Ana 

Pires · Graça Martinho 
Susana Rodrigues · Maria Isabel Gomes

Sustainable
Solid Waste
Collection and
Management
Sustainable Solid Waste Collection
and Management
Ana Pires • Graça Martinho • Susana Rodrigues
Maria Isabel Gomes

Sustainable Solid Waste

Collection and Management
Ana Pires Graça Martinho
Faculty of Sciences and Technology Faculty of Sciences and Technology
Universidade NOVA de Lisboa Universidade NOVA de Lisboa (FCT NOVA)
(FCT NOVA) Caparica, Portugal
Caparica, Portugal

Susana Rodrigues Maria Isabel Gomes

Faculty of Sciences and Technology Faculty of Sciences and Technology
Universidade NOVA de Lisboa Universidade NOVA de Lisboa (FCT NOVA)
(FCT NOVA) Caparica, Portugal
Caparica, Portugal

ISBN 978-3-319-93199-9 ISBN 978-3-319-93200-2 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018949367

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

Waste collection is one of the most relevant parts of the integrated solid waste
management system in technical, economic, environmental, and social terms. How-
ever, the vital role of waste collection has not been recognized, and the support given
by the quadruple helix – academics, industry, state, and citizens – is reduced when
looking for the other operational units of an integrated solid waste management
system. To exemplify the missing interest of academia for waste collection, in a
Google Scholar search, the results for “waste collection” are about 157,000, for
incineration are 375,000, and for landfill are 639,000. This example shows that
collection is seen only as the way to make waste to get into high-tech infrastructures,
like incineration plants, where real science is applied. The practitioners of the waste
collection are the range of workers with lower income backgrounds, making waste
collection not attractive enough to be devoted to high-tech solutions for waste
collection problems. Many times, waste managers working in waste collection
systems are more focused on the trucks and containers and the costs involved in
the collection process, which is a considerable amount of local authorities’ budget.
In a meeting in 2014 between academia and waste collection sectors at the Nova
University of Lisbon, waste collection professionals expressed the need for technical
skills and knowledge based on waste collection and management practice, in a
bottom-up approach. Technical skill areas include cost-efficiency, recycling behav-
ior, environmental impacts, and technical operation. Waste collection professionals
all over the world have the same necessities when implementing and managing a
waste collection system to know more about the subject, but in such a way that
knowledge could be affordable in technical and economic terms.
The waste collection professionals’ call to fulfill the technical background needs
required experts in several fields of waste collection and management. This book
results from the collaboration from different science areas and experiences in waste
collection and management. Dr. Ana Pires, from whom the original idea was formed,
has a scientific role in analyzing solid waste management from a system analysis
perspective, where the application of life cycle assessment and multi-criteria deci-
sion-making are the techniques applied by her to make waste collection and

v
vi Preface

management more sustainable. Prof. Graça Martinho has a long career in solid waste
management and recycling behavior studies. Prof. Isabel Gomes has scientific
expertise in operational research applied to waste collection and reverse logistics.
To keep us focused on the goal of this book, we required someone from the waste
collection professional field. Dr. Susana Rodrigues is a waste collection manager,
which brought the vision and expertise from the technical operation of waste
collection in practice.
This book intends to provide those who work in the scientific field of waste
management and who are practitioners the backgrounds of waste collection and its
incredible role in the success of an entire waste management system. Bringing the
most recent developments on the subject to people who are not keen in searching for
scientific articles to obtain knowledge and apply it to its professional life is the
challenge of this book. We do not intend to define the best technology to implement
waste collection. We want to give readers the tools to improve waste collection by
integrating their work within the entire waste management system.
A particular interest for graduate students: this book shows the recent technology
tendencies in the field, which will help students finding new directions their study
and graduation at waste collection systems. This book will allow students to
understand the applicability of system analysis through case studies.
The timeliness of this book is justified by the current context of essential changes
in the waste management sector and the critical role that legal aspects and organi-
zations have on the promotion of the sustainable development on a sector essential
for well-being and population health. We are facing challenges in developing
countries where integrated solid waste management systems are being built, and
the scientific background of this book can help them to direct waste collection to
become more efficient and sustainable. In developed countries, we are shifting away
from a waste collection system, with no value product collection and management,
to a resource collection and management system. This shift is a real challenge, where
the consumer (the product owner) has the ability to make the collection and
management system work as a provider of raw materials to the economy.
Last but not least, we would like to acknowledge the precious help given by
Springer in supporting all the questions, issues, and delays that occurred during the
writing of this book. Writing a book in English by nonnative speakers required extra
effort from us. Springer was very helpful in the entire process of writing and editing
this book.

Caparica, Portugal Ana Pires

May 2018 Graça Martinho
Susana Rodrigues
Maria Isabel Gomes
Contents

Part I Fundamental Background

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 The Concept of Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Sustainability in the Context of Solid Waste Collection and
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 The Framework for Sustainability Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 The Structure of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 Prevention and Reuse: Waste Hierarchy Steps Before Waste
Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
2.1 Waste Hierarchy Principle: Saving Materials Before Becoming
Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Waste Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3 Products and Goods Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3 Technology Status of Waste Collection Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1 Waste Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.1 Waste Collection Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.2 Waste Collection Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 Waste Collection System Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.1 State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2.2 Waste Collection System Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4 Preparation for Reusing, Recycling, Recovering, and Landfilling:
Waste Hierarchy Steps After Waste Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.1 Waste Hierarchy Principle: All After Becoming Waste . . . . . . . . 45
4.2 Preparing for Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

vii
viii Contents

4.3 Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.3.1 Upcycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.3.2 Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3.3 Downcycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3.4 Recycling Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.3.5 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.4 Other Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.5 Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.6 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5 Economic Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.1 International Legislation on Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Basel Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.1.1 European Union Waste Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.2 National Waste Regulation in European Union Countries . . . . . . 63
Batteries and Accumulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.2.1 End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.2.2 Packaging Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.2.3 Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment . . . . . . . . . 68
5.2.4 Waste Oils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.3 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6 Psychosocial Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.1 Contributions of Social Psychology to Source Separate Waste
Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.2 Determining Factors of Recycling Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.3 Understanding and Predicting Models of Recycling Behaviors . . . 76
6.3.1 Schwartz Model of Altruistic Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.3.2 Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned
Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.4 Strategies to Change Behaviors and Their Evaluation . . . . . . . . . 81
6.5 Current Limitations and Future Perspectives for Social
Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
7 Economic Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.1 Waste Collection Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.1.1 Investment Costs (CAPEX) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7.1.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs (O&M) . . . . . . . . . . 106
7.2 Financial Concerns of Waste Management Systems
and Instruments of Waste Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7.3 Public and Private Sector Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Contents ix

8 Environmental Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

8.1 Environmental Context of Twenty-First Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
8.1.1 Globalization and Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
8.1.2 Megacities, Eco-cities, and Industrial
Symbiosis at Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
8.1.3 Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
8.2 Sustainability and Circular Economy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 129
8.3 Adaptive Management Strategies for Waste Collection
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
8.4 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Part II Models and Tools for Waste Collection

9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
9.1 Waste Generation Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
9.1.1 Time Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
9.1.2 Forecast Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
9.1.3 Linear and Multiple Linear Regression Models . . . . . . . 146
9.1.4 Advanced Forecast Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
9.1.5 Case Study: Using Time-Series Models
to Estimate MSW in Kaunas, Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
9.2 Waste Collection System Planning and Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
9.2.1 Factors to Consider When Planning a Collection
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
9.2.2 Factors to Consider When Selecting WCS Devices . . . . 150
9.3 The Role of GIS in Waste Collection Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
9.3.1 Routes Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
9.3.2 Case Study: Minimizing Operational Costs
and Pollutant Emission in Collection Routes Using GIS 156
9.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Appendix A: Forecasting Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
A.1: Naïve Forecast Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
A.2: Moving-Average Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
A.3: Exponential Smoothing Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
A.4: Holt’s Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
A.5: Holt-Winters Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
A.6: ARIMA Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Appendix B: Measures of Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
B.1: Mean Absolute Error (MAE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
B.2: Geometric Mean Absolute Error (GMAE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
B.3: Mean Square Error (MSE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
B.4: Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
B.5: Geometric Mean Relative Absolute Error (GMRAE) . . . . . . 162
x Contents

Appendix C: Linear Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

C.1: Simple Linear Regression Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
C.2: Multiple Linear Regression Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
10 Operation and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
10.1 Descriptive Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
10.2 Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
10.2.1 Technical-Operative and Logistics Indicators . . . . . . . 168
10.2.2 Case Study: Calculating Waste Volume
Weight Inside the Container and Emptying
Time in Greater Lisbon Area, Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
10.3 Economic Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
10.4 Environmental Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
10.5 Social Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
10.6 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
11 Assessment and Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
11.1 Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
11.1.1 Goal and Scope Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
11.1.2 Life Cycle Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
11.1.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
11.1.4 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
11.1.5 LCA Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
11.1.6 Carbon Footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
11.2 Life Cycle Costing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
11.3 Social Life Cycle Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
11.4 Behavior Studies and Awareness Campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
11.5 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Part III Sustainable Solid Waste Collection: Integrated Perspective

12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
12.2 Single Objective Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
12.2.1 Linear Programming Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
12.2.2 Mixed-Integer Linear Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
12.2.3 Stochastic Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
12.2.4 Nonlinear Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
12.2.5 Solving a Linear Programming Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
12.3 Some Special Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
12.3.1 Traveling Salesman Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
12.3.2 Vehicle Routing Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Contents xi

12.3.3 Chinese Postman Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

12.3.4 Transportation Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
12.3.5 Location Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
12.4 Multiple Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
12.4.1 Lexicographic Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
12.4.2 Weighted Sum Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
12.4.3 Distance Minimization to the Ideal Point . . . . . . . . . . 227
12.4.4 ε-Constraint Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
12.4.5 Iterative Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
12.5 Case Study 1: Integrated Assessment of a New
Waste-to-Energy Facility in Central Greece in the Context
of Regional Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
12.6 Case Study 2: A Recovery Network for WEEE – A
Sustainable Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
12.6.1 The Current Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
12.6.2 The Optimal Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
12.6.3 Scenario Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
12.6.4 Multi-Objective Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
12.7 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
13 Multi-criteria Decision-Making in Waste Collection to Reach
Sustainable Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
13.2 Generic Multi-Criteria Analysis Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
13.3 Multi-Criteria Decision Aid Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
13.3.1 Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
13.3.2 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
13.3.3 TOPSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
13.3.4 PROMETHEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
13.3.5 ELECTRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
13.3.6 Comparison of MCDA Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
13.4 Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
13.5 MCDA Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
13.6 Dealing with Multiple Stakeholders in the Decision-Making
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
13.7 MCDA Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
13.7.1 Multi-criteria Decision Analysis for Waste
Management in Saharawi Refugee Camps . . . . . . . . . 253
13.7.2 Multi-Criteria Analysis as a Tool for Sustainability
Assessment of a Waste Management Model . . . . . . . . 254
13.7.3 Ranking Municipal Solid Waste Treatment
Alternatives Based on Ecological Footprint
and Multi-criteria Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
xii Contents

13.7.4 An AHP-Based Fuzzy Interval TOPSIS Assessment

for Sustainable Expansion of the Solid Waste
Management System in Setúbal Peninsula, Portugal . . 256
13.7.5 Assessment Strategies for Municipal Selective Waste
Collection Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
13.8 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
14 A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case . . . . . . . . 261
14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
14.2 Sustainability Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
14.3 Modeling and Solution Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
14.4 Results and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
14.4.1 Routes Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
14.4.2 Sustainable Collection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
14.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Annex A: Multi-objective Formulation for the MDPVRPI . . . . . . . . . . 273
Annex B: Solution Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
B.1 Step 1: Routes Generation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
B.2 Step 2: Solution Method for the Multi-objective Problem . . 282
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
15 Collection of Used or Unrecoverable Products: The Case
of Used Cooking Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
15.2 Company Current Operation Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
15.3 The New Collection Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
15.3.1 If the Current Network Is Optimized . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
15.3.2 Network Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
15.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Annex A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Part IV Challenges and Perspectives for Sustainable Waste

Management Through Waste Collection
16 The Evolution of the Waste Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
16.1 Definition of Integrated Waste Collection Concept . . . . . . . . . . 307
16.2 The Functioning of the Integrated Waste Collection (IWC) . . . . 310
16.2.1 How Collection Interacts with Waste Prevention . . . . . 310
16.2.2 How Collection Interacts with Preparation for Reuse . . 311
16.2.3 How Collection Interacts with Sorting for Recycling . . 312
16.2.4 How Collection Interacts with Biological Treatment . . 313
16.2.5 How Collection Interacts with Energy Recovery . . . . . 316
16.2.6 How Collection Interacts with Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Contents xiii

16.3 Sustainability in Integrated Waste Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

16.4 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
17 Trend Analysis on Sustainable Waste Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
17.1 Reverse Logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
17.2 Crowd Logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
17.3 Physical Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
17.4 Freight on Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
17.5 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
18 Technical Barriers and Socioeconomic Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
18.1 Developed Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
18.1.1 Advancements in Environmental Informatics . . . . . . . 335
18.1.2 Advancements in Information and Communication
Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
18.1.3 Waste Infrastructure Synergies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
18.1.4 Reaching All-in-One: Citizens Satisfied
and Participative, Cost Affordable, and Low
Environmental Impact of the Waste Management
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
18.2 Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Basics on Waste Collection System Are Still
in Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
18.2.1 The Conversion of Informal Sector into Formal
Waste Management Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
18.2.2 The Importation of Hazardous Waste and Trade
of Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
18.2.3 Public Health Related to Mismanagement of Waste
and Its Dependents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
18.2.4 Social Apathy for Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
18.3 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
19 Future Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
19.1 The Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development . . . 349
19.1.1 SGD 1 “No Poverty” and SWM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
19.1.2 SDG 2: Zero Hunger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
19.1.3 SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
19.1.4 SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
19.1.5 SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
19.1.6 SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth . . . . . . . 352
19.1.7 SGD 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure . . . . . 354
19.1.8 SDG 11: Sustainable Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
19.1.9 SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production . . 355
xiv Contents

19.1.10 SDG 13: Climate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

19.1.11 SDG 14: Life Below Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
19.1.12 SDG 15: Life on Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
19.1.13 SDG 17: Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
19.2 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
 Part I
Fundamental Background
Chapter 1
Introduction

Abstract The statistics are precise: the population is increasing, and, consequently,
the amount of waste generated in the entire world is increasing, ending at open
dumpsites, with reduced recycling and recovery. The missing of integrated solid
waste management systems that ensure controlled management, where environmen-
tal and health risks are reduced and where the waste system drives economic growth
and social progress, are major challenges for science and engineering. This chapter
intends to emphasize the essence of sustainable development in the collection and
management of waste, how to make part of the waste management, and how it can
constitute the framework of a usual integrated solid waste management. Case studies
that show how to promote the sustainable waste collection and, consequently, solid
waste management are introduced in the subsequent chapters.

Keywords Sustainable development · Waste collection · ISWM · Waste flows ·

SDGs

1.1 The Concept of Sustainable Development

The Sustainable Development Goals are the most recent initiative from the United
Nations to leverage sustainable development in the world until 2030. The SDGs are
present at the report “Transforming Our World” (United Nations 2015), predicted at
“The Future We Want,” the document resulting from the Rio+20 Conference,
20–22 June 2012, organized by the United Nations, where all countries were called
to renew their commitment to reach a sustainable future.
The United Nations started to call countries to the sustainable development cause
on 16 June 1972, when the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
occurred, held in Stockholm, where the “rights” of the human families to a healthy
and productive environment were delineated (UN-DESA 2015a). The step was
crucial to bring environment into the agenda of industrialized countries, and the
theme was again brought into the spotlight with the publication of the “World
Conservation Strategy” by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and International Union for Conservation of

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 3

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_1
4 1 Introduction

Nature and Natural Resources (IUCNNR). This strategy was the precursor to the
concept of sustainable development, which aimed (UNEP/WWF/IUCCNR 1980):
• To maintain fundamental ecological processes and life-support systems, vital for
human survival and development
• To preserve genetic diversity, on which depend the breeding programs needed for
the protection of plants and domesticated animals, as well as much scientific
innovation, and the security of the many industries that use living resources
• To ensure the sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems (notably fish and
other wildlife, forests, and grazing lands), which supports millions of rural
communities as well as significant industries.
The discussion on the accelerated degradation of the environment and its effects
on the economic development led the United Nations to discuss “The World
Commission on Environment and Development” in 1983. In 1987, the Brundtland
Report “Our Common Future” defined “sustainable development” as (WCED 1987):
The development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs.

The first UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro

occurred in 1992, where the document of “Agenda 21: A Programme of Action for
Sustainable Development,” also known as The Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development, was adopted (UN-DESA 2015b). The Agenda 21 establishes 27 prin-
ciples around the 3 pillars of sustainability: economy, society, and environment.
After Agenda 21, several other documents and programs have been elaborated by the
United Nations, which are all being reaffirmed by “The Future We Want”
(UN-DESA 2018):
The Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, the Plan of Implementation of
the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg Plan of Implementation) and
the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development of the World Summit on
Sustainable Development, the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of
Small Island Developing States (Barbados Programme of Action) and the Mauritius Strategy
for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Develop-
ment of Small Island Developing States.

The attempt to bring sustainability into practice is a real challenge, and continual
removal of the goals is needed to keep the subject on the agenda. However, the
definition of the goals has been considered to be vague, weak, or meaningless
(Hopwood et al. 2005; Stafford-Smith 2014; Stokstad 2015). Holden et al. (2017)
criticize the three pillars: the economic, social, and environmental, sustaining that
the critical dimensions of sustainable development should be:
The moral imperatives of satisfying needs, ensuring equity and respecting environmental
limits. The model reflects both moral imperatives laid out in philosophical texts on needs and
equity, and recent scientific insights on environmental limits.

The concept of sustainable development by Holden et al. (2017) goes further, by

developing a model that quantifies how sustainable the development of the country
1.2 Sustainability in the Context of Solid Waste Collection and Management 5

or groups of countries is. The model includes critical themes, indicators, and
thresholds, which would be far way more practicable than the SDGs defined by
the United Nations (2015).
The intention of this book goes much further in the establishment of sustainable
development definitions. The way how solid waste collection and management
should include sustainable development and contribute to the SDGs is, in fact, one
of the goals of this book.

1.2 Sustainability in the Context of Solid Waste Collection

and Management

Paragraph 218 of “The Future We Want” devotes to the development and enforce-
ment of comprehensive national and local waste management policies, strategies,
and regulations, regarding a life cycle approach and promotion of policies of
resource efficiency and environmentally sound waste management (UNEP and
UNITAR 2013).
Before defining any sustainability waste management policies, the definition of
waste should be discussed. The need to define what waste is from what is not
influences the need to control or not the output material resulting from a process
or from the urban metabolism. According to the European Parliament and Council
(2008):
Waste means any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to
discard.

All materials that can be considered as waste according to the definition can also
be classified by source, nature, physical and mechanical properties, chemical and
elemental properties, biological/biodegradable properties, and combustion proper-
ties (Chang and Pires 2015). Concerning the source, waste can be classified as
municipal solid waste (which includes commercial and services waste), construction
and demolition waste, medical waste, industrial waste, and other wastes that can
require a specific identification. Concerning nature, waste can be classified in
hazardous waste (presenting one hazard (at least) to humans or environment); inert
waste, which has no transformation at physical, chemical, or biological levels; and
nonhazardous waste, which has no hazardous features. Physical, mechanical, and
chemical properties include physical composition, density, moisture content, particle
size and size distribution, pH, chemical composition, C/N ratio, calorific value, and
biological features (Chang and Pires 2015).
All the waste can also be divided by waste stream, i.e., by the product that gave
origin to the waste. The need to define waste streams started at municipal solid
waste, which presents high heterogeneity on materials due to the diversity of
products consumed in the urban system. Waste streams present in municipal solid
waste can be packaging waste (which is even divided by materials like paper,
6 1 Introduction

cardboard, glass, plastic, liquid carton beverages packaging, ferrous metals,

nonferrous metals), batteries, food waste, biodegradable waste, green waste, waste
of electrical and electronic equipment, construction and demolition waste, and
domestic hazardous waste, and many others may appear. The definition of waste
by streams is devoted to the need of being separately managed, in the beginning,
because the recycling industry wanted the source-separated materials to be recycled
in their process, i.e., an internal value market exists for those wastes. If waste streams
with potential market value are removed, the residual fraction (or stream) can be
managed in such way that only waste can be managed to ensure its processing more
efficiently and straightforwardly.
The segregation of waste through its properties, mostly, can impulse its environ-
mental sound management of waste, with financial revenues and positive social
impacts. The segregation of waste leads to its management without being contam-
inated with hazardous (or nonhazardous) materials or allowing its maximum use.
Segregation helps to increase the value of recyclables and recyclates, resulting value-
added by-products. The use of recyclates contributes to a green gross domestic
product (GDP), an index of economic growth that corrects the environmental
consequences from GDP (Chang and Pires 2015). The social well-being reached
with an integrated solid waste management and with the source separation of waste
is notable, although source separation of waste requires citizens’ participation which
can be demanding and challenging for waste system managers. The public partici-
pation in the decision-making process on waste management is also a reality
nowadays, where waste players, from products life cycle, can be brought to deliver
strategic plans and actions plans to prevent and manage waste.

1.3 The Framework for Sustainability Assessment

Several authors (CSLFG/STSP/PGA/NRC 2013; Sala et al. 2015; Sonnemann et al.

2015) have elaborated their framework for sustainability assessment, with the aim of
being used to support decision-making and policy development at any field.
Sustainability assessment can have different definitions:
The goal of sustainability assessment is to pursue that plans and activities make an optimal
contribution to sustainable development. (Verheem 2002)

Alternatively,
Sustainable assessment refers to the interaction of different methodologies in such a way that
is geared toward obtaining an analysis, an evaluation, or a plan that approaches several
management aspects in which the sustainability implications may be emphasized and
illuminated. (Chang et al. 2011)

The proposed sustainability framework by Sala et al. (2015) (Fig. 1.1) presents
the comprehensive approach required to impulse the sustainability in the waste
1.3 The Framework for Sustainability Assessment 7

Fig. 1.1 Scheme of the conceptual framework for sustainability assessment. (Source: Sala et al.
(2015))

sector. The principles of sustainability defined by Sala et al. (2015), i.e., guiding
vision, essential considerations, adequate scope, framework and indicators, trans-
parency, effective communications, continuity and capacity, and broad
participation of stakeholders, can constitute the guide for practitioners to perform
the assessment. The sustainability assessment procedure comprises several steps
(Sala et al. 2015):
• Approach to sustainability: the values and sustainability principles are to be
defined by the organization requiring the assessment.
• Sustainability targets: to define the level of sustainability intended to be
accomplished.
• Decision context: where information from sustainability assessment will be
translated in practical terms.
• Methodological choices for the assessment: the core of the sustainability analysis,
which involves the identification of the most suitable assessment methodologies
(methods, models, tools, indicators), sensitivity and uncertainty analysis, and
definition of the monitoring strategies to track progress toward sustainability
targets.
8 1 Introduction

1.4 The Structure of This Book

The interactions between all pillars of sustainability and the urban, agriculture, and
industry activities are complicated and often difficult to quantify, manage, and give a
rapid response. Technologies, related to machinery or related to computational
solutions, are called to contribute significantly to the resolution of sustainability
issues in the waste management sector.
Solid waste management complexity occurs like in any other human-based
processes. Making decisions in complex systems requires following principles,
processes, and practices to proceed from information and desires to choices that
inform actions and outcomes (Lockie and Rockloff 2005). The decision process is
different in each phase of the waste collection and management. In the begging, the
design, planning of the waste collection, and management must consider not only the
international, national, and local strategies devoted to waste management (like
collection rates, recycling rates) but also the local context where the waste manage-
ment system is to be implemented, which will define and constraint the type of
infrastructure to be employed. During the operation of a waste collection system,
decision process requires information on the amounts of waste being collected for
several destinations, how the collection routes and vehicles allocated to them are
defined, and the waste quality reached, which will influence the following waste
management processes. The collection system requires constant redefinition, not
only due to the changes in the background where the system is occurring but due to
the waste collection system itself, where decisions to improve its performance have
to be taken, to not disregard the economic, environmental, and social impacts
(positive and negative) of the waste collection system. The book intends to give
highlights to waste collection practitioners on the view of their system and is
intended to be used in conjunction with existing literature and other relevant
guidance, firstly by academic researchers, policymakers, and waste researchers in
public and private sectors. It also aimed to challenge the research for an interdisci-
plinary view where climate change, economic growth, environmental pollution, and
social impact are variables which need to be brought to the waste management
decision-making.
This book proposes a systemic decision framework where the waste collection
has the leading role to leverage solid waste management at a more sustainable level.
The processes inherent to waste collection operation are discussed and treated
through science-based analysis with various perspectives of sustainable solid
waste management. A comprehensive bibliography is provided at the end of each
chapter, and some case studies are presented to describe how the system thinking can
promote the needed management to reach sustainability in the waste management
sector. The integrated approach is reflected in the structure of the four parts as
follows.
Part I: Fundamental Background. The context on waste hierarchy upward to
waste collection like waste prevention, reduction and reuse, the waste collection
itself, and afterward waste hierarchy steps like preparation for recycling, recycling,
1.4 The Structure of This Book 9

treatment, and landfilling is provided. The related sustainability science background

regarding the environment, social, and economic perspectives of sustainable solid
waste management will be addressed. The following chapters lead to the integrated
discussion on the role of waste collection in the solid waste management and on the
waste hierarchy principle:

• Introduction (Chap. 1)
• Prevention and Reuse: Waste Hierarchy Steps Before Waste Collection (Chap. 2)
• Technology Status of Waste Collection Systems (Chap. 3)
• Preparation for Reusing, Recycling, Recovering, and Landfilling: Waste
Hierarchy Steps After Waste Collection (Chap. 4)
• Economic Perspective (Chap. 5)
• Psychosocial Perspective (Chap. 6)
• Economic Perspectives (Chap. 7)
• Environmental Context (Chap. 8)
Part II: Models and Tools for Waste Collection. The waste collection in solid
waste management is an operation unit that requires, at first, design and planning and
then the operation of the collection itself. During operation, it is required to monitor
the operation, to understand if it occurs according to the plan. At last, the assessment
and improvement of the waste collection system are needed, to find the constraints to
be solved to help the collection to be more sustainable and integrated into the solid
waste management system.

• Design and Planning of Waste Collection System (Chap. 9)

• Operation and Monitoring (Chap. 10)
• Assessment and Improvement (Chap. 11)
Part III: Sustainable Solid Waste Collection: Integrated Perspective. The role
of sustainability in the way how waste is collected and consequences to the solid
waste management system is discussed in this part. The following chapters are
organized to provide information on the use of systems analysis methods – optimi-
zation and multi-criteria decision-making – as well as case studies where those
methodologies are used to improve the waste collection systems regarding
economic, environmental, and social perspectives.

• Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

(Chap. 12)
• Multi-Criteria Decision-Making in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste
Management (Chap. 13)
• A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case (Chap. 14)
• Collection of Used or Unrecoverable Products: The Case of Used Cooking Oil
(Chap. 15)
10 1 Introduction

Part IV: Challenges and Perspectives for Sustainable Waste Management

Through Waste Collection. The waste collection requires new approaches to
face the challenges of the future to make economic growth which is capable of
satisfying the needs of the citizens, ensuring equity on accessing the waste collection
and the solid waste management service, and respecting the environment and public
health.

• The Evolution of the Waste Collection (Chap. 16)

• Trend Analysis on Sustainable Waste Collection (Chap. 17)
• Technical Barriers and Socioeconomic Challenges (Chap. 18)
• Future Perspectives (Chap. 19)

References

Chang NB, Pires A (2015) Sustainable solid waste management: a systems engineering approach.
IEEE Wiley, Hoboken
Chang NB, Pires A, Martinho G (2011) Empowering systems analysis for solid waste management:
challenges, trends, and perspectives. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 41:1449–1530
Committee on sustainable Linkages in the Federal Government, Science and Technology for
Sustainability Program, Policy and Global Affairs, National Research Council (CSLFG/STSP/
PGA/NRC) (2013) Sustainability for the nation: resources connection and governance linkages.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC
European Parliament, Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directive. Off J L312:3–30
Holden E, Linnerud K, Banister D (2017) The imperatives of sustainable development. Sustain Dev
25:213–226
Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G (2005) Sustainable development: mapping different approaches.
Sustain Dev 13:38–52
Lockie S, Rockloff S (2005) Decision frameworks: assessment of the social aspects of decision
frameworks and development of a conceptual model. Coastal CRC discussions paper, Central
Queensland University, Norman Gardens, Australia
Sala S, Ciuffo B, Nijkamp P (2015) A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ
119:314–325
Sonnemann G, Gemechu ED, Adibi N, De Bruille V, Bulle C (2015) From a critical review to a
conceptual framework for integrating the criticality of resources into Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment. J Clean Prod 94:20–34
Stafford-Smith M (2014) UN Sustainability goals need quantified targets. Nature 513:281
Stokstad E (2015) Sustainable goals from UN under fire. Science 347:702–703
United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1. UN General
Assembly, New York
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) (2015a) United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Conference). https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/milestones/humanenvironment. Accessed 27 Apr 2018
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) (2015b) Agenda
21-UNCED, 1992. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21.
Accessed 27 Apr 2018
References 11

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) (2018) Future we want –
outcome document. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html. Accessed
24 Apr 2018
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Institute for Training and
Research (UNITAR) (2013) Guidelines for national waste management strategies. Moving
from challenges to opportunities. UNEP, Nairobi
United Nations Environment Programme, World Wild Fund for nature, International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (UNEP/WWF/IUCCNR) (1980) World conser-
vation strategy-living resource conservation for sustainable development. IUCN/UNEP/WWF,
Gland
Verheem R (2002) Recommendations for sustainability assessment in the Netherlands. In commis-
sion for EIA. Environmental impact assessment in the Netherlands. Views from the Commis-
sion for EIA in 2002, The Netherlands
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future.
Oxford University Press, Oxford
Chapter 2
Prevention and Reuse: Waste Hierarchy
Steps Before Waste Collection

Abstract The way how policy instruments and actions can impose measures before
products became waste depends on policies based on the waste prevention, reduc-
tion, and reuse. A brief review on the concepts in the light of the waste hierarchy
principle is discussed, considering the view of European countries and when possi-
ble from other countries in the world.

Keywords WHP · Waste Framework Directive · Products reuse · Minimization ·

Design

2.1 Waste Hierarchy Principle: Saving Materials Before

Becoming Waste

Waste is a generic and large concept, which requires definition and, from there,
define the strategies to avoid or minimize its generation. Authorities (national and
international) defined waste differently:
• Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC): Any substance or object which the
holder discards or intends to discard or is required to discard.
• US Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (USEPA 2017): any garbage or
refuse, sludge from wastewater plant, water supply treatment plant or air pollution
control facility, and other discarded materials, resulting from industrial, commer-
cial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community services.
• Inter-American Development Bank, definition applied at Caribbean and Latin
countries (Espinoza et al. 2010): Solid or semisolid waste produced through the
general activities of a population center. It includes waste from households,
commercial businesses, services, and institutions, as well as common
(nonhazardous) hospital waste, waste from industrial offices, waste collected
through street sweeping, and the trimmings of plants and trees along streets and
in plazas and public green spaces.
• Environment Protection Act (EPASA 2018), for Australia: any discarded,
rejected, abandoned, unwanted, or surplus matter, whether or not intended for
sale or for recycling, reprocessing, recovery, or purification by a separate

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 13

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_2
14 2 Prevention and Reuse: Waste Hierarchy Steps Before Waste Collection

operation from that which produced the matter, or anything declared by regula-
tion or by an environment protection policy to be a waste, whether of value or not.
• Act on Waste Management at South Korea (Chung 2011): A material that is
unnecessary for human life and business activities such as garbage, combustible
ashes, sludge, waste oil, waste acid, waste alkali, carcass, etc. and some waste are
defined as waste at courts.
• Law n.12.305 (WIEGO 2018) in Brazil: any material, substance, object, or
disposed good resulting from human activities in society, whose final destination
proposes to proceed or is obliged to proceed in solid or semisolid states, as well as
gases and liquids within containers unfeasible to be released into the public
sewage system or water bodies, or that require technically or economically
unviable solutions in view of the best available technology.
The way how waste should be managed has been, until now, defined by the waste
hierarchy principle (WHP). This principle establishes the preferable order in which
the solid waste should be managed and treated, being, firstly, preferred the preven-
tion, reuse, recycling, and recovery over landfill (Hultman and Corvellec 2012). The
first time that WHP were introduced in European legislation was at 1975 Directive
on waste (European Council 1975) and EU’s Second Environment Action Program
in 1977 (European Commission 1977) and finally defined at the Community Strat-
egy for Waste Management in 1989 (European Commission (1989). Typically the
WHP is presented as an inverted pyramid, where the preferred option is on the top
and in bigger proportion than the subsequent management options, like in the case of
WHP from European Waste Framework Directive (Fig. 2.1).

Product Prevention

Preparing
for reuse

Recycling

Waste
Recovery

Disposal

Fig. 2.1 Waste hierarchy principle according to Waste Framework Directive of European Union
2.1 Waste Hierarchy Principle: Saving Materials Before Becoming Waste 15

1
REPLACEMENT
2
NON-WASTE
REDUCTION
3.1
WASTE
PREPARING FOR REUSE
3.2
REUSE
3.3
REPROCESSING
RE

3.4
CO
VE

OTHER RECOVERY
RY

4
RECTIFICATION

5
RETURN
6
WASTE
EXPORTS

Fig. 2.2 Six stages of the hierarchy of resources use. (Source: Gharfalkar et al. (2015))

• Avoid surplus food generation

throughout food production and
Prevention consumption
• Prevent avoidable food waste
generation throughout the food supply
chain
Least Favourable option

• Re-use surplus food for human consumption

Re-use for people affected by food poverty, through
redistribution networks and food banks

• Recycle food waste into animal feed

Recycle • Recycle food waste via composting

• Treat unavoidable food waste and recover energy: e.g, via

Recovery anaerobic digestion

Disposal
• Dispose unavoidable food waste into engineered landfill with landfill gas
utilisation system in place,only as the last option

Fig. 2.3 Food WHP. (Source: Papargyropoulou et al. (2014))

An improvement of the Waste Framework Directive has been proposed by

Gharfalkar et al. (2015), named “hierarchy of resource use” where a more detailed
type of operations can be conducted and prioritized. This new hierarchy intends to
help policymakers to provide the adequate incentives on the right waste management
operations (Gharfalkar et al. 2015) (Fig. 2.2).
More recently, elaborations of WHP for specific waste streams are occurring.
Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) developed a WHP specific for food waste (Fig. 2.3),
being to define measures on food waste management but also at the food supply,
16 2 Prevention and Reuse: Waste Hierarchy Steps Before Waste Collection

where waste generation also occur. Knauf (2015) revised the European WHP for
waste wood considering the European Union energy policy and European market
and life cycle assessment studies on wood waste management, proposing that
recycling or other recoveries such as energy recovery have the same level of priority.
Richa et al. (2017) proposed and analyzed a WHP combined with circular economy
to manage lithium-ion batteries, being highlighted that operations of reuse (direct or
cascaded) followed by recycling can be better in terms of ecotoxicity burden that
banning such batteries from landfill.
Definitions on WHP all over the world have similarities but also differences that
make it difficult to conduct a standard view of all measures to minimize or avoid
waste generation. To the better acknowledgment of the concepts, waste prevention
and reuse will be characterized by the European view.

2.2 Waste Prevention

In the European view, prevention includes reduction. Reduction includes waste

amount reduction, adverse impacts on health and environment, and reduction of
harmful content (European Parliament and Council (2008)). A clear message from
Waste Framework Directive is that prevention is for products and goods, not for
waste. Waste reduction is, sometimes, only seen has the reduction of waste amount
landfilled, or send for incineration, not the reduction of waste generated. Even with
this narrowed view of waste reduction in terms of its destination, waste prevention
concept can be considered, because the adverse impacts from waste management are
being prevented (less waste going to landfill or to incineration, lesser environmental
adverse impacts).
According to Hutner et al. (2017), types of waste prevention are reduction at
source, substitution, and intensification, although intensification is more related to
reuse (see Sect. 2.3). Reduction at source occurs during design and production, by
applying ecodesign, which is an approach to “design out” waste and other environ-
mental problems but keeping products quality and cost-effectiveness (Bârsan and
Bârsan 2014). To prevent waste, ecodesign can focus on the type of materials to be
used (environmentally friendly materials, recycled materials), reduction of material
input, avoid waste during manufacturing, reduction of packaging, optimization of
the product’s functionality (which includes multiple functions), prolongation of
product lifetime, waste prevention at use stage, and facilitation of maintenance
(Wimmer and Züst 2003). Substitution intends to change the materials used in
manufacturing to reduce hazardous component (already considered by ecodesign)
or to substitute the product or service itself in the sale point by one that generates less
waste (durable, reparable) (Hutner et al. 2017).
Waste prevention practices can be implemented by different policy measures.
Regulatory, voluntary, and information instruments are possible strategies to imple-
ment (Table 2.1). In the study of Kling et al. (2016), the comparison of several
economic instruments for waste prevention showed that PAYT is the preferable one
2.2 Waste Prevention 17

Table 2.1 Policy instruments on waste prevention

Policy
instruments Waste prevention instruments
Regulatory Landfill ban, incineration bans, plastic bag bans, disposable cutlery bans, to-go
or single-use products ban
Market-based PAYT, landfill tax, incineration taxes and fees, extended producer responsi-
bility principle, precycling insurance, recycling insurance, taxes on products
(packaging, plastic bags)
Information Awareness campaigns, school campaigns, procurement guidelines, information
exchange platforms
Voluntary Home composting, ecodesign of products, designing out waste, bottleless
water, nappy laundry services, planning food meals

concerning utility, together with landfill tax. More nonconventional instruments are
insurances, for recycling and precycling. Precycling means the “actions taken now to
prepare for current resources to become future resources, rather than wastes accu-
mulating in the biosphere” (Greyson 2007). Insurances would serve as a guarantee
that future recycling costs or future waste management costs of the product are paid.
A recent area where waste prevention is getting further steps is festivals and events.
In the study conducted by Martinho et al. (2018), a festival applied mugs to avoid the
acquisition of bottled drinks, reusable cutlery at canteen, sugar bowls, proper portion
of food, and drinking fountains. The festival is known by the reduced amount of
waste generated comparatively to other festivals (Martinho et al. 2018), showing
how those measures can be important to promote waste prevention. Another effort to
promote waste prevention in Portugal has been the plastic bag tax (Martinho et al.
2017a). The tax was capable to force a change at inquiries, shifting from single-use
plastic bags acquisition to reusable bags but also to garbage bags, since single-use
plastic bags were used as garbage bags. Plastic bags fee or tax has a considerable
positive impact in the reduction on its acquisition in several other European coun-
tries (Table 2.2).
The design of instruments requires a profound knowledge of behaviors of the
stakeholders which is intended to change the behavior. Without knowing the factors,
the instruments to be applied may fail, just because instruments were not transferred
considering those factor implications. The study of factors influencing the behavior
of waste prevention has been made in the recent years. Cecere et al. (2014) found that
prevention behavior is influenced by seldom socially oriented, seldom exposed to
peer pressure, and very reliant on purely “altruistic” attitudes. Bortoleto et al. (2012)
affirm that clear instructions are needed to citizens prevent waste, where information
should emphasize that waste prevention is economically an alternative and has no
inconvenient to the citizen. This approach puts in practice the factors of prevention
behavior found by Bortoleto et al. (2012): that environmental concern, moral
obligation, and inconvenience.
18 2 Prevention and Reuse: Waste Hierarchy Steps Before Waste Collection

Table 2.2 Policy instruments applied in some European countries for plastic bags
Country Policy instruments Outcomes References
Belgium (2007) Tax or levy with vol- 60–80% of reduction Bio Intelligence Ser-
untary agreement vice (2011)
Denmark (1994) Tax or levy (also for A reduction of 50% on OECD (2001), The
paper bags) the amount of plastic Danish Ecological
bags Council (2015)
Ireland (2002) Tax or levy Reduce use by more Convery et al. (2007)
than 90% and raised
revenues around €12–
14 million for an envi-
ronment fund
Luxembourg (2004, Voluntary agreement Saved about 560 mil- Valorlux (2014)
2007) to sale “Eco-sac” car- lion single-use shop-
rier bag in 2004. Bags ping bags until 2013
started to be charged in
2007, including single-
use bags
Malta (2009) Tax or levy Saved around 25 mil- Hermann et al. (2011)
lion plastic bags (i.e.,
more than 50%,
corresponding to
roughly 150 tons of
plastic) in the first
2 years after introduc-
ing the tax
Portugal (2017) Tax Reduction 20–30% on Silva (2015)
plastic bags sale in the
first 8 months
Spain (2009) Voluntary agreements A reduction of 40% Bio Intelligence Ser-
in Catalonia was achieved in 2010 vice (2011)
Romania (2009) Tax or levy An increase of plastic Pre-waste (2011)
bags was verified
between 2009 (27 mil-
lion bags) and 2010
(60 million of bags)
UK (Wales in 2011, Tax or levy with Wales: 71% reduction BBC (2015), Bio
Northern Ireland in awareness campaigns in 2015 Northern Ire- Intelligence Service
2013, Scotland in and voluntary land: 72% in 2014 (2011), DAERA
2014, England in agreement Scotland: around 80% (2016), Howell
2015) in 2015 England: 85% (2016), Poortinga
in 2016 et al. (2013), The
Guardian (2015,
2016)
Source: Adapted from Martinho et al. (2017a)
2.3 Products and Goods Reuse 19

2.3 Products and Goods Reuse

Besides the definition of prevention, Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC also

defines specific operation on products and goods before they become waste. The one
defined is reuse, as being “any operation by which products or components that are
not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they were conceived.”
It differs from “preparation for reuse” because, in this case, it consists of “checking,
cleaning or repairing recovery operations, by which products or components of
products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be re-used without
any other pre-processing.” In practical terms, reuse occurs inside the factory, or a
company, or inside homes, when products are repaired or subjected to any operation
that makes them usable again. The prevention mentioned here is before the good is
put on waste collection system, because if such happens, it means that the users
intended to get rid of it. All the reuse at a prevention perspective intends the notion
that the users intend to keep using the product or good.
In this reuse concept, the operations that could implement reuse as preventing
waste are remanufacturing, refurbishing, where the owner of the product does not
change, and the owner itself can make the changes needed to the product keep
performing in the same. Intensification considered by Hutner et al. (2017) fits better
in reuse definition. The product used by the owner can be increased by sharing the
product with other users or by prolonging the use phase of the product through
repair. Reuse can be promoted by ecodesign, through improvement of reparability
and by design for reuse of parts of the product (Wimmer and Züst 2003).
Several policy instruments can be implemented to promote products or goods
reuse. Green public procurement applied can require products or goods with high
levels of durability and easiness of repair, making them adequate to be used until
exhaustion. Awareness campaigns about sustainable consumption in the way that
could promote the acquisition of goods that can be used for such a long time are
another type of instrument. The awareness concerning sustainable consumption is
relevant. In the study conducted by Martinho et al. (2017b), men are keen to change
their smartphone and tablets because they are obsolete and new models appear on the
market. The notion of obsolesce is dependent of the appearing of new devices, with
questionable new features, being a marketing strategy from devices producers.
A better information of citizens concerning the environmental consequences of
their consumption pattern is needed to break such pattern.
Voluntary actions such as product service systems can be useful to promote product
reuse. Product service systems are “a marketable set of products and services capable
of jointly fulfilling a user’s need. The product/service ratio in this set can vary, either in
terms of function fulfilment or economic value” (Goedkoop et al. 1999). The way how
PSS promotes reuse is through the sale of the use (the service) of the product and not
the product keeping its ownership (like laundry services), by implementing the
leasing, which induces changes in consumer from product acquisition into service
acquisition (Mont 2002; Roy 2000). According to Roy (2000), product service system
can be divided into four types: service products (or demand services or result services),
shared utilization services, product-life extension services, and demand-side
20 2 Prevention and Reuse: Waste Hierarchy Steps Before Waste Collection

e and maintenan
Servic ce

USE:
• Use profile
• Total units of use for cost generation
• True cost of product up-keep
• Unit service cost for ROI
• Continuous supply of quality service

OEM: CUSTOMER:
• Provide quality service • Pay for product usage on per unit
• Investment required
PRODUCT
basis
• Product should have significant SERVICE • Receives a reliable service
financial value SYSTEM • Reduced risk via no ownership
• Product provides a functional service • Only pay for service utilised
• Change in business relationships • No investments

SERVICE:
• Service plans
• Product Knowledge
• Customer location and service
agreement
• Product flow forecast and reduced
down time

p
R is k a n d o w n er shi

Fig. 2.4 Main features of a product service system. (Source: Bindel et al. (2012))

management (although this last one is applied to energy systems only). Service
products intend to sell the result or service that the device/machinery can provide,
like in the case of laundry service, which sells clean clothes rather than washing
machine (Roy 2000). One of the main examples of service products is Xerox. The
modular design strategy of their products allows the remanufacturing of their products,
converting 160,000 machines from European customers (in 1997) by reprocessing
them, making US$ 80 million of net savings (Maslennikova and Foley 2000). Shared
utilization services (also called product-use services or community products) intend to
increase the use of products by sharing, like in the case of community wash center
instead of individual households washing machines (Roy 2000). Car sharing and
bicycle pooling can also be cases of shared utilization service of transportation and
can reduce the car use and the need to manufacture and park fewer vehicles (Roy
2000). Product-life extension services aim to increase the useful lifetime of products or
goods through a spiral-loop system that minimizes matter, energy, and environmental
deterioration, without compromising economic growth and progress (Giarini and
Stahel 1993). This is a service being provided to electric and electronic equipment
in countries like Portugal, after the 2-year guarantee provided by European regulation.
Also, car stations are promoting product-life extension services, once cars are durable
and expensive goods that compensate their owner to repair and provide maintenance to
avoid the acquisition of a new one.
In a graphic representation of how a product service system works (Fig. 2.4), is
notorious that the changing of the ownership from customer to the manufacturer will
References 21

make the goal is not sale the product, but instead, to increase its operation time,
leading more durable products, design for disassembly products, extending as far as
technically and economically possible the use phase of the product. Issues such as
customer location, product return planning, and service/maintenance plans are
additional tasks of the manufacturer that in a product-oriented approach they do
not occur (Bindel et al. 2012).

2.4 Final Remarks

The waste hierarchy was useful to include in the policy of the drivers of a better
management of resources. Although it is a questionable performance in terms of the
overall environmental benefits, its relevance cannot be forgotten in terms of the
impact on the way waste should be managed. With the diffusion of circular economy
concept all over the world, the waste hierarchy changed for “preservation stages of
resource value” by Reike et al. (2018), where the hierarchy “R-ladders” or impera-
tives constitute a principle to operationalize waste as resources in the economy
(Reike et al. 2018).
The definitions and boundaries of the concepts of prevention and reuse and the
activities which can contribute to them are difficult to establish. Although the
European legislation intended to separate products or goods reuse from waste getting
prepared for reuse, in practical terms, the most relevant concern should be to know
how can waste prevention be measured, which are the factors that are making
prevention and reuse difficult, and what if there is no shifting of waste and environ-
mental impacts. Waste prevention and reuse measures in specific phase of a product
may create more waste in subsequent life stages, or the avoidance of toxic materials
that are used to increase durability that, in its absence, may force a more frequent
replacement (Roy 2000). Life cycle assessment focused on waste is a possible
method to assess if waste prevention has occurred effectively.

References

Bârsan L, Bârsan A (2014) Ecodesign education – a necessity towards sustainable products.

In: Visa I (ed) Sustainable energy in the built environment – steps towards nZEB proceedings
of the conference for sustainable energy (CSE) 2014. Springer, Cham, pp 495–502
Bindel A, Rosamond E, Conway P, West A (2012) Product life cycle information management in
the electronics supply chain. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B 226:1388–1400
Bio Intelligence Service (2011) Assessment of impacts of options to reduce the use of single-use
plastic carrier bags. Final report prepared for the European Commission – DG Environment
Bortoleto AP, Kurisu KH, Hanaki K (2012) Model development for household waste prevention
behavior. Waste Manag 32:2195–2207
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) (2015) Plastic bag use down 71% since 5p charge was
introduced. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-34138414. Accessed 9 Dec 2016
22 2 Prevention and Reuse: Waste Hierarchy Steps Before Waste Collection

Cecere G, Mancinelli S, Mazzanti M (2014) Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Ecol Econ 107:163–176
Chung S (2011) Import and export of waste in Korea: regulation and actual practice. In: Kojima M,
Michida E (eds) Integration and recycling in Asia: an interim report. Institute of Developing
Economies, Chosakenkyu-Hokokushu, pp 45–64
Convery F, McDonnell S, Ferreira S (2007) The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish
plastic bags levy. Environ Resour Econ 38:1–11
Department of Agriculture and Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) (2016) Northern Ireland
carrier bag levy statistics. https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/articles/northern-ireland-carrier-bag-
levy-statistics. Accessed 7 Dec 2016
Environmental Protection Agency at South Australia (EPASA) (2018) Regulation waste manage-
ment. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X15000902. Accessed
15 Mar 2018
Espinoza PT, Arce EM, Daza D, Faure MS, Terraza H (2010) Regional evaluation on urban solid
waste management in Latin America and the Caribbean – 2010 report. Pan American Health
Organization, Inter-American Association of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Inter-
American Development Bank, Washington, DC
European Commission (1977) 2nd environmental action programme 1977–1981. Off J C 139:1–46
European Commission (1989) A community strategy for waste management, SEC/89/934 (final).
Brussels
European Council (1975) Council directive of 15 July 1975 on waste 75/442/EEC. Off J L
194:39–41
European Parliament, Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directive. Off J L312:3–30
Gharfalkar M, Court R, Campbell C, Ali Z, Hillier G (2015) Analysis of waste hierarchy in the
European waste directive 2008/98/EC. Waste Manag 39:305–313
Giarini O, Stahel WR (1993) The limits to certainty, 2nd edn. Springer Science+Business Media,
Dordrecht
Goedkoop MJ, van Halen CJG, te Riele HRM, Rommens PJM (1999) Product service systems,
ecological and economic basis. Report commissioned by Dutch ministries of environment and
economic affairs, Pricewaterhouse Coopers NV/Pi!MC, Storrm CS, pre consultants
Greyson J (2007) An economic instrument for zero waste, economic growth and sustainability.
J Clean Prod 15:1382–1390
Hermann B, Carus M, Pael M, Blok K (2011) Current policies affecting the market penetration of
biomaterials. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 5:708–719
Howell D (2016) The 5p plastic bag charge: all you need to know. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-
34346309. Accessed 10 Aug 2016
Hultman J, Corvellec H (2012) The European waste hierarchy: from the sociomateriality of waste to
a politics of consumption. Environ Plan-Part A 44:2413–2427
Hutner P, Thorenz A, Tuma A (2017) Waste prevention in communities: a comprehensive survey
analyzing status quo, potentials, barriers and measures. J Clean Prod 141:837–851
Kling M, Seyring N, Tzanova P (2016) Assessment of economic instruments for countries with low
municipal waste management performance: an approach based on the analytic hierarchy
process. Waste Manag Res 34:912–922
Knauf M (2015) Waste hierarchy revisited—an evaluation of waste wood recycling in the context of
EU energy policy and the European market. For Policy Econ 54:58–60
Martinho G, Balaia N, Pires A (2017a) The Portuguese plastic carrier bag tax: the effects on
consumers’ behavior. Waste Manag 61:3–12
Martinho G, Magalhães D, Pires A (2017b) Consumer behavior with respect to the consumption
and recycling of smartphones and tablets: an exploratory study in Portugal. J Clean Prod
156:147–158
References 23

Martinho G, Gomes A, Ramos M, Santos P, Gonçalves G, Fonseca M, Pires A (2018) Solid waste
prevention and management at green festivals: a case study of the Andanças festival, Portugal.
Waste Manag 71:10–18
Maslennikova I, Foley D (2000) Xerox’s approach to sustainability. Interfaces 30:226–233
Mont OK (2002) Clarifying the concept of product–service system. J Clean Prod 10:237–245
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001) Environmentally
related taxes in OECD countries: issues and strategies. OECD, Paris
Papargyropoulou E, Lozano R, Steinberger J, Wright N, bin Ujang Z (2014) The food waste
hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J Clean Prod
76:106–115
Poortinga W, Whitmarsh L, Suffolk C (2013) The introduction of a single-use carrier bag charge in
Wales: attitude change and behavior spillover effect. J Environ Psychol 36:240–247
Pre-waste (2011) Eco-tax on plastic bags in Romania (Pre-waste factsheet 94). http://www.
prewaste.eu/index.php?option¼com_k2&view¼item&id¼249&Itemid¼94. Accessed 9 Dec
2016
Reike D, Vermeulen WJV, Witjes S (2018) The circular economy: new or refurbished as CE 30? –
exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on
history and resource value retention options. Resour Conserv Recycl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2017.08.027 135:246–264
Richa K, Babbitt CW, Gaustad G (2017) Eco-efficiency analysis of a lithium-ion battery waste
hierarchy inspired by circular economy. J Ind Ecol 21:715–730
Roy R (2000) Sustainable product-service systems. Futures 32:289–299
Silva AR (2015) Industry reduces personal and cannot compensate for losses caused by environ-
mental tax (in Portuguese: Indústria reduz pessoal e não consegue compensar as perdas
provocadas pela taxa ambiental). https://www.publico.pt/economia/noticia/industria-reduz-
trabalhadores-e-nao-consegue-compensar-as-perdas-provocadas-pela-taxa-ambiental-1710669.
Accessed 10 Aug 2016
The Danish Ecological Council (2015) Fact sheet: Tax on plastic bags. http://www.ecocouncil.dk/
en/documents/temasider/1776-150812-tax-on-plastic-bags. Accessed 9 Dec 2016
The Guardian (2015) Scotland’s plastic bag usage down 80% since 5p charge introduced. https://
www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/17/scotland-plastic-bag-usage-falls-after-5p-
charge-introduced. Accessed 9 Dec 2016
The Guardian (2016) England's plastic bag usage drops 85% since 5p charge introduced. https://
www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/30/england-plastic-bag-usage-drops-85-per-cent-
since-5p-charged-introduced. Accessed 9 Dec 2016
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2017) Criteria for the definition of solid
waste and solid and hazardous waste exclusions. https://www.epa.gov/hw/criteria-definition-
solid-waste-and-solid-and-hazardous-waste-exclusions. Accessed 1 Mar 2018
Valorlux (2014) PPP-initiative “eco-bag.” http://valorlux.lu/sites/valorlux/files/files/VALLO01-
4009_FactSheet_GB-4Web.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2016
Wimmer W, Züst R (2003) Ecodesign pilot: product investigation, learning and optimization tool
for sustainable product development. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Women in Informal Employment: Globalization and Organizing (WIEGO) (2018) National solid
waste policy. http://www.wiego.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/Pereira-Brazilian-Waste-
Policy.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2018
Chapter 3
Technology Status of Waste Collection
Systems

Abstract The increasing rate of waste production per capita, the technological
advances in packaging products, and the new waste policy and the legal provisions
adopted in developed countries created a constant change in the set of parameters
that determine the design of solutions for integrated waste management, where waste
collection plays a fundamental role. A vast spectrum of technologies for source-
separated waste collection and devices was developed, making the evaluation and
selection of the one to be applied a difficult task. The purpose of this chapter is to
reduce the complexity of identifying, selecting, and benchmarking waste collection
systems, presenting a taxonomic classification for the different technical solutions,
related to the relevant parts of collection activities and critical equipment
characteristics.

Keywords Containers · Vehicles · Classification · Underground · Surface · Lift ·

Crane · Compaction · Manual · Assisted

3.1 Waste Collection

3.1.1 Waste Collection Role

Collecting waste is one of the most critical phases of the cycle of waste generation-
transformation-elimination (Bautista and Pereira 2006), playing a central but often
underestimated role in the waste management system (Bilitewski et al. 2010). Waste
collection is a highly visible municipal service that involves large expenditures and
operational problems; plus it is expensive to operate regarding investment and
operational and environmental costs (Faccio et al. 2011). In fact, due to the massive
fuel consumption and labor involved, municipal solid waste (MSW) collection is
usually the most polluting and costly component of MSW management (MSWM),
representing 50–75% of the total costs (Bilitewski et al. 2010; Tchobanoglous et al.
1993). Waste collection is the contact point between waste generators (citizens) and
waste management system and can be associated with different kinds of problems
such as littering, overfull containers, low recovery rates, and contamination. A lot of

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 25

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_3
26 3 Technology Status of Waste Collection Systems

these problems can be solved by the proper implementation of a system when it is

new and by increasing facilitators through adequate information and feedback to the
public and a good, well-planned collection system (Petersen and Berg 2004).
Although MSW collection has the primary role of providing public health to
citizens, several waste streams are source separated to obtain quality waste materials
that can be recovered and recycled. Nowadays, other roles have been given to MSW
collection, making it more sustainable:
• Technical role: the way how waste is collected can influence its properties and,
consequently, the waste treatment technologies. If waste is collected commingled
and compacted, its destination can be in landfill, mechanical-biological treatment,
or incineration units; however, if specific waste streams are source separated, they
have a better quality to be recycled than mixed waste.
• Environmental role: besides recycling, MSW collection has been conducted to
reduce fuel consumption or even replace fossil fuels by non-fossil fuels like
biogas, with the intention to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Also, due
to the low average speed of collection vehicles, and numerous stops during
collection, the effect they have on congestion, air pollution, and noise is higher
than that of other types of freight transportation in cities (Johansson 2006).
• Social role: MSW collection is the WMS identity or municipality identity.
Without an appropriate communication, all the effort in promoting waste source
separation can fail. The recovery rate depends on the participation activity and
separation efficiency of the waste producers (Tanskanen and Melanen 1999).
Also, collection operation can create problems of the occupation of public space,
noise, odors, and traffic and industrial accidents (Poulsen et al. 1995) that, if not
minimized, contribute to a negative image of the entire WMS. It should also
highlight the job creation promoted by MSW collection, being the ISWM com-
ponent in which more jobs are created.
• Economic role: MSW collection is an expensive component of ISWM, regarding
investment costs (i.e., vehicles fleet) and operational costs (i.e., fuel, mainte-
nances) (Faccio et al. 2011). It should be regarded that MSW collection is a public
good, due to the public health driver, so it has to be available to everyone. When
waste streams belong to an extended producer responsibility management system,
collection costs should be ensured by the fee paid. However, this is not ade-
quately addressed in practice. The residual fraction collection has to be optimized,
to not cumbersome citizens.
• Legal role: in order to fulfill policy and legal provisions adopted in the European
Union on waste, a broad spectrum of measures and technical solutions for
different types of problems and wastes was developed during the last decades
(Bilitewski et al. 2010), promoting a wide range of separate collection systems
and giving rise to a number of studies assessing and comparing management
strategies (Gallardo et al. 2012; Iriarte et al. 2009).
This evolution of the applied roles has been possible due to technological
development, especially in the last decades. MSW collection has evolved from
trash cans to robust high-tech material and attractive container design and, at the
3.1 Waste Collection 27

same time, from dedicated and straightforward collection vehicles to trucks with a
global positioning system and radio-frequency identification sensors to identify
containers and optimization models to increase efficiency.
Being capable of considering all these roles and taking sustainable decisions in
choosing and managing an MSW collection system is not an easy task. It is even
more difficult when national legislation implements collection targets to be reached
because it will influence MSW collection activities (Pieber 2004; Kogler 2007). At a
micro- or local scale, any improvement in MSW collection organization – type, size,
and receptacle combination – and the collection frequency will influence the com-
position of MSW as well as the quality and quantity of the separately collected
recyclables and thus demands and costs for the subsequent treatment (Bilitewski
et al. 1997; Tchobanoglous et al. 1993). At a macroscale, recovery rate targets are in
demand and increase the complexity and total costs of MSW management – dividing
the total waste mass into separate waste streams results in an increased number of
waste flow paths, functional elements, and interdependence in the waste manage-
ment systems, increasing the number of containers and the amount of collection
work (Kogler 2007; Pieber 2004; Tanskanen and Melanen 1999).

3.1.2 Waste Collection Systems

The process of the waste collection begins when the generated waste is thrown into
appropriate receptacles and ends when these receptacles are picked up and emptied
by collection vehicles. However, the functional element, referred to as “collection,”
includes not only the removal of waste but also the transport to the place where the
collection vehicle is emptied, including this last operation (Tchobanoglous et al.
1993). Collection and transport must include (Bilitewski et al. 1997):
• Recovery and collection of all household, industrial, and commercial waste,
including separate collection of recyclables, removing them from the place
where they are produced
• Transport of the collected waste into the processing and disposal facilities
Local governments are usually charged with the responsibility for waste collec-
tion and transportation to the disposal facilities, but they may choose to hire private
contractors. The functional elements that MSWM involves are waste generation,
separation and storage at source, collection, sorting, processing and transformation,
and disposal (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993). According to Tchobanoglous et al.
(1993), the collection can be decomposed into three operations:
• Deposition, which consists of the set of operations after waste generation, involv-
ing waste storage and placement in containers to be removed
• The transfer operation carried out by appropriate personnel and equipment for this
purpose, by transferring the waste to the collection vehicles
• The transport, which corresponds to the distance that the collection vehicle makes
between the last point of collection and the place of its destination
28 3 Technology Status of Waste Collection Systems

Fig. 3.1 Waste collection

system diagram

Upstream of the collection is the waste generation and separation at the source
and downstream is transfer and transport, treatment or deposition. The selective
collection is not independent of the method of treatment. In fact, in MSW manage-
ment process, the collection of recyclable materials is of critical importance as the
way in which the materials are collected determines the possible options for their
recovery and the need for more or less investment in the sorting processes.
Based on the system perspective, a waste collection system (WCS) is composed
of the component containers and vehicles, which are interdependent and where
interactions occur, forming a relative complex whole. The way how elements
interact with each other and with the background system, composed of the waste
producers (citizens) and city’s infrastructure, will dictate its efficiency and the
interaction with city mobility. A WCS has to be attractive, available, near, and
safe for citizens to use it. Because WCS involves traffic movement, their schedule
needs to be planned to promote its rapid collection and avoid periods of high traffic.
Also, the place where to locate containers is influenced by the existing city infra-
structure and sidewalk and street inclination, just to name a few. The diagram
presented in Fig. 3.1 intends to highlight the complexity.

3.2 Waste Collection System Classification

During the last decades, a broad spectrum of suitable measures and different types of
technical solutions for different types of problems and wastes could be developed
and realized in technically leading countries (Bilitewski et al. 2010). The need to
ensure mandatory recycling and recovery levels for different waste fractions intro-
duced much pressure on waste municipalities systems, forcing them to optimize
technical solutions for collection. High recovery rate targets have been set for MSW
that municipalities aim to reach mainly by source separation, but the extent to which
3.2 Waste Collection System Classification 29

policies are based on scientific knowledge has been questioned (Dahlén and Lager-
kvist 2010).
WCS is a relevant component of a waste management system, being implemented
all over the world, but has been classified in a disorganized and dissimilar way.
Container and vehicle diversity is quite vast, almost tailor-made for all situations and
requirements, so keeping track on their development has become hard. The com-
plexity of equipment, devices, and vehicles increased the difficulty in making a
decision on which MSW collection should be implemented to be technically com-
petent, economically affordable, and socially accepted, at the same time, complying
with all legal targets and environmental challenges.
The evaluation of collection systems depends on the system boundaries and will
always, to some degree, be site-specific. It may not even be desirable to control the
factors that cannot be controlled using waste management, but these factors should
still be understood as they may offer explanations of variations. One of the factors
that can be controlled using waste management is the equipment and technical
solutions adopted, but the complexity is high and needs to be reduced to critical
factors when searching for causes and effects.

3.2.1 State of the Art

WCS classification has been promoted since the 1990s. Several aspects which could
characterize the complex system depend on its components (container and vehicles),
how both are interrelated (the collection method), how waste is to be treated and
recovered (waste streams), and how WCS is located in the city (i.e., the type of
service). According to Bilitewski et al. (2010), a WCS can be defined as a combi-
nation of technology and human activities and characterized by (i) the receptacles
used for collection, (ii) the applied method of setting them out and picking them up,
and (iii) the collection vehicles. The main approaches on WCS classification are
going to be presented in this section, divided into container type, vehicle type,
collection method, waste streams, and type of service.
(a) Container Type
Container type is referent to the receptacle where waste is disposed temporarily. The
variety of containers is quite huge. However, existing classifications found in the
literature are characterized mainly by the type (bags, containers, barrels, wheeled,
underground), material (plastic, metal), and size (small, medium, large). An instinc-
tive relation exists between container type and its size, being bags and containers
without wheels the small-sized containers and wheeled and underground containers
the ones with larger dimension. For example, EN840 and EN 12574 family of norms
(CEN 2014) classifies containers as two-wheeled with capacity up to 400 L, four-
wheeled with a capacity up to 1300 L with flat or dome lid(s), and four-wheeled with
a capacity up to 1700 L.
30 3 Technology Status of Waste Collection Systems

(b) Vehicle Type

The vehicle has the function to discharge the waste container into the vehicle where
waste will be transported (Diaz et al. 2005). It can be characterized by the type,
which considers collection method, compaction, loading mechanization container
lifting device, and by the loading site. Possible vehicle types by collection method
are hauled and stationary. By compaction a vehicle can be classified as a compactor
(compartmented or not) when waste is compressed, or non-compactor (open or
closed truck), and by lifting device vehicles can be classified has hoist truck or
lift-off, tilt frame or roll-off, hook lift, crane trucks, trucks with loader up/over, or
side loader. Loading site identifies vehicles as front/top, side, and rear.
(c) Collection Method
The collection method is related to the process of emptying the container and its
mechanization. Concerning the emptying process, the collection can have different
designations. The recipient can be emptied in the same place, being named simple
emptying or stationary, can be exchanged by another emptied container, being
named as exchange, or can be hauled into the destination, being named hauled or
one-way. Only the case of the stationary collection is possible to consider a manual
loading system; all the rest is mechanized. Concerning mechanization designations,
manual, mechanized, semiautomatic, or automatic special collection systems are all
used in literature.
(d) Waste Source and Source Separation
This criterion is related to the source of waste (the place where it is produced) and the
source separation considered in the area. Waste source is divided into residential/
household, commercial/household-like commercial, and institutional and industrial,
being residential divided into dwellings and apartments, mostly. When source
separation exists, WCS can be defined by the waste collected, as commingled,
residual waste, dry recyclables, and recyclables, just to name a few.
(e) Type of Service: Drop-Off or Pickup Systems
Concerning the service type, different designations exist which are related to the type
of waste collected (commingled or separate waste streams) and how the citizen
interacts with the WCS. For mixed/commingled waste, the service can be classified
as curbside, backyard, alley, setout, and setback and for waste stream designations as
a drop-off/bring centers, buyback centers, pickup systems, neighborhood containers,
zone containers, green points, and multi-container and special collection (Table 3.1).
Although there is diversity of designations, two main approaches can be adopted:
(i) Pickup system or curbside collection, where the receptacles are installed/set up
for collection close to the houses of the waste generators.
(ii) Drop-off or bring systems, where accumulated waste amounts are taken by the
waste generator to a central location, being dropped into containers specially set
up for this purpose. Contrary to the pickup arrangement, the collection vehicles
must go to central sites only and not pick up the waste from the curbside in front
of each house (Fig. 3.2).
3.2 Waste Collection System Classification 31

Table 3.1 WCS service type categories and definitions

Service type Definition
Door-to-door, full-service collection, Containers like bins, racks, sacks, and bags are allo-
curbside, alley pickup, or household cated to individual families, very near to the source of
containers waste generation, where the homeowner is responsible
for placing the containers to be emptied at the curb on
collection day and for returning the empty containers
to their storage location (Dahlén and Lagerkvist 2010;
Gonzalez-Torre et al. 2003; Tchobanoglous et al.
1993)
Setout-setback Containers are set out on the homeowner’s property
and set back after being emptied by additional crews
working in conjunction with the collection crew
responsible for loading the collection vehicle
(Tchobanoglous et al. 1993)
Backyard carry The collection crews enter the property to collect
refuse. Containers may be transported to the truck,
emptied, and returned to their original storage location
or emptied into a tub or cart and transported to the
vehicle so that only one trip is required (O‘Leary
1999)
“Just-in-time” collection Residents bring out their wastes at the time the col-
lection vehicle reaches a particular spot and rings a
bell, a system that works in middle- and upper-class
housing of many developing countries (Uriarte 2008)
Drop-off systems or bring systems It provides containers of different sizes and shapes,
and residents are required to deliver recyclables
(Dahlén and Lagerkvist 2010; Rhyner et al. 1995)
Multi-container Citizens dispose each fraction in specific containers
located in two areas of the street: organic and residual
fraction containers are located on the curb at a maxi-
mum distance of 50 m from the dwellings; containers
for glass, paper, and packaging are located in areas
with groups of containers located at a maximum dis-
tance of 300 m from the dwellings (Iriarte et al. 2009)
Neighborhood containers Individual families are responsible for delivering their
waste to a typical container or neighborhood garbage
bin near the source of waste generation (Gonzalez-
Torre et al. 2003)
Zone containers Large bins for different waste types are located in
central areas that serve one or multiple neighborhoods
(Gonzalez-Torre et al. 2003)
Green points Specifically designed to collect not only separated
items from the particular catchment areas and curbside
bins but also to selectively collect materials not cov-
ered by the other systems, such as hazardous waste,
household electrical appliances, and clothes
(Gonzalez-Torre et al. 2003)
Buyback centers Establishments where participants can deliver mate-
rials in return for cash payment, such as for recyclable
collection (Rhyner et al. 1995)
32 3 Technology Status of Waste Collection Systems

Fig. 3.2 Schematic drawing of pickup and drop-off arrangement for waste collection. (Source:
Bilitewski et al. (2018))

Excluding the container and vehicle type, these classifications have a quite low
contribution to distinguishing the several WCS, being unable to promote a robust
classification. Taxonomy to classify WCS should show the similarities and differ-
ences between WCS and its components, and users should be able to systematically
fill and recall information efficiently and effectively to facilitate the use of the
taxonomy by diverse scientific and research fields.
The technical details (the features) have implications for planning and operating
WCS. Once known and adequately addressed, the features can mitigate WCS costs
and environmental impacts. In modeling WCS, parameters such as time per stop
(Groot et al. 2014; Sonesson 2000), unload time of a bin (Faccio et al. 2011), and the
number of workers (Groot et al. 2014) are all needed.
A taxonomic classification based on the technological features relevant to classify
WCS is proposed in the next section. The features highlighted in the taxonomy, such
as the container’s vehicle coupling, mobility, emplacement, container access for
container and body mechanization, lifting mechanization, and loading location for
vehicles, influence those variables present in WCS models.

3.2.2 Waste Collection System Types

This taxonomy is divided into three components, container, vehicle, and collection
method, and classes and subclasses, which are capable of characterizing the con-
tainer-vehicle system presented in Fig. 3.3. Trees are used to describe the classes and
subclasses of each component. Identification of a feature can reach up to five levels,
3.2 Waste Collection System Classification 33

Surface (S) (1) Only for surface containers

(2) Except surface containers
Semi-underground
Emplacement
(SU)

Underground (U)

Immobile (I)
Mobility (1) With wheels (WW)
Mobile
Without wheels
(WoW)
With (WC)
Container

Compaction
Without (WoC)
Gas cylinders (G)
Entire container or Open and elevating
compact (EC) platforms (OEP)
Container access (2) Hydraulic (H)
Only opening Platform power
Waste recipient platform/lid (OP) supply Electrohydraulic
(EH)
Only elevating
Without (WoCo) platform (EP)
Electricity (E)
Crane one ring
(C1R)
Crane double ring
(C2R)
Vehicle coupling
Crane mushroom
(CM)
Lift frontal
supports (LiF)
Lift side supports
(LiS)

Fig. 3.3 Container classification diagram. (Source: Rodrigues et al. (2016))

and key components will be described to support the taxonomy. The three compo-
nents result in a nomenclature, to be applied to characterize WCS.

Container Component

Class 1 is the container, and the first-level branch of its classification tree (Fig. 3.4) is
divided into relevant technical aspects used to identify container component, iden-
tified by subclasses: emplacement (1.1), mobility (1.2), compaction (1.3), container
access (1.4), and vehicle coupling (1.5). Container emplacement refers to location
related to ground level. Containers can be positioned at the surface (100% of the
recipient’s capacity is at ground level), entirely underground, or semiunderground.
A specific property of surface containers is mobility. Underground and
semiunderground are static and must be accessed by the vehicle for waste collection,
whereas surface containers can be located and replaced on the street without specific
construction work and are easily carried to the collection vehicle. Mobility can be
34 3 Technology Status of Waste Collection Systems

Fig. 3.4 Coupling systems’ schematic illustrations. (a) Crane coupling systems (OVO Solutions
2012a) and (b) lift coupling systems in (i) frontal comb, (ii) HDPE lifting trunnions, and (iii)
metallic wings. (Source: Rodrigues et al. (2016))

divided into immobile and mobile containers, with or without wheels. Containers
can also be designed to compact waste.
Semiunderground and underground containers must be accessible to the waste
collection vehicle. It is not mandatory that all container elements such as platforms,
deposition columns, and waste recipients are removed as a unit to dispose waste into
the vehicle (compact container). Sometimes only the waste recipient element is
removed to be discharged, and vehicle access can be through an open platform,
elevated platform, or both. An open platform corresponds to the opening of the
surface pull-down lid to access the container; the vehicle pulls the container from its
underground location, and the elevating platform raises the container to surface
level. When there is no elevating platform, the vehicle itself pulls the container
from the underground receptacle. An additional feature characterizing existing
platforms is the platform power supply, which can be gas cylinders, hydraulic, or
electrohydraulic.
Vehicle coupling defines how the container interacts with the vehicle to pro-
mote container discharging. The existing options are absence of coupling system
or by the type of coupling system: crane rings, crane mushroom, and crane
supports. Rings and mushroom refer to a crane option in the vehicle, and supports
are related to the lift option in the vehicle. Crane coupling can be one ring, double
ring, or mushroom (Contenur 2014; OVO Solutions 2012b) (Fig. 3.4a). One ring
coupling is suitable for truck cranes with a simple forklift, known as simple hook,
where the ring is secured on the frame support and detaches the lower lid, which is
automatically opened when the pedal (also named palpeur system) touches the
3.2 Waste Collection System Classification 35

Fig. 3.5 Container schematic illustrations. (a) Case 4 (OVO Solutions 2012b), (b) case 5 (Sopsa
2012), (c) case 6 (OVO Solutions 2012a), (d) case 7 (Sotkon 2007), (e) case 8 (TNL 2014b), and (f)
case 9 (TNL 2014c). (Source: Rodrigues et al. (2016))

bottom of the loading truck (OVO Solutions 2012b). The double-ring operation is
secured by two sliding rods, and the lifting arm has a double command; one raises
the container and opens the lower lid, and the other one keeps the container at the
desired height (OVO Solutions 2012b). Mushroom containers, also known as double
disc and by the trademark Kinshofer, consist of a half sphere or “disc” on the top; the
hoisting cable is also equipped with a double command similar to double ring, and
the operation is ensured by two tubes sliding one inside the other. This system
requires that collection vehicles are equipped with controlled and high-precision
positioning and coupling devices, eliminating the need for manual engagement
(Kinshofer 2014).
The containers for lift coupling supports have handles or handgrips built into the
container body (according to EN 840 (CEN 2014)) with different designations,
depending on the lift side (Fig. 3.4b). For frontal handles, a ventral system consists
of a frontal comb integrated with the upper body of the container. For side supports,
lifting trunnions or points are secured to the upper sides of the container body by two
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) lateral pivots and Ochsner handles composed of
two metal lateral wings (Sulo 2014; Weber 2006). Crane-compatible containers are
bottom discharge containers with a trapdoor(s) or cable opening bags; lift-
36 3 Technology Status of Waste Collection Systems

compatible containers have superior discharge capabilities by lid opening and

overturning.
Based on the developed classification, ten possible key container component
cases describe how the taxonomy works and exemplifies the components of the
container to be analyzed (Fig. 3.5):
Case 1. Surface, without wheels, without compaction, vehicle coupling
Case 2. Surface, with wheels, without compaction, lift vehicle coupling
Case 3. Surface, immobile, without compaction, lift vehicle coupling
Case 4. Surface, immobile, without compaction, crane vehicle coupling
Case 5. Semiunderground, without compaction, compact, crane vehicle coupling
Case 6. Underground, without compaction, compact, crane vehicle coupling
Case 7. Underground, without compaction, with opening platform, crane vehicle
coupling
Case 8. Underground, without compaction, with open and elevating platform con-
tainer access, lift vehicle coupling
Case 9. Underground, without compaction, with elevating platform container access,
lift vehicle coupling
Case 10. Underground, with compaction, with the open and elevating platform, hook
lift vehicle coupling
Case 1 containers are characterized by semitransparent plastic or paper bags or
non-wheeled bins, usually with two handles, a cover, and no vehicle lifting handles
and with a wide range of capacities, from 0.035 up to 0.11 m3 (Bilitewski et al. 1997;
ISWAWGCTT 2004). Ordinary grocery bags or biodegradable bags for organic
waste collection can also be used. Because they have no coupling system with the
collection vehicle, all the effort in lifting and disposing is by manual workers.
Case 2 containers include mobile garbage containers with two or four wheels. The
generic capacity of these containers goes from 0.12 to 1.1 m3 (Bilitewski et al. 1997;
Kogler 2007) although two-wheeled can start at 0.06 and go up to 0.36 and four-
wheeled between 0.66 and 1.1 m3 (Sulo 2014; Weber 2006). Lift vehicle coupling
containers have side and frontal handles and a flat or tilt-curved lid and may have a
lid opening system with a pedal or deposition opening adapted to the waste stream
(Contenur 2014; Sulo 2014; Weber 2006).
Case 3 steel or HDPE containers were developed for side-loading automated lifts,
with a vertical alignment crosshair and four Teflon roller supports at the base of the
body instead of wheels. They have an opening lid, or deposition opening adapted to
the waste stream. Capacities range between 1.8 and 3.2 m3 (Contenur 2014; Ros
Roca 2014).
Case 4 containers were designed for source-separated collection with a crane and
had two main designs: igloo and prismatic (Contenur 2014). Container openings are
located on the top, with specific designs for packaging waste type. A container frame
attaches the securing system directly to the metal base and to the lower lid using
support arms, rods, or clevis fasteners (OVO Solutions 2012b). Capacities range
between 2.5 and 3.2 m3 (Contenur 2014; OVO Solutions 2012b).
Case 5 refers to semiunderground, compact, one-ring crane coupling containers
composed of two parts: (1) the outer shell in HDPE and (2) an interior polypropylene
3.2 Waste Collection System Classification 37

bag where the waste is placed, fixed at the top of the container using a metal ring, and
opened by the action of a cable to discharge. Other possible options are a rigid plastic
container instead of the flexible bag (Molok 2009; Sopsa 2012) or a concrete
monobloc wheel in place of the HPDE outer shell (Sopsa 2012). These
cylindrical-shaped containers have a capacity range from 0.3 to 5 m3, being 3 and
5 m3 as the most common for municipal waste (Molok 2009).
Case 6 refers to the underground, entire/compact containers for crane vehicle
coupling, installed inside an underground watertight concrete bunker with a fixed
pedestrian platform in galvanized steel (Contenur 2014; OVO Solutions 2012b). At
surface level, only the inlet structure (column) and pedestrian platform are visible.
These containers are called compact containers because the column, container, and
pedestrian platform are a unit removed together. The stainless steel container is
emptied by one or more opening flaps underneath, designed to collect liquid.
Capacity ranges from 1 to 5 m3 (OVO Solutions 2012b).
Case 7 consists of underground containers with opening platform access, with
one ring crane vehicle coupling. Case 7 containers are distinguished from case 6 by
container access because the only element hoisted is the waste recipient, not the
compact container. Access to the waste recipient is ensured by the pedestrian
platform, which opens (in contrast to case 6) and has a manual hook engagement
to the ring container (Resolur 2013; Sotkon 2007). The platform power supply can
be hydraulic, electrohydraulic, or gas cylinders (Sotkon 2007; TNL 2014a).
Containers’ capacity ranges from 1 to 5 m3 (Resolur 2013; Sotkon 2007; TNL
2014a), which can be bottom discharged using a trapdoor located at the base or by
overturning using both vehicle coupling options, crane and adapted rear lift.
Case 8 consists of underground containers with open and elevating platforms for
container access and lift vehicle coupling, which stands on the platform and is
elevated to the surface level rather than discharged by automated lifting and side-
loading vehicles. Both platforms are powered by an electrohydraulic unit, activated
inside the vehicle cabin using a remote control (Contenur 2014; Equinord 2009;
TNL 2014b). Containers’ capacity ranges from 3.2 to 4 m3 (Contenur 2014; TNL
2014b).
Case 9 differs from case 8 in container access, in which case 9 is by an elevating
platform only. With a capacity range from 0.8 to 1 m3, the container is emptied by
semiautomated lifting rear-end loading vehicles (Contenur 2014; TNL 2014c). The
elevating platform is operated either by remote control console or independent
central electrohydraulic or collection vehicle (Contenur 2014; Equinord 2009;
TNL 2014c).
Case 10 consists of underground compaction containers with a top-loading
chamber, with openings and elevating platforms and hook lift vehicle coupling.
The elevating platform lifts the compacting container box up to the street level, and
the opening platform rotates on the back axle to facilitate container access (TNL
2014d). Both platforms are powered by an electrohydraulic power station (TNL
2014d). A system on the compaction plate controls the container’s filling rate, with
capacities between 12 and 25 m3 (Equinord 2009; Villiguer 2014).
38 3 Technology Status of Waste Collection Systems

Without (WoB)

(1) Except without body

Body Open (BO)
(2) Except hook lift
Closed (BC)

Mechanized hidraulic
packer plat/grid (P)

Body mechanization (1) Intermittent (CI)

With compactor

Continuous (CC)
Without mechanization
(WoM)
Vehicle

Without (WoL)
Simple hook (C1H)

Crane
Double hook (C2H)

Lift assisted (LiAs)

Double disc (CD)
Lifting mechanization
Lift automated (LiA)

Automated arm (AA)

Hook lift (HL)

Rear-end (LRe)

Loading location (2) Side (LS)

Not specific (LNS)

Fig. 3.6 Vehicle classification diagram. (Source: Rodrigues et al. (2016))

Vehicle Component

Vehicle class 2, presented in Fig. 3.6, is divided into subclass body (2.1), body
mechanization (2.2), lifting mechanization (2.3), and loading location (2.4). The
location waste determines if the body is discharged, which can be open, closed, or
nonexistent, in which case the whole container is put into the vehicle, as occurs in the
hauled collection. The open and closed body can be non-compartmented or
compartmented to separately collect two or more types of waste at the same time
(e.g., vertically split body, dual compartment), classified as multi-compartment or
3.2 Waste Collection System Classification 39

single compartment body, respectively. The body can be mechanized with different
structures (body mechanization), such as a sweep plate, grid, or a compactor, which
work continuously or intermittently. Also, lifting can be variously mechanized
(lifting mechanization) with hooks, lifts (forks, bars, or both), hook lifts, and
automated arms. Different lifting devices can be used in the same vehicle, classified
using the corresponding taxonomic characteristics. All crane-based lifting devices
can be interchangeable because they are non-fixed elements; using all in the same
vehicle is possible. Available options for loading location include rear-end, side, and
even nonspecific, as in the case of manual loading where the body is opened to
dispose waste bags. The proposed taxonomy is presented in Fig. 3.6.
The literature analysis found ten key vehicle components representing all possible
taxonomic components:
1. Body open, non-mechanized, crane lifting, not specific loading site
2. Body closed, mechanized packer plate/grid, lift assisted, rear-end loading site
3. Body closed, with intermittent compaction, lift assisted, rear-end loading site
4. Body closed, with intermittent compaction, crane lifting (and lift assisted), rear-
end loading site
5. Without body, hook lift
6. Body closed, with intermittent compaction, crane lifting, not specific loading
site
7. Body closed, with intermittent compaction, lift assisted, side-loading site
8. Body closed, with continuous compaction, lift assisted, rear-end loading site
9. Body closed, with intermittent compaction, lift automated, side-loading site
10. Body closed, with intermittent compaction, arm automated, side-loading site
Case 1 vehicles (Fig. 3.7a) are composed of an open box body and a hydraulic
crane, which can be manually operated from the crane footboard, on the floor, or
remotely. Different coupling systems can be installed on the crane, depending on
compatibility with different container crane vehicle coupling types.
Case 2 vehicles, also called as satellite units, are composed of a rear-loading
forklift mechanism and a simple hydraulic sweep plate or grid that clears the rear of
the hopper to provide load security and distribution inside the load box but provides
no compaction or semi-compaction (Heil Farid 2014; Ros Roca 2014).
Case 3 vehicles are composed of a hydraulically powered compression/ejection
plate, a load box, an articulated sweep plate, and a rear tailgate with a large hopper
capacity and a lifting mechanism (Ecofar 2013). Front or lateral support coupling
containers are raised by a loading fork that hooks onto the front of the container or by
retractable lift bars (Bilitewski et al. 1997), respectively. A moving plate scoops the
waste out from the loading hopper and compresses it against a moving wall
(intermittent compaction), with a leachate tank at the bottom of the body. With the
body full of waste, the compaction wall moves and ejects waste through an open
tailgate.
Case 4 vehicles (Fig. 3.7b) are similar to case 3 but have a telescopic crane, an
enlarged loading hopper, and a tailgate with a higher load volume to receive big
underground waste containers (Ros Roca 2014; Soma 2014) or discharge from
40 3 Technology Status of Waste Collection Systems

Fig. 3.7 Vehicle schematic illustrations. (a) Case 1 (Sotkon 2007), (b) case 4 (Sotkon 2007), and
(c) case 6 (Sotkon 2007). (Source: Rodrigues et al. (2016))

satellite vehicles. Containers are collected with the crane or with both crane and
adapted rear lift (Soma 2014).
Case 5 vehicles are designated as hook lift or container vehicles, mostly used to
collect high-volume containers. Underground compactor containers (container case
10) are lifted over the collection vehicle chassis with a hook lift system. These
demountable body handling technology vehicles are known by trademarks such as
“Ampliroll” and “Multilift.”
Case 6 vehicles (Fig. 3.7c) are composed of a self-contained waste compaction
mobile unit with a top-loading compacting chamber, where waste is unloaded and
compacted. The container body is fed by a longitudinal sliding drawer in the
compacting chamber through bottom tabs and unloaded by the tailgate, hydraulic,
or gravity-opened doors (Mofil 2014). A hydraulic crane collects containers.
Case 7 vehicles are side-loading vehicles with ejection plates, also called satellite
vehicles because a transfer system transfers the payload to a full-size rear loader
(Ecofar 2013; Heil 2014). These vehicles are a one-piece body construction in which
the waste processing and unloading are carried out by the hydraulic ejection panel
(Ecofar 2013). These vehicles may have single- or dual-side hopper doors for
manual loading operation or a side lift with a loading fork (Ecofar 2013; Heil 2014).
Case 8 vehicles are for continuous compaction, differentiated from case 3 by the
compaction system, which consists of a fixed compacting screw system in the rear
and a spiral screw conveyor inside the cylindrical body drum that continuously
mixes and compacts the entire load during collection (FAUN 2014).
In cases 9 and 10, the vehicles are automatic side lift or arm grabber, operated by
the driver inside the vehicle, using a joystick and a video system (Heil 2014; Heil
Farid 2014). The vehicle stops alongside the container, and the arm (single or
double) grabs the container, empties it, and replaces it automatically (Kogler
2007). A continuously reciprocating metal pusher plate at the loading hopper forces
the waste through an aperture into the main body, compacting against the material
already loaded.
3.2 Waste Collection System Classification 41

Container Vehicle Collection method

Vehicle coupling Lifting mechanization

Without Without Manual

Crane one ring Crane simple hook

Crane double ring Crane double hook Semi-automated

Crane mushroom Crane double disc

Lift frontal
Lift assisted Assisted
supports

Lift automated
Lift side supports
Automated arm Fully automated

Hooklift

Fig. 3.8 Collection method classification diagram. (Source: Rodrigues et al. (2016))

Collection Method Component

Collection method categories describe how the container interacts with the vehicle
and workforce. The collection method can be manual, assisted, semiautomated, and
fully automated. Manual collection occurs when the worker carries, lifts, and
unloads waste bins or bags into the vehicle. Assisted collection is a mix of manual
and mechanical processes in which the container displacement near the vehicle is
manual and mechanization occurs only in the lifting and emptying by the vehicle.
Semiautomated collection is a mechanized process of all steps involved in collection
procedure, but the worker must be outside the vehicle to control the coupling and
provide manual assistance on vehicle-container coupling and uncoupling. Fully
automated collection involves no direct intervention of workers, and the container-
vehicle interaction is controlled by a single operator inside the vehicle cabin.
A relation between container and vehicle components is needed to classify WCS
by collection methods. Because collection methods are related to mechanization and
provide a link between container and vehicle, the features to be addressed are
container-vehicle coupling and vehicle lifting mechanization (Fig. 3.8).
42 3 Technology Status of Waste Collection Systems

Key Collection Methods

The key container and vehicle components can characterize the four key collection
methods. Manual collection occurs for containers classified as surface, without
wheels, and without vehicle coupling (e.g., bags and bins without wheels) and
collected by vehicles classified as open body, non-mechanized body, without lifting
or specific loading tools, or closed body, with intermittent compaction and lifting
mechanization, which is not used.
In the assisted collection method, wheeled mobile surface containers with lift
vehicle coupling frontal or lateral supports are rolled by the workers to the collection
vehicle, which can have an intermittent or continuous compactor, semiautomated
lifting, and a rear, frontal, or side-loading location. Three or more workers are
usually needed for assisted and manual collection.
Semiautomated collection methods can use underground containers with platform
access and crane vehicle coupling, collected by vehicles with the closed or open
body or an intermittent compactor or non-mechanized body with a hook lifting or
double-disc rear loading or nonspecific location. Two workers (driver and crane
operator) are usually sufficient, although a single operator can control the double-
disc system.
Fully automated collection methods have no direct intervention of workers
because the driver inside the vehicle operates all collection processes. An example
is a surface container without wheels, with side supports, collected by a closed-body
vehicle with intermittent compaction and automated lifting and side loading. Fully or
semiautomated collection methods are also characterized by a relatively higher
container capacity than assisted or manual collection methods, which are workforce
dependent.

References

Bautista J, Pereira J (2006) Modeling the problem of locating collection areas for urban waste
management an application to the metropolitan area of Barcelona. Omega 34:617–629
Bilitewski B, Hardtle G, Marek K (1997) Waste management. Springer, Berlin
Bilitewski B, Wagner J Reichenbach J (2010) Best practice municipal waste management. Federal
Environmental Agency, Intecus
Bilitewski B, Wagner J, Reichenbach J (2018) Best practice municipal waste management.
Umweltbundesamt, pdf publication: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen
Contenur (2014) Catalogue contenur. http://www.contenur.com/en/. Accessed 15 Feb 2014
Dahlén L, Lagerkvist A (2010) Evaluation of recycling programmes in household waste collection
systems. Waste Manag Res 28:577–586
Diaz LF, Savage GM, Eggerth LL (2005) Solid waste management. United Nations Environment
Programme, Paris
Ecofar (2013) Products Ecofar. http://www.ecofar.it/getcontent.aspx?nID¼3&l¼en. Accessed
1 Mar 2014
Equinord (2009) Products Equinord. http://www.equinord.com/web/Default.aspx. Accessed 16 Feb
2014
References 43

European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2014) CEN/TC 183/WG 1 – waste containers.
http://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p¼204:32:0::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:7293,25&
cs¼1963AB0E62521CCFF7015C670244E3A73. Accessed 10 Feb 2014
Faccio M, Persona A, Zanin G (2011) Waste collection multi objective model with real time
traceability data. Waste Manag 31:2391–2405
FAUN (2014) Rear loaders. https://www.faun.com/en/home/refuse-collection-vehicles/rear-
loaders.html. Accessed 5 Mar 2014
Gallardo A, Bovea MD, Colomer FJ, Prades M (2012) Analysis of collection systems for sorted
househould waste in Spain. Waste Manag 32:1623–1633
Gonzalez-Torre P L, Adenso-Dıaz B, Ruiz-Torres A (2003). Some comparative factos regarding
recycling collection systems in regions of the USA and Europe. J Environ Manag 69:129–138
Groot J, Bing X, Bos-Brouwers H, Bloemhof-Ruwaard J (2014) A comprehensive waste collection
cost model applied to post-consumer plastic packaging waste. Resour Conserv Recycl 85:79–87
Heil (2014) Rear loaders. http://www.heil.com/#. Accessed 5 Mar 2014
Heil Farid (2014) Product groups. http://www.heilfarid.eu.com/heil-farid-products/product-groups.
Accessed 1 Mar 2014
Iriarte A, Gabarrell X, Rieradevall J (2009) LCA of selective waste collection systems in dense
urban areas. Waste Manag 29:903–914
ISWA Working Group on Collection and Transportation Technology (ISWAWGCTT) (2004)
Overview of household collection systems in different cities and regions. Report for the
International Solid Waste Association
Johansson OM (2006) The effect of dynamic scheduling and routing in a solid waste management
system. Waste Manag 26:875–885
Kinshofer (2014) Container discharge units. Kinshofer. http://www.kinshofer.com/eng/index.php/
en/crane-3/domestic-waste/container-discharge-units. Accessed 1 Mar 2014
Kogler T (2007) Waste collection – a report with support from ISWA Working Group on Collection
and Transportation Technology. Report for the International Solid Waste Association
Mofil (2014) Mofil monobloc compactors. http://www.mofilpt/fich_up/compactador%2015m3.pdf.
Accessed 17 Feb 2014
Molok (2009) Products Molok. http://www.molok.com/main.php?loc_id¼8. Accessed 20 Feb
2014
O’Leary PR (1999) Decision maker’s guide to solid waste management, 2nd edn. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, RCRA Information Center,
Washington, DC
OVO Solutions (2012a) Underground systems. http://www.ovosolutions.com/363/underground-
systems.htm. Accessed 10 Mar 2014
OVO Solutions (2012b) Cyclea. http://www.ovosolutions.com/47/cyclea.htm. Accessed 15 Feb
2014
Petersen CHM, Berg PEO (2004) Use of recycling stations in Borlänge, Sweden – volume weights
and attitudes. Waste Manag 24:911–918
Pieber MK (2004) Waste collection from urban households in Europe and Australia. Waste Manag
World: July-August 2004, 111–124
Poulsen OM, Niels OB, Niels E, Ase MH, Ulla II, Lelieveld D, Malmros P, Matthiasen L,
Nielsen BH, Nielsen EM, Schibye B, Skov T, Stenbaek EI, Wilkins CK (1995) Collection of
domestic waste – review of occupational health problems and their possible causes. Sci Total
Environ 170:1–19
Resolur (2013) Advantages (in Spanish: Ventajas). http://www.soterrado.es/index.html. Accessed
1 Mar 2014
Rhyner CR, Schwartz LJ, Wenger RB, Kohrell MG (1995) Waste management and resource
recovery. CRC Press/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton
Rodrigues S, Martinho G, Pires A (2016) Waste collection systems part a: a taxonomy. J Clean Prod
113:374–387
44 3 Technology Status of Waste Collection Systems

Ros Roca (2014) Products Ros Roca. http://www.rosroca.com/en/products/integral-waste-collec

tion.html. Accessed 15 Feb 2014
Soma (2014) USW containers. http://www.soma.pt/old/english/products/residuossolidos/caixasrsu/
hallerx2c.html. Accessed 5 Mar 2014
Sonesson U (2000) Modelling of waste collection – a general approach to calculate fuel consump-
tion and time. Waste Manag Res 18:115–123
Sopsa (2012) Products semi underground. http://www.sopsa.pt/en/node/250. Accessed 20 Feb 2014
Sotkon (2007) Mbe Sotkon – Underground containers for MSW – Technical description
(in Spanish: Mbe Sotkon – Contenedores Subterráneos para RSU – Memória Técnica). http://
www.construnario.com/catalogo/mbe-sotkon-sl/catalogos. Accessed 15 Oct 2010
Sulo (2014) Products. http://www.sulo.com/index.php/en. Accessed 15 Feb 2014
Tanskanen J, Melanen M (1999) Modelling separation strategies of municipal solid waste in
Finland. Waste Manag Res 17:80–92
Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil S (1993) Integrated solid waste management: engineering
principles and management issues. McGraw-Hill, New York
TNL (2014b) Waste system Sidetainer. TNL. http://static.lvengine.net/tnl/Imgs/articles/article_70/
sideTAINER_TNL_EN_v3.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2014
TNL (2014c) Waste system ecotainer. TNL. http://static.lvengine.net/tnl/Imgs/articles/article_69/
ecoTAINER_TNL_EN_v3.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2014
TNL (2014d) Waste system bigtainer. TNL. http://static.lvengine.net/tnl/Imgs/articles/article_78/
590bigTAINER_TNL_EN_v3_1.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2014
Uriarte FA (2008) Solid waste management: principles and practices. The University of the
Philippines Press, Quezon City
Villiger (2014). Sub-Vil: the Idea to Make Waste Disappear Underground. Villiger. http://www.
villiger.com/sub-vil-en.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2014
Weber (2006) Products Weber. http://www.w-weber.com/engl/start.html. Accessed 15 Feb 2014
Chapter 4
Preparation for Reusing, Recycling,
Recovering, and Landfilling: Waste
Hierarchy Steps After Waste Collection

Abstract The less useful operations in accordance to waste hierarchy principle will
be driven in this section. Reusing, recycling, treating, and landfilling are all
operation options for waste, which need to be considered regarding its impact on
the environment and how their management can potentiate a better use of resources.
A brief review on the concepts is presented, in the light of European waste manage-
ment definitions and existing technologies.

Keywords WHP · MSW · Upcycling · Downcycling · Incineration · Biological

treatment · End-of-waste criteria

4.1 Waste Hierarchy Principle: All After Becoming Waste

The management options when products become waste are vast, although the
hierarchy is quite similar between them. In the “hierarchy of resource use” of
Gharfalkar et al. (2015), waste should be managed following the preference order:
• Preparing for reuse is referent to options of cleaning, checking, repairing after the
product has become waste, and making the object be used again as for the same
purpose (like in definition of Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC).
• Reuse via resale of used, repaired, refurbished, reconditioned, or remanufactured
products; reuse via renting, leasing, or servitization of products; and reuse
without any further operation (secondhand, thirdhand, always with owners
changing).
• Reprocessing: upcycling, recycling, and downcycling.
• Other recovery: recovery of energy and recovery of other substances or materials
to be used as fuels or for backfilling.
• Rectification: considered for treatment before disposal.
• Return: disposal of waste.
• Waste exports: waste exports are seen as waste trafficking, considered by Bartl
(2014) where waste exports are not in light with the global system with finite
resources and where countries may divert waste from their landfills and send them
to less developed countries.

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 45

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_4
46 4 Preparation for Reusing, Recycling, Recovering, and Landfilling:. . .

Fig. 4.1 Municipal solid waste generated and type of treatment, in 2014. (Source of data: Eurostat
(2017))

For food waste management, Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) defined a waste

hierarchy to help on its sustainable management, regarding avoiding food waste
and food loss in the life cycle of food production. The waste hierarchy proposed
presents the following order of operations (Papargyropoulou et al. 2014):
• Reuse: which includes food for human consumption, for people affected by food
poverty through redistribution networks and food banks.
• Recycling: recycle food waste into animal feed and via composting.
• Recovery: treat unavoidable food waste and recovery energy, including anaerobic
digestion.
• Disposal: dispose unavoidable food waste into the sanitary landfill with landfill
gas extraction and recovery.
The diversity of waste hierarchy options shows how essential and discussible is
the definition of the most sustainable correct direction to follow when managing
waste. To better present the treatment options possible to waste, the defintions on
waste hierarchy at Waste Framework Directive will be followed in the next sections.
Waste Framework Directive divides waste hierarchy into management for waste
in preparing for reuse, recycling, and disposal. The management of waste generated
at European Union is presented in Fig. 4.1. The analysis shows that there is no
statistical information on waste send for “preparing for reuse,” being mixed with the
recycling operation, which will be the dominant operation. Also, 54.6% of municipal
waste (excluding imports and export of waste) for the 28 countries of European
Union is sending for recycling, 25.3% for landfilling, 13.6% for energy recovery,
4.4% for incineration (without energy recovery), 1.7% for backfilling, and 0.4% for
other disposal operation (Eurostat 2017). Recycling is, in fact, the leading solution
4.2 Preparing for Reuse 47

for waste, but landfill has a relevant role in the integrated waste management. More
than half of the countries are preferring recycling operation in opposition to the other
waste management operation options, being the recycling leaders the countries
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Slovenia, with recycling rates above 70%. Landfilling
is still the preferred destination for countries like Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Spain,
Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Romania, and Slovakia.

4.2 Preparing for Reuse

The definition of preparing for reuse from Waste Framework Directive includes the
“checking, cleaning or repairing recovery operations, by which products or compo-
nents of products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be re-used
without any other pre-processing.” The definition considered in European Union
legislation requires that the product has become waste, i.e., it has entered a collection
system to be discarded or delivers it to another entity to get rid of it. The frontier of
the owner defines the difference between being a waste prevention measure and
preparing for reuse measure.
There have been different approaches to promote preparing for reuse. European
legislation (and subsequent transpose to the national law of Member States) includes
targets of preparation for reuse together with recycling for several waste materials,
plastic, paper, glass, metal from and households, and for construction and demolition
waste. Market-based instruments applied to preparing for reuse are deposit-refund
systems and extended producer responsibility instrument. For several years in
Portugal, before the entrance of compliance management for packaging waste,
glass bottles were subjected to deposit-refund systems, to be collected and refilled
again. Under the responsibility inherent at extended producer responsibility, the
manufacturers can develop their products under design for disassembly, making
products adequate to be, at waste phase, reparable to others to use them, at second-
hand market or donations. Information campaigns on preparing for reuse also occur
through the elaboration of indicators and awareness campaigns. Voluntary instru-
ments such as norms, standards, and guidelines to conduct verification and guarantee
for the electric and electronic waste are also being applied in European countries. In
the UK, the PAS 141:2011 standard sets out the requirements for preparing waste
electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) for reuse, including suggestions for
handling, tracking, segregating, storing, and protecting the appliances and its com-
ponents for the preparation for reuse (Lu et al. 2018). In Flanders region of Belgium
exists the standard for reuse of WEEE from Public Waste Agency of Flanders
(OVAM), where environmental criteria are also considered, namely, the energy
labeling to improve the environmental performance of reused appliance (Lu et al.
2018). In Germany, the standard VDI 2343 – recycling of electrical and electronic
equipment – also allows promoting the benefits of reuse. Bovea et al. (2016) have
developed a protocol specific for small WEEE from households, classifying appli-
ances by potential reuse and the tests to be conducted, being based in other protocols
48 4 Preparation for Reusing, Recycling, Recovering, and Landfilling:. . .

Fig. 4.2 Proposed methodology for the preparation for reuse of small WEEE. (Source: Adapted
from Bovea et al. (2016))

already existing. In Fig. 4.2 the protocol is presented. The first step is the visual
inspection, which should be done following PAS 141; the function test verifies if the
appliance is operating according to its functions; the safety test verifies the aspects
related to electrical, mechanical, and thermal risks; and the reuse protocols will
define the reuse potential and which operations to be made to the appliances are to be
reused (Bovea et al. 2016).

4.3 Recycling

Recycling means “any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed
into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes.
It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery
and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling
operations” (European Waste Framework 2008/98/EC). Looking at Fig. 4.3,
European countries most devoted to recycling (i.e., where waste generated is mostly
sent for recycling) are Belgium, Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Slovenia, just
to name a few, and countries with low waste recycling are, for example, Bulgaria,
Estonia, and Romania.
Three types of recycling can be described: upcycling, recycling, and
downcycling. The main difference of those definitions will be addressed in the
next subsections.
4.3 Recycling 49

Fig. 4.3 Recycling of municipal solid waste in European countries. (Source of data: Eurostat
(2017))

4.3.1 Upcycling

According to Cohen and Robbins (2011), upcycling was firstly introduced by William
McDonough and Michael Braungart on the book “Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the
Way We Make Things” as “the practice of taking something that is disposable and
transforming it into something of greater use and value (McDonought and Braungart
(2002)).” Other definitions also go on the same concept, increasing value. Upcycling is
referent to processes that can increase the value of the recycled material over time,
where the recycled material is reemployed for a more significant use or with a higher
environmental value (Chandler and Werther 2014). Another view of upcycling is the
one brought by Huysman et al. (2017), occurring when, for example, the plastic is of
good quality but is used to replace another material that presents a higher environ-
mental burden when compared to the virgin plastic.
To achieve upcycling concept, the industry needs to avoid the use of harmful sub-
stances and materials, recycle and upcycle for the continuous life of the products
manufactured, decrease the consumption of energy and water, and also pay fair wages
to employees (DeLong et al. 2017). Cases of upcycling are making purses out of used
tires or used spare parts from end-of-life vehicles (McKenna et al. 2013), turning curtains
into garments, or making old pair of jeans into a bag (Hjelmgren et al. 2015). In this cases,
upcycling imposes the conversion of the product into other more valuable products.
However, upcycling may also occur inside the same product. In the case study presented
by Niero et al. (2017), a methodology to promote eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness for
aluminum cans of Carlsberg intends to upcycle the can continuously, in which every time
that the can is recycled, it improved.
One of the areas of upcycling is being discussed in the textile sector. Waste
textiles have been considered a waste stream needing better-dedicated management.
Hjelmgren et al. (2015) identified the barriers to a large-scale upcycling of clothing
in Swedish clothing sector as the shortage of suitable production facilities which are
located outside Sweden and the need for significant amount of waste materials to
make production and transportation efficient, just to name a few (Table 4.1).
50 4 Preparation for Reusing, Recycling, Recovering, and Landfilling:. . .

Table 4.1 Barriers to upcycling textile waste

Products Production facilities
Costs due to capital tied in inventory Transportation costs and lost/reduced value that
is created from an environmental perspective
due to the transportation of finished products,
or high manufacturing costs due to small-scale
Costs for producing clothes which are not in Costs of inventories
demand
Reduced perceived value of products using the When using a highly specialized production
same brand name as the product made of waste facility, production of products made of waste
material material has a significant negative impact on
the utilization of the facility.
The need for distributors to change their pur-
chasing routines.
Concerns about sanitation of used clothes
Fibers origin The lack of transparency and traceability in the
supply chain concerning the fibers origin (the
input material), to deal with potential perceived
risks that traces of hazardous substances
Sources: Hjelmgren et al. (2015); Meyers (2014); Watson et al. (2017)

4.3.2 Recycling

In recycling, the process used to recycle the waste maintains its value over time.
Recycling cases occur when the waste materials are recycled again into the initial
products, i.e., in the cases of closed-loop recycling. Cases of recycling or also of
closed-loop recycling are glass recycling, where the glass can be recycled several
amounts of times without losing its properties. Herat (2008) compared a recycling
(closed loop) and a downcycling (open loop into a lower-value product) of cathode-
ray tube (CRT) glass. The closed-loop solution for CRT glass was glass-to-glass
recycling, where the process allowed to obtain leaded and unleaded CRT glass. The
open cycling tested was glass-to-lead recycling, where CRT glass was subjected to a
smelting process, recovering lead and copper. Glass-to-glass recycling has barriers
such as the difference in CRT glass composition due to different producers, high
labor cost of dismantling, cheap and ready availability of other recycled glass, and
high collection costs from significant barriers (Herat 2008).

4.3.3 Downcycling

Downcycling is a recycling process where the value of the recycled material

decreases over time, being used in less valued processes, with lesser quality material
and with changes in inherent properties, when compared to its original use (Ashby
et al. 2007; Chandler and Werther 2014; Geyer et al. 2015). Cases of downcycling
4.3 Recycling 51

are recycling of printing paper into toilet paper (McKenna et al. 2013). Most of the
time, the actual recycling of municipal waste streams (e.g., paper/cardboard, plastic)
is considered more like a downcycling and not recycling. Such is related to the poor
design of products, which are not conceived to be recycled and disassembled, and
end-of-life management of products and materials, getting contaminated with other
substances or materials, leading to recycled materials with low quality, limiting the
applications of those materials (de Aguiar et al. 2017; Reuter et al. 2013).
A particular case of downcycling is the one related with recycled aggregates from
construction and demolition waste. Recycled aggregates are results from concrete
crushing, sieving, and decontamination (if needed), being adequate for use as bulk
fill, fill in drainage, sub-base or base material in road construction, and also aggre-
gate for a new concrete (Florea and Brouwers 2013; Hansen 2002). The first three
operations use downcycling, being the most applied operation to recycled construc-
tion and demolition waste in Europe (Florea and Brouwers 2013; Hansen and
Lauritzen 2004). Countries like Belgium and the Netherlands are facing the problem
of aggregate market saturation, where the use of such recycled material is no longer
applicable, due to its low quality, and the applications of such low quality material is
ceasing (viz. road construction) (Di Maria et al. 2018; Hu et al. 2013). The only way
to move from downcycling into recycling is by improving the quality of recycled
aggregates, by removing impurities by advanced recycling techniques, or by selec-
tive demolition of buildings, which includes the progressive dismantling of the
buildings, although the high costs of such procedure are not promoting it
(Di Maria et al. 2018).

4.3.4 Recycling Challenges

One of the main drawbacks of the recycling is the difficulty in promoting a

homogenous market for recyclates and other products made of waste (including
other recovery at Sect. 4.4), in such a way that the industry could have trust on the
waste products and where the bureaucracy related to waste transportation and
management could be softer. Waste Framework Directive intended to promote the
introduction of waste products in the economy by defining the end-of-waste criteria
for specific waste, where waste products could respect specific requirements to
ensure that they are secondary raw material for the industry. These requirements
are (European Parliament and Council 2008):
• “the substance or object is commonly used for specific purposes;
• a market or demand exists for such a substance or object;
• the substance or object fulfills the technical requirements for the specific purposes
and meets the existing legislation and standards applicable to products; and
• the use of the substance or object will not lead to overall adverse environmental or
human health impacts.”
52 4 Preparation for Reusing, Recycling, Recovering, and Landfilling:. . .

End-of-waste criteria are to be applied to specific waste streams, being the Joint
Research Centre responsible for its selection. The ones selected so far are
(Villanueva et al. 2010):
1. Streams used as feedstock in industrial processes, a pathway that most often
controls the risks of health and environmental damage via industrial permits. The
streams identified in this subcategory are:
• Metal scrap of iron and steel, aluminum, copper
• Plastics
• Paper
• Textiles
• Glass
• Metal scrap of zinc, lead, and tin
• Other metals
2. Streams used in applications that imply direct exposure to the environment.
In these cases, the EoW criteria to be developed in the further assessment shall
probably include limit values for pollutant content or leaching, taking into
account any possible adverse environmental and health effects. The streams in
this subcategory are:
• C&D waste aggregates
• Ashes and slag
• Biodegradable waste materials stabilized for recycling
3. Streams that may be in line with the EoW principles. However, it is not clear in all
cases that (a) their current management in the EU takes place via recycling or
(b) that recycling is a priority compared to controlled energy recovery or
landfilling in suitable facilities. More detailed information is needed about their
subfractions and their available outlets before they opt for selection. By the results
collected, the waste streams proposed for this category are solid waste fuels,
wood, waste oil, tires, and solvents.

4.3.5 Remarks

An aspect that should be highlighted when identifying those recycling measures is

the missing concept of value. What is a more significant value than the initial one? Is
the market value of final products made with recycled materials? Alternatively, are
regarding environmental impacts? Alternatively, in the destination regarding market,
but not regarding market value but regarding demand – a more valuable product can
be made of recycled materials, but the demand for it can be too low, not allowing an
adequate avoidance of virgin resources by replacing them with the recycled material.
For that reason, maybe it is better to mention quality and not value.
Identifying which is the route of the waste being managed can be hard. Even end-
of-waste criteria defined by the Waste Framework Directive only want the waste to
4.4 Other Recovery 53

be a product and define its features, although it is not helpful in this area. Again, the
hierarchy of recycling options probably requires other methodologies to help to
understand the more sustainable ones and such recycling process compared to the
other waste operation from the waste hierarchy.

4.4 Other Recovery

Other recovery management option means (European Parliament and Council 2008):
Any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing
other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfill a particular function, or
waste being prepared to fulfill that function, in the plant or the wider economy.

In other recovery, the most spread technology is waste-to-energy (WtE).

Depending on which side of the world, the type of technologies included in WtE
varies. In Asian countries, WtE includes physical, thermal, chemical, and biological
techniques (Pan et al. 2015). Concerning municipal solid waste, the most devoted
WtE techniques are co-combustion, co-digestion, and fermentation/compost, being
generated by biogas, heat- and refuse-derived fuel, presented in Fig. 4.4.
There are particular situations on recovery technologies at European Union, in the
light of waste hierarchy. One case is defining when energy recovery vs. incineration
is occurring, and the second case is when biological treatment (in this case by
anaerobic digestion) is recovery or recycling. Those situations are particularly
relevant when targets need to be fulfilled by European countries, this way, respecting
the European legislation.

Fig. 4.4 Technology tree for WtE techniques. (Source: Pan et al. (2015))
54 4 Preparation for Reusing, Recycling, Recovering, and Landfilling:. . .

Table 4.2 Average energy recovery efficiency, according to R1 formula, by type of plant in
Europe
Average energy recovery efficiency
Type of plants (R1 formula) Average waste flow (t/y)
CHP plants 0.71 230,000
Mainly electricity- 0.49 150,000
producing plants
Mainly heat-producing 0.64 90,000
plants
Source: Grosso et al. (2010)

Looking at incineration, the Directive 2008/987EC defines that it is a case of

energy recovery through the definition of efficiency by R1 formula (Eq. 4.1). The
units in operation before 1 January 2009 capable of reaching 0.60 of energy
efficiency (equal or above) and units permitted after 31 December 2008 capable to
reach 0.65 of energy efficiency are units where energy recovery occurs. The rest of
the units not capable of doing it are making incineration (a disposal operation). This
situation has made several incineration plants that do not recover the heat directly but
for electric energy use without being capable of meeting the energy efficiency, which
is the case of incineration plants in Portugal. In 2014, the energy recovery of
municipal solid waste was 471 thousand tons, when incineration was 998 thousand
tons (Eurostat 2017), showing the difficulty in increasing efficiency of electricity-
producing plants in reaching the required efficiency. According to Table 4.2, the
average energy recovery of efficiency by the R1 formula for electric energy produc-
tion units is 49%. The R1 formula is given by Grosso et al. (2010):

E p  ðE f  E i Þ
Efficiency ¼ ð4:1Þ
0:97  ðE w  E f Þ

“where Ep is the annual energy produced as heat or electricity. It is calculated with

energy in the form of electricity (Eel) being multiplied by 2.6 and heat produced for
commercial use (Eth) multiplied by 1.1 (GJ/year). In formula it results:

E p ¼ 1:1  E th þ 2:6  E el

Ef is the annual energy input to the system from fuels, contributing to the
production of steam (GJ/year); it is obtained by summing the products of each fuel
flow by its net calorific value (NCV):
X
Ef ¼ mfuel, i  NCVfuel, i

Ew is the annual energy contained in the treated waste calculated using its lower
net calorific value (GJ/year):

E w ¼ mwaste  NCVwaste
4.5 Disposal 55

Ei is the annual energy imported, excluding Ew and Ef (GJ/year); 0.97 is a factor

accounting for energy losses due to bottom ash and radiation.”
The issue of anaerobic digestion is concerning the capability of digestate to meet
the recycling definition, i.e., in producing a product. Here, also the composting is
included in the discussion. The products of composting and anaerobic digestions
are compost or digestate which, according to the Commission Decision 2011/753/
EU (Commission 2011), is used as recycled product, material, or substance for
land treatment resulting in a benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement
(European Commission 2017). The issue here is on when the anaerobic digestion
or composting processes are included in mechanical-biological treatment units,
which are treating residual waste or mixed waste, i.e., municipal waste which has
not been source separated. In those units, only if the owner of the unit can prove
that the produced compost or digestate brings a benefit to agriculture or ecological
improvement can it be seen as a product and, in that case, a recycling operation
(European Commission 2017). The way to prove such benefit is made through the
compliance with national norms and standard for compost and digestate, which is
defined by each European country.
Eurostat is focusing on the presentation of recovery as the main incineration
including energy recovery. The recovery rates vary from 1% from Bulgaria and
Greece to more than 30% for countries like Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg,
Finland, and Sweden (Eurostat 2017).

4.5 Disposal

Disposal definition considered is “any operation which is not recovery even where
the operation has as a secondary consequence the reclamation of substances or
energy.” The disposal is the last option for waste, in the light of waste hierarchy
but also of the circular economy, because the waste material will get lost to the
economy but also the environment, not being available to replace virgin materials.
Ways defined to avoid the disposal management option of waste have been defined
by policy instruments, like bans of materials from landfill, higher landfill and
incineration fees for recyclable materials, and the use of policy instrument to
promote the other waste management hierarchy options.
The two most known and spread disposal techniques are engineering (also
sanitary) landfills and incineration (without energy recovery). Figure 4.5 shows the
countries Spain, the UK, Poland, France, Italy, Germany, and Bulgaria with consid-
erable annual amounts of municipal waste sent to landfill and incineration without
energy recovery in 2014. On the other hand, other countries like Luxembourg have
no landfilling, no incineration without energy recovery, and no other disposal.
The dependence of landfilling has made countries to divert waste from this
operation, namely, by landfill taxes and taxes for specific waste features going to
landfill. Another perspective to reduce the environmental impact from landfills is its
mining. Landfill mining has been used all over the world in the last 62 years; it
started in 1953 in Israel and rapidly spread to the USA, Canada, India, and several
56 4 Preparation for Reusing, Recycling, Recovering, and Landfilling:. . .

Fig. 4.5 Waste disposal destinations in European countries. (Source of data: Eurostat (2017))

countries in Europe like Germany, Sweden, Belgium, and Italy (Hogland et al. 2004;
Kurian et al. 1999; Jones et al. 2013). Landfill mining is being addressed as the new
source of raw materials for Europe. However, landfill mining can have other drivers
that have justified it. The needs to recover the land for added value activities like
construction, to remove waste and stabilize hazardous fractions, to extend landfill
capacity, to generate revenues from materials obtained and fuel for energy produc-
tion, and to reduce landfill closure costs are drivers to the landfill mining
(Collivignarelli et al. 1997; USEPA 1997).
Although all the drivers promoting landfill mining, most of the time, this oper-
ation is not economically feasible, leading to the concept of “temporary stage,”
where materials without value to be mined are conditionally stored (Breure et al.
2018; Jones et al. 2013). Besides the pragmatic economic affordable issue, other
barriers such as misleading and missing legislation, shortage of environmental
standards for the materials to be explored, shortage of best available techniques
that support the technical operation of a landfill mining activity, lacking of stan-
dardization of safety and health, public skepticism, the missing of studies and life
cycle assessment showing the environmental benefit of landfill mining, and the
decreasing of recoverable waste in landfills are to be solved to enable landfill mining
to be a reality (Pires et al. 2016).

4.6 Final Remarks

Using the waste hierarchy ordination of waste operations to manage municipal solid
waste (or another type of waste) may be a challenge and can be costly, and the
environmental benefit can be questioned. Aspects related to infrastructure location,
features of material to be recycled, and quality of recycled material as well as of
References 57

waste-derived fuel can dictate different destinations that may impose different
impacts on the environment, different financial resources, and different revenues
that have made researchers doubt the waste hierarchy. One thing is sure: waste
hierarchy helps to save resources. Although waste hierarchy seems static, the
concepts of the waste operations prioritized are not closed and in continuing update,
as long as technology also evolves.
Research on waste hierarchy and how the waste collection can contribute to the
hierarchy is needed. European regulations are based on the scientific evidence that
source separation of waste is a requirement to ensure recycling, being this aspect
more determinant of the biodegradable municipal waste. If biodegradable municipal
waste is not source separated, the quality of compost of digestate is questioned, not
ensuring the occurred recycling but recovery only. For other materials, the mechan-
ical processing of mixed waste is capable of bringing high amounts of recyclable
waste that citizens are not source separating, making more material available for
recycling, although with a loss of quality. An analysis of the entire life cycle of the
waste – from the source of the waste as a product until the last destination – is
required to ensure that the best destination is given regarding sustainability.

References

Ashby M, Shercliff H, Cebon D (2007) Materials: engineering science processing and design.
Elsevier, Amsterdam
Bartl A (2014) Ways and entanglements of the waste hierarchy. Waste Manag 34:1–2
Bovea MD, Ibáñez-Forés V, Pérez-Belis V, Quemades-Beltrán P (2016) Potential reuse of small
household waste electrical and electronic equipment: methodology and case study. Waste
Manag 53:204–217
Breure AM, Lijzen JPA, Maring L (2018) Soil and land management in a circular economy.
Sci Total Environ 624:1125–1130
Chandler D, Werther WB (2014) Strategic corporate social responsibility – stakeholders, globali-
zation, and sustainable value creation. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks
Cohen N, Robbins P (eds) (2011) Green business – an A-to-Z guide. SAGE Publications,
Los Angeles
Collivignarelli C, Baldi M, Bertanza G, Bina S, Conti F (1997) Characterisation of waste from
landfill mining: case studies. In: Christensen TH, Cossu R, Stegmann R (eds) Proceedings
Sardinia 97, sixth international landfill symposium. CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engeneering
Centre, Cagliari
Commission (2011) Commission decision of 18 November 2011 establishing rules and calculation
methods for verifying compliance with the targets set in Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/98/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council. Off J Eur Union L310:11–16
de Aguiar J, de Oliveira L, da Silva JO, Bond D, Scalice RK, Becker D (2017) A design tool to
diagnose product recyclability during product design phase. J Clean Prod 141:219–229
DeLong M, Casto MA, Min S, Goncu-Berk G (2017) Exploring an up-cycling design process for
apparel design education. Fash Pract 9:48–68
Di Maria A, Eyckman J, van Acker K (2018) Downcycling versus recycling of construction and
demolition waste: combining LCA and LCC to support sustainable policy making. Waste
Manag https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.028 75:3–21
58 4 Preparation for Reusing, Recycling, Recovering, and Landfilling:. . .

European Parliament, Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directive. Off J L312:3–30
European Commission (2017) Guidance on municipal waste data collection – Eurostat Unit E2
Environmental statistics and accounts, sustainable development. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
documents/342366/351811/Municipal+Waste+guidance/bd38a449-7d30-44b6-a39f-
8a20a9e67af2. Accessed 15 Feb 2018
Eurostat (2017) Waste management indicators. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/
index.php/Waste_management_indicators. Accessed 10 Apr 2018
Florea MVA, Brouwers HJH (2013) Properties of various size fractions of crushed concrete related
to process conditions and re-use. Cem Concr Res 52:11–21
Geyer R, Kucenski B, Zink T, Henderson A (2015) Common misconceptions about recycling. J Ind
Ecol 20:101–1017
Gharfalkar M, Court R, Campbell C, Ali Z, Hillier G (2015) Analysis of waste hierarchy in the
European waste directive 2008/98/EC. Waste Manag 39:305–313
Grosso M, Motta A, Rigamonti L (2010) Efficiency of energy recovery from waste incineration, in
the light of the new Waste Framework Directive. Waste Manag 30:1238–1243
Hansen TC (2002) Products, codes, standards, and testing methods for recycled aggregate concrete.
In: Hansen TC (ed) Recycling of demolished concrete and masonry. Taylor & Francis, Oxon, pp
109–122
Hansen TC, Lauritzen E (2004) Concrete waste in a global perspective. In: Liu TC, Meyer C (eds)
Recycling concrete and other materials for sustainable development. American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, pp 35–45
Herat S (2008) Recycling of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) in electronic waste. Clean (Weinh) 36:19–24
Hjelmgren D, Salomonson N, Ekström KM (2015) Upcycling of pre-consumer waste – opportuni-
ties and barriers in the furniture and clothing industries. In: Ekström KM (ed) Waste manage-
ment and sustainable consumption – reflections on consumer waste. Routledge, Oxon
Hogland W, Marques M, Nimmermark S (2004) Landfill mining and waste characterization: a
strategy for remediation of contaminated areas. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 6:119–124
Hu M, Kleijn R, Bozhilova-Kisheva K, Di Maio F (2013) An approach to LCSA: the case of
concrete recycling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1793–1803
Huysman S, De Schaepmeester J, Ragaert K, Dewulf J, De Meester S (2017) Performance
indicators for a circular economy: a case study on post-industrial plastic waste. Resour Conserv
Recycl 120:46–54
Jones PT, Geysena D, Tielemans Y, van Passel S, Pontikes Y, Blanpain B, Quaghebeur M,
Hoekstra N (2013) Enhanced landfill mining in view of multiple resource recovery: a critical
review. J Clean Prod 55:45–55
Kurian J, Esakku S, Palanivelu K, Selvam A (1999) Studies on landfill mining at solid waste
dumpsites in India. In: Christensen TH, Cossu R, Stegmann R (eds) Proceedings of the Sardinia
99, seventh international waste management and landfill symposium. CISA, Environmental
Sanitary Engineering Centre, Cagliari
Lu B, Yang J, Ijomah W, Wu W, Zlamparet G (2018) Perspectives on reuse of WEEE in China:
lessons from the EU. Resour Conserv Recycl 135:83–92 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2017.07.012
McDonough W, Braungart M (2002) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make thinks. North
Point Press, New York, USA
McKenna R, Reith S, Cail S, Kessler A, Fichtner W (2013) Energy savings through direct
secondary reuse: an exemplary analysis of the German automotive sector. J Clean Prod
52:103–112
Meyers GJ (2014) Designing and selling recycled fashion: Acceptance of upcycled secondhand
clothes by female consumers, age 25–65. Dissertation. North Dakota State University
Niero M, Hauschild MZ, Hoffmeyer SB, Olsen SI (2017) Combining eco-efficiency and
eco-effectiveness for continuous loop beverage packaging systems: lessons from the Carlsberg
circular community. Appl Implement 21:742–753
References 59

Pan SY, Du MA, Huang IT, Liu IH, Chang EE, Chiang PC (2015) Strategies on implementation of
waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy system: a review. J Clean Prod
108:409–421
Papargyropoulou E, Lozano R, Steinberger J, Wright N, bin Ujang Z (2014) The food waste
hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J Clean Prod
76:106–115
Pires A, Martinho G, Silveira A, Gomes A, Cardoso J, Lapa N (2016) The urgent need of policy and
regulation drivers to promote landfill mining in Portugal. In: Pereira MJ, Carvalho MT, Neves
PF (eds) Proceedings of the international symposium on enhanced landfill mining, Lisbon,
February 2016. Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, pp 67–78
Reuter M, Hudson C, van Schaik A, Heiskanen K, Meskers C, Hagelüken C (2013) Assessing
mineral resources in society: metal recycling opportunities, limits, infrastructures. United
Nations Environment Programme, Paris
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1997) Landfill reclamation, solid waste
and emergency response (5306W) EPA 530-F-97-001
Villanueva A, Delgado L, Luo Z, Eder P, Catarino AS, Litten D (2010) Study on the selection of
waste streams for end-of-waste assessment. Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,
Luxembourg
Watson D, Elander M, Gylling A, Andersson T, Heikklilä P (2017) Stimulating Textile-to-Textile
Recycling. TemaNord 2017:569. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen
Chapter 5
Economic Perspective

Abstract Solid waste management requires specific rules to ensure the collection
and management respecting the citizens and the environment. A brief review on how
solid waste management is defined by international and national regulations is
provided. The intention is to cover broader waste streams from municipal solid
waste, including batteries and accumulators, end-of-life vehicles, packaging waste,
waste from electric and electronic equipment, waste oils, biodegradable municipal
waste, and waste tires.

Keywords Waste framework directive · Basel convention · Transboundary

shipment · National legislation · International legislation · Packaging waste ·
Waste oils · WEEE · ELV

5.1 International Legislation on Waste

Although waste is a domestic and local issue to be managed by municipalities, the

globalization of markets obligated the definition of international rules to regulate
how waste can be managed between countries and to drive the guidelines to be
implemented for each country. Concerning the first goal, the most known interna-
tional waste regulations applicable to municipal solid waste is Basel Convention; for
the second goal, the most known international guiding regulation is the European
Union waste policies.

5.1.1 Basel Convention

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous

Wastes and their Disposal is in force since 1992 and intends to protect human
health and the environment against the adverse effects of hazardous waste (Basel
Convention 2011), with the goals being:

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 61

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_5
62 5 Economic Perspective

• To reduce hazardous waste generation and promotion adequate management in

environmental terms
• To restrict its import/export movements except when it follows principles of
environmentally sound management, and
• To comply with the regulatory system of transboundary movements
In practical terms, the Basel Convention intends to prohibit the shipment of
hazardous waste from Annex VII countries (Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), the European Community (EC), and Lichtenstein, but
the United States has not ratified) to non-Annex VII countries (the rest of signatories
countries) (Lepawsky 2014; Wang et al. 2016). The assumption presents in the Basel
Convention was that non-Annex VII countries have no hazardous waste (probably
due to the missing industry level that Annex VII countries possess). The reality
shows that the protected (developing countries) countries have hazardous waste and
they can trade and ship hazardous waste between them or from developing countries
to developed countries and no environmentally sound management is ensured
(Lepawsky 2014, 2015). Nowadays, the trade of e-waste (or waste electrical and
electronic equipment), a hazardous waste due to the presence of substances from List
A of Annex VIII of the Basel Convention, between developing countries have
increased, with consequences to public health and the environment. Disposal plants
release toxic chemicals, volatile organic chemicals, and heavy metals because
recycling is made by heating and manual removal of components from circuit
boards, open burning to reduce volumes and recover metals, and open acid digestion
to recover precious metals (Robinson 2009; Wang et al. 2016). This reveals the
inadequacy of Basel Convention pointed out by Lepawsky (2014) in facing the
world trade of e-waste by defining trade bans focused on flows North to South and
not on ensuring environmentally sound recycling processes all over the world, once
that e-waste exists everywhere (Fig. 5.1).

200 000 000

Annex VII to Non-Annex VII Non-Annex VII to Annex VII
180 000 000

160 000 000

140 000 000

120 000 000

Kilograms

100 000 000

80 000 000

60 000 000

40 000 000

20 000 000

0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

Fig. 5.1 International trade of e-waste, 1996–2012. (Source: Lepawsky (2015))

5.2 National Waste Regulation in European Union Countries 63

5.1.2 European Union Waste Policies

European countries entering into the European Union need to implement policies
included in the European Community Treaty (Hedemann-Robinson 2007). The
policies include but are not limited to directives, regulation, and decisions (Chang
et al. 2013). Directives must be implemented, but the country may choose how to
implement; regulations enter directly into the force of all Member States; strategies
are guidelines to be considered in the future waste legislation, helping Member
States to get prepared for the future changes. From all forms of legal documents, the
directives are the ones most promoted by European Commission (Fischer and
Davidsen 2010).
The main framework for waste management is the Waste Framework Directive
2008/98/EC (European Parliament and Council 2008). The Waste Framework
intends to define and implement the following (Chang et al. 2013):
• Waste hierarchy principle promotion
• Authorities responsibilities, including waste planning
• “Polluter-pays” principle, where the cost of disposing must be borne by the waste
producer, who request waste be properly handled by a waste collection subcon-
tractor or disposer and/or by the upstream polluter or the producer of the product
becoming waste
• Hazardous waste management mandatory aspects such as labeling, record
keeping, monitoring and control obligations, and banning of mixing hazardous
waste
There are also directive regulation waste operations, namely, incineration and
landfill directives. Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC introduces measures to pre-
vent environmental impacts and human health issues from incineration and
co-incineration. Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC focuses on landfill activities such
as landfill gas, waste acceptance criteria, meteorological data collection, monitoring,
after-closure care, and technical requirements.
Specific waste streams directives have also been elaborated by European Union:
batteries and accumulators (B&A), waste from electric and electronic equipment
(WEEE), end-of-life vehicles (ELV), mining, packaging, polychlorinated biphenyl/
terphenyls (PCB/PCT), sewage sludge, ships, titanium dioxide, and waste oils.
PCB/PCT, mining, sewage sludge, ships, and titanium dioxide will not be consid-
ered because they are related to industry.

5.2 National Waste Regulation in European Union

Countries

When materials and objects are classified as waste, technical, functional, environ-
mental, and health protection aspects to manage it are regulated at the European
Union, with direct and indirect consequences on the waste management
64 5 Economic Perspective

infrastructure, as well as on the waste markets and responsibilities on its

management. According to Chang et al. (2013), the transposition of the European
Union waste directives involves several issues, where two situations may occur.
Either the Member State does not possess specific legislation concerning waste (as happens
for most waste streams), or the country already has legislation to manage waste. In this
situation, the legislation can be in accordance with the directive; however, it is possible that
they are not in accordance, creating infractions on transpositions of directives. These cases
are discussed in the European Court of Justice.

After legislation is transposed, national environmental agencies are normally the

ones that verifies how is legislation being implemented in the field. Chang et al.
(2013) describes succinctly the responsibilities of the several players in the munic-
ipal waste management.
Central/federal governments are responsible for the conception of waste management plans,
in which the goals of the legislation and the strategies to ensure its success are defined.
Provincial/regional entities have the duty to apply national policies (. . .) Municipalities/local
authorities are responsible for solid waste generated by municipalities/households and
similar waste, excluding industrial waste, which is the responsibility of the owner. Munic-
ipalities can act together through regionalization like an association or a task force, which
allows improved waste management efficiency. Waste management operations under the
municipality’s scope of work are collection, energy recovery, and landfill disposal; and
treatment. (. . .) Waste management plans are also proposed for legislation via a single
municipality or municipalities’ associations.

Although the role of municipalities in the waste management is to control this

public health issue and to comply with the European Union’s requirements, a new
paradigm is raised with the appearance of extended producer responsibility. This
principle entered in the end of 1990s for packaging waste, helping municipalities in
supporting the recycling activity. The extended producer responsibility (EPR) has
shifted the municipalities’ role to the manufacturers and importers of products. The
original purpose for the application of EPR to waste management was twofold: to
relieve municipalities of some of the financial burden of waste management and to
provide incentives to producers to reduce the use of primary resources, promote the
use of more secondary materials, and undertake product design changes to reduce
waste (OECD 2001). In practical terms, the EPR involves the payment to the
producer responsibility organization (PRO) to transfer its responsibility to manage
their product when reach waste stage including its collection. The local authorities/
municipalities and distributors are accountable for the waste collection defined by
the PRO, and the PRO will finance local authorities and private operators to send
waste for recycling, energy recovery facilities, or other destinations, depending of
the goals of the PRO (Chang et al. 2013; Pires et al. 2015). The monetary and
material flow involved in a EPR system for packaging waste is presented in
Fig. 5.2.
The way how EPR is being regulated and how EPR manages specific waste
streams will be addressed in the next subsections. Waste streams regulated by EPR
chosen are waste batteries and accumulators, end-of-life tires, end-of-life vehicles,
packaging waste, waste electrical, and electronic equipment (WEEE).
5.2 National Waste Regulation in European Union Countries 65

Packers and Packed product packaging waste Waste

Consumers
product importers collectors
Fee
Packaging

Packaging Packaging waste

SPV Counterpart subsidy from selective
Raw materials producer collection
Upturn
Recycled materials
Recyclable Recyclable
packaging waste packaging waste
Recyclers Waste managers
Recycled
materials

Monetary flow
Material flow

Fig. 5.2 The extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging in Portugal managed by the
Portuguese Green Dot system. SPV – Sociedade Ponto Verde (the PRO corresponding to Green Dot
System in Portugal). (Source: Pires et al. (2015))

5.2.1 Batteries and Accumulators

In the European Union, batteries and accumulators are regulated by Directive 2006/
66/EC, where it established the rules to put on market these products and how they
should be managed when reach their end-of-life stage. The waste management
requirements are the following (European Parliament and Council 2006):
• A 25% collection rate for waste portable batteries to be met by September 2012,
rising to 45% by September 2016
• A prohibition on the disposal by landfill or incineration of waste industrial and
automotive batteries in effect, setting a 100% collection and recycling target
• The setting of recycling efficiencies to ensure that a high proportion of the weight
of waste batteries is recycled (65% of lead acid batteries, 75% of nickel-cadmium
batteries, and 50% of other waste batteries)
Although the targets are defined, there is no formal information concerning the
targets accomplish by European Union Member States. Some information exists at
Tsiarta et al. (2015), where 20 Members States reported collection rates around 25%
by 2012, complying with the target. The existing collection schemes in Member
States reported by Tsiarta et al. (2015) show the existence of community collection,
free of charge, or collection points near the final distributor of portable batteries
without the obligation of a new purchase. For automotive batteries, there are
collection schemes like in Portugal, near the car shops, but there are countries
where car batteries are collected and processed within a free market.
In Portugal, batteries are managed by five PROs: one is dedicated specifically to
managing portable and industrial batteries and accumulators; two are licensed
to manage portable and industrial batteries and accumulators and WEEE; another
manages end-of-life vehicles beyond industrial and vehicle batteries and accumula-
tors; and one system manages vehicle and some industrial batteries. Waste portable
66 5 Economic Perspective

batteries and accumulators have selective network structures based on municipal

systems, distributors, and other collection points, but also selective collection net-
work at distributors and others receive the waste batteries and accumulators by end
user without any charge (APA 2018; Tsiarta et al. 2015). The impact of the directive
has resulted in the achieving and/or exceeding in 2012 all three recycling efficiency
rates outlined by the directive by 19 countries (for all batteries or for lead-acid only)
(Tsiarta et al. 2015).

5.2.2 End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV)

The Directive 2000/53/EC and its amendments intend to set measures to prevent the
amount of waste from ELV and their components and promote their reuse, recycled,
or recovery when possible. The directive stipulates that Member States shall take the
necessary measures to ensure that the following targets are attained by economic
operators (European Parliament and Council 2000):
• No later than 1 January 2006, for all end-of-life vehicles, the reuse and recovery
shall be increased to a minimum of 85% by an average weight per vehicle a year.
Within the same time limit, the reuse and recycling shall be increased to a
minimum of 80% by an average weight per vehicle a year.
• No later than 1 January 2015, for all end-of-life vehicles, the reuse and recovery
shall be increased to a minimum of 95% by an average weight per vehicle a year.
Within the same time limit, the reuse and recycling shall be increased to a
minimum of 85% by an average weight per vehicle a year.
The new vehicle manufacturers (together with importers and distributors) should
promote the absence of hazardous substances such as lead, mercury, cadmium, and
hexavalent chromium, must provide systems to collect ELVs, and, where technically
feasible, used parts from repaired passenger cars. The regulation also demands for a
certification of destruction when the vehicle reaches ELV stage. The delivery of the
vehicle should be made with no expense for the vehicle’s owner, being the treatment
to be supported by the manufacturer.
Directive 2005/64/EC are defined as the technical rules that vehicle’s parts and
materials may be reuses, recycled, and recovered, ensuring safety and no environ-
mental risks. According to the directive, the new vehicles to be sold in European
Union may be reused and/or recycled to a minimum of 85% by mass or reused and/or
recovered to a minimum of 95% by mass, excluding airbags, seat belts, and steering
locks (European Union Law 2015).
The performance of the ELV management schemes have allowed to comply with
the targets of 2006, like is presented in Fig. 5.3. However, the targets of 2015 are still
in clearance, but the reuse/recycling target of 85% was reached in 2014.
5.2 National Waste Regulation in European Union Countries 67

Fig. 5.3 Recovery and recycling rate for end-of-life vehicles in 2014 at European Union countries.
(Source of data: Eurostat (2017))

5.2.3 Packaging Waste

Packaging waste is regulated mainly by Directive 94/62/EC and its amendments,

where there are defined measures that could be implemented to manage packaging
waste, to develop packaging reuse systems, and to source separate collection. The
targets have been evolving since 2001, being the most recent ones (European Union
Law 2014).
• By no later than 31 December 2008, at least 60% by weight of packaging waste to
be recovered or incinerated at waste incineration plants with energy recovery.
• By no later than 31 December 2008, between 55% and 80% by weight of
packaging waste to be recycled.
• No later than 31 December 2008, the following targets for materials contained in
packaging waste must be attained:
– 60% for glass, paper, and board
– 50% for metals
– 22.5% for plastics and
– 15% for wood

The results reached for European Union Member States are presented in Fig. 5.4,
for recycling and recovery targets. In general, the targets have been reached for most
countries. The application of source separation schemes, namely, drop-off systems
and door-to-door collection schemes, together with policy instruments, namely,
voluntary programs, information and awareness campaigns, funding programs,
standards, and eco-labels (Chang et al. 2013).
68 5 Economic Perspective

Fig. 5.4 Recycling and recovery rates for all packaging, 2015. (Source of data: Eurostat (2018a))

5.2.4 Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

The European Union has pointed out that Member States should encourage the
development of devices, components, or materials that could be dismantled and
recovered, reused, and recycled. First directive on WEEE was Directive 2002/96/
EC, which has been substituted by Directive 2012/19/EU. In this directive, the
established targets are the following (European Parliament and Council 2012):
From 2016, the minimum collection rate shall be 45% calculated on the basis of the total
weight of WEEE collected (. . .) From 2019, the minimum collection rate to be achieved
annually shall be 65% of the average weight of EEE placed on the market in the three
preceding years in the Member State concerned, or alternatively 85% of WEEE generated on
the territory of that Member State.

The WEEE Directive has been capable to demand for several collection schemes
to ensure that WEEE producers could deliver them free of charge. There are several
ways to deliver WEEE (European Parliament and Council, 2012):
• Deliver at least free of charge at a waste collection system.
• Near distributors: to deliver free of charge or one-to-one basis for the same type of
device or equivalent.
• Distributors with sales are of EEE at least 400 m2 to receive very small WEEE
free of charge.
The results reached in 2015, according to Eurostat (2018a, b) and presented in
Fig. 5.5, point out that the target for 2016 was reached by 13 of 28 European Union
countries, being households the main source of WEEE in all countries. The most
collected WEEE belongs to large household appliances (52%), IT, and telecommu-
nication equipment (16%), followed by consumer equipment (15%), small appli-
ances (10%), and the rest of WEEE which corresponds to 7%.
5.3 Final Remarks 69

Fig. 5.5 Total collection rate for WEEE, 2015 (in accordance with calculation of Directive 2012/
19/EC). (Source of data: Eurostat (2018b))

5.2.5 Waste Oils

The success of EPR to manage waste streams have led the application of EPR to
waste lube oils in countries like Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and Italy. Other countries
prefer to let the market works, which likely occurs with the management of industrial
waste. One of the issues in managing waste oils by EPR is necessary to have in mind
the disappearance of lube oil during use, which constraint the separate collection of
this waste. According to Lohof (1991), the amount of waste oils generated during its
use as lubricant is not 100% but only around 50%. This consumption or leakage of
lube oils during use has posed constraints in the use of EPR concept itself in
Portugal. The solution was to establish the separate waste collection rates feasible
with this reality.
Although there is no official European Union statistics on waste oils, the
Groupement Européen de l’Industrie de la Régénération (GEIR) mentions that
there is around 5.7 Mtonnes of waste oils in European countries, having the potential
to be collected around 2.7 M tonnes (GEIR, 2015). From the total generated, 65%
are collected to be recovered (Botas et al. 2017).

5.3 Final Remarks

The regulation on waste management at international and national levels intends to

ensure the environmentally sound management, where the local authorities and
citizens have an important role to make regulation work. The elaboration of regula-
tion of waste collection is vital to ensure that waste is minimized, that waste is source
separated in such way that it conserves its properties to be recycled, and to define
who is responsible for its collection and treatment.
70 5 Economic Perspective

In the study by BiPRO/CRI (2015), they realized that European capital cities
where mandatory separate collection for specific municipal waste streams results in
higher recycling rates for municipal waste; the technical collection system infra-
structure is crucial for the success of the collection system; the door-to-door reaches
best quality of recyclables and collection rates; brings system works better for glass
collection; comingled collection of recyclables may occur but with reservations due
to contamination potential; and introducing separate collection of biodegradable
waste in the door-to-door system increases sorting of dry recyclables. In particular
case study conducted in Portugal verifies some of those technical aspects of the
BiPRO/CRI (2015) but highlights another aspect: the need to optimize continually
the source separated collection system, to ensure that they are operating to provide
the best service to users at the lowest economic and environmental cost (Martinho
et al. 2017; Pires et al. 2017).
A new player is now raising at local level, motivated by the goal of local
authorities to promote “zero-waste” initiatives – the grassroots environmental orga-
nizations (GEOs). GEOs are a type of nongovernmental organization (NGO) which
is characterized by being local, focused on solving environmental problems at a local
level. This profile can differ from NGOs which have a more national and interna-
tional approach to solve environmental problems. In Esporles (Mallorca, Spain), a
pay-as-you-throw scheme was implemented based on unit pricing for waste, where
the GEO composed of local community was capable to accept the entrance of the
unit-pricing scheme, because they were involved in the participatory process, what
increased the acceptance of the unit-pricing scheme, and reducing the collateral
effects (Weber et al. 2017). The governance of municipal waste requires society,
probably by GEOs, to get involved to ensure a bottom-up approach in dealing with
the challenges of waste and resource scarcity, to make regulation accepted by the
citizens, and to leverage waste management in such way that could contribute to
solve waste global problems at a local level.

References

Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente (APA) (2018) Waste batteries and accumulators (in Portuguese:
Resíduos de pilhas e baterias). https://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref¼16&subref¼84&
sub2ref¼197&sub3ref¼281. Accessed 27 Apr 2018
Basel Convenion (2011) Convention overview. http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/Overview/
tabid/1271/Default.aspx. Accessed 23 Apr 2018
BiPRO/CRI (2015) Assessment of separate collection schemes in the 28 capitals of the EU. Final
report. November 2015
Botas JA, Moreno J, Espada JJ, Serrano DP, Dufour J (2017) Recycling of used lubricating oil:
evaluation of environmental and energy performance by LCA. Resour Conserv Recycl
125:315–323
Chang NB, Pires A, Martinho G (2013) Environmental legislation: EU countries solid waste
management. In: Jørgensen SE (ed) Encyclopedia of environmental management, Four volume
set. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 892–913
European Parliament, Council (2000) Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles. Off J L269:34–43
References 71

European Parliament, Council (2006) Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumu-
lators and repealing directive 91/157/EEC. Off J L266:1–14
European Parliament, Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directive. Off J L312:3–30
European Parliament, Council (2012) Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Off J L197:38–71
European Union Law (2014) Packaging and packaging waste. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con
tent/EN/TXT/?uri¼LEGISSUM:l21207. Accessed 27 Apr 2018
European Union Law (2015) Re-use, recycling and recovery of vehicle parts and materials. http://
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri¼LEGISSUM:n26102. Accessed 27 Apr 2018
Eurostat (2017) End-of-life vehicle statistics. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.
php?title¼End-of-life_vehicle_statistics&oldid¼376304. Accessed 20 Apr 2018
Eurostat (2018a) Packaging waste statistics. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.
php/Packaging_waste_statistics. Accessed 23 Apr 2018
Eurostat (2018b) Waste statistics – electrical and electronic equipment. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
statistics-explained/index.php?title¼Waste_statistics_-_electrical_and_electronic_equipment.
Accessed 23 Apr 2018
Fischer C, Davidsen C (2010) Europe as a recycling society – The European recycling map.
ETC/SCP working paper 5/2010, European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and
Production, Copnhagen, Denmark, pp 1–22
Groupement Européen de l’Industrie de la Régénération (GEIR) (2015) Waste lube oil management
in Europe. In: Green planet association annual conference
Hedemann-Robinson M (2007) Enforcement of European Union environmental law: legal issues
and challenges. Routledge-Cavendish, Oxon
Lepawsky J (2014) Are we living in a post-Basel world? Area 47:7–15
Lepawsky J (2015) The changing geography of global trade in electronic discards: time to rethink
the e-waste problem. Geogr J 181:147–159
Lohof (1991) Where has all the used oil gone? Where can it go? Int Environ Aff 3:259–281
Martinho G, Gomes A, Santos P, Ramos M, Cardoso J, Silveira A, Pires A (2017) A case study of
packaging waste collection systems in Portugal – part I: performance and operation analysis.
Waste Manag 61:96–107
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001) Extended producer
responsibility: a guidance manual for governments. OECD, Paris
Pires A, Martinho G, Ribeiro R, Mota M, Teixeira L (2015) Extended producer responsibility: a
differential fee model for promoting sustainable packaging. J Clean Prod 108:343–353
Pires A, Sargedas J, Miguel M, Pina J, Martinho G (2017) A case study of packaging waste
collection systems in Portugal – part II: environmental and economic analysis. Waste Manag
61:108–116
Robinson BH (2009) E-waste: an assessment of global production and environmental impacts.
Sci Total Environ 408:183–191
Tsiarta C, Watson S, Hudson J (2015) Final implementation report for the Directive 2006/66/EC on
batteries and accumulators. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/batteries_direc
tive_report.pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2018
Wang Z, Zhang B, Guan D (2016) Take responsibility for electronic-waste disposal. Nature
536:23–25
Weber G, Calaf-Forn M, Puig-Ventosa I, Cabras I, D’Alisa G (2017) The role of environmental
organisations on urban transformation: the case of waste management in Esporles (Mallorca).
J Clean Prod https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.241 195:1546–1557
Chapter 6
Psychosocial Perspective

Abstract Strategies have been applied to encourage recycling behavior, which is

the most participative component of the integrated waste management, where the
citizens are the key to ensure the success of a separate waste collection system.
A short review of the most studied variables and factors involved in the study of
consumption and recycling behavior is made in this chapter. At the end of the
chapter are presented several limitations of existing recycling behavior models
which need to be solved and which criteria should be used to measure the efficacy
and efficiency of interventions used to change behavior. The urgent need to under-
stand the recycling phenomena is notorious to address the environmental problem of
waste and to increase recycling, promoting the circular economy.

Keywords Recycling behavior · Household waste · Motivation · Contextual

factors · Sociodemographic variables · Convenience factors

6.1 Contributions of Social Psychology to Source Separate

Waste Collection

One of the primary prerequisites for the circular economy is to make the waste
incorporated again in the economic system. However, recycling industries will only
be viable if they have access to waste to process, both in quantity and quality. The
access to waste demands the implementation of highly efficient and effective
separate waste collection systems, more sustainable in economic and environmental
terms, by the entities responsible for waste management.
The waste collection is the component interface between the waste management
entity and the users to whom the service is supplied (service image), and it is very
vulnerable and dependent on the users’ behavior. Once that collection is the starting
point to a circular economy, probably the most important one, it is fundamental to
pay close attention to the collection systems. The attention needs to focus on
research and innovative technological solutions development or in social research
that may contribute to increase the collected quantity and, consequently, to increase
the sustainability of these systems.

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 73

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_6
74 6 Psychosocial Perspective

The success of any separate collection system hinges on the participation rate of
the waste producers and the low-level contamination of materials. How to motivate
individuals to respond positively to recycling programs? In a short- or a long-term
period, which motivational techniques have more effect on behavior? These are
some of the questions that since the 1970s, many social psychologists, accompany-
ing the implementation of waste collection systems all over the world, have sought to
answer, by developing theories and models to be applied to experimental researches
which aim to understand and predict the selective separation behaviors.
Research in separation behavior can be divided into two major groups, according
to their purposes and methods (Martinho 1998):
• One line of research has been centered in developing behavioral models and
identifying the predictive variables of behavior (e.g., contextual,
sociodemographic, and psychosocial). These studies usually aim to discover
which characteristics differ, for example, recyclers from non-recyclers or which
factors are more determinant to recycling behaviors.
• Another line of research has sought to evaluate the effect of several types of
intervention on the determinants of waste reduction and recycling behavior and
identify which are most useful to change those behaviors.
The research outcomes are not always consensual, which leads, in some cases, to
ambiguous results. However, a group of converging aspects seems to exist, either
about most determining factors of recycling participation, either concerning the
models and theories that explain the behaviors, or concerning the most promising
strategies for the success of the recycling programs.
This research is crucial to the separate collection systems’ managers because their
success is not limited by techno-economical considerations, being much more
dependent on the adherence of the services’ users. To obtain recyclable materials
in quantity and quality, it is necessary that the users separate the waste they produce
correctly and place them in the correct places, according to the waste type. For this
reason, it is essential to understand the social and psychological aspects that may
determine recycling behaviors, predict behaviors when it is intended to implement a
separate collection project, and evaluate the most effective strategies to change
behaviors to promote the adherence of population to the separate collection.

6.2 Determining Factors of Recycling Behaviors

Until today, research aimed to discover the differences between, for example,
recyclers and non-recyclers or which factors are the most determinant of recycling
behaviors. The results of this research line show that there are sociodemographic,
contextual, and psychosocial factors that may explain these differences and be
determinant of recycling behaviors.
In the meta-analysis performed by Miafodzyeva and Brandt (2013), which
includes 63 articles about recycling behaviors, published in a period of 20 years
(1990–2010), the variables that have been the subject of research are grouped into
6.2 Determining Factors of Recycling Behaviors 75

three broad categories, namely, sociodemographic, technical/organizational

(external factors), and psychosocial variables (e.g., norms, motivations, attitudes,
habits). In what concerns to the determinant and most important factors of recycling
behaviors, those authors highlight the convenience, information, moral norms, and
environmental concern/awareness.
Concerning the most studied sociodemographic variables (e.g., gender, age,
income, education, profession), the articles which seek to connect them with
recycling behaviors are very ambiguous and a little consensual. Gender is a variable
which in some studies is related to recycling behaviors (McDonald and Ball 1998;
Barr et al. 2003; Meneses and Palacio 2005; Martinho et al. 2015, 2017a) and, in
others, has no correlation (Hornik et al. 1995; Hage et al. 2008; Hage and Söderholm
2008). The same happens with the variable age. For instance, to Hage and
Söderholm (2008) and Miafodzyeva et al. (2013), there is no connection between
age and recycling behaviors, whereas to De Feo and De Gisi (2010), Saphores et al.
(2006), and Domina and Koch (2002), age affects behavior. Some studies show that
younger individuals are more likely to recycle, while in others it is older individuals
that are linked to recycling behavior. As for the income, education, and profession
variables, to some there is no correlation (Hage and Söderholm 2008;
Vencatasawmy et al. 2000; Miafodzyeva et al. 2013); to others, there is (Schultz
et al. 1995; Owens et al. 2002).
The outcomes from two different studies carried out in different time periods and
in different metropolitan areas of Lisbon, one by Martinho (1998), about the bottle
bank system, and another by Lima and Batel (2011), about the multi-material
system, also reveal non-consensual results. In the study by Martinho (1998), the
recycling group, comparatively to the non-recycling group, included older individ-
uals with higher education and socio-professional status; the gender of the individ-
uals did not differentiate the groups. According to Lima and Batel (2011), male
individuals between 35 and 44 years old with higher education and social class are
more likely to recycle; female individuals over the age of 65, with lower levels of
education and belonging to medium/low social class, are the least likely.
The inconsistency of these outcomes is mainly due to methodological differences
and deficiencies, namely, the sample dimension, period of observation, the type of
waste being separated, the exemption of other factors that might mask casual
relations, the measure of intention versus behavior, and the interviewed family
member, among other factors. Another problem, identified by Becker (2014), lays
on the fact that researchers sought more to evaluate the direct influence of these
variables in behavior than the indirect influence that they might have on contextual
and psychosocial factors associated with behavior.
Among the contextual factors that could be determinant of recycling behavior,
literature indicates also many other factors: the waste management policies and the
operational systems’ conditions, in which fall the waste’s final destination (e.g.,
landfill, incineration), the type of undifferentiated waste collection system (e.g.,
close or not to the separate collection), the type of separate collection systems
(e.g., door-to-door vs recycling banks, mandatory vs voluntary), the type and
number of recycling bins (e.g., bags, box, containers, and their dimensions), the
distance and location of the recycling banks, the collection schedule, the aesthetic
76 6 Psychosocial Perspective

and sanitation of the containers, and the information about what, when, and where to
deposit (Howenstine 1993; Margai 1997; Martinho 1998; Lima and Branco 2016).
It also appointed the existence of operational barriers, real or perceived (e.g., busy
roads, location of the recycling banks in dangerous areas), and the type of house
(e.g., homes vs apartment buildings, or owned vs rented, buildings with vertical
pipelines, or waste room), among others (Lansana 1993; Vitor and Martinho 2009;
Margai 1997; Rogoff and Williams 1994; Waite 1995; Lindsay and Strathman
1997). From these studies, it can be concluded that a system will produce better
outcomes if:
• It includes a more significant number of waste compounds duly collected as a
recyclable mixture.
• The deposition equipment is conveniently placed and close (e.g., frequent cross-
ing sites and close to houses).
• The recycling system does not demand radical changes in individuals’ habits.
• The system maintenance is visible to users (e.g., appearance, sanitation, safety).
• An excellent source of practical information is provided.
• The strategies for adequate behavioral changes are implemented, e.g., the user
charges are proportionate to the amount of waste (systems like pay-as-you-throw
(PAYT)).
These contextual and convenience factors may be perceived in different ways by
individuals and influence their recycling behaviors (De Young 1993). These factors
are also the ones that are most important when it comes to a decision and action by
the individuals in charge of the waste management. Therefore a recycling system
will be more successful if it applies measures to avoid or reduce recycling’s most
common barriers, those considered the least convenient for users.
Compared to sociodemographic, psychological variables seem to possess a
superior discriminatory power among recyclers and non-recyclers. Most studies
confirm that it is in the group of psychosocial variables that lays the main difference
between these two groups. Included in this category are specific attitudes, social and
personal norms, the attribution of responsibility, awareness of the problem, social
influence, perceived behavioral control, and behavior intentions. These variables are
part of a behavior model structure primarily applied to recycling behavior, as
described below.

6.3 Understanding and Predicting Models of Recycling

Behaviors

The conceptual bases, theories, and models developed by behaviorists and social
psychologists during the 1970s and 1980s are the starting points of most studies
about personal and contextual factors associated with recycling behaviors and about
the techniques used to promote these behaviors.
6.3 Understanding and Predicting Models of Recycling Behaviors 77

Although many theories and models have contributed to the understanding of

recycling behaviors-attitudes relation and the predictive power of several variables
of recycling behavior, the two most essential models remain: the Schwartz (1970)
model of altruistic behavior, which is based on the norm activation model theory,
and the model based on the rational choice theory, namely, the theory of reasoned
action by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), which was reviewed by Ajzen (1985) in the
theory of planned behavior.
These models have been applied mainly to environmental behaviors, including
recycling behaviors, with the goal of identifying the most determinant and predictive
behavior variables. For those technicians, who must design a separate collection
system, knowing the best model to predict the populations’ behaviors is crucial to the
dimensioning of the entire system and its proper functioning.

6.3.1 Schwartz Model of Altruistic Behavior

Theoretically, recycling has a great chance of success, because a lot of individuals

socially and politically supports it. However, in many communities the low rates of
separate collection reveal that there is no real intrinsic meaning; a disparity between
the social support and the individuals’ recycling behavior can be observed.
Several authors (Hopper and Nielsen 1991; Barr 2007; Abrahamse and Steg
2009) have suggested the possibility of recycling being conceptualized as altruistic
behavior since a large normative approval characterizes altruism but most times with
limited behavioral participation. Several study outcomes support the hypothesis that
normative beliefs guide recycling behavior, as recyclers many times describe moral
and altruistic motives as the main reasons to recycle (e.g., Hopper and Nielsen 1991;
Oskamp et al. 1991; Vining et al. 1992; Lindsay and Strathman 1997; Vining and
Ebreo 1992; Davies et al. 2002; Chaisamrej 2006). In this conceptual framework, the
central problem is to understand the process by which altruistic social norms can be
translated into concordant and proper individual behaviors.
The psychosocial model of altruistic behavior developed by Schwartz (1970,
1977) has been used mainly as theoretical and experimental support in environmen-
tal behavior studies. The distinctive characteristic of this model is that it considers
that although most people verbally agree with a norm which influences a specific
moral behavior, not all of them will act accordingly. This assumption corresponds to
the current recycling situation. As Hopper and Nielsen (1991) refer, it is not
necessary to convince people that recycling is good but to persuade them to act by
that idea. As per the altruistic behavior model created by Schwartz (1977), the
process begins with the social norms concerning behavior, which represent the
values and attitudes of “others.”
However, these norms are too broad to command behavior. It is necessary that
social norms be implemented at the personal level to become personal norms.
Although derived from socially shared norms, personal norms are distinct because
the consequences of violating or supporting them are tied to a self-concept.
78 6 Psychosocial Perspective

To violate a personal norm generates guilt and to support one originates pride.
Meaning, social norms exist at the social structure level, while personal norms are
remarkably internalized moral attitudes (Hopper and Nielsen 1991).
The other crucial point of the model is the relation between personal norms and
behavior. Individuals can internalize norms and still not act according to them. To
Schwartz (1977), personal norms are only activated and influence behavior when the
decision-maker is aware of the consequences of the action toward others (or toward
the environment) and feels personally responsible for the actions and their conse-
quences. When these two variables, which Schwartz designated “awareness of
consequences” and “attribution of responsibility,” are present at a high level,
personal norms will guide behavior.
By definition, altruistic behavior is normative behavior, and norms are developed
by social interaction (Hopper and Nielsen 1991). This presupposes that in a cogni-
tive-normative approach, based on social influence as an interventional strategy
factor over norms, the awareness of consequences and the attribution of responsi-
bilities toward recycling can both contribute to the increase of individuals’ partici-
pation in a recycling program.
The definition and operationalization of norms have been understood in two
different ways. To some authors (e.g., McCaul and Koop 1982; Oskamp et al.
1991; Lindsay and Strathman 1997), norms are the individual’s perception of others’
participation in recycling activities measured, for example, g perception over the
number of recycler neighbors. Other authors (e.g., Hopper and Nielsen 1991; Vining
and Ebreo 1990) understand it as an implicit community rule, being evaluated
regarding perception or pressure applied by others (i.e., such as neighbors, relatives,
friends, neighborhood leaders).
Normative components are often significantly related to recycling behaviors. In
some countries, a non-recycler is considered an individual with a weak civic sense,
and the chance of being called out by a neighbor due to adverse social behavior, such
as not recycling, has excellent power over behavior. This social pressure is one of the
explanations to the fact that separate door-to-door collection is typically more
successful than recycling banks. In door-to-door systems, families’ behaviors are
more visible to others; it is known who recycles and who does not.

6.3.2 Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned

Behavior

Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasoned action, and later, Ajzen’s (1985)
theory of planned behavior, is a theoretical cognitive-behavioral model that lays on
the assumption that most socially relevant actions (such as recycling) are deliberate
(rational).
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) affirm that the immediate determinant of behavior is
an intention, being itself the best predictor of behavior. The stronger the individual’s
behavioral intention is, the higher the chance that the behavior will occur. In turn, the
6.3 Understanding and Predicting Models of Recycling Behaviors 79

intention to produce a behavior directly depends on a social factor, the subjective

norm, and a personal one, the attitude toward the behavior.
The subjective norm refers to the perception that an individual has of the social
pressures applied to produce or not a behavior. The attitude toward behavior refers to
the positive or negative evaluation that the individual does of that behavior. The
individual’s beliefs determine both, but for each case, the type of belief is different:
the attitude toward the behavior derives from behavioral beliefs, while the subjective
norm derives from normative beliefs (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980).
The model also considers the influence of other variables in each of these
determinants of intention. To the attitude toward behavior, it adds the outcomes
evaluation that the individual does of the individual’s action. To the subjective norm,
it adds the will that the individual has to follow the norms imposed by the individ-
ual’s specific reference groups. The attitude and subjective norms, taken into account
due to their relative importance, are considered by the authors as determinants of
behavioral intention. The relative importance of these two factors may vary
according to the context.
In this model, the authors do not exclude the influence of external variables (e.g.,
sociodemographic, personality traits, general attitudes associated with objects or
targets). Nevertheless, they consider that these variables have only potential impor-
tance; their relation to behavior is indirect. These variables only affect behavior as far
as they influence their determinants.
The theory of reasoned action has mainly been applied in several branches of
social psychology, including the environmental behaviors (e.g., recycling, energy
consumption, use of public transportation). However, it has also suffered some
revisions and critiques. One of the critiques concerns the fact that two types of belief
only determine intentions and behaviors, attitudes toward behavior and subjective
norms (Bandura 1977), or the experiences of past behaviors (Fazio and Zanna 1981;
Cooper and Croyle 1984; Cialdini et al. 1981; Echabe et al. 1988), or the fact that
attitudinal and normative beliefs’ effects are considered independent of each other
and complementary (Andrews and Kandel 1979; Liska 1984; Grube et al. 1986). The
works of Bagozzi et al. (1990) and Schlegel and DiTecco (1982) likewise suggest
that attitudes do not perfectly mediate the effect of cognitions in intentions; they
might also have an independent effect in intentions. In turn, Grube et al. (1986)
defend that behavioral norm (or perceived behavior) must be considered as a
different variable from the subjective norm, having an independent contribution in
intentions and behaviors. In the model, the effect of attitudes in behavior is unidi-
rectional, but reciprocal effects can be seen between attitudes and behaviors in
certain conditions, depending on the strength of the attitudes and the singularity of
behavior (Zanna et al. 1982).
Based on work carried out within the framework of behaviors-attitudes relations
and the observation that the individual’s behaviors are not always under the
individual’s total control, Ajzen reviewed his initial theory and proposed the
theory of planned behavior. Like in the original theory, the primary factor is the
intention to produce a behavior. However, in this new model, a third conceptual
determinant independent from intentions is added, the perceived behavioral control
(Ajzen 1985).
80 6 Psychosocial Perspective

Internal or external factors may stop the transformation of a behavioral intention

into the similar behavior to the individual. Internal factors include the locus of
control, orientation toward action, information, capabilities, and emotions over
which the individual has less control. In the same way, external factors like time,
opportunities, convenience, and dependence on others may limit the behavior’s
performance without changing the determinants of intention (Ajzen 1985; Beale
and Manstead 1991). This way, the perceived behavioral control corresponds to the
perception of how easy or difficult it is to perform the behavior due to the influence
of internal or external factors, being assumed by Ajzen (1991), as capable of
reflecting past experiences or anticipating deterrents and obstacles. The meaning
of this variable is, in many aspects, similar to the concept of personal efficiency
defined by Bandura (1982).
According to the theory of planned behavior, the perceived behavioral control
influences behavior, indirectly or directly, through behavioral intentions, being
reciprocally influenced by attitudes and subjective norms. Ajzen and Madden
(1986) proposed two versions for this approach: the first one that considers perceived
behavioral control was correlating to attitude and the subjective norm and exerting
an influence that is independent of behavioral intention and a second version that
considers the possibility of a direct connection between perceived behavioral control
and behavior. In this last one, it is a real control that is expected to exert a direct
influence over behavior and not the perceived control.
The perceived behavioral control may have a direct connection to behavior
without the mediation of intention. However, this direct effect is only expected in
two situations. When the predicted behavior is not entirely under volitional control
and when the perceptions of behavioral control reflect real control of the situation
with some level of accuracy.
Similar to the theory of reasoned action, the theory of planned behavior has
suffered several critiques and benefited from applications developed in different
types of behaviors. For example, to Fishbein and Stasson (1990), the concept of
intention becomes ambiguous concerning less volitional behavior, since there may
exist many measures of intention (e.g., self-prediction, desire), which may lead to
less trustworthy outcomes. The extensive application of the theory of planned
behavior to several environmental behaviors has shown differences not only in the
model structure and the intensity of the connection between variables and behavior
but has also shown a more significant predictive power of the model with the
addition of other variables.
Some authors have stated that attitudes are a stronger predictor of intention than
the subjective norm (e.g., Bentler and Speckhart 1979; Boyd and Wandersman 1991;
Farley et al. 1981; Tonglet et al. 2004). To Vallerand et al. (1992), attitudes predict
intentions better than the subjective norm because attitudes capture individual
attitudes toward an act, while the subjective norm deals with a more foreign concept,
the self-perception of what others, significant to the individual, think.
Although always being based on the attitude-behavior relation, several authors
have added variables to the original models. With these variables, they have gained a
more significant predictive power of behaviors. For example, Martinho (1998) adds
6.4 Strategies to Change Behaviors and Their Evaluation 81

social identity, Eagly and Chaiken (1993) add the variable habits, acting either as
attitudes’ precedents or as direct determinants of behavior, and Stern and Oskamp
(1987) introduce external or contextual factors (e.g., government regulations, mon-
etary incentives, constructed environment, publicity and information). Some years
later Stern (2000) adds two more variables, habits and personal capabilities, stating
that sociodemographic factors serve well to describe the personal capabilities factor.
The habits, a variable that recently social psychologists are giving more impor-
tance, may be characterized by the periodic repetition of specific behaviors, which
don’t demand high attention or later evaluation by those who carry them out
(Henriksson et al. 2010; Webb et al. 2009). The force of habits is determined by
the frequency of past behavior (Egmond and Bruel 2007). In what concerns domestic
waste management, the oldest and most normal behavior is their mixed deposition in
a single container.
For many, recycling is a behavior that still isn’t habitual and frequent, and
changing habits is not so easy unless it stems from necessity or tangible and relevant
goal or a change of attitudes and of the importance attributed to recycling (John et al.
2013). Individuals that do not have recycling habits usually express lower intentions
of recycling in the future and feel a weaker normative pressure to recycle. In
opposite, recyclers reveal that they have developed recycling habits (Knussen and
Yule 2008; Söderholm 2011).

6.4 Strategies to Change Behaviors and Their Evaluation

For professionals and separate collection system managers, it is essential to know

which is the best strategy to change behaviors and how to evaluate the efficiency and
effectiveness of those strategies to promote and maintain the desired behaviors.
Recycling can be framed in the conceptual framework of the standard dilemma or
social dilemmas (Hardin 1968; Dawes 1980; Vlek and Steg 2002; McAndrew 1993).
According to Dawes (1980), social dilemmas can be defined as the conflict between
the individual interests (competition situation) and the collective interests (cooper-
ation situation). In fact, recycling has costs for individuals; it demands time and
efforts to keep, separate, and transport the recyclable materials and to change habits.
In most cases, it does not grant immediate or tangible individual rewards, even
though it is beneficial for society, especially in the future. The cost/personal conve-
nience relation and the benefits for society/environment will determine the individ-
uals’ cooperation behavior (i.e., participating in recycling) or competition (i.e., not
participating in recycling).
The opposition between the individual’s interest and collective interest may be
solved in two ways (De Young 1993; Gardner and Stern 1996; Gifford 2014; Vlek
1996): (1) modifying the objective data of the situation, in a way that ensures that the
competitive option stops being the profitable one (e.g., extrinsically incentives, such
as social coercion and fines) or (2) psychologically redefining the situation, in a way
that the dilemma stops existing (e.g., intrinsically incentives, changing values and
82 6 Psychosocial Perspective

attitudes, altering the systems, so it becomes more convenient). The strategies or

interventions for the recycling behavior changing may be included in one of these
goals.
Geller (1989) and Dwyer et al. (1993) organize and differentiate the strategies
meant to change prior and after behaviors. According to these authors, any inter-
vention which has the goal of facilitating or increasing recycling behaviors before
the behavior occurs (e.g., separating and depositing recyclable materials) is classified
as prior. In this group are included the strategies of engineering and design, or
operational strategies, communication through verbal and written messages, model-
ing and demonstration, target setting and compromise processes, and environmental
awareness and education. Within the following strategies are included the ones that
show a consequence upon producing the behavior, for instance, positive motiva-
tional techniques (e.g., material rewards, information feedback, social recognition,
intrinsic satisfaction) or coercive motivational techniques (e.g., penalties, social
pressure, intrinsic dissatisfaction).
In turn, for De Young (1993) techniques differ toward the starting point of change
and the level of involvement of individuals as active participants in producing
behavior. The author refers that a distinction should be made between information
and the motivations offered/gained by others (external) and those acquired by the
individual (internal) as a result of direct experience, which is generally considered by
individuals as less quantifiable and of intangible nature. Using the contribution of
Geller’s (1989) approach, Dwyer et al. (1993), De Young (1993), and Martinho
(1998) propose an organization of the different intervention techniques taking into
consideration the moment in which they occur (prior to or after behavior) and the
starting point of change (external or internal), according to Table 6.1.
Many studies have evaluated the isolated effect of each one of these strategies in
the recycling behavior change, revealing that the combination of different strategies
ensures better outcomes regarding the amount of collected materials (Stern and
Oskamp 1987). However, for separate collection systems’ managers, generalizing
or applying the outcomes of these studies to their contexts is difficult. First, nearly all
studies present short experimental demonstrations, which vary between 1 day and
several months and are applied to very particular situations (e.g., students, office
workers). Second, most studies are not evaluating the cost/benefit impacts of their
interventions in quantity and quality of participation, and the rare studies where this
is done reveal that the experimental intervention costs exceed the benefits, mostly
because the period of evaluation is short and the indirect costs/benefits or external-
ities were not considered Stern and Oskamp 1987; Rousta et al. 2016).
The evaluation of a particular intervention designed for the recycling behavior
change must be done in multiple dimensions. De Young et al. (1993) consider the
following components in the evaluation of behavioral efficiency: (1) reliability,
(2) how quick the change is, (3) particularism, (4) generalization, and (5) durability.
Besides these criteria, Martinho (2009) proposes two more: (6) economic evaluation
of interventions and (7) users’ level of satisfaction (Fig. 6.1). This group of criteria
includes the different evaluation dimensions that are important for politics and
technicians in charge of separate collection systems.
6.4 Strategies to Change Behaviors and Their Evaluation 83

Table 6.1 The organizational structure of the strategies applied to the recycling behavior change

Source of The position of the strategy toward the moment of performance of the behavior
change Antecedent Consequent
External Techniques/operational Positive motivation techniques
(tangible) Waste management policies, type of Material rewards (e.g., prizes, raf-
separate collection system, number of fles)
separations to carry out in origin, type and Outcomes feedback
number of recipients, recipients’ distance Social recognition
and location, collection frequency, and Coercive motivational techniques
schedule Punishment and penalties
Communication/program promotion Social coercion
Appeals to neighborhood leaders, goals
and target setting, modeling and demon-
stration, environmental education
Internal Compromised processes (verbal or writ- Positive and internal coercive moti-
(intangible) ten) vations (e.g., sense guilt, duty,
Modeling with experimentation intrinsic satisfaction)
Source: Martinho (1998)

Fig. 6.1 Criteria for the evaluation of behavior change interventions. (Source: Martinho (2009))
84 6 Psychosocial Perspective

Concerning reliability (trust) the point is to evaluate the capacity of a technique to

produce effects not only during the first time it is applied to an individual or group
but in future applications to the same individual or group. Some material rewards
(e.g., prizes, raffles) techniques failed due to the effect of loss of novelty (Needleman
and Geller 1992; Luyben and Cummings 1981–82; Katzev and Pardini 1987–88;
Schultz et al. 1995; McClelland and Canter 1981).
The speed with which a technique can induce behaviors change, meaning, how
fast individual changes or improves the behavior and adopts pro-environmental
practices after the first intervention, can be a decisive strategic factor to promote a
recycling program, to start a new program, and to capitalize the investment. Some
external incentives, such as the elimination of systems’ operational barriers (e.g.,
dumpsters being closer to users) and certain types of material incentives, especially
raffles and lotteries, produce fast and immediate changes. However, the first has a
more positive effect, because they remain on the field, while the second lead to
participation decline when they are removed (Oskamp et al. 1994; Porter et al. 1995;
EEB 2005; OCDE 2006).
Particularism intends to evaluate if a technique can be designed to be applied
universally or only to a group or, in extreme cases, to an individual. Foa (1971)
discussed the particularism of several extrinsic motivators, some of the universal
character (e.g., money, information, prizes), others more particular (e.g., social
recognition, services, personal attention). The author suggests that money is the
less particular motivator, it enjoys universal acceptance, it has the same value for
everyone, and the relation between the intervenient and the receptor does not matter.
In opposite, personal attention is critical; the person who gives the attention matters,
and its efficiency is strictly connected to the source of attention. However, a more
particularistic technique is harder to put in practice; it has to be more localized to a
specific situation, involving more costs and human resources.
Generalization is connected to the level in which the required behavior frequency
increase has repercussions in other environmental behaviors. Considering the dis-
tinct current environmental issues, a technique capable of simultaneously encourag-
ing the adoption of many behaviors is precious to the environmental programs’
investments and for the environment itself. A study by Berger (1997), based on
official Canadian statistics (censuses), reveals that, although the different environ-
mental behaviors lay in different structures, recycling may function as a first step to
adopting other environmental behaviors. Recycling was positively correlated to
energy conservation, water, composting, usage of own bags to shop, among others.
Another evaluation criterion is the durability of intervention effects, which
analyzes the “useful life period” of intervention. To know if behavior change
remains without the necessity to repeat interventions is fundamental since, besides
economic reasons, environmental problems’ scale demands long-term behavioral
changes. Many interventions that produce fast effects are less durable; as soon as the
intervention technique is removed, behaviors almost always return to the starting
point, especially in the case of techniques that use external incentives and neither
appeal to social norms’ influence nor the development of intrinsic motivation.
Nevertheless, some individuals, after being induced to perform a specific behavior,
6.4 Strategies to Change Behaviors and Their Evaluation 85

may acquire new habits and discover that barriers or inconveniences that they
initially predicted are not significant after all and may discover other indirectly
induced motives such as social rewards, monetary savings, intrinsic satisfaction,
sense of competence, among others.
Few are the studies that have focused on cost/benefit analysis toward the strate-
gies. Some refer that many techniques are economically inefficient toward the
amount of recovered materials. But even in the studies that evaluated the economic
component (Springer and Haver 1994; Watts et al. 1994), the revenue generated by
the sale of materials is not considered, not even the value the residents give the fact
that they have neither a recycling system implemented in their residential area nor
the related externalities, such as the avoided costs by depositing in a landfill or CO2
emissions.
At last, another rarely used indicator is the assessment of the level of satisfaction
of the users concerning the service rendered and the intrinsic satisfaction that is
offered to them to participate in favor of the environment and to preserve resources.
A technique may generate immediate positive effects such as the ones that use the
material or coercive incentives, but it can be negatively evaluated by the population.
The level of satisfaction of users must be a part of the evaluation criteria of
intervention techniques and recycling systems since it is an indicator of great
importance to the support of implemented policies.
From the outcomes of several studies about this issue, combining a small group of
interventions is required to cover the different evaluation dimensions. Systems
which include good periodic procedural information (e.g., what, how, and when),
minimize systems’ operational barriers (e.g., dumpsters being closer to users, col-
lection schedule, and dumpster sanitation), provide outcome and challenge feedback
(e.g., what has been achieved and next goals), and a PAYT-like tariff system (e.g.,
proportional payment to the quantity of produced waste) are the ones which achieve
the best results in terms of evaluation criteria and in terms of the quantity and quality
of materials. Also the use of taxes can induce change of behavior, like is the case of
plastic bag tax applied in Portugal, where the tax applied reduced the consumption of
single-use plastic bags (Martinho et al. 2017b).
A tariff system like PAYT is one of the complete intervention instruments to
change behaviors; it is reliable, fast, universal, durable, equative, and fair and can
ensure the economic sustainability of waste management systems. Its implementa-
tion in different cities has demonstrated a reduction in the production of
undifferentiated waste and a considerable increase in recycling rates that may
reach values higher than 70% (Reichenbach 2008; Morlok et al. 2017). The effec-
tiveness and efficiency of these different intervention strategies depend on commu-
nity characteristics. Besides the sociodemographic and cultural characteristics, the
contextual characteristics (e.g., urbanistic, type of house and systems’ operational
conditions) differ from place to place. For these reasons, before any intervention, it is
necessary to know the starting situation and divide the population into homogeneous
groups to apply adapted interventions to each context (Jesson 2009). The idea that
the intervention type must be selected according to the defined goal and according to
the target group’s characteristics is part of the social marketing concept (Kotler and
86 6 Psychosocial Perspective

Zaltman 1971; Bloom and Novelli 1981) that should also be applied to recycling
behavior strategies, as defended by Geller (1989), Schultz et al. (1995), Howenstine
(1993), and Rousta et al. 2016.

6.5 Current Limitations and Future Perspectives for Social

Psychology

Although they have been important, the outcomes from many studies carried out for
approximately 40 years by social psychologists around recycling behaviors, as
indicated by Schmuck and Vlek (2003), have not been translated into practical and
effective results for the decision-makers, including the separate collection systems’
managers. The unsuccess of the results of social studies is mostly due to the
following methodological issues:
1. Very restricted studies applied to a small number of individuals or social groups
with specific characteristics and in specific contexts, which make it impossible
to generalize results and which many times matches more a scientific curiosity
than a practical application goal.
2. Reduced level of accuracy in the identification and description of the separate
collection operational system in which the study is focused, lacking details to
enable the technicians to use and compare the results to their cases; it is not
enough to say if the system is the door-to-door or the bring type; it is necessary
to define what materials are to be separated and how, the type and dimension of
recipients used for the deposition of recyclables, the distance they are from the
populations, the relation between the conventional collection system and the
separate collection system, the collection schedule, the existence or lack of
waste tariffs, how the system is managed and maintained, and the type and
frequency of information campaigns and education carried out.
3. The definition of the behavior being studied is vague in many studies; in some
cases, they refer to recycling behavior, a somewhat vague concept which cannot
have the same meaning for all.
4. Behaviors are measured differently; in some cases behavioral intention is
measured, while in others it is the recycling behavior, which is measured
indirectly by self-report (verbal answers) and rarely has a direct measure
(behavioral answers).
5. The indicators used to measure behaviors rarely are the same as those used by
technicians, for instance, for technicians the participation rate is associated to a
frequency (1 month); in social researches the time reference is not the same.
6. Sociodemographic variables have been studied as determinant factors of behav-
ior and less as an influencer of those determinants, such as attitudes, habits, and
social norms.
7. In behavioral models, the separation of the population into homogeneous groups
is not always carried out; the model structure and connections between variables
6.5 Current Limitations and Future Perspectives for Social Psychology 87

can change according to the population characteristics; it is important to identify

those variables which are the most explanatory of a certain group’s behavior, for
instance, perceived barriers or attitudes, which are fundamental for the selection
of intervention techniques best adapted to the population’s characteristics.
8. Many studies ignore some sociodemographic, contextual, and psychosocial
variables that may be relevant to recycling behavior, namely, social identity
and cohesion, building particularisms, existence or lack of waste room,
number and type of information and sensitization campaigns, and type of
undifferentiated waste collection system.
9. Intervention strategies for behaviors change rarely and are evaluated in their
different evaluation dimensions; the behavioral changes monitorization is
restricted to a few weeks after the intervention; therefore it’s not possible to
obtain a long-term evaluation of its effects; it is also necessary to define the type
of behavior that has been changed; the interventions can have different effects
on different recycling variables (e.g., quantity, participation frequency, reduc-
tion of contaminants); additionally, there aren’t many studies that evaluate the
potential effect of the combination of different change behaviors strategies.
10. The attitudes, the central concept of social psychology, and the most studied
variable within the environmental behavior framework aren’t always
operationalized and measured in the same way; in some cases, general attitudes
toward recycling are measured; others measure specific attitudes toward sepa-
ration and separate deposition behavior of a certain waste flux. Moreover, rare
are the studies that present the analysis of the reliability and validity of the
attitude scales; the psychometric qualities of these scales are unknown.
11. Some studies about the effect of material incentives already have been carried
out (e.g., prizes, raffles, fines), but the concrete effect of the “PAYT” variable
and the influence that different types of PAYT exert over determinants of
behavior, intention, and behavior itself still need more in-depth study.
12. From the several studies about recycling behavioral models, it can be concluded
that a singular universal model that explains and predicts recycling behavior
with some level of certainty does not exist; further studies in this area are
necessary, based on bigger populational samples and in behavioral indicators
measured directly.
With the new information and communication technologies that have recently
surfaced in the market, which include a wide range of innovative technical solutions
applied to containers, vehicles, and the monitorization and circuit management
global system, many of these methodological issues may have short-term solutions.
The development of these technologies is largely attributable to the need to
reduce collection costs, to the waste management community policies, to the imple-
mentation of PAYT systems (Gallardo et al. 2012; Bilitewski 2008), and to the
application of the new circular economy paradigms, of the Internet Of things, of the
smart cities, and of the big data analytics to the waste management sector (Medvedev
et al. 2015; Kedia 2016; Perchard 2017).
88 6 Psychosocial Perspective

These devices and technologies designed for the intelligent and integrated waste
collection systems’ management enable an optimized planning of circuits, with the
resultant reduction of costs and emissions to the atmosphere, a better knowledge of
the producers and the systems, less complaints, transparent and fair tariffs, recycling
increase and statistical data retrieval, and much more precise systems’ operational
effectiveness indicators.
This transitions from the traditional “heavy” work needed for the monitorization
of the circuits, quantification and characterization of waste, data treatment and
analysis, and fleets and teams management, to a smarter, automatic, continuous,
and integrated management, which besides giving better operational, economic, and
environmental collection outcomes, by permitting the acquisition of a significant
amount of data, it opens up a huge window of opportunities for new research lines
and the development of the waste management sector. The outcomes of studies may
contribute to the resolution of the different problems, whether in the engineering
field or in the social psychology applied to waste production and recycling behav-
iors. It is anticipated close cooperation between waste management entities and
university multidisciplinary research teams for the development of studies focused
on, for instance:
• The exploration of spatial and time waste production patterns, translated into
production forecast models, the production of real-time dynamic circuits, increase
of the number of dumpsters, equipment and human resources planning, and
management models.
• More precise estimates of the specific weight of the different waste fluxes inside
dumpsters, which may be associated with the data obtained through waste
characterization campaigns that are carried out annually by urban waste manage-
ment system.
• Definition of the circuits’ performance indicators, specific to each type of
dumpster-vehicle system, as proposed by Rodrigues et al. (2016) and to each
type of collection system.
• Creation of systems that enable the traceability of individual-specific waste fluxes
(e.g., construction and demolition waste, electrical and electronic equipment
waste).
• Design of integrated collection platforms that allow, through georeferentiation of
the behavioral variables (e.g., quantity and composition of undifferentiated waste,
quantity and quality of differentiated waste), sociodemographic variables (e.g.,
number of family members, age, gender, socioeconomic status, professions), and
contextual variables (e.g., type of house, cultural aspects, type of intervention/
sensitization), knowing the profile of recyclers and non-recyclers and, based on
these variables, to develop new explanatory and predictive models of behaviors.
• Identification, through alerts, of the areas where it is necessary to implement
behavior change strategies, characterization and separation of the population into
more homogeneous groups, and evaluation of the more adequate strategies and
the effect of applying those interventions in behaviors change by monitoring the
collected and recycled quantities and the increase of the recyclables’ quality.
References 89

• Possibility that the evaluation and decision support models and systems may be
continuously calibrated as more data is acquired, including those that are fre-
quently used in waste management, such as (Pires et al. 2011) cost/benefit
analysis models, forecast models, simulation models, optimization models,
multicriteria analysis, information management system, development of scenar-
ios, analysis of the material fluxes, analysis of the life cycle, among others.
• New strategies to promote and communicate services to citizens, behavior feed-
back, and persuasive messages (e.g., information about the last and the next
collection date, collected amounts, value to pay, appeals to participation,
challenges).
Separate collection systems are strategic for the current paradigm of the circular
economy, for the local and regional economies, and the achievement of community
and national goals concerning the separate collection, recycling, and landfill diver-
sion. The newly available technologies for waste management will demand consid-
erable financial resources and a straight collaboration between collection operators
and universities to carry out research and to develop solutions, which will be more
economical and adapted to the reality of each community. Multidisciplinary teams
composed of specialists from engineering areas (e.g., environment, electrotechnical,
computer science) and social sciences (e.g., economists and social psychologists).

References

Abrahamse W, Steg L (2009) How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to

households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? J Econ Psychol 30:711–720
Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J
(eds) Action-control: from cognition to behaviour. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 11–39
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211
Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Prentice-Hall,
Inc, Englewood Cliffs
Ajzen I, Madden TJ (1986) Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitudes, intentions, and perceived
behavioral control. J Exp Soc Psychol 22:453–474
Andrews KH, Kandel DB (1979) Attitude and behavior: a specification of the contingent consis-
tency hypothesis. Am Sociol Rev 44:298–310
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Baumgartner J (1990) The level of effort required for behavior as a moderator of
an attitude-behavior relation. Eur J Soc Psychol 20:45–59
Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev
84:191–215
Bandura A (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol 37:122–147
Barr D (2007) Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: a UK case study of
household waste management. Environ Behav 39:435–473
Barr S, Ford NJ, Gilg AW (2003) Attitudes towards recycling household waste in Exeter, Devon:
quantitative and qualitative approaches. Local Environ 8:407–421
Beale DA, Manstead ASR (1991) Predicting mothers’ intentions to limit frequency of infants’ sugar
intake: testing the theory of planned behaviour. J Appl Soc Psychol 21:409–431
Becker N (2014) Increasing high recycling rates socio-demographics as an additional layer of
information to improve waste management. Dissertation, University of Lund
90 6 Psychosocial Perspective

Bentler PM, Speckhart G (1979) Models of attitude-behavior relations. Psychol Rev 86:452–464
Berger I (1997) The demographics of recycling and the structure of environmental behaviour.
Environ Behav 29:515–531
Bilitewski B (2008) From traditional to modern fee systems. Waste Manag 28:2760–2766
Bloom PN, Novelli WD (1981) Problems and challenges in social marketing. J Mark 45:79–88
Boyd B, Wandersman A (1991) Predicting undergraduate condom use with the Fishbein and Ajzen
and the Triandis attitude-behavior models: implications for public health interventions. J Appl
Soc Psychol 21:1810–1830
Chaisamrej R (2006) The integration of the theory of planned behavior, altruism, and self-construal:
implications for designing recycling campaigns in individualistic and collectivistic societies.
Dissertation, University of Kentucky
Cialdini RB, Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1981) Attitude and attitude change. Annu Rev Psychol
32:357–404
Cooper J, Croyle R (1984) Attitude and attitude change. Annu Rev Psychol 35:395–426
Davies J, Foxall GR, Pallister J (2002) Beyond the intention-behavior mythology: an integrated
model of recycling. Mark Theory 2:29–113
Dawes RM (1980) Social dilemmas. Annu Rev Psychol 31:169–193
De Feo G, De Gisi S (2010) Domestic separation and collection of municipal solid waste: opinion
and awareness of citizens and worker. Sustainability 2:1297–1326
De Young R (1993) Changing behavior and making it stick: the conceptualization and management
of conservation behaviour. Environ Behav 25:485–505
De Young R, Duncan A, Frank J, Gill N, Rothman S, Shenot J, Shotkin A, Zweizig M (1993)
Promoting source reduction behavior: the role of motivational information. Environ Behav
25:70–85
Domina T, Koch K (2002) Convenience and frequency of recycling: implications for including
textiles in curbside recycling programs. Environ Behav 34:216–238
Dwyer W, Leeming F, Cobern M, Porter B, Jackson J (1993) Critical review of behavior interven-
tions to preserve the environment: research science 1980. Environ Behav 25:275–321
Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers, Orlando
Echabe AE, Rovira DP, Garate JF (1988) Testing Ajzen and Fishbein’s attitudes model: the
prediction of voting. Eur J Soc Psychol 18:181–189
Egmond RB, Bruel R (2007) Nothing is as practical as a good theory: analysis of theories and a tool
for developing interventions to influence energy-related behaviour. http://www.cres.gr/behave/
pdf/paper_final_draft_CE1309.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2017
European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (2005) EU environmental policy handbook – a critical
analysis of EU environmental legislation. EEB, Bruxels
Farley JU, Lehmann DR, Ryan MJ (1981) Generalizing from “imperfect” replication. J Bus
54:597–610
Fazio RH, Zanna MP (1981) Direct experience and attitude behavior consistency. In: Berkowitz L
(ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, New York
Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and
research. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Fishbein M, Stasson M (1990) The role of desires, self-predictions, and perceived control in the
prediction of training session attendance. J Appl Soc Psychol 20:173–198
Foa UG (1971) Interpersonal and economic resources. Science 171:345–351
Gallardo A, Bovea MD, Colomer FJ, Prades M (2012) Analysis of collection systems for sorted
household waste in Spain. Waste Manag 32:1623–1633
Gardner GT, Stern PC (1996) Environmental problems and human behaviour. Allyn & Bacon,
Boston
Geller ES (1989) Applied behavior analysis and social marketing: an integration to preserve the
environment. J Soc Issues 45:17–36
Gifford R (2014) Environmental psychology: principles and practice, 5th edn. Optimal Books,
Colville
References 91

Grube JW, Morgan M, McGree ST (1986) Attitudes and normative beliefs as predictors of smoking
intentions and behaviors: a test of three models. Br J Soc Psychol 25:81–93
Hage O, Söderholm P (2008) An econometric analysis of regional differences in household waste
collection: the case of plastic packaging waste in Sweden. Waste Manag 28:1720–1731
Hage O, Söderholm P, Ch B (2008) Norms and economic motivation in household recycling:
evidence from Sweden. Resour Conserv Recycl 53:155–165
Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248
Henriksson G, Åkesson L, Ewert S (2010) Uncertainty regarding waste handling in everyday life.
Sustainability 2:2799–2813
Hopper JR, Nielsen JN (1991) Recycling as altruistic behaviour: normative and behavioral strate-
gies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environ Behav 23:195–220
Hornik J, Cherian J, Madansky M, Narayana C (1995) Determinants of recycling behavior: a
synthesis of research results. J Socio Econ 24:105–127
Howenstine E (1993) Market segmentation for recycling. Environ Behav 25:86–102
Jesson JK (2009) Household waste recycling behavior: a market segmentation model. Soc Mark Q
15:25–38
John P, Cotterill S, Richardson L, Moseley A, Stoker G, Wales C, Smith G (2013) Nudge, nudge,
think, think: experimenting with ways to change civic behavior. Bloomsbury Academic Pub-
lishing, London
Katzev RD, Pardini AU (1987–88) The comparative effectiveness of reward and commitment
approaches in motivating community recycling. J Environ Syst 17:93–111
Kedia P (2016) Big data analytics for efficient waste management. Int J Res Eng Technol
5:208–211
Knussen C, Yule F (2008) “I’m not in the habit of recycling” the role of habitual behavior in the
disposal of household waste. Environ Behav 40:683–702
Kotler P, Zaltman G (1971) Social marketing: an approach to planned social change. J Mark
35:3–12
Lansana FM (1993) A comparative analysis of curbside recycling behavior in urban and suburban
communities. Prof Geogr 45:169–179
Lima ML, Batel S (2011) Psychosocial study of predictors of recycling behaviors in different waste
disposal systems (in Portuguese: Estudo psicossocial dos preditores de comportamentos de
reciclagem em distintos sistemas de deposição de resíduos). ISCTE-IUL, Lisbon
Lima ML, Branco C (2016) Implementation, evaluation and validation of social indicators pre-
dictors of participation associated with the recycling of urban waste (in Portuguese:
Implementação, avaliação e validação de indicadores sociais preditores da participação
associados à reciclagem de resíduos urbanos (Relatório 1: indicadores sociais de gestão de
resíduos). CIS-IUL/ISCTE-IUL, Lisbon
Lindsay J, Strathman A (1997) Predictors of recycling behavior: an application of a modified health
belief model. J Appl Soc Psychol 27:1799–1823
Liska AE (1984) A critical examination of the causal structure of the Fishbein/Ajzen attitude-
behavior model. Soc Psychol Q 47:61–74
Luyben PD, Cummings S (1981–82) Motivating beverage container recycling on a college campus.
J Environ Syst 11:235–245
Margai FL (1997) Analyzing changes in waste reduction behavior in a low-income urban commu-
nity following a public outreach program. Environ Behav 29:769–792
Martinho G (1998) Determining factors for recycling behaviors. Case study: glass system
(in Portuguese: Factores determinantes para os comportamentos de reciclagem caso de estudo:
sistema de vidrões). Dissertation, NOVA University of Lisbon
Martinho MG (2009) Recycling psychology. An eco-different (in Portuguese: Psicologia da
reciclagem. Um eco.diferente) honorable mention at communicating environment prize by
Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
Martinho G, Pires A, Portela G, Fonseca M (2015) Factors affecting consumers’ choices concerning
sustainable packaging during product purchase and recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl
103:58–68
92 6 Psychosocial Perspective

Martinho G, Magalhães D, Pires A (2017a) Consumer behavior with respect to the consumption and
recycling of smartphones and tablets: an exploratory study in Portugal. J Clean Prod
156:147–158
Martinho G, Balaia N, Pires A (2017b) The Portuguese plastic carrier bag tax: the effects on
consumers’ behavior. Waste Manag 61:3–12
McAndrew FT (1993) Environmental psychology. Wadsworth, Belmont
McCaul KD, Koop JT (1982) Effects of goal setting and commitment on increasing metal recycling.
J Appl Psychol 67:377–379
McClelland L, Canter R (1981) Psychological research on energy conservation: context,
approaches, method. In: Baum A, Singer J (eds) Advances in environmental psychology: energy
conservation, psychological perspectives, vol 3. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 1–25
McDonald S, Ball R (1998) Public participation in plastics recycling schemes. Resour Conserv
Recycl 22:123–141
Medvedev A, Fedchenkov P, Zaslavsky A, Anagnostopoulos T, Khoruzhnikov S (2015) Waste
management as an IoT-enabled service in smart cities. In: Balandin S, Andreev S, Koucheryavy
Y (eds) Internet of things, smart spaces, and next generation networks and systems. ruSMART
2015. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 9247. Springer, Cham, pp 104–115
Meneses GD, Palacio AB (2005) Recycling behavior: a multidi-mensional approach. Environ
Behav 37:837–860
Miafodzyeva S, Brandt N (2013) Recycling behavior among households: synthesizing determinants
via a meta-analysis. Waste Biomass Valorization 4:221–235
Miafodzyeva S, Brandt N, Anderson M (2013) Recycling behavior of householders living in
multicultural urban area: a case study of Järva, Stockholm, Sweden. Waste Manag Res
31:447–457
Morlok J, Schoenberger H, Styles D, Galvez-Martos J-L, Zeschmar-Lahl B (2017) The impact of
Pay-As-You-Throw schemes on municipal solid waste management: the exemplar case of the
county of Aschaffenburg, Germany. Resources 6:8
Needleman LD, Geller ES (1992) Comparing interventions to motivate work-site collection of
home-generated recyclables. Am J Community Psychol 20:775–787
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCDE) (2006) Impacts of unit-based
waste collection charges. http://www1.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?
cote¼ENV/EPOC/WGWPR(2005)10/FINAL&docLanguage¼En. Accessed 3 May 2018
Oskamp S, Harrington M, Edwards T, Sherwood D, Okuda S, Swanson D (1991) Factors influenc-
ing household recycling behaviour. Environ Behav 23:494–519
Oskamp S, Williams R, Unipan J, Steers N, Mainieri T, Kurland G (1994) Psychological factors
affecting paper recycling by businesses. Environ Behav 26:477–503
Owens J, Dickerson S, Macintosh DL (2002) Demographic covariates of residential recycling
efficiency. Environ Behav 32:637–650
Perchard E (2017) Smart streets: how the internet of things is revolutionising waste. Resource
sharing knowledge to promote waste as a resource. https://resource.co/article/smart-streets-how-
internet-things-revolutionising-waste-11721. Accessed 10 Mar 2017
Pires A, Martinho G, Chang NB (2011) Solid waste management in European countries: a review of
systems analysis techniques. J Environ Manag 92:1033–1050
Porter BE, Leeming FC, Dwyer WO (1995) Solid waste recovery: a review of behavioral programs
to increase recycling. Environ Behav 27:122–152
Reichenbach J (2008) Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe—a review of pilot
research and implementation studies. Waste Manag 28:2809–2814
Rodrigues S, Martinho G, Pires A (2016) Waste collection systems part B: benchmarking
indicators. Benchmarking of the Great Lisbon Area, Portugal. J Clean Prod 139:230–241
Rogoff MJ, Williams JF (1994) Approaches to implementing solid waste recycling facilities. Noyes
Publications, Park Ridges
Rousta K, Bolton K, Danhén L (2016) A procedure to transform recycling behavior for source
separation of household waste. Recycling 1:147–165
Saphores JD, Nixon H, Ogunseitan O, Shapiro A (2006) Household willingness to recycle
electronic waste: an application to California. Environ Behav 38:183–208
References 93

Schlegel RP, DiTecco D (1982) Attitudinal structures and the attitude-behavior relation. In:
Zanna MP, Higgins ET, Herman CP (eds) Consistency in social behavior: the Ontario sympo-
sium, vol 2. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 283–301
Schmuck P, Vlek C (2003) Psychologists can do much to support sustainable development.
Eur Psychol 8:66–76
Schultz PW, Oskamp S, Mainieri T (1995) Who recycles and when? A review of personal and
situational factors. J Environ Psychol 15:105–121
Schwartz SH (1970) Moral decision making and behavior. In: Macauley M, Berkowitz L (eds)
Altruism and helping behavior. Academic Press, New York, pp 127–141
Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in exper-
imental social psychology, vol 10. Academic Press, New York, pp 221–279
Söderholm P (2011) Environmental policy and household behavior: sustainability and everyday life
London. Earthscan, Washington, DC
Springer T, Haver R (1994) Preventing waste at the source: educating the public. Resour Recycl
13:95–100
Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues
56:65–84
Stern PC, Oskamp S (1987) Managing scarce environmental resources. In: Stokols D, Altman I
(eds) Handbook of environmental psychology, vol 2. Wiley, New York, pp 1043–1088
Tonglet M, Phillips P, Bates M (2004) Determining the drivers for householder pro-environmental
behavior: waste minimization compared to recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 42:27–48
Vallerand RJ, Pelletier LG, Blais MR, Brière NM, Senècal C, Vallières EF (1992) The academic
motivation scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic and amotivation in education. Educ Psychol
Meas 52:1003–1017
Vencatasawmy CP, Ohman M, Brannstrom TA (2000) A survey of recycling behavior in house-
holds in Kiruna, Sweden. Waste Manag 18:545–556
Vining J, Ebreo A (1990) What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers.
Environ Behav 22:55–73
Vining J, Ebreo A (1992) Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental
attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. J Appl Soc Psychol 22:1580–1607
Vining J, Linn N, Burdge R (1992) Why recycle? A comparison of recycling motivations in four
communities. Environ Manag 16:785–797
Vitor F, Martinho MG (2009) Factors influencing households’ participation in organic waste
separation. In: Proceedings of the ISWA 2009 World Congress, Lisbon, 12–15 Oct 2009
Vlek C (1996) Collective risk generation and risk management the unexploited potential of the
social dilemas paradigm. In: Liebrand WBG, Messick DM (eds) Frontiers in social dilemmas
research. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–38
Vlek C, Steg L (2002) The commons dilemma as a practical model for research and policy making
about environmental risks. In G. Bartels & W. Nelissen (Eds.), Marketing for sustainability.
Towards transactional policy-making (pp. 205–303). Amsterdam, Berlin, Oxford: IOS Press
Waite R (1995) Household waste recycling. Earthscan Publications Ldt, London
Watts A, Fuszek R, Arndt M (1994) In the multi-family way: testing collection strategies and
examining costs. Resour Recycl 13:51–56
Webb T, Sheeran P, Luszczynska A (2009) Planning to break unwanted habits: habit strength
moderates implementation intention effects on behavior change. Br J Soc Psychol 48:507–523
Zanna MP, Higgins ET, Herman CP (1982) Consistency in social behaviour. Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Chapter 7
Economic Perspective

Abstract In a sustainable waste collection and management system, the economic

component is traditionally an imperative factor for the decisions and justifications of
all operations. The calculation of the cost and revenue components associated with
waste collection systems must be taken into account and analyzed from an integrated
waste management perspective. Additionally, the willingness and the affordability
of citizens to finance the waste collection and management system are also vital to
the success of any collection and management system. In this chapter presented and
discussed are the waste collection costs, the financial concerns of waste management
systems and instruments of waste policy, and the public and private sector financing.

Keywords Benchmarking · Cost functions · Financing · Fuel consumption · PAYT ·

Public-private partnership · Recycling · Solid waste

7.1 Waste Collection Costs

Waste collection and transportation can represent the most expensive component of
an integrated waste management system (IWMS), as it involves intensive labor and
many vehicles with high fuel consumption. Several authors indicate costs above
50% on municipal solid waste (MSW) collection, although, in some cases, it may
represent 70–80% of the total costs (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993; Bilitewski et al.
1994; Sonesson 2000; Johansson 2006; Faccio 2011; Sora and González 2014;
Greco et al. 2015).
Moreover, the mentioned costs will increase with the growing implementation of
separate collection for different materials (e.g., package and packaging waste,
organic) and with the development and application of information and communica-
tion technologies (ICT), as well as with the progress of platforms and programs for
integrated collection management (smart waste collection).
Waste system planning and management consist of a trade-off between a set of
goals that can be opposite, such as reduction of collection costs or increasing
amounts of waste for recycling and recovery. It requires a holistic and interactive
approach regarding costs and benefits associated with various components of an

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 95

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_7
96 7 Economic Perspective

integrated waste management system (Shekdar and Mistry 2001). In this context, it
is essential to know the costs and the primary drivers of waste collection systems and
identify optimization opportunities and benchmarking analysis for the most cost-
effective waste collection system decisions (Jacobsen et al. 2013; Huang et al. 2011;
Greco et al. 2015).
However, given the vast diversity and complexity of waste collection systems,
cost-benefit analysis is not a simple task since it requires collection and integration of
big amount of data. Benchmarking analysis between different MSW collection
systems is a complex or even impossible exercise and must always be done with
due caution and reference to the local context, since economic efficiency depends on
many specific and contextual factors, which cannot be strictly comparable between
them (D’Onza et al. 2016; Hage 2008). As Hage (2008) points out, there is no simple
way to understand waste collection system costs without considering the local
context in which they apply. There are countless contextual variables that may
influence the waste collection costs, namely, amount, composition, and specific
weight of waste streams to collect (e.g., undifferentiated waste or material separate
collection); type, number, and location of waste containers (e.g., bags, bins/con-
tainers, pneumatic systems, fill rate); system collection type (e.g., drop-off systems,
door-to-door collection); vehicle type (e.g., capacity, compaction rate, mechaniza-
tion, fuel consumption, maintenance costs); smart equipments and technologies
used; route optimization efficiency; collection frequency; demographical character-
istics (e.g., population served, mean household size, population density); urban
agglomeration type and structure; terrain altitude and topography; traffic conditions
and restrictions; climatic conditions; garage and treatment or disposal facility loca-
tion; team size, number of working hours, and staff average salaries; market structure
(e.g., public/private monopoly or competitive); waste policies (e.g., recycling
targets, landfill diversion); subsidies and tax; market price for recyclable waste;
behavior of collection service users; commuting and tourism; and methodology used
to calculate costs.
The empirical results of studies carried out in municipalities of several countries
show that the main drivers of solid waste collection are amount of waste, collection
type and target material (e.g., undifferentiated, paper/paperboard, multi-material,
organic), population density and municipality size (economies of scale), collection
frequency, number of collection points/pickup per area, and salaries (Stevens 1978;
Callan and Thomas 2001; Dijkgraaf and Gradus 2004; Dubin and Navarro 1988;
Ohlsson 2003; Greco et al. 2015; Karadimas et al. 2007; Greco et al. 2015).
Besides the diversity and complexity of contextual and operational/technological
variables, costs of waste collection systems benchmarking analysis also face the
difficulty to obtain comparable data, such as lack of MSW definition harmonization,
container-vehicle systems diversity, and methods used to calculate current and
foreseen costs (Rodrigues et al. 2016a). Dahlén et al. (2009) identified and charac-
terized different error sources from waste collection data, which make comparison
rough, into these groups: (i) “general data problems,” such as the incorrect MSW
definition; (ii) “data uncertainties related to specific waste categories,” such as
number and frequency of collection, for example, paper/cardboard collected in
7.1 Waste Collection Costs 97

commercial sector (it does not depend on collection system or population

participation); (iii) “unreliable data from recycling centers,” because they receive
waste from commercial sector further household MSW; and finally, (iv) “household
waste component analysis data not comparable” because there are no standardized
methods.
As geographical and demographic data (e.g., routes distances, number of inhab-
itants), geographic information systems (GIS), and optimization software are more
accessible nowadays, they allow better scaling and planning of the waste collection
service (Rada et al. 2013; Sanjeevi and Shahabudeen 2016). Since 2000, GIS and
optimization software have been used to reduce the distances traveled by the
vehicles (Sanjeevi and Shahabudeen 2016) and to optimize the container location
and coverage (López et al. 2007). However, the software requires detailed data for
functioning correctly, such as the number and capacity of the containers, the
collection vehicle’s capacity, the specific weight of waste inside the containers, the
filling rates, the waste collection times, and the number of working hours, among
others (Bosch et al. 2001; Sonesson 2000; Ghose 2006; González-Torre et al. 2003;
Johansson 2006). These data are not always available and often rely on statistics and
empirical data, such as the specific weight of the waste inside the container and waste
collection times for each type of system and waste stream. Because gathering this
data is challenging, standard costs and calculation models are often obtained in other
contexts, and because of that, the results can be conditioned.
These difficulties may justify the fact that waste collection systems have not been
further studied in integrated waste management systems. This statement is supported
by Allesch and Brunner (2014), who reviewed 151 studies on waste management
assessment methods, analyzing their objectives, methodologies, investigated
systems, and the results about the economic, environmental, and social issues. The
authors concluded that although economic aspects are considered in approximately
50% of the studies, only 9% of them analyze the waste collection subsystem.
Many of the publications are based on comparative analysis between different
collection systems: Hage (2008) used cost indicators to compare the separate
collection of household plastic packaging waste in Sweden; Larsen et al. (2010)
used the impact assessment categories of the life cycle analysis, as well as the
collection costs, recycling rates, sorting efficiency, and waste quantities; Vidal
(2001) developed evaluation indexes focused on legal, social, environmental, and
economic performance to evaluate four presorting practices in Spain; Gamberini
et al. (2013) applied demand profiles and annual cost indexes for waste management,
expressed as €/year and €/year/inhabitant in several Italian communities.
The disadvantage of the use of models is that cost data must be accurate, and
representative of the specific case study since the use of standard data is not always
considered a safe approach. Besides that, cost data may not be readily accessible,
and, occasionally, several assumptions must be analyzed (Komilis 2008). More
recently, the development and implementation of ICT (i.e., volumetric sensors,
RFID systems, GPRS and GPS technologies) allowed real-time monitoring of the
routes, and these tasks are executed in a more precise way.
98 7 Economic Perspective

The waste collection and transport costs can be expressed as a total annual value
(€/year) or a total cost per ton of waste collected (€/t), per inhabitant served (€/inhab/
year), or per area (€/m2). The most common indicator is the cost per ton collected
(Sora and González 2014). These indicators can also be disaggregated by type of
waste collected (e.g., undifferentiated or specific stream), by type of collection
system (e.g., drop-off systems, door-to-door collection), or by cost components
(e.g., human resources, fleet, administrative costs and revenue). The cost indicator
to be used and the level of disaggregation will depend on the intended objectives for
the cost analysis and the available information.
However, there is no common basis for the indicator’s calculation, defining
which cost components should be included (or excluded) or how they should be
evaluated, or the boundaries of the subsystem to be considered for the analysis.
Some analysis only determines the absolute costs related to the waste collection and
transport, and others, in the specific case of waste selective collection systems,
determine the relative costs by accounting, for example, the avoided costs of
landfilling or the related environmental and economic benefits of natural resource
savings, the sale of recyclables income, or reduction of CO2 emissions, among
others. These approaches require the use of proper methodologies, such as the
economic life cycle analysis of materials, or the calculation of the equivalent CO2
emissions, which also have their limitations.
The lack of a conventional standard approach often results in incomplete or
inaccurate costs data, leading to the risk of faulty conclusions or decisions, or
making it impossible to compare and analyze most cost-effective waste collection
systems. Table 7.1 presents some examples of cost values obtained for different
urban waste collection and transport systems and for different countries or cities,
whose differences reflect this context, type of variables considered, and methods or
models used.
In theory, all direct and indirect costs and revenues of the waste collection and
transport system must be considered for the costs calculation, namely, the amorti-
zation of equipment (e.g., investments in vehicles and containers and their realistic
depreciation and amortization rates); the operating and maintenance costs of
containers and vehicles (e.g., insurance, maintenance pieces, fuel and other fluids,
materials and labor for repairing works, tires and washing expenses); labor costs
directly related with the collection activity (salaries and social costs for vehicle
drivers and other employees) and for staff who do not work directly with the
MSW; consumable, clothing, and miscellaneous material costs; administrative
costs, which include the costs of installations, namely, the amortization and the
maintenance costs related to buildings, administrative and IT equipment, hygiene
and cleaning, insurances, security, energy and water consumption, communications,
interest, and tax charges; and the costs with information and awareness of citizens
and economic agents.
However, because it is not always easy to gather all that information, some
authors only account the most relevant direct costs related to the human resources
(labor force) and the fleet, and disregard, for example, the costs related with the
infrastructures, administrative services, and others. In fact, those are the components
7.1 Waste Collection Costs 99

Table 7.1 Cost indicators of different urban waste collection and transport systems
Cost/waste
Waste type/ collected
stream System type (ton) Observations
Mixed waste n/a $77.82 Data from cost analysis (Callan and Thomas
2001)
$40–90 Costs including pick-up, transfer, and trans-
port to the final disposal site (for developed
countries) (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012)
$30–75 Costs including pick-up, transfer, and trans-
port to the final disposal site (for developing
countries) (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012)
$85–250 Costs including pick-up, transfer, and trans-
port to the final disposal site (for G8 coun-
tries) (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012)
79.34 € Data from full cost accounting (D’Onza
et al. 2016)
Road con- 56–126 € Costs for municipal waste management in the
tainers, door- EU – average values (Hogg 2002)
to-door 30–67 € Costs for municipal waste management in the
EU – urban values (Hogg 2002)
55–71 € Costs for municipal waste management in the
EU – rural values (Hogg 2002)
37.50 € Values for Portuguese municipalities (Levy
2004)
$12.19– Solid waste collected in 1996 at US munici-
111.40 palities (Bohm et al. 2010)
Road 123.59 € Based on real data on Catalan municipalities
containers (Sora and González 2014)
19.60 € Results from a cost calculation method pro-
posed by Boskovic et al. (2016). Mixed waste
with separate collection of recyclables
16.40 € Results from a cost calculation method pro-
posed by Boskovic et al. (2016). Mixed waste
without separate collection of recyclables
Door-to-door 154.39 € Based on real data on Catalan municipalities
(Sora and González 2014)
Recyclable mate- n/a 224.38 € Data from full cost accounting (D’Onza
rials (mix) et al. 2016)
Road con- $72.57– Recyclable materials collected in 1996
tainers, door- 342.80 (Bohm et al. 2010)
to-door
Road 59.00 € Costs for municipal recyclable waste in the
containers EU cities (Hogg 2002)
19.70 € Results from a cost calculation method pro-
posed by Boskovic et al. (2016)
381.44 € Based on real data on Catalan municipalities
(Sora and González 2014)
180–270 € Costs for municipal recyclable waste in the
EU cities (Hogg 2002)
(continued)
100 7 Economic Perspective

Table 7.1 (continued)

Cost/waste
Waste type/ collected
stream System type (ton) Observations
Door-to-door 100–180 € Costs for municipal recyclable waste in the
(plastic bags) EU cities (Hogg 2002)
Door-to-door 252.72 € Based on real data on Catalan municipalities
(Sora and González 2014)
169–300 € Costs for municipal recyclable waste in the
EU cities (Hogg 2002)
Paper and card n/a 158.03 € Data from full cost accounting (D’Onza et al.
2016)
Road con- 173.49 € Values for Portugal municipalities (Levy
tainers, door- 2004)
to-door 193.00 € Based on measured cost data (Rodrigues
et al. 2016a, b)
Road 82–150 € Costs for municipal recyclable waste in the
containers EU cities (Hogg 2002)
41.74 € Values for Denmark municipalities (Larsen
et al. 2010)
49–191 € Based on measured cost data (Rodrigues
et al. 2016a, b)
Door-to-door 30–146 € Costs for municipal recyclable waste in the
EU cities (Hogg 2002)
75.30 € Values for Denmark municipalities (Larsen
et al. 2010)
77.00 € Based on measured cost data (Rodrigues
et al. 2016a, b)
Door-to-door 732.00 € Based on measured cost data (Rodrigues
(plastic bags) et al. 2016a, b)
Plastic and metal Road con- 277.00 € Average of the different types of collection
tainers, door- (Rodrigues et al. 2016a, b)
to-door
Road 74–269 € Based on measured cost data (Rodrigues
containers et al. 2016a, b)
Door-to-door 123.00 € Based on measured cost data (Rodrigues
et al. 2016a, b)
Door-to-door 1109 € Based on measured cost data (Rodrigues
(plastic bags) et al. 2016a, b)
Plastic Road con- 504.40 € Values for Portugal municipalities (Levy
tainers, door- 2004)
to-door
Road 230–500 € Costs for municipal recyclable waste in the
containers EU cities (Hogg 2002)
58.52 € Values for Denmark municipalities (Larsen
et al. 2010)
Door-to-door 300–750 € Costs for municipal recyclable waste in the
EU cities (Hogg 2002)
75.30 € Values for Denmark municipalities (Larsen
et al. 2010)
(continued)
7.1 Waste Collection Costs 101

Table 7.1 (continued)

Cost/waste
Waste type/ collected
stream System type (ton) Observations
Glass n/a 157.56 € Data from full cost accounting (D’Onza
et al. 2016)
Road con- 127.92 € Values for Portugal municipalities (Levy
tainers, door- 2004)
to-door 61.00 € Average of the different types of collection
(Rodrigues et al. 2016a, b)
Road 20–50 € Costs for municipal recyclable waste in the
containers EU cities (Hogg 2002)
58.52 € Values for Denmark municipalities (Larsen
et al. 2010)
26–115 € Based on measured cost data (Rodrigues
et al. 2016a, b)
Door-to-door 70–194 € Costs for municipal recyclable waste in the
EU cities (Hogg 2002)
75.30 € Values for Denmark municipalities (Larsen
et al. 2010)
Recyclables Door-to-door 111–133 € Costs for municipal recyclable waste in the
without glass and (rural) EU cities (Hogg 2002)
textiles Door-to-door 171–202 € Costs for municipal recyclable waste in the
(urban) EU cities (Hogg 2002)
Organic n/a 182.75 € Data from full cost accounting (D’Onza
et al. 2016)
n/a: not available

that contribute the most to the total costs of an MSW collection and transport system
(Dogan and Süleyman 2003; Arribas et al. 2010).
Miller and Delbridge (1995) indicate a distribution percentage for the waste
collection and transport system costs between 47% and 56% for labor and 22% for
the fleet, making these two components representing, on average, 80% of the total
costs. The distribution of the other costs is the following: 3% for construction and
utilities, 12% for administrative services, and 5% for other components. Analyzing
the cost distribution of the MSW waste collection and transport system of Lisbon
municipality in Portugal, Santos et al. (1994) also reached similar values for the
percentage distribution of cost components, which were 66% for labor costs, 24%
for fleet, and 10% for other expenses. Labor costs naturally result from the size of
the collection and transport team, depending directly on the method of collection,
the number of working hours, and the average salary of the employees
(Rodrigues 2016).
Waste collection and transport system costs have been organized and presented in
three main formats: (a) capital or investment costs (CAPEX) (i.e., acquisition of
containers and vehicles) and exploration or operation (O&M) (i.e., human resources,
maintenance, fuel) (e.g., Levy et al. 2007); (b) direct costs (i.e., materials, containers,
102 7 Economic Perspective

vehicles, direct salaries, and services) and indirect costs (i.e., administrative costs,
other general costs, financial charges, and taxes) (e.g., Greco et al. 2015; ERSAR
2014); and (c) initial costs (i.e., initial necessary investments and expenses to
implement services), operational costs (i.e., salaries and maintenance of vehicles,
energy, and fuel, rent, and leases, contracted services, interest charges), and end-
of-life expenses (i.e., end-of-life facilities or workers’ retirement pensions)
(USEPA 1997).
As mentioned above, the most relevant financial variables that must be consid-
ered for the total costs of the MSW collection and transport services are human
resources, equipment (vehicles and containers), and fuel consumption. Concerning
human resources, the data needed to calculate the associated costs may be limited to
the total number of employees, the total number of working hours, and the average
value of salaries or can be much more detailed as, for example, considering the type
of professional category or the function of the worker, disaggregating the basic
salary, overtime, health insurance, night service, social security charges, uniforms,
and others components. The number of employees is naturally dependent on the
method of waste collection and transport system, the characteristics of the routes, the
type of containers and vehicles, and the frequency of collection. These factors are
determinant to establish the size of the teams which can have a significant effect on
the total costs (O’Leary and Walsh 1995). To compare labor costs, beyond the
operational differences of the systems, it is also important to consider the level of
remuneration and the labor and trade union laws in each country (i.e., that may have
implications for hiring, conditions for daily working hours, working conditions,
among others).
About capital goods, the essential elements in MSW collection systems are
containers and vehicles, which can be expressed either in the number of existing
physical units or their capacity (García-Sánchez 2008). Selecting the right type of
container for MSW, adapting its characteristics to the specific needs of the waste
collection and transport services, is a critical task, because the amount of waste
collected per collection point and the number of collection points per unit of time
affect the costs of the service (Hogg 2002). If the separate collection system is door-
to-door using bags, the costs will significantly vary if the users themselves provide
the bags, systems supply bags free of charge, or the users of the service pay the bags.
In the latter two situations, there will be a need to consider the costs of bags
acquisition and distribution. Regarding the fleet, although the costs are highly
dependent on the type of vehicle, the variables to be considered for the calculation
of costs should include the average annual cost of vehicle amortization, fuel con-
sumption, tires, oils and other fluids, maintenance (materials and labor), insurance,
accidents, and washing, among others.
Fuel consumption (diesel, biofuel, compressed natural gas (CNG), among others)
is a significant part of the fleet costs, depending of course on the type and charac-
teristics of the vehicles, type of collection and transport system (density of collection
points per area), distance covered, cycles of acceleration, stop and waste mechanical
compaction, terrain orography, traffic conditions, distance traveled between each
collection point of the route, legal speed limits, waste characteristics, driver’s way of
7.1 Waste Collection Costs 103

driving, and fuel prices, among others (Larsen et al. 2009; Nguyen and Wilson
2010; Sonesson 2000). With the optimization of the collection and transport
routes, it is almost always possible to decrease the number of vehicles or the
distances covered, which results in a reduction of fuel consumption, costs, and
pollutant emissions (Abdelli et al. 2016; Rizzoli et al. 2007; Sanjeevi and
Shahabudeen 2016). The number and capacity of the containers to be installed
depends on the quantity of MSW to be collected, their characteristics (e.g., specific
weight, fermentation), collection frequency, associated technology (e.g., sensors),
and the existence of some local standard regarding the accessibility of equipment.
There is an excellent diversity of waste disposal equipment on the market, with
very different acquisition costs.
The waste management entities readily supply data regarding the average fuel
consumption per 100 km (e.g., actual consumption records of vehicles used, per
day/route, year/route). The results have to be interpreted considering the sample of
routes analyzed, which are naturally dependent of the routes, the number of stops,
and the number of turns of the routes, as defended by Sonesson (2000).

7.1.1 Investment Costs (CAPEX)

For calculation of initial investment costs, it is considered equipment acquisition

costs related to MSW collection and transport systems (i.e., undifferentiated or
separate collection): vehicles and containers. In the vehicles, it is considered the
chassis and structure (commonly referred as “box” or “superstructure”). However, it
should be noted that some vehicles allow the structure to be replaced with the same
chassis (“multilift” vehicles), or even the replacement of only one component at the
end of its life, while the other remains in proper operating conditions.
Typically, an MSW collection and transport system from a specific area or
municipality presents a wide diversity of equipment, acquisition dates, and models
(purchase or leasing), and it is necessary to carry out an exhaustive data survey to
convert into annual capital costs. One way to do so is calculating capital costs from
containers and vehicles current investment costs, the methodology used by Larsen
et al. (2010). However, equipment acquisition conditions depend on purchased
quantities and other particular circumstances offered by suppliers (e.g., “regular”
clients or quantity containers acquisition that reduces purchase prices). For that
reason, Rodrigues (2016) chose another methodology to calculate investment
costs, which consider real costs for vehicles and containers in the acquisition year.
Then, costs were updated for the same reference year to obtain a more reliable
effective cost for different routes of MSW separate collection. The conversion
between current prices to constant prices can be done using national statistics, for
example, the consumer price index (CPI) variation rates, which allow the investment
cost to be updated between the year of the equipment acquisition and the
reference year.
104 7 Economic Perspective

Depreciation is a method to allocate capital expenditure costs over the resource

lifetime (USEPA 1997). A “straight-line depreciation method” or “constant share
depreciation method” considers that the value of good or service decreases at a
constant rate, and depreciation costs are calculated by dividing the capital outlay
over the lifetime of the asset acquired. In this method, if the municipality or company
made equal annual deposits, at the end of the asset lifetime, this value is exactly fair
to the replacement cost of that asset (Assis 2011). For example, a 10 years lifetime
vehicle would have an annual depreciation cost of one-tenth of its total capital cost.
This method of constant yearly depreciation is indicated by USEPA (1997).
This method contemplates that the capital opportunity costs are null. For that
reason, some authors (Rodrigues 2016; Goulart 2003; Lavita 2008) opted for
“decelerated depreciation methods,” a more appropriate method for goods that lose
value more quickly at the beginning than at the end of their lifetime, such as
collection vehicles, which is usually accompanied by lower maintenance costs at
the beginning and more significant at their end of life. In the case of containers,
depreciation is more constant, as well as maintenance costs. Regarding containers,
maintenance costs are more constant, although in some models, such as underground
models with hydraulic systems, there is also an increase in maintenance costs at the
end of life. Rodrigues (2016), Goulart (2003), and Carvalho (2011) calculate the
equipment’s annual cost according to the following equation:

i ð1 þ i Þn
ac ¼ ic   ð1  frÞ
ð1 þ iÞn  1

where ac ¼ annual cost (€), ic ¼ initial cost (€), i ¼ social discount rate (%),
n ¼ equipment lifetime (yr), and fr ¼ fractional residual value at the end of the
equipment lifetime (%).
Regarding social discount tax (i), there is considerable diversity in the amounts
that can be considered. Rodrigues (2016) opted to use a rate between 4% and 5%,
which is the value indicated by the European Commission (2015). This value is a
benchmark parameter for the real opportunity cost for the long-term capital. Larsen
et al. (2010) updates the capital costs for waste collection equipment, assuming
10 years for equipment lifetime and a social discount rate of 6%, value
recommended by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Komilis (2008)
uses the value of 3% for the social discount rate applied to MSW collection vehicles.
Goulart (2003), Lavita (2008), and Gomes (2008) use a differentiated interest rate,
specifically 8% for containers purchase and a value between 8% and 15% for
vehicles.
Through the contacts with municipalities and equipment suppliers, Rodrigues
(2016) notes the diversity of practices adopted that lead to different equipment
lifetimes. These factors are related to equipment design characteristics in its
construction allied to its use during the lifetime (e.g., operating limits and vehicle
overloading) and different maintenance conditions given to the same equipment
(e.g., oil change and other fluids at scheduled time).
Assis (2011) states two factors that must be considered about the equipment
lifetime (n): the time during which the equipment is used in proper operating
7.1 Waste Collection Costs 105

conditions (physical life) and its loss of value resulting from technology obsoles-
cence. Rodrigues (2016) considers that the accounting depreciation used, for exam-
ple, in municipal services companies or the cases reported by Delloite (2004) and
Rhoma (2010), should be avoided. Alternatively, the author proposes that real values
of equipment technical depreciation must be used. To do this, the adopted number of
years in the formula should be close as possible to reality, based on information
provided by equipment suppliers and users, such as municipalities.
In the specific case of Lisbon Metropolitan Area (Portugal), Rodrigues (2016)
consulted the municipalities and waste management entities of Lisbon, Cascais, and
Sintra to obtain equipment lifetime information. Thereafter, Rodrigues (2016)
concludes Lisbon considers 14 years for the chassis and a value between 8 and
10 years for vehicle’s superstructure; Cascais assumes 8 years for the chassis and the
collection structure; and Sintra uses the equipment’s accounting depreciation, which
is 5 years for vehicles (intensive use with two shifts per day) and 7 years for
containers. In addition, a company that works in the same intervention area indicates
that after 4 years a deep repair of the collection structure is required, which entails
considerable costs.
Rodrigues (2016) also analyzed different information provided by Portuguese
environmental equipment suppliers, representatives of waste collection vehicle’s
international brands, and containers washing services, among others. The values
are between 6 and 12 years, although with some specificities: 8 years for side-loader
compactor vehicle amortization, 8–10 years for all compactor vehicles, 10–12 for the
multilift vehicles with mobile compactor and crane and for single-compartment
open-body vehicles, and 6 years for the rest of the vehicles.
Vehicle life span assumed in the literature mentioned studies is variable, depending
on the characteristics of the equipments, although the most common is 5 years: Lavita
(2008) for any type of waste selective collection vehicle; Goulart (2003) for closed-
body single-compartment vehicle, with intermittent compactor and double crane hook;
Rhoma (2010) for vehicles with compaction; and Delloite (2004) for all vehicles.
Values between 6 and 7 years are used for closed-body single-compartmented waste
collection vehicles, with intermittent compactor and rear-end loading (Gomes 2008;
Ricci 2003) and 7 years for the single-compartment open-body vehicles, without
compactor, nor loading system (Ricci 2003). In the transport optimization model
presented by Komilis (2008), 8 years of amortization for the vehicles are used.
USEPA (1997) indicated waste collection vehicle’s life span between 5 and 7 years.
Regarding containers literature references, the life span for these equipments
varies between 8 and 15 years, according to their characteristics: 8 years for drop-
off recycling containers (Delloite 2004) and for surface containers, immobile,
without compaction, collection with lift frontal and/or lift side supports (Lavita
2008); 8–10 years to surface containers, wheeled, without compaction, collection
with lift frontal and/or lift side supports (Rhoma 2010; Gomes 2008; Goulart 2003);
and 15 years for semiunderground, without compaction, compact container, crane
one ring (Goulart 2003).
Based on all references consulted, Rodrigues (2016) assumes 8 years of the
lifetime for all types of vehicles, except for open-body vehicles, with 10 years of
106 7 Economic Perspective

lifetime. For containers, the same author uses 10 years of the lifetime for surface
containers and 15 years for semiunderground and underground containers.
Concerning the fractional residual value at the end of equipment lifetime (fr),
Rodrigues (2016) used the information collected from Lisbon, Cascais, and Sintra
municipalities and MSW management entities, as well as literature references
(Goulart 2003; Lavita 2008; Gomes 2008; Carvalho 2011; Rhoma 2010).
For vehicles, the author considers that the residual value is 15% of the initial cost.
For containers, the value considered is null, since at the end of this equipment
lifetime, they have no market value, except in the case of metal containers, which
can be sold when their dismantle is compensatory.

7.1.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs (O&M)

For the operating and maintenance costs, only those directly related to the waste
collection and transport service are considered, to allow a better comparison between
the performance of the waste management systems and avoid the differences that
arise from the local contexts in which they are inserted. In this regard, the following
costs must be considered: vehicle and container maintenance, fuel consumption, and
human resources (excluding technicians and administrative staff).
For maintenance costs analysis, Rodrigues (2016) considered the economic
studies published about MSW collection and transport services, as well as the
costs data collected in three municipalities of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area (Lisbon,
Cascais, and Sintra) and from other service providers of waste management sector.
Regarding the annual maintenance costs related to vehicle repair, the values
obtained in the literature vary, although the most consensual is 5% about the
acquisition cost (Carvalho 2011; Gomes 2008; Goulart 2003). Nevertheless,
Rhoma (2010) indicates a lower annual maintenance cost, between 2.5–3.1% of
vehicle acquisition costs. From the contact with service providers, Rodrigues (2016)
obtained maintenance values representing 6% of the cost of acquisition, which is a
similar value to those indicated in the literature references.
In the process of gathering information carried out by Rodrigues (2016) in the
municipalities of Lisbon, Cascais, and Sintra, it was verified in most cases that
the costs are disaggregated per type of vehicle, and this control is performed through
the vehicle registration. However, the values refer to actual maintenance costs
(preventive and corrective), which are different because they are directly related to
the regular and standard use and equipment maintenance. Rodrigues (2016) also
concludes that the values presented by the municipalities and service providers are
higher than those indicated in the literature, which, according to the equipment
service providers, is due to failures in preventive maintenance, which does not
prevent later serious repairs.
Regarding containers, the fraction of the investment cost spent annually on the
maintenance and repair of these equipments assumes different values according to
the authors. In the literature review, Goulart (2003) considers the highest value,
7.1 Waste Collection Costs 107

around 35%. On the other hand, Rhoma (2010) and Lavita (2008) show significantly
lower costs for surface containers: Rhoma indicates 4.3% for rear-end loading
surface containers with a lifetime of 10 years; Lavita indicates the maintenance
cost of 4.6% in relation to the purchase cost for selective collection containers with
crane (0.65 €/container/year, in relation to 2500 L containers), also considering the
container insurance (19 €/container/year).
Concerning container maintenance costs, data that Rodrigues (2016) tried to
collect through the municipalities of Lisbon, Cascais, and Sintra were not adequate
for analysis, since the local authorities did not have the analytical accounting. The
main reason is the disparate information that does not always allow costs allocation
for differentiating container types. Rodrigues (2016) tried to validate data collected
in the literature review. From the exercise carried out, a percentage value of cost
around 4.3% of the acquisition cost was obtained for container maintenance, which
coincides with the value indicated by Rhoma (2010). On the other hand, the service
providers also reported values in the same order of magnitude for the rear-end
loading surface containers with wheels. Although the most common maintenance
costs are obtained for rear-end surface containers, Rodrigues (2016) also obtained
data from service providers about the maintenance cost for underground containers,
which is around 5.4%, including equipment washing.
Among the existing methods to estimate energy consumption and its costs, the
most common is to consider that the fuel consumption, as well as the time required to
collection and transport operations, is a function of the distance traveled. These two
factors are considered sufficient to calculate both the associated cost and the
environmental impact of the transport, as they give a driving conditions estimate
of the vehicles (stopping and acceleration times related to traffic or the collection
routes and waste compaction operations) (Sonesson 2000).
Fuel consumption usually is an accessible data, with a low associated error,
through existing records of the waste management entities responsible for waste
collection and transport vehicles. Data are generally disaggregated for each equip-
ment regarding fuel supplies control and their costs. However, as Sonesson (2000)
defend, the means of consumption, by type of vehicle, will have to be interpreted
considering the size of the sampled routes analyzed, as well as their characteristics.
Another operating cost component is the size of the work team responsible for the
waste collection and transport, which can have a significant effect on total costs,
depending on labor and equipment costs, collection methods, routes, and union
contracts. Costs should also be broken down into categories, such as waste collection
workers and truck drivers, as Rodrigues (2016) states, to assess the average values
for the team due to its constitution.
Also related to human resources costs, Santos et al. (1994) define the cost
components that should be considered to estimate this component: base salary,
overtime, healthcare allowance, night service, and other social charges. The uni-
forms can be considered in a different parcel. In the municipalities consulted by
Rodrigues (2016) (Lisbon, Cascais, and Sintra), the costs of health insurance,
occupational medicine, work accidents, and life insurance are sometimes accounted
108 7 Economic Perspective

in a separate component, corresponding to around 4% of the base salary, the value

that must be added to obtain total costs.
According to Rodrigues (2016), other operational costs that must be considered
are water and detergents consumed in the washing of containers and vehicles, which
may be high. However, Rodrigues (2016) was not able to measure the costs for this
parcel.
In conclusion, when the overall costs of SWM have been identified, unit costs
(e.g., per ton of waste, per inhabitant, per household, per m2) can be calculated. It is a
powerful tool to obtain information on the relative costs for different alternatives to
specific system component or to determine the most appropriate user charge for
inhabitants. For example, the evaluation of alternative scenarios for collecting waste
and transporting it to waste treatment or disposal sites, with and without transfer
stations, can be carried out by directly comparing the unit costs per ton of total waste
managed during the operational period of each scenario (GIZ 2015).
The collecting cost data required is not often well known or available in local
authority accounting systems. Few jurisdictions use total cost accounting methods,
and there is considerable variation in the way municipalities report waste manage-
ment expenditure in their budget reports. Local governments generally maintain
separate accounts for different types of expenses and publish them in financial
statements according to line items; expenses are grouped according to the kinds of
items or services purchased rather than by activity, not providing information on the
waste management service or its components (USEPA 1997; Folz 1999; GIZ 2015;
Rodrigues et al. 2016b).
Individually, costs are grouped into expenses with salaries, benefits, services
purchased (e.g., consulting and technical assistance, repair and maintenance
services, rent), supplies (e.g., energy, food), and property (e.g., building, equipment,
and vehicles), but are not discriminated by type of activity (e.g., selective collection,
undifferentiated collection, container washing, vehicle washing). When there is no
breakdown of costs by type of service or activity, then it is difficult to expect that the
management entities will discriminate by collection system or circuit, which would
add a second level of detail and would allow a more direct allocation of costs to a
specific component of the system. This implies additional collection and processing
of data, but any approach necessarily requires a comprehensive collection of infor-
mation, the definition of which depends on the level or types of costs to be
determined (USEPA 1997).

7.2 Financial Concerns of Waste Management Systems

and Instruments of Waste Policy

The total cost continuous analysis is essential for waste collection and transport
system managers, as it identifies opportunities for service improvement and costs
reduction, as well as it evaluates financial needs to ensure economic sustainability.
7.2 Financial Concerns of Waste Management Systems and Instruments of Waste Policy 109

However, decision-making of collection operational system cannot be made based

only on this specific operation cost analysis but must be analyzed in the context of an
integrated waste management system.
The existence of separate collection schemes by waste (i.e., undifferentiated
further waste streams selective collection), the presence of different types of con-
tainers and vehicles, as well as how the collection service is planned, has implica-
tions both upstream and downstream of the waste collection system itself. For
example, container type and location are determinant factors for end users behavior:
(i) efficiency on recycling programs participation and (ii) waste quantity generated
by households. To this phenomenon Rathje and Murphy (1992) nominated
“Parkinson’s Law,” and when it applies to waste management means, “waste
expands according to available space.” According to Rathje and Murphy (1992),
when people have small containers they tend to find other destinations for their bulky
waste that does not fit in the containers (e.g. garden waste, large packages, furniture),
such as keeping it on household garage, sending for repair, selling, offering or
transporting it to specific drop-off locations. On the other hand, people with more
extensive containers tend to discard bulky waste mixed with other waste without
thinking of alternatives and increasing waste generation.
Additionally, simpler and low-priced waste collection systems (i.e.,
undifferentiated collection devoid of major equipment or technologies) have conse-
quences on treatment system costs, as sorting and recovery technologies are needed.
Moreover, the sale of products from waste treatment (e.g., recyclable materials,
compost, or energy) may not generate as much revenue because of the lower quality
of them.
Because the collection phase is interlinked with the processing and disposal
phases in an MSW plan, there is always a trade-off from a system analysis perspec-
tive (Chang and Pires 2015). So, financing of waste collection and transport system
should be approached from a global perspective of integrated waste management
system, taking into account the operational components of the system (i.e., collec-
tion, material recovery facility, mechanical and biological treatment facility, energy
recovery, and/or landfill), as well as policies, legislation, and regulations at local,
regional, and national level.
Waste policies, legislation, and regulations are decisive for MSW management
systems, either for the operating system design, for the costs, or for the financing
models and sources. Waste hierarchy principle has been recognized for several
decades by all European countries. This principle is required under the European
Waste Framework Directive (Article 4) and is reflected on policies and specific
legislation in several countries, regions, and/or municipalities, with particular goals
and targets for reduction, reuse, recycling, and separate collection for some waste
streams (e.g., package and packaging waste, bio-waste, WEEE, and batteries and
accumulators), and some countries (e.g., Germany) limit or even ban it from waste
disposal. MSW selective collection systems are strategic for target accomplishment
as well as for current paradigm of the circular economy, once economy needs
materials in quantity and quality. The diversity and the highest number of selective
collection systems are translated into increasing costs of MSW-integrated
110 7 Economic Perspective

management system. These costs cannot be compensated by recyclable material

purchase or by energy generated on processes of biological or energy valorization
(i.e., anaerobic digestion and incineration), if proper economic instruments are not
adopted.
Regulatory, economic and information instruments have been the tools used by
several governments to put in practice or encourage established policies for waste to
reduce pollution, reduce waste production, improve waste management, and maxi-
mize waste recovery. The first waste policy instruments, which began in most
developed countries in the 1970s, focused exclusively on the regulation of technical
standards to control and prevent pollution caused by incorrect waste management.
These regulatory or “command and control” instruments are mostly based on the
emission limit values for specific pollutants or guideline value concentration of
pollutants in the various environmental compartments (i.e., air, water, soil), both
generally established according to their toxicity to public health.
There is also direct imposition of constructive and operational standards for waste
infrastructures (i.e., landfills, incinerators), product use (e.g., sludge from the
WWTP or compost in the soil), ban marketing of products containing some hazard-
ous substances (e.g., mercury and cadmium in batteries, flame retardants in EEE),
fixes targets for selective collection and recycling (e.g., packaging, batteries, biode-
gradable waste, WEEE, construction and demolition waste, end of life vehicles
(ELV), waste oils), and licensing procedures. This “command and control” instru-
ments regulate behavior directly by prescribing specific legislation and standards
which must be achieved and enforcing compliance through the use of penalties and
fines (Perman et al. 2003).
The application of regulatory instruments to the waste sector has had positive
effects on the development and improvement of recovery, treatment, and disposal
technologies. However, these measures have not been sufficient to reverse the trend
of increasing production of waste, and it is a weak management. The most significant
problem with the implementation of these instruments has been that, by chance or
exceptionally, the regulated values lead to an efficient economic solution and
therefore to an optimal level of externality. In addition, the establishment of stan-
dards involves monitoring compliance by a monitoring and control entity. This
situation is, in most cases, tough to implement extensively.
The recognition that the traditional “command and control” approach has not
been sufficient for the objectives of sustainable waste management and the shared
responsibility has led many developed countries, since the 1980s, to integrate
economic or market-based instruments into their waste policies. In fact, the
European Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/CE) points out the crucial role of
economic instruments to reach the goals of an ecologically sound waste
management.
In addition to their high flexibility, which contrasts with the rigidity of regulatory
instruments, economic instruments have the advantage of being a constant incentive
for waste reduction and recovery, promoting the development of cleaner technolo-
gies and offering greater cost-effectiveness and better integration with other sector
policies. The application of these economic instruments in MSW management has
7.2 Financial Concerns of Waste Management Systems and Instruments of Waste Policy 111

two primary objectives: to cover or improve cost recovery and to change or influence
behavior, through their impact on market signals, in order to minimize waste, avoid
adverse impacts (e.g., from landfill or incineration), or increase resource recovery
and recycling (GIZ 2015).
Today the economic instruments are a critical component of the waste policy mix
of many countries and encompass a range of tools. The most widely used have been
charged for services (or user charges), product charges, deposit-refund systems,
extended producer responsibility (e.g., producer fee schemes for packaging,
WEE), landfill and incineration taxes, subsidies, and tax rebates (e.g., VAT) for
recyclable and recycled.
The product charges are based on a principle directly related to the principle of
producer responsibility, since they seek to internalize in the product the subsequent
costs with the collection, treatment, or final disposal of the waste. Generally speak-
ing, the application of such instrument refers to the obligation for producers or
importers of a particular product to pay (or agree) an additional fee to ensure that a
final safe and non-polluting final destination be equated for the same. This is what is
happening today with several integrated systems of specific waste streams (e.g.,
single-use plastic bags). Also providing a recipe for product management when it
becomes waste, these rates are also intended to encourage producers to reduce the
amount or hazard of the waste that their products originate through, for example,
eco-design.
Deposit-refund systems are to some extent related to the principle of producer
responsibility. This is, in fact, a surcharge on the price of the product, but differs in
the following issues: the deposit is not based on the weight or volume of the product
concerned; the deposit is returned when the product is delivered to the collection
operators. This instrument acts as an economic incentive for returning products after
the end of their lifetime, thus contributing to the waste reduction and, indirectly, for
preserving and recovering resources and energy due to reuse and recycling.
In addition to its widespread application to reusable beverage packaging, in some
countries, the use of this type of instrument to other non-reusable products, such as
packaging, household appliances, automotive batteries, end-of-life vehicles, and
tires, has been found. Experience from the application of this instrument indicates
that return rates are not very sensitive to the deposit value. Much more important in
this context is the number, knowledge, and convenience of collection points for
consumers (Pearce and Brisson 1995).
Concerning landfill taxes, they are a capable instrument to correct market failures
and help internalize external costs caused by waste disposal, through methane
emissions, potential leachate, neighbor communities’ amenity costs, and increased
transport. Through a price signal, landfill taxes can divert waste streams from
landfills to recycling. The effectiveness of the landfill tax environmental incentive
depends on the tax rate, very different among countries. Usually landfill taxes are
implemented with other command and control instruments, like some substances
landfill ban or more ambitions landfill standards, which may have an immediate
effect in the recyclable material separate collection. Revenues from landfill taxes can
be used to fund activities improving waste management and recycling activities, as at
112 7 Economic Perspective

household level, landfill diversion is mostly an indirect result. In other words, a

national level tax will impact local authorities, which are responsible for promoting
awareness and information campaigns for citizens. Thereby, that is a good way to get
to know the taxes impact on the amount charged of households’ waste management
and consequently reduce waste generation.
The extended producer responsibility is a policy approach under which pro-
ducers are given a significant responsibility – financial and physical – for the
treatment or disposal of postconsumer products. According to OECD (2018),
assigning such responsibility could provide incentives to prevent waste, promote
eco-design of products, and support the achievement of public recycling and
material management goals.
Product charges, deposit-refund systems, landfill taxes, and extended producer
responsibility have a significant impact on the collected MSW quantities and
composition, as well as on waste collection and transport costs. For example, in
deposit-refund schemes for specific products, the administrative and logistical costs
of collection and preparation for reuse and recycling are usually covered by industry.
The same applies to MSW stream collection and treatment costs covered by
extended producer responsibility, such as packaging waste, batteries, accumulators,
and electrical and electronic equipment. In most European countries, waste stream
management is totally or partially supported by private management entities. The tax
paid by producers to finance the end-of-life products management system is an
economic instrument which enables municipalities to be relieved of the financial
burden of collecting and managing such waste: the charge would be transferred to
waste managers, ensuring sufficient financial support for its waste management
activities (Chang and Pires 2015).
The user charges may be the most critical economic instrument to cover directly
total or partial costs of waste collection and transportation, especially the O&M
costs, since specific government subsidies or funding programs can more easily
cover investment costs. User charges applied to end users/consumers must achieve
two critical goals. On the one hand, the economic and financial cost’s gradual
recovery incurred by service providers, in a scenario of productive efficiency, to
ensure service provided quality, and the operators’ economic and financial sustain-
ability. On the other hand, allow economic access of services for all population and
act as an incentive to adopt more environmentally friendly behavior.
Waste management services are often financed by revenue from local authorities,
especially in low- and middle-income countries, such as the share of property tax
revenue or other local taxes that also serve to finance waste services (GIZ 2015).
In other countries, the payment of waste services is charged on the water or
electricity bill, as a function of this utility consumption. The user-charge billing
can perform using indirect billing linked to an existing utility bill or tax instrument,
such as the local property tax or water/energy bills.
The property tax, water or electricity charges, and other charge collection rates,
which are a simple way to earn revenue, do not usually cover the total costs of the
waste management system and are insufficient to really tackle the waste hierarchy, as
it does not provide an incentive for reduction or source separation (Dahlén
and Lagerkvist 2010). In this situation, the marginal cost of putting an extra waste
7.2 Financial Concerns of Waste Management Systems and Instruments of Waste Policy 113

bag in the container is zero, and there is no economic incentive to reduce the amount
of waste.
There is a relationship between water/electricity consumption and the number of
inhabitants per household, and also between waste generation and the number of
inhabitants per household. In this way, theoretically, the tax will be proportional to
the amount of waste generated per family. This system, however, is not the fairest
and presents several problems, namely, families that have water-/energy-saving
systems do not necessarily generate less waste; families with garden or backyards
consume more water but may generate less waste as, for example, some organic
waste can be used for animal feed or composting; households that reduce and recycle
their waste also have lower MSW quantities to collect but end up paying the same as
the others.
The need of a fairer tax system creation that works as an incentive for citizens to
find alternative ways to reduce continuously the amount of waste they generate
resulted on a large number of local communities introducing tax proportional to the
amount of waste produced by each family, also known as pay-as-you-throw (PAYT)
systems, unit-pricing models, or direct charging. PAYT schemes should include a
fixed fee element and lower or zero fee for recyclable waste streams (i.e., green
waste, kitchen waste, and dry recyclables), encouraging home composting and
source separation (Watkins et al. 2012). According to Connecticut Department
Environmental Protection (2004), the main advantages associated to PAYT schemes
are in general:
• Fees may be calculated in such a way as to cover all or part of the collection and
treatment/disposal costs.
• They can be an incentive for waste prevention and reduction, since households
and businesses can divert part of the waste generated to alternative systems. The
reduction can represent between 15% and 50% of the undifferentiated MSW.
PAYT schemes can also present certain disadvantages (Bilitewski et al. 2004;
Connecticut Department Environmental Protection 2004), crucial to know when
implementing these systems, namely:
• Potential waste illegal disposal/dumping – it is not a problem when precautions
are taken.
• Increased administrative costs with changes of waste collection and transport
system, waste generation quantification, monitoring, and population awareness.
• Instability risk in the revenues, if the tariff has been poorly designed.
• The need to build public consensuses, not only on the tariff type but also on its
value. This situation can be aggravated in cases where levels of public perception
of total costs are low concerning waste management, so intolerance for cost
increase is predictable.
• Initial political resistance to PAYT programs is not uncommon. Understanding
the concerns and the decision-making process is critical in moving the project
forward successfully.
114 7 Economic Perspective

As referred by Kling et al. (2016), PAYT systems are the first instrument to be
prioritized based on utility criteria, closely followed by landfill tax in case of
economic instruments assessment for countries with low MSW management perfor-
mance. However, Kling et al. (2016) also pointed that PAYT seems to be one of the
most expensive instrument, an issue that should be taken into account.
As pointed by Bilitewski et al. (2004), there is no “best” approach for user
charges, and existing legal and institutional arrangements influence decision-
making. As GIZ (2015) referred, when designing a user-charge system, it is crucial
to assure that the tariff structure is socially acceptable, equitable, and fair and that
the billing system is adequate. Support PAYT systems by citizens will be higher if
costs are transparent and there are ample opportunities for recycling and
composting. PAYT schemes can be implemented through the following modalities
(Reichenbach 2008):
• Per-user identifier: volume-based accounting (choice of container size); weight-
based accounting
• Per bin identifier (individually or collectively assigned bins): volume-based
accounting (identification system); weight-based accounting
• Pre-paid systems: pre-paid sack, tag, sticker, or token
In the volume-based systems, the consumer can choose and pay according the
number or size of cans/containers used or, in the case of collective containers, using
a prepaid card to open the container lid and that allows to put a specific volume of
waste bag, through an installed reading “chip” that counts the frequency/volume use.
In the weight-based accounting, each container has a chip or barcode that identifies
its owner, and the collection vehicle is equipped with computerized systems that
weight and record it for automated customer billing. In the bag prepayment systems,
whose price will be fixed or variable according to its capacity, it can use labels,
barcode, chips, or prepaid bags or tags/stickers which can be acquired to serve the
same purpose. The bags or tags/stickers are sold at retail stores or municipal offices.
These systems require the adoption of suitable provider structures for the pre-paid
equipment (e.g., waste bags or stickers for bags), as well as the mechanism through
which these service providers pass that costs to public authorities (GIZ 2015).
Table 7.2 describes some of the advantages and disadvantages indicated by
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (s.d.) for bag or tags/sticker
that are sold at retail stores or municipal offices, cans subscription (payment system
according to containers capacity or frequency of collection), and cans used with a
“pay-as-you-go” pricing system (under which residents are billed based on the
number and size of cans they set out for collection).
PAYT systems vary across the EU. A study conducted by Watkins et al. (2012)
for the EU in 2012 has found that 17 MS employ PAYT systems for municipal
waste, but only three MS (AT, FI, IE) have PAYT schemes in place in all munic-
ipalities. The most usual forms of PAYT schemes are volume-based schemes
(16 MS), frequency-based schemes (15 MS), weight-based schemes (9 MS), and
sack-based schemes (6 MS). The authors note that several MS use a mixture of
different types of schemes. Nowadays almost all European countries, at least some
Table 7.2 Advantages and disadvantages of different PAYT systems
PAYT system type
Advantages/disadvantages Bag systems Tags or sticker systems Cans (subscription) Can systems (pay-as-you-go)
Advantages Waste reduction Stronger than can system Stronger than can systems
incentive
Collection Faster and more efficient Faster and more efficient than Can work with (semi)auto- Can work with (semi)auto-
efficiency than can systems can systems mated collection systems mated collection systems
Easy adaptation and Easy adaptation and Cans are reusable and prevent Cans are reusable and prevent
monitoring monitoring animals animals
Convenience and Convenient and easy Convenient and easy Flexible to residents
costs to residents Lower costs than bags
Costs for the Lower Lower
system
Revenues Stable and easy to forecast
Disadvantages Waste reduction Does not provide a significant
incentive incentive
Collection Animals can tear bags and Size-limit compliance Greater collection time Greater collection time
inefficiency bags can break during lifting Complex tracking and billing Complex tracking and billing
Often incompatible with system needed system needed
(semi)automated equipment Alternative needed for bulky Alternative needed for bulky
waste waste
Inconvenience and Purchasing and storing bags Purchasing tags/stickers
costs to residents Tags/stickers can fall off, be
stolen or be counterfeited
Costs for the Implementation costs are Greater start-up costs
system required
Revenue Greater uncertainty Greater uncertainty Greater uncertainty
Waste manage- Administration program Lag time between collecting Lag time between collecting
ment entities required to purchase tags/ waste and receiving payment waste and receiving payment
7.2 Financial Concerns of Waste Management Systems and Instruments of Waste Policy

stickers
Source: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (2004)
115
116 7 Economic Perspective

municipalities, have some unit-based pricing system to charge for municipal waste
produced and collected. In sum, all the economic instruments addressed in this
chapter need to be put in a country-specific context and other factors influencing
policy-making need to be considered before practical decisions on their combined or
isolated implementation are made (Kling et al. 2016).

7.3 Public and Private Sector Financing

The collection and transport of MSW are a responsibility of the local authorities and
are organized and managed locally by municipalities, either through public or
private waste management services. Collection and transport costs of MSW may
represent 80–90% (in low-income countries), 50–80% (in middle-income countries),
and 5–25% (in high-income countries) of the municipal solid waste management
budge, due to the high costs of investment, operational costs, and human resources
(Ghose 2006; Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012; McLeod and Cherrett 2011).
Besides being an expensive procedure, it is also the municipal sector that generates
more employment, and therefore it has an equally important social dimension.
The issue of financing collection and transport systems is critical for many
municipalities, exceptionally small- and medium-sized ones or those in low- and
middle-income countries. According to GIZ (2015) in low- and middle-income
countries, the O&M costs often constitute 60–85% of total waste management
costs, and if it is relatively easy to find sponsors or funding sources for infrastructure
and equipment (e.g., government grants, subsidies), it’s very difficult or even
impossible to find donors willing to participate in meeting to discuss O&M costs.
For this reason, the cost recovery policy should at least cover the O&M costs, but in
the longer term, full cost recovery is desirable to ensure a sustainable financing
system. As already mentioned in the previous section, the costs of the waste
management service must be supported by its users. However, in the case of a
service with clear public utility, the price to be charged must be calculated under
conditions of efficient performance, based on professional management principles
and tools, and not penalize the user for any system inefficiencies (Rogge and De
Jaeger 2012). The financing model should take into account two of the fundamental
principles: the polluter pays principle and full cost recovery (Reichenbach 2008).
However, it is often observed that this service, which is generally ensured by
municipalities, quickly distances it from the concept of efficiency, being needed the
introduction of market forces to reach cost savings (Girth et al. 2012). Collection
provided by local authorities also involves the typical constraints that can be faced in
the public sector, such as overworked teams, obsolete equipment, burdensome hiring
procedures, inflexible working hours, limitations on management changes, inade-
quate supervision, and active worker unions (Massouda et al. 2003). These difficul-
ties have in practice been translated in many situations by the weak support of the
solutions adopted for waste collection systems, often based on experience and
intuitive methods, which result in inefficient and costly management practices
Arribas et al. (2010).
7.3 Public and Private Sector Financing 117

Another difficulty is that the procurement process is more elaborate and more
time-consuming in the public sector than in the private sector, since it involves first
approving the budget and releasing the funds, followed by a lengthy public tender
procedure. This is one of the reasons that can lead to the use of the equipment beyond
its useful life, in particular, the vehicles, which leads to an increase in maintenance
costs. In the private sector, the equipment is usually purchased by funds from
commercial banks, being the acquisition faster. In the study carried out in Gaborone
(Botswana) by Bolaane and Isaac (2015), the authors reported that the average age of
municipal vehicles was 8 years, while the average age of private sector vehicles was
4 years.
Although some municipalities continue to prefer to manage collection waste
themselves, through municipal departments, or through municipally owned waste
management companies, due to these problems and the increasing cost of collection
waste, many have opted for indirect management models, such as outsourcing or
even privatization of the waste collection and treatment service.
The models of global management of services of public interest can be catego-
rized in different ways. For example, based on the classification made by Van Dijk
and Schouten (2004) for the existing European models of water supply and the
sanitation management, Adamsen et al. (2016) proposed the following four main
models for the waste sector:
(a) Direct public management – the responsible authority assumes full responsibility
and executes the service itself, usually through one of its departments, which
includes public-public cooperation and the use of “in-house entities.”
(b) Delegated public management – the responsible entity appoints a managing
entity to execute the public tasks (public-private partnerships).
(c) Direct private management – the public authority puts the responsibility in the
private party, which assumes full responsibility for the provision of services.
(d) Delegated private management – the public authority appoints a private
company for the management of tasks, through a time-bound contract in the
form of public contract or concession contract, following procurement proce-
dures (outsourcing).
According to Adamsen et al. (2016) during the 1980s and 1990s, due to political,
legal, economic, and fiscal factors, almost all European member states underwent a
process of public-private partnerships or outsourcing of waste management services
(through public procurement or concession procedures), as a promising alternative to
reduce costs and improve MSW management performance.
In the collection and transport of the MSW sector, in-sourcing and outsourcing
management models are the most usual. The main drivers that can explain the choice
between municipalization and privatization may differ from country to country,
reflecting the differences in the political, economic, and social contexts. Among
the main advantages pointed to the benefits of outsourcing, several authors point out
the following (Adamsen et al. 2016; Bel and Miralles 2003; Bouhamed and
Chaabouni 2008; Greaver 1999; Jacobsen et al. 2013; Kakabadse and Kakabadse
2005; Kinyua 2015; Post 2004):
118 7 Economic Perspective

• Greater potential for cost savings and cost-efficiency advantages, due to

economies of scale
• More purchasing power which may enable the level of capital investment
required to be reduced, resulting in a lower contract price
• Higher quality of services and better performance indicators of services
• Lower bureaucratic and legislative barriers, for example, not being subject to
the mandatory use of public procurement to provide procedures: public pro-
curement rules
• Access to specialized know-how and greater facility to invest in state-of-the-art
waste collection and treatment technology
• Flexibility in recruiting human resources, better possibilities for career advance-
ment, and less pressure from unions
• Greater flexibility to hire human resources, more career prospects for workers,
and less pressure from unions
However, not always these advantages are confirmed in practice, and the
outsourcing solution has not always achieved a municipality’s goal of high-quality
services and reduced cost. By nature, the outsourcing process is a high-risk and
requires proper management to ensure it is successful. However, some municipali-
ties do not have sufficient know-how, human resources or information technology
that allows them to plan their public offerings and select the best private company
(Gamberini et al. 2009; Padovani and Young 2008; Rodrigues 2016). Also, most
private concession contracts rely on the weight of waste as the primary billing base,
encouraging companies to maximize waste collected and discouraging reduction and
selective collection (Massouda et al. 2003; Chowdhury 2009; Rodrigues 2016).
The management and prevention of outsourcing risks require that municipalities
focus on the following (Adamsen et al. 2016): (a) a set of operational and economic
performance indicators to measure the results; (b) a well-established process for
communication and cooperation that fills the inevitable gaps in any high-risk
contract; and (c) a management control process that includes quality measures,
outcome measures, and process measures concerning. For these reasons, the chang-
ing from private providers to direct provision by the municipality or provision by
in-house arrangements or public-public cooperation (i.e., the re-municipalization of
municipal waste services) has been increasing in some countries, as in Germany
(Adamsen et al. 2016).
Despite the recurrent debate around which the best management model for waste
collection – public or private – the literature review is no clarity about if private
entities always provide a better service managing. Specific national and local
contexts (e.g., political, regulation, fiscal) will dictate which is the best, and public,
private, and hybrid ways to organize municipal waste services can be equally
effective and efficient (SusValueWaste 2017). The different actors play
complementing roles that collectively lead to innovative and sustainable waste
management.
References 119

References

Abdelli I, Abdelmalek F, Djelloul A, Mesghouni K, Addou A (2016) GIS-based approach for

optimised collection of household waste in Mostaganem city (Western Algeria). Waste Manag
Res 34:417–426
Adamsen C, Blagoeva T, Ilisescu AR, Le Den X, Nielsen SS (2016) Legal assistance on the
application of public procurement rules in the waste sector – final report. Publications Office of
the European Union, Luxembourg
Allesch A, Brunner PH (2014) Assessment methods for solid waste management: a literature
review. Waste Manag Res 32:461–473
Arribas C, Blazquez C, Lamas A (2010) Urban solid waste collection system using mathematical
modelling and tools of geographic information systems. Waste Manag Res 28:355–363
Assis R (2011) Depreciation methods (in Portuguese: Métodos de amortização). http://www.rassis.
com/artigos/Economia/Metodos%20de%20Amortizacao.pdf. Accessed 10 Sep 2015
Bel G, Miralles A (2003) Factors influencing the privatisation of urban solid waste collection in
Spain. Urban Stud 40:1323–1334
Bilitewski B, Härdtle G, Maek K, Weissbach A, Boeddicker H (1994) Waste management.
Springer, Berlin
Bilitewski B, Werner P, Reichenbach J (2004) Handbook on the implementation of Pay-As-You-
Throw as a tool for urban waste management. Eigenverlag des Forum für Abfallwirtschaft und
Altlasten e. V., Dresden
Bohm R, Folz D, Kinnaman T, Podolsky M (2010) The costs of municipal curbside recycling and
waste collection. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:864–871
Bolaane B, Isaac E (2015) Privatization of solid waste collection services: lessons from Gaborone.
Waste Manag 40:14–21
Bosch N, Pedraja F, Suárez-Pandiello J (2001) The efficiency of refuse collection services in
Spanish municipalities: do non-controllable variables matter? Institut d'Economia de Barcelona,
Centre de Recerca en Federalisme fiscal I Economia regional, Barcelona
Boskovic G, Jovicic N, Jovanovic S, Simovic V (2016) Calculating the costs of waste collection: a
methodological proposal. Waste Manag Res 34:775–783
Bouhamed A, Chaabouni J (2008) Partenariat public-privé en Tunisie: Les conditions de succès et
d’échec. Int J Technol Manag Sustain Dev 7:71–89
Callan S, Thomas J (2001) Economies of scale and scope: a cost analysis of municipal solid waste
services. Land Econ 77:548–560
Carvalho JM (2011) Annex 5: municipal solid waste management costs (in Portuguese: Anexo 5:
Custos de sistema de gestão de resíduos urbanos). www.ua.pt/ReadObject.aspx?obj¼18467.
Accessed 23 Sep 2015
Chang NB, Pires A (2015) Sustainable solid waste management: a systems engineering approach.
IEEE Wiley, Hoboken
Chowdhury M (2009) Searching quality data for municipal solid waste planning. Waste Manag
29:2240–2247
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (2004) Smart (Pay-as-You-Throw) imple-
mentation handbook. http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/reduce_reuse_recycle/payt/ct_dep_
smart_implementation_handbook_parts_1_thru_4.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2018
D’Onza G, Greco G, Allegrini A (2016) Full cost accounting in the analysis of separated waste
collection efficiency: a methodological proposal. J Environ Manag 167:59–65
Dahlén L, Lagerkvist A (2010) Pay as you throw: strengths and weaknesses of weight-based billing
in household waste collection systems in Sweden. Waste Manag 30:23–31
Dahlén L, Åberg H, Lagerkvist A, Berg PE (2009) Inconsistent pathways of household waste.
Waste Manag 29:1798–1806
Delloite (2004) Model of calculation of counterpart amount (in Portuguese: Modelo de cálculo do
valor de contrapartida - versão final). Instituto dos Resíduos, Lisboa
Dijkgraaf E, Gradus RHJM (2004) Cost savings in unit-based pricing of household waste: the case
of The Netherlands. Resour Energy Econ 26:353–371
120 7 Economic Perspective

Dogan K, Süleyman S (2003) Report: cost and financing of municipal solid waste collection
services in Istanbul. Waste Manag Res 21:480–485
Dubin J, Navarro P (1988) How markets for impure public goods organize the case of households
refuse collection. J Law Econ Organ 4:217–241
Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços de Águas e Resíduos (ERSAR) (2014) Tariff regulation for
municipla solid .waste management service (in Portuguese: Regulamento tarifário do serviço de
gestão de resíduos urbanos). http://www.ersar.pt/. Accessed 3 Jun 2015
European Commission (2015) Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects – economic
appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014–2020. Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg
Faccio MP (2011) Waste collection multi objective model with real time traceability data. Waste
Manag 31(12):2391–2405
Folz DH (1999) Recycling policy and performance: trends in participation, diversion, and costs.
Public Work Manag Policy 4:131–142
Gamberini R, Galloni L, Rimini B, Beltrami FO (2009) Evaluation and comparison of waste
collection services. In: Abstracts of the twelfth international waste management and landfill
symposium, Sardinia, 9–11 Oct 2009
Gamberini R, Del Buono D, Lolli F, Rimini B (2013) Municipal solid waste management:
identification and analysis of engineering indexes representing demand and costs generated in
virtuous Italian communities. Waste Manag 33:2532–2540
García-Sánchez MI (2008) The performance of Spanish solid waste collection. Waste Manag Res
26:327–336
Ghose MD (2006) A GIS based transport model for solid waste disposal – a case study on Asansol
municipality. Waste Manag 26:1278–1293
Girth AM, Hefetz A, Johnston JM, Warner ME (2012) Outsourcing public service delivery:
management responses in noncompetitive markets. Public Admin Rev 72:887–900
GIZ GmbH (2015) Economic instruments in solid waste management: applying economic instru-
ments for sustainable solid waste management in low and middle-income countries. https://
www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2015-en-waste-management-economic-instruments.pdf.
Accessed 4 May 2018
Gomes AP (2008) Separate collection of the biodegradable fraction of MSW: an economic
assessment. Waste Manag 28:1711–1719
González-Torre, P. L., Adenso-Díaza, B., Ruiz-Torres, R. (2003). Some comparative factors
regarding recycling collection systems in regions of the USA and Europe. Journal of Environ-
mental Management, 69 (2), 129–138
Goulart A (2003) Comparison of deep collection system with traditional system. Dissertation,
Tampere University of Technology (TUT)
Greaver F (1999) Strategic outsourcing – a structured approach of outsourcing decisions and
iniatives. AMACOM, New York
Greco G, Allegrini M, Del Lungo C, Savellini PG, Gabellini L (2015) Drivers of solid waste
collection costs Empirical evidence from Italy. J Clean Prod 106:364–371
Hage OS (2008) An econometric analysis of regional differences in household waste collection: the
case of plastic packaging waste in Sweden. Waste Manag 28:1720–1731
Hogg D (2002) Costs for municipal waste management in the EU: final report to directorate general
environment, European Commission. Eunomia Research & Consulting, Ltd, on behalf of
Ecotec-Research & Consulting
Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P (2012) What a waste: a global review of solid waste management.
Urban development series knowledge papers, nr. 15. Urban Development & Local Government
Unit, World Bank, Washington, DC
Huang Y, Pan T, Kao J (2011) Performance assessment for municipal solid waste collection in
Taiwan. J Environ Manag 92:1277–1283
Jacobsen R, Buysse J, Gellynck X (2013) Cost comparison between private and public collection of
residual household waste: multiple case studies in the Flemish region of Belgium. Waste Manag
33:3–11
References 121

Johansson O (2006) The effect of dynamic scheduling and routing in a solid waste management
system. Waste Manag 26:875–885
Kakabadse A, Kakabadse N (2005) Outsourcing: current and future trends. Thunderbird Int Bus
Rev 47:183–204
Karadimas N, Papatzelou K, Loumos V (2007) Optimal solid waste collection routes identified by
the ant colony system algorithm. Waste Manag Res 25:139–147
Kinyua BK (2015) Determinants of outsourcing services as a cost reduction measure in devolve
government: a case study of Narobi city country, Kenya. Eur J Bus Soc Sci 4:12–23
Kling M, Seyring N, Tzanova P (2016) Assessment of economic instruments for countries with low
municipal waste management performance: an approach based on the analytic hierarchy
process. Waste Manag Res 34:912–922
Komilis DP (2008) Conceptual modeling to optimize the haul and transfer. Waste Manag
28:2355–2365
Larsen A, Vrgoc M, Christensen T, Lieberknecht P (2009) Diesel consumption in waste collection
and transport and its environmental significance. Waste Manag Res 27:652–659
Larsen A, Merrild H, Moller J, Christensen T (2010) Waste collection systems for recyclables: an
environmental and economic assessment for the municipality of Aarhus (Denmark). Waste
Manag 30:744–754
Lavita, M (2008) Multi-material door-to-door collection routes (in Portuguese: Circuitos de recolha
selectiva multi-material porta-a-porta). Dissertation, IST/UTL – Instituto Superior Técnico,
Lisbon
Levy J (2004) National paradigm and 3R policy (reverse logistics) (in Portuguese: Panorama 999
nacional e a política dos 3R (logística inversa)). In: Abstracts from the Recursos, resíduos e 1000
reciclagem, IST, Lisbon, 25 Oct 2004
Levy J, Oliveira R, Brito J (2007) Reverse logistics (in Portuguese: A logística inversa). http://
seminarios.ist.utl.pt/03-04/des/IST-seminario/sprod/3sessao. Accessed Dec 26 2013
López JV, Soriano F, Aguilar M, León B, Ramos-Catalina P, Carretero C (2007) Metodología de
Contenerización para residuos de envases ligeros: caso de Aranjuez. E.T.S.I. de Montes.
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Dpto. Ingeniería Forestal. Madrid: Universidad Politécnica
de Madrid
Massouda M, El-Fadelb M, Malak AA (2003) Assessment of public vs private MSW management:
a case study. J Environ Manag 69:15–24
McLeod F, Cherrett T (2011) Waste collection. In: Letcher TM, Vallero DA (eds) Waste: a
handbook for management. Elsevier, Burlington, pp 61–76
Miller L, Delbridge P (1995) Waste management in Hampshire feedback on the strategy, December
1995. Miller Associates and PDA International
Nguyen TTT, Wilson GB (2010) Fuel consumption estimation for kerbside municipal solid waste
(MSW) collection activities. Waste Manag Res 28:289–297
O’Leary P, Walsh P (1995) Decision maker’s guide to solid waste management, 2nd edn. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, RCRA Information Center,
Washington, DC
Ohlsson H (2003) Ownership and production costs: choosing between public production and
contracting-out in the case of Swedish refuse collection. Fisc Stud 24:451–476
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018) Extended producer
responsibility. http://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/extendedproducerresponsibilityhtm.
Accessed 4 May 2018
Padovani E, Young DW (2008) Toward a framework for managing high-risk government
outsourcing: field research in three Italian municipalities. J Public Procure 8:215–247
Pearce D, Brisson I (1995) The economics of waste management. In: Hester RE, Harrison RM (eds)
Waste treatment and disposal. The Royal Society of Chemistry, London
Perman R, Common M, McGilvray J, Ma Y (2003) Natural resource and environmental economics,
3rd edn. Pearson Education, Harlow
Post J (2004) Evolving partnerships in the collection of urban solid waste in the developing world.
In: Isa B, Post J, Furedy C (eds) Solid waste management and recycling: actors, partnerships and
policies in Hyderabad, India. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 21–36
122 7 Economic Perspective

Rada E, Ragazzi M, Fedrizzi P (2013) Web-GIS oriented systems viability for municipal solid
waste selective collection optimization in developed and transient economies. Waste Manag
33:785–792
Rathje WL, Murphy C (1992) Rubbish! The archaeology of garbage. Harper Collins Publishers,
New York
Reichenbach J (2008) Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe – a review of pilot
research and implementation studies. Waste Manag 28:2809–2814
Rhoma FZ (2010) Environmental & economical optimization for municipal solid waste collection
problems, a modeling and algorithmic approach case study. In: WSEAS international confer-
ence on mathematical methods, computational techniques and intelligent systems, Sousse,
Tunisia, May 3–6, 2010, pp 205–211
Ricci M (2003) Economic assessment of separate collection cost: tools to optimize it and the
advantage of operative integration. In: Abstracts from the future of source separation of organic
waste in Europe. Barcelona, Spain, 15–16 Dec 2003
Rizzoli A, Montemanni R, Lucibello E, Gambardella L (2007) Ant colony optimization for
realworld vehicle routing problems – from theory to applications. Swarm Intell 1:135–151
Rodrigues S (2016) Classification and benchmarking of urban waste collection systems
(in portuguese: Classificação e benchmarking de sistemas de recolha de resíduos urbanos).
Dissertation, NOVA University of Lisbon
Rodrigues S, Martinho G, Pires A (2016a) Waste collection systems part A: a taxonomy. J Clean
Prod 113:374–387
Rodrigues S, Martinho G, Pires A (2016b) Waste collection systems part B: benchmarking. J Clean
Prod 139:230–241
Rogge N, De Jaeger S (2012) Evaluating the efficiency of municipalities in collecting and
processing. Waste Manag 32:1968–1978
Sanjeevi V, Shahabudeen P (2016) Optimal routing for efficient municipal solid waste transporta-
tion by using ArcGIS application in Chennai, India. Waste Manag Res 34:11–21
Santos RF, Santana F, Antunes P, Martinho MG, Jordão L, Sirgado P, Neves AG (1994) Municipal
solid waste management system of Lisbon – Cost analysis (in Portuguese: Sistema de resíduos
sólidos do município de Lisboa – Análise da estrutura de custos do sistema de resíduos sólidos).
Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, NOVA University of Lisbon
Shekdar A, Mistry P (2001) Evaluation of multifarious solid waste management systems – a goal
programming approach. Waste Manag Res 19:391–402
Sonesson U (2000) Modelling of waste collection – a general approach to calculate fuel consump-
tion and time. Waste Manag Res 18:115–123
Sora M, González J (2014) Economic balance of door-to-door and road containers waste collection
for local authorities and proposals for its optimization. Commissioned by the Association of
Catalan Municipalities for Door-to-Door Selective collection to Fundació ENT
Stevens B (1978) Scale, market structure, and the cost of refuse collection services: the case of
Ireland. Econ Soc Rev 31:129–150
SusValueWaste (2017) Private or .public waste management? http://www.susvaluewaste.no/2017/
10/12/private-or-public-waste-management/. Accessed 4 May 2018
Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil S (1993) Integrated solid waste management engineering:
principles and management issues. McGraw-Hill, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1997) Full cost accounting for munic-
ipal solid waste management: a handbook. United States Environmental Protection,
Washington, DC
van Dijk MP, Schouten M (2004) The dynamics of the European water supply and sanitation
market. In: Abstracts from AWRA international specialty conference 2004, University of
Dundee, 29 Aug – 2 Sept 2004
Vidal RG (2001) Integrated analysis for pre-sorting and waste collection schemes implemented in
Spanish cities. Waste Manag Res 19:380–390
Watkins E, Hogg D, Mitsios A, Mudgal S, Neubauer S, Reisinger H, Troeltzsch J, Van Acoleyen M
(2012) Use of economic instruments and waste management performances – final report. http://
ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2018
Chapter 8
Environmental Context

Abstract Today’s environmental concerns are related to the population and its
consumption of resources, which have led to significant environmental and global
changes, such as climate change and resource overexploitation. The solid waste
management, in an integrated way, has been capable of influencing and contributing
to the solution of such challenges. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the
environmental context which is the role of waste management, focusing on waste
collection, in such context. It leads to further magnifying the importance of the
contributions that each waste management operation – collection, recycling, treat-
ment, recovery, and disposal – alone and together, can bring to the environmental
challenges.

Keywords Waste collection · Circular economy · Zero waste · Sustainable

development · Eco-cities · Climate change · Resource scarcity

8.1 Environmental Context of Twenty-First Century

In the last decades, the growth of population, rapid urbanization, industrialization of

the emerging economies, and increasing shortage of resources, energy, and con-
sumption are leading to a challenging world. In this respect, strategies that are being
studied to help face those challenges are the development of regional economies,
promotion of rural development, production processes with more efficient use of
resources, minimization of waste generation and stablization of cycling of ecosys-
tems, and creation of cities that serve as role models of environmental protection
(Chang 2016). In this respect, solid waste management is starting to have an essential
role in the attempt to deal with such global challenges. The reason is related to the
amount of waste generated and to its composition. Current European municipal solid
waste (MSW) generation is around 242 million tons per year; China generates
300 million tons per year; and the USA generates around 229 million tons per
year (Waste Atlas 2017; Eurostat 2017). The last estimate of global MSW generation
is 1.9 billion tons with almost 30% remaining uncollected; from the collected, only
30% is recycled or recovered, including energetically recovered (Waste Atlas 2017).

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 123

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_8
124 8 Environmental Context

Concerning the environmental stress from waste (the amount of waste generated in a
country divided by country’s area), Singapore presents around 9.9 thousand tons
MSW/km2, Macao SAR around 8.9 thousand tons MSW/ km2, and Hong Kong SAR
3.1 thousand tons MSW/ km2 (Waste Atlas 2017). All these indicators highlight how
waste is damaging the environment, needing more efforts to reduce them and, when
not possible, to manage them most sustainably.
In the next few sections, the environmental context will be detailed. The way how
the context influences waste and how waste management is influencing the context
will also be approached.

8.1.1 Globalization and Economic Growth

According to Gupta (2015):

Economic growth refers to an increase in the level of goods and services produced by an
economy.

The ways to measure such level of economic growth (that should lead to
economic development) are commonly by gross domestic product (GDP) and
gross national income (GNI). Definitions from World Bank for this economic
concepts are (World Bank 2018):
GDP at purchaser’s prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the
economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the
products. GNI is the sum of value added by all resident producers plus any product taxes
(less subsidies) not included in the valuation of output plus net receipts of primary income
(compensation of employees and property income) from abroad.

Economic growth and waste generation (and environmental degradation) are

strongly correlated; once economic growth results from the production of goods
and services, renewable and non-renewable raw materials are being needed.
Because no process is 100% efficient (according to the second law of thermody-
namics), waste is generated, causing environmental degradation and pollution.
There is the need to separate economic growth from the use of biophysical
resources, through eco-economic decoupling or dematerialization to reduce the
waste generated and environmental impacts from the economy (Van der Voet et al.
2004; van Caneghem et al. 2010; Verfaillie and Bidwell 2000). Decoupling
economic growth from negative environmental impact is one of the leading
objectives of the OECD Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the
Twenty-First Century (OECD 2002).
Besides economic growth, globalization is also responsible for misleading waste
management. The term globalization is referent to a process of international integra-
tion of markets for goods, products, services, means of production, financial sys-
tems, technology, and industries, with increase of capital mobility, of technological
innovation propagation, also with the influences of other aspects related to cultural
and social environment and interdependency of national markets (United Nations
8.1 Environmental Context of Twenty-First Century 125

et al. 2002; Surugiu and Surugiu 2015). According to ISWA (2012), globalization
influences and changes waste management practices, but also waste management
practices impose new global markets for waste products (or secondary materials
from waste).
Due to globalization, waste managers’ practices have originated misleading
management of waste which may be costly to be treated in developed countries,
but shipping them to areas without such environmental concerns makes it less
expensive. Countries have signed Basel Convention to reduce such transfer of
waste (namely, hazardous waste). More recently, e-waste (also named waste of
electric and electronic equipment and e-scrap) is being sent from developed coun-
tries as used equipment, i.e., they are being traded to developing countries, not being
under the scrutiny of Basel Convention, because they are supposedly being sold as
secondhand devices, not waste. However, there is no proof that they are still
working. In 2012, 1.3 million tons of WEEE were exported from European Union
countries in undocumented exports, being likely classified as illegal exports, where
they do not adhere to the guidelines for differentiating used equipment from waste,
being estimated that 30% of this volume is e-waste (Huisman et al. 2015). In
developing countries, the demand for inexpensive second-hand device raw materials
is the most significant driver for the global trade of e-waste (Baldé et al. 2015).
Concerning global markets for waste products, in 2015, around 180 million
metric tons of waste were recycled as secondary commodities, valued at more than
86 USD billion according to United Nations (2017). The most tradable scrap in 2016
was ferrous metal (53%), followed by paper (26%), nonferrous metals (10%),
plastics (8%), glass (2%), and others including proecios metals (1%) (United Nations
2017). The USA is the most significant exporter of such recycled items, and China is
the most relevant consumer of such materials (ISRI 2015). The trade of such
commodities, and the high quality (and potentially high price), depends on the
existence and performance of source separation and collection of those materials.
Besides the global market of ferrous, non-ferrous metals, paper, and cardboard,
plastics and textiles, there are also regional waste markets for glass waste and
solid recovered fuels, and local waste markets for compost and construction and
demolition waste aggregates (UNEP and ISWA 2015). Global and regional trades of
waste products can bring economic benefits once that they are a low-cost resource
comparatively to virgin materials, and environmental benefits by reducing the
depletion of natural resources, reducing landfill space, and increasing energy savings
(ISRI 2015). However, if countries that are remanufacturing and recycling those
materials in countries without requirements for health and environment protection,
recycling can cause injuries to workplace and all around the recycling activity. The
trade of waste products is made from developed countries to developing countries,
where they recycle waste at a lower cost than in developed countries. Developed
countries, mostly Asian, have high recycling costs to meet environmental compli-
ance in recycling sector, sending waste to other countries with lower environmental
control and enforcement, lower operating costs for recycling industry, and lower
quality standards (UNEP and ISWA 2015).
126 8 Environmental Context

The price volatility of waste products at a global scale is a problem to the

recycling industry and to the market itself. Some factors can explain such volatility,
namely, the fact that recycled plastic price is affected by oil price (Angus et al. 2012)
and economic crisis (UNEP and ISWA 2015). To solve the problem of price
volatility, the European Commission intended to transform the vision of waste
products, in such way that they could be secondary resources or products and no
more defined as waste. The end-of-waste criteria were published in Waste Frame-
work Directive (European Parliament and Council 2008) with the aim to define the
requirements to establish such criteria. Until now, the criteria elaborated and regu-
lated were for glass cutlet and copper scrap, being in development the regulations for
waste plastics, compost/digestate from biodegradable waste, copper and copper
alloy, and waste paper (JRC 2015).

8.1.2 Megacities, Eco-cities, and Industrial Symbiosis at

Cities

Urban population is proliferating, expecting to grow by another 4000 million by

2050, being the growth mainly in developing countries (United Nations 2015). Such
growth will result in megacities, which will demand substantial infrastructure ser-
vices. Also, new urban areas will emerge, where it is expected that infrastructure
development near those new centers will remain neglected (Vaiude et al. 2017).
Scale urbanization induced a series of environmental problems, including landscape
fragmentation due to massive land use, regional climate change, biodiversity loss,
and ecosystem degradation, not only due to massive land use but also the overriding
of MSW generation and of wastewater (Bai et al. 2012; Gaubatz 1999; Liu et al.
2005, 2014; Jha et al. 2008), which will damage land and coastal ecosystems near
sea since most megacities are coastal cities.
According to the definition of United Nations (2015), cities can be divided in
cities (until 5 million), large cities (5–10 million habitants), and megacities, with
10 million or more inhabitants. The number of large cities is growing to count,
expecting to reach 63 by 2030, representing 9% of the global urban population;
megacities are home to about 1/8 of world’s urban dwellers, expecting to be 41 cities
in 2030, representing near 14% at that year (United Nations 2015).
Several countries (by their governments) have tried to find solutions to the
increasing growth of their cities, by the development of eco-cities or sustainable
cities. The term “eco-city” was reportedly coined during the winter of 1979–1980 by
the members of a voluntary organization Arcology Circle (Dongtan 2008). The term
features prominently in a 1987 book (Register 1987) and is used interchangeably
with the term “sustainable city” (Eryildiz and Xhexhi 2012). The concept “sustain-
able city” was used by Girardet (1999):
Sustainable city is organized to enable all its citizens to meet their own needs and to enhance
their well-being without damaging the natural world or endangering the living conditions of
other people, now or in the future.
8.1 Environmental Context of Twenty-First Century 127

Eco-city projects are in a small number all over the world. Completed “eco-city”
projects such as Vauban Freiberg (Germany) and Hammarby Sjöstad (Sweden) and
uncompleted projects, for example, Masdar City (UAE) and Tianjin Eco-City
(China), are designed to offer a good quality of life (Zaman and Lehman 2011).
The eco-cities are needed to ensure a sustainable expansion of cities and to reach
global sustainability (Zaman and Lehman 2011). In this respect, Premalatha et al.
(2013) have compiled ten attributes assigned to eco-cities (Roseland 1997, 2001):
1. Should have land-use priorities such that it creates compact, diverse, green, and
safe mixed-use communities around public transportation facilities.
2. Should have transportation priorities such that it will discourage driving and
emphasize “access by proximity”.
3. Should restore damaged urban environments.
4. Should create affordable, safe, convenient, and economically mixed housing.
5. Should nurture social justice and create improved opportunities for the
underprivileged.
6. Should support local agriculture, urban greening, and community gardening.
7. Should promote recycling and resource conservation while reducing pollution
and hazardous waste.
8. Should support ecologically sound economic activities while discouraging
hazardous and polluting ones.
9. Should promote simple lifestyles and discourage excessive consumption of
material goods.
10. Should increase public awareness of the local environment and bioregion
through educational and outreach activities.
The attributes of an eco-city include the waste reduction, existing in some cities
which have intended to reach a zero-waste city. Two eco-cities which have tried to
reach zero waste are Dongtan in China and Masdar City near Abu Dhabi. The strategy
defined in Dongtan was that all waste should be collected and processed, that is, MSW
to be sorted, up to 80% of waste to be recycled, and organic waste and human waste
to be digested and composted to be used in farmlands (Cheng and Hu 2010). In this
city, the eco-industry (waste management, wind, and solar technology) will be a
significant component of the economy (Premalatha et al. 2013). In the Masdar City,
the predicted measures taken to reach a zero-waste city were to have a vacuum
system for waste under the city, with transportation of waste into a central facility
where waste would be sorted as much as possible, being the nonrecyclable waste
gasified and the recyclable waste incorporated into building materials (Bullis 2009).
The purpose of such cities was ambitious and unfortunately was not successful.
The zero waste is not reachable because of the second law of thermodynamics. Over
the “life, rebirth, and final death cycle” of any product, waste generation is an
absolute certainty. However, in most situations, recovery, recycle, or reuse involves
one or other kinds of processing which are inevitably accompanied by consumption
of energy and wastage of some material, in conformity with the second law of
thermodynamics (Premalatha et al. 2013).
128 8 Environmental Context

Private Sector
(existing and emerging industries
and their supply chains)

Amenity
Productivity
(environmental quality, Reuse, Reduce (industry competitiveness,
quality of life,and and Recycling modernisation and
community development) (3R) Initiatives innovation) Actors

Civil Society
(community, academia and
NGOs)
Benefits

Fig. 8.1 Impact areas of eco-towns. (Source: van Berkel et al. (2009))

Besides zero waste, the zero-carbon goal is unattainable, unless a dramatic

reduction of energy and material consumption occurs, together with the sequestra-
tion of anthropogenic carbon emitted (Premalatha et al. 2013):
Even the low-carbon low waste lifestyle appeared increasingly difficult to achieve because it
was more expensive than conventional lifestyle and more restrictive as well.

These two cities have failed because they were not capable of implementing a
holistic vision to achieve the zero-waste goal (Premalatha et al. 2013); they failed
because they have not applied the concept of “urban symbiosis.” Urban symbiosis is
an extension for industrial symbiosis, where waste or by-products from the city
(or urban areas) metabolism are used as secondary raw materials for industrial
operations (van Berkel et al. 2009) (Fig. 8.1). The concept is based on the synergistic
opportunity of proximity to transfer the secondary materials, which has been the
basis of MSW management in Japan (management of waste near the source), where
eco-town projects from 1997 have embedded the concept of urban symbiosis (Okuda
and Thompson, 2007; Desrochers and Cities 2001). The eco-towns have been
capable of increasing the number of recycling plants, to the diversification and
sophistication of recycling technologies, with the capacity to treat two million metric
tons of waste per annum (in 2009) (van Berkel et al. 2009).

8.1.3 Climate Change

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, Article 1)

defines that (United Nations 1992):
Climate change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human
activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to
natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
8.2 Sustainability and Circular Economy Considerations 129

Waste management is, by definition, resulting from human activity and is

contributing to climate change in many different ways. The release of greenhouse
gases (GHG) from landfills due to degradation of biodegradable waste (mostly
methane), the emissions resulting from energy recovery and thermal treatment of
waste, and the emissions from the waste collection due to energy use are contributing
to the release of GEE to the atmosphere. However, the recycling of waste, the
production of compost from biodegradable waste, the sequestration of carbon due
to compost application into the soil and to the avoided consumption of virgin paper
due to paper recycling (Ackerman 2000) are reducing the presence of GHG in the
atmosphere.
The climate change can affect the way how today waste managers plans and
operates waste collection systems. According to Zimmerman and Faris (2010) and
USAID (2013), the climate change can affect waste collection in five aspects
including temperature change, precipitation, sea level rise, storm surge, and extreme
wind. Regarding temperature, the collection will need to be more frequent due to the
increased odor and pest activity, e.g., higher exposure to flies, which are a vector to
disseminate diseases; also overheating of collection vehicles will require additional
cooling capacity. In the case of precipitation change, the flooding of collection routes
and accesses to landfill and waste treatment facilities can be inaccessible, and also
the collection of waterlogged waste can be another factor of stress for vehicles and
workers. Concerning sea level rise, the effects can be at the collection routes being
more narrowed, the increasing of waste in a concentrated area as people go to higher
elevations, without forgetting the permanent inundation of collection, processing,
and disposal infrastructure which will make the collection difficult. For storm surge,
situations of temporary flooding of and diminished access to transport infrastructure
will not only make the waste collection difficult but also can lead to the closure of
facilities due to infrastructure damage. The extreme wind can disperse waste both
from temporary storage and collection vehicle as well as can make the access to
collection routes and waste facilities difficult due to damage and debris caused by
the wind.
Waste collection is a stage of waste management which is critical to protecting
human health and local resources and reduces exposure to contaminated waste
and disease-carrying rodents and insects (USAID 2013). Several adaptive mea-
sures should be taken to minimize the effects of climate change in waste
collection.

8.2 Sustainability and Circular Economy Considerations

Due to the global changes and challenges identified in the previous sections, the
society is requesting for a more sustainable living and developing systems. The
concept of the circular economy – while not entirely new – has gained relevance on
the agendas of policymakers, academia, and companies, being presented as the new
130 8 Environmental Context

economy that could face climate change problems and scarcity of resources at the
same time (Brenan et al. 2015; Gregson et al. 2015; Geissdoerfer et al. 2017).
The circular economy is capable of offering a bottom-up industrial perspective,
where recycling and markets for secondary resources are the pillars (Welfens et al.
2017). According to the European Commission (2015), circular economy is an
economic model where the product, material, and resource value keeps in the
economy for as long as possible and the generation of waste minimized, in such
way that contributes to the development of a low sustainable carbon, resource-
efficient, and competitive economy. Several benefits from the circular economy
occur in European Union: protect the business against resource scarcity and create
local jobs, focusing on the production design of products, production processes,
consumption, waste management, and the market for secondary raw materials and
water reuse (European Commission 2015). Quite before European Commission
have established such strategy, Germany was the pioneer in integrating the concept
of the circular economy on their legislation in 1996, followed by Japan in 2002 and
China in 2009 (Su et al. 2013; METI 2004; Lieder and Rashid 2016). International
initiatives exist, like the Sino-European Circular Economy and Resource
Efficiency (SINCERE) project, which intends to develop new economic
modeling tools to understand the resource use patterns of China and the EU
(Welfens et al. 2017).
Although circular economy is gaining importance in the society, the conceptual
relationship between circular economy and sustainability is not clear, with simi-
larities and differences pointed out by Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) (Table 8.1). In
another way, circular economy contribution still needs to be investigated shortly,
precisely to the waste management sector. A circular economy is focused on waste
flows and closing loops flows, through the economic system, where the destina-
tions are the players that origintaed the product at the first place. Also replace the
sentence before: “In another way, circular economy contribution still needs to be
investigated shortly, precisely to the waste management sector.

Table 8.1 Similarities and differences between sustainability and circular economy
Main similarities Main differences
Commitments intra- and intergenerational Sustainability goals are open-ended, multitude of
level goals/circular economy goals are closed loop, ide-
Integrating noneconomic aspects into ally eliminating all resource input into and leakage
development out of the system
System change/design and innovation at
the core
Multi
/interdisciplinary research field Sustainability prioritizes the triple bottom line, and
Cooperation of different stakeholders circular economy prioritizes the economic system
necessary
Regulation and incentive as core imple- Responsibilities are shared but not clearly defined
mentation tools in sustainability; when in circular economy, the
Technological solutions are important but responsibilities are of private business and regula-
often pose implementation problems tors/policymakers
Source: adapted from Geissdoerfer et al. (2017)
8.3 Adaptive Management Strategies for Waste Collection Systems 131

Looking at waste collection, the circular economy package elaborated by

European Commission (2015) proposes the following vital elements (Wielenga
2016): a requirement for separate collection of biowaste; a ban on landfilling of
separately collected waste fractions; and a sharp increase of the targets for recycling,
making visible the role of separate waste collection to reach the such targets, as well
as to reduce GHG emissions, although requiring the participation of citizens. The
need to reinforce separate collection is to ensure high rates of recycling and high
quality of materials, increasing the number of paths to make waste reintroduced
again in the same economy that originated the product (and consequently, the waste
itself), including domestic sector (European Commission 2015). If it is true that
separate waste collection is needed to obtain the waste/resources to be reintroduced
again on the economy, such is valid for non-durable products; however, the circular
economy package omits the role of tack-back schemes to promote the refurbishment
and durability of products, mainly for durable products (before becoming waste).
This critic is also pointed out by Singh and Ordoñez (2016), which have analyzed
practical examples of circular economy in Sweden, where the recirculation of
resources to make different types of products only occurs and no recirculation of
products, which is the goal of circular economy, where manufacturers must take
back their products to secure their material sources.
Zaman and Lehmann (2011) proposed that, to make zero waste cities, the
methods, tools, or strategies have to be affordable in the socioeconomic context,
regulatory or manageable in the sociopolitical context, applicable in terms of policy
and technological context, effective or efficient at economy and technology, and all
be related to environmental sustainability. The proposed zero-waste city of the future
by Zaman and Lahmann (2011) is like:
• Retrofitting existing communities, infrastructure, and building fabric at the same
time as we develop new ones.
• Food production will be brought back into the city with urban farming, building
efficiency will be improved, and public transport will have priority over private
vehicles.
• Sustainable designs inspired by nature, where waste is a resource and organic waste
is a fertilizer, new building materials constructed from recycled waste, and the
potential for renewable energy fully unleashed, harnessing wind, geothermal, solar,
and biomass resources to feed renewable energy into a smart grid.

8.3 Adaptive Management Strategies for Waste Collection

Systems

The challenges identified so far will require that decision-makers and waste
managers to look at the waste collection as the pivotal role to ensure an adequate
and sustainable solid waste management. Shaping advanced waste collection
system requires having in consideration the sustainable criteria as technical,
economic, environmental, and social dimensions. Adaptive management in this
132 8 Environmental Context

context focuses on the concept that future influences/disorders to a collection system

are predictable.
To identify the adaptive management strategies, models and tools at all stages of
a solid waste collection system should be applied, being those models and tools
introduced in the next chapters. Geographic information systems, route analysis
and optimization, life cycle assessment, carbon footprint, indicators, behavior
studies and awareness campaigns, decision trees, and multi-criteria decision-mak-
ing are all effective options to analyze adaptive management strategies. Dedicated
collection system study requires financing option analysis. Economic instruments
such as pay-as-you-throw and deposit-refund schemes are policy tools that pro-
mote the better collection of recyclables, for example. Policy and regulatory
measures, such as targets for source separation of recyclable fractions (packaging,
waste of electric and electronic equipment, just to name a few), as well as
regulation to promote the market for source-separated waste fractions (which is
the case of the end-of-waste criteria for waste products) can bring the separate
waste collection system into reality but also can be constraint by limitation of land
use to receive specific waste treatment and disposal solutions. Minor environmen-
tal impacts resulting from the waste collection can result from the use of fewer
polluter vehicles and routes optimization. Considering the behavior of users to
make a successful waste collection system will ensure that the amount and quality
of the collected waste are capable of supporting the collection system.

Box 8.1: Glass Recycling: The Case of Separate Collection that

Potentiates Circular Economy and Reduces Global Warming (ACR+
and FEVE 2012)
Glass stands out as one of the best cases of closed loop production model at
Europe due to the recycling rate reached – 67%. First, glass is a natural material
being 100% recyclable and infinitely recyclable, with a well-established source
separation collection system. The environmental benefits are related to the
recycling process of glass, which avoids the extraction of new material and
consumes less energy in producing new products, which releases less CO2. To
improve results, the quality of source-separated glass needs to be increased, to
ensure bottle to bottle recycling, which is better to a downcycling.

Cities are now looking for adaptive measures on the challenges presented so far.
The newest adaptive measure is related to the application of circular economy to
cities, named “circular cities.” Circular city concept is so recent that is still being in
the discussion. Prendeville et al. (2017) tried to define circular cities as “is a city that
practices circular economy principles to close resource loops, in partnership with the
city’s stakeholders (citizen, community, business and knowledge stakeholders), to
realize its vision of a future-proof city” although they recognize that the concept is
still under development.
Implementing the concept of the circular economy into a city may be hard,
existing both bottom-up and top-down initiatives. Bottom-up initiatives are social
8.3 Adaptive Management Strategies for Waste Collection Systems 133

movements, including entrepreneurial activities, and run by civil society,

non-governmental organizations, communities, and business, characterized by
being hard to be identified and includes company collaborations, supply chain
efforts, product design, information, and communication technology (Krauz 2016;
Pomponi and Moncaster 2017; Ghisellini et al. 2016; Lieder and Rashid 2016;
Prendeville et al. 2017). Top-down initiatives applied to a city are driven by the
municipality/local government such as strategy and policy decisions including
public-private partnership projects concerned with developing and facilitating ini-
tiatives, including regulatory frameworks, awareness/information campaigns, col-
laboration platforms, business support schemes, procurement and infrastructure
projects, and fiscal frameworks (Krauz 2016; 2017; Ghisellini et al. 2016; Lieder
and Rashid 2016; EMF 2015).
Several cities are implementing circular economy (Table 8.2). One which has
implemented a zero-waste approach inside of the circular economy was Amsterdam,

Table 8.2 Circular cities

Cities features Circular economy initiatives
Amsterdam Published CE strategy, several real estate projects including CE
(Dutch capital, popula- plans, a large number of community-owned CE initiatives.
tion ¼ 800.000, average Multiple knowledge development projects concerning CE
income/household ¼ €31,400) (including the development of an independent institute for
urban sustainability research)
Rotterdam (popula- Published comprehensive sustainability strategy including CE-
tion ¼ 600.000, average and bio-based economy plans. A large number of community-
income/household ¼ €31,600) owned CE initiatives, mostly bio-based. Active involvement
with Port of Rotterdam for CE. A serious commitment to
developing CE further by commissioning celebrity economist
to create CE future vision
Glasgow (popula- The Scottish government has shown significant commitment to
tion ¼ 600.000, average dis- developing CE through Zero Waste Scotland. City council
posable income/ published sustainability strategy. Chamber of Commerce
household ¼ €39,400) commissioned circle economy (circular consultants) to perform
extensive research on material flows and potential of CE
Haarlemmermeer (popula- Published a “scenario study” exploring future challenges and
tion ¼ 144.000, average broad sustainability agenda with accompanying project plans.
income/household ¼ €39,400) Strong involvement with Schiphol Group (airport in the region)
creating an interesting dynamic. Member of the EMF’s CE100
group
The Hague (popula- Chosen as a city that has not yet made progress or taken
tion ¼ 520.000, average concrete steps toward a CE. Recently (2015) published their
income/household ¼ €32,600) first sustainability agenda and are currently in the process of
taking an inventory of smaller CE projects, initiatives, and
enthusiasts within the organization
Barcelona (popula- Barcelona has taken the lead in developing a smart city, through
tion ¼ 1600.000, average a top-down and comprehensive master plan. It has also been a
income/household ¼ €22,101) pioneer in exploring the concept of a Fab City, for local urban
production systems (e.g., food, energy)
Source: Prendeville et al. (2017)
134 8 Environmental Context

in Buiksloterham district. van der Leer (2016) defined seven interventions to reach
zero-waste goal:
• Resource market: the place where all the household waste is collected,
transporting the waste (or resources) to other facilities or recycling industries.
• Productive street: is a street where small-scale production facilities can be
located, with mixed use.
• Biorefinery: is a place where digestion of organic waste, black water, and yard
waste into biogas, heat, and fertilizer occurs.
• Helophyte filters: are vertical flowing reed fields treating gray water.
• Home composting: to be implemented in two ways – by a wormery or a
compost bin.
• Smart collection points: two types of collection, one for daily waste flows
(organic waste, glass, paper, cardboard, and other waste + metals, plastics +
drinking cartons and sanitary waste) and another central collection for monthly
waste (textiles and bulky waste), being a total of eight fractions.
• Separate sewage system: to be implemented in new housings, occurring separate
collection and transport of wastewater to support the helophyte filters and
biorefinery (Table 8.2).

8.4 Final Remarks

The way how society has encountered to deal with global challenges is not being
capable of dealing with all the challenges at the same time. There is the need for
cities to be sustainable, to work as eco-cities, to reduce GHG emissions, and to
generate less waste, circularly, not allowing waste to get outside the frontiers of the
city. However, those challenges require financial resources, acknowledgment, and
desire of stakeholders to solve them.
There is the need to look at the lessons learned so far, namely, for the cases which
have failed to avoid that the same mistakes occur again and again. Transforming
high-consuming cities into “zero-waste cities” is quite challenging and a long-term
process. At first, the lifestyle of inhabitants and consumer behaviors needs to be
understood to act to change the way how resource consumption and waste occurs. At
last, when concepts like circular cities, eco-cities, sustainable cities, and zero-waste
and zero-carbon cities are implemented poorly, they can lose credibility, only
remaining as buzzwords or greenwashing. The scientific community has the respon-
sibility to help the rest of the society to clarify concepts, to elaborate guidelines, and
to help to perform the concepts in the field.
References 135

References

Ackerman F (2000) Waste management and climate change. Local Environ 5:223–229
ACR+, FEVE (2012) Good practices in collection and closed-loop glass recycling in Europe. http://
wwwacrplusorg/images/glass_recycling/Good_Practices_in_collection_and_closed-loop_
glass_recycling_in_Europe_REPORT_-_ACR_FINAL_DOCpdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2018
Angus A, Casado MR, Fitzsimons D (2012) Exploring the usefulness of a simple linear regression
model for understanding price movements of selected recycled materials in the UK. Resour
Conserv Recycl 60:10–19
Bai XM, Chen J, Shi PJ (2012) Landscape urbanization ad economic growth in China: positive
feedbacks and sustainability dilemma. Environ Sci Technol 46:132–139
Baldé CP, Wang F, Kuehr R, Huisman J (2015) The global e-waste monitor – 2014. United Nations
University, IAS-SCYCLE, Bonn
Brennan G, Tennant M, Blomsma F (2015) Business and production solutions: closing the loop. In:
Kopnina H, Shoreman-Ouiet E (eds) Sustainability: key issues. EarthScan, Routledge, pp
219–239
Bullis K (2009) A zero-emissions city in the desert – Oil-rich Abu Dhabi is building a green
metropolis – should the rest of the world care? In: Technol Rev Available via MIT Technology
Review http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cushman/courses/engs44-old/Zero-Emissions-City-2009.
pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2018
Chang G (2016) Environmentally friendly cities. In: Li J, Yang T (eds) China’s eco-city construc-
tion, research series on the Chinese dream and China’s development path. Springer, Berlin, pp
135–154
Cheng H, Hu Y (2010) Planning for sustainability in China's urban development: status and
challenges for Dongtan eco-city project. J Environ Monit 12:119–126
Desrochers P (2001) Cities industrial symbiosis: some historical perspectives and policy
implications. J Ind Ecol 5:29–44
Dongtan CH (2008) China’s flagship eco-city. Archit Des 78:64–69
EMF (2015) Delivering the circular economy: a toolkit for policymakers. In EMF. Available via
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/
EllenMacArthurFoundation_PolicymakerToolkit.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2017
Eryildiz S, Xhexhi K (2012) Eco cities under construction. Gazi Univ J Sci 25:257–261
European Commission (2015) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions:
Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the Circular Economy (COM/2015/0614 final). https://
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0614. Accessed 10 Oct 2017
European Parliament, Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Off J Eur Union L312:
3–30
Eurostat (2017) Municipal waste statistics. http://appssoeurostateceuropaeu/nui/showdo?
dataset¼env_wasmun&lang¼en. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
Gaubatz P (1999) China’s urban transformation: patterns and processes of morphological change in
Beijing, shanghai and Guanzhou. Urban Stud 36:1495–1521
Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken NMP, Hultink EJ (2017) The circular economy – a new
sustainability paradigm? J Clean Prod 143:757–768
Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a
balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Clean Prod 114:11–32
Girardet H (1999) Creating sustainable cities, Schumacher briefings 2. Green Books, Dartington
Gregson N, Crang M, Fuller S, Holmes H (2015) Interrogating the circular economy: the moral
economy of resource recovery in the EU. Econ Soc 44:218–243
Gupta S (2015) Decoupling: a step toward sustainable development with reference to OECD
countries. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 22:510–519
136 8 Environmental Context

Huisman J, Botezatu I, Herreras L, Liddane M, Hintsa J, Luda di Cortemiglia V, Leroy P,

Vermeersch E, Mohanty S, van den Brink S, Ghenciu B, Dimitrova D, Nash E, Shryane T,
Wieting M, Kehoe J, Baldé CP, Magalini F, Zanasi A, Ruini F, Bonzio A (2015) Countering
WEEE illegal trade summary report. The CWIT Consortium, Lyon
ISRI (2015) The scrap recycling industry: commodities. http://www.isri.org/recycling-commodi
ties/international-scrap-trade-database. Accessed 20 Oct 2017
ISWA (2012) Globalization and waste management – Phase 1: concepts and facts. ISWA
Jha AK, Sharma C, Singh N, Ramesh R, Purvaja R, Gupta PK (2008) Greenhouse gas emissions
from municipal solid waste management in Indian mega-cities: a case study of Chennai landfill
sites. Chemosphere 71:750–758
Joint Research Centre (JRC) (2015) Waste and recycling. http://susprocjrceceuropaeu/activities/
waste/indexhtml. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
Krauz A (2016) Transition management in Montreuil: towards perspectives of hybridization
between ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ transitions. In: Loorbach D, Wittmayer J, Shiroyama H,
Fujino J, Mizuguchi S (eds) Governance of urban sustainability transitions. Springer, Tokyo, pp
137–154
Lieder M, Rashid A (2016) Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review in
context of manufacturing industry. J Clean Prod 115:36–51
Liu JY, Zhan JY, Deng XZ (2005) Spatiotemporal patterns and driving forces of urban land
expansion in China during the economic reform era. Ambio 34:450–455
Liu ZF, He CY, Zhou YY, Wu JG (2014) How much of the world’s land has been urbanized, really?
A hierarchical framework for avoiding confusion. Landsc Ecol 29:763–771
METI (2004) Handbook on resource recycling legislation and 3R initiatives. Japanese Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry, Tokyo
OECD (2002) Indicators to measure decoupling of environmental pressure from economic growth
SG/SD(2002)1/FINAL. http://wwwoecdorg/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?
cote¼sg/sd(2002)1/final&doclanguage¼en. Accessed 3 Jan 2014
Okuda I, Thomson VE (2007) Regionalization of municipal solid waste management in Japan:
balancing the proximity principle with economic efficiency. Environ Manag 40:12–19
Pomponi F, Moncaster A (2017) Circular economy for the built environment: a research frame-
work. J Clean Prod 143:710–718
Premalatha M, Tauseef SM, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2013) The promise and the performance of the
world’s first two zero carbon eco-cities. Renew Sust Energ Rev 25:660–669
Prendeville S, Cherim E, Bocken N (2017) Circular cities: mapping six cities in transition. Environ
Innov Soc Transit 26:171–194
Register R (1987) Building cities for a healthy future. Berkeley North Atlantic Books, Berkeley
Roseland M (1997) Dimensions of the eco-city. Cities 14:197–202
Roseland M (2001) How green is the City? Sustainability assessment and the management of urban
environments. Columbia University Press, New York
Singh J, Ordoñez I (2016) Resource recovery from post-consumer waste: important lessons for the
upcoming circular economy. J Clean Prod 134:342–353
Su B, Heshmati A, Geng Y, Yu X (2013) A review of the circular economy in China: moving from
rhetoric to implementation. J Clean Prod 42:215–227
Surugiu MR, Surugiu C (2015) International trade, globalization and economic interdependence
between European countries: implications for business and marketing framework. Procedia
Econ Financ 32:131–138
UNEP, ISWA (2015) Global waste management Outlook 2015. UNEP, Japan
United Nations (1992) United nations framework convention on climate change. https://unfccc.int/
files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf.
Accessed 10 Apr 2018
United Nations (2015) World urbanization prospects – the 2014 revision. United Nations,
New York
United Nations (2017) UN Comtrade Database. https://comtrade.un.org/. Accessed 7 Aug 2018
References 137

United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, World
Trade Organization (2002) Manual on statistics of international trade in services. United
Nations, New York
USAID (2013) Addressing climate change impact on infrastructure: preparing for change. http://
wwwadaptationlearningnet/sites/default/files/resource-files/Addressing-Climate-Change-
Impacts-on-Infrastructure-reportpdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2018
Vaiude N, Deshpande G, Deosthali AM (2017) Eco-City or environmentally sustainable villages.
In: Seta F, Sen J, Biswas A, Khare A (eds) From poverty, inequality to smart city. Transactions
in civil and environmental engineering. Springer, Singapore, pp 161–169
Van Berkel R, Fijita T, Hashimoto S, Geng Y (2009) Industrial and urban symbiosis in Japan:
analysis of the eco-town program 1997–2006. J Environ Manag 90:1544–1556
Van Caneghem J, Block C, Van Hooste H, Vandecasteele C (2010) Eco-efficiency trends of the
Flemish industry: decoupling of environmental impact from economic growth. J Clean Prod
18:1349–1357
Van der Leer J (2016) Zero waste Buiksloterham - an integrated approach to circular cities.
Dissertation, Delft University of Technology
Van der Voet E, Van Oers L, Nikolic I (2004) Dematerialization: not just a matter of weight. J Ind
Ecol 8:121–137
Verfaillie A, Bidwell R (2000) Measuring eco-efficiency: a guide to reporting company perfor-
mance. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Available via https://www.gdrc.
org/sustbiz/measuring.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2014
Waste Atlas (2017) Municipal solid waste generation. http://wwwatlasd-wastecom/. Accessed
1 Aug 2014
Welfens P, Bleischwitz R, Geng Y (2017) Resource efficiency, circular economy and sustainability
dynamics in China and OECD countries. Int Econ Econ Policy 14:377–382
Wielenga K (2016) Separate waste collection in the context of a circular economy in Europe. Report
for FFact, Delft
World Bank (2018) Metadata glossary. https://data.worldbank.org/. Accessed 30 Apr 2018
Zaman AU, Lehmann S (2011) Urban growth and waste management optimization towards ‘zero
waste city’. City, Cult Soc 2:177–187
Zimmerman R, Faris C (2010) Chapter 4: infrastructure impacts and adaptation challenges. Ann
New York Acad Sci 1196:63–85
 Part II
Models and Tools for Waste Collection
Chapter 9
Design and Planning of Waste Collection
System

Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to present the principal factors and
objectives to consider when planning a collection system. The prediction and
estimation of the amount of waste and the type of waste collection service that is
intended to be provided, together with the help of geographic information systems
(GIS) to locate containers and design routes, are tools to be used during the adequate
design and planning of a waste collection system. Here a specific focus is on waste
prediction models, due to its importance on planning, operating, and optimizing
waste management system, as well as in the difficulty in predicting, directly, waste
generation and its dependence on numerous factors, directly and indirectly, related
with the consumption patterns, disposal habits, and urbanization.

Keywords Forecasting models · Time series · Waste generation estimations ·

Trucks · Containers · GIS · Routing

9.1 Waste Generation Estimation

Forecasting of generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) is the first and

fundamental step in planning waste collection systems (Rimaitytė et al. 2012).
Forecast data is the baseline for the development of solid waste management systems
and their continuous improvement and optimization toward sustainability (Beigl
et al. 2008).
The majority of the national waste legislations require reliable information on
waste quantity and composition, which is difficult to accomplish since waste gener-
ation cannot be measured directly (as gas consumption, for instance), to which adds
the existence of several parallel channels in waste disposal systems (e.g., public
curbside collection, private collectors, take back by retailers, among others) and the
scarcity of the system to measure the waste arising on a single household (only areas
where pay-as-you-throw systems have been installed). Thus, waste generation
cannot be measured on a detailed basis, which would allow further evaluation of
disposal habits, changes, and trends. This is one of the cases where modeling is of

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 141

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_9
142 9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System

particular significance. According to Armstrong (2001), the selection of the method

to perform a waste generation forecast depends on some criteria:
• Amount and quality of available data.
• Type of the data.
• Interactions among waste generation parameters and socioeconomic indicators.
• Predictable changes in solid waste management systems.
Beigl et al. (2008) concluded after reviewing a considerable amount of published
works that models applied were very different even when tackling the same kind of
waste generation issue. These authors suggest three criteria to help to identify the
adequate approaches: the regional scale (from household up to country perspective),
the type of waste stream, and the availability of data. However, the first aspect that
should be taken into account before selecting a method is the type of waste stream. In
general, correlation and regression analyses (to test mainly the affluence-related
impacts by analysis consumption-related variables and consumption and disposal
related variables) and group comparisons (to test the effect of waste management
activities on recycling quotas) have been the most used modeling methods, both to
test the relationship between the level of influence and the generation of total MSW
(or a material-related fraction) and to identify significant effects of waste manage-
ment activities on recycling quotas. The application of time-series analyses and
input-output analyses is advantageous for special information needs (e.g., assess-
ment of seasonal effects for short-term forecasts) or for appropriate data availability.
The timescale is also an important aspect one cannot forget (Hyndman and
Athanasopoulos 2014). Forecasting waste generation for 2 years is entirely different
from forecasting the weekly generated amounts. Short-term forecasts (day, week) are
needed concerning collection, personnel and truck utilization, transport to landfill,
and final disposal (Navarro-Esbri et al. 2002). Long-term forecast supports strategic
decision-making and should take into account macro aspects such as population
behavior and environmental factors. In the middle, there is medium-term forecast
supporting strategic decision-making (determine future resources needed, hire per-
sonnel, buying new equipment, among others).
In long-term forecast or when there is no adequate data available, the adequate
methods to perform good forecast are qualitative approaches. These are not “simple
guesses”; they are well-structured and validated methods. Nonetheless, they do not
come free of bias and subjectivity since they depend profoundly on human judg-
ment. Examples of such methods are the Delphi method, forecasting by analogy, and
scenario-based forecasting. In this section the focus will be the quantitative methods;
therefore for further detail refer to Hyndman and Athanasopoulos (2014).
Quantitative methods are the adequate methods to use when two criteria are met:
the existence of useful quality data and when it is reasonable to assume that past
trends/patterns will continue in the future. Most quantitative methods use time-series
data (measurements taken at equally spaced movements, such as hours, days,
months) or cross-sectional data (several measurements taken at a single period).
The short-term prediction of future MSW generation rates can facilitate planning
9.1 Waste Generation Estimation 143

10
Millions
Observation
9 Predicted by ANFIS
Predicted by KNN
8
Domestic waste weight (Kg)

1
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Date (Year) ~
Fig. 9.1 Monthly solid waste generation in Logan City, Australia: real (1996–2014) and forecast
(2015–2020). (Source: Abbasi and Hanandeh (2016))

concerning the collection, personnel and truck utilization, transport to landfill, and
final disposal (Navarro-Esbri et al. 2002).
Time-series forecasting models are a useful tool to forecast MSW generation
when historical data is available (Winston and Goldberg 2004). These methods are
often called as extrapolation methods since they use previously observed data to
infer about future data. More precisely, they assume that past patterns and trends in
data will continue in the future. They do not take into account what are the causes of
such data; they merely assume past patterns and trends will go on in the future. To
understand the causes, one should choose correlation and regression methods since
they make use of several different types of variables (e.g., population growth) to
explain the behavior of one single variable (named as the dependent variable).

9.1.1 Time Series

Figure 9.1 shows the monthly MSW generated in Logan City, Australia, between
1996 and 2014. It also shows the monthly forecast for a 5-year period (2015–2020)
predicted by two different methods (Abbasi and Hanandeh 2016). Notice how the
forecasts follow the seasonal pattern seen in the historical data and replicate it in the
next years.
144 9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System

The most common components present in a time series are trend, seasonality, and
cyclicity. A trend exists when there is a long-term increase or decrease in the data. It
does not have to be linear and may change directions (moving from increasing to
decreasing trend). Seasonality appears when there are factors of fixed period that
influence the series behavior (e.g., day of the week, or the month, or the quarter of
the year). Seasonality has always a known period. Lastly, a cyclic pattern exists
when data exhibit rises and falls that are not of fixed period. The duration of these
fluctuations is usually of at least 2 years. In general, the average length of cycles is
longer than the length of a seasonal pattern, and the magnitude of cycles tends to be
more variable than the magnitude of seasonal patterns.
These components should be modeled separately to better capture the influence of
each of them. The most common decomposition models are the additive and the
multiplicative models. The following equations are possible representations of each
model, respectively.

xt ¼ St þ T t þ εt and x t ¼ St  T t  ε t

where xt is the data at period t, St is the seasonal term at period t, Tt is the trend-cycle
term at period t, and εt is the error term at period t. When the seasonal fluctuations
magnitude or the variation around the trend-cycle is independent from the level of
the time series, the additive model is the most suitable one, while the multiplicative
model is more suitable when those phenomena (variation in the seasonal pattern and
variation around the trend cycle) appear to be proportional to the level of the time
series.
Autoregressive integrated moving average models, best known as ARIMA
models, provide another approach to time-series forecasting. Exponential smoothing
and ARIMA models are the two most widely used approaches to time-series
forecasting and provide complementary approaches to the problem. While the
former describes the trend and seasonality observed in the data, the latter seeks to
describe the autocorrelations among data values.
In Appendix A.1 to A.6, the most common approaches to model time-series
components are presented with detail: naïve model, moving average models, expo-
nential smoothing, Holt’s model, and Holt-Winters model, respectively. A brief
introduction to ARIMA models is also presented.

9.1.2 Forecast Accuracy

The accuracy of forecasts, i.e., how good is a forecast model, should be determined
by studying how the model performs on new data that were not used to develop the
model parameters. A common practice is to split the available data into two subsets:
training and test data. The training data is used to estimate all parameters of the
model (or models since one should study some different options), and the test data
9.1 Waste Generation Estimation 145

should be about 20% of the total sample and is used to assess its “quality” (Hyndman
and Athanasopoulos 2014). Since test data has not been used in parameters
estimation, it should provide an accurate indication of how well the model is likely
to forecast on new data. The test set should ideally be at least as large as the
maximum forecast horizon required.
For period t, the forecast error et is given by

et ¼ xt  x
t ,

where x
t is the forecasted value for period t. There are several methods to measure
forecast accuracy. When these measures are based on et, they are scale dependent.
The most commonly used scale-dependent measures are based on absolute errors or
on squared errors: mean absolute error, geometric mean absolute error, and mean
square error (see Appendix B.1 to B.3 for the respective mathematical expressions).
The use of absolute or squared values stops negative and positive errors from
balancing each other. A different kind of accuracy measures involves the percentage
error pt defined by
et
pt ¼  100:
xt
These errors have the advantage of not being scale dependent, so they are
adequate to compare forecast accuracy between different time series. The most
common measure is the mean absolute percentage error, MAPE (in Appendix
B.4). Since the percentage error pt is divided by the observed value xt, it may
produce infinite or undefined values when the observed values are zero or close to
zero. When the observed values are very small, MAPE yields extremely large
percentage errors.
Lastly, the relative errors are also scaled independently and may be used to
compare different timescales. These accuracy measures involve dividing each error
by the error obtained using some benchmark method of forecasting. Let rt be the
relative error defined by
et
rt ¼
e0t

where e0t is the forecast error obtained from the benchmark method. The most used
method as a benchmark is the naïve method (see Appendix A.1). Two measurements
can be defined with rt: geometric mean relative absolute error (in Appendix B.5).
The former is the median of the absolute value of rt. The latter is computed as the
geometric mean absolute error.
146 9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System

9.1.3 Linear and Multiple Linear Regression Models

Regression models are used when the variable to be forecast (dependent variable)
reveals a relationship with one or more other response variables (independent vari-
ables). The purpose of such models is to describe the linear relationship between the
dependent and independent variables and use it to forecast values of the dependent
variable that have not been observed. Under this model, any change in response will
affect the output of the system expectedly.
The most used way to evaluate how well a linear regression model fits the data is
using the coefficient of determination, R2. Using forecast variable by and the observed
value y, this coefficient measures the proportion of the variation in the forecast
variable that is accounted for (or explained) by the regression model. The given
expression assures the R2 2 [0, 1]. If the forecasts are close to the observed values,
then R2 is close to 1. On the contrary, if forecasts and observed values differ
considerably, then R2 is close to 0. Although commonly used, there are no rules
for what is a good value for R2 when applied to forecasting (Hyndman and
Athanasopoulos 2014).
Assuming that the regression errors are normally distributed, an approximate α%
forecast interval (a prediction interval) associated with this forecast can be com-
puted, providing a more in-depth knowledge regarding possible variations in the
forecast value.

9.1.4 Advanced Forecast Models

Artificial intelligent approaches have recently been used to forecast waste generation:
artificial neural networks (ANNs), support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neigh-
bors algorithms (kNN), and other machine learning techniques. ANNs are algorithms
inspired by the way the brain system works and have the “ability” to improve their
performance; often one says artificial neural networks are algorithms with the capacity
to learn. This capacity is one of the most beneficial and significant features of ANNs
when addressing forecasting issues (Abbasi and Hanandeh 2016). ANNs can construct
a complex nonlinear system through a set of input/output examples, which makes
them suitable candidates for forecasting waste generation. However, ANNs’ perfor-
mances may suffer given their movement to overfitting training. SVM algorithms aim
at separating data so that they are as far apart as possible. These algorithms find a
hyperplane by selecting the most appropriate points in a training subset (the supporting
vectors), that split data into categories. They are less prone to overfitting than other
machine learning techniques (Han et al. 2011). As a forecasting method, k-nearest
neighbors algorithm seeks to identify the past sequence, in the time series, that is most
similar to the one to be forecast (Arroyo and Maté 2009).
The SVM was used to forecast weekly MSW generation in Tehran City, Iran by
Abbasi et al. (2013). The authors concluded that SVM could predict MSW
9.1 Waste Generation Estimation 147

generation in a short-term scale with reasonable accuracy. When applying k-nearest

neighbors algorithm to univariate time series, one aims at finding if consistent data-
generating processes produce observations of repeated patterns of behavior. If that is
the case and a previous pattern can be identified as analogous to the current behavior
of the time series, the subsequent behavior of the previous pattern can provide
valuable information to predict the behavior in the immediate future. Abbasi and
Hanandeh (2016) compared ANNs, SVM, and kNN and a fourth artificial intelli-
gence approach (Adaptive Neuro-fuzzy Inference System) to access their accuracy
of predicting waste generation rates. Their results showed that artificial intelligence
models provide promising tools that may allow decision-makers to successfully
forecast future trends in MSW generation for planning and design of MSW man-
agement purposes. More precisely, it was observed that the Adaptive Neuro-fuzzy
Inference System accurately estimated waste generation at peaks, while k-nearest
neighbors algorithm was successful in estimating monthly average values. The
machine learning application to MSW prediction was reported by Johnson et al.
(2017). These authors linked historical MSW collection data supplied by the
New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) with other datasets related to
New York City (NYC) to forecast MSW generation throughout the city. Spatiotem-
poral tonnage data from the DSNY was combined with external datasets (as the
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data, the American Community Sur-
vey, and historical weather data) to develop a Gradient Boosting Regression model.
This machine learning-based model has been firstly introduced by Friedman (2001),
and according to Johnson et al. (2017), it is an excellent choice for this kind of
studies because of “their interpretability, ability to handle non-linear and complex
relationships between data and have demonstrated higher prediction accuracy com-
pared to traditional time-series models such as ARIMA.” Historical data from 2005
to 2011 was used to train and validate the model performance. With this model, they
were able to accurately forecast weekly MSW generation tonnages for each of the
232 geographic sections in NYC across three waste streams of refuse, paper, and
metal/glass/plastic. “Importantly, the model identifies regularity of urban waste
generation and is also able to capture very short timescale fluctuations associated
to holidays, special events, seasonal variations, and weather related events. This
research shows New York City’s waste generation trends and the importance of
comprehensive data collection (especially weather patterns) in order to accurately
predict waste generation.” (Johnson et al. 2017).

9.1.5 Case Study: Using Time-Series Models to Estimate

MSW in Kaunas, Lithuania

Rimaitytė et al. (2012) modeled MSW generated in some neighborhoods in Kaunas,

Lithuania, to access adequate forecasting methods for this urban area in a fast
developing economy. Kaunas has 353,000 inhabitants and is the second largest
148 9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System

city in Lithuania. It occupies an area of 157km2. In 2008, about 460 kg per capita and
year of MSW were generated which amounts to 165,500 metric tons. Data
concerning waste generated in households (as glass, metal, plastic, paper, and
biowaste) was collected, and the forecast was performed for the period between
2008 and 2017.
Methods of descriptive statistics were applied with the aim of describing the
variation observed in MSW generation rates. Authors assumed the waste was
collected at precise points in time, and the failure to collect waste during a single
week did not influence the amount of waste collected during the next week. Given
the character of the historical data available for the analysis and the amount and its
quality, time-series models were the appropriate techniques to be applied. Data
presented trend since a substantial increase in MSW generation occurred in a
selected time horizon, and a cyclic variation of MSW generation was visible
throughout different months.
Several types of time-series analysis were applied. Seasonal exponential smooth-
ing (SES) and ARIMA models were selected as best in predicting the data. The
former showed an increasing trend, caused mainly by the MSW growth from 2004 to
2006, while the latter underestimated this rising trend in the same period. Since these
two models perform differently in the modeling of the data randomness (white
noise), a weighted linear combination of models was tested. The estimate Yb t was
defined as the combination of both models:

Yb t ¼ αYb ARIMA
t þ ð1  αÞYb tSES

where Yb t is the forecast for time t and Yb ARIMA

t and Yb tSES are the estimates of the
ARIMA and SES models also at the time t, respectively; the weight coefficient α was
chosen to best fit the observed data. The model was validated with the data from
2008 to 2009.

9.2 Waste Collection System Planning and Selection

The best operating solid waste systems engage all the stakeholders in planning,
implementing, and monitoring changes to the system (Wilson and Scheinberg 2010).
However, only with acknowledgment of the options involved in the different
collection systems and optimized costs can be expected to see appropriate solid
waste management techniques applied in all countries of the world (Ross 2010).
9.2 Waste Collection System Planning and Selection 149

9.2.1 Factors to Consider When Planning a Collection

System

According to Bilitewski et al. (1994), the choice of a waste collection system

depends on waste composition, existing waste collection system, existing waste
treatment, recovery and disposal, the availability of citizens to pay for the waste
collection and to participate on the collection system, and awareness of citizens. In a
more detailed view, Lechner (2004) defined the distance to collection centers,
simplicity, easiness of utilization by citizens, the prevention of malodors and
parasites, and the design of devices as prerequisites to consider when planning a
waste collection system. Choosing a waste collection system has to consider the
territorial distribution and urban constraints, population density, pedestrian areas,
street width, and the existence of residential areas, mostly (Satué 2000). All these
features are specific to each city, leading to different waste collection and manage-
ment systems (Scharff and Vogel 1994). Legal aspects are also determinant for the
operation of the waste collection system, influencing the planning and design
(Tchobanoglous et al. 1993). More generically, the strategy for a waste collection
system must include the following goals (Pferdehirt et al. 1993; Tchobanoglous et al.
1993):
• The system must supply adequate levels of services, established to meet political
regulations and sanitary and environmental requirements, in such way that could
be safe for human health and the environment, trustable, and efficient.
• The system must try to reach the lowest cost possible.
• The system must develop local partnerships between public and private sectors.
• The system must be flexible to allow to answer to the changes occurring in the
city and on waste generation.
• The system must support policies promoting the reduction and prevention of
waste.
• Recycling targets to accomplish.
• Financial support to acquire innovative waste collection technology, to ensure
best available techniques implemented on the field.
• Prescribe patterns established for service, performance, and citizens’ satisfaction.
Most of the time, the goals of the waste collection system conflict, for example,
the need to collect recyclables of high quality and collection efficiency. Recycling
needs clean materials without contaminants, forcing for a separate collection, which
increases collection costs, in opposition to the collection of mixed waste. Incentives
to help financing separate waste collection of recyclables, together with increasing
waste tariffs, can lead to better management of those different goals (Tchobanoglous
et al. 1993):
(a) Waste collection has to be ensured by public or private entities, being private
entities helpful financially to solve issues related to the improvements in the
waste management system.
150 9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System

(b) Management concerns in the mechanization of collection relate primarily to the

adaptability of the new containers to the needs of the user and the preparation of
workers for the new system; these concerns must first be analyzed in tests,
selecting a given pilot circuit and evaluating variables such as the times of
loading, capacities, costs, and adhesion of the users.
(c) In the waste sector, collective labor contracts and trade union organizations are
common: Mechanization and modernization of collection systems lead to the use
of less labor, and communication with trade unions is therefore important to
include them in the assessment and testing of collection systems, training of
employees, and adjustment of salaries in order to recognize the increase in the
skills and efficiency of the workers who received training and the reduction of
the workforce by redeployment, rather than dismissals.
(d) Purchasing the new waste collection system to be implemented requires the
selection of a financing method that is adapted to the financial availability of
users (considering that the waste management system must be supported by
users); many projects to modernize collection systems have been made
unfeasible by the lack of funding, which is usually obtained through the munic-
ipal budget or loans, with leasing being an alternative; the purchase of new
equipment in phases and the use of old equipment until it is amortized or through
the simultaneous payment of new and old equipment must also be considered.
The selection of a waste collection system must be made in an integrative way for
all waste streams to be collected, looking for synergies, being relevant for entities
with low dimension (Satué 2000). However, for the chosen system, the goals are
always the safe and efficient removal of waste, ensuring the health patterns and
public/private needs, not forgetting the waste collection frequency and containers
location, because they will influence how equipment will be used, the efficiency of
the collection work, and customers’ satisfaction (Bilitewkshi et al. 2010;
Tchobanoglous et al. 1993).
Concerning devices, the set container-vehicle choice is one of the decisions of
technicians of the waste department must deal with, being the correct selection one
of the resources to increase separation at source (Tanskanen and Melanen 1999). The
factors that must be considered in the selection of the set container-vehicle are
addressed in the next sections.

9.2.2 Factors to Consider When Selecting WCS Devices

Vehicles
Concerning the technology and devices used, an important goal on the selection of
vehicles is the amount of waste that can be collected respecting maximum legal
weights (O’Leary and Walsh 1995). Mechanized vehicles are chosen because they
reduce collection time, but the opinion of vehicle drivers and waste workers must be
consulted, since they are familiarized with the device (O’Leary and Walsh 1995).
9.2 Waste Collection System Planning and Selection 151

Generically, factors affecting the evaluation of a waste vehicle are the collection
method and elevation method (elevator lateral/frontal/background), vehicle capacity,
the velocity of transportation until discharge point, and costs of operation and costs
capital. Pferdehirt (1994) and Urban Upgrading (2001) have identified the following
factors to consider when selecting waste collection vehicles:
• Loading collection (side, back, or front) and loading mechanisms, considering the
manual work of the team.
• Truck body capacity: to select the optimum capacity for a given community, the
trade-off between labor and equipment costs should be determined.
• Chassis selection: although the chassis is similar to all collection vehicles, they
must be large enough to support the truck body with waste.
• Purchase, operation, and maintenance costs.
• Spare parts obtaining delays.
• Loading height: the lower the loading height, the easier can waste be loaded into
the vehicle, saving time, strain, and injuries in the work team.
• Loading and unloading mechanisms: they should be considered to minimize labor
costs over capital costs and should be easy for workers.
• Truck turning radius: to allow the truck to turn over.
• Watertightness: to ensure that liquids from waste do not run off from the vehicle.
• Safety and comfort: vehicles should be designed with ergonomics principles.
• Speed: the vehicles should have an appropriate performance at a different range
of speed.
• Adaptability to other uses: other uses may be given to collection vehicles, like
maintenance of gardens, for example.

Containers
One of the factors influencing the MSW composition reported by Dahlén and
Lagerkvist (2010) is the container type and bag used, together with the functionality
and attractiveness of collection points. Vijay et al. (2008) conducted studies related
with the location of collection points and their storage capacity, and Kaliampakos
and Benardos (2013) highlighted the use of underground space for the development
of infrastructure capable of bringing the solution to the limitations of existing MSW
systems. From a technical point of view, the most relevant criteria to select con-
tainers are (O’Leary and Walsh 1995; WRAP 2013):
• Site performance: to ensure that containers are functional for the volume of
materials that will be collected and ease of emptying.
• Space available on site: to make containers accessible, responding to servicing
requirements,
• Containers that could reduce site footprint.
• Ease of relocating containers in other sites, i.e., modular containers, compatible
with vehicles to be transported to other places and to be discharged by a large
number of mechanisms that exist in collection vehicles.
• Accessibility for all site users, including disabled users.
• Select containers that could be used for all materials.
• Consider the aesthetics of the site and for the street when selecting containers.
152 9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System

• Safety and security of containers regarding vandalism and damage, by selecting

containers with appropriate-sized apertures to reduce contamination and littering
and use of locks if needed to be safe for users and collection crews.
• Economically affordable includes capital costs but also maintenance and repair
costs. To reduce capital costs, options are available like buying in bulk and
acquiring containers with a high level of adaptation to avoid acquiring new
containers. Maintenance and repair costs relate to container cleaning; repair or
replacement arising from damage from arson or vandalism, or just wear, where
containers which are resistant and durable are preferred.The choice of containers
is directly related to the fleet required, already highlighted by ISWA (2007),
Rhyner et al. (2017), and WRAP (2013). The decision to install a waste collection
system requires to have the suitable collection vehicles to collect the proposed
containers, all being planned in conformity (containers and vehicles together)
(Pieber 2004; WRAP 2013). The financing limitations may limit the choice of
containers, looking firstly for the existing vehicles, and only then select the
adequate container, considering the amounts of waste generated and available
space at a street and selected places to locate containers (Rhyner et al. 2017). If a
municipality has different contractors for different waste materials, probably
those contractors need to be involved in any decisions about containers
(WRAP 2013).

9.3 The Role of GIS in Waste Collection Planning

GIS is one of the most high-level spatial technologies. Having a computer-based

information system, it can assemble, store, manage, integrate, analyze, and display
spatial data known as geographically referenced data. Commonly, data is organized
into thematic layers and forms digital maps. This is one of the most interesting
features of GIS systems. Analyzing data by visualizing helps in identifying trends,
patterns, and interactions that might not be perceived if data is displayed in table or
written form Vijay et al. (2008).
The evolution of the quality and accessibility of geographic and population
database (e.g., distances, coverage, or the number of inhabitants to serve) allowed
collection sizing and planning more accurately. Waste collection routing software
use GIS in scheduling and optimizing MSW collection routes, based on a container’s
location in a coordinate system and combining with street maps, having the shortest
route as criterion, but the inputs required by this software still rely heavily on
statistics and empirical data. Significant assumptions are usually made because of
the lack of input data.
There are key database that are fundamental to feed the optimization MSW
collection routes software: the net capacity of the container and vehicle, specific
weight for recyclable material in the different types of container sizes and shapes,
and emptying time for the different types of coupling system with the vehicle or
pickup method for unloading the container.
9.3 The Role of GIS in Waste Collection Planning 153

The most widespread use of GIS on MSW lies in the areas of site selection for
landfill, trash bin, and transfer stations (Vijay et al. 2008; Tralhão et al. 2010) and
routing and scheduling optimization based on historical or predicted data (Tavares
et al. 2009). Other applications of GIS in MSW can be found when addressing local
management planning (Hrebicek and Soukopova 2010) on waste generation estima-
tion through the use of socioeconomic and local demographic data (Karadimas and
Loumos 2008) and integrated MSW establishment (Tao 2010).

9.3.1 Routes Definition

Route definition is one of the most challenging issues faced by a waste collection
manager. Not only one has to assure that all waste is collected correctly, but one has
also to set a system that is cost-efficient. Resources, both human and machinery, are
limited and should be used in the most efficient way. However, not only cost should
be the goal when designing collection routes. Environmental and social aspects
should also be taken into consideration.
To define adequate collection routes, data, goals, and constraints have to be ade-
quately defined. In the following paragraphs, three questions will be addressed when
designing waste collection routes: What goals should one seek to optimize? What are
the constraints that describe the system? And, what data needs to be taken into account?
What Goals Should One Seek to Optimize?
The goals are organized according to the sustainability pillar they relate to (eco-
nomic, environmental, and social).
• Economic perspective.
– The minimization of distance, costs, and time are the most frequent goals when
planning collection routes. However, the minimum distance is not always a
guarantee for minimum costs. For instance, collection during the night will be
more efficient since less traffic exists, but it represents higher labor costs
(Viotti et al. 2003). Therefore, a close analysis should be made to investigate
the trade-offs between collection costs during the day and during the night.
– The minimization of the number of vehicles is one objective that should be
taken into account when no fleet of collection vehicles is available. By
focusing on this objective, investments can be reduced. It is not sure, however,
that costs are minimized this way (Beliën et al. 2014). Notice that the lack of
vehicle capacity may lead to overtime work by the employees. A trade-off
arises between the number of vehicles and overtime costs.
– The maximization of route compactness: route has the best compactness if it
has the smallest number of crossovers among the routes (Kim et al. 2006). Not
only compact routes tend to be cheaper, but they are also more transparent for
the collection route planners and drivers. One measure to assess route
compactness could be the number of crossovers between different routes
(Sniezek and Bodin 2006).
154 9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System

– The best location for collection bins and disposal containers: this objective is
decomposed into two conflicting objectives: (1) minimum desired distance
from a dwelling to its nearest bin location and (2) maximum desired walking
distance to a bin location.
• Environmental perspective
Although recycling contributes positively to the environment, collecting waste
activity is mainly a transportation activity. Therefore, the use of vehicles gener-
ates greenhouse gas emissions, resource consumption, land use, acidification,
toxic effects on ecosystems and humans, noise, and other negative impacts on the
environment.
– Minimization of CO2 emissions is the most common goal used when mini-
mizing environmental impacts.
– Minimization of the energy requirements: when a vehicle travels from stop point
a to stop point b, the greenhouse emissions depend on the fuel consumption,
which in turn, is directly connected with the energy requirements; these energy
requirements are established through fuel consumption that is a function of
several aspects such as vehicle load (curb weight plus load), speed, road slope,
engine features, vehicle frontal surface area, coefficients of rolling resistance and
drag, and air density. So this objective is a more comprehensive way to model
environmental impacts than CO2 emissions (Ramos et al. 2014a).
Bektas and Laporte (2011) performed some computational experiments to access
the trade-offs between distance, load, emissions, and costs in vehicle routing.
Authors concluded that distance minimization does not necessarily lead to the
minimization of fuel cost or driving cost. This work also suggests that in contrast,
minimizing cost leads to solutions where more energy is consumed (hence yielding
an increased amount of fuel consumption and emissions) to bring down driving
costs. In a cost-minimized solution, the savings in driving costs can be up to 20%,
which translates in a 5–8% reduction in the total cost (depending on the engine
efficiency, and on time window restrictions) when compared to solutions provided
by other objective functions.

• Social perspective:
This is still the understudied perspective, and therefore only a few metrics have
been proposed to address this issue.
– Balance work among workers or equity (Ramos et al. 2014b).
– Safety: these concerns are related to potential accidents in the workplace due to
loading, unloading, or handling activities (Faulin et al. 2012).

Frequently, environmental and social issues are taken into consideration as

constraints in the system. They are not viewed as goals but as limitations within
the collection systems (e.g., labor hours, maximum route length, minimum collec-
tion fractions imposed by law).
9.3 The Role of GIS in Waste Collection Planning 155

What Are the Constraints That Describe the System?

• Capacity constraint: the capacity of a vehicle is limited; quite often, the amounts
to be collected in a route do not exceed the vehicle capacity; then this capacity
constraint is no longer and issue.
• Labor constraints: the duration of the shift of each crew has to be taken into
account; these constraints can influence the problem in another way: for instance,
it is possible that there are enough vehicles left but that all drivers are already
assigned to a vehicle; in this case, the labor constraints rule out the override
capacity constraints; mandatory lunch breaks is another common constraint.
• Demand constraints: it is not acceptable that refuse bags are left on the street
because the waste management company fails to service all its customers;
therefore, one has to assure at least one collection vehicle passes by every
customer or street that has waste to be collected.
• Environmental constraints such as noise control, traffic congestion, and hazard-
ous materials; noise control is designed primarily for the busy city centers where
the amount of noise for the surrounding neighborhoods can be alarming; traffic
congestion constraints reduce the burden of traffic in rush hours; hence, prefer-
ence may be given to serving the busy roads of the network in periods of low
traffic density.
• Political constraints: certain recycling percentages are imposed by law; therefore,
when designing, for instance, the minimum cost routes, one must assure that these
recycling percentages are met.
• Time windows imposed by law, for picking up certain types of waste; the waste
bins and waste disposal site have given time windows in which they must be
visited.
• Forbidden turns: addresses one-way streets or streets that are too small to be
entered by the vehicle; they can also be used to consider traffic lights that if
avoided may save time.

What Data Should Be Stored?

According to Nuortio et al. (2006), at least the following data should be in a database
or in Excel worksheet. This data is stored once and does not need to be regularly
updated.
• Bins: for each bin its type, location, associated stop point of the vehicle, waste
type, mass and volume of the waste, service time, and the required time interval
between visits.
• Stop points: a stopping point is a location where the vehicle is parked for loading
or unloading; frequently more than one waste bin is collected in the same stop
point; for each stop point, the precise location should be registered.
• Distance and time matrices: distance and drive time for paths connecting the stop
points.
• Vehicles: for each vehicle, the volume and weight capacities for different waste
types.
• Facilities: the depot and waste disposal sites location, facility type (depot or waste
disposal site), service time, and operating time windows.
156 9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System

• Human resources: allowed maximum daily and weekly working hours and
working days. Ideally, to efficiently plan collection routes, data concerning
the amounts collected in each bin should also be stored, together with the date,
time, and the visiting vehicle. This type has to be stored daily or whenever a
collection route is performed. Although a very demanding task, with the new
technologies, this data gathering is a much easier task. For instance, RFID1
identify and tracked different waste streams collected in different bins, and
image sensing can differentiate different waste types. Linking together RFID
and real-time location sensors (as GPS2, Wi-Fi, and other sensor nodes), the waste
flow can be accurately and efficiently controlled both geographically and chro-
nologically (Lu et al. 2015).

9.3.2 Case Study: Minimizing Operational Costs

and Pollutant Emission in Collection Routes Using GIS

Zsigraiova et al. (2013) propose a “methodology for the reduction of the operation
costs and pollutant emissions involved in the waste collection and transportation. It
combines vehicle route optimization with that of waste collection scheduling. The
latter uses historical data of the filling rate of each container individually to establish
the daily circuits of collection points to be visited, which is more realistic than the
usual assumption of a single average fill-up rate common to all the system con-
tainers. Moreover, this allows for the ahead planning of the collection scheduling,
which permits a better system management. The optimization process of the routes
to be travelled makes recourse to GIS and uses interchangeably two optimization
criteria: total spent time and travelled distance. Furthermore, rather than using
average values, the relevant parameters influencing fuel consumption and pollutant
emissions, such as vehicle speed in different roads and loading weight, are taken into
consideration. The established methodology is applied to the glass-waste collection
and transportation system of Amarsul S.A., in Barreiro, Portugal. Moreover, to
isolate the influence of the dynamic load on fuel consumption and pollutant emis-
sions a sensitivity analysis of the vehicle loading process is performed. For that, two
hypothetical scenarios are tested: one with the collected volume increasing expo-
nentially along the collection path; the other assuming that the collected volume
decreases exponentially along the same path. The results evidence unquestionable
beneficial impacts of the optimization on both the operation costs (labor and vehicles
maintenance and fuel consumption) and pollutant emissions, regardless the optimi-
zation criterion used. Nonetheless, such impact is particularly relevant when opti-
mizing for time yielding substantial improvements to the existing system: potential
reductions of 62% for the total spent time, 43% for the fuel consumption and 40% for

1
RFID: Radio-frequency identification
2
GPS: Global positioning system
9.4 Conclusion 157

the emitted pollutants. This results in total cost savings of 57%, labor being the
greatest contributor, representing over €11,000 per year for the two vehicles
collecting glass-waste. Moreover, it is shown herein that the dynamic loading
process of the collection vehicle impacts on both the fuel consumption and on
pollutant emissions.”

9.4 Conclusion

The selection of a well-performing waste and recyclable material collection system

is the basis for a circular economy, where high-quality materials are separately
collected from nonrecyclable materials. When designing and planning a waste
collection system, aspects like the type of container, the type of waste stream to be
collected, and the frequency need to be combined to decide the waste collection
system, respecting the characteristics and preferences of each territory. Selecting the
best collection system for each area of municipality requires considering the climate,
type of urbanization (buildings, the density of population), demographics, and
infrastructures, just to name a few. All stakeholders should be engaged in the
waste collection design and planning process.
According to IMPACTPapeRec (2016), a European project, to improve the
source separation of paper and cardboard, design and planning of a waste collection
system should start by:
• Define the baseline: through collecting reliable data on existing waste and
recyclable situation, to provide a realistic and quantitative basis for the develop-
ment of the plan and to prioritize requirements and needs. Here the waste
estimation tools are useful to understand the actual situation.
• Identify the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders: to understand who is
responsible for the collection and treatment of waste according to the daily
generation and the existence of private contracts on waste collection.
• Identify the strong and weak points of the current SWM system, regarding the
lack of equipment or planning capacity, factors influencing waste generation
increase or decrease, external problems of uncontrolled urbanization, population,
explosions are a few to be identified.
• Prepare the appropriate SWM action plans: to be the core of the planning pro-
cedures, which will include regulation, market-based, information, and voluntary
instruments.
• Provide guidelines on how to pass from planning to implementation. To imple-
ment the waste collection system for the several waste streams (from residual
waste to recyclable waste materials), it is required to:
– Define properly the specific characteristics of the waste streams to be
collected.
– Define the system size: make an estimation of the amount of waste and
resources generated.
158 9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System

– Select the adequate and most promising collection system for the territory.
– Conduct an information campaign addressed to citizens.
– Define a monitoring performance plan of waste collection system and
implement it.

The basis to define those aspects is the waste generated forecast since it will
dictate the relationship of the dimension of container versus the frequency (the
bigger the container, the lower the frequency) and consequently, the collection
system. Choosing vehicles and containers requires a profound knowledge on terri-
torial features, and GIS can help to deeper such knowledge.

Appendix A: Forecasting Methods

Let x1, x2, . . ., xt, . . . the observed values of the times series, where xt is the value
observed in period t.

A.1: Naïve Forecast Model

This is the simplest forecasting model. It assumes the value for the next period will
equal the one last observed. Let ft, 1 be the forecast for period t + 1 after observing xt,
then

f t , 1 ¼ xt :

A.2: Moving-Average Models

Among the simpler and commonly used methods are the moving-average methods.
These forecast period t as the average of the last N observed values (with N a given
parameter). Let ft, 1 be the forecast for period t + 1 after observing xt.

1 X t
f t, 1 ¼ xk
N k¼tN

The choice of N depends on the deviation of the forecast regarding the observed
value (the forecast error). For period t, the forecast error et is given by
Appendix A: Forecasting Methods 159

et ¼ xt  f t1, 1 :

There are several ways to model the forecast accuracy (see Appendix B). To find
the adequate value for N, one has to choose one of such measures and determine the
value that minimizes the accuracy measure.
These methods are adequate for time-series data that fluctuate around a base
value b:

xt ¼ b þ et :

A.3: Exponential Smoothing Model

This model is also adequate for time series that may be written as

xt ¼ b þ et :

Again consider ft, 1 is the forecast for period t + 1 after observing xt. The simple
exponential smoothing method “says” the next forecast ( ft+1, 1) is a weighted
average between the observed value xt and the forecast at period t:

f tþ1, 1 ¼ α xt þ ð1  αÞ f t, 1

where α 2 [0, 1] is the smooth constant.

Let ft, k be the forecast for period t + k at the end of period t, then

f t, k ¼ f t, 1 :

A.4: Holt’s Model

The Holt’s method divides the time-series data into two components: the level, Lt,
and the trend, Tt. These two components can be calculated by the expressions below:

Lt ¼ αxt þ ð1  αÞðLt1 þ T t1 Þ

T t ¼ βðLt  Lt1 Þ þ ð1  βÞT t1

where Lt denotes an estimate of the level of the series at period t, Tt denotes an

estimate of the trend of the series at period t, and α and β are the smoothing
parameters for the level and the trend, respectively, 0  α, β  1.
Let ft, k be the forecast for period t + k at the end of period t, then
160 9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System

f t, k ¼ Lt þ k  T t :

A.5: Holt-Winters Method

The Holt-Winters (seasonal) model divides the time-series data into three compo-
nents: the level, Lt; the trend, Tt; and the seasonal component St. These three
components are given by:
xt
Lt ¼ α þ ð1  αÞðLt1 þ T t1 Þ
Stc
T t ¼ βðLt  Lt1 Þ þ ð1  βÞT t1
xt
St ¼ γ þ ð1  γ ÞStc
Lt
where Lt denotes an estimate of the level of the series at period t, Tt denotes an
estimate of the trend of the series at period t, and St denotes the seasonal component
at period t; c is the frequency/pattern of the seasonality (i.e., for quarterly pattern
c ¼ 4; for a yearly pattern c ¼ 12). Lastly, α, β, and γ are the smoothing parameters
for the level, the trend, and the seasonality, respectively, 0  α, β, γ  1.
Let ft, k be the forecast for period t + k at the end of period t, then

f t, k ¼ ðLt þ k  T t Þ  Stþkc :

A.6: ARIMA Models

Many other forecasting methods are available in the literature. Among the best
known are autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models also
named as Box-Jenkins models Hoffman et al. (2013). The general form for this
family of models is
 
1  ϕ1 β  ϕ2 B2  . . .  ϕp Bp ð1  BÞd xt
 
¼ θ0 þ 1  θ1 B  θ2 B2  . . .  θq Bq  εt

where ϕk is the autoregressive parameter, θk is the moving average parameter, B is a

backshift operator defined so that Brxt ¼ xtR, Δd ¼ (1  B)d is the backward
difference operator, and εt is an uncorrelated sequence of random errors with mean
zero and variance σ 2.
This generic model can be extended to incorporate seasonal behavior (Box et al.
2015). One chooses a model by specifying the integers p, d, and q, resulting in an
Appendix B: Measures of Accuracy 161

ARIMA(p, d, q) model. These integer parameters are determined by examining the

sample autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation function. For additional detail see
Hyndman and Athanasopoulos (2006).

Appendix B: Measures of Accuracy

In this section, some accuracy measures will be presented. More details can be found
in Hyndman (2006).
Let the forecast error et be

et ¼ xt  x
t ,

where xt and x
t are, respectively, the observed and the forecasted values for period
t and the percentage error pt defined by
et
pt ¼  100:
xt
Let rt be the relative error defined by
et
rt ¼
e0t

where e0t is the forecast error obtained from the benchmark method.

B.1: Mean Absolute Error3 (MAE)

1 Xm
MAE ¼ j et j
m t¼1

B.2: Geometric Mean Absolute Error (GMAE)

p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
GMAE ¼ m
j e 1  e2  . . .  em j

3
Also known as absolute mean deviation (MAD)
162 9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System

B.3: Mean Square Error (MSE)

1 Xm
MSE ¼ e2
m t¼1 t

B.4: Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)

1 Xm
MAPE ¼ jp j:
m t¼1 t

B.5: Geometric Mean Relative Absolute Error (GMRAE)

p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
GMRAE ¼ m
j r1  r2  . . .  r j

Appendix C: Linear Regression Models

C.1: Simple Linear Regression Model

Let (xi, yi), i ¼ 1,. . ., n, be a set of n observations. The simple linear regression model
is given by

yi ¼ β 0 þ β 1 xi þ εi

where εi is the residual value and β0 and β1are the least squares estimators computed
as.
Pn   
yi  y
xi  x

β1 ¼ i¼1
Pn  2 and β0 ¼ y
 β1 x:
i¼1 x i 

x

with x
and y
the averages of x and y, respectively. Residuals εi should have mean zero
and be uncorrelated with each other and with the independent variable.
Appendix C: Linear Regression Models 163

Let the forecast variable be b

y and the observed value y, the coefficient of
determination R2 is given by:
Pn  2
y i  y

i¼1 b
R ¼ Pn 
2
2 :
i¼1 yi  y

Standard deviation of the residuals, Sε:

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 Xn
Sε ¼ i¼1 i
ε
n2
100  (1  α)% prediction interval:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2
1 x  x

b
y  z1α=2 sε 1 þ þ
n ðn  1Þs2x

where, z1  α/2 is (1  α/2) the critical value of the standard normal distribution, sε is
the standard deviation of the residuals, x is the value used to calculate b
y , x
is the mean
value of all x observed values, and sx is standard deviation of all x observed values.

C.2: Multiple Linear Regression Model

The multiple linear regression models are an extension of the simple linear regres-
sion. It assumes that the dependent variable is explained by more than one factor (the
independent variables). Given (x1i, x2i, . . ., xki, yi), i ¼ 1,. . ., n, be a set of n observa-
tions. The multiple linear regression model is given by

yi ¼ β0 þ β1 x1i þ β2 x2i þ . . . þ βk xki þ εi :

The coefficients β0, β1, . . ., βk measure the effect of each independent variable
after taking into account the effect of all other independent variables in the model.
Again, residuals εi should have mean zero and be uncorrelated with each other
and with each independent variable.
The selection of the independent variables to use in the model is not a straight-
forward process. Measures of predictive accuracy should be used (e.g., adjusted R2,
cross-validation, Akaike’s information criterion, Schwarz Bayesian information
criterion . . .). For all technical details about multiple Linear Regression model
refer to Jobson (1991).
164 9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System

References

Abbasi M, El Hanandeh A (2016) Forecasting municipal solid waste generation using artificial
intelligence modelling approaches. Waste Manag 56:13–22
Abbasi M, Abduli MA, Omidvar B, Baghvand A (2013) Forecasting municipal solid waste
generation by hybrid support vector machine and partial least square model. Int J Environ Res
7:27–38
Armstrong JS (Ed.). (2001). Principles of forecasting: a handbook for researchers and practi-
tioners (Vol. 30). Springer Science & Business Media
Arroyo J, Maté C (2009) Forecasting histogram time series with k-nearest neighbours methods. Int J
Forecast 25(1):192–207
Beigl P, Lebersorger S, Salhofer S (2008) Modelling municipal solid waste generation: a review.
Waste Manag 28:200–214
Bektaş T, Laporte G (2011) The pollution-routing problem. Transp Res B Methodol 45
(8):1232–1250
Beliën J, De Boeck L, Van Ackere J (2014) Municipal solid waste collection and management
problems: a literature review. Transp Sci 48:78–102
Bilitewski B, Härdtle G, Marek K (1994) Waste management. Springer, Berlin
Bilitewski B, Wagner J, Reichenbach J (2010) Best practice municipal waste management
(INTECUS Dresden GmbH - Abfallwirtschaft und umweltintegratives Management). Federal
Environmental Agency, Intecus
Box GE, Jenkins GM, Reinsel GC, Ljung GM (2015) Time series analysis: forecasting and control,
4th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, N.J
Dahlén L, Lagerkvist A (2010) Evaluation of recycling programmes in household waste collection
systems. Waste Manag Res 28:577–586
Faulin J, Juan A, Lera-López F (2012) Optimizing routes with safety and environmental criteria in
transportation management in Spain: a case study. In: Wang J (ed) Management innovations for
intelligent supply chains. IGI Global Books, Pennsylvania, pp 144–165
Friedman JH (2001) Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann Stat
29:1189–1232
Han J, Pei J, Kamber M (2011) Data mining: concepts and techniques. Elsevier, Waltham, USA
Hoffman KL, Padberg M, Rinaldi G (2013) T. In Encyclopedia of Operations Research and
Management Science (pp. 1573–1578)
Hrebicek J, Soukopova J (2010) Modelling integrated waste management system of the Czech
Republic. In: Proceedings of the latest trends on systems: 14th WSEAS international conference
on systems (part of the 14th WSEAS CSCC multiconference), pp 510–515
Hyndman R (2006) Another look at forecast-accuracy metrics for intermittent demand. Foresight
Int J Appl Forecast:43–46
Hyndman RJ, Athanasopoulos G (2014) Forecasting: principles and practice. OTexts
IMPACTPapeRec (2016) Best practice handbook – Selection trees Available at: http://
impactpaperec.eu/en/best-practices/selection-tree/. Accessed March 2018
ISWA (2007) ISWA TECHNICAL POLICY NO. 5 - Storage, Collection, Transportation and
Transfer of Solid waste. 2ª versão available at : http://www.iswa.org/en/76/publications.html
accessed January 2015
Jobson JD (1991) Multiple Linear Regression. In: Applied Multivariate Data Analysis. Springer
Texts in Statistics. Springer, New York, NY
Kaliampakos D, Benardos A (2013) Underground solutions for urban waste management: status
and perspectives. ISWA Report ISWA
Karadimas NV, Loumos VG (2008) GIS-based modelling for the estimation of municipal solid
waste generation and collection. Waste Manag Res 26(4):337–346
Kim B-I, Kim S, Sahoo S (2006) Waste collection vehicle routing problem with time windows.
Comput Oper Res 33:3624–3642
Lechner P (2004) Kommunale Abfallentsorgung. Wien: Facultas Verlags- und Buchhandels AG
References 165

Lu JW, Chang NB, Liao L, Liao MY (2015) Smart and green urban solid waste collection systems:
advances, challenges, and perspectives. IEEE Syst J:1–14
Navarro-Esbrí J, Diamadopoulos E, Ginestar D (2002) Time series analysis and forecasting
techniques for municipal solid waste management. Resour Conserv Recycl 35:201–214
Nuortio T, Kytöjoki J, Niska H, Bräysy O (2006) Improved route planning and scheduling of waste
collection and transport. Expert Syst Appl 30:223–232
O'Leary P, Walsh P (1995) Decision Maker’s guide to solid waste management. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, RCRA Information Center,
Washington, DC
Pferdehirt W (1994) University of Wisconsin–Madison Solid and hazardous waste education center
Pferdehirt W, O’Leary P, Walsh P (1993) Developing an integrated collection strategy. Waste
recycling collection course, lesson one. Waste Age 1:25–38
Pieber M (2004) Waste collection from urban households in Europe and Australia. Waste Manag
World:111–124
Ramos TRP, Gomes MI, Barbosa-Póvoa AP (2014a) Economic and environmental concerns in
planning recyclable waste collection systems. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev 62:34–54
Ramos TRP, Gomes MI, Barbosa-Póvoa AP (2014b) Planning a sustainable reverse logistics
system: balancing costs with environmental and social concerns. Omega 48:60–74
Rhyner CR, Schwartz LJ, Wenger RB, Kohrell MG (1995) Waste management and resource 568
recovery. CRC Press/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton
Rimaitytė I, Ruzgas T, Denafas G et al (2012) Application and evaluation of forecasting methods
for municipal solid waste generation in an eastern-European city. Waste Manag Res 30:89–98
Ross DE (2010) Editorial - affordability is key to proper solid waste management. Waste Manag
Res 28:287–288
Satué S (2000) Gestión Eficiente: fase de recogida selectiva
Scharff C, Vogel G (1994) A comparison of collections systems in European cities. Waste Manag
Res 12(5):387–404
Sniezek J, Bodin L (2006) Using mixed integer programming for solving the capacitated arc routing
problem with vehicle/site dependencies with an application to the routing of residential sanita-
tion collection vehicles. Ann Oper Res 144:33–58
Tanskanen J, Melanen M (1999) Modelling separation strategies of municipal solid waste in
Finland. Waste Manag Res 17:80–92
Tao J (2010) Reverse logistics information system of e-waste based on internet. In: Proceedings of
the 2010 international conference on challenges in environmental science and computer engi-
neering (CESCE), pp 447–450
Tavares G, Zsigraiova Z, Semiao V, Carvalho MDG (2009) Optimisation of MSW collection routes
for minimum fuel consumption using 3D GIS modelling. Waste Manag 29(3):1176–1185
Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil S (1993) Integrated solid waste management. Engineering
principles and management issues. McGraw-Hill International Editions, New York
Tralhão L, Coutinho-Rodrigues J, Alçada-Almeida L (2010) A multiobjective modeling approach
to locate multi-compartment containers for urban-sorted waste. Waste Manag 30
(12):2418–2429
Urban Upgrading (2001) Waste collection. http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/upgrading/issues-
tools/issues/waste-collection.html. Assessed March 2018
Vijay R, Gautam A, Kalamdhad A et al (2008) GIS-based locational analysis of collection bins in
municipal solid waste management systems. J Environ Eng Sci 7:39–43
Viotti P, Polettini A, Pomi R, Carlo I (2003) Genetic algorithms as a promising tool for optimisation
of the MSW collection routes. Waste Manag Res 21(4):292–298
Wilson DC, Scheinberg A (2010) What is good practice in solid waste management? Waste Manag
Res 28:1055–1056
Winston WL, Goldberg JB (2004) Operations research: applications and algorithms. Thomson
Brooks/Cole, Belmont
166 9 Design and Planning of Waste Collection System

WRAP (2013) Bring site recycling. Project code: BHC002–207. Available at: http://www.wrap.
org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Bring%20Site%20Draft%20Report%20v5%20JB%20amends_0.pdf.
Accessed March 2018
Zsigraiova Z, Semiao V, Beijoco F (2013) Operation costs and pollutant emissions reduction by
definition of new collection scheduling and optimization of MSW collection routes using GIS,
the case study of Barreiro, Portugal. Waste Manag 33(4):703–806
Chapter 10
Operation and Monitoring

Abstract The activities related with the waste collection and how they impact on
the waste management systems need to be conducted in a sustainable and efficient
way. The waste collection needs to be affordable for users, although respecting all
regulations applicable to the waste collection, with low environmental impact and
respecting workers. Efficient collection of waste requires that data is collected and
processed to analyze the actual situation and where improvements can be made to
reach the efficiency needed. The purpose of this chapter is to present the existent
instruments to analyze the operation and monitor a waste collection system: route
analysis and optimization tools and performance indicators.
An indicator is an elementary datum or a simple combination of data capable of
measuring an observed phenomenon, providing information that is typical of, and
critical to the quality of target issues (Peterson and Granados, Environ Sci Pollut Res
9:204–214, 2002; Resour Conserv Recycl 52:1322–1328, 2008). A suitable indicator
must fulfill criteria as relevant, credible, functional, quantifiable, and comparable
within different time and space scales (EEA, EEA core set of indicators – guide.
Copenhagen, 2005; Key environmental indicators). Indicator sets have been developed
to evaluate aspects such as the state and evolution of general and specific environments,
policy objectives, the environmental behavior of individual technologies and products,
critical economic individual sectors, multi-sectorial analysis, global manufacturing,
and management systems. Recently they have also been applied to organizational
methods, products, services, and systems in an eco-innovation context (OECD,
Eco-innovation in industry enabling green growth; Eco-innovation: when sustainabil-
ity and competitiveness shake hands. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, 2009).

Keywords Benchmarking · Collection rate · Economic indicators · LCA ·

Logistics · Participation rate · Performance · Social indicators · Waste generation

10.1 Descriptive Indicators

According to Bertanza et al. (2018), descriptive indicators intend to identify the

characteristics of the collection system in terms of the waste amount collected and its
composition and of the collection service, in terms of work load for personnel,

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 167

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_10
168 10 Operation and Monitoring

Table 10.1 Descriptive indicators for waste collection

Descriptive indicator Description
Waste characterization (%) Percentage composition of the collected waste in terms of,
respectively, separately collected fractions (as a whole), bulky
waste, street waste, and unsorted waste
Waste collected per capita Annual amount of collected waste (or waste component) per
(kg/(inhabitants y)) capita
Labor per waste (hman/(in y)) Annual amount of man-hour per capita spent for the collection
of a waste fraction
Vehicle labor per waste Annual amount of vehicle-hour per capita spent for the collec-
(hvehicle/(in y)) tion of a waste fraction
Volume available per capita Annual available volume per capita for the collection of a waste
(m3/(inhabitants y)) fraction (i.e. volume of containers, bins, bags)
Source: Bertanza et al. (2018), Martinho et al. (2017)

vehicles, and containers volume capacity. These descriptive indicators are in line
with parameters used in design and planning of a waste collection system. In
Table 10.1 are presented those indicators.

10.2 Performance Indicators

10.2.1 Technical-Operative and Logistics Indicators

Waste collection systems are diverse and must be studied in detail to determine
which systems perform best. Municipal solid waste (MSW) collection and planning
requires robust operational, economic, and environmental solutions, so MSW col-
lection operators and decision-makers need effective methodologies and tools to
support management options under uncertain and complex operational issues, such
as population, costs, equipment, and human resources (Teixeira et al. 2014a).
To date, waste collection has been evaluated through the use of indicators or
indexes. The analysis of published research shows that the application of perfor-
mance indicators in the area of MSW management has evolved over the last five
decades (Sanjeevi and Shahabudeen 2016); however, a significant number of authors
use indicators for the presentation and evaluation of data without an adequate
benchmark (Zaman 2014), the majority of which are basic and one-dimensional
quantitative statements that focus on waste generation rates and prevalence of
options of treatment and elimination (Fragkou et al. 2010).
One of the prerequisites for better management is the ability to identity and
measure the performance of various operating elements. Indicators provide a
means of assessing the performance of economic, social, and environmental aspects,
with the advantage of being able to summarize, focus, and condense information
about complex systems, and highlight trends or phenomenon, which are not imme-
diately detectable through basic data collection (Arendse and Godfrey 2001).
10.2 Performance Indicators 169

Performance indicators are measurement tools used by organizations to evaluate the

success or failure of a given activity and lead to identification of the improvements
needed in the system (Sanjeevi and Shahabudeen 2015). By presenting several data
in one number that commonly is easier to interpret than complex statistics, indicators
can facilitate communication between stakeholders. Often the municipalities have to
report performance indicators to a regulatory authority, and also the communication
between experts and non-experts is easier when using performance indicators. But
the principal role of performance indicators in waste collection management is to
provide data when planning, designing, and monitoring waste collection systems.
Different types of performance indicators exist in literature. Berg (1993) pro-
posed indicators to evaluate source-sorting systems focused on amounts collected,
quality, recycling rate, and participation rate. Courcelle et al. (1998) used diversion
rate and residue ratio in material recovery facilities to assess the performance of
sorting programs. Dahlén and Lagerkvist (2010) applied specific waste generation
rate, source-sorting ratio, ratios of materials in the residual waste, and ratio of
mis-sorted materials indicators to evaluate recycling programs. Petersen and Berg
(2004) analyzed the characteristics of the waste in the different containers of the
recycling centers, namely, by estimating specific container weights. Zaman (2014)
identifies as priority indicators for collection the types of waste collected separately,
the distance traveled to collect one ton of waste, the frequency of collection, the type
of collection – formal or informal – and the amount of waste collected per unit of
collection costs. Federico et al. (2009) propose as collection efficiency indicators the
recyclable waste collection rate, the number of containers per 1000 inhabitants, the
ratio of the quantity collected to the number of employees used, the distribution of
multi-material collection containers, and the amount of recyclables obtained per
service in relation to the total capacity of the system. Gallardo et al. (2010) applied
annual collection rate and quality in container rate. Passarini et al. (2011) applied the
separate waste collection rate and Del Borghi et al. (2009) the frequency of waste
collection and waste transport distances.
A benchmarking study carried out in Scotland (Accounts Commission 2000)
evaluated the evolution of the collection service using as indicators the amount of
waste collected, the gross cost of collection, the number of employees, the main
method of collection, the collection frequency, the gross cost per ton collected, the
tons collected per vehicles per day (including reserve vehicles), and tons collected
per operator per year. The same study highlights the importance of assessing the
absenteeism rate, the bonuses paid to workers, and the percentage of fleet reserve
vehicles.
To evaluate the productivity of collection routes, Moreira (2008) proposes a large
diversity of operational and productivity indicators, using common circuit charac-
terization indicators, such as the installed capacity, the average quantity of waste
collected per route, the number of freights per route, and the fuel consumption per
route. Moreira (2008) also characterizes the different phases that can be identified in
a circuit, differentiating the total time and distances per circuit from the effective
time and distances per circuit, adding the transport time, the average collection time
spent per point, and time and distance from and to the garage. In the productivity
indicators, Moreira (2008) proposes the amount of waste removed per kilometer, per
170 10 Operation and Monitoring

collection point, and per effective working hour, the concentration coefficient of the
circuit, the average speed, the number of points and turns per circuit, the fuel
consumption per kilometer, and the ratio of actual working hours to normal working
hours.
To evaluate the efficiency of the collection services in 75 municipalities in the
Catalonian region of Spain, Bosch et al. (2001) defined as operational performance
indicators the ratio of the following variables with the amount of waste collected:
number of containers, total number of vehicles, and total number of direct workers
(expressed on the number of full working days). In addition to these variables, Bosch
et al. (2001) mentioned the importance of adopting the number of kilometers
performed by the collection vehicles, their capacity, and technical characteristics
as well as the number of working hours.
To present some examples of PI, Table 10.2 and 10.3 present, respectively, two
types of PI: technical-operative indicators (Bertanza et al. 2018) and logistics
indicators (Martinho et al. 2017). Such classification synthetize briefly the PI already
applied to waste collection.

Table 10.2 Examples of technical-operative indicators for waste collection systems

Technical-operative indicators Description
Waste collected per volume (kg/m3) Amount of material collected per unit volume of containers
Waste collected per labor (kg/hman) Amount of solid waste (or waste fraction) collected per
man-hour
Waste collected per vehicle labor Amount of solid waste (or waste fraction) collected per
(kg/hvehicle) vehicle-hour
Separation waste collection rate Percentage of sorted waste with respect to the total amount
(%) of waste generated.
Waste generation per capita per Per capital per day waste generated by each collection
day (kg
person 1
day 1) stream (kg/population in the neighborhood)
Recycling rate (%) Specific waste stream collected sent for recycling/total
specific waste stream generated
Contaminants rate in separate Refuse and rejects from separate waste stream collected/
waste collection (%) total waste stream collected
Participation rate (%) Families participating at least once per month in recycling/
total number of families
Maximum total weight (kg) Sum of waste weight when the filling container rate is 100%
and container tare weight. Represents the total weight to be
lifted
Waste volume weight inside the Ratio between waste weight when the filling container rate
container (kg/m3) is 100% and container net capacity
Emptying time (min) Time interval between vehicle’s stops to collect the con-
tainer and starts to move to the next point
Maximum capacity collected per Ratio between container net capacity and emptying time,
time unit (m3/min) for a container filling rate of 100%
Maximum weight collected per Ratio between waste weight and emptying time, for a
time unit (kg/min) container filling rate of 100%
Maximum weight collected per Ratio between waste weight and effective waste collection
distance (kg/km) distance
Crew size (no unit) Total number of workers needed
Source: Bertanza et al. (2018), Martinho et al. (2017), Rodrigues et al. (2016), Rodrigues (2016)
10.2 Performance Indicators 171

Table 10.3 Logistics indicators

Distance traveled by vehicle to collect waste (effective
distance)/total distance traveled by vehicle from leaving
Distance ratio (%) the garage to its return
Total collection distance (km
t 1) Total distance traveled/amount of waste collected
Effective collection distance (km
t 1) Distance traveled to collect waste/amount of waste
collected
Total collection time (h
t 1) Collection time from garage to vehicle’s return/amount
of waste collected
Effective collection time (h
t 1) Collection time of vehicle/amount of waste collected
Effective worktime (%) Total collection time/scheduled time of workers
Workers dedicated to collection Number of workers/amount of waste collected
(worker
t 1)
Crew productivity (t
worker 1
h 1) Amount of waste collected/(workers  total collection
time)
Effective fuel consumption (l
t 1) Amount of fuel consumed by the collection vehicle per
unit of waste collected
Source: Martinho et al. (2017), Teixeira et al. (2014a)

In summary, most of the operational indicators found in the literature are based on
the quantities collected, which can be referred to in terms of time (shift, day, or year)
and/or distances traveled. In addition to these indicators based on quantities col-
lected, there are also indicators related to the evaluation of the geographic coverage
of the service. In fact, for selective deposition in collective deposition points, the
most popular indicator for measuring the coverage of the service is the density of the
selective collection point, defined on the basis of the ratio of the number of residents
living in a particular area and the number of selective collection points available in
that area for the selective collection (Waite 1995). García-Sánchez (2008) also used
the density of collection points as an indicator, expressed as the number of collection
points per square kilometer.

10.2.2 Case Study: Calculating Waste Volume Weight Inside

the Container and Emptying Time in Greater Lisbon
Area, Portugal

Rodrigues et al. (2016) developed 12 indicators to characterize the technological

aspect of 22 waste collection systems divided into three groups: container design,
container capacity, and operation. Indicators were tested for a case study of pack-
aging source-separated waste collection systems operating in the Greater Lisbon
area, Portugal, where source separation is made through three streams: yellow for
plastic and metal, green for glass, and blue for paper and cardboard (including
nonpackaging).
172 10 Operation and Monitoring

Waste volume weight inside the container and emptying time were two relevant
studied technical-operative indicators, measured in the field, in three municipalities
in the Greater Lisbon area—Lisbon, Cascais, and Sintra. The choice of these
municipalities was justified by city structure heterogeneity, resulting in a diversity
of container and vehicle components, to include the ten possible key container
component cases and the ten key vehicle components described in Chap. 3.2.,
representing all possible taxonomic WCS components and collection method
(Tables 10.4 and 10.5).

Table 10.4 Classification of the containers, vehicles, and WCS from case study
Reference Container component (container capacity, m3)
C1 Surface, without wheels, without compaction, without vehicle coupling (0.03)
C2 Surface, immobile, without compaction, crane one ring (2.06)
C3 Surface, immobile, without compaction, lift side supports
(C3.1 = 1.00;C3.2 = 2.14;C3.3 = 2.73;C3.4 = 2.55)
C4 Surface, wheeled containers, without compaction, lift frontal supports (C4.1 = 0.12;
C4.2 = 0.24)
C5 Surface, wheeled containers, without compaction, lift frontal or lift side supports
(1.10)
C6 Semiunderground, without compaction, compact container, crane one ring (5.00 for
blue and yellow waste stream; 3.00 for green waste stream)
C7 Underground, without compaction, compact container, crane one ring (3.00)
C8 Underground, without compaction, compact container, crane mushroom (5.00 for
blue and yellow waste stream; 3.00 for green waste stream)
C9 Underground, without compaction, electrohydraulic open and elevating platforms,
lift side supports (4.00)
C10 Underground, without compaction, gas cylinders, only opening platform waste
recipient, crane one ring (5.00 for blue and yellow waste stream; 3.00 for green waste
stream)
C11 Underground, without compaction, hydraulic only opening platform waste recipient,
crane one ring (5.00)
Reference Vehicle component
V1 Single-compartment open body, without mechanization, crane double hook, not
specific loading location
V2 Single-compartment closed body, intermittent compactor, simple hook, rear-end
loading
V3 Single-compartment closed body, intermittent compactor, crane double hook, not
specific loading location
V4 Single-compartment closed body, mechanized packer grid, fork lift assisted, rear-end
loading
V5 Single-compartment closed body, intermittent compactor, fork lift assisted, side
loading (1)
V6 Single-compartment closed body, intermittent compactor, fork or bars lift assisted,
rear-end loading
V7 Single-compartment closed body, intermittent compactor, automated arm, side
loading
Source: Adapted, Rodrigues et al. (2016)
10.2 Performance Indicators 173

Table 10.5 Characterization of the WCS from case study

Collection method Waste collection systems
Manual C1V5
Assisted C4V6, C5V4, C5V6
Semiautomated C2V1, C2V2, C2V3, C6V1, C6V2, C6V3, C7V1, C8V1, C8V3, C10V1,
C10V2, C11V1
Fully automated C3V7, C9V7
Source: Rodrigues et al. (2016)

Volume weight or mass volume, defined as the ratio between waste weight when
the filling container rate is 100% and container net capacity, are determinant data
when designing and sizing WCS. Usually, available volume weight data are derived
from physical waste composition characterization studies held in the treatment
facilities, not by measuring the waste inside the containers, so the data are not
container specific. Similarly, the most common volume weight data obtained from
literature are presented by measuring specific materials, not from waste collection
flow. Measuring volume weight in the field is difficult, however, especially for larger
containers considering the manpower and equipment required. Also, planning WCS
requires data related to the time spent in pickup and unloading containers, the
emptying time, which is also WCS specific. The emptying time of containers for
each pickup and unloading method, defined as the time interval between vehicle’s
stops to collect the container and starts to move to the next point, are input data for
waste collection routing software. When related to the amount of waste collected in
the containers (volume and weight), emptying time can be used to evaluate the
equipment effectiveness.
A field campaign was conducted to collect volume, mass, and time data for each
type of waste stream—yellow, green, and blue—by container and WCS. For volume
of containers, Petersen and Berg (2004) method was used, which consists of
measuring the height of the contents in each container before being emptied; the
waste volume in the container is then calculated based on the design and total
volume of the container. For container weight, different scales were used depending
on the type of container: (i) a hook dynamometer for higher capacity containers
between 1 and 5 m3,  1 kg of precision; (ii) a platform scale up to 60 kg for
weighing smaller capacity containers between 0.09 and 0.360 m3,  0.01 kg of
precision; and (iii) a manual precision hook balance, suitable for weighing up to
50 kg with an accuracy of 0.01 kg, to accommodate the range of curbside collection
bag weights.
For emptying time, the campaign was distributed equally during the week and
including both day and night shifts. A chronometer was used to record the time
interval from when the vehicle stopped to collect the container and started to move to
the next point,  1 second of precision. If more than one container was collected, this
information was also registered. To summarize and analyze data collected from field
campaign and to measure statistical variability (heterogeneity), descriptive statistics
were used, including mean, standard deviation (SD), standard error of the mean
(SEM), and relative standard deviation (RSD).
174 10 Operation and Monitoring

Table 10.6 Waste volume weight inside the container for blue (B), yellow (Y), and green (G)
waste stream
Mean (kg/m3) SD (kg/m3) RSD (%) SEM (kg/m3)
Ref. B Y G B Y G B Y G B Y G
C1 78.78 38.96 – 43.45 12.01 – 55 31 – 8.87 2.36 –
C2 36 25 254 16 4 8 45 15 3 4 1 4
C3.1 42 27 295 17 12 52 39 44 18 5 3 18
C3.2 50 28 278 36 4 46 73 14 17 8 1 21
C3.3 32 25 310 7 7 65 23 27 21 2 2 29
C3.4 31 18 293 8 3 19 26 16 7 2 1 9
C4.1 74.87 42.56 – 50.07 17.35 – 67 41 – 8.99 5.78 –
C4.2 87.59 32.78 – 49.84 5.05 – 57 15 – 12.09 1.91 –
C5 35 33 206 24 7 23 68 20 11 4 2 10
C6 36 19 245 8 3 49 23 15 20 2 1 16
C7 46 23 203 52 9 47 111 37 23 16 3 19
C8 26 22 278 8 8 42 31 36 15 2 2 13
C9 28 36 180 12 17 22 42 47 12 5 8 13
C10 32 25 214 13 3 45 41 12 21 3 1 18
C11 49 38 308 14 13 35 29 34 11 4 3 11
Source: Adapted from Rodrigues et al. (2016)

Results of waste volume weight inside the container are presented in Table 10.6.
The average volume weights are 255 kg/m3 for glass, 29 kg/m3 for plastic/metal,
and 46 kg/m3 for paper/cardboard. The containers with higher volume weight values
for paper/cardboard were C4.2 (88 kg/m3), C1 (79 kg/m3), and C4.1 (75 kg/m3), and
for plastic/metal were C4.1 (43 kg/m3), C1 (39 kg/m3), and C11 (38 kg/m3). With the
exception of C11, these containers were not those with the largest net capacity;
however, they could store higher amount of waste per volume. Containers C1, C4.1,
and C4.2 could be easily handled and manually compressed by the user, and the
open lid design (no specific deposition openings) allowed the material to be rela-
tively homogeneous and evenly distributed. Just as important as having free access
to the inside of the container was the fixed collection frequency of these exclusive
curbside containers. Because the available deposition capacity was limited (unlike
the others containers), efficient management (manual compression) of the deposition
capacity by the user may be required to accommodate more waste. High C11
capacity values were also related to deposition methods: these containers had a
rotating deposition drum with a fixed capacity, which can also promote waste
compaction. The possible compression effect from the waste itself in higher capacity
underground containers was not observed.
C11 also had a high volume weight for glass waste (308 kg/m3), as did C3.3
(310 kg/m3) and C3.1 (295 kg/m3). Although it was expected the lower height on
underground containers to result in more glass hull (from broken glass packages) and
therefore higher glass volume weights, that effect was not observed. The access to
the container content and the small, limited deposition capacity seemed to affect the
10.2 Performance Indicators 175

Table 10.7 Emptying time for blue (B), yellow (Y), and green (G) waste stream
Mean (min) SD (min) RSD (%) SEM (min)
Ref. B Y G B Y G B Y G B Y G
C1V5 0.17 0.16 – 0.14 0.13 – 84 80 – 0.02 0.01 –
C2V1 2.37 1.95 2.06 0.66 0.29 0.48 28 15 24 0.08 0.04 0.05
C2V2 1.77 1.63 – 0.37 0.30 – 21 19 – 0.03 0.02 –
C2V3 2.71 2.59 – 0.85 0.85 – 31 33 – 0.10 0.09 –
C3.1V7 0.85 0.86 0.84 0.11 0.12 0.09 12 14 11 0.01 0.01 0.01
C3.2V7 0.82 0.84 0.79 0.20 0.24 0.13 24 29 16 0.02 0.01 0.01
C3.3V7 0.75 0.89 0.71 0.08 0.64 0.05 10 72 7 0.01 0.05 0.01
C3.4V7 0.75 0.82 0.76 0.07 0.27 0.09 9 32 12 0.01 0.03 0.01
C4.1V6 0.31 0.31 – 0.15 0.18 – 49 57 – 0.00 0.00 –
C4.2V6 0.42 0.38 – 0.50 0.24 – 121 63 – 0.02 0.01 –
C5V4 – – 1.38 – – 0.44 – – 32 – – 0.04
C5V6 0.81 0.81 – 0.27 0.24 – 33 30 – 0.02 0.01 –
C6V1 4.49 4.27 4.07 0.97 0.68 0.27 22 16 7 0.28 0.18 0.07
C6V2 5.45 – – 0.58 – – 11 – – 0.08 – –
C6V3 4.08 5.37 5.06 0.52 0.51 0.60 13 10 12 0.23 0.07 0.08
C7V1 4.93 6.98 5.93 – 2.76 1.34 0 40 23 0.00 1.59 0.60
C8V1 3.79 3.37 3.50 0.91 0.54 0.61 24 16 17 0.26 0.12 0.12
C8V3 3.52 3.45 3.52 0.77 0.52 0.73 22 15 21 0.13 0.13 0.12
C9V7 1.86 2.13 2.02 0.44 0.25 0.45 24 12 22 0.25 0.11 0.26
C10V1 – – 4.97 – – 0.83 – – 17 – – 0.22
C10V2 4.49 4.83 – 0.95 0.71 – 21 15 – 0.17 0.15 –
C11V1 5.16 5.56 6.94 1.33 1.23 1.66 26 22 24 0.29 0.30 0.43
Source: Adapted from Rodrigues et al. (2016)

volume weight. The containers with lower volume weight for paper/cardboard were
C9 (28 kg/m3), C3.4 (31 kg/m3), and C3.3 (32 kg/m3). C9 also had a reduced
volume weight for glass (180 kg/m3), as did C7 (203 kg/m3) and C5 (205 kg/m3).
Containers with the lowest volume weights for plastic/metal were C3.4 and C6 (18
and 19 kg/m3), which were surface, semiunderground, and underground containers
with medium capacities and reduced access for the user to compact waste.
Emptying time results are presented in Table 10.7. The results from linear
regression of emptying time and number of containers collected were verified for
WCS with collection of multiple containers (applicable to C1V5, C4V6, C5V4, and
C5V6 WCS). For these WCS, around 71% of the emptying time could be explained
by the number of containers, reflecting that the higher the number of containers
collected, the more time spent collecting it, if the outliers of C1V5 WCS values are
removed. For C1V5, a manual WCS, the R2 decreased from 65% to 34% if no
removal of outliers occurred. The results seem to indicate that other variables may be
influencing the emptying time in this manual and assisted type of WCS (i.e., where
the influence of manual labor during the collection was expected).
176 10 Operation and Monitoring

Data presented in Tables 10.6 and 10.7 provide useful information for the
optimization models to be used in the WCS planning phase: most optimization
models devoted to optimizing collection include aspects such as weight of waste
inside the bin, volume of waste inside the bin, and fixed time to unload a bin (Faccio
et al. 2011), which are not available for planners who design the WCS and can only
be obtained after implementation.

10.3 Economic Indicators

There are several types of economic indicators, which intends to evaluate the
principal cost drivers (Bertanza et al. 2018). The diversity of indicators relates
with the focus on the waste collection system. In one hand, it is important to look
for indicators related with each waste collection system element, like the container
and the vehicle. In other hand, the costs and revenues of the waste collection system
functioning are also relevant to analyze and monitor the system. Hage and
Söderholm (2008) used cost indicators to compare household waste plastic and
packaging waste collection in Sweden. Larsen et al. (2010) used collection costs,
recycling rates, sorting efficiencies, and waste amounts. Gamberini et al. (2013)
presented demand profiles and costs indexes of MSW management in several Italian
communities. A study based on 81 Catalan municipalities with the goal of providing
local authorities real and accurate information on waste management costs, compar-
ing the door-to-door and collective collection, the indicator that was considered the
most accurate was the overall per capita management cost (Sora and González
2014). Teixeira et al. (2014b) define as economic indicators the total cost of
collection (annual investment, capital requirements, and operational expenses of
collection – placement of containers and maintenance, collection and transportation
to the site) quotient with the quantity of collected waste (per circuit), the total cost of
collection per inhabitant, and the total cost of collection per dwelling. Any of these
indicators can then be divided into undifferentiated and selective collection or even
broken down by waste stream, depending on the objectives and available
information.
There is no waste collection system that is more efficient in economic terms
whatever the context, since the economic efficiency depends on many factors. For
example, the costs of recyclable collection vary depending on the size of the
collection team, vehicle capacity, participation rate, and distance between stops,
among other factors. Factors such as location, amount of waste, its composition,
social context, the type of technology used on its collection, the distances traveled,
and the human resources used are among the conditioning factors of management
system costs (Karadimas et al. 2007). Greco et al. (2014) also refer to the multiple
factors that affect the costs of waste collection, indicating the characteristics of the
10.3 Economic Indicators 177

municipality, such as its size, population density, characteristics of the area to be

served (e.g., distances, altitude, road network), the quantity and quality of the waste
to be collected, and the mechanisms and technologies used to collect and
transport them.
Data collected from indicators is helpful to optimize waste collection systems.
Optimization in waste collection systems is mainly achieved by minimizing total
costs, with most systems being static instead of dynamic (Badran and El-Haggar
2006). When accurate cost data is available, the cost optimization model is more
reliable compared to models based on time data (Komilis 2008), although the latter
are easier to develop since they are based on readily available data (distances
between points and average speeds). According to Viotti (2003), optimization
algorithms for collection circuits aim to minimize activity and related costs, such
as the total distance traveled by the collection vehicles or the total cost of collection.
Hashimoto et al. (2006) generalize the standard problem of defining vehicle routes,
allowing restrictions in the window of time and travel time, in which both restrictions
are treated as cost functions. In the developed cost optimization model, Badran and
El-Haggar (2006) used fixed and variable costs to model the total cost of collection
as a function of the quantity of waste, and incorporated the transport cost coefficients
separately, one expressed by time and weight transported ($/ton.h), to express the
cost of labor, and other expressed per distance and freight carried ($/km.t), to express
fuel cost and maintenance.
One of the variables sued on optimization models is the amount of fuel consumed
during collection. Several models provide diesel consumption during waste collec-
tion on the basis of detailed information on the number of points (stops), number of
containers per point, distance between points, and others (Sonesson 2000). Nguyen
and Wilson (2010) studied fuel consumption rates of two different vehicle types
during different collection activities (or circuit phases) to assess the potential effec-
tiveness of some possible methods to reduce fuel consumption by using the amount
of fuel consumed per collected ton and kg CO2 equivalent per collected ton. Larsen
et al. (2009) provided data on diesel consumption per ton of collected waste for a
series of waste fractions and collection systems and evaluated emissions from diesel
combustion through a life cycle analysis approach. In this study, the number of trips
per day, the total diesel consumption per day, the total distance traveled per day, the
weight of each waste load, and the net weight of the used vehicle were used
indicators. In the same study, the amount of diesel used for the transport phase
was estimated by transport simulation software based on the assumption of linear
correlation between vehicle gross weight and diesel consumption. Examples of
economic indicators applied to solid waste collection systems are presented on
Table 10.8.
178 10 Operation and Monitoring

Table 10.8 Examples of economic indicators applied to solid waste collection systems
Economic indicators Description
Containers cost per ton (€/t) Containers cost per amount of collected waste (or fraction of
waste)
Personnel cost per ton (€/t) Personnel cost per amount of collected waste (or fraction of
waste)
Vehicle cost per ton (€/t) Vehicles cost per amount of collected waste (or fraction of
waste)
Total cost per ton (€/t) Total costs (sum of containers, personnel, vehicles) per amount
of waste collected or waste fraction
Cost per route (€/route) Cost of equipment and collection (vehicles, containers and
workers) spent on one collection route
Cost per ton (€/t) Cost of the collection per ton of waste collected
Final cost per ton (€
t 1) Cost of collection and treatment, including revenues from the
sale of recyclables per ton of waste collected
Break-even point per route The amount of waste needed to be collected to make a route
(t
route 1) economically viable. It is calculated by dividing the cost and
revenues from processing the packaging waste by the cost per
route
Final cost per inhabitant The cost of collection and treatment, including revenues from
(€
inhab 1
year 1) the sale of recyclables, per inhabitant
Source: Bertanza et al. (2018), Martinho et al. (2017)

10.4 Environmental Indicators

Most of environmental indicators used to assess waste collection systems results

from life cycle assessment methodology and carbon footprint methodology. In LCA
there are midpoint and endpoint indicators, which can both be used to compare
scenarios of waste collection. Pires et al. (2017) have used midpoint environmental
impact categories to compare different packaging waste collection systems, as well
as Larsen et al. (2010), namely, global warming, acidification, photochemical ozone
formation, human toxicity, eutrophication, and ecotoxicity. In those environmental
indicators based on LCA, they reflect the consumption of fuel and the consumption
of raw materials to produce containers but normally exclude the raw materials and
energy involved in the production of vehicles.
Some of the performance indicators can also be regarded as environmental
indicators. Source separation rate, recycling rate, and the contamination rate of
materials are indicators that reflect how materials are extending their life cycle,
avoiding the extraction of raw materials. They can also be indicators of the degree of
circular economy promoted by the waste collection system.
10.6 Final Remarks 179

10.5 Social Indicators

Social indicators related to waste collection systems focus mostly on the response of
citizens participating in the waste collection or in the recycling scheme. Indicators
also applied in performance indicators like participation rate is also a social indica-
tor, together with others proposed by Berg (1993), Dri et al. (2018), and Tai et al.
(2011): willingness to participate, degree of satisfaction from users, accessible
classified containers, and accessible classified vehicles.
Social indicators may also reflect working conditions. Waste collectors are
exposed to hazardous conditions, including hazardous materials, biological patho-
gens, and sharp objects (HSE 2014). Statistics on injuries are mostly injuries per year
or injuries per year per 100 full-time workers (Statista 2018). In the USA, between
2009 and 2015, waste collection has the highest workplace injuries, varying from 5.9
to 7.1 injuries and illness per 100 full-time workers (Statista 2018). Health and safety
conditions of workers at waste management sector and waste collection subsector
are relevant, however, there are few detailed studies by country or specific for waste
collection to be helpful to compare between waste collection systems or compare
countries.

10.6 Final Remarks

The way how waste management sector has operated, evaluated, and improved, their
waste collection systems reflect the difficulty in getting data and treating data to
provide useful information to make changes and improvements. Information and
communication technologies can, nowadays, make the difference in the control of
those systems by answering to the data gathering with reduced resources and
capability to process information. Considering their variety, there is the need to
focus always the indicators to the goal of the study.
The drivers to make monitoring and control of waste collection systems are, in
general, the costs. The principal goal is, always, to make waste collection at a lowest
cost. But the need to reach recycling targets and source separation of waste streams
led waste managers to monitor waste collection systems in terms of the goals of the
waste collection, the environmental impacts of the waste collection, and how the
workers and citizens look for the waste collection system.
The most recent focus on the monitoring of waste management sector, including
waste collection, is the standardization through norms like Eco-Management and
Audit Scheme (EMAS), used by companies and other organizations to evaluate,
report, and improve their environmental performance. To help EMAS implementa-
tion at waste sector, EMAS includes the Reference Documents on Best Environ-
mental Management Practice for Waste Management Sector (Dri et al. 2018). Such
document will support organizations showing how to measure/monitor the progress
made and how to benchmark their performance (Schoenberger et al. 2014) and will
180 10 Operation and Monitoring

allow the waste management sector to improve their vision on their how activity,
pushing forward to the improvement of the sector in environmental and social
aspects.

References

Accounts Commission (2000) Benchmarking refuse collection – a review of councils’ refuse

collection services. Audit Scotland, Edinburgh
Arendse L, Godfrey L (2001) Waste management indicators for national state of environment
reporting Pretoria. Available via CSIR. http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/kms/data/2010.pdf.
Accessed 11 Dec 2015
Badran M, El-Haggar S (2006) Optimization of municipal solid waste management in port-said-
Egypt. Waste Manag 26:534–545
Berg PEO (1993) Källsortering Teori, metod och implementering (source sorting theory, method
and implementation). Dissertation, Chalmers Tekniska Högskola
Bertanza G, Ziliani E, Menoni L (2018) Techno-economic performance indicators of municipal
solid waste collection strategies. Waste Manag 74:86–97
Bosch N, Pedraja F, Suárez-Pandiello J (2001) The efficiency of refuse collection services in
Spanish municipalities: do non-controllable variables matter? Institut d'Economia de Barcelona,
Centre de Recerca en Federalisme fiscal I Economia regional, Barcelona
Carrillo-Hermosilla J, del Río P, Könnölä T (2009) Eco-innovation: when sustainability and
competitiveness shake hands. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire
Courcelle C, Kestemont MP, Tyteca D, Installe M (1998) Assessing the economic and environ-
mental performance of municipal solid waste collection and sorting programs. Waste Manag
Res 16:253–262
Dahlén L, Lagerkvist A (2010) Evaluation of recycling programmes in household waste collection
systems. Waste Manag Res 28:577–586
Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Del Borghi M (2009) A survey of life cycle approaches in waste
management. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:597–610
Dri M, Canfora P, Antonopoulos IS, Gaudillat P (2018) Best environmental management practice
for the waste management sector, learning from frontrunners – final draft. Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2005) EEA core set of indicators – guide. European
Environmental Agency, Copenhagen
Faccio M, Persona A, Zanin G (2011) Waste collection multi objective model with real time
traceability data. Waste Manag 31:2391–2405
Federico G, Rizzo G, Traverso M (2009) In itinere strategic environmental assessment of an
integrated provincial waste system. Waste Manag Res 27:390–398
Fragkou M, Vicent T, Gabarrell X (2010) A general methodology for calculating the MSW
management self-sufficiency indicator: application to the wider Barcelona area. Resour Conserv
Recycl 54:390–399
Gallardo A, Bovea MD, Colomer FJ, Prades M, Carlos M (2010) Comparison of different collection
systems for sorted household waste in Spain. Waste Manag 30:2430–2439
Gamberini R, Del Buono D, Lolli F, Rimini B (2013) Municipal solid waste management:
identification and analysis of engineering indexes representing demand and costs generated in
virtuous Italian communities. Waste Manag 33:2532–2540
García-Sánchez MI (2008) The performance of Spanish solid waste collection. Waste Manag Res
26:327–336
Greco G, Allegrini M, Del Lungo C, Savellini P, Gabellini L (2014) Drivers of solid waste
collection costs empirical evidence from Italy. J Clean Prod 106:364–371
References 181

Hage O, Söderholm P (2008) An econometric analysis of regional differences in household waste

collection: the case of plastic packaging waste in Sweden. Waste Manag 28:1720–1731
Hashimoto H, Ibaraki T, Imahori S, Yagiura M (2006) The vehicle routing problem with flexible
time windows and traveling times. Discret Appl Math 154:2271–2290
Health and. Safety Executive (HSE) (2014) health and hazardous substances in waste and recycling.
http://wwwhsegovuk/pubns/waste27htm. Accessed 28 Jan 2014
Karadimas N, Papatzelou K, Loumos V (2007) Optimal solid waste collection routes identified by
the ant colony system algorithm. Waste Manag Res 25:139–147
Komilis DP (2008) Conceptual modeling to optimize the haul and transfer. Waste Manag
28:2355–2365
Larsen A, Vrgoc M, Christensen T, Lieberknecht P (2009) Diesel consumption in waste collection
and transport and its environmental significance. Waste Manag Res 27:652–659
Larsen AW, Merrild H, Moller J, Christensen TH (2010) Waste collection systems for recyclables:
an environmental and economic assessment for the municipality of Aarhus. Waste Manag
30:744–754
Lin CH (2008) A model using home appliance ownership data to evaluate recycling policy
performance. Resour Conserv Recycl 52:1322–1328
Martinho G, Gomes A, Santos P, Ramos M, Cardoso J, Silveira A, Pires A (2017) A case study of
packaging waste collection systems in Portugal part I: performance and operation analysis.
Waste Manag 61:96–107
Moreira AR (2008) Municipal solid waste collection routes analysis and assessment of operational
variables at routes productivity (in Portugusese: Análise de circuitos de recolha de RSU
indiferenciados e avaliação da influência de variáveis operacionais na produtividade dos
circuitos) Dissertation. Nova University Lisbon - Nova School of Science and Technology
(FCT NOVA)
Nguyen T, Wilson B (2010) Fuel consumption estimation for kerbside municipal solid waste
(MSW) collection activities. Waste Manag Res 28:289–297
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008) Key environmental
indicators. OECD, Paris
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2009) Eco-innovation in
industry enabling green growth. OECD, Paris
Passarini F, Vassura I, Monti F, Morselli L, Villani B (2011) Indicators of waste management
efficiency related to different territorial conditions. Waste Manag 31:785–792
Petersen CH, Berg PE (2004) Use of recycling station in Börlange, Sweden - volume weights and
attitudes. Waste Manag 24:911–918
Peterson PJ, Granados A (2002) Towards sets of hazardous waste indicators: essential tools for
modern industrial management. Environ Sci Pollut Res 9:204–214
Pires A, Sargedas J, Miguel M, Pina J, Martinho G (2017) A case study of packaging waste
collection systems in Portugal–part II: environmental and economic analysis. Waste Manag
61:108–116
Rodrigues SSM (2016) Classification and benchmarking of municipal solid waste collection
systems (in Portuguese: Classificação e benchmarking de sistemas de recolha de resíduos
urbanos) Dissertation. Nova University Lisbon - Nova School of Science and Technology
Rodrigues S, Martinho G, Pires A (2016) Waste collection systems part B: benchmarking indica-
tors. Benchmarking of the great Lisbon area, Portugal. J Clean Prod 139:230–241
Sanjeevi V, Shahabudeen P (2015) Development of performance indicators for municipal solid
waste management (PIMS): a review. Waste Manag Res 33:1052–1065
Sanjeevi V, Shahabudeen P (2016) Optimal routing for efficient municipal solid waste transporta-
tion by using ArcGIS application in Chennai, India. Waste Manag Res 34:11–21
Schoenberger H, Canfora P, Dri M, Galvez-Martos JL, Styles D, Antonopoulos IS (2014) Devel-
opment of the EMAS sectoral reference documents on best environmental management practice
– learning from frontrunners, promoting best practice. Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg
182 10 Operation and Monitoring

Sonesson U (2000) Modelling of waste collection - a general approach to calculate fuel consump-
tion and time. Waste Manag Res 18:115–123
Sora M, González J (2014) Economic balance of door-to-door and road containers waste collection
for local authorities and proposals for its optimization. Commissioned by the Association of
Catalan Municipalities for door-to-door selective collection to Fundació ENT
Statista (2018) Recordable workplace injury and illness cases in the US waste industry from 2009 to
2015, by business (per 100 full time workers). https://wwwstatistacom/statistics/665031/us-
waste-industry-worksplace-injury-and-illness-cases-by-business/. Accessed 22 Nov 2017
Tai J, Zhang W, Che Y, Feng D (2011) Municipal solid waste source-separated collection in China:
a comparative analysis. Waste Manag 31:1673–1682
Teixeira CA, Avelino C, Ferreira F, Bentes I (2014a) Statistical analysis in MSW collection
performance assessment. Waste Manag 34:1584–1594
Teixeira CA, Russo MM, Bentes I (2014b) Evaluation of operational, economic, and environmental
performance of mixed and selective collection of municipal solid waste: Porto case study. Waste
Manag Res 32:1210–1218
Viotti PP (2003) Genetic algorithms as a promising tool for optimisation of the MSW collection
routes. Waste Manag Res 21:292–298
Waite R (1995) Household waste recycling. Earthscan Publicatons, London
Zaman A (2014) Identification of key assessment indicators of the zero waste management systems.
Ecol Indic 36:682–693
Chapter 11
Assessment and Improvement

Abstract Today’s environmental concerns are related to the population and its
consumption of resources, which have led to significant ecological global changes,
such as climate change and resources overexploitation. The solid waste manage-
ment, in an integrated way, has been capable of influencing and contributing to the
solution of such challenges. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the assessment
and improvement of the waste collection system by using life cycle thinking, with a
sustainable perspective. Several methodologies such as life cycle assessment, carbon
footprint, life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment will be presented and
discussed concerning its application to waste collection systems and contribution to
the integrated waste management system.

Keywords LCA · Social LCA · LCC · Environmental impacts · Public

participation · Behavior studies

11.1 Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint

The life cycle assessment is a process to (a) evaluate the environmental burdens
associated with a product, process, or activity by identifying and quantifying the
energy and materials used, wastes, and emissions released to the environment;
(b) assess the impact of those energy and material uses and releases to the environ-
ment; and (c) identify and evaluate opportunities that lead to environmental
improvements (Fava et al. 1991; Consoli et al. 1993). According to the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO 14040 2006a), LCA addresses the environ-
mental aspects and potential environmental impacts throughout a product’s life
cycle, from raw material acquisition through production, use, end-of-life treatment,
recycling, and final disposal (i.e., cradle to grave). LCA is divided into four phases:
goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation.
The goal and scope definition intends to define the purposes, specifications, and
limits in the evaluation. The inventory analysis phase is responsible for the collection
of data of the unit processes within the system and relating it to a functional unit.
Impact assessment intends to make inventory information more understandable

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 183

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_11
184 11 Assessment and Improvement

through its translation into environmental impact categories. Final interpretation

allows evaluating results obtained and comparing them with the initially defined
goal (ISO 14040 2006a).
LCA applied to solid waste collection systems can serve two purposes: to
evaluate the service provided (in terms of technology implemented) and find
where more environmental impact is occurring and to evaluate which level of source
separation (number of streams and quality of material source separated, recycling
rate) should be promoted, to reach higher amounts of recyclables and higher quality
of recyclables collected in such a way that could be beneficial to the environment.
LCA has been applied to solid waste management since the 1990s to treatment and
recovery technology processes, where the focus on specific collection and recycling
schemes is being increasing more recently.

11.1.1 Goal and Scope Definition

For a waste collection system, the goal of an LCA study depends on the type of
decision-making process: a microlevel decision, where the decision to be made will
not impact the background system, and a meso /macro-level, which can impact the
background system. The micro-level decision is only devoted to the technical
analysis and environmental inventory of the waste collection sector. Meso /
macro-level is related to the analysis of strategies with large-scale to background
sector (like the market for recyclables), which are related to studies on a national
scale, with implications on national and international plans. To understand which
type of LCA to perform, foreground and background systems must be defined. In a
waste collection system LCA study, the foreground system is the waste collection
system to be analyzed, where real data will be gathered related to the collection and
transport and to waste container production and transport; the background system is
generic data which is more related to the electricity grid, for example.

Functions of the System, the Functional Unit, and Reference Flow

At a glance, a waste collection system just performs one function: allows the
temporary deposition of waste, its collection, and transport to a specific destination.
However, the destination can also be included in the LCA, because waste collection
can influence its destination. If packaging waste is source separated, it has recycling
features; if organic waste is source separated, the production of a high-quality
compost occurs. Even if the waste results from mix collection, it can also generate
electric energy. When mixed waste collected is send for mechanical-biological
treatment (by anaerobic digeston), or to incineration or even at the landfill, the
biogas is generated and used to produce electric energy. The way how the system
is defined will determine the number of functions of the system, and, if
multifunctionality occurs, it has to be solved. A possible functional unit is the
11.1 Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint 185

collection of a specific amount of waste generated in a period by a specific group of

inhabitants, for example, the selective collection service of 1500 tons a month of
MSW generated in an urban locality with a density of 5000 inhabitants/km2 applied
by Iriarte et al. (2009). Related to the functional unit is the reference flow for the
normalization of input and output data (Chang and Pires 2015). In the case of Iriarte
et al. (2009), the reference flow considered the theoretical recovery of 100% for the
fractions: organic, paper, packaging, and glass present in the MSW. When compar-
ing waste collection system for a specific waste stream, waste properties need to be
studied, to ensure that the functional unit and the reference flow are the same. It is
common that different waste collection vehicles have different waste compaction
rates, changing the density of waste collected. Density is just one of the critical
physical properties, but also moisture can be relevant for the collection of biode-
gradable waste or waste paper and waste cardboard.

System Boundaries

The waste collection system studied in the LCA can be:

• The service provided by a municipality or a private company.
• The number of recyclables collected by the collection system.
From a generic point of view, the waste collection system to be analyzed has, in
the beginning, the stages of temporary deposition (containers) and waste collection
vehicles. The frontiers of the waste collection also need to be addressed. The
frontiers can be related to geographic locations, timescales, and technical compo-
nents. Considering the technical components, LCA studies can be cradle-to-grave
(starts with the extraction of materials, going through all life cycle), cradle-to-gate
(from raw material extraction, going until the product leaves the factory), gate-to-
gate (only regards a manufacturing process), and cradle-to-cradle (with a metabolic
view where no waste exists) (Chang and Pires 2015). In waste collection systems,
LCA can be only cradle-to-gate if the intention is to assess a particular waste
collection technology without the use phase (like an environmental product decla-
ration for waste bins), or the waste collection system itself can be a cradle-to-gate of
the entire waste management system. A cradle-to-cradle applies to reverse logistic
cases when the product is not waste or is for reuse. A typical waste collection LCA is
a cradle-to-gate, or a streamlined LCA (also named screening and matrix LCA)
because the assessment is only for a part of the life cycle. The definition is also
applied when the LCA is not assessing all the environmental impact categories
(Crawford 2011). The case study on Box 11.1 is an example of a streamlined LCA
at recycling schemes.
186 11 Assessment and Improvement

Box 11.1 Comparison of Recycling Schemes in Portugal (Pires et al.

2017)
A comparative study based on LCA and economic analysis through indicators
was conducted for three waste collection systems for packaging waste in a
municipality in Portugal. The analysis compares the environmental impact of
existing collection systems and the costs involved in the operation of those
systems. For the LCA, Umberto 5.5 software package was used.
Three waste recycling systems were compared: a curbside system, where all
non-glass packaging waste is collected by the curbside bags; a drop-off
system, where all packaging waste is collected by drop-off containers; and a
mixed system, where glass is deposited at drop-off containers and lightweight
packaging is deposited at drop-off and curbside systems. The LCA was used to
analyze the environmental impacts, but only the collection system was
assessed (the subsequent recycling was excluded). The results showed that
the curbside system was less favorable economically and environmentally due
to the more packaging and more fuel consumption per ton of waste, compared
to drop-off collection system. Optimization of the curbside system is needed,
through the use of reusable boxes and efficient collection routes (SEP 2018).

In a waste collection LCA, there is no need to include the environmental impacts

resulting from the extraction of material and production of goods that originate
waste, neither product reuse with the application of the “zero burden assumption.”
The zero burden assumes that waste brings no upstream environmental impacts into
the waste collection system neither to the waste management system (Ekvall et al.
2007). Such can be applied because all product life cycle phases previous to the
waste phase occur in the same way in the next waste collection alternatives.
To conduct an LCA is also needed to have in consideration aspects related to
geographic boundaries and time horizons. Concerning geographic boundaries, the
waste collection systems are typically local and regional, but also can be national or
international, when materials collected are sent to recycling, which can be outside
the borders of the country. Data referent to process far from the place where waste
collection efficiently occurs can be hard to collect (Chang and Pires 2015). In the
case of time horizon, the functional unit in a waste collection system can be
dependent on the respective year or another time unit, which is the case of the
amount of waste generated and collected, which is not constant through the years,
with fluctuations during the year. There is the need to identify the time horizon of the
analysis appropriately. When conducting an LCA for a waste collection system
which the system is only the collection itself, there is the need to include equipment
and infrastructure data. In this situation, the useful life of devices needs to fit into the
functional unit period.
Another aspect to be defined during the goal and scope definition is the allocation
procedure. According to ISO (2006b), allocation represents the portioning of input
and output flows of a process or a system concerning the system under analysis and
one or more other systems. Allocation applies in cases of multifunctionality and
11.1 Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint 187

when open recycling inside the system occurs (Ekvall and Tillman 1997).
Multifunctionality is related to a multi-output and multi-input processes
(or systems). A multi-output process occurs when a single system produces more
than one product or only one product is processed inside the system and at least one
product is generated and is used outside the system (what is called a coproduct)
(Klöpffer and Grahl 2014). A multi-input process in waste management systems
occurs when several waste streams are collected and treated, while LCA tries to
isolate one of them (Tillman 2010). When a product is recycled not at the same
product but in a different one, it is a case of open recycling (Tillman 2010). The way
how to proceed to solve them is different if the LCA is of attributional type or
consequential type, although there is no universal consensus. In general, the multi-
output systems in waste management is usually solved by system expansion/substi-
tution, whatever is an attributional or a consequential LCA, by ISO (2006b) and
recommendations from EC-JRC-IES (2010). In a first step, system expansion is
performed until all expanded systems produce the same quantities of the coproducts
identified in the system, and in the next step, product outputs and inputs related with
the coproducts are subtracted from all expanded systems (Bueno et al. 2015). In the
case of multi-input, portioning made by physical or chemical classification is
typically conducted (Meijer et al. 2017; Guinée et al. 2002). In the case of recycling
allocation, “recycled content approach” (or cutoff approach) and the “end-of-life
recycling approach” (or avoided burden approach) are used (Frischknecht 2010)
(Fig. 11.1). The cutoff method considers the share of recycled material in the
manufacture of the product, where the environmental impacts of recycled material
were not attributed to the system under investigation because once recycled, they
start a new life in a second product/process (Frischknecht 2010; Zampori and Dotelli
2014). In the avoided burden approach, the environmental impacts from the
recycling include the system under investigation, avoiding the extraction of raw
materials for the production of the product, and relating environmental impacts,
crediting them to the product in the system in assessment (Frischknecht 2010;
Zampori and Dotelli 2014).
According to Pelletier et al. (2015), the multifunctionality needs to be adequately
justified, and the different approaches to solving multifunctionality mostly relate to
the schools of LCA practitioners, which view the purpose of LCA in different ways:

Production
Production
Env. impacts

Env. impacts

Product 1 Product 2 Product 1 Product 2

(e.g., Façade) (e.g. engine) (e.g., Façade) (e.g. engine)

Recycling
Recycling
Use Use
time time
decision t=0a decision t=80a
(metal or alternative material) (primary or secondary metal) decision t=0a decision t=80a

Fig. 11.1 Environmental impacts in the course of time during production, use, and end of life
(recycling) of a long-living metal product. Left, recycled content approach; right end-of-life
recycling approach. (Source: Frischknecht (2010))
188 11 Assessment and Improvement

Table 11.1 Alternative multifunctionality hierarchies consistent with competing for understanding
of nature, purpose, and conditions necessary to LCA
Attributional data modeling approach
Consequential data Socioeconomic
ISO 14044 modeling approach Physical perspective perspective
Tier 1: Avoid Avoid allocation by Avoid allocation by sub- Avoid allocation by sub-
allocation via subdivision or division or system division or system
subdivision or “system expansion expansion (reporting at expansion (reporting at
system expansion + substitution” level of all coproducts) level of all coproducts)
Tier 2: Allocation NA Avoid based on a relevant Avoid based on a rele-
based on an underlying physical vant underlying eco-
underlying physi- relationship nomic value of
cal relationship coproducts
Tier 3: Allocation NA NA NA
based on some
other reason
Pelletier et al. (2015)

multifunctionality is to be solved by system expansion or by physical allocation or

by economic allocation (representing allocation based on “some other relationship”).
Whatever the school of the practitioner, Pelletier et al. (2015) suggest the alternative
multifunctionality to help in making allocation consistent and more transparent to
practitioners (Table 11.1).

11.1.2 Life Cycle Inventory

LCI represents the phase in the LCA where the collection and treatment of the data to
perform the assessment occur. The steps of LCI include the data collection planning,
collection itself, and validation of data. Concerning planning, there is the need to
define the data to be collected regarding the type of LCA (attributional or conse-
quential), type of the system (is data for the foreground or the background), and the
LCA scale (is a full LCA or a streamlined). Depending on the type of LCA
conducted – attributional or consequential – the type of information to be collected
differs. For an attributional LCA, data to be collected is average or generic data that
best represent the waste collection system. In consequential LCA, marginal data
collection is related to operations during the life cycle that are affected by a change in
the system under investigation (Ekvall and Weidema 2004). To develop the conse-
quential analysis, scenario development and market forecasting can be applied. The
one more used is the market forecasting, which only implies the knowledge of the
existing market for outputs and inputs of the system, when the scenario development
is critical to their application.
Concerning foreground and background data, the approaches to collect informa-
tion are different. In the case of foreground data, or primary data, data collection
intends to characterize as far as possible the system, being collected all data possible
11.1 Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint 189

concerning inputs and outputs; background data, or secondary data, are related to
information of secondary processes with no apparent influence on the core system
(Chang and Pires 2015).
Choosing between a full and a streamlined LCA should be based on the goal and
scope of the study and the time available to conduct the assessment, because LCA is
time-consuming and expensive (Wang et al. 2016). Streamlined LCA occurs by
(1) adjusting the system boundary (both foreground and background systems) and
(2) limiting the inputs, outputs, and environmental impacts considered in the assess-
ment. Previous full LCA studies can indicate areas which have low significance to
the LCA results, allowing a justified streamlined LCA (Chang and Pires 2015).
LCI databases provide ready-made inventories to characterize waste collection
systems. There are several databases which characterize several processes including
waste collection and treatment processes. Most complete databases are the Ecoinvent
(http://www.ecoinvent.org/), US Life Cycle Inventory Database (https://www.nrel.
gov/lci/), and European Life Cycle Database (ELCD) (http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
ELCD3/), just to name a few.
Documentation of data calculation for LCI occurs explicitly, where the explana-
tion of all assumptions occurs. The validation of data and relating data to unit
processes and functional unit is needed to ensure the quality of LCA (ISO 2006b).
The validation of data during LCI should be made through mass balances, energy
balances, and comparison with data from other sources, like emission factors for
specific processes (Guinée et al. 2002).

11.1.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment

The result of the LCI phase is the quantification of materials, energy, and substance
flows which impact the environment. The LCIA intends to understand and evaluate
the environmental impacts resulting from the system in the analysis, regarding the
magnitude and the significance (ISO 2006b). The critical steps of the LCIA are
(Curran 2006) selection and definition of impact categories, classification of sub-
stance flows with the selected impact category, and characterization of LCI impacts
based on conversion factors scientifically based.
Complexity reduction of the conversion of inventory into impact categories
occurs by the impact categories definition in midpoint and endpoint indicators.
Midpoint indicators calculate the impact of LCI outputs through various environ-
mental mechanisms with less uncertainty; endpoint indicators include the character-
ization factors to link midpoint indicators through additional environmental
mechanisms, which incorporates greater uncertainty (Li and Khanal 2016)
(Fig. 11.2).
In addition to the fundamental steps, other steps can be added to reach a more
clear result, such as normalization, grouping, and weighting of impact categories,
which will facilitate the comparison of LCA results and the interpretation phase (ISO
2006b). According to ISO (2006b) and Ashby (2009), normalization intends to
190 11 Assessment and Improvement

Fig. 11.2 Typical LCA framework linking LCI via midpoint categories to endpoint categories for
selected damage types. Indicators can be formed from either category after normalization and
optional weighting step. (Source: Rimos et al. (2014))

remove the units and reduce the data to a standard scale, grouping intends to sort and
rank the impact categories if possible, and weighting of each impact category helps
to understand which are the most critical impacts compared to the other category
impacts. The result of these additional key steps is a value, an eco-indicator, which
condensates all the information resulting from the LCA into one number. There is
some criticism on the use of eco-indicators since there is no agreement on normal-
ization and weighting factors and the value has no physical significance (Ashby
2009).
The LCIA is typically made by different methodologies, from their resulting
indicators that could help to quantify and compare the environmental impact of the
product or service. Several methodologies exist: CML (Guinée et al. 2002),
Eco-Indicator 99 (EI’99) (Goedkoop and Spriensma 2000), Environmental Priority
System 2000 (EPS 2000) (Steen 1999), EDIP (Hauschild and Potting 2005),
IMPACT 2002+ (Jolliet et al. 2003), TRACI (Bare et al. 2003), USEtox 2.0 (Fantke
et al. 2015), ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al. 2009), and ES’06 (Frischknecht et al. 2008).
Choosing the LCIA system should address the following questions (Rosenbaum
et al. 2018):
• Which impact categories do I need to cover and can I justify those that I am
excluding?
• Which are the features of the region where the system in the analysis occurs?
• What kind of LCIA do I need, midpoint, endpoint, or both, and are the normal-
ization steps also needed?
• Which elementary flows do I need to identify and know?
• Is there any information from organizations that could help me to choose?
11.1 Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint 191

• How can the LCIA results be interpreted and communicated?

• How well is the method scientifically supported?
• How proven is the method?
• Is there available data from my LCI to support the LCIA method?
• Is uncertainty an issue that needs to be quantified?
One possible strategy to choose an LCIA method can be the existence of LCA
studies made to the waste collection system and the LCIA method used. Probably
there is a method more frequently used, which can also be chosen, helping in the
comparison of the results.

11.1.4 Interpretation

According to ISO (2006b), the interpretation is the last phase of the LCA, where
results are summarized for conclusions and recommendation and help on decision-
making, depending on the goals and scope defined at the beginning of the LCA. Due
to its looping plus iterative procedure, the discussion conducted can dictate changes
in previous decisions during the LCA like allocation rules, system boundaries, goal
and scope features, data collected to perform the LCA, and environmental impact
categories chosen, just to name a few of the possible consequences of interpretation
phase (Chang and Pires 2015; ISO 2006b). Interpretation phase recommends a
critical analysis done by an external entity (ISO 2006b).
Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses are conducted during the interpretation
phase. Sensitivity analysis intends to understand how the model inputs influence
the results; uncertainty analysis (also named propagation) aims to know quantita-
tively the overall uncertainty of results reached during LCA (Laurent et al. 2014).
The most common method used to assess sensitivity is scenario analysis. These are
one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) methods with the intention to investigating the robust-
ness of the results and finding the sensitive parameters that could influence LCA
results and, in the last case, alter the recommendations to decision-makers (Laurent
et al. 2014). Sensitivity analysis is performed by varying the inputs within a specific
range and analyzing the impacts on the results, showing which are the results that
must be regarded more carefully, and which assumptions must be justified and
validated (Li and Khanal 2016). Uncertainty in waste collection system is generally
related to the waste composition itself and the waste fraction distributions and
chemical composition (e.g., water content, density). The system model used for
the collection itself, the choice of a collection scheme, and the parameters dependent
of the collection scheme, like fuel consumption, emissions, source-sorting efficien-
cies, and the transport distance, at least should be subjected to uncertainty analysis
(Clavreul et al. 2012). Uncertainty analysis is usually conducted by Monte Carlo
analysis, which consists in randomly sampling the probability distribution of each
uncertain parameter in a large number of times, resulting in a frequency histogram
and a probability distribution representing model results (Clavreul et al. 2012).
When conducting an LCA comparing different waste management solutions, the
192 11 Assessment and Improvement

Monte Carlo simulation can indicate, for each solution, which is the probability that
a specific result occurs (e.g., which is the probability of the result “incineration is
better than anaerobic digestion” occur).

11.1.5 LCA Software

There are several on-market software to conduct an LCA study on waste collection,
like Gabi, SimaPro, Team, and Umberto software. There is also more friendly
software explicitly devoted to waste management, including solid waste collection,
which can make the streamlined LCA easier. Those software/applications are
IWM-2 (McDougall et al. 2001), WISARD/WRATE (Ecobilan 2004),
EASEWASTE (Christensen et al. 2007), and ORWARE (Dalemo et al. 1997;
Björklund et al. 1999). The development and use of waste LCA tools justify the
need to deal with a reference flow composed of a mixture of materials (waste and its
several waste streams); the LCA practitioner can evaluate more natural the influence
of several parameters of the waste management scheme on the LCA results, making
more accessible for the practitioner to track the impacts from heterogeneous waste
streams and the impacts caused by each material (Clavreul et al. 2014).
No matter which is the software, the practitioner of an LCA to waste collection
system must have in mind that capital goods may have significant importance on the
LCA environmental impacts, not being adequate to exclude them. According to
Brogaard and Christensen (2012), the impact of producing the capital goods for
waste collection and transport – vehicles and containers – should not be neglected as
the capital goods can be responsible for more than 85% of some of the environmental
impact categories from all environmental impacts occurring for collection and
transport waste (when a transport distance of 25 km was assumed).

11.1.6 Carbon Footprint

Common to most of these environmental impact systems is the one related to GHG
emissions and climate change impact, i.e., when using LCA only to calculate the
impact on climate change). GHG emissions impact can have several designations,
where the most known is carbon footprint. Carbon footprint is also a subcomponent
of ecological footprint, which is estimated by calculating the embodied life cycle
energy plus GHG emissions associated with a specific system (Cifrian et al. 2013).
According to EPLCA (2007), carbon footprint (also named as carbon profile) is the
inventory of greenhouse gas emissions associated with a product, along with its life
cycle, from the supply chain, use, and end-of-life.
Carbon footprint results from the indicator global warming potential (GWP), used
in LCA. As defined by IPCC, the GWP reflects the relative effect of a GHG
regarding the climate change, considering a fixed period (e.g., 100 years is
GWP100). GHG can have a different global warming impact, i.e., can contribute
11.2 Life Cycle Costing 193

differently to the climate change, presenting different GWP100. Carbon dioxide has
1, methane has 25, nitrous oxide has 298, HFCs have between 124 and 14,800,
sulfur hexafluoride has 22,800, and PFCs have 7390–12,200 GWP100 (IPCC 2007).
Carbon footprint is a streamlined LCA, where the analysis is made only to the
emissions that have a potential effect on climate change. Carbon footprint
calculation uses databases for the background data, and for the foreground, it is
necessary to collect real information as possible. When making a carbon footprint, it
is necessary to have in mind that a possible “shifting of burdens” may occur, because
other relevant environmental impacts are neglected (EPLCA 2007).
Several standards and norms could help in the development of a carbon footprint.
The one specific for carbon footprint from ISO is ISO/TS 14067 (ISO 2013), which
is based on the ISO norms for LCA (ISO 14040-14044 (ISO 2006a, b)), on standards
for quantification, and on environmental labels and declarations for communication
(ISO 14020, ISO 14024, and ISO 14025). Public initiatives to develop carbon
footprint calculation methodologies also exist: the British Standards Institution
Norm PAS 2050:2011 (BSI 2011), Protocol for the Quantification of Greenhouse
Gases Emissions from Waste Management Activities (EpE 2010), Product Life
Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard of the GHG Protocol (WRI and
WBCSD 2011), and US EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM) (USEPA 2009),
just to name a few.
Waste collection and transport contribute significantly to GHG emissions from
municipal solid waste management system (Bernstad and la Cour Jansen 2012;
Jaunich et al. 2016; Cleary 2009). The sources and magnitude of GHG depend on
the type of collection and transport system in place: pneumatic systems (Teerioja
et al. 2012; Punkkinen et al. 2012) or trucks (Fernández-Nava et al. 2014; Maimoun
et al. 2013; Rose et al. 2013). In trucks’ case, the fuel used by collection vehicles has
a significant influence on the carbon footprint (López et al. 2009; Maimoun et al.
2013; Rose et al. 2013) and urban air quality (Fontaras et al. 2012; Sandhu et al.
2014). Authors have tried to adapt existing methodologies to calculate LCA or
carbon footprint of waste collection systems, to reach more detailed inventories
instead of just using average data. In Table 11.2 is presented a short review on
assessment on waste collection systems made by LCA and carbon footprint.

11.2 Life Cycle Costing

Economic life cycle analysis, most known as life cycle costing (LCC), gives an
economic perspective on the life cycle of the product or service. LCC involves three
types of LCC assessments (Hunkeler et al. 2008): conventional, environmental, and
societal. Conventional LCC represents standardized financial assessments, like
accounting for marketed goods and services carried out typically by individual
companies focusing on their direct costs. Environmental LCC includes the conven-
tional LCC (also named financial LCC, where albeit costs from all stakeholders are
included), to be in line with the system boundaries of the LCA (Rödger et al. 2018).
The societal LCC further includes externality costs (i.e., it “internalizes”
194 11 Assessment and Improvement

Table 11.2 LCA and carbon footprint case studies on waste collection
LCA of waste collection systems Carbon footprint of waste collection
Source Description Source Description
Punkkinen Comparing pneumatic and door- Pérez Developed a methodology for
et al. to-door collection systems et al. calculating the carbon footprint
(2012) (2017) of waste collection vehicles
Rose et al. Comparison of diesel and com- Maimoun Compare different fuels for
(2013) pressed natural gas-powered et al. waste collection vehicles
refuse collection vehicles (2013)
Pires et al. Comparison of different packag- Eriksson The carbon footprint of food
(2017) ing waste collection systems: et al. waste management options
curbside, drop-off, and mixed (2015)

environmental and social impacts by assigning monetary values to the respective

effects), by using accounting prices (Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2015; Rödger et al.
2018). The three types of LCC give the holistic view of the system, including LCA
perspective and well societal concerns.
For each type of LCC, different costs may be considered (Table 11.3), such as
internal costs, external costs, and social costs. Internal costs are referent to monetary
costs occurring both inside and outside the waste management system in the analysis,
being measured by market prices (Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2015). External costs occur
outside the economic system, having no direct monetary value in the market, reflecting
the impacts on third parties resulting from production and consumption (Martinez-
Sanchez et al. 2015; Rödger et al. 2018). Social costs are the sum of internal and
external costs, being defined as society’s costs for managing waste (Porter 2002).
The results from the LCC are expressed in monetary terms per functional unit, for
each of the life cycle phases, which can also be defined in the budget, transfers, and
its sum (named convention LCC), and from the LCC result indicators that help to
understand the assessment made. The societal LCC presents results from external
costs, being divided into budget costs, externality costs, and societal costs (Martinez-
Sanchez et al. 2015). Martinez-Sanchez et al. (2016), who have applied LCC to a
food waste management system, have included in the LCC the indirect costs, related
to the income effect associated with the marginal consumption and to indirect land
use changes.

11.3 Social Life Cycle Assessment

To assess the social impact of a product, but also of services including waste
collection system (also applicable to waste management system), a social life
cycle can be conducted. Social impacts focus on aspects related to the well-being
of humans (Yildiz-Geyhan et al. 2017). According to UNEP/SETAC (2009) and
Benoît et al. (2010), social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is an assessment technique
capable of evaluating the socioeconomic and societal impacts of products during
their life cycle. Social impacts are consequences of behaviors/decisions,
11.3 Social Life Cycle Assessment 195

Table 11.3 Overview of costs incurred by waste agents and all members of society with regard to
waste systems. Cost classes are (1) internal and external costs and (2) budget costs, externality costs,
and transfers
Internal costs External costs Social costs
Incurred by Waste agents (e.g., waste All the members of soci- Society
generator and operators) ety (waste generators,
waste management oper-
ators, and others)
Budget cost Bags, bins, capital goods,
materials, and energy
consumption, labor
costs, material and
energy sales
Externalities Time consumptions to Sum of internal costs
cost source separate, health (excluding transfers)
issues, disamenities, and external costs for
working environment society (i.e., waste gen-
issues erator, waste operator,
and other agents)
Transfer Fees, taxes, pecuniary Not applicable
externalities
Martinez-Sanchez et al. (2015)
Pecuniary externalities may be related to energy and material recovery within the waste system.
These transfers represent financial losses occurring when existing facilities or industries outside the
system boundary of the assessment have to operate below their design capacity as a result of the
additional supply of energy and material resources offered by the waste system

Fig. 11.3 Existing municipal solid waste collection system and system boundaries of the packag-
ing waste collection system to be assessed in a hypothetical SLCA

socioeconomic processes, and capitals (human, social, and cultural), which can be
either positive or negative (UNEP/SETAC 2009).
The methodology of SLCA follows the environmental LCA: goal and scope
definition, inventory, impacts, and interpretation. In goal and scope definition, the
critical aspect to have in mind is the functional unit to be defined, because it can be
difficult to correlate a social impact with a process of a product or a service (Dreyer
et al. 2006; Hauschild et al. 2008; Klöpffer 2008). For instance, Hosseinijou et al.
(2014) indicated the social impacts would hardly be related to the functional unit
(FU) of the product if the inventory data is based on semi-qualitative and qualitative
data. Also, the frontiers of the system can also be challenging, although on assessing
waste collection system, the task can be facilitated. In the case of Fig. 11.3, to assess
a packaging waste collection system, only the packaging collection and transport are
to be considered in the SLCA.
196 11 Assessment and Improvement

Another aspect to be defined in goal and scope definition is the impact categories
to be assessed. There are 6 impact categories (human rights, working conditions,
health and safety, cultural heritage, governance, socioeconomic repercussions) and
31 subcategories related with stakeholders’ categories. In Table 11.4 are represented
the stakeholders and a resume of the subcategories proposed by Benoît-Norris
et al. (2011).
Since its beginnig in the 1990s, the SLCA has not been capable of being fully
standardized, like what happens to LCA (Iofrida et al. 2018; Sureau et al. 2018).
There is a difficulty in addressing social impacts into a physical flow of a product or
of a service (Dreyer et al. 2006). Also, the SLCA published by UNEP/SETAC

Table 11.4 Five stakeholder categories in production system based on the UNEP’s guideline
for SLCA
Stakeholder categories Subcategories
Worker Freedom of association and collective bargaining
Child labor
Fair salary
Working hours
Forced labor
Equal opportunities/discrimination
Health and safety
Social benefits/social security
Consumer Health and safety
Feedback mechanism
Consumer privacy
Transparency
End-of-life responsibility
Local community Access to material resources
Access to immaterial resources
Delocalization and migration
Cultural heritage
Safe and healthy living conditions
Respect of indigenous rights
Community engagement
Local employment
Secure living conditions
Public commitments to sustainability issues
Contribution to economic development
Society Prevention and mitigation of armed conflicts
Technology development
Corruption
Value chain actors (excluding consumers) Fair competition
Promoting social responsibility
Supplier relationships
Respect of intellectual property rights
Source: Benoît-Norris et al. (2011)
11.4 Behavior Studies and Awareness Campaigns 197

(2009) lacks on specific impact assessment methodology, which has made practi-
tioners apply different approaches (Chhipi-Shrestha et al. 2015) to solve it. Site-
specific data collection is needed to characterize the foreground system in assess-
ment, and those procedures are complicated to be implemented, requiring prioriti-
zation or cutoff criteria, as well a global social database to provide the rest of the data
needed (Chhipi-Shrestha et al. 2015). All these issues make SLCA a not well-proven
technique to assess the social impact of a product or a service, in this case, a waste
collection system. The missing robustness of SLCA is even more problematic for a
sector which is characterized by an informal sector in developing countries mostly,
but also in developed countries, informal work may occur. In the study from Yildiz-
Geyhan et al. (2017), the intention was to conduct an SLCA to packaging waste
collection schemes, with scenarios of the formal and informal collection. The results
showed that informal collection scenarios had socially fewer score than the formal
scenarios in almost all impacts, but the best scenario was the ameliorate scenario,
where the integration of formal and informal collection occurs.

11.4 Behavior Studies and Awareness Campaigns

The assessment of a waste collection system and, especially, of recycling schemes is

mandatory to understand the effectiveness and what needs to be improved. The
identification of residents’ participation and acceptance of the recycling scheme is
essential to the success of the scheme. Doing behavior studies and awareness
campaigns will be helpful to reduce misjudgments that led to poor scheme design
and performance, leading to high operational costs (Altaf and Hughes 1994; Jenkins
et al. 2003). Although the behavior study is here presented as an assessment of waste
collection or recycfling schemes, behavior studies are also made during the design,
like is the case at Box 11.2, where public participation was considered in the design
if the waste collection at the community of Didimoticho in Greece (Keramitsoglou
and Tsagarakis 2013) (Box 11.2).

Box 11.2 Public Participation in Designing a Recycling Scheme

in Didimoticho, Greece (Keramitsoglou and Tsagarakis 2013)
A public participation process was implemented in Greece, in a town where no
source separation of waste exists. The process based on a structured question-
naire is divided into four parts: questions about residents’ knowledge on
recycling, including advantages and disadvantages; questions about nine
recycling programs, intention to participate, and number of materials to be
source separated; questions to assess attitudes to financial incentives; and
questions on socioeconomic situation of respondents. A total of 343 validated
answers were gathered. The result of this participative process was the strategy

(continued)
198 11 Assessment and Improvement

Box 11.2 (continued)

for the introduction of recycling schemes in the town, where two stages were
defined. In the first stage, drop-off systems should be provided for four waste
flows, and simultaneously, domestic composting and hazardous waste
recycling should be ensured. In the second stage, financial instruments and a
curbside collection scheme in combination with the drop-off system should be
explored. At the end of the two stages, evaluations must be conducted to verify
if the strategy is successful or not.

When conducting the behavior studies, the intention is to understand which

factors are affecting the participation of citizens in the collection system. Several
factors have been studied so far by scientists (Miafodzyeva and Brandt 2013;
Varotto and Spagnolli 2017):
• Socio-demographic factors: Include age, education level, income, gender, dwell-
ing type, household size, home ownership, household type, employment status,
and ethnicity.
• Psychological factors: Include information and knowledge, convenience/effort,
social influence, responsibility, environmental attitudes, beliefs/perceptions of
recycling consequences, specific recycling attitudes, motivation, recycling expe-
rience, behavior skills, the perception of the service provider, personality char-
acteristics, emotion, and sense of community.
• Contextual factors: Include service, monetary incentives, the location of bins,
characteristics of bins, and product characteristics.
• Other study-specific factors: Related to individual factors influencing the
recycling behavior, including the share of immigrants in a community and
significance of behavior habits and shopping behavior.
Understanding which are the factors affecting the recycling behavior will, con-
sequently, determine the success of the source-separated collection system and
influence the contents and shapes of the awareness campaign has to be elaborated.
Awareness campaigns intend to communicate using strategies which could increase
recycling behavior of citizens. Prompts, persuasive communication, verbal commit-
ment, written contracts, and feedback, i.e., “the transmission of information about
the effects of the behaviors of an individual or a group,” are approaches reviewed
and highlighted by Dupré and Meineri (2016).

11.5 Final Remarks

The assessment of any waste collection system requires a complete and robust
definition of the system, to ensure that the goal of the assessment is correctly
assessed. Most of the time, the missing data, the reduced time available, the budget
References 199

constraints, and, most of all, the missing support of directors and managers to
proceed with an accurate assessment of the system may lead to biased results that
do not reflect the reality of the waste collection system. Efforts should be made,
firstly, to make the assessment tools based on life cycle thinking available to this
sector. Make available means cost affordable and scientifically understandable
(concerning running the methods and result interpretation). However, such natural
access (economically and technically) cannot make life cycle thinking models too
simplified, in such way that it will not reflect the life cycle of the service provided –
the collection of waste. The development of methodologies that could assess the
sustainability of waste collection should be made at the light of Open Innovation 2.0
(Curley and Salmelin 2013). Practitioners, methodology developers, and academics
should work together to make life cycle thinking methods, leading to the creation of
wealth in the waste sector. When the waste sector reaches sustainable standards due
to those assessment methods, the governments may establish such standards as the
norms for an appropriate waste collection system operation. Citizens, in contact with
those waste collection system, will demand all waste collection to perform in such
sustainable way. The academia will force the entrance of the sustainable, holistic,
and life cycle thinking in the waste-related course programs, repeating the quadruple
helix cycle (academia, business, government, and citizens). In this new paradigm,
waste collection and waste management sector can make the assessment and
improvement of the sector a reality, preparing it for the challenges that will come
in the future.

References

Altaf A, Hughes J (1994) Measuring the demand for improving urban sanitation services: results of
a CV study in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Urban Stud 31:19–30
Ashby MF (2009) Materials and the environment: eco-informed material choice. Elsevier, Oxford
Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW (2003) TRACI, the tool for the reduction and assessment of
chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78
Benoît C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U, Prakash S, Ugaya C, Beck T (2010)
The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess
15:156–163
Benoît-Norris C, Vickery-Niederman G, Valdivia S, Franze J, Traverso M, Ciroth A, Mazijn B
(2011) Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA.
Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:682–690
Bernstad A, la Cour Jansen J (2012) Review of comparative LCAs of food waste management
systems – current status and potential improvements. Waste Manag 32:2439–2455
Björklund A, Dalemo M, Sonesson U (1999) Evaluating a municipal solid waste management plan
using ORWARE. J Clean Prod 7:271–280
British Standards Institution (BSI) (2011) PAS 2050:2011 specification for the assessment of the
life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BSI, London
Brogaard LK, Christensen TH (2012) Quantifying capital goods for collection and transport of
waste. Waste Manag Res 30:1243–1250
200 11 Assessment and Improvement

Bueno G, Latasa I, Lozano PJ (2015) Comparative LCA of two approaches with different emphasis
on energy or material recovery for a municipal solid waste management system in Gipuzkoa.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 51:449–459
Chang NB, Pires A (2015) Sustainable solid waste management: a systems engineering approach,
IEEE book series on systems science and engineering. Wiley–IEEE Press, Hoboken
Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2015) ‘Socializing’ sustainability: a critical review on
current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Technol
Environ Policy 17:579–596
Christensen TH, Bhander G, Lindvall H, Larsen AW, Fruergaard T, Damgaard A, Manfredi S,
Boldrin A, Riber C, Hauschild M (2007) Experience with the use of LCA–modelling
(EASEWASTE) in waste management. Waste Manag Res 25:257–262
Cifrian E, Andres A, Viguri JR (2013) Estimating monitoring indicators and the carbon footprint of
municipal solid waste management in the region of Cantabria, Northern Spain. Waste Biomass
Valoriz 4:271–285
Clavreul J, Guyonnet D, Christensen TH (2012) Quantifying uncertainty in LCA–modelling of
waste management systems. Waste Manag 32:2482–2495
Clavreul J, Baumeister H, Christensen TH, Damgaard A (2014) An environmental assessment
system for environmental technologies. Environ Model Softw 60:18–30
Cleary J (2009) Life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: a compar-
ative analysis of selected peer–reviewed literature. Environ Int 35:1256–1266
Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J, Franklin W, Jensen AA, de Oude N, Parrish R, Perriman R,
Postlethwaite D, Quay B, Séguin J, Vigon B (eds) (1993) Guidelines for life–cycle assessment:
a ‘code of practice’. SETAC, Brussels
Crawford RH (2011) Life cycle assessment in the built environment. Spon Press, New York
Curley M, Salmelin B (2013) Open innovation 20 – a new paradigm. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-
single-market/en/news/open-innovation-20-%E2%80%93-new-paradigm-and-foundation-sus
tainable-europe. Accessed 10 Mar 2018
Curran MA (2006) Life cycle assessment: principles and practice. National Risk Management
Research Laboratory – Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Cincinnati
Dalemo M, Sonesson U, Björklund A, Mingarini K, Frostell B, Nybrant T, Jönsson H, Sundqvist
J-O, Thyselius L (1997) ORWARE – a simulation model for organic waste handling systems.
Resour Conserv Recycl 21:17–37
Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assess-
ment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:88–97
Dupré M, Meineri S (2016) Increasing recycling through displaying feedback and social compar-
ative feedback. J Environ Psychol 48:101–107
Ecobilan (2004) WISARD – waste integrated system for analysis of recovery and disposal.
Ecobilan
Ekvall T, Tillman AM (1997) Open–loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 2:155–162
Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle
inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:161–171
Ekvall T, Assefa G, Björklund A, Eriksson O, Finnveden G (2007) What life–cycle assessment does
and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste Manag 27:989–996
EpE (2010) Protocol for the quantification of greenhouse gases emissions from waste management
activities. http://www.epe-asso.org/en/protocol-quantification-greenhouse-gases-emissions-
waste-management-activities-version-5-october-2013/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018
Eriksson M, Strid I, Hansson PA (2015) Carbon footprint of food waste management options in the
waste hierarchy – a Swedish case study. J Clean Prod 93:115–125
European Commission–Joint Research Centre–Institute for Environment and Sustainability (EC–
JRC–IES) (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook general guide
for life cycle assessment – detailed guidance. European Commission–Joint Research Centre–
Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Luxembourg
References 201

European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment (EPLCA) (2007) Carbon footprint – what it is and
how to measure it. European Commission, Ispra
Fantke PE, Huijbregts MAJ, Margni M, Hauschild MZ, Jolliet O, Mckone TE, Rosenbaum RK, van
De Meent D (2015) USEtox 20 user manual (version 2). http://usetox.org. Accessed 15 Jan 2018
Fava J, Dennison R, Jones B, Curran MA, Vigon B, Selke S, Barnum J (eds) (1991) A technical
framework for life–cycle assessment. SETAC and SETAC Foundation for Environmental
Education, Washington, DC
Fernández-Nava Y, del Río J, Rodríguez-Iglesias J, Castrillón L, Mara E (2014) Life cycle
assessment of different municipal solid waste management options: a case study of Asturias
(Spain). J Clean Prod 81:178–189
Fontaras G, Martini G, Manfredi U, Marotta A, Krasenbrink A, Maffioletti F, Terenghi R, Colombo
M (2012) Assessment of on–road emissions of four Euro V diesel and CNG waste collection
trucks for supporting air–quality improvement initiatives in the city of Milan. Sci Total Environ
426:65–72
Frischknecht R (2010) LCI modelling approaches applied on recycling of materials in view of
environmental sustainability, risk perception and eco–efficiency. Int J Life Cycle Assess
15:666–671
Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Jungbluth N (2008) The ecological scarcity method – eco-factors 2006.
Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000) The eco–indicator 99 – a damage–oriented method for life cycle
impact assessment. https://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/EI99_annexe_v3.pdf.
Accessed 15 Jan 2018
Goedkoop MJ, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe
2008, a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonized category indicators at
the midpoint and the endpoint level. http://www.lcia-recipenet/. Accessed 12 Nov 2012
Guinée JB, Gorree M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S,
Udo de Haes A, de Buijn JA, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (eds) (2002) Handbook on life cycle
assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Hauschild MZ, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impacts assessment–the
EDIP2003, Methodology environmental news no 80. Danish Ministry of the Environment,
Environment Protection Agency, Copenhagen
Hauschild MZ, Dreyer LC, Jørgensen A (2008) Assessing social impacts in a life cycle perspective–
lessons learned. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 57:21–24
Hosseinijou SA, Mansour S, Shirazi MA (2014) Social life cycle assessment for material selection:
a case study of building materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:620–645
Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G (eds) (2008) Environmental life cycle costing. SETAC,
Pensacola, FL (US) in collaboration with CRC Press, Boca Raton
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Fourth assessment report: climate
change 2007 (AR4). IPCC. http://www.ipccch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_
reports–html. Accessed 10 Nov 2012
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006a) ISO 14040 environmental manage-
ment – life cycle assessment: principles and framework. ISO, Geneva
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006b) ISO 14044 environmental manage-
ment – life cycle assessment: requirements and guidelines. ISO, Geneva
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2013) ISO/TS 14067 carbon footprint of
products–requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. ISO, Geneva
Iofrida N, Strano A, Gulisano G, de Luca AI (2018) Why social life cycle assessment is struggling
in development? Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:201–203
Iriarte A, Gabarrell X, Rieradevall J (2009) LCA of selective waste collection systems in dense
urban areas. Waste Manag 29:903–914
Jaunich MK, Levis JW, DeCarolis JF, Gaston EV, Barlaz MA, Bartelt-Hunt SL, Jones EG,
Hauser L, Jaikumar R (2016) Characterization of municipal solid waste collection operations.
Resour Conserv Recycl 114:92–102
202 11 Assessment and Improvement

Jenkins RR, Martinez SA, Plamer K, Podolsky MJ (2003) The determinants of household recycling:
a material–specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. J Environ Econ
Manag 45:294–318
Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT
2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324–330
Keramitsoglou KM, Tsagarakis KP (2013) Public participation in designing a recycling scheme in
Didimoticho, Greece. Resour Conserv Recycl 70:55–67
Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess
13:89–95
Klöpffer W, Grahl B (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA): a guide to best practice. Wiley,
Weinheim
Laurent A, Clavreul J, Bernstad A, Bakas I, Niero M, Gentil E, Christensen TH, Hauschild MZ
(2014) Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems – part II: methodological
guidance for a better practice. Waste Manag 34:589–606
Li Y, Khanal SK (2016) Bioenergy: principles and applications. Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken
López JM, Gómez A, Aparicio F, Sánchez FJ (2009) Comparison of GHG emissions from diesel,
biodiesel and natural gas refuse trucks of the City of Madrid. Appl Energy 86:610–615
Maimoun MA, Reinhart DR, Gammoh FT, Budh PM (2013) Emissions from US waste collection
vehicles. Waste Manag 33:1079–1089
Martinez-Sanchez V, Kromann MA, Astrup TF (2015) Life cycle costing of waste management
systems: overview, calculation principles and case studies. Waste Manag 36:343–355
Martinez-Sanchez V, Tonini D, Møller F, Astrup TP (2016) Life–cycle costing of food waste
management in Denmark: importance of indirect effects. Environ Sci Technol 50:4513–4523
McDougall F, White P, Franke M, Hindle P (2001) Integrated solid waste management: a life cycle
inventory. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford
Meijer J, Kasem N, Lewis K (2017) SM transparency report™/EPD framework part A – LCA
calculation rules and report requirements. http://www.sustainablemindscom/files/transparency/
SM_Part_A_LCA_calculation_rules_and_report_requirements_2017pdf. Accessed 15 Feb
2018
Miafodzyeva S, Brandt N (2013) Recycling behaviour among householders: synthesizing determi-
nants via a meta–analysis. Waste Biomass Valoriz 4:221–235
Pelletier N, Ardente F, Brandão M, de Camillis C, Pennington D (2015) Rationales for and
limitations of preferred solutions for multi–functionality problems in LCA: is increased consis-
tency possible? Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:74–86
Pérez J, Lumbreras J, Rodríguez E, Vedrenne M (2017) A methodology for estimating the carbon
footprint of waste collection vehicles under different scenarios: application to Madrid. Transp
Res Part D 52:156–171
Pires A, Sargedas J, Miguel M, Pina J, Martinho G (2017) A case study of packaging waste
collection systems in Portugal – part II: environmental and economic analysis. Waste Manag
61:108–116
Porter RC (2002) The economics of waste. Resources for the Future, Washington DC
Punkkinen H, Merta E, Teerioja N, Moliis K, Kuvaja E (2012) Environmental sustainability
comparison of a hypothetical pneumatic waste collection system and a door–to–door system.
Waste Manag 32:1775–1781
Rimos S, Hoadley AFA, Brennan DJ (2014) Environmental consequence analysis for resource
depletion. Process Saf Environ Prot 92:849–861
Rödger J-M, Kær LL, Pagoropoulos A (2018) Life cycle costing: an introduction. In: Hauschild
MZ, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI (eds) Life cycle assessment – theory and practice. Springer,
Cham, pp 373–399
Rose L, Hussain M, Ahmed S, Malek K, Costanzo R, Kjeang E (2013) A comparative life cycle
assessment of diesel and compressed natural gas powered refuse collection vehicles in a
Canadian city. Energy Policy 52:453–461
References 203

Rosenbaum RK, Hauschild MZ, Boulay A-M, Fantke P, Laurent A, Núñez M, Vieira M (2018) Life
cycle impact assessment. In: Hauschild M, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen S (eds) Life cycle assess-
ment: theory and practice. Springer, Cham, pp 167–270
Sandhu GS, Frey HF, Bartelt-Hunt S, Jones E (2014) In–use measurement of the activity, fuel use,
and emissions of front–loader refuse trucks. Atmos Environ 92:557–565
Science for Environment Policy (SEP) (2018) Kerbside waste–collection schemes may need
optimisation, highlights Portuguese study. European Commission DG Environment News
Alert Service, issue 504, 7 March 2018, edited by SCU, The University of the West of England,
Bristol
Steen B (1999) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development
(EPS). Available via Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental Planning.
http://www.cpmchalmersse/document/reports/99/1999_4pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2012
Sureau S, Mazijn B, Garrido SR, Achten WMJ (2018) Social life–cycle assessment frameworks: a
review of criteria and indicators proposed to assess social and socioeconomic impacts. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 23:904–920
Teerioja N, Moliis K, Kuvaja E, Ollikainen M, Punkkinen H, Merta E (2012) Pneumatic vs door–
to–door waste collection systems in existing urban areas: a comparison of economic perfor-
mance. Waste Manag 32:1782–1791
Tillman AM (2010) Methodology for life cycle assessment. In: Sonesson U, Berlin J, Ziegler F
(eds) Environmental assessment and management in the food industry. Woodhead Publishing,
Cambridge, pp 59–82
UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations
Environment Program, Paris SETAC Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment
Programme
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2009) Waste reduction model
(WARM). https://www.epagov/warm. Accessed 12 Jan 2018
Varotto A, Spagnolli A (2017) Psychological strategies to promote household recycling: a system-
atic review with meta–analysis of validated field interventions. J Environ Psychol 51:168–188
Wang J, Zhuang H, Lin PC (2016) The environmental impact of distribution to retail channels: a
case study on packaged beverages. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 43:17–27
World Resources Institute (WRI), World and Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD) (2011) Product life cycle accounting and reporting standard. Word Resources
Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, USA
Yildiz-Geyhan E, Altun-Çiftçioğlu GA, Kadırgana MAN (2017) Social life cycle assessment of
different packaging waste collection system. Resour Conserv Recycl 124:1–12
Zampori L, Dotelli G (2014) Design of a sustainable packaging in the food sector by applying LCA.
Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:206–217
 Part III
Sustainable Solid Waste Collection:
Integrated Perspective
Chapter 12
Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach
Sustainable Waste Management

Abstract This chapter focuses on one of the most used OR techniques which is
optimization with linear programming modeling. This technique suits many prob-
lems faced when designing and operating a sustainable solid waste system. Single
and multiple objective problems will be presented, and some OR special problems
will be described with detail (the traveling salesman problem, the vehicle routing
problem, the Chinese postman problem, the transportation problem, and the location
problem). These problems appear in communal site collection and container collec-
tion, curbside collection, and location of containers or landfills, to name a few. Since
in real-world problems, decision-makers pursue conflicting goals, strategies to deal
with such issues are also presented. Several case studies are described, providing a
deeper understanding of the applicability of such techniques.

Keywords Cost optimization · Environmental impact · Multi-objective

programming · Postman problem · Single objective programming · Social impact ·
Vehicle routing problem

12.1 Introduction

Sustainable solid waste management involves a number of strategic, tactical, and

operational decisions: the location and capacity of treatment sites and landfills, the
selection of treatment technologies, waste flow allocation to processing facilities and
landfills, service territory partitioning into districts, collection days’ selection for
each district and for each waste type, fleet composition, and routing and scheduling
of collection vehicles (Ghiani et al. 2014). Operations research (OR) techniques, as
modeling and optimization, can help decision-makers to attain significant cost
savings and improve systems performance regarding environmental and social
impact.
There are some reasons that favor the development of mathematical models. For
instance, when building the model, some relations between different elements of the
problem may be revealed, providing a deeper understanding of the system in study.
Having a model, different scenarios can be tested and analyzed providing the planner

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 207

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_12
208 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

with better information on which to base his decisions. Often scenarios can not be
experimented in “real life” due to the impact they may have on society or due to the
cost of implementation of an “experimental” system.
One of the most used OR techniques is optimization, and mathematical program-
ming models are part of the techniques when one has an objective that wants to
maximize or minimize (Williams 2013). In this chapter, special types of mathemat-
ical programming models are analyzed concerning the adequacy to solve several
problems faced when designing and operating a sustainable solid waste system.
Single objective problems will be presented in Sect. 12.2. These have been applied to
many of the solid waste management issues by means of some OR special problems:
traveling salesman problem, the vehicle routing problem, the Chinese postman
problem, the transportation problem, and the location problem. For instance, com-
munal site collection and container collection problems are suitably modeled as the
traveling salesman problem or the vehicle routing problem (Sects. 12.3.1 and
12.3.2); the curbside collection problems are modeled as the Chinese postman
problem (Sect. 12.3.3); the waste volume to be sent from the depots to transfer
stations is, in OR language, a transportation problem (Sect. 12.3.4); and the location
of landfills or the placement of containers may be formulated as a facility location
problem (Sect. 12.3.5).
Decision-makers often pursue conflicting goals, such as to locate facilities as
close as possible to sources (to minimize transportation costs) and as far as possible
from urban centers (to maximize distance). This enters a new area of mathematical
programming which is the multi-objective optimization. In Sect. 12.4, the main
differences between single and multiple objectives and some methods to solve the
latter problems are addressed. Two case studies where these methods were success-
fully applied will be described to give some real examples where sustainable solid
waste managers can see the real use of these techniques.
The first case addresses the collection and transportation system for supplying a
waste-to-energy facility with solid waste from the municipalities and communities
(Sect. 12.5). Case study 2 presents the retrofit of a waste of electric and electronic
equipment (WEEE) recovery network, where economic and environmental minimi-
zation objectives are taken into consideration simultaneously (Sect. 12.6). Some
conclusion and final remarks will end this chapter.

12.2 Single Objective Models

12.2.1 Linear Programming Model

Motivating Example 1
An SWM system has three intermediate facilities (F1, F2, F3) that send waste to two
disposal facilities (D1, D2). The management needs to establish the amount to send
to each disposal facility from each intermediate facility that minimizes the total
12.2 Single Objective Models 209

Table 12.1 Distance between F1 F2 F3

intermediate facilities and
D1 20 30 60
disposal facilities (in km)
D2 40 20 50

transportation cost. The distance between each facility is known (Table 12.1), and
the cost is estimated as 0.2€ per km.
The disposal facilities, D1 and D2, have capacity limits and cannot receive more
than 40 t and 60 t, respectively. There are 50 t to be sent from F1, 25 t from F2, and
30 t from F3.
To built the model, x11, x12, x21, x22, x31, x32 are introduced as the variables
representing the amounts sent from intermediate facilities 1, 2, and 3 to the disposal
facilities 1 and 2 (e.g., x21 represents the amount sent from intermediate facility F2 to
the disposal facility D1).
The total cost of transporting the waste is given by the expression:
0:2ð20x11 þ 40x12 þ 30x21 þ 20x22 þ 60x31 þ 50x32 Þ ð12:1Þ

The objective of the SWM system is to choose the values for x11, x12, x21, x22, x31,
x32 so as to make the value of this expression as low as possible. This means that
expression (12.1) is the objective function to be minimized (in this case). The
capacities of the disposal facilities limit the values that xij can take. Since there are
two disposal facilities, each has to receive at most the 40 t and 60 t, respectively.
The expression (12.2) models disposal facility D1:
x11 þ x21 þ x31  40 ð12:2Þ

Being the expression for facility D2 given by:

x12 þ x22 þ x32  60 ð12:3Þ

Inequalities (12.2) and (12.3) are known as constraints. They restrict (constraint)
the possible values variables xij can take. Similar constraints have to be written for
the intermediate facilities since they have a maximum amount of waste to send.
These are given by constraints (12.4) to (12.6):
x11 þ x12  50 ð12:4Þ

x21 þ x22  25 ð12:5Þ

x31 þ x32  30 ð12:6Þ

Lastly, all variables are non-negative transportation amounts. This means that
either one does not transport any waste from i to j or the amount must be a positive
value (constraint (12.7)). This last constraint is named as domain constraint and
assures that variable will assume values that make sense:
210 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

x11 , x12 , x21 , x22 , x31 , x32  0: ð12:7Þ

The mathematical model that represents the problem faced by the SWM system is
a Linear Programming model (LP) since all constraints and the objective function are
linear expressions. In short, a LP model is characterized by:
– An objective function – A single linear expression to be maximized or minimized.
– Several linear constraints which must not exceed (), must be at least (), or
must be exactly equal (¼) a specific value.
– The domain constraint to get the variables fully characterized (as continuous
variables).
Generically, a LP model is written in the form:
X
n
min ci xi
i¼1
X
n
s:t: Aij xi  b j , 8j ¼ 1, . . . , m
i¼1
xi  0, 8i ¼ 1, . . . , n

where ci are the coefficients of the objective function, Aij are the coefficients of the
constraints, and bj are the terms on the right side of the constraints which are all
constants.
A LP may include all types of constraints (less-than-or-equal-to, greater-than-or-
equal-to, and equal-to), two types of constraints, or only one kind. Only less-than-or-
equal-to constraints are needed in the example of the SWM system. For more
rigorous and technical details about linear programming models, refer to the text-
books (Bertsimas and Tsitsiklis 1997; Vanderbei 2015).

12.2.2 Mixed-Integer Linear Programming

A huge amount of problems can be formulated using linear constraints and contin-
uous and integer variables (Sioshansi and Conejo 2017). When a model has only
continuous variables, it is a LP model; when it combines both continuous and integer
variables, it is named as mixed-integer linear programming model (MILP). When a
model is only composed of integer variables, it is often named as integer linear
programming (ILP). A special case of integer variables are the binary variables.
These only take two values, 0 and 1. They are extremely important to linearize some
kind of constraints and/or to model “yes/no” decisions. Problems with only binary
variables are called binary linear problems (BLP), and when combined with contin-
uous variables, they are named as mixed binary linear problems. In this book, no
12.2 Single Objective Models 211

such distinction is made, existing only LP models (if only continuous variables are
used) or MILP models (for the remaining cases).
Motivating Example 2
The SWM wants to determine which of the four drivers should be assigned to each of
the four vehicles that collect waste. Each driver has his/her preference, and the
company wants to maximize workers’ total satisfaction. Therefore, each worker
(W1,. . ., W4) was asked to classify each vehicle (V1,. . .,V4) according to the
satisfaction they have in driving it (Table 12.2).
For this problem one defines the variable xij has a binary variable: xij ¼ 1 if driver
Vi (i ¼ 1, . . ., 4) is assigned to vehicle Wj ( j ¼ 1, . . ., 4); and 0, otherwise.
The objective function is then given by the following expression:
max 20x11 þ 12x12 þ 15x13 þ 12x14 þ 8x21 þ . . . þ 12x42 þ 10x43 þ 15x44 :

This problem has three sets of constraints. The first set assures that each driver is
assigned to one vehicle:
x11 þ x12 þ x13 þ x14 ¼1
x21 þ x22 þ x23 þ x24 ¼1
x31 þ x32 þ x33 þ x34 ¼1
x41 þ x42 þ x43 þ x44 ¼1

The second set assures that each vehicle is only assigned to one driver:
x11 þ x21 þ x31 þ x41 ¼1
x12 þ x22 þ x32 þ x42 ¼1
x13 þ x23 þ x33 þ x43 ¼1
x14 þ x24 þ x34 þ x44 ¼1

The last constraint assure that all variables take only 0 or 1 values:

xij 2 f0; 1g, 8i ¼ 1, . . . , 4 j ¼ 1, . . . , 4

Taking all elements together, the problem faced by the company is modeled by:

max 20x11 þ 12x12 þ 15x13 þ 12x14 þ 8x21 þ . . . þ 12x42 þ 10x43

þ 15x44 ð12:8Þ
s:t: x11 þ x12 þ x13 þ x14 ¼ 1 ð12:9Þ

Table 12.2 Satisfaction of V1 V2 V3 V4

each driver regarding each
W1 20 12 15 12
vehicle (in satisfaction units)
W2 8 13 12 15
W3 10 15 7 16
W4 18 12 10 15
212 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

x21 þ x22 þ x23 þ x24 ¼ 1 ð12:10Þ

x31 þ x32 þ x33 þ x34 ¼ 1 ð12:11Þ

x41 þ x42 þ x43 þ x44 ¼ 1 ð12:12Þ

x11 þ x21 þ x31 þ x41 ¼ 1 ð12:13Þ

x12 þ x22 þ x32 þ x42 ¼ 1 ð12:14Þ

x13 þ x23 þ x33 þ x43 ¼ 1 ð12:15Þ

x14 þ x24 þ x34 þ x44 ¼ 1 ð12:16Þ

xij 2 f0; 1g, 8i ¼ 1, . . . , 4 j ¼ 1, . . . , 4 ð12:17Þ

This problem is an example of an assignment problem.

Generically, an MILP model is written in the form:
X
n
min ci xi
i¼1
X
n
s:t: Aij xi  b j , 8j ¼ 1, . . . , m
i¼1
xi  0, for some i ¼ 1, . . . , n
xi 2 f0; 1g for the remaining i ¼ 1, . . . , n

where ci are the coefficients of the objective function, Aij are the coefficients of the
constraints, and bj are the terms on the right side of the constraints which are all
constants. As for LP models, MILP models may include all types of constraints (less-
than-or-equal-to, greater-than-or-equal-to, and equal-to), two types of constraints, or
only one kind. Only equal-to constraints are needed in the example of the SWM
system.

12.2.3 Stochastic Programming

In real problems, data is often uncertain. The above models assume all data to be
known in advance. However, that might not be the case. When facing uncertainty,
one can design a stochastic model. These models are special cases of LP or MILP
models where a finite number of scenarios is estimated and the objective function
will minimize or maximize an expected value. Let us see a small example.
12.2 Single Objective Models 213

Table 12.3 Recyclable waste deposition amounts estimated by scenario and scenario occurrence
probability and bin capacity
Extremely Capacity
Low Average High high per bin
Glass 110 130 150 200 3
Plastic/metal 60 80 120 150 1
Paper 100 150 170 210 2
Probability 0.1 0.5 0.35 0.05 –

Motivating Example 3
Suppose one needs to decide on the number of recyclable bins that should be made
available in a new neighborhood. The amounts of waste that will be disposed of are
unknown. However, four scenarios have been estimated based on the data from
similar neighborhoods (Table 12.3). The decision-maker wants not only to know the
minimum number of bins per recyclable material to make available but also to
minimize the excess and shortfall of waste install capacity. Notice that the number
of bins is a decision that has to be made before one knows the amount that will be
disposed of.
The decision concerning how many bins to make available in the neighborhood is
not scenario dependent (called first-stage decisions). But the excess and the shortfall
capacities are scenario-dependent decisions (called second-stage decisions). Let us
then define the variable xi as the number of bins from recyclable waste type i,
i ¼ 1 (glass), 2 (plastic), 3 (paper) to be made available in the neighborhood, and
yis and zis are the excess and shortfall capacity variables for recyclable waste type i in
scenario s, s ¼ 1 (low), 2 (average), 3 (high), 4 (ext. high). Additionally, consider the
parameters vi as the capacity of each type of bin, ps as the probability of each
scenario, and bis as the estimated amount of waste type i generated in scenario s.
!
X3 X4 X3
min vi xi þ ps yis þ zis ð12:18Þ
i¼1 s¼1 i¼1

s:t: vi xi  yis þ zis ¼ bis , 8i ¼ 1, . . . , 3 s ¼ 1, . . . , 4 ð12:19Þ

xi  0 and integer 8i ¼ 1, . . . , 3
ð12:20Þ
yis , zis  0 8i ¼ 1, . . . , 3 s ¼ 1, . . . , 4

Expression (12.18) models the objective of minimizing the number of bins

together with the excess and shortfall capacity. Notice the number of bins is modeled
by their corresponding capacity (since all terms of the expression have to have the
same unit). The second term of this expression models the expected value of excess
and shortfall capacity. Equations (12.19) assure that the installed capacity minus the
excess capacity plus the shortfall capacity meets the estimated waste generation
volume for each waste type in each scenario. Lastly, constraints (12.20) define
variable domain.
214 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

The model proposed in the motivating example is named as two-stage stochastic

programming model. One should note that extra information has been incorporated
into this model. While in the (simple) MILP model, data is in the form of a single
point, in the (stochastic) MILP, data is represented by a series of estimates, each
weighted by a probability. In fact, it is the MILP model where the objective function
optimizes an expected value. The solution of these problems is not the optimal value
to any scenario (this solution can be computed considering each scenario as an
independent problem), but it reduces the risk of taking the decision before knowing
all the data. As pointed out by Williams (2013), the solution of stochastic models
may be seen as “keeping one’s options open” or not “putting all one’s eggs in one
basket.”
A multistage scenario context may appear when successive scenarios occur over
time. In this case from each scenario in the second stage, there will be several other
scenarios in a third stage, and so on and so forth. A scenario tree will be built which
easily becomes very large, leading to intractable models. For more rigorous and
technical details about stochastic linear programming models, refer to Birge and
Louveaux (1997) and Greenberg and Morrison (2008).

12.2.4 Nonlinear Programming

A problem to be modeled using the mathematical programming techniques

presented above has to have some characteristics. For instance, a resource used by
an activity has to be proportional to the level of the activity. Another assumption is
that the total use of a resource by some activities corresponds to the sum of the uses
by each activity. If some of these conditions do not apply, one can no longer
formulate the problem as a linear programming model. A nonlinear programming
model (NLP) can be defined with three characteristics:
(i) The objective function is a nonlinear function of real values:

g : ℝn ! ℝ

(ii) The constraints are nonlinear expressions of the form:

f i ðx1 ; . . . ; xn Þ  0, 8i ¼ 1, . . . , p
h j ðx1 ; . . . ; xn Þ ¼ 0, 8j ¼ 1, . . . , q

(iii) The decision variables are continuous:

ð x1 ; . . . ; xn Þ 2 ℝ n

where p and q are the number of inequality and equality constraints, respectively.
12.3 Some Special Problems 215

In its generic form, a NLP model can be defined as:

min gðxÞ
s:t:f i ðxÞ  0, 8i ¼ 1, . . . , p
h j ðxÞ ¼ 0, 8j ¼ 1, . . . , q

This kind of problems presents several issues that make their solution very
demanding. Whenever one has the possibility to approximate a nonlinear model
with a linear model, the resulting solution (from the linear model) will provide
insightful information to the decision-maker. In this book nonlinear models are not
addressed. The reader is referred to Bazaraa et al. (2013) and Luenberger and
Ye (2016).

12.2.5 Solving a Linear Programming Model

Software to solve mathematical programming problems is often composed of two

different pieces: a modeling language and a solver (Sioshansi and Conejo 2017). The
former allows the definition of the model using a human-readable format. The user
defines the specific data, variables, constraints, and the objective function. One of the
first mathematical programming languages is GAMS (Bisschop and Meeraus 1982).
Many others have appeared since then: AMPL (Fourer et al. 2002) and OPL (IBM
2017b), among others. Commonly, these programming languages include features
that allow the user to combine it with other software as spreadsheets, databases, and
text files, which considerably facilitates the handling of large amounts of data. The
solver receives a file, in machine language, that has been created by the mathematical
programming language. The optimization problem is, in fact, solved by the solver.
The solution file is then sent back to the modeling language software to be translated
back to a human-readable format. Two state-of-the-art solvers are CPLEX (IBM
2017a) and GUROBI (Gurobi 2016) which solve LP, MILP, and a few types of NLP
models. For NLP, one can find other state-of-the-art solvers as BARON
(Tawarmalani and Sahinidis 2005), MINOS (Murtagh and Saunders 1983), and
CONOPT (Drud 1994).

12.3 Some Special Problems

The first publication regarding waste collection was presented by Beltrami and
Bodin (1974). The vehicle routing problem was the mixed-integer linear program-
ming model used to solve the collection activities of the New York City Department
of Sanitation. In this work, waste to be collected was located in points in the plane as
in any communal site collection and container collection context. In curbside
collection, on the other hand, every house needs to be visited. Consequently, the
216 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

number of spots to visit in communal site collection and container collection is

significantly lower than the number of customers served in curbside collection.
Therefore, communal site collection and container collection problems are more
suited to being modeled as a variant of the traveling salesman problem (TSP), while
curbside collection problems are more suited to being modeled as a variant of the
Chinese postman problem (CPP). The TSP identifies the least cost route of a single
vehicle that includes every node in the network and then returns to the starting node.
The CPP identifies the least cost route of a single vehicle that includes every arc in
the network (Beliën et al. 2014). When several vehicles are used, one no longer
models the problem as a TSP but as a vehicle routing problem (VRP).
Another common issue arising in sustainable solid waste management is the
location of facilities. High costs associated with property acquisition and facility
construction make facility location or relocation projects long-term investments. For
instance, building a new treatment or disposal facility may take 1–4 years, while the
operating life of a facility is estimated to be around 15–30 years (Ghiani et al. 2014).
Thus, decision-makers must select sites that will not simply perform well according
to the current system state but that will continue to be of value for the facility
lifetime, even as environmental factors change, populations shift, and market trends
evolve. Finding robust facility locations is thus a difficult task, demanding that
decision-makers account for uncertain future events (Owen and Daskin 1998).
The classical MILP formulation of these special problems that are so common in
sustainable solid waste management will be presented below. To illustrate some of
them, a brief description of works where such models have been used is provided.

12.3.1 Traveling Salesman Problem

The traveling salesman problem (TSP) is a very well-known optimization problem.

Since its early studies, the problem has been defined as follows: a traveling salesman
wishes to visit exactly once each of a list of m cities and then return to the home city;
knowing that the cost of traveling between cities i and j is cij, what is the minimum
cost route the traveling salesman can take? Its mathematical structure is a graph
where each city is denoted by a point (or node) and lines are drawn connecting every
two nodes (called arcs or edges). Associated with every line is a distance (or cost, or
any other metric that suits the context). If the direction in which an edge of the graph
is traversed matters, the TSP is formulated differently. This aspect is particularly
relevant to waste collection problems. Therefore, two cases must be one distin-
guishes the asymmetric (where cij 6¼ cji) and the symmetric (where cij ¼ cji) TSP.
The asymmetric TSP can be formulated as:
12.3 Some Special Problems 217

m X
X m
min cij xij ð12:21Þ
i¼1 j¼1

X
m
s:t: xij ¼ 1, j ¼ 1, . . . , m ð12:22Þ
i¼1

X
m
xij ¼ 1, i ¼ 1, . . . , m ð12:23Þ
j¼1

XX
xij  jSj  1, S  f1; . . . ; mg, 2  jSj  m  2 ð12:24Þ
i2S j2S

xij 2 f0; 1g, i, j ¼ 1, . . . , m ð12:25Þ

where xij ¼ 1 if arc (i, j) belongs to the solution, and 0 otherwise; and S 6¼ ∅ is a
subset of the nodes 1, . . ., m. Constraints (12.22) and (12.23) impose that if a node is
visited, then there is exactly one arc leaving and one entering the node, respectively,
while (12.24) are subtour elimination constraints (SECs) and impose that no partial
circuit exists (Roberti and Toth 2012).
The symmetric TSP can be formulated as:
X
min cij xij ð12:26Þ
i<j

X X
s:t: xik þ xkj ¼ 2, k ¼ 1, . . . , m ð12:27Þ
i<k k<j

XX
xij  jSj  1, S  f1; . . . ; mg, 3  jSj  m  3 ð12:28Þ
i2S j2S

xij 2 f0; 1g, i, j ¼ 1, . . . , m ð12:29Þ

This symmetric formulation is a particular case of the asymmetric one. Interest-

ingly, the algorithms developed for the asymmetric TSP do not (in general) perform
well when applied to the symmetric TSP (Laporte 2010). An innumerous amount of
algorithms has been proposed over the years to solve these problems (Hoffman et al.
2013). Concorde is today the best available solver for the symmetric TSP and is
freely available at www.tsp.gatech.edu. A detailed description of Concorde can be
found in the book by Applegate et al. (2006).
218 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

Blazquez et al. (2012) address the problem of low-cost PM10 (particulate

matter with aerodynamic diameter < 10 μm) street sweeping route. To do so,
only a subset of the streets of the urban area to be swept is selected for
sweeping, based on their PM10 emission factor values. Subsequently, a
low-cost route that visits each street in the set is computed. Unlike related
problems of waste collection where streets must be visited once (Chinese or
rural postman problem, respectively), in this case, the sweeping vehicle route
must visit each selected street exactly as many times as its number of street
sides, since the vehicle can sweep only one street side at a time. Additionally,
the route must comply with traffic flow and turn constraints. This arc routing
problem was transformed into a node routing problem by representing the
street network topology by a directed graph G, where the nodes represent the
street sides to be swept. Arcs connecting nodes in graph G correspond to the
shortest routes between the street sides to be swept that do not contain high-
priority streets. With this transformation, the problem can be solved by
applying any known solution to the asymmetric traveling salesman problem.
The proposed method was applied to the northeast area of the municipality of
Santiago (Chile). Results show that the proposed methodology achieved up to
37% savings in kilometers traveled by the sweeping vehicle when compared to
the solution obtained by solving the TSP problem with geographic information
systems (GIS) tools.

12.3.2 Vehicle Routing Problem

The vehicle routing problem (VRP) is defined as the problem of determining the
least cost delivery routes from a depot to a set of customers, subject to some
constraints (Laporte 2009). This is one of the central problems in waste collection
management and must be frequently solved by planners. In real-world applications,
there are several variants of the problem since one may encounter diverse operating
policies and constraints.
Formally, the VRP may be defined as follows. Let G ¼ (V, A) be a directed graph
where V ¼ {0, . . ., n} is the node set and A ¼ {(i, j) : i, j 2 V, i 6¼ j} is the arc set.
Node 0 represents the depot, whereas the remaining vertices correspond to collection
points. A fleet of m identical vehicles of capacity Q is based at one single depot. Each
collection point i has a non-negative volume to be collected qi. A cost matrix cij is
defined on A. In the classical VRP and for simplicity, travel costs, distances, and
travel times are assumed to be equivalent. The VRP involves the determination of
m vehicle routes such that each route starts and ends at the depot, each collection
point is visited once, and only once, by one vehicle, the total collection volume of a
route does not exceed Q, and the total length of a route does not exceed a fixed limit
12.3 Some Special Problems 219

L. When m ¼ 1 and Q ¼ 1, the VRP “becomes” the traveling salesman problem.

According to Laporte (2007), the VRP is significantly more difficult to solve than a
TSP of the same size. Different formulations model the symmetric and the
asymmetric VRPs.
Let xij be an integer variable representing the number of times arc (i, j) appears in
the solution, and let E ¼ {(i, j) : i, j 2 V, i < j} be the set of undirected arcs. The
symmetric VRP problem may then be formulated as:
X
min cij xij ð12:30Þ
ði; jÞ2E

X
s:t: x0 j ¼ 2m ð12:31Þ
j2V\ f0g

X X
xik þ xkj ¼ 2, k ¼ 1, . . . , m ð12:32Þ
i<k k<j

& ’
X Xq
xij  i
, S  f1; . . . ; mg ð12:33Þ
Q
i 2 S, j=
2S i2S

2S, j 2 S
or i=

x0 j 2 f0; 1; 2g, j ¼ 1, . . . , m ð12:34Þ

xij 2 f0; 1g, i, j ¼ 1, . . . , m ð12:35Þ

In this formulation, the objective function minimizes the total routing cost
(Eq. (12.30)). Constraints (12.31) define the number of arcs entering or leaving
node 0. Note that the right-hand side can be a constant if m is known a priori.
Constraints (12.32) ensure that two arcs are incident to each node (one arc corre-
sponds to the arrival of the vehicle to the collection site; the other models the vehicle
leaving the site). Constraints (12.33) prevent the formation of subtours by forcing
any subset of customers to be connected to the depot. These constraints also assure
that capacity constraints are meet (the notation [b] stands for the smallest integer
grated or equal to b).
The multi-depot vehicle routing problem (MDVRP) is a generalization of the
vehicle routing problem (VRP) in which, beyond the definition of vehicle routes, it is
necessary to determine from which depot collection nodes are to be visited (Ramos
et al. 2014). The MDVRP simultaneously establishes the service areas of each depot
and the associated vehicle routes. The vehicle routes are defined such that (1) each
route starts and ends at the same depot, (2) each collection node is visited exactly
once by a vehicle, (3) the total collected volume of each route does not exceed the
vehicle capacity, and (4) the total duration of each route (including travel and service
times) does not exceed a preset limit. The best solution is typically one that
220 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

minimizes the total routing cost (distance, time, among others). One possible
formulation for this problem can be found in Chap. 14.

12.3.3 Chinese Postman Problem

In general, any problem that requires that all edges of a graph (streets, etc.) be served
at least once while traveling the shortest total distance overall is a Chinese postman
problem (CPP). An example of such a problem could be a postman who must visit
each house along each street in a neighborhood, or a door-to-door waste collection
system where a single vehicle performs the route, or even a street sweeping system.
While in TSP all collection points are discrete nodes, in the CPP one needs to visit
all arcs.
In traversing a postman route, one must be able to leave every node that the route
visits. In a directed graph (a graph where arcs are oriented), this means that the
number of arcs leading into a given node must equal the number of arcs directed out
of that node. Since the original graph may not satisfy this condition, additional
copies of some arcs must be added to bring this about. This operation is called
balancing and below is outlined an optimal procedure to perform it.
Let G ¼ (V, A) be a directed graph. For every node i 2 V, let si be the number of
arcs entering node i minus the number of arcs leaving node i. Any node with si 6¼ 0 is
an imbalance node and therefore needs to be balanced in order to solve the postman
problem. Let S be the set of nodes i with si > 0 and T the set of nodes i with si < 0.
Assume lij denotes the length of the shortest path from i to j and xij is the number of
additional copies of arc (i, j) to be added to G. The direct Chinese postman problem
can be formulated as (Benavent et al. 2000):
XX
min lij xij ð12:36Þ
i2S j2T

X
s:t: xij ¼ si , i2S ð12:37Þ
j2T

X
xij ¼ s j , j2T ð12:38Þ
i2S

xij  0, i 2 S, j 2 T ð12:39Þ

This model is the linear programming formulation of the transportation problem

which is well known for always having an integer optimal solution when the
constraints right-hand sides are integer.
12.3 Some Special Problems 221

Curbside collection of municipal solid waste (MSW) represents a significant

fraction of waste management cost. Filipiak et al. (2009) applied an algorithm
for the Chinese postman problem to evaluate the truck routes and the optimum
sequence of each of these vehicles needed to collect the generated waste in the
township of Millburn, USA. With a population of 20,000 in approximately
7000 households, this township divides the service area into three sections and
collects waste twice a week from curbsides of single-family and two-family
units using up to four trucks. Then with the aid of commercial software (graph
Magics software), the optimum routes for each of the trucks were obtained.
Results from this optimization study were then compared with the current
waste collection practice. It is shown in this case study that the average total
route length of four trucks that collected solid waste was more than 2 mi
shorter than the real case truck. Any of the four trucks had better results than
the real case. Based on the case study results, improvements to the current
MSW collection procedure were proposed to the township of Millburn, N.J.

A more general problem is the Windy Postman Problem (WPP) where one aims at
finding the minimum cost route traversing all arcs of G at least once. In this problem,
the cost of traversing an arc depends on the direction of travel. Therefore, let G ¼ (V,
E) be an undirected graph where for each arc (i, j) 2 E, there are two associated
non-negative costs cij and cji corresponding to the two different directions: from i to
j and from j to i, respectively. One possible formulation for such problem is given by
Benavent et al. (2000) where δi is the set of all arc incident in node i:
X  
min cij xij þ c ji x ji ð12:40Þ
ði; jÞ2E

s:t: xij þ x ji  1, ði; jÞ 2 E ð12:41Þ

X  
xij  x ji ¼ 0, i2V ð12:42Þ
ði; jÞ2δðiÞ

xij , x ji  0 and integer ð12:43Þ

The objective function (12.40) minimizes the total cost. Constraints (12.41)
assure that every arc is traversed at least once regardless of the direction, and
constrains (12.42) ensure that if node i has a way in arc, it must also have a way
out arc. In the two previous models, all arcs have to be traversed at least once.
However, in some problems only a subset of arcs needs to be traversed. This is
known as the rural postman problem. Both CCP and WPP are particular cases of a
larger class of models: the arc routing problem.
222 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

Braier et al. (2017) apply an integer programming model to optimize the routes
of a recyclable waste collection system servicing Morón, a large municipality
outside Buenos Aires, Argentina. The truck routing problem posed by the
system is a particular case of the generalized directed open rural postman
problem given particular conditions in the Argentinean traffic regulation.
These conditions included the prohibition on left turns at traffic lights and
U-turns (the exception for U-turns in cul-de-sacs), the inclusion of perimeter
bands for detours outside the serviced area, and street directionality (one-way
and two-way). The route solutions generated by the proposed methodology
perform significantly better than the previously used, manually designed
routes. The main improvement is the 100% coverage of blocks within the
municipality with the model solutions, whereas with the manual routes, as
much as 16% of the blocks went unserviced. The proposed routes were
adopted by the municipality in 2014, and the national government is planning
to introduce the methodology elsewhere in the country.

12.3.4 Transportation Problem

The transportation problem is concerned with finding the minimum cost of

transporting a single product from a given number of sources (e.g., depots) to a
given number of destinations (e.g., transfer stations). At each source there are si units
of product to be shipped to some destination, i ¼ 1, . . ., m. Each destination has
available capacity to receive dj units of product, j ¼ 1, . . ., n.
Let xij be the number of units shipped from source i to destination j, and let cij be
the cost of transporting one unit of product from i to j. The linear formulation of the
transportation problem is given by Eqs. (12.44) to (12.47) (Hillier and Lieberman
2014):
X
m X
n
min cij xij ð12:44Þ
i¼1 j¼1

X
m
s:t: xij ¼ d j , j ¼ 1, . . . , n ð12:45Þ
i¼1

X
m
xij ¼ si , i ¼ 1, . . . , m ð12:46Þ
j¼1
12.3 Some Special Problems 223

xij  0, i ¼ 1, . . . , m; j ¼ 1, . . . , n ð12:47Þ

This formulation assumes that

X
m X
n
si ¼ d j:
i¼1 j¼1

If in the real problem this assumption does not hold, it can be reformulated
considering either a dummy destination (dummy source) to take up the extra amount
there is to be shipped (to be received).

12.3.5 Location Problem

Facility location problem has been studied for long, and several models have been
proposed to this date. The simplest location model considers only the trade-off
between fixed operating and variable delivery cost. This problem is concerned
with finding the (undermined number of) facilities to be opened/used among a set
of possible locations that minimize the total cost. This cost accounts not only for the
variable cost of serving a set of customers but also the fixed cost of opening the
facilities. Let zij be the fraction of customer zone j’s demand satisfied by the facility
located at location i and yi a binary variable that assumes a value of 1 if a facility is to
be established at location i. Concerning costs, assume fi as the fixed cost of
establishing a facility at location i and cij the total distribution cost for supplying
all of customers zone site j’s demand by the facility at location i. Verter (2011)
proposed model (12.48) to (12.51) as a formulation for the uncapacitated facility
location problem:
X
m X
n X
n
min cij zij þ f jy j ð12:48Þ
i¼1 j¼1 j¼1

X
n
s:t: zij ¼ 1, i ¼ 1, . . . , m ð12:49Þ
j¼1

zij  y j i ¼ 1, . . . , m; j ¼ 1, . . . , n ð12:50Þ

0  zij  1, y j 2 f0; 1g i ¼ 1, . . . , m; j ¼ 1, . . . , n ð12:51Þ

The objective function (12.48) represents the total fixed and variable costs.
Equations (12.49) guarantee that the demand at each customer zone is satisfied.
Constraints (12.50) ensure that customer demand can be satisfied only from the
locations where a facility is established, i.e., if yi ¼ 1, and in such case, the firm
incurs the associated fixed costs (the second term of the objective function).
224 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

Badran and El-Haggar (2006) propose a mixed-integer programming model

for the location of collection stations in Port Said to minimize the municipal
solid waste management system total cost. The municipal solid waste includes
both the hazardous and the construction and demolition waste. The best
locations for collection stations are selected from a given set of candidate
locations so that system cost is minimized. Given the lack of detailed data,
several scenarios were studied to analyze the best answer to three questions:
(i) should the construction and demolition waste and the hazardous waste
flows be firstly sent to the composting plant and then to the landfill or directly
from the collection station to the landfill? (ii) should the daily capacity of
collection stations be 10 ton, 15 ton, or a mix of the two? (iii) should the waste
generated from each source be sent only in the collection stations available in
that source or not? The least cost solution presents mixed capacities to the
collection stations with no limitation on the waste flow from the source to the
collection station. The objective function of the best solution has a total value
of 10,122 LE/day (US$1716/day). The total number of collection stations is
29, where 27 of them have a 15 tons daily capacity, and two have a daily
capacity of 10 tons. In this scenario, the capacity of the composting plant is
fully utilized. The flow from the composting plant to the landfill is 92.84 tons
per day.

Many location models minimize some function of the distances between facili-
ties. This is appropriate when locating service facilities. However, if one is locating
an obnoxious facility, such as a waste bin, a landfill, or an incineration facility
reactor, closeness is undesirable. In such instances, a model which maximizes some
function of distance may be more appropriate (Erkut and Neuman 1989).

12.4 Multiple Objectives

In current real-world problems, the decision-maker (DM) has often to face more than
one criteria (cost, service quality, equity, etc.) which often are conflicting when
searching for the optimal solutions (Antunes et al. 2016). Such problems enter new
areas of operations research where multiple criteria need to be simultaneously
accounted for when finding a solution.
Under the designation of multiple criteria approaches, two distinct areas emerge
in the specialized literature:
– Decision-making with multiple attributes.
– Decision support with multiple objectives.
Areas differ in the way alternatives are defined. The former one refers tradition-
ally to the selection, ranking, or categorization problems of a finite set of alternatives
12.4 Multiple Objectives 225

(these are known a priori). This lies within what is named as multi-criteria decision-
making which is addressed in Chap. 13. The latter concerns problems in which the
alternatives are defined by a set of constraints. These problems enter a new area of
mathematical programming: multi-objective programming (MOP) where multiple
objective functions are explicitly considered.
The concept of optimal solution is, in MOP, known as Pareto optimal solution
(also known as efficient, nondominated, or noninferior solution). A solution is said
to be nondominated if there is no other feasible solution that simultaneously
improves all the objective function values (Steuer 1986). Notice that in MOP,
improving an objective implies deteriorating, at least, one of the other objective
function values.
The MOP methods have been traditionally divided into three categories,
according to the process of modeling the decision-maker preferences:
– An a priori modeling of preferences is made.
– No articulation of preferences is made (generating methods).
– Progressive articulation of preferences (interactive methods).
In the a priori methods, the aggregation of preferences is made before any
computation has been performed; consequently, the problem is first transformed
into a single objective problem (e.g., selecting one objective function to be optimized
considering the remaining objectives as constraints, optimizing a weighted sum of
the objective functions, or minimizing a distance function to a reference point using
different metrics). These methods do not allow the DM to have an active role in the
decision-making process which often leads to lesser receptiveness regarding the
proposed solutions. In the second category of methods (generating methods), all
nondominated solutions are generated and presented to the decision-maker. These
methods present two major drawbacks when applied to real-world problems: the
computational burden required for computing the entire set of nondominated solu-
tions is too high; proposing hundreds or thousands of solutions to a decision-maker
is not useful for the exploitation of results in practice. Lastly, interactive methods
enable a step-by-step articulation of the decision-maker’s preferences (e.g., STEM
(Benayoun et al. 1971), interval criterion weights (Steuer 1986). These methods
imply the interaction between a computation and a dialogue phase. After each
computation phase, one (or several) nondominated solution(s) is (are) proposed to
the DM. He/she reacts providing the necessary information to start a new computa-
tion phase or deciding to stop the procedure. Generically, a MOLP model is written
in the form:
X
n
min f 1 ¼ ci1 xi
i¼1
...
X n
min f k ¼ cik xi
i¼1
226 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

X
n
s:t: Aij xi  b j , 8j ¼ 1, . . . , m
i¼1
xi  0, 8i ¼ 1, . . . , n

When optimizing a single objective function, the feasible region, in the decision
space x 2 S, is mapped onto ℝ. In the multi-objective context, the decision space is
mapped onto a k-dimensional space Z ¼ {z ¼ f(x) 2 ℝk : x 2 S}, named “objective
function space” or “criteria space.” In this latter space, each solution x 2 S is
represented by a vector z ¼ (z1, z2, . . ., zk) ¼ f(x) ¼ ( f1(x), f2(x), . . ., fk(x)). Given
that one faces conflicting objective functions, no feasible solution x 2 S simulta-
neously optimizes all objective functions. Therefore, in multi-objective optimiza-
tion, decision-makers seek for “good compromise solutions.” These “good”
solutions are called efficient, nondominated, or Pareto optimal solutions. The pro-
jection of the Pareto optimal set under the objective functions is called Pareto front
(Barth et al. 2004).

12.4.1 Lexicographic Method

Considerer the MOLP model proposed above. Suppose the decision-maker ranks the
objectives according to his preference such that f1(x) is of higher importance than
f2(x), f2(x) is of higher importance than f3(x), and so on.
First, one minimizes f1(x) subjected to x 2 S and determines an optimal solution
x∗ with f1(x∗) ¼ z1. Next one solves the problem of minimizing f2(x) subjected to
x 2 S and f1(x)  z1 + δ1 where δ1 is a positive deviation from the optimal value of the
most important objective function accepted by the decision-maker. The remaining
objective functions are sequentially optimized adding in each step a new constraint
to the feasible region. In general, in the ith iteration, one solves:
 
min f i ðxÞ : f j ðxÞ  z j þ δ j ; j ¼ 1; . . . ; i  1 :
x2S

Further details can be found in Khorram et al. (2010).

Erkut et al. (2008) propose a mixed-integer multiple objective linear program-

ming model, which helps to solve the location-allocation problem of munic-
ipal solid waste management facilities in the Central Macedonia region in
North Greece. Five objectives are considered: minimize the greenhouse effect,
minimize the amount of final disposal, maximize the amount of energy
recovery, maximize the amount of material recovery, and minimize the total

(continued)
12.4 Multiple Objectives 227

opening, transportation, and processing costs. The multi-objective problem is

formulated as a lexicographic minimax problem to find a fair nondominated
solution, a solution with all normalized objectives as equal as possible. How to
replace the original lexicographic minimax problem with the lexicographic
minimum problem is discussed. The model is applied to compare and contrast
the prefectural and regional planning for MSW management. Computational
experiments with data from Central Macedonia show that the gains achieved
by moving from a prefectural to a regional plan are minimal since the waste
flow between prefectures is small. However, when assuming all objective
functions as equally important, the regional plan generated is superior to the
prefectural plan only on the total cost objective. Notice, that this decision
being so data dependent, there may be other instances where regional plans
dominate prefectural plans by a wider margin.

12.4.2 Weighted Sum Method

One of the most frequent methods to deal with multi-objective problem is to define a
new objective function as the weighted sum of the multiple objective (function
(12.52)). The weights should reflect the decision-maker’s preferences regarding
each objective. This method transforms a multi-objective problem into a single
objective one:
min f ðxÞ ¼ w1  f 1 ðxÞ þ w2  f 2 ðxÞ þ . . . þ wk  f k ðxÞ ð12:52Þ

X
n
s:t: Aij xi  b j , 8j ¼ 1, . . . , m
i¼1
xi  0, 8i ¼ 1, . . . , n

with wi > 0, i ¼ 1, . . .k and w1 + w2 + . . . + wk ¼ 1.

For further details, refer to textbook of Antunes et al. (2016).

12.4.3 Distance Minimization to the Ideal Point

If a efficient solution closer to the ideal situation is to be found, the distance

minimization to the ideal point is the adequate method used. The ideal solution zI
is, in fact, a reference point, and one way to compute it is to solve each objective
228 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

 
function individually.1 Consequently, zI ¼ z∗ ∗ ∗
1 ; z2 ; . . . ; zk . Too often, this refer-
ence point represents an unattainable outcome, and therefore one may wish to find
the feasible outcome that is closer to the ideal. The compromise solution found by
this method is always an efficient solution.
Two distance functions allow one to define a multiple objective problem into a
(mixed integer) linear programming model: Manhattan and Chebyshev distances.
The latter is the largest individual absolute difference of any pair of coordinates
between two points and is useful in minimax settings. The model that minimizes the
Manhattan distance to the ideal point is as follows:

min f ðxÞ ¼j f 1 ðxÞ  z∗ ∗ ∗

1 j þ j f 2 ðxÞ  z2 j þ . . . þ j f k ðxÞ  zk j ð12:53Þ

X
n
s:t: Aij xi  b j , 8j ¼ 1, . . . , m
i¼1
xi  0, 8i ¼ 1, . . . , n

Since f i ðxÞ  z∗
i  0, i ¼ 1, . . . , k, then function (12.53) can be transformed into
the linear function (12.54):
     
min f ðxÞ ¼ f 1 ðxÞ  z∗ ∗ ∗
1 þ f 2 ð xÞ  z 2 þ . . . þ f k ð xÞ  z k : ð12:54Þ

The model that minimizes the Chebyshev distance to the ideal point is as follows:

min max j f i ðxÞ  z∗

i j ð12:55Þ
i¼1, ...k

X
n
s:t: Aij xi  b j , 8j ¼ 1, . . . , m
i¼1
xi  0, 8i ¼ 1, . . . , n

The linearization of the above model is given by model (12.56). For further
details, refer to Eiselt and Sandblom (2007) and Antunes et al. (2016).
min v ð12:56Þ

X
n
s:t: Aij xi  b j , 8j ¼ 1, . . . , m
i¼1
f i ð xÞ  z ∗
i  v, 8i ¼ 1, . . . , k
xi  0, 8i ¼ 1, . . . , n

1
The reference point can be any point that properly reflects the decision-maker’s preferences.
12.4 Multiple Objectives 229

12.4.4 ε-Constraint Method

The last method presented is the ε-constraint method where the most important
objective fj (x) is selected to be minimized, while the remaining objectives are
converted into inequality constraints. The multiple objective programming problem
defined above is redefined as:
X
n
min f j ¼ cij xi
i¼1
X
n
s:t: Aij xi  b j , 8j ¼ 1, . . . , m
i¼1
X
n
cip xi  εp , 8p ¼ 1, . . . j  1, j þ 1, . . . , k
i¼1
xi  0, 8i ¼ 1, . . . , n

Varying the εp values, it is possible to reach all nondominated solution

(Pet-Armacost et al. 2013).
According to Mavrotas (2009), the ε-constraint method presents three aspects
needing careful attention: (1) the calculation of the range of the objective functions
over the efficient set; (2) the guarantee of efficiency of the obtained solution, and
(3) the increased solution time for problems with more than two objective functions.
In this work, the author proposes an improved version of the ε-constraint method to
address those aspects, the so-called augmented ε-constraint method. To overcome
the first issue, the lexicographic optimization approach is applied over every objec-
tive function in order to compute the range of the objective functions (the payoff
table) over the efficient set. The lexicographic approach will ensure the Pareto
optimality by optimizing a first objective function and then, among the possible
alternative optima, optimizing a second objective function, and so on. If the range of
the objective functions is obtained only by individual optimization, it is not
guaranteed that the solutions obtained are Pareto optimal solutions since alternative
optima may be presented (weak efficiency). To overcome the second issue, Mavrotas
(2009) suggests the objective functions set as constraints are transformed into
equalities (instead of inequalities as in the traditional method) by incorporating
slack or surplus non-negative variables. These new variables are then used as a
second term in the objective function penalizing it if their value differs from zero.
This strategy forces the model to produce only efficient solutions. When dealing
with three objective functions, a total of (m + 1)  (n + 1) runs are performed to obtain
the Pareto front, where m and n are the equal intervals dividing the range of each
objective function. Lastly, to decrease the number of runs, the algorithm initiates
with the more relaxed version of the constrained objective function and gradually
restricts the bounds. When the problem becomes infeasible, it means that from that
point below, only infeasible models will be obtained. Therefore, the algorithm
proceeds to the next grid point.
230 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

12.4.5 Iterative Methods

If the decision-maker is unable to give enough information about the relative

importance of the objective functions, methods such as weighted sum and lexico-
graphic are not adequate. Several methods have been defined to overcome such
drawback. These are traditionally iterative methods where the facilitator and the
decision-maker discuss the adequacy of the solutions provided by the methods.
When the decision-maker is happy with one solution, the iterative process ends.
One example of such a method is the STEM method proposed by Benayoun et al.
(1971). This iterative exploration procedure finds the best compromise among
objectives (compromise solution) after a certain number of cycles. Each cycle has
a calculation phase, and a decision-making phase, i.e., a conversation between the
facilitator and the decision-maker. During the decision-making phase, the decision-
maker examines the results of the calculations and identifies the satisfactory and
unsatisfactory objectives and also indicates which objectives in the current solution
can be decreased to achieve an improvement in the unsatisfactory objectives. A new
constraint is added to the model; a new compromise solution is determined. The
procedure ends when the decision-maker is satisfied with the solution.
Other methods such as the Zionts and Wallenius method, the TRIMAP, and
Pareto race method have been successively applied to real-world problems (Antunes
et al. 2016). However, one cannot say one of them is superior to all the others. In
fact, some methods may suit different DMs and problems better than the others. One
must always keep in mind that for an iterative method to be successfully applied, the
DM must be available and willing to actively participate in the solution process and
direct it according to her/his preferences (Miettinen et al. 2008).

12.5 Case Study 1: Integrated Assessment of a New Waste-

to-Energy Facility in Central Greece in the Context
of Regional Perspectives

Perkoulidis et al. (2010) examined a centralized waste-to-energy (WtE) plant sited in

Thiva (Viotia, Greece) to serve municipalities as a potential treatment facility. The
supplying of the candidate facility was assessed through the evaluation of different
transfer schemes considering local conditions and economic criteria. In particular,
the direct transportation of MSW from the producers to the WtE facility with refuse
collection vehicles (RCV) or via a transfer station that was at the time inexistent.
Moreover, six different cases regarding the energy recovery of the candidate WtE
facility and the relevant energy efficiency, as EC defines it, were assessed to examine
how WtE could meet the requirements of the new 2008/98/EC Directive on waste
(EC 2008).
The transfer station possible locations were evaluated and identified from the
solution of facility location model previously developed by the authors so that an
12.6 Case Study 2: A Recovery Network for WEEE – A Sustainable Design 231

efficient supplying chain between the waste producers and the waste-to-energy
facility could be put in place. Four potential scenarios for the regional waste
management were assessed via the multi-criteria decision-making method and
ELECTRE III method (see Chap. 13) using four criteria: total cost, biodegradable
municipal waste diversion from landfill, energy recovery, and greenhouse gas
emissions.
The study demonstrated that a waste management scenario based on a waste-to-
energy plant with an adjacent landfill for disposal of the residues would be the best
performing option for the region, depending however on the priorities of the
decision-makers. Also, it was also showed that efficient planning is necessary and
the simultaneous operation of sanitary landfills and a WtE should be avoided.
A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of increased recycling
rate, on the calorific value of treated municipal solid waste and the gate fee of the
candidate plant. It showed that increased recycling efforts would not diminish the
potential for incineration with energy recovery from waste and neither would have
adverse impacts on the gate fee of the waste-to-energy plant.

12.6 Case Study 2: A Recovery Network for WEEE – A

Sustainable Design

Furtado et al. (2011) and Gomes and Barbosa-Povoa (2014) studied the redesign of
Amb3e recovery network in order to minimize both the costs and the environmental
impacts. Amb3e is an association responsible for the management of waste of
electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) recovery network This network involves
different activities: people drop off products at gathering points (GP); the unsorted
products are sent to collection centers (CC), sorted, and then sent to proper treatment
facilities (TF). Products are sorted according to five operational flows defined by
Amb3e: the flow A encompasses all the big equipment, the flow B includes cooling
and refrigeration equipment, the flow C has all the small equipment, the flow D has
lighting equipment, and the flow E has televisions and cathodic ray tubes. In 2012,
flow A was the more representative one, with 35.5% of all products collected,
followed by flow B (25.9%), flow E (13.8%), flow C (13.4%), and, finally, flow D
(1.4%).
The network comprised 315 gathering points, but given the strategic nature of this
work and without losing accuracy, these were grouped into 278 GPs, one for each
municipality of mainland Portugal. There were also eight treatment facilities spread
over mainland Portugal. The objective was to know the best location for the
collection centers which could be located in all Portuguese municipalities. Amb3e
outsources all product transportation to the treatment facilities.
In short, the problem can be defined as follows: given a superstructure composed
by all possible locations of the entities in the network, the distance between all the
pairs of entities, the estimated WEEE volume to be collected at each generation
232 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

source, the recovery target set by legislation, the sorting criteria to be performed at
the CCs, the initial stock levels at the entities, the maximum storage capacity,
maximum and minimum processing capacities, upper and lower limits for flows
between all pair of entities, and all the costs and environmental impacts involved in
the network, determine the locations of CCs, the flows between GPs and CCs and
between CCs and TFs, the storage volumes at CCs and TFs, and the processed and
disposed volumes at each TF, that minimizes the total cost and the global environ-
mental impact of the network.
The developed MILP model accounts for all the abovementioned data. A
two-time scale allows the simultaneous modeling of strategic and tactical decisions
such as the location of CC (strategic) and the planning decisions related with
collection, sorting, storage, processing, and transportation volumes (tactical).
Environmental aspects were modeled through an LCA approach where environ-
mental impacts were associated to transportation (a distance-dependent parameter
that accounts for gas consumption and emission to the atmosphere and heavy metal
emissions to land and water); processing activities at TF’s facilities (accounts for all
processing activities in terms of energy consumption and gas emissions); disposal
activities (linked to the proper disposal of products that cannot be recycled, this
might represent a benefit for the environment function since products may be
incinerated and energy produced); CC installation (accounts for land use impact
and all end-of-life activities related to the (future) closed down of such units); storage
of material (emissions caused by stored material and land used); and lastly no
product collection (reflecting the harm caused by products that are improperly
disposed, either by being left at the nature or being landfilled with organic waste).
All values were calculated according to SimaPro (Goedkoop et al. (2004)).
Different analyses were performed: (1) the total cost of the network was mini-
mized, comparing the current scenario with the optimized one; (2) a similar analysis
was performed with the minimization of the environmental impacts; and (3) a multi-
objective approach was followed to define an approximation of the Pareto front. All
results were provided by GAMS/CPLEX (build 23.3).

12.6.1 The Current Network

For the current network, all the 278 possible locations for the collection centers were
assumed to be installed. There were also 278 GPs, one for each municipality, and
8 TFs that existed in mainland Portugal. For this network the total cost scenario
generated a result of about 59,000 thousand euros. The major contribution comes
from processing costs (66%), followed by the transportation costs (17.8%), CCs
opening costs (7.1%), the compensation fees to CCs (6.8%), and storage costs
(2.3%). The global environmental impact of the current scenario is about 4000
points. The largest part comes from to CCs installation representing a total of
62.1%, followed by TFs operation (14.6%), processing (12.0%), transportation
(9.3%), disposal (1.4%), and finally storage impacts (0.6%). These results set the
baseline comparison for the optimized networks presented next.
12.6 Case Study 2: A Recovery Network for WEEE – A Sustainable Design 233

12.6.2 The Optimal Network

The optimal number of CC opened was optimized considering each objective

functions independently, leading to different results. In addition to the 278 GPs
and the 8 TFs, the total cost minimization scenario proposes the opening of 20 CCs.
This represents a total cost of about 55,500 euros, which leads to 6% decrease
regarding the current network cost (Table 12.4). The cost structure is similar to the
current one, except on the costs of opening CC that represents only 0.5% of the total
against 6.8% of the previous one.

Table 12.4 Environmental impacts and total cost of both optimal network structures
Environmental impact (103 No. of
Optimal solutions Cost (103€) pts) CC
Cost minimization 55,500 1800 20
Environmental impact 63,600 1690 15
minimization

Fig. 12.1 Cost minimization and environmental impact minimization (source: Furtado et al. (2011)
234 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

The environmental impact minimization scenario proposes only 15 CCs be

opened, five less than the optimal cost scenario. This led to a global environmental
impact of about 1690 points, representing a massive reduction from the 4000 points
of the current structure. This reduction was mainly due to the reduction of CCs
opened. Figure 12.1 shows all connections between CC and TF in the two optimal
solutions.

12.6.3 Scenario Comparison

A comparison of all the results above was made to have a better perception of what
happens in each scenario. In the total cost scenario, the compensation fee, the
processing, the transportation, and the storage costs are virtually the same whether
the current or the optimized network is considered. This happens because these costs
are directly linked to the collection of WEEE that is performed. So, being both
scenarios modeled for the same country and the same collection rates, it is only
normal that those costs are almost the same. So, it is safe to assume that the variable
that makes a difference is the number of CCs opened. Table 12.4 shows that a 7%
reduction in the total environmental impact (1800 vs. 1690) corresponds to a 14%
increase in total cost (55,550 vs. 63,600). This cost increase is caused by the
reduction of the number of CC from 20 to 15 and consequently the increase in
transportation costs.

12.6.4 Multi-Objective Analysis

To simultaneously analyze both objectives, a multi-objective methodology was

applied. The optimal values obtained previously (Table 12.4) were assumed as
approximations to the two extreme points of the Pareto front. The ε-constraint
method (section 12.4.4) was applied to compute other efficient points. The economic
objective function was chosen to be minimized, while the environmental objective
function was set as a constraint. The efficient solutions were obtained by varying the
limit imposed according to the constraint (12.57):
F e ¼ ε  I max : ð12:57Þ

where Fe is the equation of the environmental objective function and ε 2 [0, 1] and
Imax is the total environmental impact of the lowest-cost network.
Initially, it was intended to apply the multi-objective methodology to mainland
Portugal. However, given the model dimensions, it was computationally impossible
to realize such study. Thus, the analysis was performed on a smaller geographical
area, the municipalities of Lisbon and Vale do Tejo (LVT), which is the Portuguese
region with largest number of municipalities (53 of the 278 municipalities in main-
land Portugal) and is the location of four of the eight treatment and recovery units.
12.7 Final Remarks 235

Table 12.5 Total cost and environmental impacts of network structures for LVT area
Environmental
Optimal solutions Cost (103€) impact (103 pts) No. of CC
Cost minimization 19,534 669 6
Environmental impact minimization 22,190 608 4

Fig. 12.2 Pareto front for Lisbon and Vale do Tejo region

Table 12.5 presents the cost and impact values obtained as extreme points for the
Pareto front related to LVT. The minimization of the environmental function leads to
a 10% reduction of the environmental impact of the minimum cost network. This
reduction is traded off by a 13% increase in the total cost of the logistics network.
Figure 12.2 shows an approximation to the Pareto front. These points were
computed varying ε between 0.9 and 1, with increments of 0.02. Its negative
exponential form suggests that benefits regarding environmental impacts become
smaller as the total cost network reaches its minimum value. This is to mean that as
the network becomes greener, the investments need to be larger to have an effective
environmental impact benefit.

12.7 Final Remarks

In this chapter, mathematical programming models were presented and illustrated by

several works addressing solid waste management issues. In fact, the existing
literature focusing on such topics is extremely rich where contributions aim at
finding the optimal solution for reduced problems of the more complex ones.
Nonetheless, models generate insights which lead to better decisions and improve
thinking skills by breaking problems down into components. They make assump-
tions explicit and may be seen as a laboratory in which decision-makers can
experiment and learn by testing the implications of alternative courses of action.
236 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

They are a helpful tool in developing not only a recommended decision, but they also
in building the rationale behind the why a given decision is preferred.
By no means, the intention was to be exhaustive in this chapter. The focus was on
what are the most common models and methods used in the literature concerning
sustainable waste management.

References

Antunes CH, Alves MJ, Clímaco J (2016) Multiobjective linear and integer programming. EURO
advanced tutorials on operational research. Springer, Schweiz
Applegate DL, Bixby RE, Chvaátal V et al (2006) The Traveling Salesman Problem: a computa-
tional study. Princeton series in applied mathematics Princeton. Princeton University Press,
Princeton
Badran MF, El-Haggar SM (2006) Optimization of municipal solid waste management in Port
Said–Egypt. Waste Manag 26(5):534–545
Barth M, Scora G, Younglove T (2004) Modal emissions model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles.
Transp Res Rec 1880:10–20
Bazaraa MS, Sherali HD, Shetty CM (2013) Nonlinear programming: theory and algorithms. John
Wiley & Sons, New York
Beliën J, De Boeck L, Van Ackere J (2014) Municipal solid waste collection and management
problems: a literature review. Transp Sci 48:78–102
Beltrami EJ, Bodin LD (1974) Networks and vehicle routing for municipal waste collection.
Networks 4(1):65–94
Benavent E, Corberán A, Sanchis JM (2000) Linear programming based methods for solving arc
routing problems. In: Dror M (ed) Arc routing: theory, solutions and applications. Springer,
Boston, pp 231–275
Benayoun R, De Montgolfier J, Tergny J et al (1971) Linear programming with multiple objective
functions: step method (STEM). Math Program 1(1):366–375
Bertsimas D, Tsitsiklis JN (1997) Introduction to linear optimization. Athena Scientific, Belmont
Birge JR, Louveaux F (1997) Introduction to stochastic programming. Springer, Berlin
Bisschop J, Meeraus A (1982) On the development of a general algebraic modeling system in a
strategic planning environment. In: Goffin JL, Rousseau JM (eds) Applications, mathematical
programming studies, vol 20. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–29
Blazquez CA, Beghelli A, Meneses VP (2012) A novel methodology for determining low-cost fine
particulate matter street sweeping routes. JAPCA J Air Waste Manage Assoc 62(2):242–251
Braier G, Durán G, Marenco J et al (2017) An integer programming approach to a real-world
recyclable waste collection problem in Argentina. Waste Manag Res 35(5):525–533
Drud AS (1994) CONOPT – a large-scale GRG code. ORSA J Comput 6(2):207–216
European Parliament, Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. Off J Eur Union
L312:3–30
Eiselt HA, Sandblom CL (2007) Linear programming and its applications. Springer Science &
Business Media, Berlin/Heidelberg
Erkut E, Neuman S (1989) Analytical models for locating undesirable facilities. Eur J Oper Res 40
(3):275–291
Erkut E, Karagiannidis A, Perkoulidis G, Tjandra SA (2008) A multicriteria facility location model
for municipal solid waste management in North Greece. Eur J Oper Res 187:1402–1421
Filipiak KA, Abdel-Malek L, Hsieh HN et al (2009) Optimization of municipal solid waste
collection system: case study. Pract Period Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste Manage 13
(3):210–216
References 237

Fourer R, Gay DM, Kernighan BW (2002) AMPL: a modeling language for mathematical pro-
gramming. Duxbury Press
Furtado P, Gomes MI, Barbosa-Povoa AP (2011) Design of an electric and electronic equipment
recovery network in Portugal-Costs vs. Sustainability. In: Pistikopoulos N, Georgiadis MC,
Kokossis AC (eds) Computer aided chemical engineering, vol 29. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp
1200–1204
Ghiani G, Laganà D, Manni E, Musmanno R, Vigo D, (2014) Operations research in solid waste
management: A survey of strategic and tactical issues. Comput. Oper. Res. 44, 22–32
Goedkoop M, Oele M, Leijting J, Ponsioen T, Meijer E (2004) SimaPro 6-Introduction to LCA with
SimaPro. Amersfoort, the Netherlands: PRé Consultants
Gomes MI, Barbosa-Povoa AP (2014) Projecto de uma rede logística para a recolha de
equipamentos elétricos e eletrónicos. In: Oliveira RC, Ferreira JS (eds) Investigação operacional
em ação: casos de aplicação. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, chapter 11.
Greenberg H, Morrison T (2008) Chapter 14: Robust optimization. In: Ravindran AR
(ed) Operations research and management science. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Gurobi Optimization, Inc. (2016) Gurobi optimizer reference manual. http://www.gurobi.com
Hillier FS, Lieberman GJ (2014) Introduction to operations research. McGraw Hill. Inc., New York
Hoffman KL, Padberg M, Rinaldi G (2013) Traveling salesman problem. In: Encyclopedia of
operations research and management science. Springer US, Berlin, pp 1573–1578
IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio (2017a) CPLEX User’s Manual Version 12 Release
7. www.cplex.com
IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio (2017b) OPL Language User’s Manual Version
12 Release 7. https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSSA5P
Khorram E, Zarepisheh M, Ghaznavi-Ghosoni BA (2010) Sensitivity analysis on the priority of the
objective functions in lexicographic multiple objective linear programs. Eur J Oper Res 207
(3):1162–1168
Laporte G (2007) What you should know about the vehicle routing problem. Nav Res Logist
54:811–819
Laporte G (2009) Fifty years of vehicle routing. Transp Sci 43:408–416
Laporte G (2010) A concise guide to the traveling salesman problem. J Oper Res Soc 61(1):35–40
Luenberger DG, Ye Y (2016) Linear and nonlinear programming. In: Price CC (ed) International
series in operations research & management science, vol 228. Springer International Publishing,
Cham
Mavrotas G (2009) Effective implementation of the epsilon-constraint method in multi-objective
mathematical programming problems. Appl Math Comput 213:455–465
Miettinen K, Ruiz F, Wierzbicki AP (2008) Multiobjective optimization: introduction to
multiobjective optimization: interactive approaches. In: Branke J, Deb K, Miettinen K,
Słowiński R (eds) Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5252. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg,
pp 27–57
Murtagh BA, Saunders MA (1983) MINOS 5.4 User’s Guide. Report SOL 83-20R, Systems
Optimization Laboratory
Owen SH, Daskin MS (1998) Strategic facility location: a review. Eur J Oper Res 111:423–447
Perkoulidis G, Papageorgiou A, Karagiannidis A, Kalogirou S, (2010) Integrated assessment of a
new Waste-to-Energy facility in Central Greece in the context of regional perspectives. Waste
Manag. 30, 1395–1406
Pet-Armacost J, Mollaghasemi M, Armacost RL (2013) Interactive multiple objective mathematical
programming. In: Gass S, Fu M (eds) Encyclopedia of operations research and management
science. Springer US, Boston, pp 784–792
Ramos TRP, Gomes MI, Barbosa-Póvoa AP (2014) Economic and environmental concerns in
planning recyclable waste collection systems. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 62:34–54
Roberti R, Toth P (2012) Models and algorithms for the asymmetric traveling salesman problem: an
experimental comparison. EURO J Transp Logist 1(1–2):113–133
238 12 Optimization in Waste Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste Management

Sioshansi R, Conejo AJ (2017) Optimization in engineering: models and algorithms, vol 120.
Springer, Cham
Steuer R (1986) Multiple criteria optimization: theory computation and application. Wiley,
New York
Tawarmalani M, Sahinidis NV (2005) A polyhedral branch-and-cut approach to global optimiza-
tion. Math Program 103(2):225–249
Vanderbei RJ (2015) Linear programming. Springer, Heidelberg
Verter V (2011) Uncapacitated and capacitated facility location problems. In: Eiselt HA, Marianov
V (eds) Foundations of location analysis. Springer, Boston, pp 25–37
Williams HP (2013) Model building in mathematical programming. Wiley, UK
Chapter 13
Multi-criteria Decision-Making in Waste
Collection to Reach Sustainable Waste
Management

Abstract Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is concerned with theory and

methodology that can deal with complex problems encountered in sustainable waste
management. It provides methodologies to support decision-makers when selecting
the best compromise among a set of alternative characterized by different and
conflicting criteria. The top five methods used in solid waste management (SAW,
AHP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, ELECTRE) are described with detail. The existence
of multiple stakeholders and MCDA software is also addressed. This chapter ends
with five case studies providing an overview of how these methods have been
supporting decision-making in SWM.r

Keywords AHP · ELECTRE · PROMETHEE · SAW · Stakeholders · Sustainable

decisions · TOPSIS · Waste management

13.1 Introduction

Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is concerned with theory and

methodology that can deal with complex problems encountered in business,
engineering, and other areas of human activity (Achillas et al. 2013). MCDM
includes two complementary areas: mathematics-based multiple objective pro-
gramming (MOP) – addressed in Chap. 12 – and decision-maker-driven multi-
criteria decision analysis (MCDA). In a nutshell, MCDA methods aim to compare
or rank any set of alternatives based on the criteria adopted, whereas MOP
techniques are focused on determining the set of optimal alternatives according
to the criteria considered (Goulart-Coelho et al. 2017).
MCDA is a sub-discipline of operations research that explicitly considers
multiple criteria (e.g., points of view, goals) in decision-making environments
(Achillas et al. 2013). A complex problem is characterized by noncomparable and
conflicting criteria or objectives such as cost, performance, reliability, safety,
productivity, and affordability. In the presence of multiple criteria, a unique
optimal decision for the problem does not exist, but rather many decisions are
suitable (Wiecek et al. 2008). A very large number of MCDA methods have been

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 239

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_13
240 13 Multi-criteria Decision-Making in Waste Collection to Reach. . .

proposed over the years to help in selecting the best compromise alternatives rather
than taking decisions based only on personal thoughts, views, or experiences.
Sustainable solid waste management is a complex process which includes waste
collection routes, transfer station locations, treatment strategy, treatment plant
location, and energy recovery. When designing and managing sustainable waste
systems, decision-makers should define local and regional goals on all or some of
these activities and then plan a strategy accordingly. MCDA provides methodol-
ogies to help decision-makers in selecting the best compromise among alternatives
through (i) the organization of the different elements into a hierarchical structure,
(i) the apprehension of the relationships between components of the problem, and
(iii) the encouragement of the communication among stakeholders (Malczewski
2006). Moreover, MCDA methodologies provide decision-makers with a powerful
tool toward convincing the public over the optimal waste management strategy
since these techniques attempt to make (subjective) decision-making process as
transparent and explicit as possible (Belton and Stewart 2001; Hajkowicz and
Higgins 2008).
Guitouni and Martel (1998) categorized MCDA methods in three groups based
on the way they model the decision-maker(s)‘s preferences: single synthesizing,
outranking, and interactive approaches (Guitouni and Martel 1998). The first
approach builds functions that aggregate alternatives scores and then maximizes
the final score. The outranking methods model decision-maker(s)s preferences
making use of binary comparisons of alternatives in each criterion (Martel 1999).
Lastly, methods with interactive approaches present trade-off solutions and dia-
logues with the decision-makers to reach a conclusion.
This chapter unfolds as follows. The generic methodology of multi-criteria
decision analysis methods is presented together with the basic concepts and
terminology (Sect. 13.2). Section 13.3 presents five of the most known MCDA
models that have been extensively applied to decision-making in SWM; this
section ends with a brief comparison of the models. Uncertainty is a major issue
in decision-making. It may be related to decision-maker values and judgments
and/or related to imperfect knowledge concerning consequences of actions. Sen-
sitivity analysis is discussed in Sect. 13.4, and it is a powerful and well-studied tool
that provides valuable information concerning the decision robustness. Given the
models’ complexity, software is an essential tool when dealing with real-world
challenges; a brief review of some tailored design software is presented in Sect.
13.5. Dealing with multiple stakeholders in decision-making is the topic address in
Sect. 13.6. Lastly, five case studies are presented to provide with an overview of
how have been these methods of help in SWM and what kind of decisions have
been addressed.
13.2 Generic Multi-Criteria Analysis Methodology 241

13.2 Generic Multi-Criteria Analysis Methodology

An MCDA method aims to rank or score a finite number of decision options based
on a set of evaluation criteria. The MCDA model can be represented by a perfor-
mance table M of n alternatives (decision options) and m criteria, where each
entrance xij reflects the score for alternative i with respect to criterion j:
2 3
x11 . . . x1m
M¼4⋮ ⋱ ⋮5
xn1 . . . xnm

xij may be quantitative or qualitative data. The importance of each criterion is given
in a one dimensional weights vector W containing m weights, where wj denotes the
weight assigned to the jth criterion, W ¼ (w1, . . ., wm). The MCDA methods aim to:
• Define the function ri ¼ f(X, W ), R ¼ (r1, . . ., rn) and provide a rank order of the
alternatives.
• Define the function ui ¼ g(X, W), U ¼ (u1, . . ., un) and compute a utility score for
each alternative.
The utility score may be viewed as a measure of the overall benefit or worth of an
alternative relative to the other alternatives in study. Values ri and ui may then be
used by the decision-maker to:
• Select a single alternative.
• Select a subset of alternatives.
• Determine an ordering of all alternatives.
Under some conditions, such as strict dominance and nondiscrimination, criteria
should be removed from an MCDA model. Criteria are in “strict dominance” when
one alternative is outperformed by another in all criteria. When criteria do not
provide differentiation among the alternatives (all have the same performance
evaluation), one says they are nondiscriminating (Hajkowicz and Higgins 2008).
The application of MCDA methods usually includes several steps, which are
depicted in Fig. 13.1:

Fig. 13.1 MCDA decision-making steps

242 13 Multi-criteria Decision-Making in Waste Collection to Reach. . .

1. Establish decision context – where goals are defined and the decision-makers
selected.
2. Build the model:
(a) Identify criteria: define and describe all criteria that will be use to evaluate the
alternatives; depending on the context, they might be clustered into a hierar-
chy. There are no strategies to assess the optimal number of criteria. In some
cases, the type of MCDA or the capacity of the decision-makers to deal
information put a limit on (or favor a certain) the number of criteria. When
in doubt about excluding a criterion, it is always prudent to take it into
account in the analysis, since some MCDA methods allow a criterion to be
dropped in a later stage.
(b) Identify alternatives.
(c) Select the MCDA method.
3. Scoring – this may require decision-maker preference inputs:
(a) Score the alternatives for each criterion (xij).
(b) Check consistency of scores.
(c) Score normalization: transform scores into commensurate units; this step is
needed for some of the MCDA methods.
4. Weighting – this step heavily dependents on decision-maker preferences:
(a) Assign weights to each criterion.
(b) Check consistency of weights.
5. Recommendation:
(a) Rank the alternatives based on scores and weights.
(b) Analyse if the rank makes sense intuitively.
6. Perform sensitivity analysis (weights, performance measures, etc.).

13.3 Multi-Criteria Decision Aid Methods

The number of MCDA methods has increased rapidly over the past decades (for a
comprehensive review, see Figueira et al. (2016b)). They provide almost unlimited
options for modeling decision-makers preferences to attain a result.
A recent work reviewed of 221 papers published since 1980 in solid waste
management where MCDA techniques were applied. Goulart-Coelho et al. (2017)
determined the top five methodologies: Analytic Hierarchy Process (42%), Simple
Additive Weighting (24%), ELECTRE methodology (10%), and PROMETHEE and
TOPSIS (both with about 7%). ELECTRE and PROMETHEE are outranking
methods, where preferences are based on comparisons between pairs of alternatives
to assess if an alternative is at least as good as another (Cinelli et al. 2014).
13.3 Multi-Criteria Decision Aid Methods 243

ELECTRE and PROMETHEE were placed fourth and sixth, respectively, as the
most used methods mentioned in the revised works.

13.3.1 Simple Additive Weighting (SAW)

Simple Additive Weighting is one of the simplest and widely applied techniques of
MCDA. In weighted average, for each criterion, the scores are transformed onto a
normalized scale (commonly 0 to 1, where 0 represents the worst performance and
1 the best one), multiplied by weights, and summed to attain overall score. The
selection (or rank) of alternatives should be made according to the score determined
as a weighted average of the normalized values:

X
m
ui ¼ w j xij ,
j¼1

where w1 + . . . + wm ¼ 1, 0 < wj < 1.

Simple weighted averaging models are compensatory methods; this is to mean
that good values for an alternative on one criterion can offset poor values on another
criterion (Adelman 2013).
The examples of such methods are SMART (simple multi-attribute rating
method), MAUT (multiple attribute utility theory), and MAVT (multiple attribute
value theory). In SMART, weights are derived using direct numerical ratio judg-
ments of the relative importance of attributes – swing weighting method. First the
decision-makers rank the order of the criterion in decreasing order of importance and
assign an arbitrary value to the most important criteria. Then they judge how much
less important each of the remaining criteria is in relation to the most important and
attribute a corresponding value. Finally, the ratio weights are normalized (Wang and
Yang 1998). This way of computing weights allows the weight on a criterion to
reflect both the range of difference of the alternatives and how much that difference
matters to the decision-makers. Both MAVT and MAUT methods assume there is a
value (utility)-based function representing the decision-maker preferences. Such
functions need to be assessed and then are used to aggregate and rank the alternatives
(Guitouni and Martel 1998).

13.3.2 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

One of the most popular MCDA methods is AHP, proposed by Saaty (1980). AHP
hierarchically decomposes the decision problem and, making use of pairwise com-
parison, computes a numerical value allowing for a final raking of alternatives. To
measure criteria of relative weights using AHP, decision-makers are asked to make a
series of pairwise comparison judgments on a five-point ratio scale [1, 3, 5, 7, 9]. The
244 13 Multi-criteria Decision-Making in Waste Collection to Reach. . .

same approach is used to access relative importance (weights) between the alterna-
tives within each criterion. The computation of relative weights involves three steps.
Considering the pairwise comparison matrix, the sum of each column is first
calculated. Then, the matrix is normalized by dividing each element in the matrix
by the corresponding column total (the new matrix is called the normalized pairwise
comparison matrix). Lastly, the average of the elements in each row of the
normalized matrix is made by dividing the sum of normalized scores for each row
by the number of criteria. A consistency test should be performed to access the
quality of the comparison matrix. Only consistent matrices should be used to
compute the relative weights. Consistency means that the decision-maker is coherent
when making pairwise comparisons (Taha 2003).
Despite wide applications of the AHP in a variety of domains and at different
levels of the decision hierarchy, the AHP has been criticized from several view-
points. Perez (1995) shows that the method should be handled with care since in
AHP the introduction of a new alternative may (or may not) change the alternatives
ranking (rank reversal).

13.3.3 TOPSIS

Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, TOPSIS, looks for
alternatives with the shortest distance from the ideal alternative and the farthest from
the most disadvantage option (Hwang and Yoon 1981). The ideal alternative is a
hypothetical alternative that comprises the most desirable outcomes for the evalua-
tion criteria. The nadir represents another hypothetical alternative comprising the
least desirable outcomes for evaluation criteria.
The set of alternatives is compared by (1) identifying weights for each criterion;
(2) normalizing scores in each criterion; (3) calculating a distance, D+, between each
alternative and the ideal alternative (best on each criterion) and a distance, D, to the
nadir alternative (worst) across the weighted criteria, using one of several possible
distance measures (e.g., Euclidean distance); (4) calculating the index of similarities;
and finally, (5) ranking the alternatives in decreasing order with the calculated index.
The index of similarities is calculated as the ratio between the distance (separation)
from the nadir alternative and the sum distance from the ideal and nadir alternatives:
D
:
D þ D
þ

The alternative that is closest to the ideal point, and at the same time farthest from
the nadir, is the best alternative under this decision rule (Nyerges and Jankowski
2009). Benefits of TOPSIS include that the only judgments required to the decision-
maker are weights, while the ratio depends on the weights and the range of
alternatives themselves.
13.3 Multi-Criteria Decision Aid Methods 245

13.3.4 PROMETHEE

Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment, PROMETHEE, is a

methodology for MCDA problems that was developed by J.P. Brans during the
early 1980s. They are part of the outranking MCDA family and are based on a set of
prerequisites (Brans and De Smet 2016): (i) the extent of difference between the
performance of two alternatives must be accounted for; (ii) the scales of the criteria
are irrelevant as comparisons are performed on a pairwise base; (iii) three cases are
possible: alternative a is preferred to alternative b, alternative a and alternative b are
indifferent, and alternative a and alternative b are incomparable; (iv) the methods
should be easily understandable by the decision-makers; and (v) weights must be
assigned in a flexible manner.
The assessment procedure requires information between and within the criteria.
Concerning the information between the criteria, this is expressed as the relative
importance among them and consists of weights that are independent from the
measurement scales.
To obtain information within the criteria, a preference function for each criterion,
expressing the difference in performance of alternative a over alternative b, must be
identified adopting, as a result, the pairwise comparison approach. Six different
shapes for the preference function have been defined, and the identification of the
appropriate ones is a task of the analyst who has to question the DM in a structured
manner (Brans and De Smet 2016).
Once the preference functions for all the criteria and the weights (wi) of the criteria
are identified, a global preference index indicating the degree of preference of a over
b can then be calculated as the weighted average. Subsequently, two parameters,
leaving and entering outranking flows, must be calculated, indicating the outranking
power and weaknesses of each alternative over the other, respectively. Lastly, the
leaving and entering flows can be combined, resulting in the net outranking flow that
provides the performance of each alternative (Cinelli et al. 2014).

13.3.5 ELECTRE

Elimination and choice expressing the reality, ELECTRE is, as PROMETHEE, a

methodological approach belonging to outranking MCDA family. As an outranking
approach, it aims to assess whether alternative a is at least as good as (in other words
it outranks) b. The first method was developed by Bernard Roy in the 1960s.
Preferences are structured on four elementary binary relations: indifference, prefer-
ence, weak preference, and incomparability (Figueira et al. 2016a). To identify the
outranking relations, concordance and discordance indexes are employed that refer
to the cases where the criteria of alternative a are the same or better than those of b
(aSb) and to the cases where criteria of a are not as good as those of b (bSa),
respectively. ELECTRE methods were developed in order to account for heteroge-
neous criteria whose aggregation in a common scale is difficult, to prevent
246 13 Multi-criteria Decision-Making in Waste Collection to Reach. . .

compensation behavior and to account for differences in terms of preferences,

leading in this way to the introduction of thresholds. Several ELECTRE methods
have been developed to solve different decision problems: choice (ELECTRE I, Iv,
and IS), ranking (ELECTRE II, III, and IV), and sorting (ELECTRE TRI, TRI C, and
TRI nC) (Figueira et al. 2016a).

13.3.6 Comparison of MCDA Methods

Table 13.1 synthesizes the five most applied MCDA methods in SWM studies.
Advantages and disadvantages are also presented to ease the understanding of the
limitation each method presents. Notice there is no “best” method; all have pros and
cons. Since there is no general rule for the choice of a specific MCDA method for a
waste stream, the only criterion considered seems to be the question whether the
decision-maker necessitates or not a ranking of the alternatives (Achillas et al. 2013).
Undoubtedly, the decision on the MCDA method to be employed is also influenced
by the authors’ previous experience and the availability of adequate software.

13.4 Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis is an ex post way to analyze how robust the model is to possible
uncertainties (Mustajoki and Marttunen 2017). One type of sensitivity analysis is
investigating the impact of parameter values in weights and performances on MCDA
outcomes. One can assess such impact on the overall value after weighting and
aggregating have been performed. In the literature, this process is also sometimes
named as “robustness analysis”. While these two terms have different meanings,
similar methods can be used to reveal the impact of uncertainty in the estimated
values. Among them, the most frequently used methods for sensitivity analysis are
deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Next is presented the description
of the deterministic process. For details concerning the probabilistic approach, refer
to Marsh et al. (2017).
Deterministic sensitivity analysis, one parameter, either a criterion weight or an
alternative score, is varied at a time, and its impact on the alternatives ranking is
observed. If the rank order of alternatives remains unchanged, the decision can be
seen as a robust one. Otherwise, one can measure how much the parameter can be
changed (by increasing or decreasing its value) without affecting the rank of the
alternatives. Deterministic sensitivity analysis is also a valuable tool to investigate
the influence of criterion weights on the final ranking. As previously, one should
vary the criterion weights one by one and analyze the changes in the overall values of
the alternatives.
13.4 Sensitivity Analysis 247

Table 13.1 Comparison of MCDA methods

MCDA
method Description Advantages Disadvantages
SAW Value-based method Easy to use and well Normalization is
understandable required
Use utility as Applicable when exact Compensation between
measurement and total information is good scores on some
collected criteria and bad scores
Well-proven technique on other criteria can
Good performance when occur
compared with more
sophisticated methods
AHP Use of value-based, Applicable when exact Compensation between
compensatory, and and total information is good scores on some
pairwise comparison collected criteria and bad scores
approach Incorporates qualitative on other criteria can
and quantitative criteria occur
Use of hierarchical Decision problem can be Implementation is quite
structure to decompose fragmented into its inconvenient due to
a complex problem smallest elements, mak- complexity
ing evidence of each cri-
terion applied
Generation of inconsis- Complex computation is
tency index to assure required
decision-makers
Time-consuming due to
pairwise comparisons
Normalization is
required
TOPSIS Use of value-based Easy to implement and Normalization is
compensatory method understandable principle required
Measure distances of Provision of a well-
alternatives to the ideal structured analytical
and nadir solution framework for alterna-
tives ranking
Alternative ranking Consideration of both
according to the close- the positive and negative
ness to the ideal ideal (nadir) solutions
solution Applicable when exact
and total information is
collected
Allows the use of fuzzy
numbers to deal with
uncertainty problems
PROMETHEE Use of outranking Applicable even when Time-consuming with-
method, pairwise com- there is missing out using specific
parison, and compensa- information software
tory method
(continued)
248 13 Multi-criteria Decision-Making in Waste Collection to Reach. . .

Table 13.1 (continued)

MCDA
method Description Advantages Disadvantages
Use of positive and When using many
negative preference criteria, it becomes dif-
flows for each alterna- ficult for decision-
tive in the valued maker to obtain a clear
outranking view of the problem
Applicable even when
simple and efficient
information is needed
Generation of ranking
in relation to decision
weights
ELECTRE Use of outranking Applicable even when Time-consuming with-
method, pairwise com- there are incomparable out using specific soft-
parison, and compensa- alternatives ware due to complex
tory method Applicable even when computational
incorporation of uncer- procedure
tainties is required
Use of indirect method Applicable for quantita- May or may not provide
that ranks alternatives tive and qualitative the preferred alternative
using pairwise attributes
comparison
Source: Based on Pires et al. (2011)

Tornado graph is a very helpful deterministic sensitivity analysis visualization

graph. Such graphs show the impact on model’s final result of fixed changes (e.g.,
15%, 2.5% and + 2.5%, +15%) in one model parameters at a time (Fig. 13.2). It
is particularly valuable for showing which parameter has the greatest influence on
the final outcome. A tornado graph is a horizontal bar chart where each bar
represents one parameter and the length of the bar represents the variation of the
model outcome when the parameters vary from its lowest value to its highest. Only
one parameter is analyzed at a time, while the remaining parameters are set to their
initial values. The name of the chart comes from the way the different bars are
placed: the longest bar (corresponds to the most influential parameter) is placed on
the top of the chart, the second most influential parameter bar is placed second, and
so on (Clemen and Reilly 2013). For instance, the vertical axis of Fig. 13.2 repre-
sents three primary cost and revenue variables with uncertainty limit of 40%,
respectively, Yadav et al. (2018). Uncertainty limit of 40% means that the value of
final score is examined for reduction and increment of 40% in the values of cost and
revenue parameters. This limit is chosen based on the  Lcapacities
 of existing MSW
processing facilities.
 In the figure MSW generation ( G i ; G i
U
) and recycled fraction
of MSW ( αiL ; αiU ) are the most sensitive cost and revenue parameters as 40%
reduction in the mid-values reduces final score value to 124,060 and 40% reduction
in the values increases final score value to 234,973.
13.4 Sensitivity Analysis 249

[GiL, GiU]

parameters
Cost
[TSIijL, TSIijU]

[TSIjkL, TSIjkU]
40% -40%
[αlL, αlU]

parameters
Revenue
[βlL, βlU]

[γl , γlU]
L

100000 150000 200000 250000 300000

Overall cost (Z) in Rs/day

Fig. 13.2 Tornado diagram example. (Source: Yadav et al. (2018))

Goulart-Coelho et al. (2017) in their review found out that among the articles that
performed a sensitivity analysis the main objectives were: to evaluate the impact of
weight changes on the final ranking (72%); to study the sensitivity related to
aggregation, normalization, and thresholds assumed (20%); to assess the effect on
the data, such as criteria values, and waste quantities and composition (18%); and to
investigate the impact of the criteria selected (7%). The heavy dependency of criteria
weights on definition regarding decision-maker’s judgments might justify the prev-
alence of such studies. Nevertheless, the impact on the final ranking due to the
criteria adopted, the input data, the aggregation method, the normalization process,
and the thresholds values can be as significant as, or even more significant than, the
one related to weights.
Gómez-Delgado and Tarantola (2006), using variance-based methods based on
Monte Carlo simulation, performed an extensive sensitivity analysis of the criteria
used to determine the best location for a hazardous waste landfill site in Madrid,
Spain. They concluded that only 3, out of 11, criteria jointly account for more the
97% of the output variance in the multi-criteria spatial decision model. These criteria
were: slope (46%), sensitivity of groundwater system to pollution (28%), and type of
soil (23%). The analysis performed on weights showed that all the weights remained
very far from the factors that represented the major source of uncertainty. Vafaei
et al. (2016) study the importance of selecting suitable normalization techniques
when using a MCDA method such as TOPSIS. With an illustrative example, the
authors concluded that without considering a proper normalization technique as well
as appropriate representation of criteria (cost or benefit), the decision results might
prove highly inaccurate.
250 13 Multi-criteria Decision-Making in Waste Collection to Reach. . .

13.5 MCDA Software

Various multi-criteria software tools or decision support systems (DSS) have been
developed to support the application of MCDA methods in practice (see
Weistroffer and Li (2016) for an exhaustive review). These tools not only give
computational methods implementation but also usually provide various ways to
support other phases of the process, such as model building and results analysis
(Soltani et al. 2015). Graphical user interfaces are an essential features of MCDA
software since they determine how comfortable the user is in working with the DSS,
and the level of comfort influences how frequently the model is used and how
believable its results are (MacDonald 1996). Moreover, by visualizing the process
and the results, it facilitates the illustrative, transparent, and understandable realiza-
tion of a decision-making analysis (Reichert et al. 2013).
Software support is provided for all the MCDA methods presented above,
although the features of each of them are different. Five different software will be
presented below to provide a brief insight of the existing spectrum concerning
decision-making software.1
DecideIT software2 employs a SAW-based method and aims at being a decision
tool that handles imprecision. It distinguishes itself from other methods within this
approach by refraining from precise numerical inputs (although this is also possible)
and builds on various degrees of imprecise statements including comparisons to
meet conditions of uncertainty. It provides the modeling of decision trees, scenarios
and criteria are categorized, and criteria weights, as well as scenario performances,
can be defined with various options of imprecise statements (Buchholz et al. 2009).
SANNA 20093 is an Excel freeware add-in for multi-criteria decision support of
problems up to 180 alternatives and 50 criteria. It allows the estimation of weights
using several methods (e.g., pairwise comparisons) and incorporates methods such
as SAW, TOPSIS, two ELECTRE methodologies (I and III), and PROMETHEE,
among others (Weistroffer and Li 2016).
HIPRE 3C4 is a software family that allows individual and group decision
support. It integrates AHP and SMART, which can be run separately or combined
in one model. The visual interface is customizable to ease the process of structuring,
prioritization, and analysis of complex decision problems (Weistroffer and Li 2016).
ELECTRE III–IV5 aggregate partial preferences into a fuzzy or several non-fuzzy
outranking relations. The non-fuzzy ones are useful when criteria cannot be

1
In http://www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ewgmcda/index.php/software and http://www.mcdmsociety.org/
content/software-related-mcdm, one can find a brief description and the link to several available
software.
2
https://preference.nu/products/decideit/
3
http://nb.vse.cz/~jablon/sanna.htm
4
http://www.hipre.hut.fi
5
http://www.lamsade.dauphine.fr/spip.php?article240&lang¼en
6
http://www.promethee-gaia.net/softwareF.html
13.6 Dealing with Multiple Stakeholders in the Decision-Making Process 251

weighted. A “distillation” procedure proposes two complete pre-ordering of the

alternatives. The intersection of these pre-orderings shows the most consistent global
preferences among alternatives (Weistroffer and Li 2016).
Visual PROMETHEE,6 also known as Decision Lab 2000, is an interactive
decision support system based on two outranking methods PROMETHEE and
GAIA (Brans and De Smet 2016), suitable for individual and group decision-
making. Sensitivity analyses can be performed using techniques such as multi-
scenario comparisons and intervals of stability, among others. The embedded
methodology requires a much smaller number of comparisons from the decision-
maker than the AHP method; it allows the definition of measurement scale particular
to the decision-maker. The PROMap GIS feature connects Visual PROMETHEE
with Google Maps.

13.6 Dealing with Multiple Stakeholders in the Decision-

Making Process

Soltani et al. (2015) performed a literature review to investigate how MCDA

methods helped to address decision-making in sustainable solid waste management
when multiple stakeholders (as government, municipalities, industries, experts,
and/or general public) are involved. Authors pointed out four characteristics as
being significant in this context:
• Extent of stakeholders’ involvement in the decision-making process (i.e., stake-
holders can choose criteria of concern, rank criteria based on their importance,
and/or evaluate the performance of alternatives in each criterion).
• Stakeholder groups (i.e., local governments, municipalities, public or residents,
experts, and other nongovernmental organizations or industry).
• Hierarchy of stakeholders (i.e., some stakeholders may have priority or veto
power in decision-making).
• Relationship among stakeholders (i.e., competition, coalition, or both); this
category is mainly looking for solutions toward conflicts among stakeholders.
Although MCDA is effective for decision-making with multiple stakeholders,
these should first agree on some elements including “set of alternative options, set
of criteria, scores to be attributed to each of these criteria for each of those options,
weights to apply to criteria, ranking method to be used to compare options” (Van
den Hove 2006). Conflict often rises when stakeholders, having diverse interests,
express different priorities over criteria of decision-making. Different views
among the decision-makers may be due to three main causes (Roy 1989; Belton
and Pictet 1997):
• Uncertainty: caused by the inherent limitations in apprehending and representing
the problem and context and in the precision of appropriate data. This occurs in
any modeling activity.
252 13 Multi-criteria Decision-Making in Waste Collection to Reach. . .

• Conflict: about problem definition, criteria, and/or alternative definition, which

results from the different values or priorities of the decision-makers; if the
decision-makers reach the point of not speaking to each other, then methods
such as mediation or litigation have to be used.
• Misunderstanding: a consequence of different perspectives and partial
information.
Belton and Pictet (1997) proposed a framework for contextualizing MCDA in
group decision support, which focuses on a range of procedures to come up to an
answer to the question: to which extent should decisions be shared among the
stakeholder? The authors propose three procedures defining the way in which the
views of individuals are brought together with the aim of achieving a group
decision:
• Sharing aims to obtain a common element by consensus, through a discussion of
the views and the negotiation of an agreement; it addresses the differences and
tries to reduce them by explicitly discussing their cause.
• Aggregating aims to obtain a common element by compromise, through a vote or
calculation of a representative value; it acknowledges the differences and tries to
reduce them without explicitly discussing their cause.
• Comparing aims to obtain an individual element (to reach an eventual consensus
based on negotiation of independent individual results); it acknowledges the
differences without necessarily trying to reduce them.
The authors argue that for the sake of consistency alternatives, criteria and weight
should be common to all decision-makers. The role of the facilitator in the process of
decision-maker is considerably different at each perspective. While in sharing, the
facilitator has to be constantly aware of the process; in the aggregating and compar-
ing, a lesser commitment is needed since, in the extreme, the facilitator will interact
with each decision-maker separately. Other issues, related to the procedure adopted
to reach a decision, are also pointed out: cyclicity of the process and shared
understanding, level of comparison, basis for comparing individual results, use of
time (sharing is much more time-consuming, but the expectation of a consensual
outcome is also higher), face-to-face meetings or computer-supported collabora-
tions, choice of participants, difference in expertise, and ownership and commitment
to the decision.

13.7 MCDA Case Studies

Most studies on sustainable waste management strategies have mainly focused on

two stages: the waste treatment strategy and the location of treatment plant because
of the magnitude of their ecological and financial impacts (Soltani et al. 2015).
Nonetheless, other very noteworthy works have been published. In this section,
five case studies addressing different issues are presented. The first case addresses
13.7 MCDA Case Studies 253

waste management in a refugee camp. Authors study different alternatives to deal

with the particular reality of such a context (people live under very poor condi-
tions, and the consumption of food coming from humanitarian aids causes the
generation of much solid waste). The second case study is also related with waste
management and has two aspects that should be pointed out: one of the alternatives
is “business as usual” meaning that the authors consider the scenario of not
changing the current status quo. This is a real relevant aspect since, very often,
studies lack access to the quality of the current waste management with regard to
the new alternatives. The other significant aspect is the way very similar final
scores in the top rank alternatives are handled. The third case study concerns waste
management strategies. The results proceeded by two methods are compared: a
single indicator (the ecological footprint) and MCDA method with six criteria (one
of them is the ecological footprint). The fourth, and the last, case study addressing
waste management tackles the retrofit of a management system to comply with
European Union recycling targets. One of the interesting aspects of this work is
how the authors have dealt with uncertainty issues. The last case study proposed a
single score index to evaluate the performance of two distinct selective collection
schemes.

13.7.1 Multi-criteria Decision Analysis for Waste

Management in Saharawi Refugee Camps

Garfì et al. (2009) applied AHP to compare and rank different waste management
solutions in Saharawi refugee camps (Algeria). Given the particular conditions in
which environmental and social aspects need to be taken into account, four
different waste collection and management alternatives were scored according to
the 39 criteria. The selected alternatives were S1 (waste collection by using three
tipper trucks, disposal, and burning in an open area), S2 (waste collection by using
seven dumpers and disposal in a landfill), S3 (waste collection by using seven
dumpers, three tipper trucks, and disposal in a landfill), and S4 (waste collection by
using three tipper trucks and disposal in a landfill). The criteria were divided into
general criteria for human development projects (technical, social, environmental,
and economic criteria for humanitarian and environmental projects) and specific
criteria for waste management (technical objectives specifically applied in waste
management).
The results show that the second and the third solutions (seven dumpers and
disposal in a landfill and seven dumpers, three tipper trucks, and disposal in a
landfill) were the better alternatives for waste management. In fact, what made
them more sustainable were, according to the authors, (i) the preference for dumpers
instead of trucks in terms of greater suitability and appropriateness of small-scale
technologies and lower environmental impacts; (ii) the appropriateness of a waste
disposal system (landfill instead of burning) that improves environmental impacts
254 13 Multi-criteria Decision-Making in Waste Collection to Reach. . .

and avoids health risks; and (iii) the increasing of local staff employment. Regarding
the importance of criteria on alternatives selection, some interesting insights were
observed: health, living conditions, and income and employment criteria played a
fundamental role in the alternative comparison; they were considered to be more
important than environmental impacts and natural resources consumption.

13.7.2 Multi-Criteria Analysis as a Tool for Sustainability

Assessment of a Waste Management Model

Milutinović et al. (2014) propose a model for assessing the sustainability of waste
management which assists decision-makers in the selection of waste management
scenarios with energy and resource recovery. The proposed model can also be
applied to compare various waste treatment scenarios regarding their sustainability
performance. Based on the AHP methodology, an iterative procedure is proposed to
rank the alternatives (or scenarios, as called by the authors) so that their ranking
scores are sufficiently different to distinguish the alternatives. The study of waste
management sustainability of Nis City, Serbia, is presented as an illustrative case.
The authors compared four scenarios:
1. Business as usual (all waste is landfilled with the exception of a fraction of metal
and glass waste that is recycled).
2. Aerobic process (most of organic waste is composted; a fraction of plastic glass,
paper, and metal waste is recycled; and the remaining waste is landfilled).
3. Incineration (glass and metal waste is recycled; residual waste is sent to a
cogeneration plant).
4. Anaerobic digestion (glass, metal, and plastic waste is recycled; other waste is
sent to anaerobic digestion plant).
These scenarios were scored according to the three economic criteria (invest-
ment, operational costs, and revenues), three environmental criteria (GHG, SO2
emissions, and the volume reduction fraction), and two social criteria (job creation
and public acceptance). The results lead to a tie in the first ranking position
between scenarios 2 and 4. To better differentiate both alternative, three additional
criteria were added to the model and the new ranking assessed. The new criteria
were NOx emission, energy consumption, and fuel cost. This time, scenario
2 presented a slightly better final score than scenario 4 (33% vs. 31.6%) and
therefore was ranked first. The other two scenarios maintained their ranking
positions. To investigate whether an increase on the number of criteria would
support and intensify the difference between scenarios 2 and 4, a new procedure
iteration was performed considering now the previous 11 criteria plus 3 additional
ones: VOC emissions (with relevance in composting and anaerobic digestion),
recycling rate (with relevance regarding recycling), and heavy metals (Pb) released
in water. This final ranking showed that the difference between scenarios 2 and
13.7 MCDA Case Studies 255

Fig. 13.3 Scenario ranking with 14 criteria. (From Milutinović et al. 2014)

4 increased once again and presented a difference between scores of 2.8% in favor
of scenario 2, and there was no change in ranking scenarios. Figure 13.3 shows the
14 criteria and the corresponding score of each alternative (colored lines), criteria
weights (white bars), and the overall ranking score.

13.7.3 Ranking Municipal Solid Waste Treatment

Alternatives Based on Ecological Footprint and Multi-
criteria Analysis

Herva and Roca (2013) address the selection of municipal solid waste treatment
techniques with the support of PROMETHEE, GAIA, and AHP multi-criteria
decision methodologies. Four different waste treatment alternatives are considered
(landfilling with energy recovery, incineration with energy recovery, biological
treatment of the organic fraction with energy recovery from the refuse-derived
fuel, and thermal plasma gasification) and classified regarding only the environmen-
tal point of view. Although with a single point of view, the classification is made
considering six different criteria: ecological footprint (EF), water consumption, air
emissions of organic compounds and of dusts, water emissions of suspended solids,
and occupied landfill volume. The EF is used both independently and together with
the other five criteria, since in this work authors also wanted to compare the results
yielded by the two methods proposed (EF vs. MCDA).
Regarding the MCDA approach, AHP is implemented in standard software tools
(as Excel and MATLAB) and is employed to establish the criteria weights. The
ranking of the four alternatives is performed with PROMETHEE model through the
software Decision Lab 2000. The context under which the weight values were
defined is not made explicitly in the paper. But since legal thresholds existed for
the majority of the criteria selected, especially associated with the incineration of
256 13 Multi-criteria Decision-Making in Waste Collection to Reach. . .

waste, a sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the impact on the final
ranking if different weights were used. For each criterion, an interval is computed
indicating within which bounds the weight of a criterion can be modified without
affecting the final ranking of the alternatives. The analysis of the six intervals proved
the proposed ranking to be robust.
The final ranking of waste treatment alternatives was then established as follows,
from best to worst: thermal plasma gasification; biological treatment of the organic
fraction with energy recovery from the refuse-derived fuel; incineration; and, lastly,
landfilling with energy recovery.
Authors pointed out that the EF proved to be a good screening indicator although
it did not provide a comprehensive measure of environmental impacts associated
with the waste treatment options considered. Besides, the combined application of
AHP and PROMETHEE/GAIA as MCA methodology was found to be a suitable
way, not very complex at user level, to integrate the information provided by a set of
environmental criteria and to aid decision-making. Moreover, the ranking obtained
was in agreement with the general hierarchy recommended by legislation, prioritiz-
ing treatment techniques that allow for energy or materials recovery.

13.7.4 An AHP-Based Fuzzy Interval TOPSIS Assessment

for Sustainable Expansion of the Solid Waste
Management System in Setúbal Peninsula, Portugal

Pires et al. (2011) applied some MCDA methodologies to investigate the 18 mana-
gerial alternatives so that the sustainability of solid waste management in Setúbal
region, Portugal, could be improved. One major concern in this study is modeling of
uncertainty issues inherent to waste management which can seriously affect the
compliance of European Union directives’ targets and the choice of the best waste
management solution. Among uncertainty sources, authors point out to uncertainties
from model parameters, type of models, inherent process uncertainties, uncertainties
due to lack of knowledge about a specific process or processes, or uncertainties
embedded in decision-making. To face this additional challenge, an improved
TOPSIS method was chosen to screen and rank the alternatives; this method uses
an interval-valued fuzzy (IVF) method to model uncertainty. In short, one may say
that instead of using a single value to score each alternative in each criterion, an
interval is used to capture the impreciseness of the values. AHP method was the
choice to determine the criteria weights.
The proposed criteria were selected considering the requirements of the new
waste management philosophy brought by Thematic Strategy on the Prevention
and Recycling of Waste (Council and European Parliament 2008). Therefore, one
finds among criteria technical (landfill space saving), environmental (abiotic deple-
tion, acidification, eutrophication, global warming potential, human toxicity, photo-
chemical oxidation, and gross energy requirement), economical (investment and
13.7 MCDA Case Studies 257

operational costs and operational revenues), and social aspects (economic suffi-
ciency, fees, and odor).
The management alternatives are waste collection and separation of the three
packaging materials through bin systems. In detail, alternative 0 refers to the
predicted change that will take place in the Setúbal region SWM system so that
national targets are reach to comply with European Directives. The remaining
alternatives were designed to examine some special options for complying with
the Landfill Directive. For example, alternative 1 emphasizes the inclusion of
aerobic mechanical biological treatment facility (MBT), alternative 4 implies the
use of anaerobic digestion (AD) in MBT, and alternative 6 examines the specific
case of using biodegradable solid wastes anaerobic digestion line. In general,
alternatives 0, 3, and 5 are options for a suite of intermediate processing. Separation
of high calorific fraction of waste for refuse-derived fuel production was also
considered in two options being defined for collecting the high calorific fraction
from MRF refuse and from AD MBT separation.
Authors concluded the best solution for the system in study would be to imple-
ment of anaerobic digestion MBT and anaerobic digestion plant of biodegradable
municipal waste followed by the RDF production and alternative 5 is the best option.
If, however, criteria weights were equally important, the decision would turn out
different. Therefore, it is suggested that other methods other than AHP should be
applied access criteria weights.

13.7.5 Assessment Strategies for Municipal Selective Waste

Collection Schemes

Ferreira et al. (2017) proposes a performance index that brings together a set of
performance indicators highlighting collection trends using the simple additive
weighting method. The study focuses on the urban reality of Oporto Municipality,
Portugal, where two distinct selective collection schemes are in operation (manual
rear-loading vehicles handling street-side containers with open lids and crane-
loading vehicles handling drop-off and underground containers). The collection is
performed for each selective waste type (light packaging, paper and cardboard, and
glass) by nine circuits with drop-off and three with street-side containers. Each
collection vehicle is assigned to a team of three workers from Monday to Saturday,
8 h per day. The disposal site is located 5 km outside the municipal limits.
The performance index is defined for each type of collection scheme and is able to
aggregate, in a single value, the contributions of the selected indicators chosen to
access performance of the two collection schemes: effective collection distance
(in kilometers per tons), effective collection time (in hours per tons), and effective
fuel consumption (in liters per tons). As the indicators are expressed in different units
and scales, a previous normalization was provided to convert indicators into com-
parable values. In particular, authors used an inverse min-max normalization to
258 13 Multi-criteria Decision-Making in Waste Collection to Reach. . .

convert indicators into values between 0 and 1. Therefore the normalized value of
indicator j of collection scheme s and collected material i is given by
I ijmax  I ijs
N ijs ¼
I ijmax  I ijmin

where I ijs denotes the sample median value of indicator j of collection scheme s and
collected material i and I ijmax and I ijmin denote, respectively, the maximum and
minimum values observed for indicator j and collected material i considering all
collection schemes. Formally, the performance index for collection scheme s, Is, is
given by
n X
X m
Is ¼ wis  α j  N ijs
i¼1 j¼1

where the coefficient αj weights the relative importance of indicator j in the overall
service assessment (may assume values according to experts’ criteria) and wis reflects
the collection proportions that differ among collected materials due to their specific
density characteristics. Additional constraints are imposed on the weights coeffi-
cients reflecting the assumptions underlying the SAW method:

X
m
0  αij  1 and αj ¼ 1
j¼1
Xn
0  wis  1 and wis ¼ 1:
i¼1

When applied to the two collection scheme in operation and given the α weights
provided by the stakeholders, the index showed that street-side collection performed
better than drop-off containers collection (0.8 vs. 0.76). Notice, the municipality
stakeholders consider the effective collection time as the main critical factor to take
into account. In fact, faster collection schemes reduce the probability of undesirable
traffic congestion, which should be strongly avoided in urban high-density areas. No
sensitive analysis was made to α weights.

13.8 Final Remarks

This chapter brings an overview of the multi-criteria decision analysis methods most
applied to sustainable solid waste management problems. Simple additive weighing
(SAW), AHP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, and ELECTRE methods are described and
compared. Nowadays, these methods are being extensively used in the waste
management context. However, few themes have been addressed. The largest
majority of studies have focused on facility location (e.g., landfill site selection) or
References 259

management strategy. And AHP ranks first among the applied MCDA models
(Goulart-Coelho et al. 2017).
Uncertainty aspects common in SWM decision-making may be addressed with
sensitivity analysis. Therefore, there is a section dedicated to sensitivity analysis as
well as a case study showing a different approach to deal with this topic. The
presence of different decision-makers is also addressed.
Several case studies concerning waste management strategies and site locations
are presented to provide deeper insights concerning the used o MCDA methods in
SWM. Some of the described works integrate more than one MCDA method to
reach the final decision. One case study shows how MCDA methods can be of use to
the definition of single value indexes.

References

Achillas C, Moussiopoulos N, Karagiannidis A et al (2013) The use of multi-criteria decision

analysis to tackle waste management problems: a literature review. Waste Manag Res
31:115–129
Adelman L (2013) Choice theory. In: Gass S, Fu M (eds) Encyclopedia of operations research and
management science. Springer US, pp 164–168
Belton V, Pictet J (1997) A framework for group decision using a mcda model: sharing, aggregating
or comparing individual information? J Decis Syst 6:283–303
Brans JP, De Smet Y (2016) PROMETHEE methods. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multi
criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 187–219
Buchholz T, Rametsteiner E, Volk TA, Luzadis VA (2009) Multi criteria analysis for bioenergy
systems assessments. Energy Policy 37(2):484–495
Cinelli M, Coles SR, Kirwan K (2014) Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis
methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol Indic 46:138–148
Clemen RT, Reilly T (2013) Making hard decisions with decision tools. Cengage Learning, Mason
Council, European Parliament (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain. Directives Off J Eur Commun,
L312/3
Ferreira F, Avelino C, Bentes I et al (2017) Assessment strategies for municipal selective waste
collection schemes. Waste Manag 59:3–13
Figueira JR, Mousseau V, Roy B (2016a) Electre methods. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds)
Multi criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 155–185
Figueira JR, Ehrgott M, Greco S (eds) (2016b) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art
surveys. Springer, New York
Garfì M, Tondelli S, Bonoli A (2009) Multi-criteria decision analysis for waste management in
Saharawi refugee camps. Waste Manag 29:2729–2739
Goulart-Coelho LM, Lange LC, Coelho HM (2017) Multi-criteria decision making to support waste
management: a critical review of current practices and methods. Waste Manag Res 35:3–28
Gómez-Delgado M, Tarantola S (2006) GLOBAL sensitivity analysis, GIS and multi-criteria
evaluation for a sustainable planning of a hazardous waste disposal site in Spain. International
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20(4), 449–466
Guitouni A, Martel JM (1998) Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA
method. Eur J Oper Res 109:501–521
Hajkowicz S, Higgins A (2008) A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water
resource management. Eur J Oper Res 184:255–265
260 13 Multi-criteria Decision-Making in Waste Collection to Reach. . .

Herva M, Roca E (2013) Ranking municipal solid waste treatment alternatives based on ecological
footprint and multi-criteria analysis. Ecol Indic 25:77–84
Hwang C.-L. and Yoon K (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin
MacDonald ML (1996) A multi-attribute spatial decision support system for solid waste planning.
Comput Environ Urban Syst 20:1–17
Malczewski J (2006) GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: A survey of the literature. Interna-
tional Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20:703–726
Marsh K, Goetghebeur M, Thokala P et al (eds) (2017) Multi-criteria decision analysis to support
healthcare decisions. Springer, US
Milutinović B, Stefanović G, Dassisti M et al (2014) Multi-criteria analysis as a tool for sustain-
ability assessment of a waste management model. Energy 74:190–201
Mustajoki J, Marttunen M (2017) Comparison of multi-criteria decision analytical software for
supporting environmental planning processes. Environ Model Softw 93:78–91
Nyerges TL, Jankowski P (2009) Regional and urban GIS: a decision support approach. Guilford
Press, UK
Pérez J (1995) Some comments on Saaty’s AHP. Manag Sci 41:1091–1095
Pires A, Chang NB, Martinho G (2011) An AHP-based fuzzy interval TOPSIS assessment for
sustainable expansion of the solid waste management system in Setúbal peninsula, Portugal.
Resour Conserv Recycl 56:7–21
Reichert P, Schuwirth N, Langhans S (2013) Constructing, evaluating and visualizing value and
utility functions for decision support. Environ Model Softw 46:283–291
Roy B (1989) Main sources of inaccurate determination, uncertainty and imprecision in decision
models. Math Comput Model 12:1245–1254
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York
Soltani A, Hewage K, Reza B, Sadiq R (2015) Multiple stakeholders in multi-criteria decision-
making in the context of municipal solid waste management: a review. Waste Manag
35:318–328
Taha HA (2003) Operations research: an introduction. Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, US
Vafaei N, Ribeiro RA, Camarinha-Matos LM (2016) Normalization techniques for multi-criteria
decision making: analytical hierarchy process case study. In: Camarinha-Matos LM, Falcão AJ,
Vafaei N, Najdi S (eds) Doctoral conference on computing, electrical and industrial systems.
Springer, Cham, pp 261–269
Van Den Hove S (2006) Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation
dimension in participatory approaches. Land use policy, 23(1):10–17
Wang M, Yang J (1998) A multi-criterion experimental comparison of three multi-attribute weight
measurement methods. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 7:340–350
Weistroffer HR, Li Y (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis software. In: Figueira J, Greco S,
Ehrgott M (eds) Multi criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp
1301–1341
Wiecek M, Ehrgott M, Fadel G, Figueira JR (2008) Multiple criteria decision making for engineer-
ing. Omega 36:337–339
Yadav V, Karmakar S, Dikshit AK, Bhurjee AK (2018) Interval-valued facility location model: an
appraisal of municipal solid waste management system. J Clean Prod 171:250–263
Chapter 14
A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System:
A Retrofit Case

Abstract This chapter presents a real case study of a recyclable waste collection
system aiming at redesigning service areas and associated vehicle collection routes to
support a sustainable operation. Not only economic objectives are to be considered, but
also one should account for environmental and social aspects. The economic dimension
is modeled through traveling distance that directly influences the global cost. The
environmental one is modeled throughout the calculations of the CO2 emissions.
Finally, the social aspect is considered by aiming to define a balanced solution
regarding working hours among drivers. A multi-objective solution approach based
on mixed-integer linear programming models is developed and applied to real data.

Keywords Carbon dioxide emissions · Global cost · Multi-objective programming ·

Routing problem · Working hours

14.1 Introduction

Waste collection systems usually plan their operations according to administrative

territorial boundaries (e.g. municipalities, county, district…). Even when managing
two adjacent municipalities, operations are plan independently. The company stud-
ied in this chapter is no exception. All operations have been managed under a
municipality perspective, i.e., the service areas of each depot and the collection
routes have been defined taking into account the municipalities’ boundaries. This
approach has proved to be very costly and motivated the restructure of the
company’s tactical and operational planning decisions. Moreover, the company
aims to foster the system’s sustainability by integrating economic, social, and
environmental objectives in the new plan.
This company responsible for the recyclable collection system covering 19 rural
municipalities with a total area of 7000 km2. It involves 1522 glass bins, 1238 paper
bins, and 1205 plastic/metal bins spread over 207 sites (see Fig. 14.1). A collection
site is assumed to correspond to an area instead of an individual container to reduce
the problem size. Due to the proximity of the bins within an urban area (an average
distance of 500 m), it is realistic to assume the containers to collect within this site as

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 261

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_14
262 14 A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case

Fig. 14.1 Collection sites and depot locations

a single node. The number of containers at each site is known in advance. The
company operates four depots and a vehicle fleet of eight vehicles. One of the depots
acts also as a sorting station (depot 208). The remaining three depots are only
transfer stations where the recyclable waste is consolidated and afterward transferred
to the sorting station.
The company provided a dataset with historical data concerning all routes
performed over a year. For each route, this available data contains the day, the
collected recyclable material type and the corresponding number of containers, the
traveled distance (in kilometers), the route duration, and the total collected weight.
To estimate the collected amounts at each site and the corresponding collection
frequency, the daily collected weight average per container was estimated. It took
into account the time interval between two consecutive collections sites and the
average collected amount per container in each route.
The three recyclable materials present different collection frequencies. Glass has
to be collected every 6 weeks, plastic/metal every 3 weeks, and paper every 2 weeks.
Therefore, a 6-week planning horizon is assumed. The materials are collected in
separated routes since the vehicle fleet has no compartments. Taking into account the
materials’ densities and vehicles’ maximum capacities, it was considered that vehi-
cles can load a maximum of 8500 kg of glass, 3000 kg of paper, and 1000 kg of
plastic/metal. For the outbound transportation (from the depots to the sorting sta-
tion), larger vehicles are used, and their weight capacities are, under the same
assumption, 12,000 kg for glass, 5000 kg for paper, and 3000 for plastic/metal.
All collection routes start at a depot, visit several sites collecting a single type of
material, and return to a depot to unload. Multiple trips per day, as well as inter-depot
14.2 Sustainability Objectives 263

routes (routes starting and ending at different depots), are allowed. However, by the
end of a working day, all vehicles have to return to their depot of origin. Collection is
performed 5 days a week, 8 h per day. The new plan should consider a vehicle route
planning for a 6-week period that is to be repeated every 6 weeks. To avoid containers’
overflow, managers should set a minimal and a maximum interval between two
consecutive collections when defining route scheduling for each material.

14.2 Sustainability Objectives

The economic objective accunts, only for the variable costs of the system, since the
fixed costs are associated with strategic decisions that have already been taken, (as
number of depots, number of vehicles, and number of drivers), and cannot be
changed. Hence, the variable costs are mainly related to the distance traveled by
vehicles when collecting containers and transporting waste from depots to the
sorting station. This includes fuel consumption and maintenance of the vehicle.
Such costs depend linearly on the distance traveled, and thus the economic objective
function is assessed by the total distance traveled. This includes the inbound distance
(from the collection sites to the depots) and the outbound distance (from the depots
to the sorting stations), to which adds the possible distance covered by empty
vehicles between depots (heavily penalized). Currently, the total distance traveled
is about 270,000 km per year.
On the environmental objective, and since transportation is this system’s main
activity, the greenhouse gas emissions (like CO2, CH4, HFCs, NOx) are generated, in
particular CO2, which negatively impact the environment. The function is defined as
the total CO2 emitted by all vehicles in the system: each collection route performed
and the round-trips between depots and the sorting station. Notice that since these
last vehicles travel empty when returning to the depots, different CO2 values are
assumed for each direction. It was estimated that a total of 340,000 kg of CO2 are
emitted per year.
Lastly, the social objective promotes equity among human resources, in this case,
the drivers. In the current plan, drivers’ schedules are imbalanced with some drivers
operating larger number of routes than others. From the historical data, a maximum of
220 and a minimum and 100 driving hours, are observed in a 6-week horizon. The
company wants to put into practice a new operation scheme which will account for this
organizational issue. Hence, the social objective is modeled as the minimization of the
maximum working hours among all drivers in the planning horizon. This metric has a
twofold contribution toward social sustainability. First, it promotes equity among
drivers, enabling balanced workloads since all drivers are assigned to collection
activities with similar number of hours (see Fig. 14.2 for an illustrative example).
Second, with the minimization of the maximum working hours, drivers may be released
to perform tasks other than just collection, as sorting activities, participation in
recycling awareness campaigns, or training. This latter activity helps to improve the
career development and promotes versatility among the human resources.
264 14 A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case

Total of Working Hours Total of Working Hours

140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
Driver 1 Driver 2 Driver 3 Driver 4 Driver 1 Driver 2 Driver 3 Driver 4

Max {60,120,80,40} = 120 hours Max {70,90,80,60} = 90 hours

Fig. 14.2 Example of the effect of minimizing the maximum working hours

14.3 Modeling and Solution Approach

This case study involves the definition and scheduling of vehicle routes in multiple
depot system, where inter-depot routes and multiple trips per vehicle are allowed. It
is modeled as a multi-depot periodic vehicle routing problem with inter-depot routes
(MDPVRPI). This model allows for the simultaneous selection of a set of visiting
days for each client, the definition of the service areas of each depot, and of the
multiple routes to be performed in each day of the planning horizon (see Annex A for
the full model formulation). The MDPVRPI combines three problems: a multi-depot
vehicle routing problem (MDVRP), a periodic vehicle routing problem (PVRP), and
a vehicle routing problem with multiple use of vehicles (VRPMU). While the
MDVRP considers a planning horizon of a single time unit, the PVRP considers a
planning horizon with several time units, since it assumes customers to have
different delivery (or collection) patterns. In this problem, a customer specifies a
service frequency and a set of allowable delivery patterns, and the company has to
decide on which day the delivery will occur. In the VRPMU, a vehicle can perform
several routes during a working day and/or the planning horizon. The multiple uses
of vehicles appear when the fleet is either small or the working day period is larger
than the average route duration (see Petch and Salhi (2003), Oliveira and Vieira
(2007), Azi et al. (2010), and Rieck and Zimmermann (2010)).
In the classical MDPVRP, all routes have to start and end in the same depot
(closed routes). Whereas, in the MDPVRP with inter-depot routes (MDPVRPI),
vehicles can renew their capacity in any depot in order to continue delivering or
collecting materials without being forced to return to their home depot before the end
of the working day. Hence, routes can start and finish at different depots enabling a
vehicle rotation composed by inter-depot routes. The different routes concepts are
illustrated at Fig. 14.3. The difference between an open and an inter-depot route is
that in the latter a rotation has to be defined in order to get the vehicle back to its
home depot. One defines a rotation as a set of inter-depot routes that can be
performed consecutively until the home depot is reached.
A solution approach is developed to solve the case study as multi-objective
MDPVRPI. Since the problem is modeled with the set partitioning formulation, a
set of a large number of feasible routes has to be generated, and then the most
14.3 Modeling and Solution Approach 265

Closed Routes Open Routes

Inter-depot Routes (Rotation)

Rotation - 2 inter-depot routes Rotation - 3 inter-depot routes
Inter-Depot Inter-Depot
Route #1 Route #1

Inter-Depot
Inter-Depot Route #3
Route #2 Inter-Depot
Route #2

Fig. 14.3 Illustration of closed, open, and inter-depot routes

Step 2
Step 1
Routes Generation Routes Selection and Scheduling

Single-Objective Problem Multi-Objective Problem

Economic Economic Environmental Social

Distance Distance CO2 Emissions Working Hours

Minimization Minimization Minimization Minimization

Fig. 14.4 Solution approach overview

adequate ones are selected from that pool. Therefore, the solution approach involves
a first step to generate the routes and a second step where the multi-objective
problem is solved (see Fig. 14.4). As the goal is to obtain a solution where costs
are balanced with environmental and social concerns, the set of routes is defined
considering only the economic objective. However, when selecting and scheduling
the routes, at step 2, the three objectives are taken into account by solving the multi-
objective MDPVRPI with the augmented ε-constraint method (see book Sect.
12.3.4). With such approach, an approximation to the Pareto front is obtained,
which can be used by the decision-maker to evaluate trade-offs and to select the
most adequate solution to put into practice.
The goal of step 1 is then to build the set of feasible routes required by the multi-
objective MDPRVPI formulation. Generating all the feasible routes is however
intractable (Laporte 2007), so only a subset will be defined. Accounting for the
characteristics of the problem addressed, a diverse set of closed and inter-depot
routes are generated representing alternative solutions to collect all sites. To build
only closed ones, a MDVRP is solved – procedure 1. To build closed and inter-depot
266 14 A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case

Routes Generation Framework

Procedure 1

Input Output
• Distance matrix
• Demand MDVPR Closed Routes
• Vehicle capacity
• … All routes
Procedure 2
Only
Input Output closed
• Distance matrix routes
• Demand MDVPRI Closed Routes
• Vehiclecapacity Inter-Depot Routes
• …
Only inter-
Procedure 3 depot
routes
Input Output
• Distancematrix MDVPRI -
• Demand Inter-Depot Routes
• Vehicle capacity Extension
• …

Fig. 14.5 Routes generation procedures

routes, a MDVRPI is solved – procedure 2. To build only inter-depot routes, a

MDVRPI Extension is solved – procedure 3 (see Annexes B.1.1, B.1.2, and B.1.3
for all the details). Therefore, the set of all routes is fed by three independent
procedures modeling the three alternative solutions to collect waste from all collec-
tion sites (see Fig. 14.5).

14.4 Results and Analysis

The solution approach proposed is applied to the described case study in order to
define a sustainable plan for the recyclable waste collection in 19 Portuguese
municipalities. It was implemented in GAMS 23.7 and solved through the CPLEX
Optimizer 12.3.0, on an Intel Xeon CPU X5680 @ 3.33 GHz.

14.4.1 Routes Generation

Three procedures were applied to generate a set of diverse closed and inter-depot
collection routes for each of the three recyclable materials. The number of routes
provided by each procedure for each material is shown in Table 14.1.
The mixture of plastic and metal, which is assumed as a single material, requires
more collection routes than the other two materials. This mixture has a lower density
14.4 Results and Analysis 267

Table 14.1 Number of routes Glass Paper Plastic/metal

defined per procedure and
recyclable material
Procedure 1
Closed routes 39 42 66

Procedure 2
Closed routes 37 41 64
Inter-depot routes 9 6 9

Procedure 3
Inter-depot routes 38 40 62

when compared to the other two materials, and thus the vehicle weight capacity for
plastic metal is smaller for the same vehicle volume capacity.

14.4.2 Sustainable Collection System

Step 2 of Figure 14.4 selects routes from set K while considering the number of
available vehicles (eight in total) and where they are based. It also takes into
accounts the planning horizon of 6 weeks (i.e., 30 working days) and observes the
interval between collections. Then step 2 the multi-objective problem is solved by
applying the augmented ε-constraint method Marieloas (2009) to define an approx-
imation to the Pareto front. The proceedure ends with the application of a compro-
mise solution method to compute a sustainable solution for the case study (see
Annex B.2).
The payoff table generated by the lexicographic method (see section 12.4.1) is
shown in Table 14.2. When minimizing the total distance (economic objective), a
solution with 27,261 km is obtained. This solution emits 34,982 kg of CO2, and the
maximum number of hours among the eight vehicles is 200 h. When minimizing the
CO2 emissions (environmental objective), a solution with 34,747 kg of CO2 is
achieved. It implies less 0.7% of CO2 emissions and more 0.3% kilometers when
compared to the economic solution. The number of working hours remains
unaltered. When minimizing the maximum number of working hours in the planning
horizon (social objective), a solution with a maximum of 165 h is obtained. This
solution implies a total of 30,118 km (about 11% more than in the economic
solution) and 38,042 kg of CO2 (about 10% more than in the environmental
solution).
Figure 14.6 shows the total hours each driver has to work (social concern) in the
collection activity for each of the three optimal plans: economic, environmental, and
social. Both economic and environmental optimal plans are quite unbalanced, with
differences between the maximum and minimum working hours of 102 and 120 h,
respectively. On the contrary, the social optimal plan presents a totally balanced
plan, where all drivers work the same number of hours in collection activities
(165 h).
268 14 A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case

Table 14.2 Payoff table obtained with the lexicographic optimization of the objective functions
Optimized objective function
Economic Environmental Social
(km) (kg) (h)
Optimal solution of the Economic 27,261 34,982 200
objective Environmental 27,337 34,747 200
Social 30,118 38,042 165

Economical Environmental Social

200 h 200 h 165 h 165 h 165 h 165 h 165 h 165 h 165 h 165 h
187 h 196 h 185 h 179 h 179 h
196 h 190 h
159 h 163 h 161 h

100 h 98 h 108 h
80 h

Veh. 1 Veh. 2 Veh. 3 Veh. 4 Veh. 5 Veh. 6 Veh. 7 Veh. 8 Veh. 1 Veh. 2 Veh. 3 Veh. 4 Veh. 5 Veh. 6 Veh. 7 Veh. 8 Veh. 1 Veh. 2 Veh. 3 Veh. 4 Veh. 5 Veh. 6 Veh. 7 Veh. 8

Fig. 14.6 Number of working hours per vehicle in the three solutions

The daily schedule for each vehicle with the assignment of all the routes to be
operated in each day is the output of the procedure step 2. Vehicle 7’s daily schedule
is given in Fig. 14.7. Each day has the number and type of routes to be performed (Pl
stands for plastic/metal, Gl for glass, and Pa for paper) and the total duration
(in minutes). For example, in day 1 of the economic plan, the vehicle has to perform
route #56 to collect plastic/metal and afterward route #250 to collect paper. The total
duration (including unloading activities) is 461 min. Route #250 is performed three
times during the planning horizon in line with the collection frequency set for the
material paper (days 1, 12, and 22). The interval between consecutives visits respects
the minimum and maximum interval allowed for this material (9 and 11 days,
respectively).
Comparing both schedules (Fig. 14.7a, b), fewer routes are performed by vehicle
7 in the social solution (44 against 52 routes in the economic solution). On the one
hand, in the “economic schedule,” routes are to be performed every day, while in the
“social schedule” there is one day (day 6) where no routes are assigned. In the “social
schedule,” the driver of vehicle 7 works 165 h in collection activities, while in the
“economic schedule,” he/she works 200 h. To reduce 35 working hours from vehicle
7, the scheduled hours for the remaining vehicles have to increase. This can be
achieved with the reconfiguration of depot service areas. As an illustrative example,
the service areas for the material glass for the three solutions are shown in Fig. 14.8.
In the social solution, the number of collection sites assigned to depot 208 (114 sites)
is the lowest when among the three solutions (128 sites in the economic solution and
136 in the environmental solution). In opposition, the number of sites assigned to
depot 209 is the largest (46 sites in the social solution against 32 and 26 in the
economic and environmental solutions, respectively). Depot 209 (where vehicles
5 and 6 are based) is the one with less working hours in the economic and
14.4 Results and Analysis 269

(a) Economical plan (b) Social plan

∑ Hours = 200h ∑ Hours = 165 h
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
#56 (Pl); #54 (Pl); #253 (Pa); #59 (Pl); #249 (Pa); #62 (Pl);
#251 (Pa) #250 (Pa) #63 (Pl) #391 (Gl)
#250 (Pa) #249 (Pa) #254 (Pa) #63 (Pl) #254 (Pa) #253 (Pa)
461 m 448 m 480 m 467 m 346 m 295 m 467 m 465 m 165 m 292 m
6 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9 10
#61 (Pl); #255 (Pa); #57 (Pl); #49 (Pl); #248 (Pa); #56 (Pl);
#252 (Pa) #248 (Pa) #255 (Pa)
#62 (Pl) #267 (Pa) #58 (Pl) #54 (Pl) #267 (Pa) #81 (Pl)
428 m 295 m 299 m 387 m 471 m 349 m 378 m 308 m 214 m
11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15
#55(Pl);#60 #49 (Pl); #249 (Pa); #249 (Pa); #60 (Pl);
#253 (Pa) #397 (Gl) #413 (Gl) #250 (Pa) #397 (Gl)
(Pl);#81(Pl) #250 (Pa) #254 (Pa) #254 (Pa) #253 (Pa)
425 m 478 m 467 m 295 m 249 m 337 m 295 m 467 m 370 m 249 m
16 17 18 19 20 16 17 18 19 20
#56 (Pl); #54 (Pl); #255 (Pa); #59 (Pl); #57 (Pl); #55 (Pl); #63 (Pl);
#251 (Pa) #251 (Pa) #252 (Pa)
#252 (Pa) #248 (Pa) #267 (Pa) #63 (Pl) #248 (Pa) #267 (Pa) #255(Pa)
346 m 461 m 465 m 387 m 467 m 346 m 295 m 468 m 381 m 473 m
21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25
#62 (Pl); #253 (Pa); #57 (Pl); #54 (Pl); #49 (Pl); #56 (Pl);
#61 (Pl) #249 (Pa) #61 (Pl) #254 (Pa)
#250 (Pa) #254 (Pa) #58 (Pl) #250 (Pa) #249 (Pa) #253 (Pa)
258 m 465 m 282 m 480 m 471 m 258 m 461 m 465 m 185 m 461 m
26 27 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30
#55(Pl);#60 #49 (Pl); #255 (Pa); #60(Pl);#248
#251 (Pa) #248 (Pa) #81 (Pl) #251 (Pa) #252 (Pa) #255 (Pa)
(Pl);#81(Pl) #252 (Pa) #267 (Pa) (Pa);#267(Pa
425 m 346 m 478 m 299 m 387 m 48 m 346 m 295 m 453 m 308 m

Fig. 14.7 Schedule for vehicle 7 in economical (a) and social (b) plans

Economic Environmental Social

22 Sites 22 Sites 22 Sites
(11%) (11%) (11%)

211
211 211
32 Sites 209
26 Sites 209 46 Sites 209
(17%)
(14%) (24%)

2 Sites
210
(1%) 2 Sites 4 Sites
208 (1%) (2%)
210 210
208 208

128 Sites
(67%)
Inter-Depot 136 Sites 114 Sites
Routes: 8 Sites (71%) (59%)
(4%) Inter-Depot Inter-Depot
Routes: 6 Sites Routes: 6 Sites
(3%) (3%)
Sites collected by depot 208
Sites collected by depot 209
Sites collected by depot 210
Sites collected by depot 211
Sites collected by inter-depot routes
Inter-depot routes

Fig. 14.8 Service areas for glass material for the economic, environmental, and social plans

environmental plans (Fig. 14.6). To balance the number of working hours in the
social solution, more sites have to be assigned to this depot.
The environmental solution is the one with the highest number of sites assigned to
depot 208 (also acts as the sorting station). The outbound transportation is performed
by large vehicles that release more CO2 than the collection vehicles. Therefore, since
the objective is to minimize the CO2 emissions, more sites are assigned to the sorting
station to avoid the outbound transportation. Moreover, the environmental solution
selects routes where vehicles travel shorter distances with heavy load given since it
minimizes the CO2 emissions.
Nine different solutions are obtained when applying the augmented ε-constraint
method (S1 to S9 in Table 14.3). Such solutions can be visualized in Fig. 14.9 where
 270
14

Table 14.3 Pareto optimal solutions

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
Economic (km) 30,118 28,445 27,676 27,489 27,412 27,345 27,287 27,337 27,261
Environmental (kg) 38,042 36,351 35,580 35,580 35,179 35,100 35,010 34,747 34,982
Social (h) 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 200
A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case
14.4 Results and Analysis 271

210

200
Social (hours)

190
180
170

160
150
3.1
3 3.4
3.5
4 2.9 3.6
x 10 3.7 4
2.8 Pareto optimal solutios
3.8 x 10
2.7 Compromise solution
Economic (km) 3.9
Environmental (kg of CO2) Ideal solution

Fig. 14.9 Approximation to Pareto front considering the three objectives with the ideal point and
the compromise solution highlighted

Glass Paper Plastic/Metal

40 Sites 43 Sites
22 Sites (20%) (22%)
(11%)

211 211
211
41 Sites 209 36 Sites 209
46 Sites 209
(24%) (20%) (18%)

2 Sites 17 Sites 22 Sites

210
(1%) (8.5%) 210
(11%)
210
208 208 208

115 Sites 78 Sites 89 Sites

(60%) (46%)
Inter-depot (39%)
Inter-depot Inter-depot
Routes: 7 Sites
(4%) Routes: 25 Routes: 6 Sites
Sites (12%) (3%)

Fig. 14.10 Representation of the compromise solution for the three recyclable materials

174 h 174 h 174 h 174 h 174 h 174 h

133 h
119 h

Veh. 1 Veh. 2 Veh. 3 Veh. 4 Veh. 5 Veh. 6 Veh. 7 Veh. 8

Fig. 14.11 Number of working hours by vehicle in the compromise solution

272 14 A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case

one can observe that to improve the social objective (reducing the number of
maximum working hours), the economic and environmental objectives deteriorate.
For instance, to increase the social objective in 17.5%, the economic and the
environmental objectives deteriorate 10% and 9.5%, respectively (S1 versus S8).
However, the economic objective only deteriorates 1.2% and the environmental
2.4% with an improvement of 12.5% in the social objective (S3 versus S8). Regard-
ing the economic and environmental objectives, the trade-off only exists between S8
and S9. To improve 0.7% in the environmental objective, the economic objective
deteriorates 0.3%. In the remaining solutions, these objectives are inversely propor-
tional to the social objective.
Aiming to find a compromise solution between the three objectives to reach a
sustainable plan for the logistics network, a compromise solution method is applied.
The ideal point (zI) is defined according to the individual minima of each objective.
In this case, ideal point coordinates are zI ¼ (27,261 km, 34,747 kg CO2, 165 h). The
nadir point (zN) is defined according to the individual maxima of each objective,
zN ¼ (30,118 km, 38,138 kg CO2, 200 h). Figure 14.9 also depicts the compromise
solution and the ideal point. After normalizing the objective functions with the
amplitude between the nadir and ideal points, the compromise solution (zC) is
obtained by minimizing the Tchebycheff distance to the ideal point. The compro-
mise solution obtained is zC ¼ (28,013 km, 35,653 kg CO2, 174 h) – all details
presented in Annex B.2.
In the compromise solution (depicted in Fig. 14.10), the economic objective
deteriorates 2.7%, the environmental 2.6%, and the social 5.5% regarding each
corresponding value when a single objective is optimized. For all materials, the
number of sites assigned to the sorting station is smaller than the ones obtained for
the economic and environmental solutions but higher than the one of social solution.
For instance, in the compromise solution for paper, 39% of the sites are assigned to
depot 208 (sorting station), while 45% are assigned when the economic and envi-
ronmental objectives are minimized individually and 38% when considering the
social objective. Also, more sites are collected in inter-depot routes. These differ-
ences increase the distance traveled and emitted CO2 but balance the solution
regarding workload among depots (Fig. 14.11).
The compromise solution represents a sustainable solution that has been
presented to the company. Savings of about 10% in the distance and 9% in CO2
emissions and a reduction of 21% in the maximum of driving hours are obtained
with this sustainable solution, when comparing to the current company operation
plan.

14.5 Conclusion

The planning a multi-depot logistics system has been taken into account considering
the three dimensions of sustainability. Economic, environmental, and social objec-
tive functions have been modeled in a tactical routing and scheduling problem with
Annex A: Multi-objective Formulation for the MDPVRPI 273

multiple depots. In particular, this work addresses service areas and routes definition
as well as routes scheduling, CO2 emissions, and human resources working hours.
The solution approach has been applied to a real recyclable waste collection
system where the trade-offs between the three objectives were highlighted and a
compromise solution proposed. When economic and environmental objectives are
minimized, unbalanced solutions are obtained regarding working hours by vehicle
(and consequently be driver). On the contrary, when the social objective is mini-
mized, a balanced solution is obtained where all drivers drive the same number of
hours. However, this equity solution leads to a significant increase in distance and
CO2 emissions. Between environmental and economic objectives there are only
minor trade-offs. An efficient solution taking into account the three objectives is
obtained through the compromise solution method, where the distance to the ideal
point is minimized.

Annex A: Multi-objective Formulation for the MDPVRPI

The multi-objective MDPVRPI is formulated as a set partitioning problem (Balas

and Padberg 1976), where K represents the set of all feasible routes (closed and inter-
depot routes) and τktg is a binary variable that equals 1 if route k is performed on day
t by vehicle g; and 0 otherwise. The mathematical formulation considers the follow-
ing indices and sets.
Indices
k Route indices
t Time period (days) indices
g Vehicle indices
i, j Node indices
m Recyclable material indices

Sets
P
K Route set K ¼ K m , K ¼ Kin [ Kcl
m2M
Km Route subset to collect material m
Kin Inter-depot route subset
Kcl Closed route subset
T Time period set
G Vehicle set
V Node set V ¼ Vc [ Vd [ Vs
Vc Collection site subset
Vd Depot subset
Vs Sorting station subset
M Recyclable material set
274 14 A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case

Each route k 2 K is characterized by (1) a distance disk; (2) a duration durk

including travel, service, and unloading times; (3) a load Lok; and (4) CO2 emissions
Cok. The collection sites belonging to route k are given by a binary parameter μik that
equals 1 if collection site i belongs to route k and 0 otherwise. The starting and
ending depots for route k are also given by binary parameters Stki and Enki,
respectively; Stki equals 1 if route k starts at depot i, and Enki equals 1 if route
k ends at depot I and 0 otherwise.
The vehicles are fixed at the depots. If vehicle g belongs to depot i, the binary
parameter αgi equals 1 and 0 otherwise.
The collection frequency of each collection site i with recyclable material m is
given by frim representing the number of times a collection site needs to be visited
within the planning horizon. The minimum and maximum interval between two
consecutive collections for recyclable material m are given by Iminm and Imaxm,
respectively.
Three objective functions are addressed in this work to tackle the three
sustainability dimensions: the economic objective (z 1(S) ), the environmental
objective (z 2(S) ), and the social objective (z 3(S) ). Let S be the vector of
decision variables; z 1(S) , z 2(S) , and z 3(S) the three objective functions; and
Ω the feasible region; the multi-objective problem can be written in the
following form:
 1 
min z ðSÞ; z2 ðSÞ; z3 ðSÞ
ð14:1Þ
st S 2 Ω

The total distance traveled (z1(S) ) is given by Eq. (14.2).

XXX
z 1 ð SÞ ¼ disk τktg þ ð14:2aÞ
t2T g2G
XXXXXX k2K

Enki τktg Lok =QT m 2d ij  ð14:2bÞ

j2V s i2V d m2M k2K m t2T g2G
XXXXX X
Stki Enki τktg Lok =QT m 2d ij þ ð14:2cÞ
j2V s i2V d m2M k2K m t2T g2G
αgj ¼ 1
X X X X
2τktg d ij ð14:2dÞ
g2G k2K t2T i, j 2 V d
αgi ¼ 1 Enki ¼ 0
Stkj ¼ 1

The total distance traveled involves, as mentioned, the inbound distance (14.2a),
the outbound distance (14.2b and 14.2c), and also a possible extra distance since it is
allowed to vehicles based at depot i to perform closed routes from and to depot
j (14.2d). The distance (dij) of moving a vehicle between depots is then penalized.
The outbound distance considers the ending depot of each route and the load
collected, to compute the number of needed round-trips to the sorting station. Note
that the number of round-trips is not round upward since it is being accounting for
Annex A: Multi-objective Formulation for the MDPVRPI 275

the number of round-trips that occur within a finite time period. These are to be
repeated in the next period. When, for instance, 10.4 round trips are considered
within the period, it means that 10 round trips occur within the period and the 11th
occurs in the next period, but some of the load is related to the previous period. It is
also considered that if a vehicle, belonging to the sorting station performs closed
routes from depot i, the load collected will be unloaded at the sorting station and not
at depot i. Therefore, no outbound distance will be accounted for. Term (14.2c)
decreases the objective function of such value.
The environmental objective is related to the CO2 emissions associated with the
collection routes and the outbound transportation between depots and the sorting
station. Its total value (z2(S) ) given by Eq. (14.3).
XXX
z 2 ð SÞ ¼ Cok τktg þ ð14:3aÞ
k2K t2T g2G
XXXXXX  
Enki τktg Lok =QT m CoF ijm þ CoE ji  ð14:3bÞ
j2V s i2V d m2M k2K m t2T g2G
XXXXX X  
Stki Enki τktg Lok =QT m CoF ijm þ CoE ji þ ð14:3cÞ
j2V s i2V d m2M k2K m t2T g2G
αgj ¼ 1
X X X X
2τktg CoEij ð14:3dÞ
g2G k2K t2T i, j 2 V d
αgi ¼ 1 Enki ¼ 0
Stkj ¼ 1

The CO2 emissions for the inbound transportation (routes to collect all collection
sites) are given by the first term (14.3a), where the emission value of each route k is
given by parameter Cok . The CO2 emissions from the outbound transportation are
also considered (terms 14.3b and 14.3c) where larger vehicles are used. Notice that
round trips between the sorting station and the depots are performed, with vehicles
traveling empty from the sorting station to the depot and in full truckload (FTL) back
to the sorting station. The amount of CO2 emissions for outbound transportation is
given by parameter CoFijm when the vehicle travels in FTL from depot i to sorting
station j with material m and CoEij when the vehicle travels empty in the opposite
direction. The last term (14.3d) accounts for the CO2 emissions of a vehicle, based at
depot i, traveling empty to depot j to perform closed routes from and to depot j.
As mentioned above, the social objective minimizes the maximum working hours
among drivers. The maximum value of vehicle’s total working hours in the planning
horizon is given by a positive decision variable DMax when assuming a fixed driver-
vehicle assignment (constraint 14.4).
276 14 A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case

XX X X
DMax  τktg durk þ τktg 2bij , 8g ð14:4Þ
k2K t2T k2K i, j 2 V d
Stkj ¼ 1 i ¼
6 j
Enki ¼ 0

Then, the function for the social objective is given by Eq. (14.5).

z3 ðSÞ ¼ DMax ð14:5Þ

With the objective functions defined, the constraints for the multi-objective model
of the MDPVRPI are expressed in constraints (14.6) to (14.13).
XXX
τktg μik ¼ frim 8i 2 V c , 8m ð14:6Þ
k2K m t2T g2G

X X X
τktg durk þ τktg 2bij  H 8t, 8g, 8i 2 V d : αgi ¼ 1 ð14:7Þ
k2K k2K j2Vd
Stkj ¼ 1 j ¼
6 i
Enki ¼ 0
X X
τktg ¼ τk0 tg 8g, 8t, 8i 2 V d ð14:8Þ
0
k 2 K in k 2 K in
Stki ¼ 1 Enk0 i ¼ 1
X X
τktg μik þ τkt0 g μik  1 8i 2 V c , 8k 2 K m , 8m, 8t, t 0 2 T, t
g2G g2G

> t 0 , ðt  t 0 Þ  Iminm ð14:9Þ

X X
τktg μik þ τk0 t0 g μik0  1 8i 2 V c , 8k, k0 2 K m , 8m, 8t, t 0 2 T, t
g2G g2G

> t 0 , ðt  t 0 Þ  Iminm ð14:10Þ

X X
τktg μik þ τkt0 g μik  1 8i 2 V c , 8k 2 K m , 8m, 8t, t 0 2 T, t
g2G g2G

> t 0 , ðt  t 0 Þ > Imaxm , ðt  t 0 Þ

 Imaxm þ Iminm ð14:11Þ
Annex B: Solution Procedure 277

X X
τktg μik þ τk0 t0 g μik0  1 8i 2 V c , 8k, k0 2 K m , 8m, 8t, t 0 2 T, t
g2G g2G

> t 0 , ðt  t 0 Þ > Imaxm , ðt  t 0 Þ

 Imaxm þ Iminm ð14:12Þ

τktg 2 f0; 1g 8k 2 K, 8t 2 T, 8g 2 G ð14:13Þ

Constraint (14.6) ensures that a collection site i with material m has to be collected
frim times over the time horizon. Constraint (14.7) states that the total route duration
performed by vehicle g on day t will not exceed the maximum time allowed for a
working day (H ). If a vehicle g, belonging to depot i, performs a route starting at
depot j, the travel time between i and j is considered.
Since all vehicles have to return to their origin depot, constraint (14.8) guarantees
that an inter-depot route k, starting at depot i, is part of the solution only if another
inter-depot route k0 ends at depot i. Considering all depots i 2 Vd, constraint (14.8)
ensures continuity among inter-depot routes enabling a vehicle rotation.
Constraints (14.9) to (14.12) model the minimum and maximum intervals
between consecutive collections which can be performed by the same route or by
two different routes. Therefore, constraint (14.9) states that the same route for
material m has to be performed with a minimum time interval of Iminm, while
constraint (14.10) considers the case of two different routes collecting the same
site i at consecutive collections. Analogously, constraints (14.11) and (14.12) ensure
the maximum interval Imaxm between consecutive collections. Variable’s domain is
given in constraint (14.13).

Annex B: Solution Procedure

B.1 Step 1: Routes Generation Procedure

The set of recyclable materials M is involved, and given that each material has to be
collected in separated routes, each procedure of step 1 is run independently for each
material.
The models involved in each procedure are formulated through MILP formula-
tions based on the two-commodity flow formulation (Baldacci et al. 2004). In such
formulations, the network is defined by a direct graph GR ¼ (V, E) with
V ¼ Vc [ Vd [ Vf [ Vs, being Vc ¼ {1, . . ., n} a set of n customers,
Vd ¼ {n + 1, . . ., n + w} a set of w depots, Vf ¼ {n + w + 1, . . ., n + 2w} a replica
of the depots set, Vs ¼ {n + 2w + 1, . . ., n + 2w + s} a set of s sorting stations, and
E ¼ {(i, j) : i, j 2 Vc [ Vd [ Vf [ Vs, i 6¼ j} the edge set.
Each site i 2 Vc is characterized by a demand pi and a service duration ti. The
service duration depends on the average time to collect a container (U ), on the
average distance between containers within a locality (B), on the average speed
278 14 A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case

withinlocalities
 (vw) and on the number of containers at each locality (ci), being
t i ¼ ci U þ vw
B
. The inbound vehicles have a weight capacity of Q and the outbound
vehicles QT. The maximum duration for a working day is given by H. Every edge (i,
d
j) has an associated distance dij and a travel time bij, where bij ¼ vbij and vb is the
average speed between localities. An unloading time L is also considered to account
for the time to unload a vehicle at the end of each route.
The depot replica set (Vf) is needed since, in the two-commodity flow formula-
tion, routes are defined by paths starting at the real depots and ending at the replica
ones. To establish the routes, this formulation requires two flow variables defining
two flow paths for any route. One path from the real depot to the replica one modeled
by the flow variable representing the vehicle load (variable yij). In a collection
problem, this load increases along the route. The other path from the replica depot
to the real one is given by the second flow variable (yji) that models the vehicle
empty space which decreases along the route.
These sets, parameters, and variables are the baseline to all route generating
procedures which are briefly described in the next sections.

B.1.1 Procedure 1: MDVRP

In the MDVRP only closed routes are defined. A set of routes K is considered and
partitioned by depot, K ¼ K1 [ . . . [ Ki, where Ki is the subset of routes belonging to
depot i. Decision variables are the binary variables xijk that equal 1 if site j is visited
immediately after site i on route k (xijk ¼ 0, otherwise) and the corresponding reverse
variable xjik when the reverse path is being defined and the flow variables yijk and yjik;
and a binary variable δik is defined to assign site i to route k. The objective function
also considers the distance to be traveled within each collection site (second term of
Eq. (14.14)) and the outbound distance (third term of Eq. (14.14)).

1XXX X X X X X yijk
Min xijk d ij þ ci S þ 2 d hj ð14:14Þ
2 i2V j2V k2K i2V c i2V c j2V f h2V k2K
QT
s

subject to
X  
yijk  y jik ¼ 2pi δik , 8i 2 V c , 8k ð14:15Þ
j2V
j 6¼ i
XXX X
yijk ¼ pi ð14:16Þ
i2V c j2V f k2K i2V c
Annex B: Solution Procedure 279

XXX X
y jik j K j Q  pi ð14:17Þ
i2V c j2V f k2K i2V c

X
yijk  Q 8j 2 V f , 8k 2 K j ð14:18Þ
i2V c

X
xijk ¼ 2δ jk , 8j 2 V c , 8k ð14:19Þ
i2V
i 6¼ j

yijk þ y jik ¼ Qxijk 8i, j 2 V, i 6¼ j, 8k ð14:20Þ

X
δik ¼ 1 8i 2 V c : pi > 0 ð14:21Þ
k2K

δik ¼ δðiþwÞk 8i 2 V d , 8k 2 K i ð14:22Þ

XX XX
t i xijk þ bij xijk  2ðH  LÞ 8k 2 K ð14:23Þ
i2V c j2V i2V j2V

X
xijk  1 8i 2 V d , 8k 2 K i ð14:24Þ
j2V c

X
xijk ¼ 0 8j 2 V f , 8k=
2K j ð14:25Þ
i2V c

X
xijk ¼ 0 8i 2 V d , 8k=
2K i ð14:26Þ
j2V c

yijk  0 8i, j 2 V, k 2 K ð14:27Þ

xijk 2 f0; 1g 8i, j 2 V, k 2 K ð14:28Þ

δik 2 f0; 1g 8i 2 V c , k 2 K ð14:29Þ

The above formulation is an extension for the MDVRP of the formulation

proposed by Baldacci et al. (2004) for the CVRP. Constraints (14.15) to (14.20)
are rewritten since it is considered index k and the binary variable δik. Constraints
(14.21) to (14.26) are new constraints that deal with multiple depots and duration
constraints. Equation (14.21) guarantees that each locality with positive demand has
to be visited by a single route. Constraint (14.22) matches the real depots with their
replica, ensuring that a route will start at the real depot and will end at the
corresponding replica. Constraint (14.23) guarantees that the duration of each
280 14 A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case

Fig. 14.12 Solution

method for the MDVRP MDVRP-MCO

Open Closed
Routes Routes

MDVRP

Closed
Routes

route does not exceed the maximum allowed routing time. Constraint (14.24)
ensures that each route will leave its home depot at most once. Finally, constraints
(14.25) and (14.26) jointly ensure that a vehicle route cannot leave and return to a
depot other than its home depot (real and replica depot). The new variable definition
is given in Eq. (14.29).
The proposed formulation, when applied to large instances, is computationally
difficult to solve. Therefore, a solution method is proposed to solve the MDVRP (see
Fig. 14.12). First, a problem where both closed and open routes are allowed, is
solves, the MDVRP with mixed closed and open routes (MDVRP-MCO).
The MDVRP-MCO formulation is proposed in the work of Ramos et al. (2013)
and is capable of dealing with large instances. Moreover, the majority of the routes in
the solution for the MDVRP-MCO are feasible for the MDVRP – the closed routes.
For “(the open routes)”, the MDVRP formulation is applied having, as input data,
only the sites belonging to each open route.

B.1.2 Procedure 2: MDVRPI

The MDVRPI allows inter-depot routes, where vehicles have to return to the home
depot on the same working day. Therefore, a vehicle rotation is limited by the
maximum duration of a working day (H ). To solve the MDVRPI, the solution
methodology proposed by Ramos (2012) was used, considering an unlimited vehicle
fleet. A MDVRPI Relaxation is solved where inter-depot and closed routes are
obtained (see Fig. 14.13). This formulation corresponds to the MDVRP-MCO
formulation to which adds constraint (14.30).
X X X X
xij þ x ji ¼ xðiþwÞ j þ x jðiþwÞ 8i 2 V d ð14:30Þ
j2V j2V j2V j2V

Constraint (14.30) guarantees that the number of routes departing from one depot
is equal to the number of routes arriving at that depot. This ensures connectivity
between the inter-depot routes and the rotation concept, i.e., a vehicle returns to its
Annex B: Solution Procedure 281

MDVRPI Relaxaon

Inter-Depot Closed
Routes Routes

Rotaon
Definion

Inter-Depot Routes Inter-Depot Routes

belonging to rotaons belonging to rotaons
with duraon ≤ H with duraon > H

MDVRPI

Inter-Depot Routes
belonging to rotaons
with duraon ≤ H and/or
Closed Routes

Fig. 14.13 Solution method for the MDVRPI

home depot. However, it is not guaranteed that the vehicle returns within a working
day since no duration constraints for rotation are considered in the MDVRPI
Relaxation. Notice that in the two-commodity formulation, to any real depot
i 2 Vd, a corresponding copy depot assumed i + w 2 Vf (w is the number of depots),
and the xij and xji modeled the opposite paths.
For the inter-depot routes obtained from the solution of the MDVRPI Relaxation,
rotations are defined by linking the inter-depot routes until one reaches the starting
depot. The duration of each rotation is then assessed. For rotations that do not respect
the working-day time limit, the MDVRPI formulation is solved and rotations
redefined to comply with the imposed limit. As a solution, one can have inter-
depot routes belonging to rotations that satisfy the maximum duration for a working
day and/or closed routes. More details can be founded in Ramos (2012).
282 14 A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case

B.1.3 Procedure 3: MDVRPI Extension

The MDVRPI Extension solves the problem by visiting all sites only by inter-depot
routes. For that, the MDVRPI Relaxation is used, but instead of considering all
depots and all collection sites at the same time, only two depots are considering in
each run, and only the closest sites to those depots are made available to be collected.
Moreover, a constraint is added to enforce routes to start and end at different depots.
As a result, only inter-depot routes are defined.
0
A pair of depots [dp, dp ] 2 Vd is considered at a time, and constraints (14.31) and
(14.32) are added to the MDVRPI Relaxation formulation, imposing that all routes
0
have to start at depot dp and end at depot dp to obtain a solution with only inter-
depot routes between each pair of depots.

xij ¼ 0, 8i 2 V c , j ¼ dp þ w ð14:31Þ

xij ¼ 0, 8j 2 V c , i ¼ dp0 ð14:32Þ

Regarding the maximum duration for

 each inter-depot route in this procedure, it is
considered the value H  L  bdp, dp0 to guarantee that the vehicle can return to the
origin depot within a working day.
After running the three procedures, the set K is built. Each route k 2 K is
characterized by mileage (disk), duration (durk), load (Lok), and CO2 emissions
(Cok). The first three parameters are provided by the solutions of the problems
solved. The last one, the CO2 emissions, has to be assessed a posteriori. For that,
the emission model proposed by Barth et al. (2004) was used. When a vehicle travels
over an arc (i,j), it is assumed that it emits a certain amount of CO2, which depends
on the fuel consumption that, in turn, is a function of many factors (such as, distance
traveled, vehicle load – curb weight plus load – speed, road angle, engine features,
vehicle frontal surface area, coefficients of rolling resistance and drag, and air
density, among others (see Barth et al. 2004)). The conversion factor of 1 l of diesel
fuel containing 2.6676 kg of CO2 was assumed (as proposed in Defra). Note that
CO2 emissions were considered on arcs and nodes since nodes represent collection
sites aggregating one or more containers and a certain mileage is traveled within
each node.
The computation of the CO2 emissions for all routes k 2 K concludes step 1.

B.2 Step 2: Solution Method for the Multi-objective Problem

In step 2 the multi-objective problem defined in Sect. 14.3 is solved (Fig. 14.4). In
such problems it is rarely the case a single point optimizes simultaneously all
objective functions (Coello and Romero 2003); therefore trade-offs between the
objectives have to be analyzed in line with the notion of Pareto optimality.
A solution is Pareto optimal if there exists no feasible solution, which improves
Annex B: Solution Procedure 283

one objective without causing a deterioration in at least one other objective. This
concept generally does not apply to a single solution, but rather a set of solutions
called the Pareto optimal set. The image of the Pareto optimal set under the objective
functions is called Pareto front.
The improved version of the traditional ε-constraint method is applied to the
problem so that the Pareto front is generated. Mavrotas (2009) proposes that the
objective function constraints are transformed into equations (instead of inequalities
as in the conventional method) by incorporating slack or surplus nonnegative vari-
ables, which are then used as penalization factors in the objective function. This
augmented ε-constraint method produces only efficient solutions. In this work three
objective functions exists; therefore a total of (q2 + 1)  (q3 + 1) runs are performed
to obtain the Pareto front, when q2 and q3 are the equal amplitude intervals
partitioning the range of each objective function. When the problem becomes
infeasible, it means that there is no need to further constrain the corresponding
objective function as it will from then on lead to infeasibility (more details in
Mavrotas 2009).
When solving the problem under analysis in this work, where three objectives are
being tackled, an approximation to the Pareto front is designed by using the
augmented ε-constraint method, where the economic objective is optimized and
the social and environmental constrained (see Table 14.4).
Finally, to propose a sustainable solution, that is, a compromise solution between
the three objectives, a compromise solution method (Yu 1985) is applied, where the
Pareto optimal solution closest to the ideal point is obtained. The ideal
 point (zI) is
defined according to the individual minima of each objective zI ¼ z1min ; z2min ; z3min ,
while the nadir point
 (zN) is defined according to the worst values obtained for each
objective (zN ¼ z1max ; z2max ; z3max . To apply this method, the objective functions are
normalized by the differences between the nadir and ideal points, measuring the
variability of the objective function within the Pareto set. Afterward, the compromise
solution is obtained by minimizing the distance from the Pareto front to the ideal
point, where the Tchebycheff metric is used as distance measure:
 
ϕ   
min max λ j z j ðSÞ  zIj  : S 2 Ω ð14:33Þ
j¼1

where ϕ is the number of objective functions in study and λj the normalized factor for
each objective function:
" #1
1 X1
ϕ
λj ¼ ð14:34Þ
r j i¼1 r i

j
r j ¼ zmax
j
 zmin ð14:35Þ
284 14 A Sustainable Reverse Logistics System: A Retrofit Case

Table 14.4 Pseudo-code of the augment ε-constraint method

1. Lexicographic optimization to create the payoff table
1.1. min z1(S)
st
eqs. (14.4), (14.6)–(14.13)
Output: solution s1 = (z1*,z2,z3)
1.2. min z2(S)
st
eqs. (14.4), (14.6)–(14.13), z1(S) = z1*
Output: solution s2 = (z1*,z2*,z3)
1.3. min z3(S)
st
eqs. (14.4), (14.6)–(14.13), z1(S) = z1*, z2(S) = z2*
Output: solution s2 = (z1*,z2*,z3*)
1.4. Repeat 1.1 to 1.3 for z2(s) and z3(S)
1.5. Write the payoff table for the three objectives
2. Set ε values
2.1. Set ranges of the objective functions:
r 2 ¼ z2max  z2min
r 3 ¼ z3max  z3min
2.2. Set number of grid points q2 and q3
2.3. Set the variation of ε2 and ε3:
Δε2 ¼ qr2
2
Δε3 ¼ qr3
3

3. Solve Problem (where v2, v3 are the surplus variables and eps is a small number, usually
between 106 and103)
n2 = 0, n3 = 0
while n2  q2 and n3  q3
do

min (z1(S)eps v2
r2 þ vr33
st
eqs. (14.4), (14.6)–(14.13)
z2 ðSÞ þ v2 ¼ z2max  n2 Δε2
z3 ðSÞ þ v3 ¼ z3max  n3 Δε3
end do
n2 = n2 + 1
n3 = n3 + 1
end while

References

Azi N, Gendreau M, Potvin JY (2010) An exact algorithm for a vehicle routing problem with time
windows and multiple use of vehicles. Eur J Oper Res 202:756–763
Balas E, Padberg M (1976) Set partitioning: a survey. SIAM Rev 18:710–760
Baldacci R, Hadjiconstantinou E, Mingozzi A (2004) An exact algorithm for the capacitated vehicle
routing problem based on a two-commodity network flow formulation. Oper Res 52:723–738
Barth M, Scora G, Younglove T (2004) Modal emissions model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles.
Trans Res Rec 1880:10–20
References 285

Coello CAC, Romero CEM. Evolutionary algorithms and multiple objective optimization. In: M.
Ehrgott, X. Gandibleux, editors, Multiple criteria optimization: state of the art annotated
bibliographic surveys; 2003. p. 277–331
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Guidelines to Defra/DECC’s GHG
conversion factors for company reporting. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/economy/busi
ness-efficiency/reporting. Accessed 17 Mar 2018
Laporte G. What you should know about the vehicle routing problem. Naval Research Logistics
2007;54:811–819
Mavrotas G (2009) Effective implementation of the epsilon-constraint method in multi-objective
mathematical programming problems. Appl Math Comput 213:455–465
Oliveira A, Vieira O (2007) Adaptive memory programming for the vehicle routing problem with
multiple trips. Comput Oper Res 34:28–47
Petch RJ, Salhi S (2003) A multi-phase constructive heuristic for the vehicle routing problem with
multiple trips. Discret Appl Math 133:69–92
Ramos TRP (2012) Tactical and operational planning in reverse logistics systems with multiple
depots. Dissertation, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa
Ramos TRP, Gomes MI, Barbosa-Povoa AP (2013) Planning waste cooking oil collection systems.
Waste Manag 33:1691–1703
Rieck J, Zimmermann J (2010) A new mixed integer linear model for a rich vehicle routing problem
with docking constraints. Ann Oper Res 181:337–358
Yu PL (1985) Multiple criteria decision making: concepts, techniques and extensions. Plenum
Press, New York
Chapter 15
Collection of Used or Unrecoverable
Products: The Case of Used Cooking Oil

Abstract The planning of collection routes in a waste cooking oil system is studied
in this chapter. The problem is modeled as a multi-depot vehicle routing problem
with mixed closed and open routes. This is to mean that all routes start at one depot
but can end at the same or at a different one, depending on what minimizes the
decision-maker goal (cost, distance travel, among others). The developed approach
allowed the company to redesign its collection system, which resulted in a decrease
of 13% on mileage and 11% on fleet hiring cost when compared to the current
company operation mode. The impact of expanding the collection network is also
studied allowing for a reduction of the collection cost per client.

Keywords Waste cooking oil · Routing · Multiple depots · Open routes · Time
duration constraints · Waste collection

15.1 Introduction

The collection of used or unrecoverable products for recycling has been growing in
recent years mainly due to the increase of society awareness toward environmental
aspects. One of these examples is the case of the cooking oil waste collection that has
been debated due to the negative environmental impacts caused by the uncontrolled
disposal of such products. Diverting waste cooking oil from landfills extends the
product life cycle and prevents the contamination of groundwater supplies with this
harmful liquid waste. Besides, waste cooking oil can be used to produce some other
products such as biodiesel (Zhang et al. 2003; Felizardo et al. 2006; Phan and Phan
2008; Sabudak and Yildiz 2010), which represents an alternative to nonrenewable
and limited fossil fuels, while being less polluting. According to Demirbas (2009),
there is a net reduction in CO2 emissions when using biodiesel fuel as an energy
source in a diesel engine, since it reduces the consumption of diesel fuels. Addition-
ally, biodiesel reduces particular matter (PM), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions but increases nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions when
compared with diesel fuel (EPA 2002). Despite the environmental benefits of
using biodiesel (renewability, biodegradability, nontoxicity, and low emissions),

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 287

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_15
288 15 Collection of Used or Unrecoverable Products: The Case of Used Cooking Oil

its cost is the main obstacle to commercialization. Since the feedstock represents up
to 75% of the total manufacturing cost of biodiesel, using cooking oils as raw
materials can reduce this cost as it is 2–3 times cheaper than virgin vegetables oils
(Zhang et al. 2003). Yaakob et al. (2013) supported by an extensive review con-
cluded that waste cooking oil could be a promising feedstock in biodiesel produc-
tion. Van Kasteren and Nisworo (2007) estimate the required selling price of
biodiesel produced from waste cooking oil at 0.17 US$/l to 0.52 US$/l, depending
on the plant capacity. Moreover, with the fossil fuel increasing prices, the biodiesel
from waste cooking oil tends to become also economically attractive.
Some companies have been investing in the collection and treatment of used
cooking oil from restaurants, schools, and canteens, seeking for the business oppor-
tunity behind this waste stream. After being collected, the oil can be used in biofuel
production units or in the chemical industry to produce soap, detergents, lubricants,
paint, and grease, among others. Moreover, collecting and recycling this type of
waste contribute to solve simultaneously three environmental problems: waste
reduction by product reuse/recovery, reduction of the fossil fuels energy depen-
dence, and reduction of pollutant emissions.
The present work is developed following a study of one company currently
operating in Portugal. This company is responsible for the collection, sorting, recov-
ery, and treatment of a large diversity of solid waste produced by 11 municipalities of
mainland Portugal. Among them are non-recyclable domestic waste, recyclable
waste packaging, electrical and electronic equipment waste, used tires, construction
and demolition waste, and waste cooking oil. The company operates three depots
where the collection vehicles start and end their routes. The specialized vehicles for
the collection of non-recyclable domestic waste and recyclable waste packaging are
owned by the company. The non-specialized collection vehicles are outsourced
implying a fixed cost per vehicle route and a variable cost per kilometer traveled.
These latter vehicles are the ones used to collect used tires or cooking oil waste.
There is a total of 303 sites (188 restaurants, 80 schools, and 35 canteens) where oil
containers have to be collected. When picking up full containers, empty ones are
delivered. The company decided they should be collected once a week, and, there-
fore, the number of containers delivered to each site is the one required to accomplish
a weekly collection target, i.e., according to the oil volume consumed per week. For
example, if a site consumes 50 liters per week, and since each container has a capacity
of 30 liters, two containers are delivered to this site. These are collected and
exchanged for empty and cleaned containers every week. In a collection day, vehicles
leave depots with empty containers and return to a depot to unload and clean the full
oil containers. Since the oil volume consumed in each site varies over the year, two
time periods are considered by this company: Normal Period, September to June, and
Seasonal Period, July and August. In the Normal Period, every site is visited for
collection once a week. In the Seasonal Period, schools are not visited; the number of
containers increases in restaurants located in vacation areas and decreases in business
canteens while maintaining the weekly collection. Therefore, there are two routing
plans. The Normal Period which involves 432 oil containers over 303 clients (res-
taurants, schools, and canteens), and the collections are to be repeated every week
from September to June (43 weeks). The Seasonal Period which involves
15.2 Company Current Operation Mode 289

292 containers over 223 clients (restaurants and canteens), and collections are to be
repeated every week from July to August (9 weeks).
Strategically, the company has decided to contract independent vehicles to collect
this waste stream. As mentioned before, such vehicles involve the payment of a fixed
cost per route and a variable cost per kilometer traveled. The company aims at
minimizing the total cost, the number of vehicle routes performed, and the total
distance traveled when visiting all the collection sites. Furthermore, the company is
striving to expand the collection network in terms of the number of visited clients
and wants to assess the impact of this potential growth on the defined objectives.
A mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model has been developed to
address this case study (all modeling details are presented in Annex A). All routes
start at one depot but can end at the same or at a different one, depending on what
minimizes the considered objective. Such problem is referred as a Multi-Depot
Vehicle Routing Problem with Mixed Closed and Open Inter-Depot Routes where
capacity and duration constraints are taken into account.
This chapter unfolds as follows. In the next section, the company current oper-
ation mode is described. Section 15.3 presents all the analysis that can be performed
with the model presented in Annex A. Namely, the current operation mode is
optimized, and an expansion analysis is made so as access where and when to add
new customers. Lastly, some conclusions are drawn.

15.2 Company Current Operation Mode

The waste cooking oil collection system in study has 3 depots and 303 clients
(restaurants, schools, and canteens) and operates under 2 collection periods along
the year caused by the pattern observed on the waste oil collecting demand: Normal
Period, September to June, and Seasonal Period, July to August. The 303 clients are
clustered into collection sites, corresponding to urban areas or isolated locations. A
collection site is characterized by the number of clients and the oil containers (e.g.,
collection site “24” is an area with 28 clients and a total of 30 oil containers in the
Normal Period). The traveled distance and the time spent at a collection site takes
into account the average distance between clients (0.5 km), the road velocity in urban
areas (30 km/h), and the average time spent at each client (6 min). Taking again
collection site “24” as an example, one sees the total distance traveled is 14 km and
the total time spent adds up to 196 min.1 Since collection periods occur on non-rush
hours with low traffic, an average of 30 km/h is observed based on historical data
combined with the daily experience of the company. Moreover, the same average
speed is assumed for all collection sites since all visited areas have similar charac-
teristics regarding road and traffic network.

1
198 min ¼ 28 clients  6 min/client + 14 km  2 min/km
290 15 Collection of Used or Unrecoverable Products: The Case of Used Cooking Oil

Depot Depot

15 min 10 min 330 min 25 min 15 min

Loading Collection Unloading

Arrival to the Departure

first collection from the last
site collection site

Fig. 15.1 Example of vehicle route timings

As mentioned, the company works with a different number of clients and

containers along the year. For the Normal Period, 432 containers are spread over
the 303 current clients that, in turn, are clustered into 100 collection sites. Forty-four
percent of the collection sites have only one client with a single oil container, and
11% have more than five clients with more than five oil containers to be collected.
Regarding the Seasonal Period, 292 containers are spread over 223 clients (schools
are not considered) and clustered in 86 collection sites.
Each vehicle is hired for a 7.5-h period, including half an hour of lunch break and
has a capacity to collect up to 45 oil containers. Since collection sites are restaurants,
schools, and canteens, the visits must occur within the kitchens’ working period, a
6-h period from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. At depots, when the outsourced vehicles arrive,
they are loaded with empty oil containers, and upon their return, the collected oil
containers are unloaded. The loading/unloading operation has an average duration of
15 min each. Figure 15.1 depicts possible vehicle route timings.
In the Normal Period, the company operates 11 vehicles covering a total of
1220 km per week. It represents weekly hiring costs of 2540€ corresponding to 120€
as a fixed cost per hired vehicle and 1€ per km traveled per vehicle. The collection is
performed with six closed routes and five open ones (Fig. 15.2a). In the Seasonal
Period, eight vehicles are weekly hired, traveling 1039 km and representing a total
hiring cost of 1999€. Five closed routes and three open ones are used during this
period (Fig. 15.2b).
Table 15.1 shows the main key performance indicators of the current operation.
On average 28 clients are visited per week, where at the Normal Period an average of
39 containers are collected, representing a capacity utilization rate of 87%, and at the
Seasonal Period 37 containers are collected, corresponding to a capacity utilization
rate of 81%. Route length ranges between 68 and 196 km. On average, collection
takes a total of 272 min in the Normal Period and 291 min in the Seasonal Period
(82% and 88% of usage rate, respectively). No route reaches the maximum time
available (420 min). The longest one takes 97% of this time (408 min).
15.3 The New Collection Network 291

(a) (b)

Depots
Collection Sites

Fig. 15.2 Routes operated during (a) Normal Period and (b) Seasonal Period

Table 15.1 Current routes characteristics

Normal Period Seasonal Period
Key performance Total per Per route Total per Per route
indicators week Min Avg Max week Min Avg Max
No. clients visited 303 16 28 37 223 13 28 40
No. containers collected 432 31 39 45 292 23 37 45
Distance travelled (km) 1220 68 111 196 1039 93 130 161
Collection durationa (m) 2989 165 272 328 2324 182 291 330
Total duration (m) 3733 255 339 399 2876 250 360 408
Used capacity (%) – 69 87 100 – 51 81 100
Used collection dura- – 50 82 99 – 55 88 100
tion (%)
Used total duration (%) – 61 81 95 – 60 86 97
a
Collection Duration involves the elapse time between arriving to the first collection site and leaving
from the last collection site

15.3 The New Collection Network

15.3.1 If the Current Network Is Optimized

The best found collection network at the Normal Period comprises ten routes, one
route less than the current company operation mode. Six are closed routes and four
292 15 Collection of Used or Unrecoverable Products: The Case of Used Cooking Oil

Table 15.2 Solution proposed for the Normal Period

Route
No. Route sequence Type
#1 101 - 11 - 9 - 10 - 12 - 13 - 1 - 36 - 35 - 85 - 84 - 37 - 38 - 2 - 90 - 87 - 89 - 86 - Open
7 - 88 - 65 - 76 - 105
#2 101 - 14 - 22 - 25 - 33 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 74 - 73 - 72 - 71 - 70 - 105 Open
#3 101 - 34 - 17 - 18 - 16 - 26 - 23 - 24 - 104 Closed
#4 102 - 69 - 68 - 67 - 64 - 66 - 20 - 15 - 21 - 28 - 27 - 19 - 104 Open
#5 102 - 82 - 99 - 100 - 98 - 4 - 94 - 95 - 96 - 8 - 3 - 78 - 6 - 79 - 77 - 80 - 81 - 5 - Closed
105
#6 103 - 39 - 42 - 46 - 47 - 40 - 106 Closed
#7 103 - 45 - 54 - 61 - 57 - 75 - 62 - 63 - 92 - 97 - 91 - 83 - 105 Open
#8 103 - 48 - 93 - 44 - 43 - 41 - 106 Closed
#9 103 - 52 - 53 - 51 - 50 - 56 - 58 - 59 - 49 - 60 - 106 Closed
#10 103 - 55 - 106 Closed

(a) (b)

Fig. 15.3 Solution proposed for the (a) Normal Period and (b) Seasonal Period

are open (Table 15.2 and Fig. 15.3a). At the Seasonal Period, seven routes are
defined where five are closed and two are open (Fig. 15.3b).
As mentioned, a weekly collection frequency is considered, and, consequently,
routes are to be repeated every week. For the open inter-depot routes, the starting
depot will alternate each week so that the number of empty and full containers
matches every week. For instance, considering route #2 for the Normal Period, when
the vehicle starts the route at depot 101 and ends at depot 102, depot 101 needs to
have at least 45 empty oil containers that will be exchanged for 45 full containers and
15.3 The New Collection Network 293

unloaded at depot 102. Therefore, in the next week, this route will start at depot
102, since the 45 empty containers are now available at this location.
The total distance traveled to collect the 432 oil containers scattered over the
303 clients in the Normal Period is of 1067 km, and only 10 vehicles are required
against the 11 currently hired by the company. At the Seasonal Period, the distance
traveled to collect the 292 containers is 895 km and again, one less vehicle is needed.
It represents a decrease of 13% on the annual mileage. The proposed solution entails
a weekly hiring fleet cost of 2267€ at the Normal Period and 1735€ at the Seasonal
Period, a reduction of 11% regarding the current annual hiring cost.
The utilization capacity and collection duration rates have increased from 87% to
96% and from 82% to 90%, respectively, in the Normal Period (Table 15.3). The
average number of clients visited per route is now higher than in the current
operation mode as well as the number of collected containers. Route maximum
length and duration have reduced to 163 km and to 374 min, respectively. Since
vehicles are currently hired for a 420-minute period, negotiations can be performed
to reduce the hiring period to 375 min, potentially diminishing the fixed cost per
vehicle.

15.3.2 Network Expansion

The company plans to increase the number of clients and, consequently, the number
of oil containers spread over the 11 municipalities. This marketing effort is to be
executed in two phases. First, increase the number of clients within the existent
collection sites, i.e., attract more restaurants, schools, and canteens in the areas
already being visited. Second, increase the number of collection sites, i.e., add
new areas to the current network. The goal has been set to enlarge the number of
clients in 25% (corresponding to 76 clients) in a medium-term horizon. At phase
one, the company aims to attract 50% of the target clients (38 clients) in the current
visited areas, and, in the second phase, the company aims to attract the remaining
50% of clients in new areas.

Phase 1

One assesses the areas (or collection sites) where the marketing effort should be
invested by the company. In fact, the idea is to take advantage of the time availability
in the new proposed routes. The available capacity and duration were analyzed and
showed the space to add a total of 12 new clients2 by only increasing the usage rates
(no change needs to be done on the new routes).

2
Assuming each client needs only one container, it will correspond to 12 containers.
 294
15

Table 15.3 Routes’ characteristics for the Normal Period

Route No. clients No. containers Distance Collection Total duration Used Used collection Used total
no. visited collected travelled (km) durationa (min) (min) capacity (%) duration (%) duration (%)
#1 23 42 163 324 372 93 98 89
#2 28 45 117 311 350 100 94 83
#3 35 45 97 317 370 100 96 88
#4 29 44 64 251 292 98 76 70
#5 28 44 133 326 369 98 99 88
#6 37 41 56 293 334 91 89 79
#7 22 44 141 282 340 98 85 81
#8 35 43 100 327 374 96 99 89
#9 29 43 129 282 370 96 85 88
#10 37 41 68 259 349 91 78 83
Total 303 432 1067 2971 3520 – – –
Avg 30 43 107 297 352 96 90 84
Min 22 41 56 251 292 91 76 70
Max 37 45 163 327 374 100 99 89
a
Collection Duration involves the elapse time between arriving to the first collection site and leaving from the last collection site
Collection of Used or Unrecoverable Products: The Case of Used Cooking Oil
 15.3

Table 15.4 Potential clients to be added considering capacity and duration availability of the proposed routes for the Normal Period and the impact on the
usage rates
Used
Route Capacity available Collection duration Collection duration Potential clients capacity Used collection Used total
no. (no. clients)a available (min) available (no. clients) to be added (%) duration (%) duration (%)
#1 3 6 0 0 93 98 89
The New Collection Network

#2 0 19 2 0 100 94 83
#3 0 13 1 0 100 96 88
#4 1 79 11 1 100 78 71
#5 1 4 0 0 98 99 88
#6 4 37 5 4 100 97 86
#7 1 48 6 1 100 87 83
#8 2 3 0 0 96 99 89
#9 2 48 6 2 100 90 91
#10 4 71 10 4 100 87 90
Total 18 329 41 12 – – –
Avg – – – – 99 93 86
Min – – – – 93 78 71
Max – – – – 100 99 91
a
lt is considered that the number of clients is equal to the number of containers
295
296 15 Collection of Used or Unrecoverable Products: The Case of Used Cooking Oil

#5 101/104
#1

#2

#4

102/105
#7
#3
#6
#8

#9

#10 Depots
Collection Sites with no expansion
Collection Sites with expansion
103/106
Closed Routes
#11
Open Routes
# Route Number

Fig. 15.4 New routes for a network with 341 clients located at 100 collection sites

Table 15.4 reports, for each proposed route, the available capacity and time
(number of clients ¼ number of collected containers and collection duration avail-
able in minutes) to perform additional collection and how this availability can be
converted into additional clients to visit3 (collection duration available - no. clients),
as well as into the number of potential clients to be added.4 In short, the proposed
routes have, regarding time, available capacity to accommodate a total of 41 new
customers. However, regarding capacity for new containers, only a total of 18 new
containers can be loaded to the vehicles.
An oriented marketing effort on the areas covered by routes 4, 6, 7, 9, and
10 could lead to an increase in the capacity usage rates from 96% to 99% and an

3
Collection duration available (no. of clients) ¼ collection duration available in minutes/average
time to spent at a client
4
No. of potential clients to add ¼ Min {Capacity available (no. of clients), collection duration
available (no. of clients)}
The average time spent at a client is 7 min: average time spent on each client (6 min) + average
time to travel between two clients (0.5 km  2 min/km ¼ 1 min).
15.3 The New Collection Network 297

increase in the used collection duration rates from 90% to 93%. However, due to the
vehicles capacity to new containers, only 12 clients can be added. To reach the
company’s goal for phase 1, there are still 38 new clients to consider.
After the identification by the company where to locate these potential 38 new
clients, a new route plan was computed. The new operational plan has 11 routes,
where 4 are open and the remaining 7 closed (Fig. 15.4). The total hiring fleet cost in
this scenario reaches 2442€ per week and covers 1122 km.

Phase 2

In the second phase, the company identified 10 new areas of interest to be added to
the current network, where 38 new potential clients are located. In this case, 12 routes
are needed to visit 379 clients located at 110 collection sites. Four are open and eight
are closed (Fig. 15.5). The total distance traveled is now 1205 km, and the total
hiring fleet cost is 2645€ per week. The impact of expanding the current network is
summarized in Table 15.5. The expansion of clients reached without modifying the

#2

#1 111/114

#3

#4

112/115 #5

#6
#10
#7

#11
#9
Depots
Collection Sites with no expansion
#12 Collection Sites with expansion
New Collection Sites
#8 113/116 Closed Routes
Open Routes
# Route Number

Fig. 15.5 Routes proposed for a network with 379 clients located at 110 collection sites
298 15 Collection of Used or Unrecoverable Products: The Case of Used Cooking Oil

Table 15.5 Results comparison between the three phases to the current network expansion
Current Phase 0 - Add Phase 1 - Add Phase 2 - Add
network 12 clients, 38 clients, 76 clients,
(solution maintaining maintaining increasing
proposed) collection sites collection sites collection sites
Number of 100 100 100 110
collection sites
Number of 303 315 341 379
clients
Number of 432 444 470 508
containers
Number of 10 10 11 12
routes
Number of 6 6 7 8
closed routes
Number of 4 4 4 4
open routes
Distance trav- 1067 1073 1122 1205
elled (km)
Total cost (€) 2267 2273 2442 2645
Average used 96 99 95 94
capacity rate
(%)
Average used 90 93 89 88
collection
duration rate
(%)
Average total 84 86 84 84
duration rate
(%)

proposed solution with the 12-customer increase (phase 0) was considered, which
can be seen as a short-term locality-oriented marketing action. Phases 1 and 2 imply
a more significant effort from the marketing and operations departments and are seen
as medium-term actions.
The cost per client decreased with the growth of the collection network
(Fig. 15.6), meaning the company should pursue these economies of density.
Whenever the company intends to increase the number of clients on existing
collection sites (areas), the analysis of the capacity and duration availability on the
optimal routes should be performed to guide the marketing effort from an operations
point of view, gaining on efficiency. For instance, phase 0 where this analysis was
considered represents the largest decrease in the cost per client when compared to the
other phases of expansion (3.5%).
Annex A 299

9.00 €

8.50 € 8.38 €

8.00 €

-11% 7.48 €
7.50 €
7.22 €
7.16 €
- 3.5% 6.98 €
7.00 €
- 1%
- 2.5%
6.50 €

6.00 €
Current Current Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2
Solution Network
Optimized

Fig. 15.6 Hiring fleet cost per client for all scenarios presented

15.4 Conclusions

This chapter addressed a real problem of waste collection using outsourced vehicles
where the company wanted to increase its market share. In this case, all routes have
to start at a depot to load clean containers and end at the same or different depot to
unload the full containers. The new vehicle routes allow a decrease of 13% on
mileage and 11% on fleet hiring cost when compared to the current company
operation mode. The impact of expanding the collection network has also been
studied leading to a reduction of the collection cost per client. Such results clearly
show the impact optimization models can have in supporting decision-making,
allowing for a straightforward study of different management scenarios.

Annex A

The MDVRP-MCO is formulated on a graph G ¼ (V, A), where V ¼ {1, . . ., N + W}

is the vertex set and A ¼ {(i, j) : i, j 2 V, i 6¼ j} is the edge set. The vertex set V is
partitioned into two subsets Vc ¼ {1, . . ., N} and Vd ¼ {N + 1, . . ., N + W},
representing the set of N collection sites and the set of W depots, respectively.
Each vertex i 2 Vc has a number of containers to be collected ( pi) and a
non-negative service duration (si). A symmetric distance matrix D ¼ (dij) is associ-
ated to the edge set A.
The MDVRP-MCO builds k vehicle routes such that (1) each route starts and
ends at a depot (not necessarily the same); (2) each collection site is visited exactly
300 15 Collection of Used or Unrecoverable Products: The Case of Used Cooking Oil

Fig. 15.7 Routes 6

illustration for the MDVRP- 2
8 11
OR
12 14
15 7 17
4
1
13 10
16
3 Real Depot
CopyDepot
5 9

once by a vehicle; (3) the total demand of each route does not exceed the vehicle
capacity Q; (4) the total duration of each route, including travel and service times,
does not exceed a preset time limit T; so (5) the total routing cost is minimized.
To apply
the two-commodity flow formulation, the graph G is extended. The
graph G ¼ V;  A is now obtained by adding the vertex set Vf ¼ {N + W + 1, . . .,
N + 2W},which is a copy of the depots set. Thus, V ¼ V [ V f ,
A ¼ A [ fði; jÞ : i 2 V c ; j 2 V f g, and dij ¼ dih, i 2 Vc, j 2 Vf, h 2 Vd.
To formulate the MDVRP-MCO based on the two-commodity flow formulation,
the same decision variables as Baldacci et al. (2004) were used – xij and yij – and add
two decision variables to carry out the duration constraints, eij and aij. A third
variable k is introduced allowing for the minimization of the number of vehicles or
vehicle routes (in this context vehicles and vehicle routes are equivalent). Therefore,
the decision variables in this formulation are:
• xij, a binary variable representing the routing solution:
¼ 1, if site j is visited immediately after site i; 0, otherwise.
• yij, a flow variable representing the load in the vehicle route when edge (i, j) is
crossed. The flow yji represents the empty space on vehicle route when edge (i, j)
is crossed; therefore, yij + yji ¼ Q, at any edge (i, j).
• eij, a continuous variable representing the exit time from site i to site j.
• aij, a continuous variable representing the arrival time to site j from site i.
• k, an integer variable representing the number of vehicles needed.
All routes start at a real depot (set Vd) and end at a copy one (set Vf) as shown in
Fig. 15.7.
As mentioned, each route is defined by two flow paths: one path, from a real depot
to a copy depot, defined by variables yij, modeling the vehicle load; the other path,
the reverse path starts at a copy depot and ends at a real depot, defined by variables
yji, modeling the empty space on the vehicle. An illustration of such paths can be
seen in Fig. 15.8.
The MILP model is formulated as follows:
Annex A 301

Load of the vehicle

x13,5=1 x5,9=1 x9,10=1 x10,17=1

y13,5=0 y5,9=30 y9,10=50 y10,17=60

13 17
5 9 10
(Q=70) x5,13=1 (p5=30) x =1 (p9=20) x =1 (p10=10) x17,10=1
9,5 10,9

y5,13=70 y9,5=40 y10,9=20 y17,10=10

Empty Space

Path from real depot to copy depot

Path from copy depot to real depot

Fig. 15.8 Illustration of the two paths defining a route solution for the MDVRP-MCO

1XX
Minimize xij cij þ f :k ð15:0Þ
2 i2V j2V

Subject to
X

yij  y ji ¼ 2pi , 8i 2 V c ð15:1Þ
j 2 V
j 6¼ i
XX X
yij ¼ pi ð15:2Þ
i2V c j2V f i2V c

XX X
y ji ¼ k:Q  pi ð15:3Þ
j2V f i2V c i2V c

XX
yij ¼ k:Q ð15:4Þ
i2V c j2V d

X
xij ¼ 2, 8j 2 V c ð15:5Þ
i 2 V
i 6¼ j

yij þ y ji ¼ Qxij  i 6¼ j
8i, j 2 V, ð15:6Þ

eij þ tvij xij ¼ aij  i 6¼ j

8i, j 2 V, ð15:7Þ
302 15 Collection of Used or Unrecoverable Products: The Case of Used Cooking Oil

X

e ji  aij ¼ 2s j 8j 2 V c ð15:8Þ
i 2 V
i 6¼ j
X
eij  ahi  si xij  i 6¼ j
8i 2 V c , 8j 2 V, ð15:9Þ
 fi; jg
h2V\

eij  BigMxij 8i, j 2 V ð15:10Þ

aij  BigMxij 8i, j 2 V ð15:11Þ

0 0 0
eij  a j0 i0  E 8i, i 2 V c , i 6¼ i , 8j 2 V f , 8j 2 V d ð15:12Þ

a ji þ L  T 8i 2 V d [ V f , 8j 2 V c ð15:13Þ

eij ¼ 0 8i 2 V d [ V f , 8j 2 V c ð15:14Þ

xij 2 f0; 1g 8i, j 2 V ð15:15Þ

yij , y ji  0 8i, j 2 V ð15:16Þ

eij , aij  0 8i, j 2 V ð15:17Þ

k integer ð15:18Þ

The objective function (15.0) models the minimization of the total cost involving
variable and fixed costs. Here, cij is the cost of crossing edge (i, j) which is a function
of the distance as cij ¼ β. dij, with β the unit cost per kilometer. Since the collection
routes are defined by two paths (see Fig. 15.8), each solution edge is counted twice,
doubling the distance traveled and, consequently, doubling the cost. For example, at
Fig. 15.8, the cost of edge [13,5] (c13, 5) is counted twice, since x13, 5 ¼ 1 and x5,
13 ¼ 1. Therefore, to identify the real variable cost value, the first term has to be
divided by 2 to eliminate the value of the second path. In the second term, f is the
vehicle fixed hiring cost.
The first six equations are related to the flows rules along the routes definition.
Constraint (15.1) states that the outflow minus the inflow at each collection site is
equal to twice the amount to be collected at each collection site. Constraint (15.2)
ensures that the total inflow of the copy depots is equal to the total amount to be
collected. The total outflow of copy depots corresponds to the residual capacity of
the used vehicles. Constraint (15.3) ensures that the total outflow of the copy depots
is equal to the residual capacity of the vehicle fleet, while constraint (15.4) states that
the total inflow of the real depots is equal to the total capacity. Constraint (15.5)
guarantees that each collection site has two incident edges, and constraint (15.6)
ensures that the inflow plus the outflow of any node is equal to the vehicle capacity.
References 303

On the other hand, constraints (15.7) to (15.14) are related to the timings
associated with routes definition. Constraint (15.7) guarantees that the exit time
from node i plus traveling time from i to j (denoted by tvij) is equal to the arrival time
at node j. Constraint (15.8) states that the exit time minus the arrival time at each
collection site is equal to twice the amount of time spent at each collection site, while
constraint (15.9) ensures time continuity. Constraints (15.10) and (15.11) ensure that
if the arc (i, j) is not crossed, then the exit and arrival times from i to j are equal to
zero. Constraint (15.12) ensures that the time elapsed between arriving to the first
site and leaving from the last site does not exceed the available time to visit the
collection sites, denoted by E. Constraint (15.13) guarantees that the route duration
plus the time to load and unload the vehicle at depots (denoted by L ) does not exceed
the time available for a working day (denoted by T ). Constraint (15.14) states that all
routes start at time zero.
Finally, the variables domains are given at Eqs. (15.15) to (15.18). To tightening
the lower bound, the flow inequalities (15.19) and (15.20) proposed by Baldacci
et al. (2004) tailored here to a collection problem were also considered.


Q  p j y ji  p j yij  0 8i, j 2 V ð15:19Þ

ðQ  pi Þyij  pi y ji  0 8i, j 2 V ð15:20Þ

All the results presented were obtained by the model presented above,
implemented in GAMS 23.6 and solved by the CPLEX Optimizer 12.1.0, on an
Intel Xeon CPU X5680 @ 3.33GHz.

References

Baldacci R, Hadjiconstantinou E, Mingozzi A et al (2004) An exact algorithm for the capacitated

vehicle routing problem based on a two-commodity network flow formulation. Oper Res
52:723–738
Demirbas A (2009) Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels: a review. Appl
Energy 86:S108–S117
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency U.S. (2002) A comprehensive analysis of biodiesel
impacts on exhaust emissions. Draft technical report EPA420-P-02-001
Felizardo P, Correia MJN, Raposo I et al (2006) Production of biodiesel from waste frying oil.
Waste Manag 26:487–494
Phan AN, Phan TM (2008) Biodiesel production from waste cooking oils. Fuel 87:3490–3496
Sabudak T, Yildiz M (2010) Biodiesel production from waste frying oils and its quality control.
Waste Manag 30:799–803
Van Kasteren JMN, Nisworo AP (2007) A process model to estimate the cost of industrial scale
biodiesel production from waste cooking oil by supercritical transesterification. Resour Conserv
Recycl 50:442–458
Yaakob Z, Mohammad M, Alherbawi M et al (2013) Overview of the production of biodiesel from
waste cooking oil. Rene Sust Energ Rev 18:184–193
Zhang Y, Dubé MA, McLean DD et al (2003) Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil:
2. Economic assessment and sensitivity analysis. Bioresour Technol 90:229–240
 Part IV
Challenges and Perspectives for Sustainable
Waste Management Through Waste
Collection
Chapter 16
The Evolution of the Waste Collection

Abstract This chapter discusses the concept of the integrated waste collection that
could bring the collection operational unit of the integrated solid waste management
into the center of it. The integrated waste collection concept is based on the
operational units existing in the waste management system, having in mind the
waste hierarchy principle and the contribution to the circular economy. The inte-
grated waste collection has impacts on the economy, society, and environment, and
its conception needs to look at the way how it can be sustainable and contribute to
the sustainability of the waste management where it belongs.

Keywords Biological treatment · Energy recovery · ISWM · Recycling · Source

separate collection · Sustainability · Waste hierarchy · Waste prevention

16.1 Definition of Integrated Waste Collection Concept

Until now, waste management systems have been focusing on the options of
treatment, recovery, and disposal of waste, looking to waste collection as an
operational unit only needed to make waste management system work. A more
prominent role has been given to waste collection nowadays, making this operational
unit each day more relevant to help to increase sustainability in the use of resources,
to economically optimize the waste management system, and to reduce environmen-
tal impacts resulting from the collection of waste. The concept of integrated waste
collection intends to put the focus of waste management system in the collection
operational unit, where waste hierarchy principle, under the umbrella of the circular
economy, is implemented in the waste management system by the waste collection.
The critical items under the concept of the integrated waste collection are:
• A holistic view, where the city and region (urban and industrial) consider all
symbiosis roles.
• Use of system analysis methodologies to find solutions to the problems.
• Waste hierarchy under the umbrella of the circular economy.

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 307

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_16
308 16 The Evolution of the Waste Collection

A holistic view is needed to embrace all the aspects related to the waste collection
and effects on the waste management system. Industrial ecology is the basis to
embrace the aspects, where the vision of ecosystem includes the human system
(urban and industrial). This approach is needed to understand the waste management
system with an organismic approach of wholeness, connectedness, and ordered
complexity (Naveh 2000). Industrial ecology is capable of helping to implement
the holistic approach, being strategies as industrial symbiosis used to maximize
waste collection as the vector for a holistic and sustainable waste collection system,
because holistic requires seeing the system as a whole, with the pillars of sustain-
ability. According to the Mulvaney and Robbins (2011), industrial ecology is a:
Systems-oriented study of the physical, chemical, and biological interactions and interrela-
tionships both within industrial systems and between industrial and natural ecological
systems.

Industrial symbiosis is a strategy to implement industrial ecology, where enter-

prises, employees, and the community collaborates to all enjoy benefits, being
synergistic possibilities offered by geographic proximity (Mirata 2004; Glavič and
Lukman 2007). An integrated waste collection needs to be tough, designed, planned,
and implemented having as basis the industrial ecology and symbiosis in the
geographic area where it is located, at different levels. The connections between
all elements of the system must be driven by the type of waste/secondary resource to
be collected, regarding amounts and waste features and destination features, and
having in mind the geographic scales which could exist to potentiate a sustainable
collection.
Systems analysis is capable of dealing with the complexity of waste management
systems, by making simplifications of the real waste management systems during
modeling without losing their essential features that characterize waste management
(Chang et al. 2011). Systems analysis in waste management field has started since
the 1960s, firstly to solve single objective optimization schemes like cost minimi-
zation of waste transport from transfer stations to landfills (Anderson 1968; Ander-
son and Nigam 1967). Significant evolution of the systems analysis techniques
applied has been identified by Chang et al. (2011) and Pires et al. (2011). The
evolution is mostly due to the natural evolution of systems analysis techniques but
also to the increased complexity of waste management nowadays, where all different
kinds of mandatory regulation, together with sustainability requirements, are
included in the day-to-day management of waste. The types of systems analysis
methods are (1) systems engineering models including cost-benefit analysis, fore-
casting model, simulation model, optimization model, and integrated modeling
system; (2) systems analysis platforms, including management information sys-
tem/decision support system/expert system, and finally system assessment tools
such as scenario development, material flow analysis, life cycle assessment or life
cycle inventory, risk assessment, environmental impact assessment, strategic envi-
ronmental assessment, socioeconomic assessment, and sustainable assessment. The
use of those systems analysis techniques is useful and crucial to implement and
develop integrated waste collection concept.
16.1 Definition of Integrated Waste Collection Concept 309

According to the EU Waste Framework Directive, waste hierarchy principle is

divided into prevention, reuse, preparing for reuse, recycling, recovery, and landfill
on a preferential scale (EC 2008). Besides its implementation and diverse variations,
waste hierarchy principle alone has issues, such as lack of guidance for choosing
among the levels of the hierarchy and the absence of a distinction between open-loop
and closed-loop recycling, and does not support decisions that could affect other
sectors as well as waste management (Ewijk and Stegemann 2016). The waste
hierarchy could be promoted under the umbrella of the circular economy, i.e., to
dematerialize the economy by reintroducing waste as resources (if the waste is not
avoidable), through the waste collection. How? The interactions between waste
collection and each of the waste hierarchy steps need to be decomposed and
analyzed to visualize its contribution and how waste managers can, in fact, manip-
ulate waste collection to address better management of waste, in the light of waste
hierarchy and circular economy.
Looking at waste hierarchy principle, the same structure is not being reflected
nowadays in an integrated solid waste management (ISWM) system. Prevention is
not part of ISWM because waste managers see it as a drawback – they need waste for
their business, so any attempt to reduce it is a threat to themselves. However,
prevention needs to be included because it is present in both waste hierarchy and
circular economy. Reuse intends that the products have not yet reached waste stage
not be within the scope of waste management. According to Waste Framework
Directive definition, reuse means (European Parliament and Council 2008):
Any operation by which products or components that are not waste are used again for the
same purpose for which they were conceived.

Preparation for reuse can be influenced by the waste management system;

however, the preparation is not part of the ISWM like what happens to prevention.
Waste management systems are mostly devoted to sorting for recycling and treat-
ment of waste. Waste treatment can be mechanical and biological (composting,
anaerobic digestion), and waste collection can influence those processes. Energy
recovery (also known as waste-to-energy), the less exciting option regarding the
circular economy, can also be influenced by waste collection. In the end, mass
burning and disposal are the less attractive options on waste hierarchy principle,
and the interactions with the waste collection are the oldest, because waste manage-
ment systems were, in the beginning, made by waste collection and transportation to
the final destination – incineration or landfill.
The integrated waste collection needs to fulfill the purpose of a sustainable solid
waste management system (McDougall et al. 2001): environmentally effective,
economically affordable, and socially acceptable. Figure 16.1 shows the integrated
waste collection hub which highlights the interactions between the collection and the
other waste hierarchy-based processes and sustainability aspects considered in the
development and implementation of the integrated waste collection.
310 16 The Evolution of the Waste Collection

Fig. 16.1 Integrated waste collection

16.2 The Functioning of the Integrated Waste Collection

(IWC)

The waste collection can influence each of the processes occurring in a waste
management system. For each process, an interaction occurs, and the way how the
collection performs influences positively and negatively the process. The description
of those interactions is in the next sections.

16.2.1 How Collection Interacts with Waste Prevention

Waste prevention intends to avoid the generation of waste, to reduce its hazardous-
ness, and to reduce its impacts during its existence as waste (Directive 2008/98/EC).
To do so, there is a need to increase the lifetime of products and its durability and to
define new methods of production to contain less amount of hazardous substances.
When reaching waste phase, the entire management chain is conceived to not have
an adverse impact on the environment and human health (from collection to dis-
posal). According to Ewijk and Stegemann (2016), waste collection is the only life
16.2 The Functioning of the Integrated Waste Collection (IWC) 311

cycle phase concerned with prevention that waste managers may influence. Waste
managers can influence the amount of waste generated by applying economic
instruments like pay-as-you-throw. Reichenbach (2008) highlighted the role of
PAYT in increasing recycling activity and reducing overall waste generation, mostly
residual waste stream. Dahlén and Lagerkvist (2010) verified that the implementa-
tion of weight-based billing in household waste collection contributed to less
household waste per capita generation around 20% in Sweden, although the higher
recycling rate does not explain such difference. In a meta-analysis made by Bel and
Gradus (2016), the efficiency of unit-based pricing on household waste collection
demand is more efficient (i.e., reduces waste generation) if a weight-based pricing
system exists together with priced compostable waste.
A different way to promote waste prevention and reuse is proposed by Ewijk and
Stegemann (2016), where it is defended that integrating collection of materials for
reuse into collection schemes can be a solution to reach preparation for reuse, to
avoid that materials and products become controlled as waste.
Another contribution of waste collection to waste prevention is in the optimiza-
tion toward reducing socioeconomic and environmental impacts. Optimization algo-
rithms applied to waste collection leads to its optimization, where aspects such as
travel distance, waste collected, fuel consumption and cost, tightness, efficiency, and
emissions (namely, CO2) can be considered in the algorithm, proposing different
scheduling models to be implemented in the field.

16.2.2 How Collection Interacts with Preparation for Reuse

The preparation for reuse is devoted to products which have become waste, i.e.,
those that have been disposed in the temporary container, and includes (European
Parliament and Council 2008):
Checking, cleaning or repairing for recovery operations, by which products or components
of products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be re-used without any
other pre-processing.

The waste collection has to be made in such a way that the waste keeps its features
to be repaired to be reused again, which can be complicated, not only because the
product is now under the waste legislation but also because the collection was not
made to preserve functioning features to allow its preparation for reuse. A source
separate collection system can be implemented to specific waste streams, like waste
of electric and electronic equipment (WEEE), in such a way that they are collected to
be prepared for reuse and not for recycling, which is the current practice. In the light
of the circular economy and waste hierarchy, the preparation for reuse gets more
relevance because it can create more value for end-of-life products. However,
existing convention systems (like containers for source separation at street and
recycling centers and take-back systems) are focusing on reducing the cost of
collection and disposal (Stahel 2016). Waste collection companies need to rethink
312 16 The Evolution of the Waste Collection

waste collection to make end-of-life products reusable. For example, in the case of
WEEE, Parajuly and Wenzel (2017) assessed WEEE collection system and verified
that there is the need to improve them to exploit the possibilities of reuse of discarded
products and the subsequent recovery of the material, defending that a change of
paradigm is necessary: to no collect WEEE as waste but as products. Sing and
Ordoñez (2016) also reinforce it for other products/wastes, pointing out that existing
collection is for “material collection system” and not for “manufacturing-centered
take-back system.” Integrating collection of materials for reuse into collection
schemes proposed by Ewijk and Stegemann (2016) also can be used for preparation
for reuse to prevent environmental harm during materials handling and storage.

16.2.3 How Collection Interacts with Sorting for Recycling

To sort waste for recycling, there is a need to collect high-quality materials to ensure
recycling without losing material or properties. The quality of recyclables not only
supports high-quality recycling but can also contribute to reducing, reusing, and
keeping products out of landfills (Parker 2017).
Until now, the key to reaching good-quality recyclables depended on citizens’
participation in recycling schemes. Public awareness was needed to teach citizens to
put recyclable fractions in the specific recyclable containers, for collection and
transport for sorting plants (or material recovery facilities), through curbside or
door-to-door collection schemes or drop-off stations or collection points. The col-
lection systems have different performances regarding getting recyclables: drop-off
systems are more accessible but suffer from low and unpredictable throughput and
higher contamination when the curbside collection has recyclables with lower
contamination (Martinho et al. 2017; Parker 2017).
Besides the type of collection, there are other variants in the separate collection,
namely, dual-stream, single-stream, and mixed collection. Dual-stream collection is
usual in this situation, where one bin is to collect paper/cardboard and the other bin is
to collect commingled plastic, metal, and glass, being collected in separate trucks or
separate compartments in the same vehicle (Fitzgerald et al. 2012). Also, refill/
deposit systems recover mono-materials, usually beverage bottles (like single-use
PET bottles), where they were sold with the surcharge of a refundable deposit, which
is given back to the user upon return of the empty bottle after use (Villanueva and
Eder 2014). To be successful, waste producers need to place correctly waste in the
recycling bins, to avoid contamination, and the transportation should not compact
thoroughly the waste to allow subsequent separation in sorting plant. According to
Parker (2017), depending on the types of waste materials collected mixed, extra
effort is needed to sort waste into separated materials, which can significantly reduce
the quality of recycled product.
Due to the technological evolution of sorting technology, reflected at sorting
plants, single-stream collection is nowadays a new practice in obtaining recyclables.
16.2 The Functioning of the Integrated Waste Collection (IWC) 313

In this type of collection, all recyclables are collected together but kept separated
from residual waste. Both collection systems have pros and cons. According to
Parker (2017), for a dual system, more public education is needed to avoid contam-
ination, but it presents a lower sorting post collection, obtaining the purest recycla-
bles, although the operation cost per each separate material is higher. For single
system, a reduction for post-collection cleaning occurs, but some public awareness is
needed, and a higher amount of recyclables is reached (Parker 2017) (according to
Fitzgerald et al. (2012), a change from dual to single stream in the USA could result
in a 50% increase in recyclables and in avoiding 710 kg CO2 eq. per metric ton of
collection). In the cases of mixed collection, where there is no separate collection of
recyclables, there are advantages in the number of recyclables collected and in the
operation costs (there is no need to pay for a separate collection system), and no
awareness campaigns are needed, although the quality of the recyclables is lower at
mechanical treatment units (Parker 2017).
After collection, transportation and sorting can also affect sorting for recycling of
materials. According to Parker (2017), transportation and the compaction of mate-
rials can make it more challenging to separate material by material for recycling, and
sorting is not 100% efficient, and reprocessors still need to remove contaminants
from recyclables separated by waste managers.

16.2.4 How Collection Interacts with Biological Treatment

The European Union legislation on waste (Landfill Directive, Waste Framework

Directive) is committed to promoting the Organic matter application into soil works
as a sink of CO2 helping to reduce global warming, and at the same time, reduce the
consumption of fertilizer and peat (Boldrin et al. 2009).
Studies have reflected the difference in composition of organic matter collected
commingled with MSW and source-separated collection. Huerta-Pujol et al. (2011)
compared both types of biowaste and verified differences: in general nutrient
contents are higher in separate collection than in mixed waste collection, and
heavy metal contents are significantly lower in separate collection, supporting the
idea that the heavy metal migration from non-compostable materials to decompos-
able matrix occurs when the material is in contact (Table 16.1). Those results have
also been reached by Malamis et al. (2015, 2017) and Schüch et al. (2016), showing
that a separate collection of biowaste is needed to reach high-quality compost. López
et al. (2010) have verified that organic matter from the separate collection has a
higher moisture content, total organic matter, and organic nitrogen than organic
matter from mixed municipal waste and lower pH, electric conductivity, and C/N
ratio in the separate collected organic matter. Other parameters have presented no
differences, which was the case of soluble inorganic nitrogen, organic resistant
nitrogen, stability degree, and the relation between organic and inorganic nitrogen
(López et al. 2010). Malamis et al. (2017) have analyzed compost produced at a
mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) resulting from the separate collection of
314 16 The Evolution of the Waste Collection

Table 16.1 Nutrient and heavy metal contents of MSW fraction for composting from source
separated (SC) and commingled collection (MS), after mechanical processing, expressed in dry
matter basis (dmb)
Parameters SC MS
n Mean SE Median n Mean SE Median p
P (%) 21 0.58 0.07 0.45 13 0.44 0.04 0.40 0.1027
K (%) 21 1.14 0.08 1.01 13 0.56 0.05 0.55 <0.0001
Na (%) 21 0.69 0.06 0.64 13 0.56 0.05 0.61 0.1055
Ca (%) 20 3.11 0.42 2.55 13 3.52 0.41 3.84 0.4870
Mg (%) 21 0.19 0.02 0.16 13 0.50 0.10 0.41 0.0122
Fe (%) 21 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.05 0.33 0.05 0.35 0.0007
Mn (mg kg 1) 21 32 5.1 25 13 73 9.2 74 0.0010
Zn (mg kg 1) 18 34 4.4 29 12 82 10.2 75 0.0007
Cu (mg kg 1) 21 15 2.8 11 12 33 4.0 34 0.0015
Ni (mg kg 1) 21 2 0.2 2 13 10 3.2 6 0.0224
Cr (mg kg 1) 20 2 0.4 1 13 9 1.9 8 0.0024
Pb (mg kg 1) 16 4 0.8 3 12 33 8.6 22 0.0070
Cd (mg kg 1) 20 0.3 0.05 0 13 0.3 0.06 0.30 0.7017
Source: Huerta-Pujol et al. (2011)
n number of samples, SE standard error, p significance of the t-test. SC and MS values in bold are
significantly different ( p < 0.05)

biowaste and biowaste from mixed MSW, where the MBT was adjusted to receive
and treat separate biowaste with green waste in a dedicated composting tunnel. The
results have shown that adequate source separation is a prerequisite for the sound
quality production of compost, and units can be adjusted to process source separated
biowaste (Malamis et al. 2017).
The type of containing system used can also influence the quality of organic
matter. Studies from Huerta-Pujol et al. (2010) have shown that some polyethylene
bags used in campaigns for separate collection of organic waste presented a high
amount of heavy metals, while compostable bags presented low quantities
(Table 16.2). Also, contaminants like glass or plastic occur in the mixed collection
of biowaste, and levels of impurity are highly variable depending on the containing
device like individual residential receptacles, street bins, and other containers (Cerda
et al. 2017).
The separate collection of biowaste with other waste types showed results that
could enable their co-collection. Colón et al. (2013) have tested the presence at 3%
of compostable diapers in a full-scale composting door-to-door collected biowaste.
The results reached show that the presence of compostable diapers does not alter the
composting and compost obtained regarding pathogenic content, stability, and
elemental composition (including nutrients and heavy metals). Espinosa-Valdemar
et al. (2014) have also reached similar results: the quality of compost waste is not
affected by the presence of diapers.
 16.2

Table 16.2 Heavy metal content (dry basis) by each group of bags considered
1 1 1 1
Fe (mg kg 1) Zn (mg kg ) Cu (mg kg ) Ni (mg kg ) Cr (mg kg 1) Pb (mg kg )
Bag type n Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
C 8 13 4 16 14 20 7 1.2 0.1 2 0.5 8 3
OF 8 443 410 34 9 43 27 1.1 0.2 1138 402 4779 1458
R 13 106 57 97 23 87 42 3.7 1.2 87 43 458 254
S 4 44 8 131 45 112 42 8.3 2.4 1.5 0.5 34 11
Source: Huerta-Pujol et al. (2010)
C compostable bags, OF commercially available bags for biowaste source-sorted collection, R rubbish bags, S supermarket bags, SE standard error
The Functioning of the Integrated Waste Collection (IWC)
315
316 16 The Evolution of the Waste Collection

There are also studies which tried to relate the type of building and the compost
quality. Plahl et al. (2002) have verified that compost resulting from high building
density biowaste presented significantly higher contamination than that of compost
of the whole city of Vienna. Such finding may dictate a new factor when establishing
waste collection routes.

16.2.5 How Collection Interacts with Energy Recovery

The need for a separate collection is vital also for energy recovery, similar to what
happens to material recycling and biological recycling. Myrin et al. (2014) showed
that the existence of a significant level of biowaste collection (around 65–70%)
changes the characteristics of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) from residual waste, by
presenting lower values of chemical substances (including heavy metals) compared
to RDF made of mixed MSW (without biowaste source separation) and RDF made
of wood. Also, Schüch et al. (2016) support the same evidence that biowaste source
separation is benefitting energy recovery. The emissions of dioxins are also lower
(Myrin et al. 2014). Di Leonardo et al. (2016) also highlighted that the characteris-
tics of RDF are site-specific, depending upon the source separate collection
Fig. 16.2. For instance, an effective collection of PVC and thermometers could
reduce the amounts of chlorine and mercury at residual waste, improving SRF class
related to those substances (Rada and Ragazzi 2014). Table 16.3 presents the
composition of RDF with residual waste from a separate collection of biowaste
compared with RDF from residual waste without source separation of biowaste and
waste wood fuel. The reduced amount of ashes and in most of heavy metals shows
the importance of source separation of biowaste to improve quality of refuse-derived
fuels. Besides biowaste, other relevant wastes need to be removed to increase the
quality of residual waste, namely, PVC materials and thermometers, to reduce Cl
and Hg contents (Rada and Ragazzi 2014). Regarding low heating value, the
separate collection can be a supportive measure to enhance the generation of solid
recovered fuel with high calorific value, especially if the separate collection is highly
efficient, making direct classification of residual waste into solid recovered fuel
possible (Rada and Ragazzi 2014).
The existence of high levels of separate collection for recycling (material and
biological) has shown to be difficult to be compatible with energy recovery actions,
leading to overcapacity of energy recovery installations (Cimpan et al. 2015; Rada
2015). Countries like Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and Den-
mark have an overcapacity of WtE facilities issues due to the increase of recycling
efforts together with the stagnation of waste generation from 2008 (Friege and
Fendel 2011; Sora 2013; Vos 2012). Cimpan et al. (2015) have analyzed the
overcapacity of WtE from Denmark regarding resources, global warming, and
cumulative energy demand (CED) Fig. 16.3. The results reached verified that
substantial global warming potential and CED savings could be credited in waste
management systems with overcapacity of WtE since the freed WtE capacity was
16.2 The Functioning of the Integrated Waste Collection (IWC) 317

Table 16.3 Elemental composition of the refuse-derived fuel materials

Parameters RDF1 RDF2 RW
Ash content (% of sample) 5.5 14.0 5.6
Moisture content (%) 16.8 17.4 26.7
Heating value (MJ/kg) 20.4 21.3 19.5
Cl (%) 0.21 0.64 0.06
S (%) 0.10 0.30 0.09
Cd (mg kg 1) 0.79 5.5 0.30
Co (mg kg 1) 1.8 53 1.2
Ni (mg kg 1) 3.7 10 1.8
Pb (mg kg 1) 36 160 48
Cr (mg kg 1) 27 100 68
Cu (mg kg 1) 120 76 68
Zn (mg kg 1) 530 540 360
Na (mg kg 1) 1500 1600 430
Fe (mg kg 1) 1300 3800 750
Al (mg kg 1) 2000 2700 990
Ca (mg kg 1) 8800 20,000 3400
Si (mg kg 1) 15,700 6500 8700
Source: Myrin et al. (2014)
Note: RDF1 biowaste waste source separation, RDF2 biowaste from commingled waste collection,
RW wood waste

20
RDF 1
Homologue concentration [pmole/m3]

RDF 2
RW
15

10

0
MoCDF DiCDF TriCDFTeCDF PeCDFHxCDF HpCDF OCDF MoCDD DiCDD TriCDDTeCDD PeCDD HxCDDHpCDD OCDD

Fig. 16.2 PCDF and PCDD homologue profiles for the combustion of the tested fuels. The bars
show duplicate sample averages and the error bars indicate the two measured concentration in each
case. (Source: Myrin et al. (2014))

used to treat imported waste, which would end at the landfill although the savings are
not verified for WtE plans with efficiencies near the threshold defined in Waste
Framework Directive (0.6 for installations in operation and permitted before first
January 2009 and 0.65 for installations permitted after 31 December 2008)
(Figs. 16.2 and 16.3).
318 16 The Evolution of the Waste Collection

Fig. 16.3 Overcapacity of WtE installations and consecutive shipment of waste to fulfill freed
capacity. (Source: Cimpan et al. (2015))

16.2.6 How Collection Interacts with Disposal

Similar to what happens with the separate collection and WtE plants, also a great
separate collection for recycling will promote a reduction of waste going to landfill,
regarding amount but also regarding composition, leading to different impacts. A
reduced amount of waste going to landfill will avoid the use of land for this purpose,
increasing the lifetime and reducing the need for more landfill infrastructures in the
future (regarding WtE, this is an overcapacity of the landfill). Regarding composi-
tion, reducing the amount of biodegradable waste and moisture will reduce the
release of landfill gas (reach in methane, a GHG) and the generation of leachate,
which has several environmental risks due to its pollution potential. Leachate
generated at a landfill requires collection and treatment with considerable technical
expenditure over many decades, not excluding the damages on the landfills due to
waste settling, leading to damage on surface lines, gas extraction, and leachate
collection systems (Stegmann 2005).

16.3 Sustainability in Integrated Waste Collection

Integrated waste collection sustainability has to consider the different goals of each
pillar of sustainability, also having in mind not to jeopardize future generations but
also the interactions with the other waste management operations/processes
described. The three pillars of sustainability – environment, economy, and society
– are in constant conflict. The goal for reaching a low-cost collection may not be in
accordance with the needs of the population and regulation that requires an adequate
collection of waste to avoid public health issues; and a low-cost collection may not
allow a source separation collection to collect valuable materials, and efficient
collection vehicles in terms of air emissions (by hypothesis). The goal to reach a
low environmental impact of waste collection requires the less collection possible
with high-efficiency vehicles but may require a considerable capital and operation
16.4 Final Remarks 319

costs that citizens may not be able to afford them. Also, the multiplicity of collection
streams needed to collect high-value materials for recycling (if recycling includes it
in the analysis) can also be costly for citizens. Society may have the intention to
recycle and separate waste at source, but may not be available to participate in a way
that is cost-effective for waste collection managers. However, society may not be
keen on having to separate waste at homes without any visible benefit, which may be
a problem when the intention is to promote a circular economy. The complexity is
huge, and system analysis is needed to help reach IWC sustainably.

16.4 Final Remarks

In the light of sustainability, waste hierarchy, and circular economy, the several
goals of an IWC can be conflicting. The conflict starts right on waste generation
issue: if the intention is to reduce waste by waste prevention, which is in accordance
to a circular economy and waste hierarchy principle, the same is not in the mind of
waste collection company, which needs waste for financial support of its activity.
Even that at a long term, the benefit to the waste manager is not to have to invest in
waste infrastructure; in the short term, the break in waste generation will increase
collection and treatment costs (Zacho and Mosgaard 2016). Integrating collection in
the rest of the waste management system is one way to support the diversion of the
collection of waste financially, for example, by taxing the disposal of waste at the
landfill, and part of the tax is used to finance the loss of money due to prevention.
Another way to compensate a waste prevention revenue break can be reached by
changing their core business and including in their system the preparation for reuse,
which is not the case nowadays. In any case, the responsibility for waste needs to be
improved by a better sharing of responsibilities by all stakeholders, including pro-
ducers who need to develop only products that could be reused or recycled, users and
consumers that do know what to do with their products and where is the final
destination, and waste managers, who need to change to promote waste prevention,
increase reuse, and preparation for reuse and recycle.
There is no single and sustainable way to collect waste in an integrated perspec-
tive. Collecting by material type instead of providing the collection service by the
type of producer (domestic, industrial, commercial), having in mind the technology
available in the waste management system to prepare for recycling and in contam-
ination risk during collection, is the new paradigm to have in mind when defining
IWC. Also, IWC needs to focus on waste prevention and reuse options, which can
also bring new business sectors for waste managers. System analysis tools and
engineered solutions are needed to help reach IWC solutions. The complexity is
considerable, and environmental impacts (direct and indirect) from waste collection
need to be taken into account when deciding the IWC to implement. According to
Reinhart et al. (2016), the falling sales revenue due to China’s declining economy,
depressed oil prices, and the firm US dollar make recycling cost recovery a
challenge.
320 16 The Evolution of the Waste Collection

Although the proposed change in the collection paradigm, there are also under-
lying issues that waste collection intended to solve but which are increasing envi-
ronmental impacts, like in the case of littering and marine litter issue. Reinhart et al.
(2016) highlighted that uncollected waste remains a significant issue due to the
quantities of litter ending up in marine environments and gathering in remote gyres,
polluting the oceans and seas.

References

Anderson L (1968) A mathematical model for the optimization of a waste management system.
SERL Report. Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley,
CA
Anderson LE, Nigam AK (1967) A mathematical model for the optimization of a waste manage-
ment system, ORC 67–25, Operations Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA
Bel G, Gradus R (2016) Effects of unit-based pricing on household waste collection demand: a
meta-regression analysis. Resour Energy Econ 44:169–182
Boldrin A, Andersen JK, Moller J, Christensen TH, Favoino E (2009) Composting and compost
utilization: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manag
Resour 27:800–812
Cerda A, Artola A, Font X, Barrena R, Gea T, Sánchez A (2017) Composting of food wastes: status
and challenges. Bioresour Technol 248:57–67
Chang NB, Pires A, Martinho G (2011) Empowering systems analysis for solid waste management:
challenges, trends, and perspectives. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technol-
ogy 41:1449–1530
Cimpan C, Rothmann M, Hamelin L, Wenzel H (2015) Towards increased recycling of household
waste: documenting cascading effects and material efficiency of commingled recyclables and
biowaste collection. J Environ Manag 157:69–83
Colón J, Mestre-Monserrate M, Puig-Ventosa I, Sánchez A (2013) Performance of compostable
baby used diapers in the composting process with the organic fraction of municipal solid waste.
Waste Manag 33:1097–1103
Dahlén L, Lagerkvist A (2010) Pay as you throw: strengths and weaknesses of weight-based billing
in household waste collection systems in Sweden. Waste Manag 30:23–31
Di Leonardo MC, Franzese M, Costa G, Gavasci R, Lombardi F (2016) The application of SRF vs
RDF classification and specifications to the material flows of two mechanical-biological treat-
ment plants of Rome: comparison and implications. Waste Manag 47:195–205
Espinosa-Valdemar RM, Sotelo-Navarro PX, Quecholac-Piña X, García-Rivera MA, Beltrán-
Villavicencio M, Ojeda-Benítez S, Vázquez-Morillas A (2014) Biological recycling of used
baby diapers in a small-scale composting system. Resour Conserv Recycl 87:153–157
European Parliament, Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. Off J Eur Union
L312:3–30
Fitzgerald GC, Krones JS, Themelis NJ (2012) Greenhouse gas impact of dual stream and single
stream collection and separation of recyclables. Resour Conserv Recycl 69:50–56
Friege H, Fendel A (2011) Competition of different methods for recovering energy from waste.
Waste Manag Res 29:S30–S38
Glavič P, Lukman R (2007) Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. J Clean Prod
15:1875–1885
Huerta-Pujol O, Soliva M, Giró F, López M (2010) Heavy metal content in rubbish bags used for
separate collection of biowaste. Waste Manag 30:1450–1456
References 321

Huerta-Pujol O, Gallart M, Soliva M, Martínez-Farré FX, López M (2011) Effect of collection

system on mineral content of biowaste. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:1095–1099
López M, Soliva M, Martínez-Farré FX, Fernández M, HuertaPujol O (2010) Evaluation of MSW
organic fraction for composting: separate collection or mechanical sorting. Resour Conserv
Recycl 54:222–228
Malamis D, Moustakas K, Bourka A, Valta K, Papadaskalopoulou C, Panaretou V, Skiadi O,
Sotiropoulos A (2015) Compositional analysis of biowaste from study sites in Greek munici-
palities. Waste Biomass Valoriz 6:637–646
Malamis D, Bourka A, Stamatopoulou E, Moustakas K, Skiadi O, Loizidou M (2017) Study and
assessment of segregated biowaste composting: the case study of Attica municipalities.
J Environ Manag 203:664–669
Martinho G, Gomes A, Santos P, Ramos M, Cardoso J, Silveira A, Pires A (2017) A case study of
packaging waste collection systems in Portugal – Part I: Performance and operation analysis.
Waste Management, 61, 96–107
McDougall F, White P, Franke M, Hindle P (2001) Integrated solid waste management: A life cycle
inventory. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford
Mirata M (2004) Experiences from early stages of a national industrial symbiosis programme in the
UK: determinants and coordination challenges. J Clean Prod 12:967–983
Mulvaney D, Robbins P (eds) (2011) Green politics – an A-to-Z guide. SAGE Publications,
Los Angeles
Myrin ES, Persson PE, Jansson S (2014) The influence of food waste on dioxin formation during
incineration of refuse-derived fuels. Fuel 132:165–169
Naveh Z (2000) What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. Landsc Urban Plan
50:7–26
Parajuly K, Wenzel H (2017) Potential for circular economy in household WEEE management.
J Clean Prod 151:272–285
Parker R (2017) Essentials of environmental science, 2nd edn. National Agriculture Institute, Inc,
Rupert
Pires A, Martinho G, Chang NB (2011) Solid waste management in European countries: A review
of systems analysis techniques. Journal of Environmental Management, 92:1033–1050
Plahl F, Rogalski W, Gilnreiner G, Erhart E (2002) Vienna’s biowaste compost – quality develop-
ment and effects of input materials. Waste Manag Res 20(2):127–133
Rada EC (2015) Selective collection and waste–to–energy strategies: which interaction?
In: Syngellakis S (ed) Waste to energy. WIT Press, Southampton, pp 241–250
Rada EC, Ragazzi M (2014) Selective collection as a pretreatment for indirect solid recovered fuel
generation. Waste Manag 34:291–297
Reichenbach J (2008) Status and prospects of pay–as–you–throw in Europe – a review of pilot
research and implementation studies. Waste Manag 28:2809–2814
Reinhart D, Bolyard SC, Berge N (2016) Grand challenges – management of municipal solid waste.
Waste Manag 49:1–2
Schüch A, Morscheck G, Lemke A, Nelles M (2016) Bio–waste recycling in Germany – further
challenges. Procedia Environ Sci 35:308–318
Sing J, Ordoñez I (2016) Resource recovery from post–consumer waste: important lessons for the
upcoming circular economy. J Clean Prod 134:342–353
Sora MJ (2013) Incineration overcapacity and waste shipping in Europe: the end of the proximity
principle. http://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/Overcapacity_report_2013.pdf.
Accessed 15 Jan 2018
Stahel WR (2016) The circular economy. Nature 531:435–438
Stegmann R (2005) Mechanical biological pretreatment of municipal solid waste. In: Abstracts of
the Sardinia 2005, tenth international waste management and landfill symposium, S. Margherita
di Pula, Cagliari, 3–7 Oct 2005
322 16 The Evolution of the Waste Collection

van Ewijk S, Stegemann JA (2016) Limitations of the waste hierarchy for achieving absolute
reductions in material throughput. J Clean Prod 132:122–128
Villanueva A, Eder P (2014) End–of–waste criteria for waste plastic for conversion –technical
report. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Vos M (2012) Recycling benefits from combustible waste imports. Wasteforum November: 1–2
Zacho KO, Mosgaard MA (2016) Understanding the role of waste prevention in local waste
management: a literature review. Waste Manag Res 34:980–994
Chapter 17
Trend Analysis on Sustainable Waste
Collection

Abstract To make waste collection desirable, waste collection paradigm needs to

change in such way that could promote waste hierarchy and circular economy.
Reverse logistics, crowd logistics, physical Internet, and Freight on Transit are
innovative solutions applied to waste, sub-products, and end-of-life products capable
of bringing the change to the waste collection sector and promote sustainable waste
collection behind the frontiers of the system itself.

Keywords Crowd logistics · Freight on transit · IoT · Physical Internet · Reverse

logistics · Waste collection · Waste transportation

17.1 Reverse Logistics

According to Thürer et al. (2016), logistics means the management of the flow of
things between the point of origin and the point of consumption – customer or
consumer; reverse logistics can be the management of things from the point of
consumption back to the origin. The logistics is also identified as the forward supply
chain, where it combines the processes to fulfill costumer’s request and includes all
entities involved such as suppliers, manufacturers, transporters, warehouses,
retailers, and customers themselves (Chopra and Meindl 2010). In this respect, the
reverse logistics divides into two parts: the collection part and the recycling/
remanufacturing part (Thürer et al. 2016).
Reverse logistics, together with the formal supply chain, form a closed-loop
supply chain, like the one presented in Fig. 17.1. Solid lines show the forward
chain; dashes show the reverse logistics. In this respect, a closed-loop supply chain
(CLSP) is a management philosophy that design, controls, and operates a system to
maximize value creation over the entire life cycle of a product with the dynamic
recovery of value from different types and volumes of returns over time (Guide and
van Wassenhove 2009).
In both RL and CLSC, end-of-life products play a vital role, being collected from
customers, being repaired, disassembled, remanufactured, recycled, and disposed of

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 323

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_17
324 17 Trend Analysis on Sustainable Waste Collection

Supplier Production Distribution Consumption

Used products
Recovery, Return
recycling evaluation

Waste
Waste
Disposal

Fig. 17.1 A generic form of forward/reverse logistics. (Source: Adapted from Tonanont 2009 and
Pumpinyo and Nitivattananon, 2014)

(Govindan and Soleimani 2017; Soleimani and Kannan 2015). The key to their work
is the customer, and many papers have studied the importance of consumer’s return
practices (Choi et al. 2013).
Reverse logistics is divided into the following activities (Ayvaz and Görener
2015): collecting or collection, inspection and sorting, and reprocessing or direct
recovery. Collecting or collection is the first and very important stage, referent to the
activities involved with the collection of the used products or materials from the
consumers/users for processing and transporting to the place for processing (e.g.,
rework and remanufacturing) (Fleischmann 2000; Srivastava and Srivastava 2006).
Inspection and sorting include the activities to assess the proper reuse, being such
activities also named as local eliminating, conducted at the collecting point (Ayvaz
and Görener 2015). It is in this step that inspection, sorting, testing, disassembly,
separating into small parts, and storage operations are performed (Fleischmann
2000). Direct recovery intends to send the product again for selling locals without
any treatment, and reprocessing includes the conversion of used product into a
usable product again.
Reverse logistics and circular economy have several similar characteristics, in
particular, the repair, refurbishing, remanufacturing, recycling, and disposal cycles
(EMF 2016; Thierry 1995). Although some of the CE principles (e.g., leakage
minimization) are considerably broader than the reverse logistics activities (Ripanti
et al. 2015), several reverse logistics models have been proposed by EMF (2016) to
promote circular economy, presented in Figs. 17.2, 17.3, and 17.4. In all reverse
logistics schemes proposed by EMF (2016), they are divided into front-end, engine,
and back-end. Front-end includes reverse logistics itself, their processes, and net-
work; engine refers to the recovery of returned products, like methodologies for
evaluation, and inventory control; back-end is the remarketing of recovered products
in secondary markets.
In recovery service provider collection scheme (Fig. 17.2), the type of products/
waste which fits in this reverse logistic model are mass production products, with
17.1 Reverse Logistics 325

Fig. 17.2 Recovery service

provider collection scheme.
(Source: Adapted from EMF
2016)

Fig. 17.3 Service parts logistics. (Source: Adapted from EMF 2016)

distribution via retail networks, with comparably low residual value at the of product
life cycle, like tires, shipping pallets, and consumer electronics (EMF 2016). The
type of products/waste should be under extended producer responsibility registra-
tion. This type of reverse logistics could be a centralized collection scheme handled
326 17 Trend Analysis on Sustainable Waste Collection

Fig. 17.4 Reverse logistics for advanced industrial products. (Source: Adapted from EMF 2016)

by a recovery service provider, for a cost-effective collection, and could use under-
used forward logistics network capacities to enable recovery of returned goods and
waste.
In Fig. 17.3 the service parts logistics is presented, which is devoted to products
with comparably higher residual value with moderate expected return rates, like
machinery and automotive parts (EMF 2016). The reverse logistics has to combine
the return of disposed of parts with the supply of new or refurbished parts to ensure
an adequate replacement of service parts (EMF 2016). The distributor/service
partner should collect parts from different customers or collect through customer-
dedicated transports and deliver them to manufacturers, which would have the
market of the reuse, refurbish, remanufacture, or recycling of collected parts (EMF
2016).
In Fig. 17.4 is the reverse logistics model for advanced industrial products. The
service provider has to implement a direct or trusted collection since the products in
this reverse logistics model are complex and have high residual value with relatively
low return volumes, such as medical equipment and information and communication
technology (ICT) (EMF 2016). The collection has to be made to preserve and
maximize the product return value, and collection should combine with the replace-
ment of the asset by a new or refurbished product (EMF 2016).
More than defining waste models, to make reverse logistics/CLSC possible, it has
to be legally enforced. A country where reverse logistics is regulated is in Brazil.
With the Law n.12.305/2010, the National Policy on Solid Waste formulated the
requirements for industries to incorporate reverse logistics of post-consumption for
the industrial sectors: tires, lubricants, batteries, bulbs, electronics pesticides, and
17.1 Reverse Logistics 327

Fig. 17.5 Reverse logistics system proposed by Brazilian law. (Source: Adapted from Couto and
Lange 2017)

Table 17.1 Reverse logistics implementation barriers

Management Financial Policy Infrastructure
Understanding Lack of initial Lack of enforceable laws and Lack of sufficient
significance of capital directives on take-back of in-house facilities (stor-
RL end-of-life products age equipment and
vehicles)
Lack of trained Lack of funds Lack of government- Lack of a system to mon-
personnel for training supported economic policies itor returns
Management Lack of funds RL not considered as a criti- Lack of coordination with
commitment for storage and cal aspect of competitive third-party logistics (3PL)
handling performance providers
Lack of expert at Lack of fund for Customers not informed of
management return monitor- taking back
level ing systems
Lack of shared Lack of public awareness of
understanding of environmental protection
best practices
Lack of waste Don’t have green design
management implementation for end-of-
practices life products
No practice in place for
recycling
Source: Abdulrahman et al. (2014)
328 17 Trend Analysis on Sustainable Waste Collection

packaging made primarily of plastic, metal, and glass (Silva et al. 2013; Jabbour
et al. 2014). The idealized system of reverse logistics in national law is in Fig. 17.5.
Despite the evolution in reverse logistics, there are barriers to its implementation.
According to the review on reverse logistics from Abdulrahman et al. (2014), there
are four types of implementation barriers in the Chinese context, but they could also
be valid in other countries: management, financial, policy, and infrastructure
(Table 17.1).

17.2 Crowd Logistics

Due to the current empty passenger vehicles, an opportunity to transport anything

else exists. Crowd logistics is the delivery operation that is carried out by using
passenger’s excess capacity on journeys that are occurring, with economic, social,
and environmental benefits (Rai et al. 2017). Crowd logistics is also known as
crowdshipping, crowdsourced delivery, cargo-hitching, or collaborative logistics,
having the term originated from crowdsourcing, which covers both the words
“crowd” or a mass of unorganized individuals and “outsourcing” or shift of pro-
cesses, functions, and duties to third parties (Howe 2006; Mehmann et al. 2015;
Sampaio et al. 2017; Verdonck et al. 2013). Rai et al. (2017) revised the definition of
crowd logistics as:
An information connectivity enabled marketplace concept that matches supply and demand
for logistics services with an undefined and external crowd that has the free capacity with
regards to time and/or space, participates on a voluntary basis and is compensated
accordingly.

Continuing from Rai et al. (2017), the crowd logistics is divided into several
stakeholders: the receivers which receive the goods, commissioners that send the
goods, logistics service providers which execute the transportation service in a
traditional way (to ensure timely completing of tasks in the case that crowd may
not ensure it), platform providers which match all parties (being the marketplace
where the transportation service is requested and paid), and the crowd which will
implement the logistics in several different ways – subcontractors, professional
drivers, and casual drivers.
Crowd logistics is a developing concept, being tested in different fields. In the
case of a waste collection, few cases exist. The H2020 CityLab project includes a
task conducted in Rome, where an innovative system for integrating crowd logistics
in the urban area is implemented with the aim of improving clean waste collection
(CityLab 2017a). The postal operator makes the crowd logistics, already delivering
mail/parcels all around Rome. At the same time, the postal operator also collects
recyclable materials (plastic caps) during the same transportation route, and using
electric vehicles, avoiding dedicated collection trips. The results reached for the
collection of plastic caps have shown to be technically feasible and environmentally
sustainable but not financially profitable (CityLab 2017b).
17.3 Physical Internet 329

Chen et al. (2017) proposed the delivery of returned goods from e-commerce
(clothes, e-waste) from final consumption points (shops) back to retailers by taxis,
which are in constant mobility. The strategy has several advantages regarding
sustainability (Chen et al. 2017):
• Generates extra environmental footprints by avoiding collection trucks.
• The crowdsourcing itself avoids the dedicated collection costs.
• The solution also helps taxi drivers to earn a little extra money and to consumers
an alternative and facilitated way to return products as well.

17.3 Physical Internet

The concept of Physical Internet urges from the need to try to solve and organize the
supply chain network using modular containers and a systemic open infrastructure
(Montreil 2011). The last step of the supply chain is in the urban logistics, which
involves several stakeholders: the carriers, the citizens, the public administration,
public transport operators, and retailers, at the least (Biggi and Tretola 2015).
According to Ballot et al. (2014) and Mervis (2014), Physical Internet intends to
transport containers encapsulating freights via interconnected transport services –
transportation relay – instead of transporting freights by a single long-haul truck
from origin to destination. The intention is to innovate in the way how logistics
operators provide logistics; changing from a hub and spoke approach, with few
distribution centers and many connections between them to a network system based
on multiple nodes, interconnected with multimodal links (Biggi and Tretola 2015).
The modular tracked containers (π-containers), needed in Physical Internet to
decrease the number of vehicles, are standardized containers easy to handle, store,
transport, interlock, load, and unload, allowing optimal filling and increasing auto-
mation of goods movement (Biggi and Tretola 2015).
How can waste collection implement Physical Internet? There are two ways how
Physical Internet can be applied. The first is related with underground tube network
(or vacuum system) applied for waste collection, where the network would act in a
similar way to a packet switched telecommunication network, transporting one kind
of waste at a time (Biggi and Tretola 2015):
Waste collection points are placed outdoors or indoors and are accessible 24 h a
day. Waste inlets store refuse temporarily until the next emptying cycle. The
pipelines transport the refuse into containers at the waste station. When full, the
containers are sent away for further processing using, for example, the city’s existing
underground railway network.
The implementation of this view of Physical Internet can develop the concept of
pneumatic tube in the light of the conceptual high-speed transportation system
envisioned by entrepreneur Elon Musk, incorporating reduced-pressure tubes in
which pressurized capsules ride on a cushion of air, driven by a combination of
linear induction motors and air compressors, the Hyperloop system (Biggi and
330 17 Trend Analysis on Sustainable Waste Collection

Tretola 2015). A second way that waste collection can use Physical Internet concept
is in light of the circular economy. The case study presented by Chen et al. (2017) on
crowdsourcing is based on a taxi, where the Physical Internet concept inspired
routing strategies. In this respect, a specific waste (probably clean waste like
e-waste) is forwarded to a peering network, which can hand it over to another peer
to reach the destination; then, a second parcel for the same destination may (or may
not) use a different route, depending on the options and load at the particular time
(den Boer et al. 2017). A simple example from den Boer et al. (2017) helps to clarify
it:
A simple example is buying a secondhand washing machine online from some-
one living on the other side of the country. A local specialist collects the machine. It
gets picked up by one of the “peer” networks of the specialist who does regular
backhaul runs between the area of origin and destination. Another specialist delivers
the machine locally. The difference from current practice is that the route and the
(intermediate) carriers are not predetermined but selected as the parcel goes. The
parcel selects the route.
Both ways can be implemented and change the way how waste and end-of-life
products can reenter again in the economy, although both are quite different regard-
ing concept, costs, and possible public acceptance.

17.4 Freight on Transit

According to Cochrane et al. (2017), Freight on Transit (FOT) refers to:

An operational strategy where public transit vehicles and/or infrastructure are
used to move freight.
FOT can also be designed as urban rail transit-based city logistics system (Liu
et al. 2008), light rail freight (Arvidsson 2010), cargo tram operations (Regué and
Bristow 2013), shared track operations (Resor 2003), and mixed goods service
(Sivakumaran et al. 2010).
There are few experiences of FOT applied to waste collection. The one most known
is the Zurich cargo tram. In this collection system, the Cargo-Tram service offers a
car-free alternative to disposing of bulky waste since 2003 and since 2006 collect
electrical and electronic waste, being called E-Tram, being free of charge and makes
about 18 round trips every month (Eltis 2015). The creation of this service with a
165 km tram network was related to needing to offer an attractive and inexpensive
collection system and, at the same time, avoiding the private car trips to disposal yards
and illegal dumping of those waste making 43% of household waste to remain in the
recycling process (Eltis 2015). Neuhold (2005) verified that collection waste by road
transport requires 5020 km covered by lorries and three times longer to move in the
city at peak hours, corresponding to 960 running-time hours, hence 37,500 l of diesel
per year. With the E-Tram, the release of harmful substances (including greenhouse
gases emissions) can be avoided and the illegal dumping can be reduced (from 3000 l
at year 1997 to 1200 l at year 2004) Neuhold (2005). Other evidence of success reflects
References 331

on the amount of bulky waste collected in 2003, 380 t (twice the tonnage of
uncontrolled waste left on pavements before the implementation of the Cargo-Tram)
and 785 t in 2004, with a cost of €3200 per ride (including operative and back-office
costs) (INTERREG IVC 2011).

17.5 Final Remarks

This chapter intended to bring a bold paradigm breaking vision for the future of
collection and transport of waste. Pioneer studies are being tested to assess the
novelties and new concepts for waste collection that could be more sustainable.
Reverse logistics, crowd logistics, Physical Internet, and Freight on Transit are
possible solutions probably more applicable to clean waste, from source separated
collection, and not for biodegradable waste or packaging waste.
Through this chapter, a small step has been given. A lot more is needed to shape
the vision of waste collection and management of the future and, much more
importantly, to give it flesh through real initiatives and projects. Multidisciplinary
collaboration between academia, waste, and waste equipment industry and govern-
ment also would allow the regulation of new paradigms to occur. In China, the lack
of enforceable legislation on take-back end-of-life products and lack of market
instruments are the most prominent policy barriers to RL implementation
(Abdulrahman et al. 2014). Probably the other technologies would suffer from the
same need of legislation to push them forward.
Implementing the mentioned techniques/methodologies requires financial
resources, namely, initial capital and funds to implement and monitor the collection
systems, and requires experts from different fields at business management levels to
implement the break technologies.

References

Abdulrahman MD, Gunasekaran A, Subramanian N (2014) Critical barriers in implementing

reverse logistics in the Chinese manufacturing sectors. Int J Prod Econ 147:460–471
Arvidsson N (2010) New perspectives on sustainable urban freight distribution: a potential zero
emissions concept using electric cars on trams. In: Abstracts of the 12th world conference on
transport research, Lisbon, 11–15 June 2010
Ayvaz B, Görener A (2015) Reverse logistics in the electronics waste industry. In: Akkucuk U
(ed) Handbook of research on waste management techniques for sustainability. IGI Global,
Hershey, pp 155–171
Ballot E, Montreuil B, Meller R (2014) The physical internet: the network of logistics networks. La
Documentation, Paris
Biggi D, Tretola G (2015) Addressing urban congestion with modular logistics and collaborative
networks. In: Abstracts of the URban freight and BEhavior change (URBE) conference, Roma
Tre University, Rome, 1–2 Oct 2015
332 17 Trend Analysis on Sustainable Waste Collection

den Boer E, Kok R, van Amstel WP, Quak H, Wagter H (2017) Outlook City Logistics 2017.
Report for Topsector Logistiek
Chen C, Pan S, Wang Z, Zhong RY (2017) Using taxis to collect citywide E-commerce reverse
flows: a crowdsourcing solution. Int J Prod Res 55:1833–1844
Choi TM, Li Y, Xu L (2013) Channel leadership, performance and coordination in closed loop
supply chains. Int J Prod Econ 146:371–380
Chopra S, Meindl P (2010) Supply chain management: strategy, planning and operation, 4th edn.
Pearson Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
CityLab (2017a) ICT platform for direct and reverse logistics integration. CityLab http://www.
citylab-project.eu/presentations/171020_Rome/Meware.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2017
CityLab (2017b) Living lab updates. CityLab http://www.citylab-project.eu/documents/Living_
labs_300917.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2017
Cochrane K, Saxe S, Roorda MJ, Shalaby A (2017) Moving freight on public transit: best practices,
challenges, and opportunities. Int J Sustain Transp 11:120–132
Couto MCL, Lange LC (2017) Análise dos sistemas de logística reversa no Brasil. Eng Sanit
Ambiental. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-41522017149403
Eltis (2015) Cargo-Tram and E-Tram bulky and electric waste collection by tram in Zurich
(Switzerland). Eltis. http://www.eltis.org/discover/case-studies/cargo-tram-and-e-tram-bulky-
and-electric-waste-collection-tram-zurich. Accessed 28 Dec 2017
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) (2016) Waste not, Want not – Capturing the value of the
circular economy through reverse logistics: An introduction to the reverser logistics maturity
model
Fleischmann M (2000) Quantitative models for reverse logistics. Dissertation, Erasmus University
Govindan K, Soleimani H (2017) A review of reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chains: a
journal of cleaner production focus. J Clean Prod 142:371–384
Guide VDR, van Wassenhove LN (2009) OR Forum – the evolution of closed-loop supply chain
research. Oper Res 57:10–18
Howe J (2006) The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/.
Accessed 28 Dec 2017
INTERREG IVC (2011) Cargotram, Zurich. INTERREG. http://www.interreg4c.eu/good-prac
tices/practice-details/index-practice=115-cargotram-zurich&.html. Accessed 28 Dec 2017
Jabbour ABLS, Jabbour CJC, Sarkis J, Govindan K (2014) Brazil’s new national policy on solid
waste: challenges and opportunities. Clean Techn Environ Policy 16:7–9
Liu Y, Ketai H, Liu J, Xu Y (2008) Analysis of the concept of urban rail transit based city logistics
system. In: Abstracts of the international conference on smart manufacturing application. IEEE,
Gyeonggi-do, South Korea. pp 288–292
Mehmann J, Frehe V, Teuteberg F (2015) Crowd logistics – a literature review and maturity model.
In: Abstracts of the Hamburg international conference of logistics, Hamburg, Germany, Sept
2015
Mervis J (2014) The information highway gets physical: the Physical Internet would move goods
the way its name sake moves data. Science 344:1057–1196
Montreil B (2011) Towards a Physical Internet: meeting the global logistics sustainability grand
challenge. Interuniversity Research Centre on Enterprise Networks, Logistics and
Transportation
Neuhold G (2005) Cargo Tram Zurich - The environmental savings of using other modes. http://
www.bestufs.net/conferences/2005-06-23_amsterdam.html. Accessed 30 Apr 2018
Pumpinyo S, Nitivattananon V (2014) Investigation of Barriers and Factors Affecting the Reverse
Logistics of Waste Management Practice: A Case Study in Thailand. Sustainability 6:7048–
7062
Rai HB, Verlinde S, Merckx J, Macharis C (2017) Crowd logistics: an opportunity for more
sustainable urban freight transport? Eur Transp Res Rev 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-
017-0256-6
References 333

Regué R, Bristow AL (2013) Appraising freight tram schemes: a case study of Barcelona. Eur J
Transp Infrastruct Res 13:56–78
Resor RR (2003) Catalog of ‘common use’ rail corridors. Publication DOT/FRA/ORD-03-16 US
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
Ripanti EF, Tjahojono B, Fan I (2015) Circular economy in reverse logistics: Relationships and
potential applications in product remanufacturing. In: Abstracts of the 20th logistics research
network (LRN) conference, Derby, UK, Sep 2015
Sampaio A, Savelsbergh M, Veelenturf L, van Woensel T (2017) Crowd-based city logistics.
Optimization online. Available via http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_FILE/2017/11/
6346.pdf Accessed 28 Dec 2017
Silva DAL, Renó GWS, Sevegnani G, Sevegnani TB, Truzzi OMS (2013) Comparison of dispos-
able and returnable packaging a case study of reverse logistics in Brazil. J Clean Prod
47:377–387
Sivakumaran K, Lu XY, Hanson M (2010) Use of passenger rail infrastructure for goods move-
ment: Economic feasibility study from the California’s San Francisco Bay area. Transp Res Rec
2162:44–52
Soleimani H, Kannan G (2015) A hybrid particle swarm optimization and genetic algorithm for
closed-loop supply chain network design in large-scale networks. Appl Math Model
39:3990–4012
Srivastava SK, Srivastava RK (2006) Managing product returns for reverse logistics. Int J Phys
Distrib Logist Manag 36:524–546
Thierry M, Salomon MJN, van Nunen J, van Wassenhove L (1995) Strategic issues in product
recovery management. California Management Review 27:114–136
Thürer M, Pan YH, Qu T Luo H, Li CD, Huang GQ (2016) Internet of Things (IoT) driven kanban
system for reverse logistics: solid waste collection. J Intell Manuf. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10845-016-1278-y
Tonanont A (2009) Performance evaluation in reverse logistics with data envelopment analysis.
Dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington
Verdonck L, Caris A, Ramaekers K, Janssens GK (2013) Collaborative logistics from the perspec-
tive of road transportation companies. Transp Rev 33:700–719
Chapter 18
Technical Barriers and Socioeconomic
Challenges

Abstract Solid waste collection and its management are an increasing issue in cities
in the future, where the urban population is still growing and consumption patterns
are changing all the time. Strategies implemented at developed countries to solve
waste collection and management issues are different from developing countries,
and those differences need to be detailed to better understand the barriers to the
implementation of sustainable waste collection and management in both socioeco-
nomic backgrounds. In this chapter analysis of challenges to sustainable waste
collection and management in developing and developed countries will be
conducted to better improve the application of this new paradigm in the next
decades.

Keywords Developing countries · Developed countries · Environmental impacts ·

Industrial countries · Informal sector · Separate collection · Social impacts · Waste
management system

18.1 Developed Countries

The challenges and barriers of developed countries are mostly related to the new
paradigms on waste management but also related to the basis of waste management.
Here are addressed, in particular, each of the considered barriers and challenges.

18.1.1 Advancements in Environmental Informatics

Lu et al. (2013) have realized that, although environmental informatics have been
capable of helping on planning and operation of the waste management system,
synergies were missing concerning public involvement. Public participation in
decision-making processes on waste management is needed and few cases of
environmental informatics application in the field exist. The project Urban Wins,
financed by H2020, was devoted to involving stakeholders on live meeting (agoras)

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 335

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_18
336 18 Technical Barriers and Socioeconomic Challenges

and online agoras to decide a strategic plan for prevention and management of solid
waste. An online platform exists for stakeholders from each European city involved
in a project to participate in the planning stage. Besides this platform, other emerging
technologies such as automatic knowledge acquisition, machine learning, auto-
reasoning, and semantic web could be employed to promote environmental infor-
matics in waste management (Lu et al. 2013). Looking at the waste collection, there
is a constraint in the use of environmental informatics to manage waste collection
systems with different types of constraints for sustainability in both developed and
developing countries (Lu et al. 2017).

18.1.2 Advancements in Information and Communication

Technology

The potentialities that information and communication technology (ICT) can bring
to the way how waste is managed can open new worlds concerning the existent
paradigm. ICTs automated several elements of waste management, namely data
gathering, identification, communication, storage, and analysis, comparatively to
regular computing (Hannan et al. 2015). Hannan et al. (2015) classify in four
categories the application of ICT in waste management, spatial technologies, iden-
tification technologies, data acquisition technologies, and data communication tech-
nologies, which are detailed in Table 18.1.
Looking at Table 18.1, there are around 20 different applications of ICT in waste
management. Although they can be condensed in two drivers: to control, monitor,
and optimize waste processes related to sorting, treatment, recycling, and waste
recovery and to monitor and track waste collection and transportation, including
import and export of waste.
ICT can be used to control waste treatment processes by allowing the connection
of equipment and devices into the Internet. Besides data collection and processing
and helping in the optimization of equipment, another perspective can be brought by
the machine learning implementation to devices developing the same functions.
Machine learning allows computers to learn from experiences based on data, infor-
mation, and training from experts (Kurniawan, 2018). Machine learning algorithms
can be Naive Bayes, support vector machines, and nearest neighbor has been used in
automated sorting equipment (Gundupalli et al. 2017).
In the case of monitoring and tracking waste transportation, including import and
export of waste, ICT through RFID and GPS with GSM are techniques applied to
monitor waste transportation. In the study of Lee et al. (2018), the wireless GPS
location trackers were used to track computer monitors and printers from the USA,
being located in Asia. RFID has been used to ensure that waste of electric and
electronic equipment is correctly processed and the reuse of WEEE components is
controlled and quantified in the European project WEEE TRACE (European Com-
mission, 2013). Common to the applications mentioned so far is the use of data
18.1 Developed Countries 337

Table 18.1 Examples of ICT application in solid waste management

ICT
ICT classification subclasses Applications
Spatial technologies GIS Site selection, planning, management, estimation,
optimization
GPS Route and collection optimization, vehicle tracking,
planning, scheduling, billing
Remote Site selection, environmental impacts assessment, fea-
sensing tures monitoring
Identification Barcode Intelligent recycling, waste disposal, reduce landfill
technologies space, risk management
RFID Bin and driver tracking, optimization, sorting, and
recycling
Data acquisition Sensors Sorting: optimization, moisture, energy, and odor mea-
technologies surement, scheduling
Imaging Waste sorting, route and collection optimization,
monitoring
Data communication GSM/ Long-range communication
technologies GPRS
Zigbee Short-range communication
Wi-Fi Short-range communication
Bluetooth Short-range communication
VHFR Long-range communication
Note: GIS, geographic information system; GPS, global positioning systems; RFID, radio fre-
quency identification; GSM, Global System for Mobile Communications, GPRS, General Packet
Radio Service; VHFR, very high-frequency radio
Source: Hannan et al. (2015)

communication technologies. GSM, Wi-Fi, and the other techniques are being used
in the cases of machine learning and in tracking WEEE.

18.1.3 Waste Infrastructure Synergies

The need to save natural habitats in nonurban areas and make more sustainable use
of valuables at urban areas poses the need to promote waste infrastructure sharing
and infrastructure network, allowing a cut on infrastructure costs and sustainable
development of the city and the waste sector (Neuman, 2011). Sharing waste
infrastructures can be a type of industrial symbiosis, where interfirm cooperation
occurs by the exchange of by-products (waste) to be used as raw materials (Posch
et al. 2011). By changing their wastes (material or energy types), the impact on the
natural environment is minimized, and financial savings with the acquisition of raw
materials will be reached but also creates knowledge and innovation capacity at the
region (Posch et al. 2011; Mirata and Emtairah, 2005).
338 18 Technical Barriers and Socioeconomic Challenges

Sharing waste infrastructure is usually associated with the most high-risk waste
treatment technology and expensive – waste treatment facilities for nuclear waste
(IAEA 2011) and incineration plants (Lee and Hur 2017). In the case of nuclear
waste facilities, the sharing of those infrastructures is justified by the difficulty in
countries with low generation of nuclear waste which are not capable of supporting
such high-cost infrastructure, being safer to send their nuclear waste and spent
nuclear fuel to other countries (IAEA 2011). In the case of incineration, specifically
the case of Seoul, the drivers for the sharing of the 4 incineration plants were the
direct landfill ban of food waste and extended producer responsibility implemented
that have reduced significantly waste generation, reducing the number of incinera-
tors from 11 to 4, processing waste for 25 districts (from initial 4 districts) (Lee and
Hur 2017).

18.1.4 Reaching All-in-One: Citizens Satisfied

and Participative, Cost Affordable, and Low
Environmental Impact of the Waste Management
System

The trigger to promote integrated solid waste management in developed countries

have been public health, environment, resource scarcity, climate change public
awareness, and participation (Marshall and Farahbakhsh 2013). In addition to
those goals, the regulations that impose constraints to the activities (motivated by
the goals mentioned), the limits in terms of costs and financing of the integrated
waste management, and limitations of the public participation and interest on the
subject make the task of reaching an integrated and sustainable management of
waste almost unreachable.
European regulation is quite demanding regarding what has to be done to manage
waste sustainably. The legislation has a framework concerning the management of
waste, legal requirements concerning waste management operations (treatment,
recovery, and disposal), legislation specific for waste streams, how reporting on
waste management should be made to allow benchmarking between countries, and
evaluate each country concerning the implementation of the regulation. At a national
level, countries need to drive such requirements to national law and national practice,
instructing municipalities to manage waste according to the European Union’s terms
by elaborating waste management plans and putting them into practice. When waste
management is put into practice, other concerns reach waste managers, complicat-
ing, even more, the challenge. Aesthetic values in the urban environment, historical
areas, dense construction, and at the same time, budget constraints pose challenges to
the type of waste collection system to be implemented cost-effectively, providing the
service at a low cost (Schott et al. 2013).
The diversity of goals and interests makes it difficult for a city to adapt their
strategy to comply with legal requirements concerning waste management. The
18.2 Developing Countries 339

waste management itself creates competition regarding the final destination of waste
streams. In Malmö, Sweden, the increased competition for organic waste with high
biogas potential in open market makes difficult the planning of organic waste
management, particularly plans related with technology investment or the case of
recyclables with high energy content where the investment in incineration plants and
district heating systems might decrease the interest in their recycling (Schott et al.
2013).
No formula could help waste managers in how they could integrate all the factors
mentioned so far to help them in managing waste. The application of systems
analysis can help to bring the systematic and holistic view needed to look at the
entire picture, but involving the citizens and stakeholders related to waste manage-
ment and product consumption is to be included in any planning exercise.

18.2 Developing Countries

The barriers to integrate solid waste management at developing countries are

urbanization, inequality, economic growth, cultural and socioeconomic aspects,
policy, governance and institutional issues, and international influences, limiting
not only the applicability of approaches that were successful at developed countries
(Marshall and Farahbakhsh 2013), but also due to the increasing generation of waste,
the burden posed on the municipal budget increased the difficulty in making an
integrated solid waste management a reality. In fact, for developing countries, solid
waste management represents 20–50% of their available budget on waste manage-
ment, and less than 30% of urban waste is collected and disposed of appropriately in
African developing countries (World Bank 2017; Ziraba et al. 2016). This economic
challenge is a broader view of the problems of implemented integrated solid waste
management in developing countries. Other difficulties are addressed in this section.

18.2.1 Basics on Waste Collection System Are Still

in Development

For the generality of developing countries, to implement financially sustainable solid

waste management services is a significant challenge, which is the case of Bahir Dar,
Ethiopia (Lohri et al. 2014). In this case, a public-private partnership (PPP) was
created, to provide waste collection and management. With the PPP, a significant
increase in waste management costs related to waste transportation occurred, where
only one revenue exists – the waste collection fee - highlighting the need to enhance
cost efficiency and balance the cost-revenues towards cost recovery (Lohri et al.
2014). To improve financial sustainability from the waste services, Lohri et al.
(2014) proposed four options: improve fee collection efficiency by linking fees to
340 18 Technical Barriers and Socioeconomic Challenges

Fig. 18.1 Process flow diagram of municipal solid waste in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. (Source: Adapted
from Lohri et al. 2014)

water consumption, increase revenues by selling organic waste recycling products,

diversifying revenues, and cost reduction. To a better understanding of the chal-
lenge, Fig. 18.1 shows the waste flow diagram in Bahir Dar (Lohri et al. 2014).

18.2.2 The Conversion of Informal Sector into Formal Waste

Management Sector

In developing countries, the informal sector, represented by the denominations of

“scavengers,” “waste pickers,” or “rag pickers,” is responsible for the existence of
recycling of household recyclable waste, due to the fact that formal waste manage-
ment organization strategies for source separation of waste is inexistent or is still in
its infancy (Fei et al. 2016; Medina 2000). The informal sector is composed by
small-scale, low-technology, low-paid, mostly unregulated and unregistered, with-
out tax payment (Harriss-White 2010; Wilson et al. 2006). Such sector is also
notorious by the serious social problems, like poor work and living conditions,
older people without any other work opportunities, child labor, school absences,
18.2 Developing Countries 341

incomplete education of adults, and willing workers incapable to find another job
(Brix-Asala et al. 2016; Medina 2000; Wilson et al. 2006). Waste workers from
informal sector expose themselves to a significant health risk than from formal
sector, and the society (citizens, authorities) are often hostile to informal waste
workers (Medina 2000).
In countries like China and Brazil, both formal and informal sectors coexist, and
there are cases where the domain of informal sector is notable, for example, the case
of e-waste in China (Gu et al. 2016). The recognition of the work made by informal
sector has made authorities to include them in the implementation of modernization
of waste management. The most common approaches to formalize informal waste
sector are (Aparcana 2017):
• Associations or cooperatives composed of informal sector workers.
• Community-based organization (CBO) or micro- and small enterprises (MSE)
formed by the informal sector workers.
• Contract the individual workers by the formal waste sector.
In the case of associations of cooperatives, Brazil is a compelling case. In this
model, the associations or cooperatives, composed of municipalities and waste
workers, establish contracts or cooperation agreements to conduct collection ser-
vices and source separation of recyclables (Aparcana 2017). Those cooperatives or
associations receive waste and separate and resell the materials, and the municipality
may cover the costs of the machinery and depots, like what happens in Belo
Horizonte City (Colombjin and Morbidini 2017). Although the effort in organizing
the cooperatives and associations, many Brazilian waste pickers choose not to join a
cooperative, with the justification of being free to make their market choices
(Colombjin and Morbidini 2017).
CBO or MSE establishes when the individuals get organized to provide waste
services, representing an opportunity to define a source of income and create a clean
environment in their community (Aparcana 2017; Muller and Hoffman 2001). MSW
involves groups up to 10 (micro) or 20 (small) persons, operating with low invest-
ment to provide primarily collection and processing of recyclables to intermediate or
final products, depending on market demands (Ahmed and Ali 2004; Wilson et al.
2006). Although not being the most common conversion of informal to formal
sector, the case study of Lima, Peru, reported by Baud et al. (2001) on the creation
of 140 MSE by the nongovernmental organization IPES, is mainly run by women
from poor communities.
The contract of individual workers by the formal sector to conduct collection or at
recycling facilities can be seen as a way of formal sector in helping “poor people”
(Aparcana 2017). One example of this practice is in Ghana, where a plastic waste
recycling company employs 400 plastic waste pickers because they have difficulty in
getting plastic waste for its activity (Oteng-Ababio 2012).
According to Aparcana (2017), these strategies to convert informal to formal
waste activity requires, most of all, the inclusion of measures country specific at
economic, regulatory, and institutional levels to increase the levels of success.
However, another type of formalization of informal sector needs to be developed
342 18 Technical Barriers and Socioeconomic Challenges

and tested, in the same time that their acknowledge on the subject is brought into the
waste management system, giving a considerable contribution in the implementation
of integrated solid waste management in developing countries.

18.2.3 The Importation of Hazardous Waste and Trade

of Hazardous Waste

Hazardous waste is present in all activities, including in domestic activities. Haz-

ardous waste in the domestic sector at developing countries includes not only
remnants of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and cleaning products but
also other wastes which are corrosive, toxic, and reactive (Al-Khatib et al. 2015;
Hennebert et al. 2013). Measures to control and environmentally manage such waste
have been made by developed countries, but for developing countries that is not the
case (Otoniel et al. 2008). Most of the time, citizens are not aware of the hazardous-
ness of MSW, and not separate collection of those wastes occur, what can be a
problem if scavengers exist in open dumps, where people may cut themselves in
sharp objects, burns from toxics, and diseases from genotoxics (Al-Khatib et al.
2015).
The most known municipal hazardous waste is e-waste (or waste of electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE)). Due to the presence of materials with economic
value, they are managed to obtain such resources. In developing countries such as
China, India, Pakistan, and Nigeria, standard practice is to smolder plastic off cables
to recover copper; precious metals such as gold, platinum, palladium, and silver from
printed circuit boards are leached to acid baths, and the used acid is released to the
ground or nearby stream, intoxicating population around those areas (Leung et al.
2006; Robinson 2009; Sthiannopkao and Wong 2013).
The travel of e-waste from developed countries into developing countries is still a
subject of matter. Although the existence of import bans in developing countries, the
low costs of recycling, and disposal of e-waste at developing countries compara-
tively to developed countries seem to ensure the flow of e-waste from developed to
developing countries by labeling them as used goods, which are not covered by the
Basel Convention or to declare it as for reexport (Sthiannopkao and Wong 2013).
However, e-waste is not only resulting from importation but it is also resulting from
national consumption of electronics (Nnorom and Osibanjo 2008). Heeks et al.
(2015) resumed the significant issues that e-waste management has on developing
countries: the risk of mismanagement of e-waste is higher than in developed
countries, there is no formal recycling, and recycling legislation is weak or absent.
The problem of e-waste management present in MSW is realized by waste
management official, expert, practitioners, and academics at developing countries,
concerning the lack of waste separation of e-waste, the safe disposal of e-waste, the
lack of proper recycling, the need of technical support, and the increase of popula-
tion’ awareness on the toxic nature of e-waste (Ikhlayel 2018). The integrated
18.2 Developing Countries 343

management of e-waste for developing countries proposed by Ikhlayel (2018) is

based on the MSW management system, where a source separation of e-waste is
promoted by drop-off containers being sent to material recovery facilities from the
MSW system to be dismantled by waste pickers (allowing the inclusion of informal
sector) and the flows of the waste products are the same as the MSW management,
allowing the regulation of e-waste management at first and, second, to use the
existing technology for MSW to treat e-waste, due to the limitations of technology
present in those countries.

18.2.4 Public Health Related to Mismanagement of Waste

and Its Dependents

Dumpsites in developing countries are in reality, being considered the most polluted
places on Earth by the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), receiving
roughly 40% of the world’s waste, serving 3–4 billion people, counting with 8–10%
of the global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 (Mavropoulos et al.
2016). Generically, the global problems of significant dumpsites are the marine litter,
the contribution to climate change, the way how waste trafficking occurs, and the
amount of population that is served by those dumpsites (Fig. 18.2). Although the
global problems exist, direct issues are resulting from dumpsites. One of the most
visible ones is the fatalities occurring due to mechanical instability (Laner et al.
2009). From December 2015 to June 2016, 750 deaths of scavengers and their
relatives related to poor management in dumpsites were recorded (Mavropoulos
et al. 2016).
Besides the fatalities related to scavengers, including children, in dumpsites, there
are also other health effects resulting from this waste deposits. All people living at
dumpsites are exposed to environmental pollutants via accidental ingestion and
inhalation of contaminated dust, and dermal absorption and citizens living away
from the dumpsite are exposed to pollutants by air, water, and food (Tongesayi et al.
2018). In Dhapa, India, near the closed dump, diseases such as hepatitis, diarrhea,
vomiting, abdominal pain, dysentery, and others are occurring in residents due to
groundwater contamination (Maiti et al. 2016). In Okhla landfill site open dumpsite
in Delhi, the high prevalence of respiratory symptoms, inflammation of the airways,
decrement of the lung function, increased susceptibility to tissue damage, and
cardiovascular diseases, and many other health problems were detected at disposal
workers by Ray et al. (2005, 2009).
Although noncontrolled dumpsites are addressed mainly by developing coun-
tries, situations of illegal dumping of waste also occur at developed countries, with
implications for human health, at least. The most known is the “Triangle of Death” in
Italy, related to the three vertex cities of Naples, Marigliano, and Nola, one of the
most polluted areas in Europe due to the illegal management of hazardous waste by
criminal organizations (Basile et al. 2017). Diffused and severe contamination by
344 18 Technical Barriers and Socioeconomic Challenges

•38 out of 50 biggest

Marine landfills are posing
litter threat for marine and
coastal pollution

• With the business as

usual scenario
Climate dumpsites will account
change 8-10% of the
anthropogenic GHG in
2025

•US$11 billion annually

Waste is the turnover of illegal
trafficking waste shipping to
dumpsites

Global • Represents 50% of population and

problem 40% of the waste of the planet

Fig. 18.2 Dumpsite as a global challenge. (Source: Adapted from Mavropoulos et al. 2016)

hazardous substances has been linked to brain, liver, lung, stomach, and intestine
cancer (Senior and Mazza 2004).

18.2.5 Social Apathy for Participation

The way of living in developing countries does not allow that environmental
problems resulting from waste management deserve particular attention. Social
apathy concerning waste problems and recycling is a reality exposed by Guerrero
et al. (2013), Buenrostro and Bocco (2003), and Moghadam et al. (2009) in devel-
oping countries. In particular, do Carmo and de Oliveira (2010), the recyclers at Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil, look at their work as dirty and nasty, making them feel apathetic
and hoping that it is a temporary work. The social apathy on waste can also be seen
when there is no waste collection promoted by authorities, leading to aesthetic and
environmental deterioration (Shekdar 2009). Vij (2012) highlighted the social apa-
thy concerning waste management by Indian citizens, where they throw away their
waste outside bins, alongside the road, even with effort in keeping streets clean,
citizens do not respect the effort of authorities.
References 345

Waste management requires the collaboration of all stakeholders to increase

awareness near waste producers including citizens, industries, commerce and ser-
vices, business and public entities, where non-governmental agencies can have a role
in exposing the importance of a correct waste management. The training of munic-
ipalities’ staff can increase the importance of waste management employment (Singh
2010), reducing the apathy vies of waste and all related to waste.

18.3 Final Remarks

The shift of the paradigm in developing countries is needed to reduce and eliminate
impacts from mismanagement of waste. Waste governance, evocated by Rodic
(2015) and reinforced by Mavropoulos et al. (2016), is the key solution to involve
all responsible stakeholders in the cleanliness of the open spaces of the cities as well
as in the protection of natural resources, pushing forward good waste governance
onto the realms of production and consumption. Waste governance requires the
identification of waste stakeholders and their involvement, where the national
authorities define the goals or driving forces: public health, environment, resource
recovery, and waste prevention. Planning of waste strategies through the design and
implementation in time of policy instruments to respond to the goals such as direct
regulation, economic instruments, and social instruments (to raise awareness on
waste near stakeholders) is needed to ensure an integrated solid waste management.
The integrated solid waste management should start by closing dumpsites and
construct sanitary landfills, preceded by the regulations to define the requirements
for construction of such infrastructures. All the other waste management options,
like incineration, recycling, reuse, and prevention, require time to be defined and,
possibility, the financial support of the private sector.

References

Ahmed AS, Ali M (2004) Partnerships for solid waste management in developing countries: linking
theories to realities. Habitat Int 28:467–479
Al-Khatib IA, Kontogianni S, Nabaa HA, Alshami N, Al-Sari’ MI (2015) Public perception of
hazardousness caused by current trends of municipal solid waste management. Waste Manag
36:323–330
Aparcana S (2017) Approaches to formalization of the informal waste sector into municipal solid
waste management systems in low- and middle-income countries: review of barriers and success
factors. Waste Manag 61:593–607
Basile A, Loppi S, Piscopo M, Paoli L, Vannini A, Monaci F, Sorbo S, Lentini M, Esposito S
(2017) The biological response chain to pollution: a case study from the “Italian Triangle of
Death” assessed with the liverwort Lunularia cruciate. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:26185–26193
Baud I, Grafakos S, Hordijk M, Post J (2001) Quality of life and alliances in solid waste
management: contributions to urban sustainable development. Cities 18:3–12
346 18 Technical Barriers and Socioeconomic Challenges

Brix-Asala C, Hahn R, Seuring S (2016) Reverse logistics and informal valorisation at the Base of
the Pyramid: a case study on sustainability synergies and trade-offs. Eur Manag J 34:414–423
Buenrostro O, Bocco G (2003) Solid waste management in municipalities in Mexico: goals and
perspectives. Resour Conserv Recycl 39:251–263
do Carmo MS, de Oliveira JAP (2010) The Semantics of Garbage and the organization of the
recyclers: implementation challenges for establishing recycling cooperatives in the city of Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:1261–1268
Colombjin F, Morbidini M (2017) Pros and cons of the formation of waste-pickers’ cooperatives: a
comparison between Brazil and Indonesia. Decision 44:91–101
European Commission (2013) Keeping track of WEEE Eco-Innovation at the heart of European
policies https://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/about-eco-innovation/good-practices/eu/
20130326-keeping-track-of-weee_en. Accessed 10 Mar 2018
Fei F, Qu L, Wen Z, Xue Y, Zhang H (2016) How to integrate the informal recycling system into
municipal solid waste management in developing countries: based on a China’s case in Suzhou
urban area. Resour Conserv Recycl 110:74–86
Gu Y, Wu Y, Xu M, Wang H, Zuo T (2016) The stability and profitability of the informal WEEE
collector in developing countries: a case study of China. Resour Conserv Recycl 107:18–26
Guerrero LA, Maas G, Hogland W (2013) Solid waste management challenges for cities in
developing countries. Waste Manag 33:220–232
Gundupalli S, Hait S, Thakur A (2017) A review on automated sorting of source-separated
municipal solid waste for recycling. Waste Manag 60:56–74
Hannan MA, Al Mamun MA, Hussain A, Basri H (2015) A review on technologies and their usage
in solid waste monitoring and management systems: issues and challenges. Waste Manag
43:509–523
Harriss-White B (2010) Work and wellbeing in informal economies: the regulative roles of
institutions of identity and the state. World Dev 38:170–183
Heeks R, Subramanian L, Jones C (2015) Understanding e-waste management in developing
countries: strategies, determinants, and policy implications in the Indian ICT sector. Inf Technol
Dev 21:653–667
Hennebert P, Papin A, Padox JM, Hasebrouck B (2013) The evaluation of an analytical protocol for
the determination of substances in waste for hazard classification. Waste Manag 33:1577–1588
Ikhlayel M (2018) An integrated approach to establish e-waste management systems for developing
countries. J Clean Prod 170:119–130
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2011) Viability of sharing facilities for the disposi-
tion of spent fuel and nuclear waste: an assessment of recent proposals. IAEA, Vienna
Kurniawan A (2018) Learning AWS IoT. Packt Publishing, Birmingham
Laner D, Fellner J, Brunner PH (2009) Flooding of municipal solid waste landfills — an environ-
mental hazard? Sci Total Environ 407:3674–3680
Lee D, Offenhuber D, Duarte F, Biderman A, Ratti C (2018) Monitour: tracking global routes of
electronic waste. Waste Manag 72:362–370
Lee S, Hur YG (2017) Waste heat recovery project Seoul Solution http://susa.or.kr/sites/default/files/
resources/%ED%99%98%EA%B2%BD_10_Waste%20Heat%20Recovery%20Project.pdf.
Accessed 10 Mar 2018
Leung A, Cai ZW, Wong MH (2006) Environmental contamination from electronic waste recycling
at Guiyu, southeast China. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 8:21–33
Lohri CR, Camenzind EJ, Zurbrügg C (2014) Financial sustainability in municipal solid waste
management – costs and revenues in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Waste Manag 34:542–552
Lu J-W, Chang NB, Liao L (2013) Environmental informatics for solid and hazardous waste
management: advances, challenges, and perspectives. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 43
(15):1557–1656
Lu JW, Chang NB, Liao L, Liao MY (2017) Smart and green urban solid waste collection systems:
advances, challenges, and perspectives. IEEE Syst J 11:2804–2817
References 347

Maiti SK, De S, Hazra T, Debsarkar A, Dutta A (2016) Characterization of leachate and its impact
on surface and groundwater quality of a closed dumpsite - a case study at Dhapa, Kolkata, India.
Procedia Environ Sci 35:391–399
Marshall RE, Farahbakhsh K (2013) Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in
developing countries. Waste Manag 33:988–1003
Mavropoulos A, Cohen P, Greedy D, Plimakis S, Marinheiro L, Law J, Loureiro A (2016) A
roadmap for closing waste dumpsites: the world’s most polluted places ISWA report http://
www.iswa.org/fileadmin/galleries/About%20ISWA/ISWA_Roadmap_Report.pdf. Accessed
12 Mar 2018
Medina M (2000) Scavenger cooperatives in Asia and Latin America. Resour Conserv Recycl
31:51–69
Mirata M, Emtairah T (2005) Industrial symbiosis networks and the contribution to environmental
innovation: the case of the Landskrona industrial symbiosis programme. J Clean Prod
13:993–1002
Moghadam MRA, Mokhtarani N, Mokhtarani B (2009) Municipal solid waste management in
Rasht City Iran. J Waste Manag 29:485–489
Muller M, Hoffman L (2001) Community partnerships in integrated sustainable waste management
– tools for decision-makers experiences from the urban waste expertise programme (1995-
2001). WASTE, Gouda
Neuman M (2011) Infrastructure planning for sustainable cities. Geogr Helv 66:100–107
Nnorom IC, Osibanjo O (2008) Overview of electronic waste (e-waste) management practices and
legislations, and their poor applications in the developing countries. Resour Conserv Recycl
52:843–858
Oteng-Ababio M (2012) The role of the informal sector in solid waste management in the GAMA;
Ghana: challenges and opportunities. J Econ Social Geogr 103:412–425
Otoniel BD, Márquez-Benavides L, Pinette GF (2008) Consumption patterns and household
hazardous solid waste generation in an urban settlement in México. Waste Manag 28:S2–S6
Posch A, Agarwal A, Strachan P (2011) Editorial: managing industrial symbiosis (IS) networks.
Bus Strateg Environ 20:421–427
Ray MR, Roychoudhury S, Mukherjee S, Siddique S, Banerjee M, Akolkar AB, Sengupta B, Lahiri
T (2009) Airway inflammation and upregulation of beta2 Mac-1 integrin expression on circu-
lating leukocytes of female ragpickers in India. J Occup Health 51:232–238
Ray MR, Roychoudhury S, Mukherjee G, Roy S, Lahiri T (2005) Respiratory and general health
impairments of workers employed in a municipal solid waste disposal at an open landfill site in
Delhi. Int J Hyg Environ Health 208:255–262
Robinson BH (2009) E-waste: an assessment of global production and environmental impacts. Sci
Total Environ 408:183–191
Rodic L (2015) Waste governance. In: Wilson DC (ed) Global waste management outlook. United
National Environment Programme, Osaka, pp 125–202
Schott ABS, Aspegren H, Bissmont M, JLC J (2013) Modern solid waste management in practice -
the city of Malmö experience, Briefs in applied sciences and technology. Springer, Greven,
Deutschland
Senior K, Mazza A (2004) Italian “triangle of death” linked to waste crisis. Lancet Oncol 5:525–527
Shekdar A (2009) Sustainable solid waste management: an integrated approach for Asian countries.
Waste Manag 29:1438–1448
Singh J (2010) Different methods in solid waste management. In: Singh J, Ramanathan A (eds)
Solid waste management: present and future challenges. IK International Publishing House,
New Delhi, pp 84–89
Sthiannopkao S, Wong M (2013) Handling e-waste in developed and developing countries:
initiatives, practices, and consequences. Sci Total Environ 463-464:1147–1153
Tongesayi T, Kugara J, Tongesayi S (2018) Waste dumpsites and public health: a case for lead
exposure in Zimbabwe and potential global implications. Environ Geochem Health 40:375–381
348 18 Technical Barriers and Socioeconomic Challenges

Vij D (2012) Urbanization and solid waste management in India: present practices and future
challenges. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 37:437–447
Wilson DC, Velis C, Cheeseman C (2006) Role of informal sector recycling in waste management
in developing countries. Habitat Int 30:797–808
World Bank (2017) Solid waste management. Urban development. http://www.worldbank.org/en/
topic/urbandevelopment/brief/solid-waste-management. Accessed 10 Mar 2018
Ziraba AK, Haregu TN, Mberu B (2016) A review and framework for understanding the potential
impact of poor solid waste management on health in developing countries. Arch Public Health
74:55
Chapter 19
Future Perspectives

Abstract The ultimate challenge that solid waste management needs to comply in
the future is the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The adoption of the
agenda by the United Nations in 2016 intends to transform the way how the world
has evolved. Seventeen goals decomposed in 169 targets are listed to ensure a better
world for all, with poverty alleviation, human well-being, and environmental pro-
tection in new and more integrated ways (Dermatas, Waste Manag Res 35: 453–455,
2017; UN, Sustainable development goals – 17 goals to transform our world. United
Nations. Available via http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-
development-goals/, 2016). Discussing the way how solid waste management can
contribute to improving sustainable development and how solid waste management
can be shaped to answer to this call was the intention of this section.

Keywords Consumption · Economic growth · Environmental impacts · Production ·

Recycling · Resource use · SDGs · SWM

19.1 The Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development

Solid waste management (SWM) activity is direct and indirectly related to the
sustainable development. The need to ensure proper waste collection to ensure
public health is vital to any society to grow in sustainable development; indirectly,
all the economic activity related to waste transactions can also create a business that
will improve the life of the ones living directly from waste but also the society in
question. Direct and indirect influence of SWM in sustainable development reaches
ecology, economy, and society as a whole. From the 17 Sustainable Development
Goals (SDG) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the
193 UN countries (UN 2016), at least 13 SDG and their pertinent targets are related
to SWM. More influences of SWM in SDG exist and will be addressed in the next
sections.

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 349

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2_19
350 19 Future Perspectives

19.1.1 SGD 1 “No Poverty” and SWM

The “no poverty” goal intends to eradicate extreme poverty for everyone, ensuring
that men and women have equal rights to economic resources. In developing
countries, 20% of people still live on less than $1.90 a day and millions a little
more than that (UN 2016). The sub-goals on this SDG potentially related with SWM
are (UN 2016) as follows:
• By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as
people living on less than $1.25 a day.
• By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women, and children of all ages
living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.
• By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular, the poor and the vulnerable, have
equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership, and
control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate
new technology, and financial services, including microfinance.
• Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through
enhanced development cooperation, to provide adequate and predictable means for
developing countries, in particular, least developed countries, to implement programs
and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions.

Solid waste management can contribute to the “no poverty” goal by the creation
of green jobs relayed with reuse and recycling activities. European waste legislation
is devoted to promote recycling, and if all recycling targets were reached as well as
landfill diversion rates, around 180,000 direct jobs could be created by 2030, in
addition to the estimated 400,000 jobs (European Commission 2014a, b).
In another perspective, the waste sector can contribute to jobs, although people
are not keen on working in the sector because jobs are not well paid. In collection
and transport, manual sorting and other manual occupations occur in least-quality
jobs, when higher-quality jobs are associated with more specialized activities and
high-technology treatment, like incineration plant managers (European Commission
2001).

19.1.2 SDG 2: Zero Hunger

This SDG intends to reform how agriculture, forestry, and fishery are made to ensure
an adequate nutritious food for all and generate income while not damaging the
environment. Combat degradation derived from food and agriculture system is
needed to ensure nourishing of the future two billion people expected by 2050
(UN 2016). The sub-goals related to SWM are (UN 2016) as follows:
• By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricul-
tural practices that increase productivity and production; that help maintain ecosystems;
that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought,
flooding, and other disasters; and that progressively improve land and soil quality.
19.1 The Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 351

In a sustainable food production, agriculture waste is a resource to explore,

instead of just being material without interest to be disposed. Depending on the
technique/technology, waste from food production can be used as a source of
energy, as a natural fertilizer, or as a feed for animals. SWM can help to reach this
goal by treating agriculture waste through technology which is used for biological
waste: anaerobic digestion and composting. Although incineration could be also
used, it is not capable to provide the land and soil quality as is capable anaerobic
digestion and composting. The production of compost/digestate has to be performed
having in mind the nutrients to be provided to the soil and plants, to generate the best
and safe food products. However, today’s agriculture has chemicals that can be a risk
to public health and to the environment, and contamination with heavy metals also
occurs during waste collection. New ways to produce food products and to collect
waste are needed to comply with this sub-goal.

19.1.3 SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The good health and well-being goal intends to ensure healthy lives; increase life
expectancy, preventing deaths of children under 5 years and reducing some of the
common killers not only related with child and maternal mortality but also malaria
and water-borne diseases; and reduce illness from hazardous chemicals (UN 2016).
Sub-goals for SDG 3 related to SWM are the following:
• By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous
chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination.

Solid waste management can bring a significant help to reach such SDG. The
implementation of waste collection is a measure to ensure public health. When waste
is not collected, is often dumped in waterways, or is burned in open air, it causes
pollution and contamination; if waste is not collected, it can also clog the drains
causing floods, contributing to water-borne diseases and malaria (Rodić and Wilson
2017). In developing countries, waste collection is determinant to reach this goal, but
also for developed countries, the need to reduce the impacts from waste is also
notorious, mainly due to the climate change and the hot waves that are expected to
occur. High temperature will make biowaste to degrade faster, increasing the need to
collect more often or to find new ways to deal with such waste.

19.1.4 SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

The goal intends to ensure the availability of fresh, unpolluted water to everyone.
The sub-goals are as follows:
352 19 Future Perspectives

• By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and mini-
mizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated
wastewater, and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.
• By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sus-
tainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially
reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity.

To do so, the control and minimization of sources of water pollution, like

uncontrolled dumping, open burning, littering, as well promote the environmentally
sound management of all wastes, particularly hazardous wastes (Rodić and Wilson
2017). Waste technologies should also be rethought to be efficient regarding water
consumption and use. Just, For example, one mechanical-biological treatment unit in
Portugal was conceived to use rainwater in the process, avoiding the consumption of
clean water for less noble uses. In the case of plastic recycling, there is much
consumption of water to wash waste plastics, which also needs to be reconsidered
to improve such recycling technology.

19.1.5 SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

The need to encounter sustainable energy and make energy accessible to all is the
goal. The sub-goals are (UN 2016) as follows:
• By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
• By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research
and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and advanced and
cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and
clean energy technology.
• By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and
sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, in particular, least developed
countries, Small Island Developing States, and landlocked developing countries, by their
respective programs of support.

In this respect, the biodegradable fraction of waste can be a source of renewable,

easy access, energy. The biodegradable waste fraction can be used to produce
methane and consequently as fuel. Solutions of energy made of renewable waste
sources are the production of combustible gas (like methane), or direct energy
recovery in waste-to-energy plants or other processes that could recover the energy
content of waste in their processes, replacing other fuels. The energy recovery of
waste is also dependent on the technical efficiency, to ensure that energy is recovered
and not just burned.

19.1.6 SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

This goal intends to ensure decent work opportunities and sustainable economic
growth without harming the environment. The sub-goals are (UN 2016) as follows:
19.1 The Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 353

• Sustain per capita economic growth by national circumstances and, in particular, at least
7 percent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries.
• Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological
upgrading, and innovation, including through a focus on high value-added and labor-
intensive sectors.
• Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job
creation, entrepreneurship, creativity, and innovation and encourage the formalization
and growth of micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises, including thorough access
to financial services.
• Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and
production and endeavor to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation,
by the 10-year framework of programs on sustainable consumption and production, with
developed countries taking the lead.
• By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and
men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of
equal value.
• Protect labor rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers,
including migrant workers, in particular, women migrants, and those in precarious
employment.
• By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs
and promotes local culture and products.

SWM services, in developing countries, are provided by individuals and small/

microenterprises who need support to improve livelihoods and contribute to
reaching both SDG 8 and 1 (Rodić and Wilson 2017). Like already mentioned in
SDG 1 “no poverty,” the green economy recycling based can be a possible direction
to promote economic growth. However, Gregson et al. (2016) have highlighted the
risks of the European Green economy not to bring decent jobs. In Europe, recycling
is being fostered to stop the waste of being sent to developing countries, to reuse
them to decouple economic growth from demands of global resources and to create
recycling jobs (Gregson et al. 2016). However, waste management works are not as
clean and green as authorities and politicians intend to veneer them. According to
Gregson et al. (2016):
waste work globally has long been seen as a means to marking ethnic and racial, as well as
gendered, differences.

Such marking has led waste and recycling green job types connected as “dirty
work,” performed by migrant labor, itinerant, or no EU-nationals to low cost
(Gregson et al. 2016). Bonatti (2018) have verified the precarious immigration and
employment statuses push migrant workers to take the problematic recycling work
for their employers. The sub-goals on SDG 8 need to be brought into the waste
management sector to improve the conditions of workers regarding health, work
conditions, remuneration, and rights, which were questioned by Gregson
et al. (2016).
Regarding sustainable tourism, the way how touristic areas and events are
managing waste needs to be reviewed in the vision of sustainability. Also, events
need to be though to promote waste prevention and zero-waste measures, which will
reduce littering and environmental impacts related to the misleading management of
waste in those events (Cierjacks et al. 2012; Martinho et al. 2018).
354 19 Future Perspectives

19.1.7 SGD 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

The investment in infrastructure is needed to empower countries and reach a more

sustainable world by technology/industry investment in an environmentally sound
way. SGD sub-goals related to SWM are the following:
• Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises, in particular in
developing countries, to financial services, including affordable credit, and their integra-
tion into value chains and markets.
• By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with
increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally
sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking action by their
respective capabilities.
• By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with
increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally
sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking action by their
respective capabilities.

SDG 9 can incorporate SWM sector in developing countries. Converting the

informal recycling sector in developing countries to become formal will provide new
access to funding and improvements in their operation. Improving the waste man-
agement infrastructures can also improve environmental quality. Passing from
dumpsites, where scavengers work to recover recyclables and where leachates are
generated, contaminating soil and water resources, to sanitary landfills, where
leachates are adequately managed and treated, and where scavengers can constitute
the formal recycling sector, improving their life quality, is one example of the
benefits of infrastructure and innovation investment at SWM sector.

19.1.8 SDG 11: Sustainable Cities

UN (2016) intends that, in 2030, cities could grow in such way that resources used
would be optimized, pollution and poverty minimized, facing the challenges of
congestion lack of funds for essential services, shortage of housing, and declining
infrastructure. In this SDG, the sub-goals are (UN 2016) as follows:
• By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable housing and basic
services and upgrade slums.
• By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory,
integrated, and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.
• Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.
• By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including paying
special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
• By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and
implementing integrated policies and plans toward inclusion, resource efficiency, miti-
gation, and adaptation to climate change and resilience to disasters and develop and
implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030,
holistic disaster risk management at all levels.
19.1 The Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 355

• Support least developed countries, including through financial and technical assistance,
in building sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials.

Integrated SWM should be implemented all over the world with a sustainable
view. An appropriate collection of waste that removes waste from streets (in a public
health vision), eliminates open dumpsites and open burning, and implements waste
hierarchy principle (if it is better for the environment) to nonhazardous and hazard-
ous waste can be a vision of integrated SWM. Sub-goals of SDG 11 to be reached
require that the waste collection system should be provided equally to all, with the
same options to conduct the separate collection, although the needed adaptations are
case by case (due to technical constraints). The need to implement participatory
processes to define how SWM should be managed, giving the guidelines on how the
SWM should be conceived to answer to waste hierarchy principle. Concerning the
collection system, there might be the need to develop or adopt the waste collection
system to avoid damaging heritage. Also, the waste treatment technologies are not
needed if there is already technology used for other purposes that could treat/recycle
waste, and this way, natural heritage could be preserved by avoiding building new
infrastructures. Perhaps waste, being a city problem, should be treated inside of the
city and not in the surroundings of the city, making people understand and look ar
the pollution that they are making and what is necessary to solve it.
Minimizing environmental impacts from SWM is a work in progress, not existing
a unique solution for it. Life cycle assessment, waste hierarchy principle, and circular
economy are just some of the ways to manage waste and assess their impacts on the
environment that could help on such task. Using waste as secondary resources,
namely, in the building sector, can be a way to use local products and reduce
environmental impacts from construction and demolition waste, at least regarding
transportation of such waste to faraway areas to be recycled or disposed.

19.1.9 SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

The goal most related to SWM is SG12. This goal intends to promote sustainable
consumption and production by “doing more and better with less,” increasing net
welfare gains from economic activities by not using so many resources, and by
avoiding or minimizing degradation and pollution during the lifecycle of goods
produced while increasing quality of life (UN 2016):
• Implement the 10-year framework of programs on sustainable consumption and produc-
tion, all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into
account the development and capabilities of developing countries.
• By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
• By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels, and reduce
food losses along production and supply chains, including postharvest losses.
• By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes
throughout their life cycle, by agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce
their release to air, water, and soil to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and
the environment.
356 19 Future Perspectives

• By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling,

and reuse.
• Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable
practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.
• Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, by national policies and
priorities.
• By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for
sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature.
• Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacity to
move toward more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.
• Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustain-
able tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products.

A system approach is needed, as well as cooperation between all stakeholders,

from the producer, to the consumer and to waste managers and recyclers. The system
approach thinking applied to SWM already provided by Chang and Pires (2015),
together with the waste hierarchy principle, and now with the circular economy
vision can contribute to reaching this SDG. The reduction of waste generated
through waste prevention, preparation for reuse, and recycling, in the light of the
circular economy, has the potential to promote sustainable use of resources.

19.1.10 SDG 13: Climate Action

This SDG intends to promote measures to control climate change and its impacts.
People are identifying impacts of climate change, from changing weather patterns,
rising sea level, and more extreme weather events, affecting national economies and
lives, costing people, communities, and countries today and tomorrow (UN 2016).
SWM can contribute to reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), by
implementing practices that could prevent their release. Also, the diversion of
organic matter from landfills, promoted in Europe by Landfill Directive, has allowed
reducing the release of methane (one GHG) in European landfills, being now new
goals to manage this particular waste fraction related to GHG and climate change.
Waste collection, in another hand, is consuming petroleum-derived fuel in the
majority, existing few projects which uses renewable fuels. The SDG related to
waste is (UN 2016):
• Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.

Waste management planning, strategies, and policies need to include in their

guidelines mitigation and adaptation measures for climate change. Like simplified in
Fig. 19.1, GHG emissions occur during all waste life cycle, from transportation to
disposal in a landfill. But also reduction of GHG emissions occurs due to processes
that generate biowaste-based energy, reducing the release of GHG emissions.
Recycling itself prevents the release of GHG by avoiding the extraction and con-
sumption of raw materials. Integration of SWM measures in plans and implementing
those measures in the field are necessary to reach SDG 13 goal.
19.1 The Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 357

GHG release

GHG release
Waste temporal
deposition Energy less GHG release
Waste collection and
transport Energy less GHG release
Separation and
treatment (including
incineration) Landfill

Fig. 19.1 Simplified schematic of waste management system and GHG emissions (applicable to
urban waste management)

19.1.11 SDG 14: Life Below Water

This SDG intends to conserve and promote sustainable use of the oceans, seas, and
marine resources. The sub-goals for this particular SDG are (UN 2016):
• By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from
land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.
• Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced
scientific cooperation at all levels.

In the first sub-goal, the role of SWM to reduce marine pollution is relevant.
Marine debris is waste created by humans that have been discharged into coastal or
marine environments, resulting from activities on land or sea (UNEP and NOAA
2011). The majority of marine debris are made of plastics, macroplastics, and
microplastics (plastic particles <5 mm in diameter including nanoparticles), where
smaller macroplastics (<2.5 cm) has origin from lost bottle caps or plastic fragment
(GESAMP 2016; UNEP 2016). Common macroplastics (until 1 m) originating from
rivers or maritime sources such as plastic bags, food and other packaging, fishing
floats, buoys, balloons, and macroplastics larger than 1 m from fishing activities or
catastrophic events such as fishing nets and traps, rope, boat hulls, and plastic films
from agriculture are also marine debris (GESAMP 2016; UNEP 2016). Waste
management activities should be conducted to avoid littering and consequent con-
tamination of coastal areas and rivers with this type of waste. For example, cam-
paigns to collect bottle caps, implementation of waste management practices at the
fishing sector, and extended producer responsibility principle implemented to plastic
products to induce ecodesign of products to avoid marine litter are some of the
possible measures to help fight marine litter. Also, due to this environmental
problem, the waste collection has to be made to avoid waste loss during collection
(due to the poor coverage of dumpsters and dump trucks (Sheavly and Register
358 19 Future Perspectives

2007) and avoid disposal of light waste in landfills to not get out of the landfill by the
wind. The control of sources of marine litter is needed to avoid inadvertent release of
waste and consequently, of marine litter (Sheavly and Register 2007).
For the second sub-goal, the one devoted to solving ocean acidification, the role
of SWM to solve ocean acidification is equivalent to the role of climate change.
Ocean acidification is due to the absorption of carbon dioxide emissions from human
activities by the ocean, equivalent to about 30% of the total emissions for the last
200 years from nonrenewable fuel combustion, cement production, and land-use
change (Sabine et al. 2004). The measures and actions which can be done to
minimize climate change can also be used to minimize ocean acidification.

19.1.12 SDG 15: Life on Land

This goal intends to reduce deforestation and combat desertification caused by

human activities and climate change. In specific, the sub-goal related to SWM is
(UN 2016):
• By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and
inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular, forests, wetlands, moun-
tains, and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements.

When SWM is managed with the purpose to avoid or minimize landfilling and
when it is made to utilize existing infrastructure and not building dedicated waste
treatment and recycling technologies, the land is used more efficiently. Industrial
symbiosis and sharing of infrastructures based on the type of waste processed and
not waste origin (what matters is the composition of the waste to be processed
together) can reduce the multiplicity of infrastructures, getting scale and reducing the
land needed to build them.

19.1.13 SDG 17: Partnerships

The Agenda 2030 intends to promote partnerships that could (UN 2016):
mobilize, redirect and unlock the transformative power of trillions of dollars of private
resources to deliver on sustainable development objectives.

For developing countries, the long-term investments are needed to promote

sustainable energy, infrastructures, and transport, as well as information and com-
munication technologies (UN 2016), not forgetting waste management infrastruc-
tures. The sub-goal related to SWM is:
• Promote the development, transfer, dissemination, and diffusion of environmentally
sound technologies to developing countries on favorable terms, including on conces-
sional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed.
References 359

To reach this sub-goal, national entities in developing countries must implement

waste management technologies. The choice of the technologies needs to respect
several aspects, such as financial planning and management, strategies to ensure
operational efficiency, public involvement in waste issues, to know the waste to be
processed, to avoid the transfer of technology from industrialized countries to
developing countries without the appropriate considerations. One example of a
technology of difficult transfer from industrialized to developing countries is incin-
eration or waste-to-energy facilities. Those infrastructures are expensive to build and
to operate, require a reduce amount of employees, and do not promote other green
jobs around recyclables. More interesting infrastructures are the ones which poten-
tiate recycling (mechanical, biological), allowing to create more green jobs and
promoting a circular economy in developing countries.

19.2 Final Remarks

SWM can help to achieve 13 out of 17 UN SDG, but the relationship between SWM
and SDG is reciprocal: SWM can help to achieve, but to reach the goals, the SWM
performance has to change. Improving the application of waste hierarchy will help to
improve the living conditions and better public health of more than 2–3 billion
people who currently lack services, prevent plastics entering the oceans, contribute
to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and help to restore terrestrial ecosys-
tems (Rodić and Wilson 2017). Authorities and private companies would create
decent jobs, and workers lives and of their relatives will improve, increasing their
economic sustainability. For developing countries, measures related to waste col-
lection services extended to serve all citizens, closing dumpsites and ending
dumpsites burning, and converting dumpsites into sanitary landfills will make
considerable improvements. However, in developed countries, measures to ensure
that waste jobs are decent and fair conditions are ensured to workers are determined
to make waste jobs cleaner and recognized by society. Developed and developing
countries’ governments could apply several instruments to ensure the role of SWM
in reaching SDG goals. Instruments such as direct regulation, economic instruments,
voluntary agreements, and information instruments are helpful to put in practice
SWM measures in light of SDG.

References

Bonatti V (2018) Taking out the garbage: Migrant women’s unseen environmental work. Eur J
Women’s Stud 25:41–55
Chang NB, Pires A (2015) Sustainable solid waste management: a systems engineering approach.
IEEE book series on systems science and engineering. Wiley/IEEE, New York
Cierjacks A, Behr F, Kowarik I (2012) Operational performance indicators for litter management at
festivals in semi-natural landscapes. Ecol Indic 13:328–337
360 19 Future Perspectives

Dermatas D (2017) Waste management and research and the sustainable development goals: focus
on soil and groundwater pollution. Waste Manag Res 35:453–455
European Commission (2014a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions
towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe COM/2014/0398 final.
European Commission. Available via http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?
uri¼CELEX%3A52014DC0398. Accessed 15 Jan 2018
European Commission (2014b) Commission Staff working document impact assessment - Accom-
panying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European parliament and of the Council
amending Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, 1999/
31/EC on the landfill of waste, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and
accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and
electronic equipment. European Commission. Available via http://register.consilium.europa.eu/
doc/srv?l¼EN&f¼ST%2011598%202014%20ADD%203. Accessed 15 Jan 2018
European Commission (2001) Employment effects of waste management policies. European
Commission, Brussels
GESAMP (2016) Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: part two of a
global assessment. In: Kershaw PJ, Rochman CM (eds.) IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/
WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP joint group of experts on the scientific aspects of marine
environmental protection. Rep Stud GESAMP 93, p 220
Gregson N, Crang M, Botticello J, Calestani M, Krzywoszynska A (2016) Doing the ‘dirty work’ of
the green economy: resource recovery and migrant labour in the EU. Eur Urban Reg Stud
23:541–555
Martinho G, Gomes A, Ramos M, Santos P, Gonçalves G, Fonseca M, Pires A (2018) Solid waste
prevention and management at green festivals: a case study of the Andanças Festival, Portugal.
Waste Manag 71:10–18
Rodić L, Wilson DC (2017) Resolving governance issues to achieve priority: sustainable develop-
ment goals related to solid waste management in developing countries. Sustain 9:404
Sabine CL, Feely RA, Gruber N, Key RM, Lee K, Bullister JL, Wanninkhof R, Wong CS, Wallace
DWR, Tilbrook B, Millero FJ, Peng TH, Kozyr A, Ono T, Rios AF (2004) The oceanic sink for
anthropogenic CO2. Science 305:367–371
Sheavly SB, Register KM (2007) Marine debris & plastics: environmental concerns, sources,
impacts and solutions. J Polym Environ 15:301–305
United Nations (UN) (2016) Sustainable development goals – 17 goals to transform our world.
United Nations. Available via http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-develop
ment-goals/. Accessed 20 Feb 2018
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2016) Marine plastic debris and microplastics
— Global lessons and research to inspire action and guide policy change. United Nations
Environment Programme, Nairobi
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (NOAA) (2011) Honolulu Strategy. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Available via https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/publications-files/Honolulu_Strat
egy.pdf Accessed 20 Feb 2018
Index

A Chinese postman problem (CPP), 208, 216,

Accurate cost data, 177 220–222
Adaptive management strategies, 132 Circular economy, 130
Advanced forecast models, 146–147 Closed-loop recycling, 50
Aesthetic values, 338 Closed-loop supply chain (CLSP), 323
Altruistic behavior, 77 CO2 emissions, 267, 269, 272
Ampliroll and Multilift, 40 Collection duration rates, 293
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP), 243–244 Collection method component
Artificial intelligent approaches, 146 container and vehicle, 41
Artificial neural networks (ANNs), 146 semiautomated collection, 41
Augmented ε-constraint method, 269, 283, 284 Company current operation mode
Autoregressive integrated moving average clients and containers, 290
(ARIMA) models, 144, 160 collection site, 289
lunch break, 290
performance indicators, 290
B vehicle route timings, 290
Basel Convention, 61 Connecticut Department of Environmental
Batteries and accumulators, 65–66 Protection, 114
Behavior studies, 198 ε-constraint method, 229
Benchmarking analysis, 96 Consumer price index (CPI), 103
Benchmarking study, 169 Container classification diagram, 33
Biodegradable municipal waste, 57 Container component, 33–37
Biological treatment, 53 Containers’ capacity ranges, 37
Bottom-up initiatives, 132 Container-vehicle system, 32
Contextual factors, 75, 198
Convenience factors, 76
C Coupling systems, 34
Capital or investment costs, 101 Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We
Carbon footprint Make Things, 49
environmental impact systems, 192 Crane-based lifting devices, 39
GHG, 192, 193 Crane-compatible containers, 35
GWP, 192 Crane coupling, 34
LCA, 193, 194 Crowd logistics
Catalan municipalities, 176 advantages, 329
Cathode-ray tube (CRT), 50 definition, 328

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 361

A. Pires et al., Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93200-2
362 Index

Crowd logistics (cont.) economic growth and waste generation, 124

postal operator, 328 European Commission, 130
stakeholders, 328 GHG, 129, 131
Cumulative energy demand (CED), 316 global markets, 125
Current network, 232, 291–293 globalization, 124, 125
Current network expansion, 298 MSW, 127
Current routes characteristics, 291 OECD Environmental Strategy, 124
sustainability and circular economy, 130
WEEE, 125
D zero-carbon goal, 128
Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 104 tools, 123
DecideIT software, 250 Environmental indicators
Decision Lab 2000, 251 LCA, 178
Decision support systems (DSS), 250 EU Waste Framework Directive, 309
Dedicated collection system study, 132 European Union legislation, 47, 313
Deposit-refund systems, 111 European Waste Framework Directive, 14
Depreciation, 104 European Waste Framework Directive
Descriptive indicators (2008/98/CE), 110
collection system, 167 Eurostat, 55
waste collection, 168 e-waste management, 342
Direct costs, 101 Exponential smoothing model, 159
Directive 2000/53/EC, 66 Extended producer responsibility (EPR), 64
Directive 2008/987EC, 54
Disposal techniques, 55
Down-cycling, 50 F
Facility location problem, 223
Forecast accuracy, 144–145
E MAPE, 145
Eco-city projects, 127 squared errors, 145
Eco-design, 16 Forecast data, 141
Ecological footprint (EF), 255 Forecasting methods, 158–161
Economic indicators Forecasting waste generation, 142
mechanisms and technologies, 176 Freight on Transit (FOT)
optimization models, 177 experiences, 330
solid waste collection systems, 177, 178 Fuel consumption, 102, 107
types, 176 Full truckload (FTL), 275
waste collection system, 176 Fully automated collection methods, 42
Economic instruments, 132
ELECTRE III–IV, 250
Elimination and choice expressing the reality G
(ELECTRE), 242, 243, 245 Geographic information systems (GIS), 97
End-of-life recycling approach, 187 capacity constraint, 155
End-of-life vehicles (ELV), 66 database, 152
End-of-waste criteria, 52 demand constraints, 155
Energy recovery, 309 distance and time matrices, 155
Environment Protection Act (EPASA), 13 economic perspective, 153
Environmental and social impact, 207 environmental perspective, 154
Environmental behaviors, 77 European project, 157
Environmental context features, 152
circular cities, 133 forbidden turns, 155
circular economy, 130 human resources, 156
climate change, 129 labor constraints, 155
eco-city projects, 127 MSW, 153
Index 363

optimization process, 156 WEEE, 312

political constraints, 155 WtE plants, 318
route definition, 153 Integrated waste management system
social perspective, 154 (IWMS), 95
stopping point, 155 Inter-American Development Bank, 13
vehicles, 155 International legislation
Geometric mean absolute error (GMAE), Basel Convention, 61
145, 161 European Union waste policies, 63
Geometric mean relative absolute error Interpretation, 191
(GMRAE), 162 Interval-valued fuzzy (IVF) method, 256
Global warming potential (GWP), 192 Investment costs (CAPEX)
Goal and scope definition, 184–188 depreciation, 104
Gradient boosting regression model, 147 fractional residual value, 106
Greenhouse gases (GHG), 129 literature references, 105
Gross domestic product (GDP), 6, 124 MSW, 103
Gross national income (GNI), 124 municipalities and equipment suppliers, 104
vehicle, 105
Iterative methods, 230
H
High-density polyethylene (HDPE), 35
HIPRE 3C, 250 K
Hiring fleet cost, 299 Key collection methods
Holt’s model, 159–160 container and vehicle, 42
Holt-Winters method, 160 Kinshofer, 35
Hydraulic ejection panel, 40 k-nearest neighbors algorithms (kNN), 146

I L
Incineration, 46, 54 Landfill tax, 111
Industrial symbiosis, 308 Lexicographic method, 226–227, 267
Information and communication technology Life cycle assessment (LCA)
(ICT), 95, 326 functional unit, 184
Initial costs, 102 goal and scope definition, 184–188
Integrated solid waste management (ISWM) inventory analysis phase, 183
system, 309 LCI, 188
Integrated waste collection (IWC), 309 multi-functionality, 188
biological treatments, 313 multi-input process, 187
bio-waste, 314 physical/chemical classification, 187
CED, 316 practitioner, 192
Dual-stream collection, 312 reference flow, 185
heavy metal content, 315 software, 192
landfill, 318 solid waste collection systems, 184
MBT, 314 waste collection, 186
optimization algorithms, 311 waste collection system, 185
organic matter, 313 Life cycle costing (LCC)
PAYT, 311 cost, 195
public awareness, 312 environmental, 193
RDF, 316 financial assessments, 193
reuse, 311 indirect costs, 194
sort waste, 312 societal, 194
sustainability, 318–319 type, 194
transportation and sorting, 313 Lifecycle impact assessment (LCIA), 189–191
waste prevention, 310 critical steps, 189
364 Index

Lifecycle impact assessment (LCIA) (cont.) application, 241

methodologies, 190 comparison, 247
system, 190 DecideIT software, 250
waste collection system, 191 DSS, 250
Lifecycle inventory (LCI), 188–189 ELECTRE, 245
Linear programming model ELECTRE III–IV, 250
constraints, 209 environmental and social, 253
disposal facilities, 209 HIPRE 3C, 250
mathematical model, 210 MOP techniques, 239
SWM, 208–210 multi-criteria analysis, 254–255
Linear regression models, 162–163 number, 242
Lisbon and Vale do Tejo (LVT), 234 PROMETHEE, 245
Lisbon metropolitan area, 105, 106 PROMETHEE and GAIA, 251
Local governments, 108 quantitative or qualitative data, 241
Logistics indicators, 177 SANNA 2009, 250
Long-term forecast, 142 SMART, 243
stakeholder groups, 251
sustainable solid waste management, 240
M sustainable waste management, 252
Market-based instruments, 47 SWM, 246
Mathematical programming models, 208 techniques, 242
Mathematical programming problems, 215 TOPSIS, 244
MDVRPI extension, 282 type, 242
MDVRPI relaxation, 280 utility score, 241
MDVRP-MCO, 299 Multiple linear regression model, 163
Mean absolute error (MAE), 161 Multiple objective programming (MOP), 239
Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), 162 Municipal selective waste collection schemes,
Mean Square Error (MSE), 162 257–258
Mechanical-biological treatment (MBT), Municipal solid waste (MSW), 25, 141, 168
55, 313 economic role, 26
Minimizing operational costs, 156–157 environmental role, 26
Mixed integer linear programming (MILP), 289 generation, 123
Mixed integer linear programming model legal role, 26
(MILP) management, 27
assignment problem, 212 micro/local scale, 27
data, 214 social role, 26
elements, 211 technical role, 26
LP models, 211, 212
Mobile garbage containers, 36
Monte Carlo analysis, 191 N
Moving-average models, 158–159 Naïve forecast model, 158
Multi-criteria analysis, 254–255 National waste regulation
Multi-depot vehicle routing problem batteries and accumulators, 65
(MDVRP), 219, 264 central/federal governments, 64
Multidisciplinary teams, 89 ELV, 66
Multifunctionality, 187 EPR, 64
Multi-material system, 75 packaging waste, 67
Multi-objective analysis, 234–235 PRO, 64
Multi-objective MDPVRPI, 265, 273 waste oils, 69
Multi-objective Problem, 282 WEEE Directive, 68
Multi-objective programming (MOP), 225 Net calorific value (NCV), 54
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) Network expansion, 293–298
AHP, 243, 244 New York City Department of Sanitation, 215
Index 365

Non-linear programming, 215 Product-life extension services, 20

Normal Period, 288 Products and goods reuse
NOx emission, 254 car stations, 20
consumption, 19
graphic representation, 20
O policy instruments, 19
Objective function (0) models, 302 Psychological factors, 198
One-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) methods, 191 Public and private sector financing
Operating and maintenance costs (O&M) European member states, 117
annual maintenance costs, 106 European models, 117
collection system/circuit, 108 financing collection and transport
”command and control” approach, 110 systems, 116
container maintenance costs, 107 management model, 118
economic instruments, 111 MSW, 116
energy consumption, 107 municipalities, 117
fuel consumption, 107 O&M costs, 116
funding programs, 112 procurement process, 117
human resources costs, 107 Public participation process, 197
landfill tax, 111 Public-private partnership (PPP), 339
maintenance costs analysis, 106
MSW, 109, 110, 112
municipalities and service, 106 Q
operating cost component, 107 Qualitative approaches, 142
PAYT, 113 Quantitative methods, 142
product charges, 112
property tax, 112
regulatory instruments, 110 R
SWM, 108 Recyclable waste collection rate, 169
transport system, 109 Recycling
user-charge billing, 112 downcycling, 50
WEEE, 109 CRT, 50
Operational indicators, 171 EoW principles, 52
Optimal network, 233–234 European countries, 48
Optimization algorithms, 176 market value, 52
materials, 81
recovery management option, 53
P requirements, 51
Packaging waste, 64, 67 streams, 52
Pareto optimal solution, 225, 270 upcycling, 49
Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) WtE, 53
advantages, 113 Recycling behaviors
advantages and disadvantages, 115 altruistic behavior, 77, 78
schemes, 113, 114 attitude-behavior relation, 80
system, 113 behavior change interventions, 83
Performance indicators, 168–179 behavioral control, 80
Periodic vehicle routing problem (PVRP), 264 behaviors-attitudes relations, 79
Physical internet, 329 components, 82
Plastic recycling, 352 conceptual framework, 81
Preference ranking organization and method environmental behaviors, 84
for enrichment (PROMETHEE), factors, 74
243, 245 generalization, 84
Producer responsibility organization (PRO), 64 internal or external factors, 80
Product service systems, 19, 20 meta-analysis, 74
366 Index

Recycling behaviors (cont.) Scenario comparison, 234

normative components, 78 Schwartz model of altruistic behavior, 77–78
organizational structure, 83 Seasonal exponential smoothing (SES), 148
particularism, 84 Seasonal period, 288
PAYT, 85 Semiautomated collection methods, 42
sociodemographic factors, 81 Sensitivity analysis
sociodemographic variables, 75 MCDA, 249
subjective norms, 79 parameter, 246
theories and models, 77 tornado graph, 248
useful life period, 84 Separate collection, 342
Refuse collection vehicles (RCV), 230 Separate collection systems, 89
Refuse-derived fuel (RDF), 316 Separation behavior, 74
Regression models, 146 Simple addictive weighting (SAW), 243, 257
forecast variable, 146 Simple linear regression model, 162–163
Resource scarcity, 130 Sino-European Circular Economy and
Reuse and recycling activities, 350 Resource Efficiency (SINCERE)
Reverse logistics (RL), 323 project, 130
advanced industrial products, 326 Social discount tax, 104
and circular economy, 324 Social indicators, 179
and CLSC, 323 Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA)
distributor/service partner, 326 definition, 196
EMF, 324–326 methodology, 195
front-end includes, 324 packaging waste collection schemes, 197
implementation barriers, 327 semi-qualitative and qualitative data, 195
products/waste, 324 UNEP/SETAC, 196
Reverse logistics system UNEP’s guideline, 196
collection sites and depot locations, 262 Social psychology
economic and environmental optimal behavioral models, 86
plans, 267 PAYT, 87
economic objective, 272 recycling behaviors, 86
economic schedule, 268 separate collection system, 74
environmental objective, 263 techno-economical considerations, 74
environmental solution, 269 waste collection, 73
fuel consumption, 263 Socio-demographic factors, 198
glass, 262 Socio-demographic variables, 86, 88
historical data, 262 Solid waste management (SWM), 349
lexicographic optimization, 268 Source separate collection, 316
municipality perspective, 261 Stakeholders, 251
plastic and metal, 266 Stochastic programming, 212–214
routes generation, 266–267 Subtour elimination constraints (SECs), 217
social objective, 263 Support vector machine (SVM), 146
sustainable solution, 272 Sustainability assessment procedure, 7
Rio Declaration on Environment and Sustainability waste management policies, 5
Development, 4 Sustainable collection system, 267–272
Route definition, 153 Sustainable development
Routes’ characteristics, 294 challenges and perspectives, 9
Routes generation procedures, 266, 277–282 concept, 3–5
Routing problem, 264 conceptual framework, 7
framework, 6–7
role, 9
S Sustainable development goals (SDG)
SANNA 2009, 250 affordable and clean energy, 352
Satellite units, 39 clean water and sanitation, 351–352
Index 367

climate change, 356 Transportation problem, 222

consumption and production, 355–356 Traveling salesman problem (TSP), 208, 216
environmental impacts, 355 asymmetric, 216
GHG and climate change, 356
GHG emissions, 356
good health and well-being goal, 351 U
human activities and climate change, 358 Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses, 191
infrastructure, 354 United Nations Framework Convention on
no poverty goal, 350 Climate Change (UNFCCC), 128
partnerships, 358 Unrecoverable products
SDG 9, 354 biodiesel production, 288
sustainable cities, 354–355 CO2 emissions, 287
SWM, 356 current operation mode, 289
waste sector, 350 fossil fuel, 288
work and economic growth, 352–353 non-specialized collection vehicles, 288
zero hunger, 350–351 normal period, 288
Sustainable development goals (SDGs), 3, 5 recycling, 287
Sustainable solid waste management, 207, 240 seasonal period, 288
Systems analysis, 308 vegetables oils, 288
waste cooking oil, 287, 288
Upcycling, 49
T Urban population, 126
Technical barriers and socioeconomic Urban symbiosis, 128
challenges, 335–345 US Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
developed countries (USEPA, 2017), 13
environmental informatics, 335
ICTs, 336, 337
waste infrastructure, 337–338 V
developing countries Vehicle classification diagram, 38
CBO/MSE, 341 Vehicle coupling, 34
dumpsite, 343, 344 Vehicle route timings, 290
e-waste, 342 Vehicle routing problem (VRP), 208, 216, 218
financial sustainability, 339 Vehicle routing problem with multiple use of
hazardous waste, 342 vehicles (VRPMU), 264
individual workers, 341
informal sector, 340
municipal solid waste, 340 W
municipalities’ staff, 345 Waste collection, 9
social apathy, 344 Waste collection costs
Technical-operative indicators, 170 CO2 emissions, 98
Technique for order preference by similarity to contextual and operational/technological
ideal solution (TOPSIS), 244 variables, 96
Theory of planned behavior, 78–80 contextual variables, 96
Theory of reasoned action, 78–80 conventional standard approach, 98
Time series cost values, 98
ARIMA models, 144 disadvantage, 97
components, 144 financial variables, 102
historical data, 143 fuel consumption, 102, 103
MSW, 148 geographical and demographic data, 97
Time-series forecasting models, 143 human resources, 102
Tornado graph, 248 labor, 101
Transboundary movements, 62 MSW, 96
Transport simulation software, 177 planning and management, 95
368 Index

Waste collection costs (cont.) timescale, 142

revenues, 98 time series, 143–144
transport costs, 98 Waste hierarchy, 307, 309, 319
transportation, 95 Waste hierarchy principle (WHP)
Waste collection routing software, 152 definitions, 16
Waste collection system planning and selection, European, 16
148–152 European legislation, 14
Waste collection systems (WCS), 152 stages, 15
approaches, 30 Waste Framework Directive, 15
classification, 28–42 waste streams, 15
collection method, 30 Waste infrastructure, 337–338
container type, 29 Waste management planning, 356
diagram, 28 Waste management services, 112
drop-off or pickup systems, 30 Waste management system, 335, 342
local governments, 27 Waste of electric and electronic
pickup and drop-off arrangement, 32 equipment (WEEE), 231
process, 27 Waste oils, 69
recovery and collection, 27 Waste prevention, 16–17
role, 25 policy instruments, 17, 18
service type categories and definitions, 31 practices, 16
source and source separation, 30 quality and cost-effectiveness, 16
taxonomic classification, 32 types, 16
transport, 27 Waste stream, 5
vehicle type, 30 Waste treatment and recycling
Waste cooking oil, 288 technologies, 358
Waste cooking oil collection system, 289 Waste vehicle, 151
Waste disposal destinations, 56 Waste-to-energy (WtE), 53, 230
Waste electrical and electronic equipment Water/electricity consumption, 113
(WEEE), 47, 68 Weighted Sum method, 227
Waste Framework Directive, 46, 47, 52, 317 Windy postman problem (WPP), 221
Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), 13 Working hours, 263, 264, 267
Waste generation, 168
Waste generation estimation
legislations, 141 Z
long-term forecast, 142 Zero waste city, 127, 131, 133, 134
quantitative methods, 142 Zurich cargo tram, 330