Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Key factors in levels of public satisfaction with urban waste collection in a northern Spain city

  • REGIONAL CASE STUDY
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Levels of public satisfaction among the inhabitants of Burgos with their urban waste collection service are analyzed by comparing satisfaction levels in 2006 and in 2016, as well as the homogeneity of these satisfaction levels in the different areas of the city into which it was divided in 2016. To do so, an empirical exploratory analysis is completed on a representative sample of the population. A regression model is used to identify the significant factors from among all of the factors in the analysis. Then, a predictive model is defined that increases the probability of successful decision-making among the managers responsible for this service. The results provide support for one of the starting hypotheses, considering the daily collection of organic waste, the daily collection of selective waste, the capacity of organic waste containers, the proximity of organic waste containers, the cleanliness of pavements and the cleanliness of walkways as significant factors in the evaluation of public satisfaction. With these factors, the predictive model offers us a certainty index of 66.26% in its predictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Containers capacity = 2900 Ls. Container proximity = 150–200 ms.

  2. Kilograms per inhabitant per day = (total waste volume/total population)/365.

  3. Application of the scales from 1 to 10, where 1 = very unsatisfied and 10 = very satisfied. The questionnaire is available on request from the authors. In addition to the variables used for this study, the questionnaire was completed with other categorization variables and open variables to collect the subjective opinion of the public. The open variables will allow us to gather ideas for improvement and to conduct an evaluation for the improvement of service provision in future works.

  4. Prior to the data-collection stage, the students followed a training course on aspects to be taken into account in the completion of the field work, after which they were given the questionnaires and allocated zones.

  5. Given the relatively small population and the greater dispersion in zone 6 (outer Burgos), that zone was oversampled, raising it to 172 cases. Subsequently, the corresponding weightings were attached for data analysis purposes.

  6. A minimum value of 0.7 was considered.

  7. Significance level of 5% (p value < 0.05) (considered throughout the study).

  8. Minitab v. 17 statistical software was used (http://www.minitab.com/es-mx/).

References

  1. Anschütz J, Ijgosse J, Scheinberg A (2004) Putting integrated sustainable waste management into practice using the ISWM assessment methodology: ISWM methodology as applied in the UWEP plus programme (2001–2013). WASTE, Gouda

  2. Costi P, Minciardi R, Robba M, Rovatti M, Sacile R (2004) An environmentally sustainable decision model for urban solid waste management. Waste Manag 24(3):277–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Morrissey AJ, Browne J (2004) Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management. Waste Manag 24(3):297–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Minghua Z, Xiumin F, Rovetta A, Qichang H, Vicentini F, Bingkai L, Giusti A, Yi L (2009) Municipal solid waste management in Pudong New Area, China. J Waste Manag 29:1227–1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bel G, Miralles A (2003) Factors Influencing the privatisation of urban solid waste collection in Spain. Urban Stud 40(7):1323–1334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Post J, Broekema J, Obirih-Opareh N (2003) Trial and error in privatisation: experiences in urban solid waste collection in Accra (Ghana) and Hyderabad (India). Urban Stud 40(4):835–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zafra-Gómez JL, Plata-Díaz AM, Pérez-López G, López-Hernández AM (2016) Privatisation of waste collection services in response to fiscal stress in times of crisis. Urban Stud 53(10):2134–2153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Buclet N (2002) Municipal waste management in Europe: European policy between harmonization and subsidiarity. Environment Management, vol 11, Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Garcés C, Lafuente A, Pedraja M, Rivera P (2002) Urban waste recycling behavior: antecedents of participation in a selective collection program. Environ Manage 30(3):378–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Obirih-Opareh N, Post N (2002) Quality assessment of public and private modes of solid waste collection in Accra, Ghana. Habitat Int 26(1):95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Miraftab F (2004) Neoliberalism and Casualization of public sector services: the case of waste collection services in Cape Town, South Africa. Int J Urban Reg Res 28(4):874–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bautista J, Pereira J (2006) Modeling the problem of locating collection areas for urban waste management. An application to the metropolitan area of Barcelona. Omega 34:617–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kassim SM, Ali M (2006) Solid waste collection by private sector: households’ perspective—findings from a study in Dar es Salaam city. Tanzania Habitat Int 30(4):769–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. MacRae G, Rodic L (2015) The weak link in waste management in tropical Asia? Solid waste collection in Bali. Habitat Int 50:310–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Goharipour H, Karimi M (2011) Evaluation or urban management performance based on citizen satisfaction with municipal services in city of Tehran. In: 2011 International conference on social science and humanity, Singapore, IPEDR, vol 5. IACSIT Press, pp 71–75

  16. Virk MK, Singla V, Sandhu P (2004) Awareness among urban inhabitants about waste management and its impact on environment. J Hum Ecol 15(2):97–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Burntley SL (2007) A review of municipal solid waste composition in the United Kingdon. J Waste Manag 27(10):1274–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sujauddin M, Huda MS, Rafiqul Hoque ATM (2008) Household solid waste characteristics and management in Chittagong, Bangladesh. J Waste Manag 28:1688–1695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guimaraes B, Simoes P, Cunha Marques R (2010) Does performance evaluation help public managers? A balanced scorecard approach in urban waste services. J Environ Manag 91:2632–2638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zakaria Z, Noordin N, Yaacob MA, Ngah K, Sawal MZHM., Mustaffa J (2011) Relationship between Waste disposal and public satisfaction in local authorities in Kedah. Can Soc Sci 7(4):53–57

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cherian J, Jacob J (2012) Management models of municipal solid waste: a review focusing on socio economic factors. Int J Econ Financ 4(20):131–139

    Google Scholar 

  22. Majumder SC, Karim MR (2012) Urban solid waste management: a study on Commilla City corporation. J Econ Sustain Dev 3(6):53–62

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wilson DC, Rodic L, Scheinberg A, Velis C, Alabaster G (2012) Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities. Waste Manag Res 30(3):237–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Abarca-Guerrero L, Maas G, Hogland W (2013) Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Manag J 33(1):220–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Akaateba MA, Yakubu I (2013) Householders’ satisfaction towards solid waste collection services of Zoomlion Ghana LTD in WA, Ghana. Eur Sci J 9(32):198–213

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chu Z, Xi B, Song Y, Crampton E (2013) Taking out the trash: household preferences over municipal solid waste collection in Harbin, China. Habitat Int 40:194–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Törnblom J (2006) Underground waste collection vs. conventional. In: In a modern urban residential development. Report, Envac Centralsug AB, Stockholm

  28. Bouckaert G, Van de Walle S (2003) Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of “good governance”: difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. Int Rev Admin Sci 69:329–343

    Google Scholar 

  29. Salim M, Peng XB, Almaktary SQ, Karmoshi S (2017) The impact of citizen satisfaction with government performance on public trust in the government: empirical evidence from urban Yemen. Open J Business Manag 5:348–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Feintein AR (1985) Tempest in a P-pot? Hypertension 7(editorial):313–318

    Google Scholar 

  31. Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner M (1985) Applied linear statistical models: regression, analysis of variance and experimental designs. Irwin, Homewood

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kennedy P (1992) A guide to econometrics. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  33. Studenmund AH (1992) Using econometrics: a practical guide. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black W (1999) Análisis multivariante de datos. Prentice Hall, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hosmer D, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the City Council of Burgos and the service company SEMAT S.A.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Economics, Area of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Burgos, Infanta Doña Elena Square, s/n, 09001, Burgos, Spain

    Julio César Puche Regaliza, Arturo Alvear González, Santiago Aparicio Castillo, Pablo Arranz Val & Fernando Lara Ortega

Authors
  1. Julio César Puche Regaliza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arturo Alvear González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Santiago Aparicio Castillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pablo Arranz Val
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fernando Lara Ortega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julio César Puche Regaliza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Puche Regaliza, J.C., Alvear González, A., Aparicio Castillo, S. et al. Key factors in levels of public satisfaction with urban waste collection in a northern Spain city. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 20, 1842–1856 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0713-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0713-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation