Environmental impacts with waste disposal practices in a suburban ...

Int. J. Environment and Waste Management, Vol. 6, Nos. 1/2, 2010 107
Environmental impacts with waste disposal practices
in a suburban municipality in Sri Lanka
Nilanthi J.G.J. Bandara*
Department of Forestry and Environmental Sciences,
University of Sri Jayewardenepura,
Gangodawila, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka
Fax: +9412802914 E-mail: nbandara@sltnet.lk
*Corresponding author
J. Patrick A. Hettiaratchi
Department of Civil Engineering
and Center for Environmental Engineering
Research and Education (CEERE),
University of Calgary,
Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
Fax: 403-282-7026
E-mail: jhettiar@ucalgary.ca
Abstract: Solid waste disposal is a major threat to environments of developing
countries since most of the solid waste generated end up directly in open
dumps. This paper presents a case study conducted in a municipality in
Sri Lanka. Officials, More than 300 householders of different income groups
and landfill operators were interviewed to examine current practices and
environmental problems. Groundwater samples from the vicinity were analysed
which show levels of parameters such as Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
and cadmium, above acceptable limits. The main environmental impacts
associated with current practice of waste management in the municipality are
presented in this paper.
Keywords: solid waste disposal; leachate; municipality; heavy metals;
property assessment tax; SLS; Sri Lanka Standards.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Bandara, N.J.G.J.
and Hettiaratchi, J.P.A. (2010) ‘Environmental impacts with waste disposal
practices in a suburban municipality in Sri Lanka’, Int. J. Environment and
Waste Management, Vol. 6, Nos. 1/2, pp.107–116.
Biographical notes: Nilanthi J.G.J. Bandara is currently working as a Senior
Lecturer at the University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka. She received
her Master’s Degree in Environmental Design specialised in Environmental
Science from the University of Calgary, Canada. She registered her PhD at
the Faculty of Engineering University of Calgary. Her specialisation fields are
solid waste management and environmental impact assessment.
J. Patrick A. Hettiaratchi is a Professor of Environmental Engineering in the
Department of Civil Engineering and CEERE at the University of Calgary.
He received his PhD from the University of Alberta, Canada and has about
25 years’ experience in teaching, research and consulting in the field of
Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

108 N.J.G.J. Bandara and J.P.A. Hettiaratchi
Environmental Engineering. His current research is in the areas of sustainable
landfill technology, greenhouse gas emissions control, optimisation of landfill
operation and construction waste recycling. He has published extensively in
these areas. In recognition of his significant contributions and achievements
in the areas of Biocell technology development and biological methane
oxidation, he has received a number prestigious awards including the 2007
Alberta Emerald Award for Research and Innovation from the Alberta Emerald
Foundation, 2008 Shell/ASTECH Award for Environmental Innovation from
Alberta Science and Technology (ASTech) Leadership Foundation, and 2009
Summit Award for Environment and Sustainability from the Association of
Professional Engineers, Geologists, Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA).
1 Introduction
Sri Lanka, with a current per-capita Gross National Product (GNP) of US$ 1350,
is an island country in the Indian Ocean off the southern coast of India. It has a total land
area of 65,610 km 2 hosting a population of about 20 million. Disposal of solid waste
is a major environmental problem in Sri Lanka at present and has become a national
issue. The National Action Plan of Sri Lanka has identified haphazard solid waste
disposal to be one of the major causes for environmental degradation. But, in almost
all of the urban municipalities in Sri Lanka, the most common method of Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) disposal is open dumping. The issue of MSW is most acute in the
municipality of Colombo, the capital city, and municipalities in the suburbs of Colombo.
MSW disposal in Sri Lanka is primarily a function of the public sector and in most of the
urbanised municipalities; MSW management is one of the largest employers of labour.
In Sri Lanka, the majority of the MSW management cost is allocated for waste collection
and transportation rather than for waste disposal and treatment (ERM, 1997).
According to the provisions of the Local Government Act, the Local Authorities
(LAs) in Sri Lanka are responsible for collection and disposal of waste generated
by the people within their territories. The necessary provisions are given under sections
129, 130 and 131 of the Municipal Council Ordinance; Sections 118, 119 and 120
of the Urban Council Ordinance; Sections 93 and 94 of the Pradeshiya Sabha Act.
Generally, the public health department of the local authority is responsible for solid
waste management in addition to many other sanitation aspects.
Although MSW management in Sri Lanka is unsystematic, the required legislative
framework for developing an appropriate waste management system is in place.
The required bases for integrated solid waste management are provided by the present
policies, strategies and the legal provisions. The National Strategy for Solid
Waste Management put forth by the Ministry of Forestry and Environment in 2002
endorsing the need for integrated solid waste management provides the overall guidance
for the management of the country’s waste. The National Environmental Act of 1980,
which was subsequently amended in 1988, provides the necessary legislative framework
for environmental protection in the country.
The current practices of MSW disposal have led to numerous environmental and
social problems. The main environmental impacts are the emissions of landfill gas
and leachate owing to a complex sequence of biological and chemical reactions that
occur within the solid waste matrix in a landfill. There is a significant level of ground

Environmental impacts with waste disposal practices 109
water pollution associated with solid waste open dump sites in Sri Lanka (Samanraja and
Bandara, 2005). Numerous other problems associated with inappropriate waste disposal
in Sri Lanka had been discussed (Suthaharan and Bandara, 2004). The contribution to the
greenhouse gas budget of Sri Lanka associated with the methane released into the
atmosphere from MSW open dumps is significant (Ramya Kumari and Bandara, 2004).
In addition to greenhouse gases, the other gases released in the process of degradation
of waste material, such as hydrogen sulphide and volatile organic compounds, may create
human health and odour problems. Pollutants found in leachate released into the
subsurface include organic contaminants, which are soluble refuse components of
decomposition products of biodegradable fractions of MSW, and a variety of heavy
metals (Brown and Donnelly, 1998). In addition to these environmental impacts,
many social impacts such as loss in property values, traffic congestion and health
problems are caused by the present practices.
The current waste disposal practices in and around the suburbs of Colombo
have threatened many ecologically valuable habitats such as the conservation areas
of Attidiya and Muthurajawela wetlands, which are being used as MSW dumping
grounds. It has been reported that the degradation of the quality of water resources
in Sri Lanka is primarily due to agricultural practices, discharge of untreated industrial
effluents and domestic wastewater into surface water bodies and storm water drainage
canals and haphazard disposal of solid waste including hazardous material into open
dumps (Bandara, 2003). Although a sanitary landfill had been proposed for the Greater
Colombo Area, it had not been implemented owing to public opposing the siting
of the facility. Alternative waste management techniques such as composting and
anaerobic digestion though advocated, and practised at small scale, are not implemented
to the desired extent. Recycling is also practised to a certain extent through informal
means, but formalised mechanisms of alternative waste management strategies are not
available to desirable extent as in developed countries mainly because of lack of
resources. Another problem in Sri Lanka is the lack of interest of the general public
to be involved in waste management. In the municipality of Nuwara Eliya, a small
municipality in the central highlands of the country, there is an operating engineered
landfill, a key component of an integrated waste management system, but it has been
difficult to get the public involved in implementing an integrated waste management
programme (Amarananda and Banadara, 2006).
According to a recent World Bank study, the current urban MSW generation
in Sri Lanka is 0.8 kg/capita/day (World Bank, 1999). The same study estimates that
by the year 2025 the urban MSW generation rate will increase to 1.0 kg/capita/day.
Furthermore, the need for land in urban areas for other development purposes is rapidly
increasing. Therefore, it is inevitable that the issue of solid waste will get worse in the
future unless timely action is taken to adhere to an appropriate waste management
strategy.
This paper discusses findings from a study to assess the environmental and
social costs associated with MSW disposal in a suburban municipality in Sri Lanka.
Moratuwa is a suburban municipality of Sri Lanka, with an area of 21.6 km 2 , a population
of 189,147 and 43,549 households in 2001. It is located 18.5 km from the Colombo city
centre and was selected to conduct the case study as a good representation of a fast
growing, densely populated suburb centre in the developing world.

110 N.J.G.J. Bandara and J.P.A. Hettiaratchi
2 Methodology
Information on the municipality and present MSW management system was gathered
through interviews with municipal officials, field observations and literature search.
To estimate the total waste generation, waste composition and to assess waste disposal
methods and satisfaction with municipal services, a household waste generation and
composition survey was conducted using 322 households, which is about 1% of the
number of households in the municipality.
The basis for selection of households for the study was explained in detail
by Bandara et al. (2007). Stratified random sampling approach was used to select
the households for the survey. The households were stratified into wards and
selected according to the number of households in each ward and then they were
stratified according to the property tax values. Since in Sri Lanka it is difficult to
get a real estimate of family income, annual property assessment tax value was taken
as an indication of the living standard of the population. The property tax is based
on the size of the property, the use of the property and material used in its construction.
The primary assumption made in the study was that the annual property assessment
tax value is an indication of the income and the living standard of the people
(Bandara et al., 2007).
It was found that 30% of households have an annual property value below
Rs. 1000 (1 US$ = Rs. 95), 30% in the range of Rs. 1000–3000, 20% in the range of
Rs. 3000–6000 and 20% above Rs. 6000. Hence, the households were stratified according
to four ranges of annual property assessment tax values: Rs. 1000, Rs. 1000–3000,
Rs. 3000–6000 and above Rs. 6000. The number of households in a ward within these
ranges was estimated from municipal data and the number of households that should be
surveyed from these different ranges was determined from the total sample number
allocated per individual ward.
It was shown that the number of households is larger for the lower property
value ranges, and the lowest number of households is in the property assessment
tax value range of Rs. 6000 and above. The standard deviation, on the other hand,
is highest in the annual property assessment tax value range of Rs. 6000 and above.
Considering both these aspects (both the number of households in a particular property
assessment tax value range and the standard deviation of the property assessment tax
value within that group), sample sizes were determined in proportion to the number
of households and the standard deviation of property assessment tax values by taking
an average value from both. Table 1 summarises the distribution of samples according
to the wards and the property assessment tax value ranges.
The wastes generated by these households were studied over a period of one week
to estimate the average waste generation per capita per day and per household.
The householders were requested to separate their waste as organic waste (which
included biodegradable kitchen and yard waste), paper, plastic, glass, metal and other
waste. The organic waste was weighed once in two days whereas the rest were weighed
once every week. The same households were interviewed as to their waste disposal
practices and satisfaction with municipal services.
Social impacts and perceived environmental impacts from the waste disposal
practices were assessed based on a survey of residents near an old dump and an active
dump (Karadiyana Dump Site). For this survey, 200 residents were randomly selected.
These residents lived either near a closed dump (closed about one year ago) or near

Environmental impacts with waste disposal practices 111
a dump in operation. Several well water samples were taken from water wells around the
old landfill site to assess groundwater quality.
Table 1 Sample distribution in wards and annual property assessment tax value ranges
Wards
Category
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
No. of
samples
6000 11 15 21 12 11 9 8 5 14 5 2 4 4 2 7 130
25 39 45 30 30 19 17 16 34 13 6 8 13 7 20 0 322
Source: Bandara et al. (2007)
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Household waste composition and waste generation rates
The average residential per-capita waste generation, average household waste generation
and average composition of waste were determined by analysing descriptive statistics.
The results are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Waste generation from households in the Moratuwa municipality
Mean generation kg per day
Waste type Household waste composition (%) Per capita Per household
Organic 90 3.744E-01 1.6704
Paper 05 1.891E-02 8.52E-02
Plastic 03 1.407E-02 5.85E-02
Glass 02 6.689E-03 3.08E-02
Metal 01 2.967E-03 1.42E-02
Total 4.217E-01 1.85
Source: Bandara et al. (2007)
From the data collected, the total residential waste generation for the Moratuwa
municipality is estimated to be 80 tonnes per day. The total amount of MSW disposed
of by the municipality per day has been estimated to be approximately 135 tonnes per day
(Ministry of Forest Resources and Environment, 1999). The difference is attributed to the
presence of commercial waste including market waste. Since the MSW other than
that collected from households is mainly market waste and from light commercial
establishments, the waste composition is not expected to differ much from household
waste composition, which consists primarily of organic waste.

112 N.J.G.J. Bandara and J.P.A. Hettiaratchi
3.2 Current practices of MSW management
In the past, solid waste disposal was not a concern because of the free availability of
degraded land. However, land scarcity is now a major problem faced by the municipality
and therefore finding land for MSW disposal is becoming increasingly difficult.
Solid waste collection and disposal in the municipality of Moratuwa is currently
handled by the health division of the municipality. Only household waste, light
commercial waste and street sweepings are collected as MSW. The collection and
disposal of MSW is supervised by a group of Public Health Inspectors. Overseers
are employed to assign duties to a collection crew, which includes sweepers and a vehicle
crew. The number of staff employed solely for solid waste management includes
350 workers with 14 overseers. Most of the staff employed is on casual basis. Since many
of these workers lack the basic educational qualifications for permanency, they work for
several years on temporary basis and are not dedicated to the work (Pathinather, 1995).
The financial resources for the solid waste management aspects come from the health
vote of the municipality.
Household waste collection varies from ward to ward. In poor communities with
temporary dwellings where accessibility is limited, waste collection is rather neglected.
Often these householders dump their waste onto roadsides, neighbourhood bare lands
or even open drainage canals. In other areas, push carts are employed to collect the waste
whereas households along main roads are served by trailer-tractors. The waste collection
period also varies. Whereas in some household areas waste is collected every other day,
in certain other areas waste is collected only about twice a week. However, waste along
the Galle Road and market areas are usually collected daily. Working hours for the
collection crew is from 6.00 am until 2.00 pm. For the entire municipality, 35 push carts
and 11 trailers pulled by tractors are used daily (Ministry of Forest Resources and
Environment, 1999). Usually, trailer-tractors are operated by a driver and three workmen.
These have a capacity of about 5.66 m 3 (two cubes) when full (Pathinather, 1995).
The main functions of the trailer-tractors are to collect the waste heaped on temporary
dump sites along the roadsides and transport to the final disposal sites. The average trips
for the tractor-trailers are four trips per day. In large market areas, a trailer is parked
for market waste and it is transported to the disposal site once full. Generally, for each
push cart, three sweepers are assigned other than along the Galle road, which is the main
arterial that runs through the municipality, where four are assigned. Wastes along the
roads are cleaned by the sweepers operating push carts who clean the roads, collect waste
and keep them in small heaps in temporary transfer sites. There are no permanent transfer
stations prepared for this purpose but public areas close to bus stands, temples, etc.,
which are accessible by the trailers, are used for this purpose.
According to the household survey conducted, municipal waste collection is available
to only 56% of the households. About 20% of the households dump their waste on the
roadside and 8% dump the waste into pits in their own backyards. In addition, some
households use alternative waste management techniques, with 7% composting their
waste whereas 7% practise recycling. The survey revealed that a high percentage
of households from high- and upper-middle-income groups enjoy municipal waste
collection services and a lower percentage from the low-income groups does so. It was
also revealed that a higher percentage of low-income and lower-middle-income group
households dispose of their waste along roads. When asked about the level of service

Environmental impacts with waste disposal practices 113
provided by municipality, only 0.3% has said it is very good, 3.7% has said it is good,
65% has said it is satisfactory and 30% have said it is poor.
3.3 Waste disposal
Until 1995, the municipality used to operate several small temporary open dump sites
spread throughout the municipal area. From 1995 to 2001, the waste was disposed
of at two large dumps within the municipality, which are privately owned lowland areas.
Since their closure in 2002, MSW was disposed of at seven temporary locations in the
municipal area. These sites are open dumps with no control measures. However,
since February 2003 until now, all of the collected MSW is being disposed of at
Karadiyanawatta, which is a site located in the border of Moratuwa municipality
and the neighbouring LA area, Kesbewa. In addition to the MSW from the Moratuwa
municipality, the MSW from Kesbewa municipality is also disposed of at this site.
It was observed through the field studies that there is no control of exactly what enters
into the dump site. According to the municipal officers, the municipality collects roadside
waste and whatever is by the road, which sometimes include even industrial waste
is collected since it is generally not examined prior to collection. These can contain
hazardous industrial waste also. The Moratuwa municipality pays Rs. 14,000 per day
to the land owner for disposal of the waste at the site. In addition to the user fee,
the owner gets the advantage of getting the land filled at no additional cost; a secondary
reason for land owners to let municipalities dispose of wastes on their land. This disposal
site is also a temporary un-engineered open dump, and was an abandoned paddy field.
Since it is bordering a natural lake, the site has served as a flood plain. The site extends
to about 2 ha and consists of red-yellow podzolic soils with soft and hard laterite,
and bog and half-bog soils. The vegetation is marsh land vegetation. There is a temporary
dwelling at the dump site, and permanent residences are located from within 50 m
of the site.
3.4 Impacts of MSW disposal
3.4.1 Environmental impacts
Five well water samples from the vicinity (within 50–100 m) of the former landfill site
at Dandeniyawatte were collected and analysed in 2002 just after the site was closed
down. Dandeniyawatte is one of the small open dumps operated from 1995 to 2001
and has an area of about 0.5 ha. The values obtained for selected parameters are given
in Table 3. These values are compared against the Sri Lanka Standards (SLS) for potable
water.
The results show that the water is unacceptably acidic and that in all of the samples
the COD level far exceeded tolerance limit. Of even more significance is the
unacceptable level of cadmium (Cd) present in almost all of the samples. The Cd levels
ranged from 25 µg/L to 38 µg/L in the five samples, which far exceed the tolerance limit
of 5 µg/L given by the Sri Lanka Standards Institute for potable water. The BOD level is
rather low indicating that the well water at that time has not been contaminated with
fresh leachate. The high COD values may be explained by the leachate maturing process.
The high Cd content may be the result of the illegal disposal of industrial waste with
MSW.

114 N.J.G.J. Bandara and J.P.A. Hettiaratchi
Table 3 Water quality of selected wells in the vicinity of Dandeniyawatta landfill site
Samples
pH
COD (mg/l)
BOD (mg/l)
Hardness (mg/l)
SO4 2– (mg/l)
NO3 – (mg/l)
PO4 3–
Total solids (mg/l)
Suspended solids
1 5.8 60 4 76 106 8.7 – 520 14 320 14 62 0.36 25 27 41 30 460 –
2 6.2 20 1 40 48 1.4 – 420 4 240 6 34 0.26 212 22 6 25 480 –
3 6.0 100 4 146 32 1 – 700 6 456 30 116 0.13 58 8 21 26 500 –
4 5.8 20 1 28 18 0.07 – 450 – 295 4 24 2.00 50 0 0 35 38 –
5 6.2 40 2 22 80 0.4 – 508 – 425 – 22 0.28 20 15 15 38 48 –
SLS 6.5–9.0 10 3 600 400 10 2 2000 140 240 0.3–1 1500 1500 20 5 50 50
max
max
From the survey of those living near landfill sites (within a radius of 500 m),
it was revealed that 68% of the surveyed households use well water out of which 86%
use it for drinking and cooking purposes, 98% for bathing and washing of clothes and
vehicles and 99% use it for gardening purposes. However, the percentage of households
using well water is significantly low (only 7%) in residences very close to the landfill
(

Environmental impacts with waste disposal practices 115
• loss in property value
• unpleasant odour emanating from the landfill site
• traffic congestion caused by garbage collection vehicles
• falling of garbage bags from garbage trucks on either side of the main road
• dust created by garbage collection vehicles
• deterioration of road conditions caused by garbage trucks
• contribution of accumulated garbage to the increase in floods during the rainy season
• release of smoke and toxic gases by garbage trucks creating safety and health
problems
• children affected by various diseases such as skin diseases in the area presumably
caused by garbage and dumps
• breeding ground for worms and insects.
These responses can be categorised into three subgroups. The first four impacts identified
are direct impacts felt by the community arising from garbage. The second four impacts
are problems related to the transport of garbage. The next four problems are considered
as indirect impacts if waste. In addition to these problems, the impact survey also
revealed that the people living near the waste dump site had suffered significantly more
from typhoid and diarrhoea than those living further away from the site. In addition,
there is a significant increase in heavy vehicles along the road leading to the currently
operating dump site, Karadiyana dump site, owing to vehicles transporting MSW.
This in turn causes severe road degradation since the roads in the area are not designed
for heavy vehicle transport. As identified by the residents, traffic delays have increased
owing to obstructions caused by garbage trucks since the roads around both the old and
the present dump sites are narrow.
4 Conclusions
The study reported in this paper clearly shows that the current waste disposal practices
in the municipality of Moratuwa are causing severe environmental and social problems.
Although fair allocation from resources of the municipality is utilised for the MSW
management processes, the efficiency of its use and distribution is questionable.
The emphasis placed on proper waste disposal is minimal. The main environmental
problem identified in the study is the groundwater contamination associated with landfill
leachate. Leaching of pollutants into groundwater is found to be a significant concern
owing to the high use of groundwater for residential purposes and owing to the possible
illegal disposal of industrial waste along with MSW.
Public surveys revealed that the worst impacts of present solid waste disposal
practices are related to social impacts such as odour, breeding of pests and loss in
property values. Transport of the collected waste also appears to cause significant
impacts owing to increased traffic flows and causing odour while transporting the waste.
Whereas combating impacts such as pollution from leachate may require heavy capital

116 N.J.G.J. Bandara and J.P.A. Hettiaratchi
investments, some of the other identified problems can be easily avoided without much
of a financial burden. Covering of waste material during transportation, application
of a daily cover on the landfilled waste and careful planning of transportation of collected
waste are some of these measures that can be adopted by the municipality. Since the
municipality generates mostly organic waste that can be easily biodegraded through
composting or anaerobic digestion, residents should be encouraged and given incentives
to participate in an integrated solid waste management programme where waste is sorted
at the point of generation. This would immensely reduce the generation of landfill
gases as well. Although an overnight change and improvement in the present-day
waste management practices cannot be expected without more financial commitments,
the present situation can be improved upon provided there is adequate understanding
of the problem and willingness to do so.
References
Amarananda, A.G. and Bandara, N.J.G.J. (2006) ‘Factors governing an integrated solid
waste management program: a case study at Nuwara-Eliya District Secretariat Division’,
International Forestry and Environment Symposium 2006, University of Sri Jayewardenepura,
Sri Lanka.
Bandara, N.J.G.J. (2003) ‘Water and wastewater related issues in Sri Lanka’, IWA Journal Water
Science and Technology, Vol. 47, No. 12, pp.305–312.
Bandara, N.J.G.J., Hettiarachchi, P., Wirasinghe, S.C. and Pilapitiya, S. (2007) ‘Relation of waste
generation and composition to socio-economic factors: a case study’, Environ. Monitoring and
Assess, Vol. 135, pp.31–39.
Brown, K.W. and Donnelly, K.C. (1998) ‘An estimation of the risk associated with the organic
constituents of hazardous and municipal waste landfill leachates’, Journal of Hazardous Waste
and Hazardous Materials, Vol. 5, No. 1, p.3.
Connoy, M.J. (2000) ‘Natural protection of groundwater against bacteria of fecal origin’,
Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, pp.1–24.
Environmental Resources Management (ERM) (1997) Environmental Impact Assessment for a
Proposed Sanitary Landfill, Alupotha Division, Salawa Estate, Sri Lanka.
Ministry of Forest Resources and Environment (1999) Data Base on Solid Waste Disposed by
Local Authorities in Sri Lanka, Ministry of Forest Resources and Environment, Sri Lanka.
Pathinather, S. (1995) Situation Report on Municipal Solid Waste – Moratuwa Area, Prepared for
Emace Foundation of Sri Lanka, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, August.
Ramya Kumari, S.M.S. and Bandara, N.J.G.J. (2004) ‘Release of methane and carbon dioxide
gases from municipal solid waste landfills in the Colombo metropolitan region’, Ninth Annual
Forestry and Environment Symposium, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka.
Rathnayake, R.M.N.P. (2008) Analysis of the Dug Well Water Quality in the Werahera GN
Division and Analyzing Pollution Sources and Effects, Thesis submitted for BSc Special
Degree in Forestry and Environmental Sciences, Department of Forestry and Environmental
Science, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka.
Samanraja, N.S.P. and Bandara, N.J.G.J. (2005) Ground Water Quality in the Vicinity of Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills in the Colombo Metropolitan Region, Research Comm., SLASS,
Anl. Sess.2005, Colombo.
Suthaharan, G. and Bandara N.J.G.J. (2004) ‘Assessment of present solid waste management
practices and impacts in Batticaloa municipal limits’, Ninth Annual Forestry and Environment
Symposium, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka. February.
World Bank (1999) What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. Urban Development Sector
Unit, East Asia and Pacific Unit, World Bank, Washington DC.