Luận án tiến sĩ Khoa học và công nghệ môi trường: Impact analysis on door from open landfill site of municipal waste

Introduction

Background of study

Municipal solid waste (MSW) management centers have an adverse impact on the environment (El-Fadel et al., 1997; Lisk, 1991; Rabl et al., 2008) They contaminate the environment in two main ways: (i) contaminated gas and metals seep into the air, water, and soil from the degradation and treatment of wastes; (ii) garbage disposal causes many problems like noise, litter, dust, vermin, odor, and damage to productive agriculture and historic sites Therefore, evaluating the influence of MSW management on the environment is a critical task This task is challenging as many factors such as odor dispersion on nearby landscape, meteorology, and atmosphere, the residence size and educational level of the residents, and weather per season need to be considered

Gas emissions from the MSW, such as bacteria, odor, and particles, can significantly disturb the neighboring inhabitants Odors have always been a social problem, but there have been public concerns recently about their potential health and wellbeing impacts This has resulted in public opinion concern about air quality problems and complaints to municipal authorities (Brancher et al., 2019) that the key sources of complaints are waste treatment plants and farming (Keck et al., 2018; Sironi et al., 2005) to local authorities (Brancher et al., 2019) Annoyance of odors emission by waste plants (e.g., waste settlements and composition sites) and by animal processing activities (Blanco-Rodríguez et al., 2018) is one of the key causes of concerns among those who live near these sites (Keck et al., 2018), and has brought an increased focus on regulating the effects of air contaminants in nearby regions (Hayes et al , 2014; Bibbiani and Russo, 2012) Unpleasant smells may cause a variety of emotional and unwanted reactions from annoyance to reported medical consequences which result in lower quality of life (Blanes-Vidal et al., 2012; Domingo & Nadal, 2009; Palmiotto et al., 2014) Hence, researches on the odor effect of MSW centers were carried out in many territories, such as the US, Europe, Japan, and Korea Qualitative evaluation of the odor effects on residences is often performed (Sarkar

& Hobbs, 2002; Sarkar et al., 2003) by using survey questionnaires to give a standardized assessment (Hayes et al., 2017; Johnson & Sobel, 2007) Recently, some surveys targeted three critical points, including the odor effect on health, wellbeing, and how the odor effects are influenced by residents’ recognition

However, such studies have not been conducted intensively in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), Vietnam, where the waste degradation is much faster and has a more significant impact on the environment due to the tropical weather HCMC is the biggest city in southern Vietnam in terms of population and economy The population of HCMC was

Statistical Office, 2018) In 2016, HCMC citizens generated 8,175 tons of waste solid per day, including 6,700-7,000 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) at a rate of 1.02 kg/capita/day (Verma et al., 2016) The amount of MSW in HCMC has been increasing at a rate of approximately 5-6% per year (DONRE, 2018) MSW mainly came from households, schools, hotels, and restaurants Landfills are the conventional treatment for MSW in HCMC There are two main landfill sites in HCMC: Da Phuoc and Phuoc Hiep Around 86% of solid waste is landfilled in these two sites, and the remaining 14% is recycled The recycled component consists of paper, plastic, and metal After 2014, Da Phuoc landfill site received 2,000 tonnes of waste from Phuoc Hiep landfill site due to its closure Unfortunately, Da Phuoc treatment facility causes several environmental problems such as leachate and bad odor Complaints of residents who living more 7 km from the landfill site were received from 2016 until now by various media (even state media) however scientific research related to odor impact has not been conducted yet Currently, there are no practical solutions that have been proposed to solve these problems because most of them have not been given sufficient attention Therefore, this research is the first attempt to explore the odor impact from a landfill in the Ho Chi Minh city of Vietnam Our findings can help enhance environmental protection.

Literature review

Odor emissions can cause olfactory annoyance Industries such as treatment plants for water and wastewater, food production facilities, waste disposal operations, and intensive farming activities can emit odors that are also volatile organic compounds (VOCs) The majority of pollutants from these sources are VOCs, and they cause odor episodes at varying levels of annoyance Industries have an environmental and social obligation to ensure that their intended performance does not harm their surroundings (Parcsi et al., 2012), as detectable odors may influence daily moods and impact both psychology and physiology in individuals (Gallego et al., 2008) Odors are typically known as contaminants and are subject to specific environmental regulations (Nicell, 2009) Nuisances associated with odor pollution have been one of the most common public complaints to authorities regarding air quality (Hayes et al., 2014; Henshaw et al., 2006), and have become an larger social issue in developed countries (Blumberg and Sasson, 2001; Ranzato et al., 2012) Monitoring tools are necessary to prevent, manage, and mitigate odor impact in communities (Ranzato et al., 2012)

The influence of odor is a combination of interactive variables known as FIDOL: frequency of odor (F), intensity of odor perceived (I), duration of odor exposure (D), offensiveness of odor (O), and location of odor perceived (L) The FIDOL factors encompass both odor patterns and the environment (Freeman and Cudmore, 2002; Nicell, 2009) They also include the area where a person is affected, the type of activity they are engaged in, and how they perceive the change in environment These factors determine whether an individual is adversely affected in terms of whether an odor is offensive or detrimental The absence or presence of an odor background also causes a significant effect Reception condition sensitivity can usually be defined by land use (Freeman and Cudmore, 2002; Nicell, 2009) An annoyance can be quantified, and there is a propensity of an odor to cause a disturbance within a population if it is exposed to an odor intermittently The intensity of a perceived level of odor annoyance depends not only on odor quality but also on its perceived offensiveness (UK Environment Agency, 2002) Odor pollution is most disturbing when there is more industrial activity near residential areas (Capelli et al., 2011)

A training process for evaluators (panelists), according to VDI 3940 – Part 1 (2006) (VDI- Association of German Engineers), may be used to perform odor assessment studies on a direct basis In certain parts of Europe and the USA, this approach is now widespread However, it is time-consuming, costly, and depends largely on local weather conditions (Naddeo et al., 2012; Zarra, Naddeo et al., 2010) An analysis of air quality related to odor perception can be conducted by using a questionnaire survey for the population affected by the odor source Odor exposure is typically a human experience, so it can be beneficial to study a community for the purposes of odor evaluation (Capelli et al., 2013) A questionnaire assessment can be used to test community irritation levels from all odor sources The findings of this assessment can be used to identify the origins of odor according to the accumulated stress in a community This approach is limited to areas where there is an adequate population density to produce statistically significant results (New Zealand Environment Ministry, 2003)

Human reactions to the odors are subjective and changeable The odor perception is influenced by several personal factors (such as awareness, sensitivity, ability to cope, and previous experience with odors) Personal perception also has a connection to other environmental stressors, socio-economic conditions, and disruption in the activities of residents (Nimmermark, 2018; Sucker et al., 2001) Moreover, the responses of people are influenced by the characteristics of the odor, such as frequency, intensity, duration, and odor quality (Sucker et al., 2001) The odor dispersion, concerning odor emissions, wind direction, topography, weather conditions, and the distance from odor sources, affects the load of the environmental odor in a particular area (Sakawi et al., 2011; Che et al., 2013; Naddeo et al., 2016)

Residences close to the waste disposal area probably have broader concerns about the health and environmental impacts (Aatamila et al., 2010; He et al., 2018) There is a growing awareness of the environmental impact of MSW disposal facilities Additional reported evidence of the effects on the health of MSW management zones could result in an increased perception of the risk to nearby zones (Vrijheid, 2000) Therefore, the public’s concerns, perceptions, and attitudes about the MSW treatment play an essential role in the final decision on the plant and the location of a new SWM facility (Al-Yaqout et al., 2002;

De Feo et al., 2013) When given sufficient information on the possible impacts and benefits of new MSW facilities on the environment, residents readily support their construction (De Feo et al., 2013) Otherwise, they raise a strong opposition which cannot be avoided (Rahardyan et al., 2004)

The effects of distance to hazardous waste sites have been studies in various countries A Canadian research using 43 train inhabitants investigated the perception of odor from a composting plant next to the large landfill site (Héroux et al., 2004) The observation of residents confirmed an impact radius of 1.5 km from the composting zone center The area outside of 1.5 km was not covered in the study and no maximum distance was identified In a German study, trained panelists have found that the relative frequency of odor from less than 10 to 30% at a distance of 870 m from large composting plants distance of two experiments with sniffing teams was 810 m for one site and about 450 m for another one (Nicolas et al., 2006), with an average odor perception distance between

430 and 695 m at six composting facilities (Langenhove et al., 2001) In South Korea, a study was investigated the concentration level and variation of odorous gases at the landfill site and in nearby areas with a radius of 5 km from the site In most surrounding areas, offensive odor was not a significant pollution issue, with the exception of the high odor generations in the acetaldehyde and propionaldehydes within a 5 km radius of the site (Lim et al., 2018) Non-sanitary waste treatment centers were classified into two different groups (Sankoh et al., 2013): (i) those within 50 meters of residences and (ii) those outside 50 meters of residences in a site in Sierra Leone In Palestine, Al-Khatib et al (2014) asked the interviewees whether they were opposed to the building of a MSW management facility within one kilometer of their homes and more than 50% of respondents were against building a sanitary landfill 1 km from their houses Another questionnaire study (Babs- Shomoye & Kabir, 2016) examined how interviewees, living within and beyond 250 meters of a dump site in Nigeria, perceived the health impacts of solid waste dumping, and 83% of respondents reported odor from the dump site as their main concern The effect of the distance and the changes in the perception of communities through the distance of 5.7 km from a dumpsite were investigated in Thailand (Srangsriwong et al., 2018) The results of this study indicate that younger people are more interested in the impact of the sites than elderly respondents, and respondents with higher education are more aware of the impact

In these studies, the levels of odor annoyance were not reported for longer distance

Furthermore, the distance from sites has a significant influence on how much the smell of landfills impact the residents A study addressed the concerns of the poor communities living near the landfill in Hanoi, Vietnam (Tuan & MacLaren, 2005) Their findings indicated that financial compensation should be paid to residents living within a 1 km radius of the landfill instead of only within a range of 500 m, as referenced in a policy applicable in Japan This study suggests that environmental law in Vietnam should allow residents to join the process of landfill siting in order to have a better understanding of their concerns related to the surrounding landfills

However, these current studies did not focus on the maximum distance of perceived odor or odor irritation reported by the community surrounding MSW management facilities This issue will be conducted in this study with a distance of 10.2 km from landfill site Therefore, in this study, we studied two problems including the human perception of odor and physical odor condition (odor concentration) in affected areas to have the best opportunity to understanding odor impact from MSW treatment facility.

Objectives of the study

The research aims at managing the odor emission from the MSW treatment center through an evaluation of odor impact on surrounding areas Therefore, the objectives of the study are;

• Investigate the odor impact of odor stemming from the waste treatment facility site on surrounding areas by distance

• Odor effects on residents’ concerns and perception

• Residents’ attitudes and reactions to MSW treatment facility

• Evaluate physical condition and compare with odor impact

• Comparison of physical condition and social impact

Methodology

History and current status of MSW treatment facility in Ho Chi Minh

2.1.1 History of MSW treatment facility

Northwest waste treatment complex - Cu Chi district was established in the period of time from 2001 to 2002 when Dong Thanh landfill was overloaded and will be closed in

2002 Meanwhile, there was only Go Cat landfill in the city (designed only with five years of operation - closed in 2007) Therefore, it is necessary to have one more site to waste disposal for the city In this context, HCMC Department of Transportation was in charge with HCMC Department of Planning and Investment, and other related sectors (according to Notice of the City People’s Committee No 171/TB-VP dated October 19, 2001) Urban Environment Company is in charge of landfill site operation Thus, it is a necessary to have a waste disposal site for the city that leads to the construction of sanitary landfill sites invested by the Urban Environment Company and operated by the state budget in order to perform the task of garbage disposal of the city Since the establishment of Phuoc Hiep landfill No 1, the operation of sanitary landfill sites has ensured the city's garbage treatment while calling for investment in environmentally friendly technologies under the guideline of socialization

In the period 2005 - 2006, the City adopted the policy for the socialization of waste treatment and called for investment projects to apply advanced technologies to ensure environmental quality Currently, the projects operating in the Northwest zone have employed advanced technologies such as composting plant and plastic recycling factory of VietStar Company, Tam Sinh Nghia Development Investment Joint Stock Company, and the sanitary landfill of Urban Environmental One-Member Limited Company Over 13 years, the landfill projects No 1, 1A, 2, 3, operating in Phuoc Hiep area have received nearly 13 million tons of waste, contributing significantly to the waste treatment of the city

The Complex of waste treatment facility – Cemetery – Shooting range in Da Phuoc commune, Binh Chanh district have been approved according to the Decision No 10454/KTST-QH dated 31/08/1999 of the Office of Chief Architect city In order to meet the requirements of municipal solid waste treatment increasingly, the city was expected to have a solid waste treatment facility in case the Go Cat landfill site and Phuoc Hiep landfill get incidents Da Phuoc solid waste complex was called for investment and formed a strategic solid waste disposal area for the southern part of the city From that Vietnam Waste Solution (VWS) Limited Company is the project owner and started construction in

Along with the formation and development of Da Phuoc MSW treatment facility, Hoa Binh Construction – Trading & Commercial Co., Ltd has invested and built a cesspool treatment plant with capacity of 500 m3 per day in Da Phuoc waste treatment complex

Between 2010 and 2014, HCMC has rapidly deployed a sludge treatment plant in Da Phuoc waste treatment complex for disposal of sludge (sludge of canals, sludge of sewage system, sludge from wastewater treatment systems, etc.) and transfer them into composts That plant was invested and operated by Green Sai Gon Co., Ltd

2.1.2 Current status of MSW treatment facility

2.1.2.1 Northwest - Cu Chi Waste Treatment Complex

- Compensation for site clearance: compensation for site clearance was 336 ha, compensation was 197 ha, and phase 3 is expected to compensate the remaining area of 15 ha

- Land use: MSW treatment area (140 ha); zone of hazardous waste treatment (89 ha); green belt (318 ha); transportation area, water surface area (140 ha)

- Layout in practice: Tam Sinh Nghia factory, VietStar factory, Landfill No.3 (reserve landfill), landfill sites closed (Phuoc Hiep 1, 1A, 2)

- The remaining area: 34 ha not yet deployed (planned for a project to treat solid waste into compost and an industrial hazardous waste treatment project but not yet implemented)

2.1.2.2 Da Phuoc complex of solid waste treatment and cemetery in Binh Chanh district

- Compensation for site clearance: Compensation for site clearance was 292 ha, the remaining 322 ha were compensated to make isolated green belt, 40 ha out of 322 ha, HCMC allocated to VWS for compensation, build the isolated green belt and inland dock

- Land use: area for daily-life solid waste treatment (134 ha); zone of industrial- hazardous waste treatment (17 ha); Sludge treatment area (47 ha); cemetery area (82 ha); green belt (322 ha); water surface area (12 ha)

- Layout in practice: VWS Waste Treatment Plant, Sai Gon Green Sludge Treatment Plant, Hoa Binh Company's Cesspool Sludge Treatment Plant, Moc Chau Company, cemetery of urban environment company

2.1.2.3 Complex waste management Long An - Ho Chi Minh City (renamed Green Technology Park)

- Compensation for site clearance: Full compensation

- Land use: According to Decision 3001 / QD-UBND of Long An Province dated 23/8/2013 approving planning tasks: area for factories, warehouses (23% - 28%); Administrative-service land (22% - 27%); Land for technical areas (1% - 2%); area

- Investor: Vietnam Waste Company Limited (VWS)

- Layout in practice: currently not implemented

- Time of operation of the landfill site: 1991-2002

- Layout in practice: medical waste treatment plant, hazardous wastes, waste water treatment plant

- Time of operation of landfill site: 2001 - 2006

- Layout in practice: There is no waste treatment activity, only the gas generating station and the leaked water treatment system will remain in operation after the landfill site was closed Table 2.1 shows MSW management facilities under operation in HCMC

Table 1 MSW management facilities in HCMC

1 Da Phuoc solid waste treatment plant

5 Dong Thanh medical waste treatment plant

Overview of Da Phuoc MSW management facility and their environmental

Figure 1 Da Phuoc Solid Waste Management Facility (Source: Google map)

The study area is described in Figure 1 The Da Phuoc waste treatment facility was built in

2007 in the southeast area of the HCMC This waste treatment facility was designed with three functions: (i) a recycling processing plant with advanced technologies, (ii) a composting plant, and (iii) sanitary landfilling The waste treatment facility receives 5,200 tons of waste every day Waste composition of this facility is shown in Table 2

Table 2 Waste composition of Da Phuoc landfill (Source: HCMC Department of

Natural Resources and Environment (DONRE)

The major component of solid waste in landfills is food waste at a relatively high rate (83.0

- 88.9%) Recyclable waste components such as plastic, paper, and metal are significantly reduced due to waste sorting and collection in the city; the rest is less recyclable, mainly inorganic substances (mud, soil) It is possible to estimate the ratio of the volume of waste generated from the sources to the total volume of solid waste as follows (DONRE, 2016):

21 Hazardous waste (oil clout, fluorescent lamps) 0.1 - 0.2

- Households waste accounts for 57.91% of the total volume

- Street waste accounts for 14.29% of the total volume

- Office waste accounts for 2.8% of the total volume

- Market waste accounts for 13% of the total volume

- Waste from commercial areas accounts for 12% of the total volume

2.2.2 Odor impact from MSW management facility

Odor complaints from residents living in district 7 (DONRE, 2016) was shown in Table 3

Table 3 Odor complaints from residents living in district 7 (DONRE, 2016)

Time of strong odor Other time Duration Characteristics of odor Weather conditions

Odor of garbage for a long time, feces odor, sludge odor including chemical smell

Southwest wind, windy, light rain

30 min - 1h Odor of garbage for a long time, feces odor, sludge odor including chemical smell

Southwest wind, windy, light rain

22h50 10-15 min Odor of mixed waste Southwest wind, no rain 10h50 ,14h35 23h-6h; 5h-6h 5-10 min

Odor of garbage for a long time, odor of mixed feces become stronger after rain

Southwest wind, windy, light sunshine

30 min Odor of mixed waste including chemical smell

Southwest wind, sunny, light wind

20h50; 21h35 10-15 min Odor likes waste odor Southwest wind, light wind, rain/no rain

21h05 30 min Odor likes waste odor Southwest wind, light wind, rain/no rain

0h21 Odor likes waste odor Southwest wind, light wind, rain/no rain

23h 15 min Odor likes waste odor Southwest wind, no rain

21h08 15 min Odor likes waste odor Southwest wind, light wind, rain/no rain

1h Feces odor Light wind, no rain

4h 6h-6h17 Rotten egg, waste odor, feces odor

Southwest wind, light wind, no rain

Odor of mixed waste happens at the beginning of the rainy season

Odor of mixed waste, becomes stronger after rain

Southwest wind, after rain, light wind

17h50 20h50 30 min Odor of pig manure, urine odor

Southwest wind, after rain, light wind

Odor of mixed waste, becomes stronger after rain

Southwest wind, after rain, light wind

6h 15-30 min Odor of mixed waste Southwest wind, after rain, light wind

Odor of mixed waste, becomes stronger after rain

Southwest wind, after rain, light wind

Odor of mixed waste happens from the last two weeks

0h40-0h55 after 23h Odor of mixed waste Light wind

Research methodology

Figure 2 describes the research framework of this study The first chapter introduces the research background, literature review, and research framework This chapter focuses on odor impact emanating from MSW treatment facilities around the world It also describes the reason why Ho Chi Minh City is chosen for this research From the literature review, the purpose of this study is identified as an investigation of odor impact from the open landfill site of MSW The second chapter includes the history and current status of MSW treatment facilities in HCMC It also shows the research methodology of this study The methodology focuses on the research framework and background of case study such as climate condition and profile of study location The third chapter describes the results of the first survey on the perception of odor from an open landfill site in HCMC This chapter focuses on residents' perception of odor as well as their actions and attitude toward the landfill site by using face-to-face questionnaire interviews with residents living in surrounding areas of the landfill site The fourth chapter describes the second survey of the odor impact on the surrounding areas This chapter focuses on performing physical condition of odor concentration in surrounding areas The findings of this chapter are compared with the results of odor perception The final chapter shows the findings of this research as well as the potential application of these findings for mitigating odor impact from landfill site on surrounding areas

Da Phuoc MSW treatment facility in HCMC was selected for this research The

• Concerns and perception of odor

• Comparison of physical condition and social impact

43 treat 5.200 tonnes, primarily by landfilling of solid waste every day Although this facility is a significant contributor to reducing this city's industrial waste problem, it pollutes, and odors are spreading through neighboring residential areas and its management The site is located away from an urban area of approximately 7 km from which more than 500 reports were received from residents (DONRE, 2016) The researcher was intended to investigate the odor impact from MSW treatment facility on surrounding areas and provide useful information for odor management in Vietnam context

The study was involved two field surveys The first one was conducted between October and December, 2018 This survey aimed at investigating the resident’s perception of odor effect as well as their attitude toward the MSW management facility The second one was conducted odor measurement in the affected areas according to the results of the first survey The survey was performed during September, 2019 The purpose of this survey was to measure odor concentration on surrounding areas of MSW treatment plant as well as make comparison of physical condition results with results of odor perception.

Background of case study

Figure 3Windrose of survey location for 2018 (Source: https://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/ho-chi-minh-city-tan-son-nhat)

Study areas are subject to tropical monsoons with high temperature, stable with two distinct seasons: the dry season starts from November, the rainy season starts from May

Temperature: Average temperature in the year: 25-29 o C Highest temperature: 28.8 o C (in July) Lowest temperature: 24.8 o C (in December)

Rainfall: The rainy season starts from May to October, with heavy rains in September to October, the average rainfall in the year ranges from 1,500 to 1,700 mm The number of rainy days is about 135 - 162 days in the year Average water evaporation is 1,149 mm: the highest amount of evapotranspiration is 105 - 130 mm/month (occurring in the dry season), and the lowest is approximately 72 mm/month

Wind: Mainly monsoon is distributed in the months: from January Southeast or South wind; from June West or southwest wind; from October to January of next year:

North East wind as seen in Figure 3 (source: http://binhchanh.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/gioithieu/Pages/da-phuoc.aspx)

Figure 4 Location of study area

Da Phuoc landfill site is located Da Phuoc commune, Binh Chanh district – the south-eastern suburban of Ho Chi Minh City, about 13 km away from the city center, as seen in Figure 4

• North side: Phong Phu commune, Binh Chanh district

• West side: Hung Long commune, Binh Chanh district

• South side: Qui Duc commune in Binh Chanh district and Long An province

Da Phuoc commune is divided into 05 hamlets, including hamlet 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (source: http://binhchanh.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/gioithieu/Pages/da-phuoc.aspx)

The topography of Da Phuoc commune is flat; Da Phuoc is in the low-lying area of Binh Chanh district (source: http://binhchanh.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/gioithieu/Pages/da- phuoc.aspx)

The population in the whole commune is 16,388 people, 3,861 households with an average population density of 965 people/km 2 With large young human resources, the labor force group of 11,318 includes: 2,171 farmers (19.2%), industrial and handicraft labor: 7,578 people (67%), trade and service: 689 people (6.1%), unemployed and studying:

880 people (7.8%) The population of Da Phuoc commune is unevenly distributed in hamlets, mainly concentrated along the canals and both sides of National Highway 50, in which the majority work in industrial production, handicraft and business (source: http://binhchanh.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/gioithieu/Pages/da-phuoc.aspx)

Nhon Duc Commune, located in the southwest of Nha Be District, is a suburb of Ho Chi Minh City, about 20km from the city center This commune is located about 3.5 km from the landfill The commune has a natural area of 1452.32 hectares and is divided into four hamlets (Hamlet 1,2,3,4)

The population of the commune is 13,364 people, 3355 households, the average population density is 920 people/km2

2.4.4 Phuoc Kien commune, Nha Be district

Phuoc Kien is a commune in Nha Be District, Ho Chi Minh City, with a distance of 5.5 km from the landfill site

• It borders Tan Quy wards, district 7 to the north,

• To the south, it borders Nhon Duc commune, Nha Be district,

• Phuoc Loc to the west,

• The east borders with Nhon Duc commune, center of Nha Be district, Phu My and Tan Phu wards, district 7

Phuoc Kien commune has an area of 1,503.91 hectares, the population in 2010 is 24,765 people, the population density reached 1,651 people/km² The commune has many modern residential projects: Sadeco, Phu Long, Lavila, university village, Hoang Anh Gia

Lai apartment building, Dragon Hill apartment building, Hung Phat building etc meet the demand The population contributes to the construction of Phuoc Kien Commune civilized and spacious

2.4.5 Phu My Hung urban area

Phu My Ward is located in the South of District 7 - Ho Chi Minh City with a distance of more than 7 km from the landfill site It borders Tan Phu and Phu Thuan wards to the north,

• Nha Be town to the south,

• Dong Nai river to the east,

• And Phuoc Kien commune (Nha Be) to the west

The total natural area of the Ward is 397.44 hectares, divided into 3 streets and 37 residential quarters According to the survey data, only 1,190 households with 6,676 inhabitants have been newly established As of 31st November, the population of the ward is 7,105 with 24,270 people

Chapter 3 Perception of Odor Impact from an Open Landfill Site in Ho Chi Minh

This chapter focuses on investigating the resident’s perception of odor and their attitudes toward the MSW treatment center It presents the objectives of the research, location survey, methodology, results, and discussion for the first survey.

Objectives of the study

The objectives are to investigate the impact of odor from MSW management facility on surrounding areas by distance

• Odor effects on residents’ concerns and perception

• Residents’ attitudes and reactions to MSW treatment facility

Location survey

Figure 5Survey location (Source: Google map)

The questionnaire survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews with households in the four areas located near the waste treatment site, with a distance of less than 3 km (area 1), 3-5 km (area 2), 5-7 km (area 3), and over 7 km (area 4) from the border of the waste disposal facility As shown in Figure 5, area 1 is located in the Da Phuoc

MSW treatment facility commune of Binh Chanh District, area 2 is located in the Nhon Duc commune of Nha Be District, area 3 is located in the Phuoc Kien commune of Nha Be District, and area 4 is located in Phu My Ward of Phu My Hung urban area (District 7).

Data collection and analysis

The survey questionnaire consists of 7 main sections The questionnaire structure is shown in Figure 7 These factors include the general perception of environmental pollution (Q1-Q3), perception of odors (Q4-Q13), health (Q14-Q17), assessment of the impact of daily life activities (Q18-Q23), people's actions to cope with odors (Q24-Q28), attitudes towards MSW facilities (Q29-30), and questions regarding demographic status

Questions 1-3 focus on the general perception of environmental pollution: “Are there any pollution-related issues in your residential area?” (yes, no, don’t know); “If yes, what is the principal source?” (industrial activity, landfill site, vehicular traffic, construction activity); and “What problems do you face?” (odor, noise, dust/gas emission from vehicles, flies, others)

Questions 4-13 are concerned with the odor perception; “time of year the odor becomes worse,” “frequency, duration, type of odor,” “odor level,” “factors affecting odor emission,” and “intensity of odor emission.”

Questions 14-17 are concerned with health issues that include the following aspects:

“concerns” about odor, “health affected,” and “symptoms” at the time the respondents noticed the odor Questions 18-23 cover the annoyance felt by residents due to the odor affecting their daily life in “daily activities,” “studying/working,” “business activity,” and

“outdoor activities” (not at all, a little bit, moderately, very, extremely)

Questions 24-28 are concerned with the residents’ reactions to the odor emission posed in the fourth part Information is thus collected with respect to “measures to reduce odor effects,” “used face mask for outdoor activities” (yes, no), “inform government staff about odor problem,” “inform landfill manager about odor problem,” and “if respondents were to move, would they move” (to another location in this area, to another location outside this area, don’t know)

Figure 6 Questionnaire interview (Source: field survey 2018) The survey was conducted from October to December, 2018 as seen in Figure 6 The total populations of areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 16,388, 11,179, 24,765 and 24,270,

District, People’s Committee of District 7) The sample size for this study was calculated by using Cochran’s sample size determination technique with 5% confidence interval and 95% confidence level The optimal sample size for this study was 382 Then we used the proportional allocation method to calculate sample size for individual study areas The optimal samples for areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 82, 56, 123, and 121, respectively However, a total of 409 questionnaires were administered, which consisted of 82, 70, 112, and 145 questionnaires corresponding to areas 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively

Chi-square test was performed to test significant relationships between questionnaire components Factor analysis was used to investigate the correlation between variables and find latent factors All the analysis was performed in SPSS version 25 and MS Excel software

Figure 7 Hypothetical diagram of cause–impact structure

Results and discussion

The socio-demographic profile results of the respondents are described in this section There is no significant difference between the number of male and female respondents In terms of the level of education, the people residing in a region over five kilometers from the MSW treatment facility have a higher education level (undergraduate degree or above), as compared to the people within a five-kilometer range Respondents over the age of 30 accounted for 85.8% In respect to the number of years the respondents have lived in an area, 50% of the respondents stated that they had been living in area 1 for over 10 years

On the other hand, more than 50% of respondents from areas 2, 3, and 4 stated that they had been living there for less than 5 years With regard to the type of dwelling, the results show that 90.2% and 80% of the respondents of areas 1 and 2, respectively, lived in detached houses Meanwhile, 67.9% and 69% of the respondents of areas 3 and 4 lived in apartments

Attitudes toward MSW treatment plant

The human nose is able to recognize odors at a lower concentration than gas chromatography for some elements (Rappert & Müller, 2005) Odor perception depends on several conditions such as atmospheric conditions, subjective awareness, and influence of different odors (Davoli et al., 2003; Gallego et al., 2008; Noble et al., 2001) The one also depends on the personal physical state (Dalton & Dilks, 1997) In this subsection, the overall results of the questions concerning odor perception, such as frequency, duration, level, intensity, and factors affect odor emission are discussed We found that odor perception was influenced by wind direction and seasonal changes in the study area These results revealed that 46.2%, 33.3%, and 20.5% of the respondents noticed that the worst odor occurs from June to August, from September to November, and from March to December, respectively The respondents stated that odors become worse by distance to the landfill site, depending on the time of year, as shown in Figure 8 It may explain that the studied area, which has a tropical monsoon, has two typical weather characteristics that directly influence the odor dispersion The first one is the high temperature throughout the two distinct seasons: the dry season from November to April and the rainy season from May to October The second one is the wind direction, which changes from month to month: (i) Southeast or in the southern direction from January to May, (ii) West or Southwest direction from June to September, and (iii) Northeast direction from October to December Due to the change in the wind direction, it is easy to understand why a part of the respondents agreed that the odors became worse from June to November

The odor frequency of “at least once a week” ranked the highest (39.6%), followed by “every day” (33.3%), “less often” (11.7%), “at least once a month” (10.5%), and “not at all” (0.2%) For odor duration, the results indicated that the highest rank was “1–4h” (32.5%), followed by “30 min–1h” (26.2%), “> 4h” (24.7%), “10–30 min” (13.9%), and

“< 10 min” (2.7%) The impact of the odor frequency by distance to the landfill site is shown in Figure 8 The most affected factor was wind direction (40.1%), followed by rainy season (30.1%), waste volume (16.8%), distance (10.7%), dry season (1.4%), and topography (0.7%) During the survey, 41.8% of interviewees reported that they felt

“extremely annoyed” by the odor, and 57.7% reported that the intensity of odor had increased over the past two years Furthermore, 63% of respondents reported that the odor type was offensive This is consistent with the findings of previous studies ((Brancher et al., 2019; Che et al., 2013; Lowman et al., 2013; Sakawi et al., 2011) The impact factors of the odor emission by distance to the landfill site is shown in Figure 8

Time of the year odors become worse by distance

Dec to Feb Mar to May Jun to Aug Sep to Nov

Odor frequency by distance not at all less often at least once a month at least once a week every day

Figure 8 Odor perception: time of the year odors become worse by distance, odor frequency by distance, factor affects odor emission by distance (Source: compile from field survey 2018) 3.4.3 Annoyance of Daily Life and Human Health Effects

Odor emission from MSW treatment facility potentially adopts a negative effect on human health ((Elliott et al.; Luginaah et al., 2002) Odor level strongly influences the relationship between exposure and annoyance It also affects the association between exposure and symptoms (Sucker et al., 2001) The previous studies indicated that odor causes a large number of complaints from the community related to industrial (Harrison & Oakes, 2002; Wakefield & Elliott, 2000) It is suggested that odor annoyance instead of perception causes symptoms (Cavalini, 1994) The characteristic odor contributes to the formation of annoyance, resulting in headache, respiratory problems, eye, nose and throat symptoms, nausea, etc The results of this study are consistent with previous studies (Che et al., 2013; Lowman et al., 2013; Sankoh et al., 2013) In particular, the results showed that a majority of the respondents (86.1%) thought that the MSW treatment facility reduced their quality of life Their daily activities, business activities, studying or working activities, and outdoor activities were “extremely” affected, accounting for 47.9%, 38.4%, 44.3%, and 56%, respectively The concerns regarding daily life activities by distance to the landfill site is indicated in Figure 9 Around 53.3% of respondents “extremely” expressed their feelings towards the odor The results indicate that up to 82.9% of the respondents had health-related concerns, and 84.6% of them reported that the odor affected their entire family The symptoms that people encountered were predominantly nausea (15.7%) and shortness of breath (15.5%) Surveyed communities of this study perceived greater concerns and health issues in comparison with a previous one (Brancher et al., 2019) The odor concerns of respondents by distance to the landfill site is shown in Figure 10

Factor affects odor emission by distance

Wind direction Rainy season Dry season Waste volume Topography Distance

Daily activity not at all a little bit moderately very extremely

Working/Studying not at all a little bit moderately very extremely

Figure 9 Daily life concerns (Source: compile from field survey 2018)

Business activity not at all a little bit moderately very extremely

Outdoor activity not at all a little bit moderately very extremely

Figure 10 Odor concern by distance (Source: compile from field survey 2018)

It is clear to say that the odor effects decrease due to increasing distance (Al-Khatib et al., 2014; Cavalini, 1994; Babs-Shomoye1and Kabir, 2004; Hayes et al., 2017; Rahardyan et al., 2004; Wakefield & Elliott, 2000) However, the results of this study show that people felt more annoyed in zone 4, as seen in Figure 9 This might be because the odor dispersion is from MSW management facility to zone 4 (cluster of high-rise buildings) Odor dispersion does not occur in lower floors of the high-rise building areas because the wind speed is proportional to the height of the buildings (Chen, Bundy, & Hoff, 1998) In the meantime, odor dispersion is easier on the higher floor due to high wind speed Therefore, odor effect does not decrease within this area The above observation can be explained by residents’ awareness, educational level, and dwelling type Because differences of demographics and lifestyle may generate changes of reactions to environmental odors except at very high or very low concentrations (Bliss et al., 1996; Dalton & Wysocki, 1996) It is possible that the respondents of area 1, due to being exposed to the odor perpetually, may have gotten used to it since long-term exposure of odors may lead to decrease the ability to detect them (Dalton & Wysocki, 1996) The concerned ones are mostly farmers and workers who have to earn money for a living Meanwhile, most respondents in area 4 have higher incomes and are interested in environmental issues They also are worse at detecting odors, which leads to aversion and negative behaviors when they detect odors (Dalton & Dilks, 1997)

3.4.4 Odor Reactions and Attitudes toward MSW Management Facility

Perception of odor does affect what response that odor probably evokes, and, on the contrary, odors induce changes in behavior and feeling when a person believe to smell them despite their presence (Knasko, 1992; Knasko et al., 1990; Rotton, 1983; Schiffman et al., 1995) Table 4 indicates the results of the people's reaction towards the waste treatment facility About 58% of the respondents close their windows when they notice the odor, while 0.3% (2 out of 409) of them leave their home for a while A total of 74.8% of people use masks when they need to go outside and 60.6% of respondents inform the

> 7 km not at all a little bit moderately very extremely government staff about the odor impacts Also, 21.8%, 12%, and 5.6% of respondents answered “plan to inform,” “not inform,” and “no idea.” Regarding the question of informing the landfill manager about the odor impacts, 49% of respondents selected

“inform,” followed by 28.1%, 18.8%, and 3.2% of respondents who selected “plan to inform,” “not inform,” and “no idea,” respectively

Used a face mask for outdoor activities

Table 5 Attitude towards MSW management facility

The results relating to people's attitude towards the waste treatment facility are shown in Table 5 When asked about the merits and demerits of the waste disposal site, a majority of respondents rated “bad” (67.2%) while only 21% of them rated “good.” Also, 52.3% of the respondents stated that the assessment result of the management of the garbage disposal facility is “very bad.”

3.4.5 Relationships between the Cause – Impact Structure

Figure 11 The relationship between questionnaire parts

A series of chi-square tests were implemented to determine significant relationships between the questionnaire components The inter-connected lines of questionnaire sections in Figure 11 imply the characteristics of their relationship Significant relationships were observed between the residents' daily life and their odor-related reactions and attitudes towards the MSW treatment plant via chi-square tests The solid lines in Figure 11 indicate these relationships Moreover, there is an insignificant relationship between the odor level

Attitudes toward MSW treatment plant

Very strong relationship Strong relationship Moderate relationship

No relationship of the odor perception section and the distance to the landfill site of the demographic status section The round dotted line represents the relationship between the two sections mentioned above Furthermore, the square dotted lines were used to denote significant relationships of residents' odor perception, daily life, odor reactions, and attitudes towards MSW treatment plant with human health That is because only two questions regarding human health (odor concern and health affected) were correlated with those sections Finally, there is an insignificant relationship between residents' general perception and demographic profile, odor reactions, and attitudes towards the MSW treatment plant The long dashed-dotted lines denote the relationships

Figure 12a shows the relationship between odor frequency and the residents' annoyance levels in daily affairs The results revealed that residents' annoyance is strongly related to the odor frequency The result of the relationship between residents' annoyance and their given rating of the landfill site is shown in Figure 12b The respondents who experienced extreme annoyance poorly evaluated the landfill site

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% not at all less often at least once a month at least once a week every day not at all a little bit moderately very extremely (a)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% not at all less often at least once a month at least once a week every day not at all a little bit worried moderately worried very worried extremely worried

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% not at all a little bit worried moderately worried very worried extremely worried not at all a little bit annoyed moderately annoyed very annoyed extremely annoyed

Summary of this chapter

In this study, we have investigated the impact of the odor emission on the residents as well as their perceptions, reactions, and attitudes towards the MSW treatment facility There are several findings which have been observed in our study Firstly, it can be seen that residents’ attitudes toward the landfill site are strongly influenced by their perception about odor This perception is affected by weather conditions, such as season, wind and rain Secondly, it is found that not only are the area near the MSW management facility influenced by the odor effects but also areas more than 7 km away In other words, most residents living more than 7 km away from the landfill site felt more annoyed than those living less than that Thirdly, the collected data provide insights into how the odor from the MSW disposal site negatively changes the residents’ daily life Particularly, the respondents who experienced more annoyance tend to poorly evaluate the landfill site This is a good start to find solutions for odor improvement in order to reduce its impact on residences Finally, four principal components have been obtained by using factor analysis They are identified as “nuisance,” “attitudes towards MSW treatment facility,” “reactions to deal with odor impact,” and “perception of odor intensity.” The combination of questionnaire survey and measurement of odor can be considered in future research to achieve greater efficiency in assessing the impact of odor on the community.

Physical Condition of Odor from Open Landfill Site in Ho Chi Minh City 38

Objectives of the study

We sought to measure the odor concentration in affected areas while comparing odor measurement results with questionnaire survey results Findings of this study can help enhance environmental protection.

Climate condition of survey area

Figure 14 Windrose plot for study area in 2019: a) From January to March; b) From April to June; c) From July to September; d) From October to December (source: prepared from VVTS met data)

The survey area is subject to tropical monsoons along with two traditional weather patterns that directly affect odor distribution The first pattern is the high temperature in two separate seasons: the dry season between November and April, and the rainy season between May and October The second pattern is the direction of the wind, which changes monthly: (i) from January to May in the south or southwest direction; (ii) from June to September in the west or southwest direction; (iii) from October to December in the northwest direction (Tran et al., 2019) The Windrose plot of the study area by each quarter for 2019 is shown in Figure 14 As seen in this figure, the wind direction of the survey location was southeast from January to March, southwest or southeast from April to June, southwest from July to September, and northeast, northwest or southeast from October to December.

Survey location

Figure 15 Field Survey location (Source: google map)

The Da Phuoc MSW management facility in HCMC was chosen as the target area for our study This facility is the primary solid waste management facility in HCMC, and was established in 2007 It has the capacity to treat 5,200 tons of solid waste per day, and mostly relies on landfilling Since the operation of this facility, it has received around 22.8

Mt of solid waste Even though this facility plays a vital role in reducing the substantial

3 from residents living in urban areas approximately 7 km away from the landfill site (DONRE, 2016) Surrounding residents have complained that they are unable to get fresh air inside their apartments However, the response from authorities has not satisfied these residents To address the pollution issues stemming from this facility, our study focused on measuring the odor concentration in surrounding areas and comparing this to the community survey results Three areas were selected for our investigation zone, which was located in the center of the site with a radius of approximately 10 km (Figure 2) Regions were classified as Areas 1, 2, and 3 based on odor reports provided by the environmental agency The survey location was chosen based on a case study (Tran et al., 2019) Area 1 is associated with a high exposure to odor, and is located in a rural region Areas 2 and 3 are associated with a high sensitivity to odor impact, and are located in an urban area

For a population of 76,602 inhabitants within the investigation area, a minimum number of 409 questionnaires were calculated and applied Approximately 50.6% of the inhabitants studied were male and 49.4% were female Further, 85% of the inhabitants were over the age of 30 years Questionnaire data, which dealt with the perception of odor (i.e., frequency, duration, level, and characteristic), is summarized in Table 4 The responses were classified according to the scale, and they were categorized as “not at all, a little bit, moderately, very, and extremely.” In terms of response-related odor annoyance, if the response indicated that the person was “very annoyed” or “extremely annoyed,” then the answer was counted as “percent at-least annoyed” (New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 2003).

Data collection and processing

An odor detector meter XP-329III (New Cosmos Co., Ltd., Japan) was utilized to measure odor concentrations The XP-329III meter has a hot wire sensor, which is held at about 480 o C for indium oxide-based sensitivity As odor molecules are detected on the sensor’s surface, the sensor conductance increases The change in the conductance is measured as a change in resistance and translated to an odor intensity rating that ranges from 0 to 2000 The molecules detected are heated and burned on the surface of the sensor and are then converted into carbon dioxide and water The reaction speed is 20s The measurement unit for this device is per ou/m 3 scale The method for data collection entailed field sampling monitoring of sensitive receivers at each location with radius of 10 km from the center of the landfill site The readings were recorded for 5 min at each sampling area

20 observations were recorded from area 1 on September 20 th , 2019 30 observations were recorded for area 2 on Sep 16 th , 2019 41 observations were obtained from area 3 on Sep

17, 2019 Meteorological data such as wind speed, wind direction, humidity, and temperature were collected during the odor concentration measurement Data on wind speed and wind direction were collected from met station VVTS (Tan Son Nhat international airport) The wind rose map was prepared by using WRPLOT View software, which is freely available on the website of Lake Environment.

Results and discussion

The mean odor concentration of area 1 (1.5 km from the landfill) was 109.75 ou/m 3 with a standard deviation of 39.46 ou/m 3 (range: 49 to 194 ou/m 3 ) The measured levels of odor concentration and the windrose plot for this area are shown in Figure 4.3 From this data, we can see that the acceptable level of odor concentration in area 1 was more than 7 times the level specified by Japanese offensive odor control law promulgated in 1976

(Japan Ministry of the Environment, 2003) This law also requires the acceptable level of odor concentration to be in the range of 10–15 ou/m 3 in order to be considered as

“borderline.” The odor levels in area 1 are consistent with the perception of the population that was surveyed, where the majority of the respondents (more than 55%) reported higher odor levels This is likely because the area is very close to the MSW treatment facility and is also located on the upwind side of the facility, as seen in Figure 16 As a result, the surrounding regions of the MSW treatment facility are profoundly affected by odor pollution regardless of the direction of the wind This finding is supported by previous studies (Babs-Shomoye and Kabir, 2004; Srangsriwong et al., 2018; Tuan and MacLaren,

2005), which have identified highly affected surroundings

Figure 16 a) Odor concentration; b) Windrose plot for area 1 of Sep 20, 2019

(source: prepared from field survey 2019)

Od or c on ce n tr at io n o u /m 3

Figure 17 a) Odor concentration; b) Windrose plot for area 2 of Sep 16, 2019 (source: prepared from field survey 2019)

In area 2, which is located 8.2 km away from the facility, the mean odor concentration was 18.97 ou/m 3 , with a range of 2 to 44 ou/m 3 and a standard deviation of

10.84 Figure 17 shows the results of odor concentration and the wind rose plot for this area In this area, the odor concentration is also above the acceptable limit for residential areas (Japan Ministry of the Environment, 2003) It is important to note that this area is a residential area, and is located in southwest (SW) wind direction (Figure 4.2) This finding is quite different from other research because this area is located more than 8 km from the

MSW treatment plant, and people still reported odor nuisance here (almost 80% of respondents reported odor annoyance) However, this could be explained by the social demographics of respondents since odor perception is profoundly influenced by individual differences such as gender, age, and occupation (Bliss et al., 1996; Dalton, 1996)

The average odor concentration of area 3 was 10.97 ou/m 3 , with a standard deviation of 10.5 The results of odor concentration and wind rose plot for this area are shown in

Figure 4.5 This area is located 10 km from the MSW plant, and includes approximately

86% of the people who reported odor annoyance in the survey Area 3 is the sector most threatened by odor emission from the MSW facility, and it exhibited the highest odor annoyance level in the survey However, the average odor concentration in area 3 did not exceed the acceptable limit When examining our monitoring data, we found that the maximum odor concentration here was 40 ou/m 3 From Figure 4.5, it is apparent that the odor concentration was highest during the period between 18:00–19:00, i.e., 6 to 7 PM

This supports the results of the perception survey, where the majority of respondents claimed that the odor was at its worst during the period from 18:00–24:00, i.e., 6 pm to 12 am the next day (Figure 20)

Od or c on ce n tr at io n o u /m 3

Figure 18 a) Odor concentration; b) Windrose plot for area 3 of Sep 17, 2019 (source: prepared from field survey 2019)

Figure 19 Odor concentration in each area ((source: field survey 2019)

Figure 11 shows the difference in odor concentration in each area It is clear that odor concentration decreases by distance This finding is consistent with Gȩbicki (2016), who determined that the odor concentration from the municipal landfill in Gdańsk, Poland ranged from 12.5 to 36.7 ou/m 3 along the north-east direction Furthermore, other research has indicated that the spatial distribution of odor concentration from the municipal wastewater treatment plant in Poland was higher in the vicinity of the facility (Barczak and

Od or c on ce n tr at io n o u /m 3

Od or c on ce n tr at io n o u /m 3

4.4.2 Summary of community survey results

Table 11 Results of odor perception by studied area (source: field survey 2018)

Figure 20 Period of time odor perceived (source: field survey 2018)

The results of the community survey indicate that the odor impact was influenced by wind direction and seasonal change in the area investigated Nearly 46.2% of respondents perceived bad odors between June and August, followed by 33% of respondents from September to December As seen in Table 7, area 1 exhibited the high perception of odor frequency (i.e 92.7% at least once a week) In other words, this area has a high exposure to odor effects It is also noteworthy that odors are continuously produced by the MSW facility, as odors in areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 were perceived for multiple hours daily The majority of respondents reported that the odor from the MSW facility was offensive, and area 1 again had the highest proportion with 98.8% of respondents reporting an offensive odor Interestingly, area 4 had the highest rate of odor level annoyance (85.5%) Nausea, shortness of breath, and feelings of unhappiness and depression were symptoms recorded in the population Tran (2019) indicated that residents who live more than 5 km away from

Pe rc ent ag e of r es po nde tns

1.5 km 8.2 km 10 km the MSW facility had severe odor annoyance from June to October, and the period of time during which respondents perceived the worst odor is shown in Figure 4.7 As shown in Figure 18, the majority of respondents perceived odor pollution during a period between 18:00–24:00, i.e., 6 pm to 12 am (nighttime nocturnal) in the next day This observation can be explained that the landfill site receives the most significant amount of waste in the evening Furthermore, people often feel tired after returning home from work that makes them feel annoyed odor perceived than usual This is consistent with the community results

Table 8 summarizes the concern, annoyance, and reaction of an area’s population that is dealing with odor pollution The attitude of the population towards the MSW facility operation is also summarized The odor level has a strong effect on exposure and annoyance Area 4 again had high proportions of respondents that were concerned and annoyed with odor effects (88.3% very/extremely worried and 85.5 very/extremely annoyed) From this data, it is apparent that most of the respondents in the four areas felt bad/very bad about MSW facility operation To deal with odor issues, approximately 58% of people surveyed close their windows when they detect the odor, while 0.3% (2 out of 409) leave their homes

A proportion of respondents reported odor emissions in their living areas (i.e., informed authorities) From this, it can be inferred that all areas were affected when compared with an acceptable level of cumulative adverse odor effect The criteria for this acceptable level is that ≤ 20% of the population are annoyed (New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 2003)

Table 12 Results of community survey by studied area (source: field survey 2018)

4.4.3 Comparison between physical condition of odor measurement and community survey results

Figure 21 Comparison between odor concentration and odor annoyance (source: field survey 2018 and 2019)

The mean odor concentration of the three locations and the perceived odor intensity is plotted in Figure 21 As seen in this figure, there was a marked difference between mean odor concentration and intensity of odor perceived All areas other than area 1 showed a remarkable difference in terms of mean odor concentration and perception of odor intensity This is likely because odor perception relies on several parameters, such as climatic conditions, subjective consciousness, and the effect of different odors (Davoli et al., 2003; Gallego et al., 2008; Noble et al., 2001) Personal perception also is related to other environmental stressors, socioeconomic status, and disruptions in social activity (Nimmermark, 2004; Sucker et al., 2001) Cognitive differences when considering demographics such as age, gender, occupation, and lifestyle habits are regulated further by psychological variables in olfactory perception (Bowler et al., 1996; Davies, 1999; Doty R.L., 1997; Hayes and Jinks, 2012) Thus, it is important to note that residents with a higher level of education and a higher income level felt more annoyed from lower odor levels as seen Figure 22 These residents also exhibited greater concern about environmental issues in general

It is known that intermittent odor exposure may lead to adaptation or sensitivity of individuals, altering their capacity to perceive the odor through physiological changes (Dalton and Dilks, 1997; Press and Minta, 2000) However, because members of the community were exposed continuously to industrial smells, they were accustomed to odors at a peripheral level When populations were less conscious of odors, their attitudes were more disagreeable and more negative (Dalton and Dilks, 1997) It is possible that people who had lived for less than five years at their current address were more sensitive to odor issues in comparison to those who had lived there for more than ten years as shown in Figure 23

Od or c on ce n tr at io n o u /m 3

Mean of odor concentration Intensity of odor perceived

Figure 22 Odor annoyance by education background

Figure 23 Odor annoyance by years of living in current

Summary of this chapter

In this study, we have investigated the level of odor concentration as well as the perception of odor impact in areas surrounding the MSW treatment plant in HCMC, Vietnam We observed that the “borderline” odor concentration for area 1 was higher than the acceptable level Additionally, the level of odor concentration and people’s perception of odor varied by geography This study provides useful information for the management of odor from the MSW management facility in a developing country like Vietnam Policymakers should consider public perception when developing a regulation or making a decision about the MSW facility that also ensures environmental protection Socio- demographic parameters also significantly influence odor perception, and this can be

70.00% not at all /a little bit moderately very extremely

Pe rc en ta ge o f re sp on de nt s secondary school high school undergraduate graduate

60.00% not at all /a little bit moderately very extremely

Pe rc en ta ge o f re sp on de nt s

< 5 years 5-10 years > 10 years may generate changes of reactions to environmental odors except at very high or very low concentrations

The psychological factor may be an essential factor as well as demographic factors (education and high income) Future research should consider psychological factors such as coping behavior, perceived health and perceived threat to health Cognitive appraisal and psychological coping strategy play a significant role in determining how a nuisance grows Detection and appraisal of odors is a process in seconds or minutes The outcome of this cognitive assessment process is a judgment on the importance of the awareness and the level of stress that can emerge from this interaction between the person and the environment Appraisals are followed by a second coping process, in which individuals adapting to situations are assessed as likely to cause stress by cognitive actions and behaviors Dynamic interaction of appraisal and coping takes place during exposure There are two main types of coping strategy:

• Problem focused coping leads to attempts to control the problem by developing active behavior aimed at removing the cause of stress, e.g closing windows, calling authorities or operators to complain, keep diaries and submit complaints etc

• Emotion focused coping is not aimed at changing the environment by removing the unpleasant stimulus, but consists of modulating the emotional response that is the result of the appraisal, e.g denial, seeking distractions etc

In addition, public consultation process may have been conducted in the close area of the landfill site during the construction of the landfill site At the same time, there is no possibility of information provided in the remote area This process also influences perception of people.

Conclusion

This thesis described the impact analysis on odor emission from MSW treatment facility in HCMC, Vietnam The scope of this research was based on perception of odor perceived and physical condition of odor concentration in affected areas

• Investigate the odor impact of odor stemming from the waste treatment facility site on surrounding areas by distance

• Odor effects on residents’ concerns and perception

• Residents’ attitudes and reactions to MSW treatment facility

• Evaluate physical condition and compare with odor impact

• Comparison of physical condition and social impact

There are several findings which have been observed in our study

• It can be seen that residents’ attitudes toward the landfill site are strongly influenced by their perception about odor This perception is affected by weather conditions such as season, wind and rain

• It is found that not only are the area near the MSW management facility influenced by the odor effects but also areas more than 7 km away In other words, most residents living more than 7 km away from the landfill site felt more annoyed than those living less than that

• The collected data provide insights into how the odor from the MSW disposal site negatively changes the residents’ daily life Particularly, the respondents who experienced more annoyance tend to poorly evaluate the landfill site

• Four principal components have been obtained by using factor analysis They are identified as “nuisance,” “attitudes towards MSW treatment facility,” “reactions to deal with odor impact,” and “perception of odor intensity.” The combination of questionnaire survey and measurement of odor can be considered in future research to achieve greater efficiency in assessing the impact of odor on the community

• We observed that the “borderline” odor concentration for area 1 was higher than the acceptable level 7

• The level of odor concentration and people’s perception of odor varied by geography

This study provides useful information for the management of odor from the MSW management facility in a developing country like Vietnam This is a good start to find solutions for odor management in order to mitigate its impact on residences Policymakers should consider public perception when developing a regulation or making a decision about guideline of odor management during landfill operation in Vietnam, this research suggests to use Japanese Offensive Odor Control Law for the maximum permissible concentration of offensive odor in the usage of land Socio-demographic parameters also significantly influence odor perception, and this can be explored in future research Social demographics such as education and high income are important in terms of odor perception Because differences of demographics and lifestyle may generate changes of reactions to environmental odors except at very high or very low concentrations

To mitigate the odor impact, there are following suggestions:

• The landfill siting must be specially considered the wind direction

• Develop a policy of odor management for Vietnam context on the basis of the Japanese Offensive Odor Control Law on the regulation of offensive odors from business activities for the protection of the living environment and human health

• For emission source (landfill site), it is better for landfill manager to do o Improve waste management technology o Strengthen monitoring and management system of landfill operation to control odor dispersion

Aatamila, M., Verkasalo, P K., Korhonen, M J., Viluksela, M K., Pasanen, K., Tiittanen, P., & Nevalainen, A (2010) Odor annoyance near waste treatment centers: A population-based study in Finland Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 60(4), 412–418 https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.60.4.412

Al-Khatib, I A., Ajlouny, H., Al-Sari’, M I., & Kontogianni, S (2014) Residents’ concerns and attitudes toward solid waste management facilities in Palestine: A case study of Hebron district Waste Management and Research, 32(3), 228–236 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X14521684

Al-Yaqout, A F., Koushki, P A., & Hamoda, M F (2002) Public opinion and siting solid waste landfills in Kuwait Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 35(4), 215–227 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00111-2

Albrecht, A., Fischer, G., Brunnemann-Stubbe, G., Jọckel, U., & Kọmpfer, P (2008) Recommendations for study design and sampling strategies for airborne microorganisms, MVOC and odours in the surrounding of composting facilities

International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 211(1–2), 121–131 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2007.05.004

Barczak, R., & Kulig, A (2016) Odour monitoring of a municipal wastewater treatment plant in Poland by field olfactometry Chemical Engineering Transactions, 54, 331–

Blanco-Rodríguez, A., Camara, V F., Campo, F., Becherán, L., Durán, A., Vieira, V D.,

… Garcia-Ramirez, A R (2018) Development of an electronic nose to characterize odours emitted from different stages in a wastewater treatment plant Water Research,

Blanes-Vidal, V., Nadimi, E S., Ellermann, T., Andersen, H V., & Lứfstrứm, P (2012) Perceived annoyance from environmental odors and association with atmospheric ammonia levels in non-urban residential communities: A cross-sectional study

Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, 11(1), 1–10 https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-11-27

Bliss, P J., Schulz, T J., Senger, T., & Kaye, R B (1996) Odour measurement - factors affecting olfactometry panel performance Water Science and Technology, 34(3-4–4 pt 2), 549–556 https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1223(96)00595-1

Blumberg, D G., & Sasson, A (2001) Municipal hotlines and automated weather stations as a tool for monitoring bad odour dispersion: The northern Negev case Journal of

Environmental Management, 63(1), 103–111 https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0472

Bowler, R M., Huel, G., Mergler, D., Cone, J E., Rauch, S S., & Hartney, C (1996) Symptom base rates after chemical exposure for white, Hispanic and African- https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/11.5.371

Brancher, M., Piringer, M., Franco, D., Belli Filho, P., De Melo Lisboa, H., & Schauberger,

G (2019) Assessing the inter-annual variability of separation distances around odour sources to protect the residents from odour annoyance Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 79, 11–24 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2018.09.018

Capelli, L., Sironi, S., Del Rosso, R., Céntola, P., Rossi, A., & Austeri, C (2011) Olfactometric approach for the evaluation of citizens’ exposure to industrial emissions in the city of Terni, Italy Science of the Total Environment, 409(3), 595–

Capelli, L., Sironi, S., Del Rosso, R., & Guillot, J M (2013) Measuring odours in the environment vs dispersion modelling: A review Atmospheric Environment, 79, 731–

Cavalini, P M (1994) Industrial odorants: The relationship between modeled exposure concentrations and annoyance Archives of Environmental Health, 49(5), 344–351 https://doi.org/10.1080/00039896.1994.9954985

Che, Y., Yang, K., Jin, Y., Zhang, W., Shang, Z., & Tai, J (2013) Residents’ concerns and attitudes toward a municipal solid waste landfill: Integrating a questionnaire survey and GIS techniques Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185(12), 10001–

Chen, Y C., Bundy, D., & Hoff, S (1998) Modeling the variation of wind speed with height for agricultural source pollution control ASHRAE Transactions, 104(Pt 1B),

Dalton & Dilks (n.d.) ODOR, ANNOYANCE AND HEALTH SYMPTOM IN A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY EXPOSED TO INDUSTRIAL ODORS

Dalton, P (1996) Odor perception and beliefs about risk Chemical Senses, 21(4), 447–

Dalton, P., & Wysocki, C J (1996) The nature and duration of adaptation following long- term odor exposure Perception and Psychophysics, 58(5), 781–792 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213109

Davies, C W and D S (1999) P r e d ic tio n o f o lf a c to r y r e s p o n s e b a s e d o n a g e , g e n d e r a n d s m o kin g h a b its 73–77

Davoli, E., Gangai, M L., Morselli, L., & Tonelli, D (2003) Characterisation of odorants emissions from landfills by SPME and GC/MS Chemosphere, 51(5), 357–368 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00845-7

De Feo, G., De Gisi, S., & Williams, I D (2013) Public perception of odour and environmental pollution attributed to MSW treatment and disposal facilities: A case study Waste Management, 33(4), 974–987 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.016

Domingo, J L., & Nadal, M (2009, February 1) Domestic waste composting facilities: A review of human health risks Environment International, Vol 35, pp 382–389 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2008.07.004

Doty R.L (1997) Studies of Human Olfaction from the University of Pennsylvania Smell and Taste Center Chemical Senses, 22, 565–586

El-Fadel, M., Findikakis, A N., & Leckie, J O (1997) Environmental Impacts of Solid Waste Landfilling Journal of Environmental Management, 50(1), 1–25 https://doi.org/10.1006/JEMA.1995.0131

Elliott, S J., Cole, D C., Krueger, P., Voorberg, N., & Wakefield, S (1999) The power of perception: Health risk attributed to air pollution in an urban industrial neighbourhood

Risk Analysis, 19(4), 621–634 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007029518897

Felicia Babs-Shomoye1, R K (2004) Namakemono ga miteta 2 In Journal of Public Health in Developing Countries (Vol 2) Retrieved from http://www.jphdc.org/index.php/jphdc/article/view/81

Fischer, G., Albrecht, A., Jọckel, U., & Kọmpfer, P (2008) Analysis of airborne microorganisms, MVOC and odour in the surrounding of composting facilities and implications for future investigations International Journal of Hygiene and

Environmental Health, 211(1–2), 132–142 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2007.05.003

Freeman, T., Quality, R C.-N Z M for the E A., & 2002, undefined (n.d.) Review of odour management in New Zealand

Gallego, E., Soriano, C., Roca, F X., Perales, J F., Alarcón, M., & Guardino, X (2008) Identification of the origin of odour episodes through social participation, chemical control and numerical modelling Atmospheric Environment, 42(35), 8150–8160 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.08.004

Gȩbicki, J., Dymerski, T., & Namieśnik, J (2016) Evaluation of ambient air odour quality in vicinity of municipal landfill using electronic nose technique Chemical Engineering Transactions, 54, 253–258 https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1654043

Harrison, E Z., & Oakes, S R (2002) Features INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED HEALTH INCIDENTS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND APPLICATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGES In NEW SOLUTIONS (Vol 12) Retrieved from http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/Sludge/Newsolutions.pdf

Hayes, J E., & Jinks, A L (2012) Evaluation of smoking on olfactory thresholds of phenyl ethyl alcohol and n-butanol Physiology and Behavior, 107(2), 177–180 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.06.020

Hayes, J E., Stevenson, R J., & Stuetz, R M (2014) The impact of malodour on communities: A review of assessment techniques Science of the Total Environment,

Hayes, J E., Stevenson, R J., & Stuetz, R M (2017) Survey of the effect of odour impact on communities Journal of Environmental Management, 204, 349–354 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.016 chemical industrial park policy and project in China? Resources, Conservation and

Recycling, 138, 1–12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.023

Henshaw, P., Nicell, J., & Sikdar, A (2006) Parameters for the assessment of odour impacts on communities Atmospheric Environment, 40(6), 1016–1029 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.11.014

Héroux, M., Pagé, T., Gélinas, C., & Guy, C (2004) Evaluating odour impacts from a landfilling and composting site: involving citizens in the monitoring Retrieved from https://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/50/4/131/421737/131.pdf

Johnson, B N., & Sobel, N (2007) Methods for building an olfactometer with known concentration outcomes Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 160(2), 231–245 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.09.008

Keck, M., Mager, K., Weber, K., Keller, M., Frei, M., Steiner, B., & Schrade, S (2018) Odour impact from farms with animal husbandry and biogas facilities Science of the

Total Environment, 645, 1432–1443 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.182

Knasko, S C (1992) Ambient odor’s effect on creativity, mood, and perceived health

Chemical Senses, 17(1), 27–35 https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/17.1.27

Knasko, S C., Gilbert, A N., & Sabini, J (1990) Emotional State, Physical Well-Being, and Performance in the Presence of Feigned Ambient Odor1 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(16), 1345–1357 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559- 1816.1990.tb01476.x

Lim, J H., Cha, J S., Kong, B J., & Baek, S H (2018) Characterization of odorous gases at landfill site and in surrounding areas Journal of Environmental Management, 206, 291–303 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.045

Lisk, D J (1991) Environmental effects of landfills Science of the Total Environment,

Lowman, A., McDonald, M A., Wing, S., & Muhammad, N (2013) Land Application of Treated Sewage Sludge: Community Health and Environmental Justice

Environmental Health Perspectives, 121(5), 537–542 https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1205470

Luginaah, I N., Martin Taylor, S., Elliott, S J., & Eyles, J D (2002) Community reappraisal of the perceived health effects of a petroleum refinery Social Science and

Naddeo, V., Zarra, T., Oliva, G., Chiavola, A., & Vivarelli, A (2016) Environmental Odour Impact Assessment of Landfill Expansion Scenarios: Case Study of Borgo Montello (Italy) Chemical Engineering Transactions, 54, 73–78 https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1654013

Naddeo, Vincenzo, Zarra, T., Giuliani, S., & Belgiorno, V (2012) Odour impact assessment in industrial areas Chemical Engineering Transactions, 30, 85–90 https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1230015

Nicell, J A (2009) Assessment and regulation of odour impacts Atmospheric

Environment, 43(1), 196–206 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.033

Nicolas, J., Craffe, F., & Romain, A C (2006) Estimation of odor emission rate from landfill areas using the sniffing team method Waste Management, 26(11), 1259–1269 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.10.013

Nimmermark, S (2004) ODOUR INFLUENCE ON WELL-BEING AND HEALTH WITH SPECIFIC FOCUS ON ANIMAL PRODUCTION EMISSIONS Ann Agric

Environ Med 2004, 11, 163–173, 3(3), 163–173 https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2018.040

Palmiotto, M., Fattore, E., Paiano, V., Celeste, G., Colombo, A., & Davoli, E (2014) Influence of a municipal solid waste landfill in the surrounding environment: Toxicological risk and odor nuisance effects Environment International, 68, 16–24 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.03.004

Parcsi, G., Sivret, E C., Wang, X., & Stuetz, R M (2012) Odour: Characterisation and transformation Chemical Engineering Transactions, 30, 193–198 https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1230033

Press, D., & Minta, S C (2000) The smell of nature: Olfaction, knowledge and the environment Ethics, Place and Environment, 3(2), 173–186 https://doi.org/10.1080/713665886

R Noble,* P J Hobbs, A Dobrovin-Pennington, T H Misselbrook, and A M (2001)

Atmospheric Pollutants and Trace Gases (i), 760–767

Rabl, A., Spadaro, J V., & Zoughaib, A (2008) Environmental impacts and costs of solid waste: a comparison of landfill and incineration Waste Management & Research, 26(2), 147–162 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X07080755

Rahardyan, B., Matsuto, T., Kakuta, Y., & Tanaka, N (2004) Resident’s concerns and attitudes towards Solid Waste Management facilities Waste Management, 24(5),

Ranzato, L., Barausse, A., Mantovani, A., Pittarello, A., Benzo, M., & Palmeri, L (2012)

A comparison of methods for the assessment of odor impacts on air quality: Field inspection (VDI 3940) and the air dispersion model CALPUFF Atmospheric Environment, 61, 570–579 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.08.009

Rappert, S., & Müller, R (2005) Odor compounds in waste gas emissions from agricultural operations and food industries Waste Management, 25(9), 887–907 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.07.008

Rotton, J (1983) Basic and Applied Social Psychology Affective and Cognitive Consequences of Malodorous Pollution (February 2015), 37–41 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0402

Russo, B and (2012) Odour emission from intensive livestock production system: approaches for emission abatement and evaluation of their effectiveness and Earth Sciences, 3(2), 142–145 Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5aae/5ccc25f7b06d9cb5158158a43a6229166ec7.pd f

Sankoh, F P., Yan, X., & Tran, Q (2013) Environmental and Health Impact of Solid Waste Disposal in Developing Cities: A Case Study of Granville Brook Dumpsite, Freetown, Sierra Leone Journal of Environmental Protection, 04(07), 665–670 https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2013.47076

Sarkar, U., & Hobbs, S E (2002) Odour from municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills: A study on the analysis of perception Environment International, 27(8), 655–662 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-4120(01)00125-8

Sarkar, U., Hobbs, S E., & Longhurst, P (2003) Dispersion of odour: A case study with a municipal solid waste landfill site in North London, United Kingdom Journal of Environmental Management, 68(2), 153–160 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-

Schiffman, S S., Sattely Miller, E A., Suggs, M S., & Graham, B G (1995) The effect of environmental odors emanating from commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents Brain Research Bulletin, 37(4), 369–375 https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-9230(95)00015-1

Sironi, S., Capelli, L., Céntola, P., Del Rosso, R., & Il Grande, M (2005) Odour emission factors for assessment and prediction of Italian MSW landfills odour impact

Atmospheric Environment, 39(29), 5387–5394 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.05.023

Srangsriwong, A., Olapiriyakul, S., & Yenradee, P (2018) Asia - Pacific Journal of Science and Technology Factors influencing public perception and impact distance of a municipal solid waste dumpsite in Thailand 1–13

Sucker, K., Both, R., & Winneke, G (2001) Adverse effects of environmental odours: Reviewing studies on annoyance responses and symptom reporting Water Science and Technology, 44(9), 43–51

Tran, L H., Murayama, T., & Nishikizawa, S (2019) Social Impact of Odor Induced by Municipal Solid Waste Treatment Facilities in Ho Chi Minh City Asian Journal of

Tuan, N Q., & MacLaren, V W (2005) Community concerns about landfills: A case study of Hanoi, Vietnam Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(6),

Van Langenhove, H., & Van Broeck, G (2001) Applicability of sniffing team observations: Experience of field measurements Water Science and Technology, 44(9), 65–70 https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2001.0510

Verma, R L., Borongan, G., & Memon, M (2016) Municipal Solid Waste Management in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, Current Practices and Future Recommendation

Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 127–139 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROENV.2016.07.059

Vrijheid, M (2000) Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill sites: a review of epidemiologic literature Environmental Health Perspectives, 108 Suppl(Suppl 1), 101–112 https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.00108s1101

Wakefield, S., & Elliott, S J (2000) Environmental risk perception and well-being: effects of the landfill siting process in two southern Ontario communities Social Science &

Zarra, T., Naddeo, V., Giuliani, S., & Belgiorno, V (2011) Optimization of Field Inspection Method for Odour Impact Assessment Chemical Engineering Transactions, 23, 93–98 https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1123016

A SURVEY ON ODOR IMPACT FROM MSW MANAGEMENT FACILOTY IN SURROUNDING AREAS: CASE OF LANDFILL SITE IN HO CHI MINH CITY,

The survey aims at collecting opinions about the level of population satisfaction with the local living environment We hope that you will take some time about 5-10 minutes to answer the questions below This survey information is the basis for conducting a Ph.D thesis in Environment at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan

Q1 Are there any pollution issues in the area you live?

Yes No don't know Q2 If “Yes”, what is the main reason?

Industrial activity Landfill site Vehicular traffic Others

Q3 What is the pollution problem?

Odor Noise Dust/gas emission from vehicle Flies Others

Q4 Which time of year odor emission becomes worse?

Dec to Feb Mar to May Jun to Aug Sep to Nov

Q5 How often do you smell the odor?

Not at all less often at least once a month at least once a week everyday Q6 What time of day have you perceived the odor?

Morning _ Noon _ Afternoon _ Evening _ Night _

Q7 How long does the odor last?

> 4h Q8 What type of the odor do you smell?

Landfill garbage (pungent and rancid smells) ammonia chemical smells putrid smell and rotten and marshy smells fecal smells the sour smells

Others Q9 Do you think which factor affects the odor emission?

Wind direction Rainy season Dry season Waste volume

Topography Distance from landfill Others Q10 10 How would you rate the odor level? not at all a little bit annoyed moderately annoyed very annoyed extremely annoyed

Q11 How you think the intensity of odor emission over the past two years?

Decreased Not changed Increased Don't know Q12 Do you think it is because there is less odor or because you have become used to it?

Q13 Do you think it is because there is more odor or because you are more sensitive to it? more odor more sensitive don't know

3 Human health Q14 How much are you worried about the odor? not at all a little bit moderately quite a bit extremely

Q15 Has the odor affected your health?

Q16 Has the odor affected the health of any members of your household?

Your spouse Your mother Your father Your sister Others

Your brother Your son Your daughter Your family

Q17 Do you or any members in your household get any of the following symptoms when you are bothered by the odors?

Headache Cough Nausea Sleep problems Shortness of breath pain in the heart stuffy nose Anxiety Feeling unhappy and depressed

Q18 Do you feel that the landfill site creates a deterioration of environmental quality?

Yes No don't know Q19 How much the odor issue affected your daily life? not at all a little bit moderately quite a bit extremely

Q20 How much the odor issue affected your business activity? not at all a little bit moderately quite a bit extremely Q21 Has the odor issue affected your work (studying)? not at all a little bit moderately quite a bit extremely Q22 How does the odor affect your outdoor activities? not at all a little bit moderately quite a bit extremely

Q23 Do you think your property value has decreased because of the landfill issues? not changed slightly decreased dramatically decreased don't know

5 Action Q24 Which measure do you use to reduce odor effects?

Leave home for a while Close windows Plant tree Purifier Others

Q25 Have you used a face mask for outdoor activities when the odor occurs?

Yes No don't know Q26 Have you talked to staff at the landfill site about your concerns?

Q27 Have you informed to government staff about your concerns about the landfill site?

Yes No don't know Q28 If you were to move, would you move