Waste management remains a very popular topic of professional discussions. With the growing emphasis on sustainability and environmental protection, solid waste management has become an object of heightened public concern.
According to Uriarte (2008), solid waste is what results from consumption (both animal and human) and what is usually discarded as unnecessary and useless. In this context, the study by Cherian and Jacob (2012) adds to the existing body of literature on solid waste management.
Cherian and Jacob (2012) admit that waste management is a very complex process that is impossible without sufficient information and sophisticated technologies. Numerous factors impact the quality and results of solid waste management, and the goal of Cherian and Jacob (2012) is to review them.
Statement of Research Problem
Solid waste management is impossible without information and technologies. The latter provide better knowledge of the factors impacting waste management and, at the same time, allow for more reliable waste quantity forecasts (Cherian & Jacobs, 2012).
Earlier researchers recognized the essential role played by socioeconomic factors in waste management systems (Mazzanti & Zoboli, 2009).
Today, no waste disposal protocol can be established without considering the amount of waste generated (based on population density), its costs (depending on the amount of waste), and the criteria of an effective waste disposal system that are directly related to the nature and amount of waste in a particular community (Cherian & Jacobs, 2012).
The discussed article was aimed to review the earlier models of solid waste generation and their socioeconomic identifiers (Cherian & Jacobs, 2012). The researchers expected that their findings would facilitate the development of new, more effective waste management design options.
Research Procedures
The researchers applied to secondary research methods and used a literature review approach to accomplish their research mission. Cherian and Jacob (2012) systematically researched a number of scholarly databases, including Sage, Science Direct, and Emerald, to identify the studies that matched their search criteria.
The following key words were used: solid waste management, solid waste generation, municipal solid waste, and household waste (Cherian & Jacob, 2012).
The studies eligible for the inclusion in the research sample had to:
- be focused on solid waste management;
- include solid waste management models;
- incorporate other independent variables like solid waste utilization;
- be published in English (Cherian & Jacob, 2012).
Only primary data and empirical studies were included. A total of nine studies were indentified and included in the sample.
Procedural Flaws
Cherian and Jacob (2012) were quite specific in the development of their sample criteria. Still, one of the major procedural flaws is in the fact that the researchers used only a few scholarly databases; as a result, their sample of secondary data was very limited.
Another problem was that, in case of any disagreements, they were resolved either by consensus or with the help of a third reviewer (Cherian & Jacob, 2012). The consensus could have resulted in subjective bias and, again, limit the availability of valuable data to be included in the sample.
Finally, the use of secondary data is by itself a problematic endeavor. Secondary data can be very helpful in establishing and justifying a research question but cannot always serve as a reliable source of credible information (Collins, 2010).
Cherian and Jacob (2012) used a set of methodological criteria but did not evaluate the credibility of the data, before they were included in their sample. This, in turn, may impose severe limitations on the quality of the study outcomes.
Data Analysis
The following are the criteria used by Cherian and Jacob (2012) to analyze the data.
First, constituency versus households – the researchers explored the competence of regional waste management planning for constituency studies and the relationship between household habits and solid waste principles for household studies (Cherian & Jacob, 2012).
Second, studies were categorized and analyzed by the type of waste streams – material streams, collection streams, and other independent variables (Cherian & Jacob, 2012).
Limited and Justifiable Conclusions
Unfortunately, the conclusions made by Cherian and Jacobs (2012) are quite limited and confusing. As mentioned earlier, the basic limitation is related to the use of secondary data.
In addition, Cherian and Jacob (2012) have failed to meet the goal of their study, which was to delineate the main features of the earlier solid waste management models and to review their socioeconomic identifiers.
Instead, Cherian and Jacob (2012) propose a number of aspects to be considered in the future studies and specify the two types of case studies used to justify their findings.
The researchers recommend developing a more complex forecast model, which will incorporate the elements of location, planning, type of waste generated, and possible changes in the amount of waste per capita (Cherian & Jacob, 2012).
These can be regarded as the fundamental socioeconomic factors of solid waste management to be considered in the future. Yet, only properly designed empirical studies can confirm or deny the validity of these propositions, although some of them are worth being considered.
References
Cherian, J. & Jacob, J. (2012). Management models of municipal solid waste: A review focusing on socio economic factors. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 4(10), 131-139.
Collins, H. (2010). Creative research: The theory and practice of research for the creative industries. AVA Publishing.
Mazzanti, M. & Zoboli, R. (2009). Municipal waste Kuznets curves: Evidence on socioeconomic drivers and policy effectiveness from the EU. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44(2), 203-230.
Uriarte, F.A. (2008). Solid waste management: Principles and practices. UP Press.