implemented though electronic questionnaires, as presented in Table3. The questionnaire was in three languages (i.e., Kazakh, Russian, and English), as some of the targeted areas, such as the university, were inhabited by foreign responders. The study took place during the period from April to July of 2018.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Survey Analysis by Gender, Marital Status, and Age The gender distribution was 43% male and 57% female, where 21% of males and 27% of females reported separating wasteSustainability material at 2019 the, source11, x FOR (Figure PEER REVIEW3). Gender seemed to play a role in separating 7 of 17 intention. Other studies such as Ekere et al. [42] conducted in Uganda, Babaei et al. [43] conducted of which 239 were from Nazarbayev University. The results showed that 24.5% of students were in Iran, and Padilla and Trujillo [44] conducted in Bogota (Colombia) indicated that gender could separating waste at the source, and the rate slightly increased to 26% in areas where bins for inﬂuence HSW separation behaviors, as females appeared to be more active in source separation recyclables were installed. This is consistent with the results of other studies, such as Rousta et al. than males. [45]. 2500 2500

2000 2000

1500 1500 1000 1000 500

Number Number ofrespondents 500 0

Men Women ofrespondents Number 0

Number of respondents (men and women) Married Unmarried Number of respondents (married and unmarried)

Number of respondents with source separation behavior Number of respondents with source separation behavior Figure 3. Comparative analysis of HSW sorting behavior by gender. Figure 3. Comparative analysis of HSW Figure 4. Comparative analysis of HSW source sorting behavior by gender sorting separation behavior by marital status

As can be seen in Figure 5, the highest number of responders was within the age of 18–49 years, of which 24% separated HSW at source. Also, a trend of increased recycling by age was observed. Roughly one-third of older responders expressed their willingness to separate at source. Studies in the United States have shown that there is a statistically significant relationship between age and source separation, and households with at least one person over 65 years are 1.6 times more likely to separate urban waste [26]. In a survey done in Thailand, Challcharoenwattan and Pharino [46] noted that the older residents tend to sort and manage HSW by themselves, whereas the younger residents let waste management services to do the separation. Chu et al. [47] noted that the retired respondents have relatively more time, and they do not much consider the distance to recycling containers. Padilla and Trujillo [44] observed that in Bogota (Colombia), the older the head of household, the higher their pro-environmental behavior towards source separation. Similar are the results obtained in Abadan, Iran, where respondents more than 45 years of age had an increased attitude towards the development of source reduction programs [43]. The results in Nur-Sultan support these findings as presented in Figure 6. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496 7 of 17

Of all respondents, 63% were married, and nearly 24% of them participated in recycling initiatives (Figure4). There was no signiﬁcant di ﬀerence between married and unmarried, which is in contrast to the study of Padilla and Trujillo (2018) [44], where married respondents appeared more active Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEERin separation REVIEW at source. In addition, at the time of the survey, 90% of7 of respondents 17 declared higher education degrees, and 11% were students. In total, 364 students participated in the survey, of which of which 239 were from Nazarbayev University. The results showed that 24.5% of students were 239 were from Nazarbayev University. The results showed that 24.5% of students were separating separating waste at the source, and the rate slightly increased to 26% in areas where bins for waste at the source, and the rate slightly increased to 26% in areas where bins for recyclables were recyclables were installed. This is consistent with the results of other studies, such as Rousta et al. installed. This is consistent with the results of other studies, such as Rousta et al. [45]. [45]. 2500 2500

2000 2000

1500 1500 1000 1000 500

Number Number ofrespondents 500 0

Men Women ofrespondents Number 0

Number of respondents (men and women) Married Unmarried Number of respondents (married and unmarried)

Number of respondents with source separation behavior Number of respondents with source separation behavior

Figure 4. Comparative analysis of HSW source sorting separation behavior by marital status. Figure 3. Comparative analysis of HSW Figure 4. Comparative analysis of HSW source sorting behavior by gender As can be seen in Figuresorting5 ,separation the highest behavior number by of respondersmarital status was within the age of 18–49 years, of which 24% separated HSW at source. Also, a trend of increased recycling by age was observed. Roughly one-third of older responders expressed their willingness to separate at source. Studies in the As can be seen in FigureUnited 5, the States highest have number shown thatof responders there is a statisticallywas within significantthe age of 18 relationship–49 years, between age and source of which 24% separated separation,HSW at source and.households Also, a trend with of atincreased least one recycling person over by 65age years was areobserved 1.6 times. more likely to separate Roughly one-third of olderurban responders waste [26 expressed]. In a survey their done willingness in Thailand, to separat Challcharoenwattane at source. Studies and in Pharino [46] noted that the the United States have shownolder residentsthat there tend is a to statistically sort and manage significant HSW relationship by themselves, between whereas age the and younger residents let waste source separation, and householdsmanagement with services at least to one do the person separation. over 65 Chu years et al. are [47 1.6] noted times that more the likely retired to respondents have relatively separate urban waste [26].more In a time,survey and done they in do Thailand, not much Challcharoenwat consider the distancetan and to recyclingPharino [46 containers.] noted Padilla and Trujillo [44] that the older residents tendobserved to sort that and in manage Bogota (Colombia),HSW by themselves the older, thewhereas head ofthe household, younger residents the higher their pro-environmental let waste management servicesbehavior to do towards the separation. source separation. Chu et al. Similar [47] noted are the that results the retired obtained respondents in Abadan, Iran, where respondents have relatively more timemore, and they than do 45 not years much of ageconsider had anthe increased distance to attitude recycling towards container thes development. Padilla of source reduction and Trujillo [44] observedprograms that in Bogota [43]. The(Colombia) results in, the Nur-Sultan older the support head of thesehousehold, findings the as higher presented their in Figure6. pro-environmental behavior towards source separation. Similar are the results obtained in Abadan, Iran, where respondents more than 45 years of age had an increased attitude towards the development of source reduction programs [43]. The results in Nur-Sultan support these findings as presented in Figure 6. SustainabilitySustainability2019 2019, 11, ,11 6496, x FOR PEER REVIEW 88 of of 17 17 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

30003000

20002000

10001000

Number Number ofrespondents Number Number ofrespondents

0 0 0-180-18 18-4918-49 50-6050-60 and and over over AgeAge groups groups

TotalTotal number number of respondentsof respondents TotalTotal number number of respondentsof respondents that that intend intend to doto dosource source separation separation

FigureFigureFigure 5 5.. HSW 5HSW. HSW source source separationseparation separation behavior behavior behavior by ageby byage group. age group. group.

45 45

40 40

35 35

30 30

SortingofHSW, % SortingofHSW, % 25 25

20 20 25-2925-29 30-3930-39 40-4940-49 50-5950-59 60-over60-over AgeAge groups groups of respondentsof respondents

Figure 6. Source separation behavior of respondents by age group. Figure 6. Source separation behavior of respondents by age group. Figure 6. Source separation behavior of respondents by age group. 3.2. Social Activity Level of Residents 3.2. Social Activity Level of Residents 3.2. SocialFigure Activity7 illustrates Level of theResidents period of residence of respondents in the city. The respondents were dividedFigureFigure into 7 thoseillustrates7 illustrates who the were the period bornperiod inof Nur-Sultanresidenceof residence of city, respondentsof respondents those living in inthein thethe city. city city. The up The torespondents 1respondents year, 1–5 were years, were divided5–10divided years, into into andthose those more who who than were were 10 born years. born in MostNurin Nur-Sultan of-Sultan the currentcity, city, those residentsthose living living havein thein beenthe city city inup the upto 1to city year, 1 foryear, 1 more– 51 –years5 thanyears, , 510–105 years,– years10 years while, and, and more a smaller more than than fraction 10 years.10 years. was Mostborn Most of in theof Nur-Sultan, the current current residents whichresidents indicateshave have been been the in dynamics thein the city city for of for more population more than than 10development. years10 years, while, while a No smaller a signiﬁcantsmaller fraction fraction diﬀ waserences was born born in in the Nur in recyclingNur-Sultan-Sultan, behaviorswhich, which indicates indicates of residents the the dynamics seemeddynamics of to population occurof population based development.ondevelopment. the duration No N ofsignificanto residence. significant differences Within differences the in questionnaire,the in the recycling recycling behaviors respondents behaviors of residentsof were residents also seemed asked seemed to to occur to evaluate occur based based the oncurrent onthe the duration HSW duration management of residenceof residence. services Within. Within theythe the questionnaire, receive questionnaire, on a regular respondents respondents basis. Figurewere were also8 showsalso asked asked the to evaluationevaluateto evaluate the of the currentthecurrent HSW HSW HSW management management management services service service divideds theys they receive by receive the on districts ona regular a regular of the basis. city.basis. Figure It Figure was 8 foundshows 8 shows that the the almostevaluation evaluation 68% of of of therespondentsthe HSW HSW management management in urban areasservices services expressed divided divided positive by bythe the districts feedback districts of for theof thethe city. existingcity. It wasIt was HSWfound found management that that almost almost 6 service,8 %68 of% of respondentswhilerespondents this number in urbanin urban dropped areas areas expressed to expressed 28% in suburbanpositive positive feedback areas. feedback The for respondentsfor the the existing existing ofHSW private HSW management management houses highlighted service service, , whilethewhile absence this this number ofnumber HSW dropped collectiondropped to 28%to systems 28% in suburbanin in suburban suburban areas. areas. areas The The asres a respondents majorpondents problem. of privateof private Few houses suburban houses highlighted highlighted residents theindicatedthe absence absence that of HSW of the HSW transfer collection collection of HSW system system froms ins these suburbanin suburban areas areas was areas regularas aa smajor a major and problem that problem HSW. Few collection. Few suburban suburban services residents residents were indicatedindicated that th theat the transfer transfer of HSWof HSW from from these these areas areas was w regularas regular and and that that HSW HSW collection collection services services Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17 were available. It is evident that there are many suburbs in Nur-Sultan region where waste Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496 9 of 17 Sustainabilitymanagement 2019 is, 11 still, x FOR not PEER well REVIEWorganized. 9 of 17 wereavailable. available.1200 It It is evident is evident that that there there are many are suburbsmany suburbs in Nur-Sultan in Nur region-Sultan where region waste where management waste is managementstill not well is still organized. not well organized. 1000 1200

800 1000

600

800 Residents 400 600

Residents 200 400

0 200 Less than a year Between 1-5 Between 5-10 More than 10 Born in Nur- years years years Sultan city 0 Less thanTotal a yearnumberBetween of residents 1-5 BetweenShare 5-10 of residentsMore than with 10 pro-activeBorn in behavior Nur- years years years Sultan city

Total number of residents Share of residents with pro-active behavior Figure 7. Source separation behavior of respondents by period of residence in Nur-Sultan.

Figure 7. Source separation behavior of respondents by period of residence in Nur-Sultan. Number of respondents by districts Figure 7. Source separation behavior of respondents by period of residence in Nur-Sultan. Number of respondents with positive feedback on existing HSW management

1200Number of respondents by districts Number of respondents with positive feedback on existing HSW management 1000 1200 800 1000 600

800 Residents 400 600

200 Residents 400 0 200 Yessil Almaty Saryarqa Bayqonyr Suburbs

0 Administrative districts YessilFigure 8. SeparationAlmaty behaviorSaryarqa of respondentsBayqonyr by district. Suburbs Figure 8. Separation behavior of respondents by district. The survey data were further analyzedAdministrative by the type of districts house where respondents were residing (Figure9). The highest source separation rate was found at the Nazarbayev University dormitories. In total, 31% of respondents expressed their willingness for source separation, a percentage higher than those residing in privateFigure houses8. Separation (25%) behavior and apartments of respondents (24%) (Figure by district9). It. has to be noted that the university has actively supported separate waste collection. Although not all surveys agree on Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17

The survey data were further analyzed by the type of house where respondents were residing (Figure 9). The highest source separation rate was found at the Nazarbayev University dormitories. InSustainability total, 31%2019 of ,respondents11, 6496 expressed their willingness for source separation, a percentage higher10 of 17 than those residing in private houses (25%) and apartments (24%) (Figure 9). It has to be noted that the university has actively supported separate waste collection. Although not all surveys agree on the impact of education level on environmental behavior, some results support this assumption [44]. the impact of education level on environmental behavior, some results support this assumption [44]. For instance, Kelly et al. [48] investigated on-campus source separation in a New Zealand university For instance, Kelly et al. [48] investigated on-campus source separation in a New Zealand university community and reported that 49% of all respondents always separated waste when on the campus. community and reported that 49% of all respondents always separated waste when on the campus. Some studies suggest a positive correlation of residence type with recycling habits by explaining Some studies suggest a positive correlation of residence type with recycling habits by explaining that that more storage space might encourage recycling behavior [49]. For instance, Lakhan [50] reported more storage space might encourage recycling behavior [49]. For instance, Lakhan [50] reported that that in Canada, multi-residential buildings recycle approximately 90% less than that of single-family in Canada, multi-residential buildings recycle approximately 90% less than that of single-family households. Rispo et al. [51] argue that higher urban densities imply smaller types of dwellings, households. Rispo et al. [51] argue that higher urban densities imply smaller types of dwellings, which results in the reduced capacity of people to cope with HSW and recycling. Other studies have which results in the reduced capacity of people to cope with HSW and recycling. Other studies have shown that citizens with high incomes are more likely to perform waste separation in comparison shown that citizens with high incomes are more likely to perform waste separation in comparison to to those with low incomes, as for example in Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, and China [15,52,53]. those with low incomes, as for example in Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, and China [15,52,53]. However, in our study it appears that there was no relation between participants’ income level and However, in our study it appears that there was no relation between participants’ income level and HSW recycling at source, as shown in Figure 10. This agrees with a nation-wide study in the US, HSW recycling at source, as shown in Figure 10. This agrees with a nation-wide study in the US, where income was not a signiﬁcant predictor of source separation behavior [26]. where income was not a significant predictor of source separation behavior [26]. Number of respondents

Number of respondents with source separation behaviour

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500 Number Number ofrespondents 0 Apartment Private houses Dormitory Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17 Figure 9. Comparison of HSW source separation behavior by the type of residential complex. Figure 9. Comparison of HSW source separation behavior by the type of residential complex. Total number of respondents Number of respondents with source separation behavior 1000

800

600

400

Number Number ofrespondents 200

0 < 130 130-400 400-800 800-1300 >1300 Undeclared respondents Income of respondents, USD per month

Figure 10. Waste separation rate by income. Figure 10. Waste separation rate by income

3.3. Sorters versus Nonsorters The survey results showed that 24% of the responders were separating HSW at source. It should be noted that at the time of survey, there were limited services for separate HSW recycling containers in Nur-Sultan city. A higher source separation rate was observed at Nazarbayev University campus, which could be explained by the recycling bins available on the campus, the initiatives of the university towards separate collection, and the fact that, in general, education has positive effect on HSW separation at source [44]. The average younger age of the university community is probably an additional factor for adopting recycling practices. The relatively high percentage of source separation trends in the city could be explained by the presence of a few private companies, which collect and recycle plastics and electrical and electronic equipment waste (WEEE) [13]. In the framework of a pilot project, named “Plastic lives here”, yellow metal boxes were installed in selected locations of Nur-Sultan city for collecting plastic, orange metal boxes for collecting hazardous waste, and bins for collecting glass and metals [54]. Data from other Asian countries show higher percentages of HSW separation at source, for instance 66% in Bangkok (Thailand) and 49% in Iskandar (Malaysia) [49]. These figures are considerably lower than those reported for developed economies such as in the UK, where in a London suburb, for instance, 80% of the respondents confirmed frequent source separators at home [51]. It should be noted, however, that people tend to overstate their actions when it comes to actual source separation [49]. Considering the source separation of HSW and the factors motivating this behavior, Frey [55] quoted that individuals are prepared to get more actively involved when it costs them less, and this trend reverses when there are higher expenditures. According to Stern [56] and Zhang et al. [57], it is possible to influence individual behavior by making people aware of the consequences of not recycling and by showing them that their personal behavior is significant enough to make a difference. Austin and Hatfield [58] and O’Connor et al. [59] showed that recycling, sorting, and disposal behaviors can be improved with inexpensive and simple methods. The study of Boldero [60] showed that disposal, recycling, and source separation behaviors might also be influenced by situational factors such as the amount of effort involved, access to facilities, and perceived inconvenience. Barr [61] delineated situational factors that may affect personal behavior such as individual characteristics Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496 11 of 17

3.3. Sorters versus Nonsorters The survey results showed that 24% of the responders were separating HSW at source. It should be noted that at the time of survey, there were limited services for separate HSW recycling containers in Nur-Sultan city. A higher source separation rate was observed at Nazarbayev University campus, which could be explained by the recycling bins available on the campus, the initiatives of the university towards separate collection, and the fact that, in general, education has positive effect on HSW separation at source [44]. The average younger age of the university community is probably an additional factor for adopting recycling practices. The relatively high percentage of source separation trends in the city could be explained by the presence of a few private companies, which collect and recycle plastics and electrical and electronic equipment waste (WEEE) [13]. In the framework of a pilot project, named “Plastic lives here”, yellow metal boxes were installed in selected locations of Nur-Sultan city for collecting plastic, orange metal boxes for collecting hazardous waste, and bins for collecting glass and metals [54]. Data from other Asian countries show higher percentages of HSW separation at source, for instance 66% in Bangkok (Thailand) and 49% in Iskandar (Malaysia) [49]. These figures are considerably lower than those reported for developed economies such as in the UK, where in a London suburb, for instance, 80% of the respondents confirmed frequent source separators at home [51]. It should be noted, however, that people tend to overstate their actions when it comes to actual source separation [49]. Considering the source separation of HSW and the factors motivating this behavior, Frey [55] quoted that individuals are prepared to get more actively involved when it costs them less, and this trend reverses when there are higher expenditures. According to Stern [56] and Zhang et al. [57], it is possible to influence individual behavior by making people aware of the consequences of not recycling and by showing them that their personal behavior is significant enough to make a difference. Austin and Hatfield [58] and O’Connor et al. [59] showed that recycling, sorting, and disposal behaviors can be improved with inexpensive and simple methods. The study of Boldero [60] showed that disposal, recycling, and source separation behaviors might also be influenced by situational factors such as the amount of effort involved, access to facilities, and perceived inconvenience. Barr [61] delineated situational factors that may affect personal behavior such as individual characteristics (e.g., socio-demographics), individual experience, and knowledge of the behavioral context (e.g., service provision). Krahe [62] reported that people are more manipulated by external factors than by internal traits. Lehman and Geller [63] stated that it is absolutely crucial to verify that appropriate instructions support the source separation of urban waste. These changes at the individual level can lead to an improvement in source separation and help in minimizing the disposal of materials that can be otherwise reused. However, with the exception of some developed countries such as Belgium, Germany, and Japan, source separation of HSW is rather ineffective and serves to argue for a thorough revision of current policies applied by the local authorities.

3.4. The Overall Feedback and Motivation/Demotivation Factors Figure 11 shows the overall feedback received from 638 respondents. The absolute majority of respondents (84%) shared their vision and readiness to start source separation of HSW if the authorities employ well-organized services and they receive proper instruction. A considerable number of respondents stressed the importance of making sure that the sorting eﬀort of HSW at home will be ensued by recycling processes in the plant. Vassanadumrongdee and Kittipongvises [49] made a similar observation in a study conducted in Bangkok (Thailand), where 14.6% of respondents stated that the separation at source was meaningless, as they had seen municipal workers mixing residual waste with recyclable materials. The large number of respondents supporting the improvement of the current HSW management system in Nur-Sultan could be another indication for residents’ willingness to support recycling practices. Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 17 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 17 (e.g., socio-demographics), individual experience, and knowledge of the behavioral context (e.g., service(e.g. provision)., socio-demographics) Krahe [62] reported, individual that experiencepeople are, moreand knowledgemanipulated of by the external behavioral factors context than by (e.g. , internalservice traits. provision). Lehman Krahe and Geller [62] reported [63] stated that thatpeople it is are absolutely more manipulated crucial to verifyby external that appropriate factors than by instructionsinternal traits.support Lehman the source and separationGeller [63] ofstated urban that waste. it is Theseabsolutely changes crucial at the to iverifyndividual that levelappropriate can leadinstructions to an improvement support thein sourcesource separationseparation andof urban help waste.in minimizing These changes the disposal at the ofindividual materials level that can can leadbe otherwise to an improvement reused. However, in source with separation the exception and helpof some in minimizing developed countriesthe disposal such of as materials Belgium, that Germanycan be, otherwiseand Japan re, usedsource. However, separation with of the HSW exception is rather of some ineffective developed and countries serves to such argue as Belgium, for a thoroughGermany revision, and of Japan current, so urcepolicies separation applied by of theHSW local is authorities. rather ineffective and serves to argue for a thorough revision of current policies applied by the local authorities. 3.4. The Overall Feedback and Motivation/Demotivation Factors 3.4. The Overall Feedback and Motivation/Demotivation Factors Figure 11 shows the overall feedback received from 638 respondents. The absolute majority of respondentsFigure (84%) 11 shows shared the their overall vision feedback and readinessreceived from to start 638 respondents.source separation The absolute of HSW majority if the of authoritiesrespondents employ (84%) well shared-organized their services vision andand readinessthey receive to start proper source instruction separation. A consi of HSWderable if the numberauthorities of respondents employ stressed well-organized the importance services of and mak theying sure receive that the proper sorting instruction effort of HSW. A consi at homederable willnumber be ensued of respondentsby recycling stressedprocesses the in importancethe plant. Vassanadumrongdee of making sure that the and sorting Kittipongvises effort of HSW[49] made at home a similarwill be observation ensued by recyclingin a study processes conducted in in the Ban plant.gkok Vassanadumrongdee (Thailand), where 14.6% and Kittipongvisesof respondents [stated49] made thata the similar separation observation at source in a studywas meaningless, conducted in as Ban theygkok had (Thailand) seen municipal, where workers 14.6% of mixing respondents residual stated wastethat with the separationrecyclable materials.at source wasThe meaningless,large number as of they respondents had seen supportingmunicipal workers the improvement mixing residual of the waste current with HSW recyclable management materials. system The inlarge Nur number-Sultan ofcould respondents be another supporting indication the forimprovement residents’ of willingnesstheSustainability current to support 2019HSW, 11 ,management 6496recycling practices. system in Nur-Sultan could be another indication for residents’12 of 17 willingness to support recycling practices.

2% 14% 14% 2% Advice PositiveAdvice 19% NeutralPositive 19% Neutral 65% Negative 65% Negative

Figure 11.Figure The 11.overallThe overall feedback feedback received received from from active active respondents. respondents. Figure 11. The overall feedback received from active respondents. Further, the participants were asked to highlight the main reasons motivating or discouraging Further, the participants were asked to highlight the main reasons motivating or discouraging source separation, as shown in Figures 12 and 13. According to Figure 12, 61% of the respondents who source separationFurther, the, as participants shown in Figure were sasked 12 and to 13highlight. According the mainto Figure reasons 12, motivating61% of the respondentsor discouraging separated waste mentioned that the motivation was active citizenship, while for 26% the motivation whosource separate separationd waste, asmentioned shown in thatFigure thes 12 motivation and 13. According was active to citiFigurezenship, 12, 61% while of the for respondents 26% the was a high degree of environmental awareness. Also, a group of 8% expressed their satisfaction for motivationwho separate was ad highwaste degree mentioned of environmental that the motivation awareness. was Also, active a group citizenship, of 8% expressedwhile for 26%their the the current waste management services, while 4% mentioned the need for monetary compensation to satisfactionmotivation for thewas current a high waste degree management of environmental service awareness.s, while 4% Also,mentioned a group the ofneed 8% for expressed monetary their further motivate source separation attitudes. compensationsatisfaction to for further the current motivat wastee source management separation service attitudes, whiles. 4% mentioned the need for monetary compensation to further motivate source separation attitudes. Pro-environmentalist 61% Pro-environmentalist 61% 1% Monetory compensation 4%1% Monetory compensation 4% Well cordinated service 8% Well cordinated service 8% A high degree of Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW awarenessA high degree of 13 of 17 Active citizenship 26% awareness Active citizenship Figure 12. Major26% reasons of the pro-environmental respondents.

Figure 12. Major reasons of the pro-environmental respondents.

9% Lack of motivation as material reward 13% Lack of space in the 47% kitchen

Lack of effective public 31% awareness campaign

Figure 13. Major discouraging factors noted by non-separating respondents.

In the relevantFigure 13. literature, Major discouraging public awareness factors is noted considered by non as-separating the most erespondents.ffective measure for the enhancement of citizen participation in source separation and recycling plans [64]. According to the studyIn of the Hanyu relevant et al. literature, [65], personal public attributes awareness like is environmental considered as concern, the most knowledge, effective measure and awareness for the couldenhancement influence of individual citizen participation behavior. Welfens in source et al.separation [66] reported and thatrecycling knowledge plans is[64]. one According of the significant to the keystudy drivers of Hanyu of waste et al. separation [65], personal and disposalattributes behaviors. like environmental There are severalconcern, other knowledge studies, underlining and awareness the significancecould influence of awareness individual on the behavior. effective W implementationelfens et al. [66] of HSW reported on the that local knowledge level [49, 67 is– 69 one]. On of the significant key drivers of waste separation and disposal behaviors. There are several other studies underlining the significance of awareness on the effective implementation of HSW on the local level [49, 67–69]. On the contrary, Chen et al. [15] and Zhang et al. [47] have reported that a high awareness and knowledge on HSW management does not necessarily translate into action. The main barriers to HSW source separation are shown in Figure 13, where 47% and 31% of participants indicated the lack of facilities for separate HSW collection and public awareness programs. The physical proximity of collection containers is a well-known primary determinant of the success of a waste management strategy, and, as rule of thumb, containers should be no more than 100–150 m from households [49]. Rousta et al. [45] concluded that the decreased distance of drop-off points and improved sorting information have improved HSW separation to 28% and decreased the poorly sorted fractions to 70%, respectively. Other studies have highlighted that convenient access to separate HSW facilities was considered as a more determinant factor than the personal beliefs on environmental matters [70–72]. Finally, some of the participants in our study mentioned, as a restraining factor, a lack of space in the kitchen for recycling purposes (13%), while 9% specified the necessity of reward compensation as a motivation factor. In general, respondents showed a positive attitude to the questions and expressed their readiness for source separate of HSW if relevant city services were provided. In several developing countries, citizens have underlined their willingness to be more involved and actively support waste management solutions [18,73]

4. Conclusions The results of the survey indicated that, while age plays a significant role, gender, marital status, and income level are not critical factors for HSW source separation behavior. There is a positive attitude and willingness of respondents to perform HSW separation at source, provided that the authorities organize the collection system and employ effective awareness campaigns. Despite the lack of an organized system at the time of the survey, nearly one out four participants already performed source separation of HSW in Nur-Sultan. This shows the positive attitude of citizens as well as the effectiveness of the private sector in recycling initiatives. According to the respondents, important factors for the establishment of HSW sorting practices are the presence of separate containers in close proximity to their residence, effective public awareness campaigns, and clear Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496 13 of 17 contrary, Chen et al. [15] and Zhang et al. [47] have reported that a high awareness and knowledge on HSW management does not necessarily translate into action. The main barriers to HSW source separation are shown in Figure 13, where 47% and 31% of participants indicated the lack of facilities for separate HSW collection and public awareness programs. The physical proximity of collection containers is a well-known primary determinant of the success of a waste management strategy, and, as rule of thumb, containers should be no more than 100–150 m from households [49]. Rousta et al. [45] concluded that the decreased distance of drop-oﬀ points and improved sorting information have improved HSW separation to 28% and decreased the poorly sorted fractions to 70%, respectively. Other studies have highlighted that convenient access to separate HSW facilities was considered as a more determinant factor than the personal beliefs on environmental matters [70–72]. Finally, some of the participants in our study mentioned, as a restraining factor, a lack of space in the kitchen for recycling purposes (13%), while 9% speciﬁed the necessity of reward compensation as a motivation factor. In general, respondents showed a positive attitude to the questions and expressed their readiness for source separate of HSW if relevant city services were provided. In several developing countries, citizens have underlined their willingness to be more involved and actively support waste management solutions [18,73].

4. Conclusions The results of the survey indicated that, while age plays a significant role, gender, marital status, and income level are not critical factors for HSW source separation behavior. There is a positive attitude and willingness of respondents to perform HSW separation at source, provided that the authorities organize the collection system and employ effective awareness campaigns. Despite the lack of an organized system at the time of the survey, nearly one out four participants already performed source separation of HSW in Nur-Sultan. This shows the positive attitude of citizens as well as the effectiveness of the private sector in recycling initiatives. According to the respondents, important factors for the establishment of HSW sorting practices are the presence of separate containers in close proximity to their residence, effective public awareness campaigns, and clear guidelines from the authorities. Also, it is worth noting that material reward is not critical for separation at source, and the citizens are in favor of supporting recycling initiatives. The study results provide important and useful data for local authorities for the development of an effective source separation HSW system in Nur-Sultan, with wider implications in other urban centers with similar features.

Author Contributions: Supervision, design of survey, and paper writing, Y.S.; design of survey, data collection and processing, T.S.; data processing and formal analysis, O.T.; paper writing and editing, C.V.; review and editing, S.X.; supervision, editing, and paper writing, V.I. Funding: This research was funded by the Nazarbayev University (NU), grant number 284-2019/012-2019, entitled: Development of municipal solid waste combustion and incineration technology for Nur-Sultan (Kazakhstan) and investigation of municipal solid waste blending effects on reactivity of coals in CFB combustion and gasification process. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the solid waste department of Nur-Sultan municipality for providing support, the center for sustainable development of Nur-Sultan city (curs.kz) for printing and disseminating the questionnaire, the utility department of “BI-group” for disseminating the questionnaire to their residents, and the Center of urbanism (urbanastana.kz) of Nur-Sultan city. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Skryhan, H.; Shilova, I.; Khandogina, O.; Abashyna, K.; Chernikova, O. Waste management in post-soviet countries: How far from the EU? Detritus 2018, 3, 193–203. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496 14 of 17

2. MEP KZ, National Report “On the State of the Environment and Use of Natural Resources in 2011–2014” p. 70. Available online: http://ecogosfond.kz/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/NDSOS_2011-2014.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2019). 3. MEP KZ, National Report 2017 “On the State of the Environment and Use of Natural Resources” section 9 “waste”, p. 153. Available online: ecogosfond.kz/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/nac_doklad_ru.zip (accessed on 18 August 2019). 4. Inglezakis, V.J.; Moustakas, K.; Khamitova, G.; Tokmurzin, D.; Sarbassov, Y.; Rakhmatulina, R.; Serik, B.; Abikak, Y.; Poulopoulos, S.G. Current municipal solid waste management in the cities of Astana and Almaty of Kazakhstan and evaluation of alternative management scenarios. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2018, 20, 503–516. [CrossRef] 5. Inglezakis, V.J.; Rojas-Solorzano, L.; Kim, J.; Aitbekova, A.; Ismailova, A. Comparison between landfill gas and waste incineration for power generation in Astana, Kazakhstan. Waste Manag. Res. 2015, 33, 486–494. [CrossRef] 6. Assamoi, B.; Lawryshyn, Y. The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 1019–1030. [CrossRef] 7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. Available online: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or. jp/public/2006gl/pdf/0_Overview/V0_1_Overview.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2019). 8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. Available online: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or. jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_2_Ch2_Stationary_Combustion.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2019). 9. Inglezakis, V.J.; Amzebek, A.; Kuspangaliyeva, B.; Sarbassov, Y.; Balbayeva, G.; Yerkinova, A.; Poulopoulos, S.G. Treatment of municipal solid waste landfill leachate by use of combined biological, physical and photochemical processes. Desalination Water Treat. 2018, 112, 218–231. [CrossRef] 10. RGRK. Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated by June 9, 2014 No. 634 “On the Approval of the Program for the Modernization of the Municipal Solid Waste Management System for 2014–2050.”. Available online: https://greenkaz.org/images/for_news/pdf/npa/programma-modernizacii-tbo. pdf (accessed on 14 February 2019). 11. KazNIIEK. Guidelines for the Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Atmosphere from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 2010. Available online: https://www.egfntd.kz/upload/NTD/MERK/12.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2018). 12. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2012. Available online: https://www.thegef.org/sites/ default/files/project_documents/7-31-2013_ID4442__Project_doc_2.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2019). 13. Urcha, S. Municipal Solid Waste Prospects in Astana city. In Proceedings of the Workshop Presentations:” Green Energy and Municipal Solid Waste”, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan, 12 September 2018; Available online: https://nur.nu.edu.kz/handle/123456789/3529 (accessed on 15 January 2019). 14. Mieszkis, K.W.; Thomas, F.E. Source separation of post-consumer waste. Conserv. Recycl. 1979, 3, 413–425. [CrossRef] 15. Chen, H.; Yang, Y.; Jiang, W.; Song, M.; Wang, Y.; Xiang, T. Source separation of municipal solid waste: The effects of different separation methods and citizen’s inclination-case study of Changsha, China. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2017, 67, 182–195. [CrossRef] 16. Rousta, K.; Dahlen, L. Source separation of household waste: Technology and social aspects. In Resource Recovery to Approach Zero Municipal Waste; Taherzadeh, M.J., Richards, T., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; pp. 61–76, Chapter 4. [CrossRef] 17. Almazán-Casali, S.; Alfaro, J.F.; Sikra, S. Exploring household willingness to participate in solid waste collection services in Liberia. Habitat Int. 2019, 84, 57–64. [CrossRef] 18. Cheng, C.Y.; Urpelainen, J. Who should take the garbage out? Public opinion on waste management in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Habitat Int. 2015, 46, 111–118. [CrossRef] 19. Guerin, D.; Crete, J.; Mercier, J. A multilevel analysis of the determinants of recycling behavior in the European countries. Soc. Sci. Res. 2001, 30, 195–218. [CrossRef] 20. Martin, M.; Williams, I.D.; Clark, M. Social, cultural and structural influences on household waste recycling: A case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2006, 48, 357–395. [CrossRef] 21. Jesson, J. Household waste recycling behavior: A market segmentation model. Soc. Mark. Q. 2009, 15, 25–38. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496 15 of 17

22. Meneses, G.D.; Palacio, A.B. Recycling behavior a multidimensional approach. Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 837–860. [CrossRef] 23. Taylor, S.; Todd, P. Understanding household garbage reduction behavior: A test of an integrated model. J. Public Policy Mark. 1995, 14, 192–204. [CrossRef] 24. Vining, J.; Ebreo, A. What makes a recycler?: A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environ. Behav. 1990, 22, 55–73. [CrossRef] 25. Thøgersen, J. A model of recycling behaviour, with evidence from Danish source separation programmes. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1994, 11, 145–163. [CrossRef] 26. Nixon, H.; Saphores, J.D.M. Information and the decision to recycle: Results from a survey of US households. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 2009, 52, 257–277. [CrossRef] 27. Ezeah, C.; Roberts, C.L. Analysis of barriers and success factors affecting the adoption of sustainable management of municipal solid waste in Nigeria. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 103, 9–14. [CrossRef] 28. Tucker, P.; Smith, D. Simulating household waste management behaviour. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 1999, 2, 1–3. 29. Tucker, P. Understanding recycling behaviour. Paper Technol. 2001, 42, 51–54. 30. Tonglet, M.; Phillips, P.S.; Read, A.D. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth, UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 41, 191–214. [CrossRef] 31. Fan, B.; Yang, W.; Shen, X. A comparison study of ‘motivation-intention-behavior’ model on household solid waste sorting in China and Singapore. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 442–454. [CrossRef] 32. Meng, X.; Tan, X.; Wang, Y.; Wen, Z.; Tao, Y.; Qian, Y. Investigation on decision-making mechanism of residents’ household solid waste classification and recycling behaviors. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 140, 224–234. [CrossRef] 33. Orazbayev, Z.Z.; Yermekov, T.Y.; Dolgov, M.V. Research and Feasibility of Parameters of Consumption and Production Wastes Utilization. Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University: Kazakhstan, 2013. Available online: http://www.enu.kz/downloads/ nauka/othody-eng.doc/ (accessed on 5 November 2018). 34. Stat.gov.kz. Available online: http://stat.gov.kz (accessed on 20 August 2019). 35. Kerimray, A.; Bakdolotov, A.; Sarbassov, Y.; Inglezakis, V.J.; Poulopoulos, S. Air pollution in Astana: Analysis of recent trends and air quality monitoring system. Mater. Today Proc. 2018, 5, 22749–22758. [CrossRef] 36. Abylkhani, B.; Aiymbetov, B.; Yagofarova, A.; Tokmurzin, D.; Venetis, C.; Poulopoulos, S.; Sarbassov, Y.; Inglezakis, V.J. Seasonal characterization of municipal solid waste from Astana city, Kazakhstan; composition and thermal properties of combustible fraction. Waste Manag. Res. 2019. (accepted for publication). [CrossRef] 37. Informburo.kz. Official News on Launching 6200 Containers for Separate HSW Collection at Source. Available online: https://informburo.kz/novosti/ustanovku-6200-konteynerov-dlya-sbora-razdelnogo- musora-nachali-v-astane.html (accessed on 12 October 2018). 38. Dillman, D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method–2007 Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-mode Guide; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. 39. Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, Z.; Hong, M.; Chen, X.; Wang, S.; Feng, Q.; Meng, X. Assessing willingness to accept compensation for polluted farmlands: A contingent valuation method case study in northwest China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 179. [CrossRef] 40. Sample Size Calculators. Available online: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/sample-size-calculator (accessed on 1 May 2019). 41. Yoo, S.H.; Kwak, S.Y. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 5408–5416. [CrossRef] 42. Ekere, W.; Mugisha, J.; Drake, L. Factors influencing waste separation and utilization among households in the Lake Victoria crescent, Uganda. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 3047–3051. [CrossRef] 43. Babaei, A.A.; Alavi, N.; Goudarzi, G.; Teymouri, P.; Ahmadi, K.; Rafiee, M. Household recycling knowledge, attitudes and practices towards solid waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 102, 94–100. [CrossRef] 44. Padilla, A.J.; Trujillo, J.C. Waste disposal and households’ heterogeneity. Identifying factors shaping attitudes towards source-separated recycling in Bogotá, Colombia. Waste Manag. 2018, 74, 16–33. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496 16 of 17

45. Rousta, K.; Bolton, K.; Lundin, M.; Dahlen, L. Quantitative assessment of distance to collection point and improved sorting information on source separation of household waste. Waste Manag. 2015, 40, 22–30. [CrossRef] 46. Challcharoenwattana, A.; Pharino, C. Wishing to finance a recycling program? Willingness-to-pay study for enhancing municipal solid waste recycling in urban settlements in Thailand. Habitat Int. 2016, 51, 23–30. [CrossRef] 47. Chu, Z.; Xi, B.; Song, Y.; Crampton, E. Taking out the trash: Household preferences over municipal solid waste collection in Harbin, China. Habitat Int. 2013, 40, 194–200. [CrossRef] 48. Kelly, T.C.; Mason, I.G.; Leiss, M.W.; Ganesh, S. University community responses to on-campus resource recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2006, 47, 42–55. [CrossRef] 49. Vassanadumrongdee, S.; Kittipongvises, S. Factors influencing source separation intention and willingness to pay for improving waste management in Bangkok, Thailand. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2018, 28, 90–99. [CrossRef] 50. Lakhan, C. Out of sight, out of mind: Issues and obstacles to recycling in Ontario’s multi residential buildings. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 108, 1–9. [CrossRef] 51. Rispo, A.; Williams, I.D.; Shaw, P.J. Source segregation and food waste prevention activities in high-density households in a deprived urban area. Waste Manag. 2015, 44, 15–27. [CrossRef][PubMed] 52. Sekitoa, T.; Prayogo, T.B.; Dote, Y.; Yoshitake, T.; Bagus, I. Influence of a community-based waste management system on people’s behavior and waste reduction. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 72, 84–90. [CrossRef] 53. Xu, L.; Ling, M.; Lu, Y.; Shen, M. External influences on forming residents’ waste separation behaviour: Evidence from households in Hangzhou, China. Habitat Int. 2017, 63, 21–33. [CrossRef] 54. CGEGD, Green Kaz News: Astana has Started Launching Special Containers. (2016). Available online: https://greenkaz.org/index.php/press-centr/novosti-v-strane/item/939-zdes-zhivet-plastik-v-astane- nachali-ustanovku-spetsialnykh-kontejnerov/ (accessed on 5 May 2019). 55. Frey, B.S. Not Just for the Money. An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 1997. 56. Stern, P.C. Understanding individuals’ environmentally significant behavior. Environ. Law Rep. News Anal. 2005, 35, 10785–10790. 57. Zhang, B.; Lai, K.H.; Wang, B.; Wang, Z. From intention to action: How do personal attitudes, facilities accessibility and government stimulus matter for household waste sorting? J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 233, 447–458. [CrossRef][PubMed] 58. Austin, J.; Hatfield, D.B.; Grindle, A.C.; Hatfield, D. Increasing recycle in office environments: The effects of specific, informative cues. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 1993, 26, 247–253. [CrossRef][PubMed] 59. O’Connor, R.T.; Lerman, D.C.; Fritz, J.N.; Hodde, H.B. Effects of number and location of bins on plastic recycling at a university. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 2010, 43, 711–715. [CrossRef][PubMed] 60. Boldero, J. The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: The role of attitudes, intentions and situational factors. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 25, 440–462. [CrossRef] 61. Barr, S. Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A U.K. case study of household waste management. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 435–473. [CrossRef] 62. Krahè, B. Personality and Social Psychology: Towards a synthesis; Sage Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 1992; Available online: https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/3655/file/ Krahe_Personality_and_Social_Psychology.pdf/ (accessed on 28 February 2019). 63. Lehman, P.K.; Geller, E.S. Behavior analysis and environmental protection: Accomplishments and potential for more. Behav. Soc. Issues 2005, 13, 13–32. [CrossRef] 64. Song, Q.; Wang, Z.; Li, J. Residents’ attitudes and willingness to pay for solid waste management in Macau. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 31, 635–643. [CrossRef] 65. Hanyu, K.; Kishino, H.; Yamashita, H.; Hayashi, C. Linkage between recycling and consumption: A case of toilet paper in Japan. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2000, 30, 177–199. [CrossRef] 66. Welfens, M.J.; Nordmann, J.; Seibt, A. Drivers and barriers to return and recycling of mobile phones. Case studies of communication and collection campaigns. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 132, 108–121. [CrossRef] 67. Chakrabarti, S.; Majumder, A.; Chakrabarti, S. Public-community participation in household waste management in India: An operational approach. Habitat Int. 2009, 33, 125–130. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 6496 17 of 17

68. Yukalang, N.; Clarke, B.; Ross, K. Barriers to eﬀective municipal solid waste management in a rapidly urbanizing area in Thailand. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1013. [CrossRef][PubMed] 69. Tiew, K.G.; Basri, N.E.A.; Deng, H.; Watanabe, K.; Zain, S.M.; Wang, S. Comparative study on recycling behaviours between regular recyclers and non regular recyclers in Malaysia. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 237, 255–263. [CrossRef] 70. Gonzalez-Torre, P.L.; Adenso-Díaz, B. Inﬂuence of distance on the motivation and frequency of household recycling. Waste Manag. 2005, 25, 15–23. [CrossRef][PubMed] 71. Refsgaard, K.; Magnussen, K. Household behaviour and attitudes with respect to recycling food waste-experiences from focus groups. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 760–771. [CrossRef][PubMed] 72. Bernstad, A. Household food waste separation behavior and the importance of convenience. Waste Manag. 2017, 34, 1317–1323. [CrossRef][PubMed] 73. Warunasinghe, W.A.A.I.; Yapa, P.I. A survey on household solid waste management (SWM) with special reference to a peri-urban area (Kottawa) in Colombo. Procedia Food Sci. 2016, 6, 257–260. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).