The Influence of Waste Collection Systems on ... - Science Direct

Available Available online online at at www.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Available Availableonline onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com Procedia Procedia Manufacturing Manufacturing 00 00 (2017) (2017) 000–000 000–000

ScienceDirect ScienceDirect

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Manufacturing 21 (2018) 846–853 Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

15th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing

The Influence of Waste Collection Systems on Resource Recovery: Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017, MESIC 2017, 28-30 June A Review 2017, Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain Bupe Getrude Mwanzaaa*, Charles Mbohwaaa, Arnesh Telukdarieaa

Costing models for capacity optimization in Industry 4.0: Trade-off University University of of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, Po Po Box Box 170114 170114 Doornfontein, Doornfontein, Johnannesburg Johnannesburg 2028, 2028, South South Africa Africa between used capacity and operational efficiency aa

Abstract Abstract

A. Santanaa, P. Afonsoa,*, A. Zaninb, R. Wernkeb

Different exist and the 4800-058 influenceGuimarães, of each each Portugal system on on waste waste recovery recovery differs. differs. In In order order to to a Different types types of of waste waste collection collection systems systems existofand the influence of system University Minho, sustainably it to different sustainably recover recover resources resources from from waste, waste,bUnochapecó, it is is cardinal cardinal to understand understand the different types types of of waste waste collection collection systems. systems. In In 89809-000 Chapecó, the SC, Brazil developed been implemented implemented to to suit suit their their context. context. As As the the developed developed developed economies, economies, different different waste waste collection collection systems systems have have been economies economies pursue pursue to to recover recover resources resources from from waste, waste, it it is is vital vital that that the the influence influence of of each each collection collection system system is is understood. understood. An An extensive extensive literature literature review review was was conducted conducted on on four four different different types types of of waste waste collection collection systems. systems. Focus Focus was was paid paid on on how how each each system Abstract system has has influenced influenced resource resource recovery recovery from from the the household household perspective. perspective. The The findings findings of of the the results results are are important important to to the the waste waste management sector and manufacturing companies in the implementation of resource recovery systems and awareness programs. management sector and manufacturing companies in the implementation of resource recovery systems and awareness programs. © The by Under concept Published of "Industry 4.0", B.V. production processes will be pushed to be increasingly interconnected, © 2017 2017 the The Authors. Authors. Published by Elsevier Elsevier B.V. © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. committee of the 15th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific information based on a real time basis and, necessarily, much more efficient. In context, capacity optimization Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee 15th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of of thethe 15th Global Conference on this Sustainable Manufacturing (GCSM).

goes beyond the traditional aim of capacity maximization, contributing also for organization’s profitability and value. Keywords: waste collection collection systems; systems; recovery; recovery; resource, households, sustainability Keywords:lean waste resource, waste; waste; households,approaches sustainability suggest capacity optimization instead of Indeed, management and continuous improvement maximization. The study of capacity optimization and costing models is an important research topic that deserves contributions from both the practical and theoretical perspectives. This paper presents and discusses a mathematical 1. Introduction 1. Introduction model for capacity management based on different costing models (ABC and TDABC). A generic model has been developed and it was used to analyze idle capacity and to design strategies towards the maximization of organization’s Waste recovery has been by number of and each each factor’s factor’s influence influence is is different. Despite Despite the the Waste been influenced influenced by aa vs number of factors factors and value. Therecovery trade-offhas capacity maximization operational efficiency is highlighted and it is different. shown that capacity difference in the impact these factors have in the management or recovery of re-use, recyclable or re-manufacture difference in might the impact these factors have in the management or recovery of re-use, recyclable or re-manufacture optimization hide operational inefficiency. waste from from households households and and other other sectors, sectors, it it is very cardinal to also consider that waste collection systems have an waste © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. is very cardinal to also consider that waste collection systems have an important influence in the management and recovery aspect of these these Engineering end-of-life Society products. A number number of waste waste important influence in the management recovery aspect of end-of-life products. A of Peer-review under responsibility of the scientificand committee of the Manufacturing International Conference collection systems exist in the management of household solid waste and each system has a different impact on collection systems exist in the management of household solid waste and each system has a different impact on 2017. waste recovery. According to [1] waste collection systems for households are divided into drop-off points and waste recovery. According to [1] waste collection systems for households are divided into drop-off points and property-close collection systems. However, waste Idle collection systems for households differ differ throughout throughout the the world world Keywords: Cost Models; ABC; TDABC; Capacity Management; Capacity; systems Operationalfor Efficiency property-close collection systems. However, waste collection households and so is their organization [2]. [1] indicate that, property-close collection systems can be categorized into kerbside and so is their organization [2]. [1] indicate that, property-close collection systems can be categorized into kerbside collection system system and and door door to to door door collection collection system. system. In In kerbside kerbside collection, collection collection, each each particular particular household household is is provided provided 1. Introduction with containers and instructed to place the waste in containers at the kerbside while in door to door collection; with containers and instructed to place the waste in containers at the kerbside while in door to door collection; ** E-mail E-mail address: address: [email protected] [email protected] The cost of idle capacity is a fundamental information for companies and their management of extreme importance

in modern production systems. In general, it is defined as unused capacity or production potential and can be measured 2351-9789 2017 Authors. Published B.V. in several© tons of production, available 2351-9789 ©ways: 2017 The The Authors. Published by by Elsevier Elsevier B.V.hours of manufacturing, etc. The management of the idle capacity Peer-review under responsibility the scientific committee the Peer-review underTel.: responsibility of the761; scientific committee of741 the 15th 15th Global Global Conference Conference on on Sustainable Sustainable Manufacturing. Manufacturing. * Paulo Afonso. +351 253of 510 fax: +351 253 604of E-mail address: [email protected]

2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017. 2351-9789 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 15th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing (GCSM). 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.192

2

Bupe Getrude Mwanza et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 21 (2018) 846–853 Bupe Getrude Mwanza, Charles Mbohwa and Arnesh Telukdarie/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000

847

households are instructed to keep the waste containers at their premises but each household is initially provided with containers. In drop-off collection systems, residents are needed to deliver recyclables to the drop-off centers [3]. Buy-back collection system is a waste collection system based on waste recovery and recycling centers. Financial incentives are given to individuals who return recyclables to the centers [3]. In a deposit-refund system, a combination of a tax on product consumption with a rebate exists upon the return of the product’s packaging or the product for appropriate disposal or recycling [4]. [3] alluded that, for residents in the United States, the kerbside collection system is the most convenient though it requires separation of designated recyclables from households’ garbage by residents. [5] also indicated that using the kerbside collection system, 55% of PET plastic containers were recovered for recycling. As for the Returnable Container Legislation in the United States, [6] indicate that, with the legislation, the recycling rate of PET bottles was higher. [7] also indicated that, the deposit system can contribute to 30% and 64% reduction in total road side litter. In a study by [5], drop-off collection system is only considered efficient in rural areas where kerbside collection systems are impractical. Several studies have looked at waste collection systems. [8] conducted an economic and environmental assessment on waste collection systems. The technical aspects of municipal solid waste kerbside collection were analyzed [9]. Other studies have focused on benchmarking waste collection systems [10; 11]. Other studies have compared the efficiency of waste amounts collected by different types of waste collection systems [12] 13]. In all the studies, none assessed the influence of waste collection systems on waste recovery. However [14] notes that, the type of waste collection system impacts the amount and quality of recyclables intended for collection as well as user participation. They further indicate that, the type of collection system can establish how waste management and collection can be charged by municipalities. This study reviews the influence of four technical waste collection systems on the recovery of waste from households and other sectors. In order to achieve sustainability, manufacturing industries need to develop processes and systems that are safe for employees and the communities, conserve energy and natural resources and prevent pollution. However, to conserve natural resources, a number of strategies need to be implemented and one of these strategies is the production of products from re-manufactureable and recyclable end-of-life products. The use of remanufactureable and recyclable products in the production systems requires recovery of these end-of-life products from the supply chain and this is the stage where an understanding of the different types of waste collection systems and their influence on the users is cardinal. Therefore, this study provides relevant information on waste collection systems for incorporation in recovery programs of end-of-life products to manufacturing and waste management sectors. According to [15], management and solid waste collection are one of the problem avenues that are cardinal to many industries as well as to regions and communities. Therefore, this study attempts to bridge the gap to enable manufacturers and waste mangers design and implement waste collection systems that will enable them recover and utilize quality end-of-life products. The fundamental aspect of implementing waste collection systems for the purpose of waste recovery should not only be centered on the technical development, its capabilities and features but its influence on households should be addressed as well. Without a common understanding of the influence waste collection systems may have on resource recovery from the household perspective, there is a high risk of slowing down not only the recovery process but the operational aspects of sustainable manufacturing and waste recovery programs. Fig 1 depicts a conceptual relationship that waste collection systems and resource recovery have.

Bupe Getrude Mwanza, Charles Mbohwa and Arnesh Telukdarie/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000

3

Bupe Getrude Mwanza et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 21 (2018) 846–853

848

Kerbside Collection System

Drop-Off Collection System

Resource Recovery

Reuse Recycling EnergyRecovery

Buy-Back Collection System

Deposit-Refund Collection System Fig1: Conceptual Framework showing the relationship of waste collection systems and resource recovery

This study focuses on reviewing literature on studies that have focused on the technical instruments of waste recovery and in this case, waste collection systems. Four types of waste collection systems are considered and these are property-close collection system (kerbside or door to door), drop-off collection system, buy-back collection system and the deposit-refund collection system (Returnable Container Legislation system). The objective of the review is to identify the influence each collection system has had on the recovery of solid waste from both developing and developed economies. The paper consists of the literature review in section 2. In section 3, the findings and analysis from the literature review are presented. Finally section 4 summaries the main conclusions. 2. Literature Review In many countries, developing or developed, waste collection is performed as part of the pillar of waste management. The collection systems for wastes vary from one country to the other but at the end of the day, the systems of collection are similar. [14] notes that, implementation of waste collection systems is public health driven and also for the recovery of materials for recycling and reusing purposes. Though in developing economies, waste collection is mainly performed by manually depositing the wastes in bins followed by transportation by vehicles for disposal [16], in developed economies, the waste collection systems have advanced by collecting waste using a number of waste flows [17]. The advancement in waste collection systems for both developed and developing economies may seem to be different but at the end of the day, it is important to understand how these systems have influenced the recovery of resources. A waste collection system is a relatively complex system consisting of independent and interactive components. The complexity of these systems requires investment in research to enable optimum returns. Several studies have evaluated the performance of collection systems for waste using indicators. [1] applied specific waste generation rate, source-sorting ratio, ratios of mis-sorted materials indicators and ratios of materials in the residual waste to evaluate recycling programs. To determine the performance of waste collection systems, quality in containers rate and annual collection rate was applied [12]. [17] applied the waste transport distances to the frequency of waste collection. Economic and environmental aspects have also been applied to determine the performance of waste collection systems. Using indicators related to the percentage and weight of recyclables in the bins, three different types of indoor recycling bins were analyzed [18]. [8] applied impact assessment on categories of recycling rates, life cycle assessment, collection costs, amount of wastes and sorting efficiencies. However for this study, focus is

4


849

paid on four types of collection systems, Kerbside, drop-off, buy-back and the returnable container legislation. In other studies these collection systems may be categorized as type of service [14] 2.1 Kerbside collection system Waste handling in households is significantly affected by kerbside collection systems for recyclables [19; 20; 21]. Kerbside collection system involves the allocation of bins, bags or sacks to individual families as waste receptacles while each family is responsible for placing the receptacle at the curb on collection days as well as the returning of the emptied receptacle to its storage location [1; 22; 23]. Assessment of citizen’s behavior with regards to the various waste collection systems is vital for achieving increments on collection efficiency of recyclables [12]. [24] discussed the issues associated with transforming households opinions and attitudes into material recovery using kerbside recycling schemes. The review indicated that, to capture the traditionally non-committed recycler in order to ensure higher diversions of recyclables and maximum participation rates, provision of correct collection scheme design to households’ results in higher retain proportions. In Denmark, an environmental and economic assessment of five collection systems with different collection efficiency for recyclables was conducted and the results indicated that kerbside collection can be environmentally more beneficial than bring and drop-off centers [8]. For residents concerned about the environment, this assessment would result in more returns of recyclables using kerbside collection system as compared to the other two systems. Further, [25] observed waste collection system designs for different households in Sweden and found that, for points close to the property a higher amount of separate packaging was observed than from drop-off points. In nations such as Austria, Germany, the UK and France, application of Kerbside waste collection systems is most common and one of its benefits is increased recycling rates [26]. A study in Nordic countries on the improvement in existing recycling and collection systems showed an increased collection rate using kerbside system as compared to bring systems [27]. However, to enable sustainable recovery of resources, a combination of bring systems and kerbside can be more effective compared to using one system [28, 29]. Further, for manufacturing companies to achieve sustainability, it is cardinal that the environmental, economic and social impacts of these waste collection systems are assessed before implementation. 2.2 Drop-off collection system In drop-off collection systems residents are required to drop their wastes or recyclables are allocated drop points. Two categories of drop-off points exist; drop-off centers and drop-off sites. In drop-off sites, households bring their different types of separated waste streams to containers placed at neighbor level while in drop-off centers households bring different types of separated waste streams to containers at recycling centers [26]. [1] indicates that, residents are provided with dissimilar shapes and sizes of containers and also required to deliver recyclables. Despite the system’s requirement of residents’ dropping off their wastes or recyclables, recycling behavior has been influenced in numerous factors by this system. In drop of collection systems, the ease of accessibility to containers is a motivating factor in recycling efforts [30; 31; 32]. To enhance sustainability in manufacturing, waste collection should be assessed from the three dimensions of sustainability. According to a study conducted in Portugal on waste collection systems for packaging waste-Part II: economic and environmental analysis [33], the study concluded that, bring (or drop-off) waste collection systems reduces environmental impacts and reduced costs compared to other waste collection systems. Though some studies have shown that drop off systems have lower recovery rates compared to kerbside systems [31]. [34] also affirms that, in the absence of deposit refund that offer direct highly committed public behavior or economic incentive to participate, bring schemes frequently result in low collection rates. From the three studies, different views in terms of drop-off collection systems have been highlighted. However, manufacturers should ensure that before the application of the drop-off collection systems, aspects of sustainability are evaluated. This is to enable profitability and beneficiation in the recovering company or sector.

850


5

2.3 Buy-back collection system These are establishments were participants can deliver recyclable or reusable materials in return for cash payment [35]. [36] adds that, buy-back facilities purchase secondary materials usually; from the public and resell them to brokers or manufacturers. However, these facilities may or may not process the recyclables. The fact that, these facilities may or may not process the recyclables does not mean that, their influence on resource recovery is limited. It is cardinal for manufacturers and waste managers to understand the contribution of buy-back centres in resource recovery programs. They provide a linkage between waste generators and waste recoveries and therefore understanding how these centres influence waste generators is cardinal. The factor that buy-back centres rely on waste brought in by waste generators, sustainable factors such as location should be considered during their establishment. To ensure the success of buy-back centres, they should be located close to industries and commercial hubs where enough quantities of reusable, re-manufactureable and recyclable waste can be obtained [37]. However most buy-back centres influence users to return waste as a result of the incentives offered. The centres should not inconvenience the businesses, residents or users in the immediate surrounding area of the buy-back centres [37]. To ensure sustainability in buy-back centres, it’s the duty of the establisher to ensure that the buy-back centres are supplied with enough recyclable waste from different sources. Focusing on the social aspect of sustainability, establishers of buy-back contribute by creating jobs for the local communities. However, jobs are created along the resource recovery chains, from within the established buy-back centre to collectors and processors of the recovered waste. The creation of job along the supply-chain has influenced resource recovery as more and more wastes are recovered because more of the informal sector gets involved in resource recovery. In developing economies were most of the waste is recovered by the informal waste sector, establishment of buy-back centres can influence resource recovery and at the same time contribute to sustainable manufacturing. Further, buy-back centres reduce the amount of green or useful materials designated for landfilling and add value to these wastes [38]. 2.4 Deposit refund system The returnable container legislation system is a kind of deposit refund system. It combines product charge and a subsidy for proper disposal or recycling. As an economic instrument, deposit refund systems have been widely deployed aiming of increase and capture the used packaging for purposes of recycling [39]. Even though additional handling costs are incurred by manufacturers or vendors on returned products, interest earned on deposits, sales on collected; used products and unclaimed deposits partially offset the costs. It is not surprising to state that improperly discarded waste products results in higher social costs compared to properly disposed of wastes. For this reason and many other reasons not stated, the deposit refund system is very sufficient in the management of waste. Other than discouraging illegal or improper disposal of waste, the deposit system diverts recyclable items from the waste stream, conserves natural resources and energy as well as creating new businesses and jobs [40; 41]. It is important to note that, some systems are implemented voluntarily by the industry whereas others are state or local authorities’ initiatives. [26] indicates that, a number of reusable packaging voluntary systems do not result in increased reusable packaging for recycling. However [40] points out that, there is much high purity levels in terms of the quality of materials delivered to deposit-refund collection than through kerbside collection. Also [42] shows that in numerous case studies, 80% achievements have been recovered as a result of correlating achievement of satisfying high recycling rates and the use of deposit-refund. Further, studies have found that, less contamination of recyclables and higher recovery rates of used products result from deposit systems than kerbside recycling programs; however the cost of administration is higher for deposit refunds than kerbside collection systems, [43]. It is necessary to note that, deposit refund systems are not only applied to beverage products, it is also applied to pesticide containers, tires, batteries etc. Products with an economic value normally qualify for deposit refund initiation. However, most potentially environmentally harmful and difficult to dispose and monitor products are suitable for deposit refund implementation To achieve sustainable manufacturing, it is important that before the implementation of deposit refund systems, manufacturers should analyze the economic, environmental and social implications. It is cardinal to understand the sustainable impact of the system on the profitability of the company. Further, it should be noted that, the effectiveness of the deposit refund system can be influenced by high transboundary movement of products [26].

6


851

3. Findings From the analysis of the literature, it is evident that waste collection systems do have an influence on resource recovery. Despite having not found any research that has directly looked at the influence of waste collection systems on resource recovery, a number of studies have taken a different approach to understand how waste collection systems does impact recourse recovery. Some studies have looked at it from an environmental, economical, technological and social point of views. All this has been done to understand the relevance of waste collection systems in waste management and resource recovery programs as well as on sustainable manufacturing. Kerbside waste collection systems have been greatly researched on and compared to other systems such as dropoff systems, buy-back systems and deposit-refund systems. With such comparisons undertaken at different conditions, it can only be concluded that each type of waste collection system can only be relevant to specific contexts of applications. Also the relevance of each waste collection systems in a particular context can be influenced by other attributes such as social demographic factors, economic incentives and other supporting policies. In order to achieve optimal and sustainable results in the recovery of resources, it is important that each type of waste collection systems is completely studied together with the needed attributes for it to work. Further, understanding of the type of waste type in line with the waste collection systems should be taken into consideration. For example, the deposit refund system works well on wastes with an economic value or with environmental implications. To enable sustainability in the manufacturing sector as well as the waste management sector, it is important for waste that can be reused, recycled or remanufactured to be returned in the supply-chain. For this to work, waste collection systems play a cardinal role. They contribute to resource recovery in sustainable ways by ensuring virgin materials are conserved, pollution is reduced, jobs are created, transportation costs are reduced and high quality in recovered waste products [33’ 26, 40, 41]. As a result of these contributions, sustainable manufacturing is likely to be achieved by considering waste collection systems during the design of recovery programs. However, the application of each type of collection system should be analyzed from a sustainable point of view to enable beneficiation. The review has also highlighted that a combination of waste collection systems can be sustainable and work in influencing high recovery rates [28, 29]. Deposit refund systems and kerbside can result in optimal results as were as a combination of kerbside and drop-off or bring systems. However, decision on the type of waste collection systems for implementation should not be considered in isolation of environmental, economic and social aspects of the context of application. Further, the analysis has also reviewed that, it is possible to implement all the four types of waste collection systems, but attention should be paid to the context of application and objectives of implementing such waste collection systems. For this reason, it is important for developing economies to understand how these waste collection systems have impacted and influenced resource recovery in developed economies. For example the deposit refund systems have worked well in developed economies such as the United States [42]. However, its success has been due to combining the deposit refund system with other waste collection systems and other regulations. The kerbside system provided more success in Norway compared to the bring system [26]. Therefore, it’s important for waste managers and manufacturers to understand that, there is ‘no one system fits all’. 4. Conclusion This study reviewed four types of waste collection systems; kerbside, drop-off, buy-back and deposit-refund. Each of these waste collection systems influence residents or households to participate in resource recovery differently. However, despite the difference in the level of influence and application, waste collection systems are an important aspect of waste management and therefore, this review provides important insight for manufacturers, waste managers and those involved in waste recovery on the type of waste collection system to consider for implementation. Also for waste collection system to work, other factors considered from the sustainability aspect should be considered. The selection of waste collection systems should not be considered in isolation of sustainability. Particular attention should be paid on whether the selected waste collection system is economically, environmentally and socially sustainable. Manufacturers as well as waste managers should bear in mind that other attributes influence how well a selected waste collection system will perform. However, it has been identified that these waste collection systems contribute to sustainability by reduction wastes, pollution, costs and improving the quality of recovered

852


7

wastes. However, lessons should be learnt from developed economies on how these waste collection systems have influenced resource recovery. In developing economies, where most of the waste is informally recovered, attention should be paid to the establishment of buy-back centres. Future research on the development of recovery programs in developing economies should consider analysing the impact of buy-back centres on resource recovery. This should take into account the amount of reusable, recyclable and remanufactureable waste recovered from the informal waste sector. Acknowledgements We thank the University of Johannesburg, South Africa for the financial support. References [1] L. Dahleń, A. Lagerkvist, Pay as you throw: strengths and weaknesses of weight-based billing in household waste collection systems in Sweden. Waste Manage. 30, (2010), 23–31. [2] C. Mbande, Appropriate approach in measuring waste generation, composition and density in developing areas, Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering 45 (3), (2003), 2–10. [3] H. Zhang, Z-G. Wen, The consumption and recycling collection system of PET bottles, A case study of Beijing, China, Waste Management 34, (2014), 987–998. [4]M.Walls, Deposit-Refund Systems in Practice and Theory, (2011) (ACCESSED ON 12 MARCH, 2017), http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-11-47.pdf [5] NAPCOR, Best Practices and industry standards in PET plastic recycling (1997). http://www.napcor.com/pdf/Master.pdf> (accessed 22.05.15). [6] J. Gitlitz,, P. Franklin, The 10 cent incentive to recycle, fourth ed. Container Recycling Institute, (2006). (accessed 22.05.15). [7]The container recycling institute (2005), (accessed on 12 march, 2016), http://www.reciclamospr.org/uploads/9/6/3/0/9630382/caribbean_recycling_summit_dec1_2016_collins_cri.pdf [8] A.W. Larsen, H. Merrild, J. Moller, T.H. Christensen, Waste collection systems for recyclables: an environmental and economic assessment for the municipality of Aarhus, Waste Manag. 30, (2010), 744-754. [9] G. De Feo, C. Malvano, Technical, economic and environmental analysis of a MSW kerbside separate collection system applied to small communities, Waste Manag. 32, (2012), 1760-1774. [10] A. Karagiannidis, A. Xirogiannopoulou, G. Perkoulidis, N. Moussiopoulos, N, Assessing the collection of urban solid wastes: a step towards municipality benchmarking. Water Air Soil Pollut. Focus 4, (2004), 397-409. [11] C.A. Teixeira, C. Avelino, F. Ferreira, I. Bentes, Statistical analysis in MSW collection performance assessment, Waste Manag. 34, (2014), 1584-1594. [12] A. Gallardo, M.D. Bovea, F.J. Colomer, M. Prades, M. Carlos, Comparison of different collection systems for sorted household waste in Spain, Waste Manag.30, (2010), 2430-2439. [13] A. Gallardo, M.D. Bovea, F.J. Colomer, M. Prades, Analysis of collection systems for sorted household waste in Spain, Waste Manag. 32, (2012), 1623-1633. [14] S. Rodrigues, G. Martinho, A. Pires, Waste collection systems. Part A: a taxonomy, Journal of Cleaner Production 113, (2016), 374-387. [15] K. Urbaniec, H. Mikul, M. A. Rosen, N. Dui, A holistic approach to sustainable development of energy, water and environment systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 155 (2017) 1-11. [16] S.K. Amponsah, S. Salhi, The investigation of a class of capacitated arc routing problems: the collection of garbage in developing countries, Waste Manag. 24, (007), 711-721. [17] L. Dahl_en, S. Vukicevic, J-E. Meijer, A. Lagerkvist, Comparison of different collection systems for sorted household waste in Sweden, Waste Manag. 27, (2007), 1298-1305. [18] A. Del Borghi, M. Gallo, M. Del Borghi, A survey of life cycle approaches in waste management, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess, 14, (2009), 597-610. [19] A. Andrews, M. Gregoire, H. Rasmussen, G. Witowich, Comparison of recycling outcomes in three types of recycling collection units, Waste Manag.33, (2013), 530-535. [20] Stern, C. Paul, Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior.,Journal of Consumer Policy 22, (1999), 461–478. [21] A. Sörbom, Review of source separation of household waste. Den som kan –sorterar mer! Några slutsatser baserade på tidigare forskning kring 21qaaaaaakällsortering i hushållen, FMS-report 180, Swedish Defence Research Agency. The Environmental Strategies Research Group, Stockholm(2003), . [22] P.L. Gonzalez-Torre, B. Adenso-Dıaz, A. Ruiz-Torres, Some comparative factors regarding recycling collection systems in regions of the USA and Europe. J. Environ. Manag. 69, (2003), 129-138. [23] G. Tchobanoglous, H. Theisen, S. Vigil, Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues, McGrawHill, New York, (1993). [24] D. Perrin, J. Barton, Issues associated with transforming household attitudes and opinions into materials recovery: a review of two kerbside recycling schemes, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 33, (2001), 61–74.

8


853

[25] L. Dahlén, H. Åberg, A. Lagerkvist, P.E.O. Berg, Inconsistent pathways of household waste and the importance of collection system design, Waste Manag. 29, (2008), 1798–1806. [26] D. Xevgenos, C. Papadaskalopoulou, V. Panaretou, K. Moustakas, D. Malami, Success Stories for Recycling of MSW at Municipal Level, Waste Biomass Valor, 6, (2015), 657–684. [27] TEMA NORD: Collection and recycling of plastic waste. Improvements in existing collection and recycling systems in the Nordic countries. http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/upload/ publication_and_tool/file/427.pdf (2014). Accessed 3 Apr 2017 [28] Sidique, S.F., Lupi, F., Joshi, S.V.: The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, (2010), 163–170. [29] Sidique, S.F., Joshi, S.V., Lupi, F.: Factors influencing the rate of recycling: an analysis of Minnesota counties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, (2010), 242–249. . [30] T. Domina, K. Koch, K., Convenience and frequency of recycling: implications for including textiles in curbside recycling programs, Environ. Behav. 34, (2002), 216-238. [31] P.L. Gonzalez-Torre, B. Adenso-Dıaz, Influence of distance on the motivation and frequency of household recycling, Waste Manag. 25, (2005), 15-23. [32] PCAESG-Packaging Consumer Awareness and Education Steering Group, Recycling Used Packaging from the Domestic Waste Stream, Consumer Awareness and Education, PCAESG, (1999), (accessed 30 October 2015). https://www.ipsosmori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/1891/Recycling-Used-Packaging-From-The-Domestic-Waste-Stream-ConsumerAwareness-And-Education.aspx. [33] A. Pires, J. Sargedas, M. Miguel, J. Pina, G. Martinho, A case study of packaging waste collection systems in Portugal – Part II: Environmental and economic analysis. Waste Management 61 (2017) 108–116 [34] Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism of South Africa (DEA), Undated. Working with waste – guideline on recycling of solid waste. Available from http://www.sawic.org.za/documents/232.pdf. (Accessed 16 April 2017). [35] C.R. Rhyner, L.J. Schwartz, R.B. Wenger, M.G. Kohrell, Waste Management and Resource Recovery, CRC Press/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, (1995). [36] Landfill Consult, integrated waste management plan report on recycling version V2, Lephalale Municipality, (2010). [37] DEA [38] l. Thompson-Meddle, Solid Waste Management, Sustainability Institute. [39] N. Astrup, A. Hedh, European Refunding Scheme for Drinks Containers (Report), Joint Parliamentary Committee, European Economic Area (2011). [40] R.C. Anderson, The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (2001) [41] R.C. Anderson, International Experiences with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment. Report EPA-236-R-04-001. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (2004) [42] A. Holmes, J. Fulford, C. Pitts-Tucker, Investigating the Impact of Recycling Incentive Schemes, Full Report, Eur. Commission. Eunomia Research & Consulting, (2014). [43] Deposit-Refund Systems, The U. S. Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment, (2001).