See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271084455

Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Malaysia: The Concept of Multi-

Stakeholder Governance in Solid Waste Policy Implementation

Article  in  Public Policy and Administration · October 2014

CITATIONS READS

16 5,794

2 authors:

Muhamad Azahar Abas Seow Ta Wee

University of Malaysia, Kelantan Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
80 PUBLICATIONS   289 CITATIONS    108 PUBLICATIONS   580 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The impact of Climate Change to Socio-economic of Paddy Farmer in Malaysia View project

SROI Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhamad Azahar Abas on 20 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Public Policy and Administration Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online)
Vol.4, No.10, 2014

Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Malaysia: The Concept

of Multi-Stakeholder Governance in Solid Waste Policy
Implementation
Muhamad Azahar Abas* Seow Ta Wee
Faculty of Technology Management and Business
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia,86400, Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor, MALAYSIA
* E-mail of corresponding authors: zaha.abas@gmail.com & tawee@uthm.edu.my

Abstract
From the past few years, multi-stakeholder governance is one of the captivating concepts that mostly discussed
in public administration. Multi-stakeholder governance has represented the modes of governing that involves a
multiplicity of informal actors and formal institutions. This new mode of interaction has involving a network of
government sectors, non-profit organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGO) and other non-state actors
in implementing the public policy. There is many type of public policy and solid waste management policy is
one of them. In developing countries, the issue of ineffective policy implementation on solid waste management
has grabbed attention of many public policy scholars. Poor multi-stakeholder governance in solid waste policy
implementation is one of the main causes. In fact, ineffective solid waste management will brought negative
impact to human health, environment and the economy development. Hence, the study of multi-stakeholder
governance is very crucial to enhance solid waste policy implementation. This concept paper is critically
examines multi-stakeholder governance as a theoretical tool which has potential to advance our understanding on
the complexity of policy implementation with regard to solid waste management. This could be an insight for
developing countries like Malaysia for achieving sustainable solid waste management.
Keywords: Sustainable solid waste management, Multi-stakeholder governance, Policy implementation

1. Introduction
Policy is one of the prominent approaches to deliver the improvement in any public administration and public
services delivery (Ahmad Atory Hussein, 2008). The developing of policy is frequently debated at local, national,
international level mostly in developing country. It is reflecting the dynamic society that emerged from the rapid
development of transportation and telecommunication nowadays. This situation has created the clash and
conflict among them in delivering their idea and philosophy. Hence, the development of comprehensive policy
becomes more significant nowadays with the influencing by several perspectives which are the scientific
perspectives, practical perspectives and political perspectives (Dye, 2002). In essence, policy is a tool that has
been used by many governments to achieve its goal for the better management and development.
The transformation of Malaysia from an agriculture based to a modern industrial based nation has been
remarkable. This modern industrial based has offered plenty of job opportunities to civilian. Reflecting on that
phenomenon, the urbanization and population rate in Malaysia’s city centres are increase drastically in the past
few years (Muhamad Azahar and Seow, 2014). As the result, solid waste generation at city centres is
significantly escalated day after day. The drastic increase of solid waste generation has brought challenges to
Malaysian Government to manage these solid wastes effectively. In fact, when the problem comes, the
improvement of the solid waste management is crucially required.
Malaysia’s policy on solid waste management has been introduced officially through enactment of Act
672 (Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act) in 2007. This policy has introduced to achieve
effective solid waste management. Moreover, this policy has included the integrated solid waste management
concept as main strategy. However, there is a gap between the law and practices on the ground (Agamuthu et al.,
2009). The problem of ineffective policy implementation is frequently occurred at developing countries
including Malaysia. This problem is reflected from the poor management system as well as the governance of its
stakeholders (Bjerkli, 2013).
Good governing of stakeholders in policy implementation is one of the fascinating concepts that most of
the policy’s scholars believe is one of the solutions (Budd et al., 2006). In fact, the stakeholder’s involvement is
quite complicated because each process of solid waste management process which begins from waste generation
until final disposal has involved a distinctive of stakeholders. Each stakeholder in every stages of solid waste
management process has played a different role that is crucial. Hence, improving the stakeholder’s governance in
solid waste management process could give an insight towards effective solid waste management.

2. The Issues of Policy Implementation on Solid Waste Management

Policy implementation in solid waste management has become a critical issue in public administration. The issue

26
Public Policy and Administration Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online)
Vol.4, No.10, 2014

of ineffective solid waste management has reflected the inefficient policy implementation. In fact, there is a
policy with regard to effective solid waste management formulated in most of the countries including Malaysia.
However, the mechanism of the implementation of this policy is different at developed and developing countries.
This is based on the study conducted by many scholars and international organisation which is the solid waste
management in developed countries are more effective and efficient compared with developing countries (World
Bank, 2012). Moreover, policy has been used as a tool to achieve the goals of effective or as well as sustainable
solid waste management.
Governments are increasingly implementing policies that are intended to give impact on waste
management practice, and many new initiatives have been taken in the countries around the world over the last
few decades. A common problem has emerged in most countries that have embarked the solid waste policies
especially in promoting recycling and waste reduction. The process of policy making has not been matched by
an equal effort to provide mechanism for effective policy implementation. In the most developing countries
including Malaysia, the top down approach has employed for legislative decision (Ahmad Atory Hussein, 2008).
Hence, most of the policies such as solid waste policy are executed with little or no discretion locally (Agamuthu
et al., 2009).
Implementation is about putting policies into practices, and it is often the complex process of planning,
coordination and promotion which is necessary in order to achieve policy objectives. In fact, implementation
constitutes an important phase in the policy process (Dye, 2002). In the implementation phase, the policy is
translated into actual changes in behaviour. Approaches to implementation are therefore become very significant.
In general, the involvement of different actors in both the creation and implementation of policy is the critical
factor if the policy is to stimulate new initiatives. Moreover, integration of the new paradigm into industrial
decision making has become challenges in many countries. Thus, there is a fundamental need to understand the
localised mechanism by which policies are made and enacted (Read, 1999).
A sizeable gap often persists between a policy decision and its implementation on solid waste
management (Read, 1999). Ambiguity of the policy among the policy implementers is the frequent failure of
policy implementation on the ground (Paudel, 2009). This is clearly shows the different waste management
planning and implementing bodies would create a conflict. Moreover, the implementation become more complex
due to the different tiers of government and the different sections of an authority with responsibility for
management, operational and planning function of waste management (Read, 1999).

3. Multi-stakeholder Governance in Solid Waste Management Policy Implementation

Governance is a concept to describe how good an organisation controls its actions to ensure that its constituents
follow its established policies (Andrew, 2008). It is not easy to ensure compliance with the policies formulated
without involving the multi-stakeholder (Elbakidze et al., 2010). Hence, governance concept has covered a broad
issue to ensure that the policies can be implemented effectively (Grindle, 2004). In the context of solid waste
policy implementation, application of governance concept might contribute in deep understanding the various
social-cultural elements that significant in solid waste policy implementation.
Multi-stakeholder is currently synonymous with the governance practices. This governance concept is a
platform where political, economic and social issues are able to be deliberated. At the same time, placing
governance practices under a multi-stakeholder model has provided the opportunity for new forms of
cooperation that allow a diverse set of stakeholders working together to achieve the objectives of policy (Thomas
and Grindle, 1990). Over the years, it has become evident that multi-stakeholder governance is consistently
evolved concept instead of a static concept. Part of this evolvement is the idea of enhanced cooperation (Claire
Charbit, 2011).
Multi-stakeholders governance principle has four significant elements such as participation, openness,
cooperation as well as collaboration and pluralism (Thomas and Grindle, 1990). In solid waste policy
implementation, the participation and collaboration between multi-stakeholders is very crucial (Gibbon et al.,
1994). Besides that, the openness and pluralism of the policy also are the crucial element that needs to take
account during its implementation (Paudel, 2009). In fact, the pluralism and openness of the solid waste policy
are controllable elements as compared to participation and collaboration. Hence, participation and collaboration
of the multi-stakeholder is quite difficult to achieve because beyond the reach of the policy developers and
implementers. Based on the study of Elbakidze et al. (2010), motivation is a key to trigger the collaboration and
participation of various level of stakeholder. Figure 1 shows the crucial elements in multi-stakeholders
governance.

27
Public Policy and Administration Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online)
Vol.4, No.10, 2014

Figure 1. The Elements of Multi-stakeholders Governance

Source: Elbakidze et al. (2010)

3.1 Adaptive the Concept of Multi-stakeholder Governance

The development of collective action is differs in different situations and places. For instance, the actions can be
initiated by local people from the bottom up or by external actors from the top down. Different stakeholders may
also have different motivations for taking part in collective action. In facilitating the institutional change,
recognition of the concerted efforts by policy developers, facilitators, and leaders is very crucial (Thomas, 2003).
Thus, it is necessary to analyse the motivations of the stakeholders and leaders to engage in a solid waste
management and how this might affect the adaptive capacity of the initiative. The adaptive capacity of a
sustainability initiative is can be enhanced if the program of activities reflects and includes the partner’s needs
and values. This is further reinforced if the process is grounded in the principles of democratic governance,
capacity building, and knowledge production to strengthen the partners and the partnership (Gibbons et al.,
1994).
Satisfying the different dimensions of sustainable development also requires the governance systems
that support coordination and cooperation across the various organisational dimensions in a landscape. In
essence, governance concept refers to decision-making processes and networking aimed at problem solving. This
concept focuses on participation and deliberative consensus-building processes with the goal of enhancing
cooperation and coordination among a diverse range of stakeholders (Healey, 1996; Stoker, 1998). Therefore, a
platform of forum for adaptive governance is crucial for enabling the processes of solid waste policy
implementation. Furthermore, these platforms can facilitate an overriding strategy and coordination of planning
and management activities by representatives from various sectors of society such as public, private, and local
communities. In fact, each sector will represent the needs and interests of stakeholders at different levels
(Bellamy and Johnson, 2000). This coordination also can be enhanced by the development of social learning that
transfers knowledge and new approaches in collaboration among managers and other stakeholders at different
levels (Mayers and Bass, 2004). Besides that, this also can foster the dialog between sectors in complex adaptive
systems to produce the new knowledge (Diets et al., 2003).
The initiatives of multi-stakeholders governance are able to establish a platform or forum for
coordination of management activities may also provide an indication of the level of their adaptive capacity. As
Folke et al. (2005) pointed out, adaptive governance of linked various social-cultural is generally involves
polycentric institutional arrangements. Moreover, these institutional arrangements are nested the decision
making units that operating at multiple scales. Hence, these institutional arrangements engage the local
communities as well as the higher organisational levels. In fact, the aim of institutional arrangements is to find a

28
Public Policy and Administration Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online)
Vol.4, No.10, 2014

balance between decentralized and centralized control (Folke et al., 2005). Nestedness of the organizations is
very crucial if the management of a solid waste has involves multiple levels of governance from local to global
(Shindler, 2003). This may facilitate analytic deliberation and interaction among actors horizontally and
vertically (Grafton, 2005; Dale and Newman 2010).
Nestedness of stakeholders in solid waste policy implementation embraces knowledge sharing, capacity
building, and networking. In fact, it may enhance the adaptive capacity of the system (Coleman, 1988; Cash and
Moser, 2000; Putnam, 2000; Adler and Kwon, 2002; Olsson et al., 2007). This includes a representative among
involved sectors and also among local, regional, and national stakeholders with regard to solid waste
management. The stakeholders at different levels and in different sectors may have varying levels of influence
and different motivations to participate. In some cases, an overrepresentation of actors with their particular
interests may decrease the chances for adaptive multi-stakeholder governance in the context of policy
implementation (Arnstein, 1969).
However, the adaptive capacity of a solid waste policy implementation depends on its context and how
different management systems are situated at different levels. For example, the culture and administrative system
at the constitutional state level may influence how policy can respond to change and manage adaptively. Thus,
the difference between each level of stakeholders at national state and local are important variables.

4. Multi-stakeholders Involvement in Solid Waste Management: A Case Study of Malaysia

Figure 2. Classification of Stakeholders into Different Group in Solid Waste Management

Modified from World Bank (1995)

Stakeholders in solid waste management can be divided into three groups which are primary, secondary
and tertiary stakeholders. Primary stakeholder is refers to the people that responsible for policy development,
enforcement and implementation. The private sectors that participate in the policy implementation either
formally or informally is known as secondary stakeholder. Besides that, tertiary stakeholder is refers to the
people that compliance with the law or policy (World Bank, 1995). In Malaysia, government agencies have a
responsible as a primary stakeholder. Besides that, the concession companies are known as secondary
stakeholder and the civilian is classified as tertiary stakeholder (Figure 2). Hence, governance of multi-
stakeholders in solid waste management is very crucial to ensure the solid waste policy implementation can be
conducted effectively.

4.1 Public Sector

Stakeholders of public sector are referring the government agencies are classified as a primary stakeholder
because they have an authority to enforce and implement the law and policy with regard to solid waste
management such as Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Corporation and local government. Even
the decentralisation of solid waste management has occurred in Malaysia, local government still as an authority
at their area based on Malaysia’s Local Government Act 1976. Hence, the role of local government in solid
waste management is very crucial to help the enforcement and implementation of the policy at state level. Table
1 shows the number of local government by states and status at Malaysia. In general, there is 12 city councils, 39
municipal councils, 99 district councils, and 5 modified local authorities available in Malaysia (Ministry of
Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government, 2014).

29
Public Policy and Administration Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online)
Vol.4, No.10, 2014

Table 1. The Number of Local Government by States and its Status

City District Modified Local
States Municipalities
Councils/Halls Councils Authorities
Johor 1 6 8 1
Kedah 1 3 7 1
Kelantan 0 1 11 0
Melaka 1 3 0 0
Negeri Sembilan 0 3 5 0
Pahang 0 3 9 1
Penang 0 2 0 0
Perak 1 4 10 0
Perlis 0 1 0 0
Selangor 2 6 4 0
Terengganu 1 2 4 0
Sabah 1 2 21 0
Sarawak 3 3 20 0
Kuala Lumpur 1 0 0 2
Total 12 39 99 5
Source: Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government (2014)

Furthermore, there is a government agency that specifically responsible on solid waste management and
public cleansing at state level which is Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Corporation. This
corporation is the official institutional of government that fully responsible for implementing the national policy
on solid waste management (Muhamad Azahar and Seow, 2014). In general, the purpose of this corporation is to
provide a comprehensive, integrated, cost-effective and sustainable solid waste management by considering
society’s demand, environmental conservation and public tranquillity. Moreover, this corporation was established
under Act 673 (Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Corporation Act) that has been enacted in August
2007 and commenced operation in on June 2008 (Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Corporation,
2014). In fact, this corporation has opened its branches at nine states of Peninsular Malaysia to enhance the solid
waste administration and services which are at Kuala Lumpur, Negeri Sembilan, Johor, Kedah, Melaka, Kelantan,
Pahang, Terengganu and Perlis.
Besides that, there is government agency in Malaysia has play an important role in solid waste
management policy development and coordination such as the Department of National Solid Waste Management.
This department is established under the Malaysia Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act (Act 672).
Moreover, this department is coordinated under Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government of
Malaysia just same like the solid waste corporation. The aim of department is to integrate and coordinate solid
waste management system at the national level. Hence, all legislation related to solid waste management such as
Local Government (amendment) Act 2007 (Act A1311), Street, Drainage and Building (amendment) Act 2007
(Act A1312), and Town and Country Planning (amendment) Act 2007 (Act 1313) are now vested on the
federation. The uniformity of these Acts is involved throughout Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territories
of Putrajaya and Labuan (Muhamad Azahar and Seow, 2014).

4.2 Private Sector

Private sector participation is very crucial in solid waste management nowadays. Private sectors are frequently
involved in waste collection, transfer and final disposal. The most common approaches of the private sector
participate in solid waste management are namely contracting, franchise and concession (Sandra Cointreau,
1994). Contract approaches is usually implemented by developing countries instead of franchise and concession
approaches. Both concession and franchise approaches are quite popular at developed countries in term of
private firm involvement in waste management. In fact, both concession and franchise approaches in waste
management is quite impressive. However, both method of participation have given a huge responsibility to the
private firm in term of technical and financial. In the past few years, concession agreement approaches has
started been applied by several developing countries including Malaysia.
In Malaysia, privatization of solid waste management has started since 1996. The privatization of the
Malaysia’s solid waste management is expected to provide an integrated and effective technologically advanced
system to enhance the quality of environment (Irina Safitri Zen, 2001). Moreover, the participation approach of
private sectors in Malaysia is mostly like contract at first and has altered into concession agreement. In essence,
privatisation of solid waste management services is to reduce the financial problem and man power pressure to
the local authorities in Malaysia (Nadzri and Larsen, 2012). In 2011, there are three main concession companies

30
Public Policy and Administration Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online)
Vol.4, No.10, 2014

that have been appointed to manage solid waste services in Malaysia such as Alam Flora Sdn Bhd, SWM
Environment Sdn Bhd and E-Idaman Sdn Bhd. In this agreement, Alam Flora Sdn Bhd has responsible to cover
the centre region of Peninsular Malaysia which including Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya, Pahang, Terengganu and
Kelantan. Besides that, SWM Environment Sdn Bhd is covering the southern region which including Johor,
Melaka and Negeri Sembilan. Environment Idaman Sdn Bhd has covered the north region which including
Kedah and Perlis (Rozita, 2014).
In fact, there are several states did not agree with this concession agreement such as Perak, Penang and
Selangor. The exception of these states from the enforcement of the 672 Act is because all of the three states
have not given authorisation for the federal government to privatize solid waste management. According to
Section 104 of the 672 Act, Federal government may exempt any state from the Act if the enforcement of the act
is rejected by that state. In this case privatization will not take place and solid waste management and public
cleansing will be implemented by the concerned state government or local authorities without technical or
financial assistance from the federal government. However, Perak finally agreed to privatize solid waste
management under 672 Act by the end of the year. This means only two states such as Selangor and Penang,
which is still disagree to enforced the 672 Act.
In some cases, the concession companies are allowed to subcontract the solid waste services to small
private firm. Besides that, the states that rejected the concession agreement have appointed other private firm
such as Eurasia Express Sdn Bhd and PLB Terang Sdn Bhd. at Penang. Big Tree Waste Disposal Sdn Bhd, BI-
PMB Waste Management Sdn Bhd and Solid Waste Management Sdn Bhd have been appointed at Selangor.
Hence, actually, there are many private firms that participate in solid waste management in Malaysia. The
governance of these private firms is crucial required to ensure the effective solid waste management can be
sustained.

4.3 Local Communities

Local communities refer to the civilian that comprising a broad range of organisations outside of government
which including civil associations, non-profit organisations, non-governmental organisation (NGO), religious
organisation, residential committees (Elbakidze et al., 2010). These organisations have play pivotal role in
contribute for the public good. Besides that, these organisations have close relationship with the residential as
well as the civilians. In the context of solid waste policy implementation, this group of stakeholder need to
compliant with the policy developed. Hence, analysing the activities of this group is important to ensure the
implementation of the policy can be conducted effectively.

31
Public Policy and Administration Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online)
Vol.4, No.10, 2014

Figure 3. Multi-stakeholders in Solid Waste Management Process

Modified from Memon (2010)

Figure 3 shows different stakeholder has played different roles as well as activities during policy
implementation on solid waste management. In Malaysia, Regional Implementation Committee (RIC) and
Service Level Committee (SLC) were established to enhance the governance of stakeholder in solid waste
management (SWMPCC, 2011). The RIC was established at states level to solve any problems and enhance the
solid waste services. Besides that, SLC was established to solve the problem at the federal level.

5. Sustainable Solid Waste Management

Sustainable solid waste management is reflecting the effectiveness as well as efficiency of the institutional to
manage the solid waste beside reduces the impact of solid waste on human and environment. As the result, there
are many concepts regarding solid waste management have introduced such as integrated solid waste
management, zero waste concept, waste minimisation approach and waste hierarchy. In essence, these concepts
have the same aim which is to improve the solid waste management in more sustainable approach. Ratio and
characteristics of production and consumption should be considered, as this makes it possible to determine the
required information about the amount, the quality and the composition of the waste to be treated at an early
stage. The zero waste, waste minimization and waste hierarchy concept have emphasised the intervention of
waste management during the consumption phase which avoiding the disposal phase. In fact, waste disposal has
brought massive negative impact on human health, environmental vitality and economy development (Brosseau,
1994).

32
Public Policy and Administration Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online)
Vol.4, No.10, 2014

Figure 4 The Concept of Multi-stakeholder Governance to achieve Sustainable Solid Waste Management
Modified from Bjkerli (2013)

The prominent concept of integrated solid waste management has described the waste management
entirely. It takes into consideration the whole life cycle of products which is from exploring the resources
through the production until the disposal process of the waste which is from cradle to grave process. That means
the process of solid waste production, transportation, treatment and disposal are taken into account. These
process has involves multiple stakeholders form various level. Hence, the practice of multi-stakeholder
governance is significant to ensure the sustainable solid waste management can be achieved. As the result,
prosperity of the environment, social tranquillity and economy viability can be attained. Figure 4 shows the
concept of multi-stakeholder governance to achieve sustainable solid waste management.

6. Conclusion
This concept paper shows the promotion of multi-stakeholder governance through participation and
collaboration of relevant stakeholders in the policies implementation is very crucial to ensure the policies can be
implemented more effective on the ground. Furthermore, openness and pluralism of the policy is very crucial to
ensure the civilian clearly understands the policy’s aim. In fact, to gain 100% stakeholder’s commitment during
the policy implementation on the ground is quite difficult to be achieved. Hence, further studies regarding
stakeholder’s commitment on solid waste management policy in Malaysia is crucial required. Besides that,
extensive study regarding effective enforcement mechanism on solid waste policy implementation is very
significant to be explored based on the suitability of stakeholders in the future. This study could enhance the
efficiency of solid waste management policy implementation on the ground with different type of approaches. In
fact, there are plenty of countries in Asia and Europe has proven the successful of solid waste policy
implementation by practicing good governance on its stakeholders. This proves that multi-stakeholder
governance in policy implementation might give an insight to developing countries such as Malaysia towards
sustainable solid waste management. However,

Acknowledgement
Special thanks are extended to the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia and Office for Research, Innovation,
Commercialization and Consultant Management (ORICC), Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) for
providing adequate financial assistance in this study under Multidisciplinary Research Grant (MDR) vot 1316.
Moreover, we wish to express our sincere appreciation to Faculty of Technology Management and Business,

33
Public Policy and Administration Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online)
Vol.4, No.10, 2014

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia for providing the required technical assistances.

References
Adler, P. S., and S. W. Kwon (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept, The Academy of Management
Review, 27(1):17–40.
Agamuthu, P., Hamid, F.S., Khidzir, K. (2009) Evolution of solid waste management in Malaysia: Impacts and
Implications of the Solid Waste Bill 2007, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 11: 96-103.
Ahmad Atory Hussein (2008) Pembentukan Polisi Awam, 1st edition., Utusan Publications and Distributors,
Kuala Lumpur.
Andrew, M. (2008) The good Governance Agenda: Beyond Indicators without Theory, Oxford Development
Studies, 36(4): 379-407.
Armitage, D., F. Berkes, and N. Doubleday (2007) Adaptive co-management collaboration learning and multi-
level governance, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Arnstein, S. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:216–224.
Bellamy, J. A., and A. K. L. Johnson (2000) Integrated resource management: moving from rhetoric to practice
in Australian agriculture, Environmental Management, 25(3):265–280.
Bjerkli, C. L. (2013) Governance on the Ground: A Study of Solid Waste Management in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(4): 1278-1287.
Blomquist, W. (1992) Dividing the waters: Governing groundwater in southern California, ICS Press, San
Francisco, California, USA.
Brosseau, J. (1994) Trace gas compound emissions from municipal landfill sanitary sites, Atmospheric-
Environment, 28 (2), 285-293
Budd , L., Charlesworth, J., Paton, R. (2006) Making Policy Happen, Routledge, New York.
Cash, D. W., and S. Moser (2000) Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and
management processes, Global Environmental Change, 10(2):109–120.
Claire Charbit (2011) Governance of Public Policies in Decentralised Contexts: The Multi-level Approach,
OECD Regional Development Working Paper, Online URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg883pkxkhc-en.
Coleman, J. S. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of Sociology, 94:95–120.
Dale, A., and L. Newman (2010) Social capital: a necessary and sufficient condition for sustainable community
development? Community Development Journal 45:5–21.
Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. C. Stern (2003) The struggle to govern the commons, Science, 302:1902-1912.
Dyakonov, K., N. S. Kasimov, A. V. Khoroshev, and A. V. Kushlin (2007) Landscape analysis for sustainable
development: theory and applications of landscape science in Russia, Alex Publishers, Moscow, Russia.
Dye, T. R. (2002) Understanding Public Policy, 10th edition., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Elbakidze, M., and P. Angelstam (2007) Implementing Sustainable Forest Management in Ukraine’s Carpathian
Mountains: the Role of Traditional Village Systems, Forest Ecology and Management, 249:28–38.
Elbakidze, M., Angekstam, P. K., Sandstrom, C., Axelsson, R. (2010) Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in
Russian and Swedish Model Forest Initiatives: Adaptive Governance Towards Sustainable Forest Management?,
Ecology and Society, 15(2): 14. Online URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art14/
European Treaty Series (2000) European landscape convention, Florence, Italy.
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg (2005) Adaptive governance of social–ecological knowledge,
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30:441–473.
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg (2005) Adaptive governance of social–ecological knowledge,
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30:441–473.
Gibbons, M., L. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartman, P. Scott, and M. Trow (1994) The new production of
knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage Publications, London, UK.
Grafton, Q. R. (2005) Social capital and fisheries governance, Ocean and Coastal Management, 48:753–766.
Grindle, M. (2004) Good Enough Governance: Poverty Reduction and Reform in Developing Countries,
Governance, 17(4): 525-548.
Healey, P. (1996) The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation,
Environment and Planning, Planning and Design, 23:217–234.
Holling, C. S. (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems, Ecosystems,
4:390–405.
Irina Safitri Zen (2001) Issues and Problems on Privatizing Municipal Solid Waste Management in Malaysia, In
Policies to Improve Municipal Solid Waste Management, editors Chamhuri Siwar et al., Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia.
Latifah, A. M., Mohd Armi, A. S., Nur Ilyana, M. Z. (2009) Municipal Solid Waste Management in Malaysia:
Practices and Challenges, Waste Management, 29: 2902-2906.
Lazdinis, M., and P. Angelstam (2004) Connecting social and ecological systems: an integrated toolbox for

34
Public Policy and Administration Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5731(Paper) ISSN 2225-0972(Online)
Vol.4, No.10, 2014

hierarchical evaluation of biodiversity policy implementation, Ecological Bulletin, 51:385–400.

Mayers, J., and S. Bass (2004) Policy that works for forests and people, Earthscan, London, UK.
Memon, M. A. (2010) Integrated Solid Waste Management Base on the 3R Approach, Journal of Material
Cycles and Waste Management, 12: 30-40
Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government (2014) Number of Authorities by States and
Status, information on http://jkt.kpkt.gov.my/english.php/pages/view/138
Muhamad Azahar, A. and Seow, T. W. (2014) Municipal Solid Waste Management in Malaysia: An Insight
Towards Sustainability, In proceeding 4th International Conference on Human Habitat & Environment, Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia, 5-6 May, 18: 192-206.
Nadzri, Y. & Larsen., I. B., “Federalising Solid Waste Managemnet in Pennisular Malaysia,” Department of
National Solid Waste Management. Malaysia, 2012.
Olsson, P., C. Folke, V. Galaz,T. Hahn, and L. Schultz.2007. Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management:
creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere
Reserve, Sweden. Ecology and Society 12(1): 28.
Paudel, N. R. (2009) A Critical Account of Policy Implementation Theories: Status and Consideration, Nepalese
Journal of Public Policy and Governance, 15(2): 36-54.
Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse of and revival of American community. Simon and Schüsler,
New York, New York, USA.
Read, A. D., “Making Waste Work: Making UK National Solid Waste Strategy Work at Local Scale,” Resources,
Conservation, and Recycling, 1999, 26: 259-285.
Rozita, S. M. (2014) The Effect of Federal Government Policy on Local Government Service Delivery: A case
Study on Refuse Collection Privatization, http://www.kapa21.or.kr/data/data_download.php?did=6309 [Assessed
on 15 February 2014]
Sandra Cointreau-Levine (1994) Private Sector Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Services in Developing
Countries, The World Bank, Washington D. C., U.S.A.
Shindler, B. A., T. M. Finlay, and M. C. Beckley (2003) Two paths toward sustainable forests. Public values in
Canada and the United States. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Corporation (2014) Background, information on
http://www.ppsppa.gov.my/index.php/mengenai-ppsppa/latar-belakang
Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Corporation, SWMPCC (2011) Annual Report 2011, Kuala
Lumpur.
Stoker, G. (1998) Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal 50(155):17–28.
Thomas, C. W. (2003) Bureaucratic landscapes: interagency cooperation and the preservation of biodiversity,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, USA.
Thomas, J. W. and Grindle, M. S. (1990) After Decision: Implementation Policy Reforms in Developing
Countries, World Development, 18(8): 1163-1181.
Winter, S. C. (2003) Implementation, in Handbook of Public Administration, Editor: Peter, B. G. and Pierre, J.,
Thousand Oak, California.
World Bank (1995) Stakeholder Consultation and Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Management Planning,
Social Development Department, United Kingdom.
World Commission on Environment and Development, WCED (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Muhamad Azahar Abas, become a Research Assistant at Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) since
2013. He was born in Terendak, Melaka, Malaysia in 1989. He graduated from Universiti Sains Malaysia with
Master of Science (Sustainable Cities and Communities) in 2013 and Bachelor of Science (Biology) in 2011.
Currently, he pursuing Doctor of Philosophy in Technology Management which focusing on the study of national
solid waste management policy implementation in Malaysia. Previously, he was actively involved in urban
sustainable lifestyle at Penang, Malaysia.

Seow Ta Wee, he was a senior lecturer at Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) since 2009. After that,
he was appointed as an Associate Professor at Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) in 2013. He was
born in Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia in 1972. He graduated from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia with Ph.D in
Environmental Management major in Solid Waste Management, Master in Environmental Management (in 1999)
and Bachelor Degree in Arts (Geography) (in 1998). He actively involved at the local authority’s solid waste
management programme, policy reviewer and research.

35
 The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open-Access hosting service and academic event
management. The aim of the firm is Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.

More information about the firm can be found on the homepage:

http://www.iiste.org

CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS

There are more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals hosted under the hosting
platform.

Prospective authors of journals can find the submission instruction on the

following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ All the journals articles are available
online to the readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers
other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Paper version
of the journals is also available upon request of readers and authors.

MORE RESOURCES

Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/

IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners

EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open

Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial
Library , NewJour, Google Scholar

View publication stats