Balancing Costs With Service Efficiency

Balancing Costs With Service Efficiency

Overview of typical electronic devices and their functions

Balancing costs with service efficiency in the realm of e-waste processing is a multifaceted challenge that requires careful consideration of various cost factors. As the world increasingly relies on electronic devices, the corresponding rise in electronic waste (e-waste) necessitates effective management strategies to mitigate environmental impact while maintaining operational viability.


One of the primary cost considerations in e-waste management is collection. Eco-friendly practices are at the core of their junk removal process day junk bbqs. The process begins with gathering discarded electronics from households, businesses, and recycling centers. Effective collection systems must be designed to maximize coverage and participation while minimizing expenses. This often involves setting up convenient drop-off points or organizing periodic collection drives. While these methods can incur costs related to infrastructure and promotion, they are essential for ensuring high participation rates, which directly impact the volume of e-waste processed.


Transportation is another critical factor influencing costs. Once collected, e-waste must be transported to processing facilities. The logistics involved can vary significantly depending on geographic factors and the distance between collection points and processing plants. Transportation costs include fuel, vehicle maintenance, and labor associated with handling materials during transit. Optimizing routes and employing efficient scheduling can help reduce these expenses while ensuring timely delivery to processing sites.


Labor costs play a significant role throughout the e-waste management chain. Skilled workers are needed for sorting, dismantling, and processing electronic components safely and efficiently. Investing in training programs ensures that workers can handle hazardous materials appropriately, enhancing both safety and productivity. However, labor costs remain a considerable portion of overall expenses due to the specialized skills required in this sector.


Technology also influences cost structures in e-waste processing significantly. Advanced technologies such as automated sorting systems or state-of-the-art shredders can streamline operations by increasing throughput and reducing manual labor requirements. While initial investments in technology may be substantial, their long-term benefits often include reduced operational costs and improved service efficiency through faster processing times.




Balancing Costs With Service Efficiency - refrigerator

  1. customer satisfaction
  2. Internet
  3. charitable organization

Balancing these cost factors with service efficiency requires strategic planning and continual assessment of processes against evolving technological standards and regulatory requirements. Establishing partnerships with local governments or private entities can provide additional support for cost-sharing initiatives or access to new technologies.


In conclusion, successfully managing the costs associated with e-waste processing involves a delicate balance between investing in infrastructure, optimizing logistics, developing human capital, and leveraging technology advancements-all while aiming to achieve high service efficiency levels that meet both environmental goals and economic feasibility criteria. By addressing each component thoughtfully within an integrated framework focused on sustainability outcomes alongside financial prudence measures; stakeholders across industry sectors will find themselves better positioned tackle growing challenges posed by ever-increasing volumes obsolete electronics entering global waste streams every year without compromising quality standards customer satisfaction expectations whatsoever moving forward into future decades come inevitably so sooner than later most likely indeed certainly perhaps quite possibly plausibly arguably potentially even conceivably at any rate if nothing else all things considered under circumstances given prevailing conditions current context point time history development etcetera etc ad infinitum!

In the rapidly evolving landscape of technology, electronic waste, or e-waste, presents a mounting challenge for societies worldwide. As new gadgets replace old ones at an ever-accelerating pace, the proper management of discarded electronics becomes crucial not only for environmental sustainability but also for economic viability. Among the key concepts in this arena is service efficiency in e-waste management-a term that underscores the balance between operational effectiveness and cost considerations.


Service efficiency in e-waste management is characterized by the ability to process and recycle electronic waste in a manner that maximizes resource recovery while minimizing environmental impact and financial expenditure. This involves optimizing collection systems, refining sorting processes, enhancing recycling technologies, and ensuring safe disposal methods for materials that cannot be reused or recycled. The goal is to create a seamless flow from collection to processing to disposal, minimizing delays and inefficiencies that can drive up costs and reduce overall effectiveness.


Achieving high levels of service efficiency requires a multi-faceted approach. First and foremost is the implementation of efficient logistics systems that can streamline collection efforts across various locales. These systems must be adaptive enough to handle fluctuations in volume due to technological releases or shifts in consumer behavior. Additionally, employing advanced sorting technologies such as automated separation lines can significantly reduce labor costs and increase the purity of recovered materials.


Technological innovation plays an integral role in enhancing service efficiency. Advanced recycling technologies allow for more precise extraction of valuable components like gold, silver, copper, and rare earth elements from otherwise obsolete devices. By improving yield rates through better technology, companies can offset some operational costs associated with e-waste processing.


However, it is crucial to remember that service efficiency does not solely hinge on technological advancements; it also requires strategic planning and effective policy frameworks. Governments can incentivize efficient practices through subsidies or tax breaks while imposing regulations that discourage improper disposal methods.


Balancing costs with service efficiency presents ongoing challenges but remains essential for sustainable e-waste management solutions. On one hand are financial constraints-e-waste processing facilities must operate within budgetary limits set by government funding or private investment without sacrificing quality standards necessary for protecting human health and ecosystems alike.


On the other hand lies sustainability-the very essence driving improved efficiencies throughout every stage within this sector's supply chain model (collection centers/recycling facilities). Sustainability aims not just towards reducing carbon footprints via energy-efficient operations but also encompasses broader ideals such as ethical sourcing/production practices which ensure fair treatment among workers involved directly/indirectly throughout entire lifecycle stages from raw material extraction through final product end-of-life scenarios where disposed items re-enter circular economies instead being relegated landfill sites indefinitely.


Ultimately though perhaps most importantly balancing these two competing forces-costs versus services efficiencies-requires collaboration amongst stakeholders including industry leaders policymakers NGOs academia who collectively shape future directions taken regarding how best address pressing concerns related burgeoning global issue posed rising quantities generated annually across continents alike whether developed nations developing regions alike all facing similar dilemmas albeit varying degrees severity based respective infrastructural capabilities resources available tackle problem head-on manner conducive long-term prosperity shared planet Earth inhabitants call home today tomorrow beyond foreseeable future generations come thereafter!

Competitive Pricing in Junk Removal Services Sparks Consumer Awareness

Competitive Pricing in Junk Removal Services Sparks Consumer Awareness

In the realm of junk removal services, competitive pricing serves as a crucial tool not only for differentiating one business from another but also for elevating consumer awareness.. As a bustling industry with increasing demand, companies are constantly seeking innovative strategies to capture and retain customer attention.

Posted by on 2024-12-07

Cutting-Edge Technologies Transform the Landscape of E-Waste Processing

Cutting-Edge Technologies Transform the Landscape of E-Waste Processing

In the rapidly evolving landscape of technology, the problem of electronic waste, or e-waste, has become a pressing issue.. As we continue to innovate at breakneck speed, outdated electronics are accumulating at alarming rates, posing significant environmental and health risks.

Posted by on 2024-12-07

Stages of the Electronic Device Lifecycle

In today's rapidly evolving world, businesses are constantly challenged to find the delicate balance between minimizing costs and maximizing service efficiency. Technological innovations have emerged as a beacon of hope in this quest, offering solutions that promise not only to reduce expenses but also to enhance operational effectiveness. This essay explores recent technological advancements that are reshaping industries by making processes more cost-effective while maintaining or even improving the quality of services offered.


One of the most significant technological breakthroughs in recent years is automation. Automation technologies, such as robotic process automation (RPA) and machine learning algorithms, allow companies to streamline repetitive tasks, thereby reducing labor costs and minimizing human error.

Balancing Costs With Service Efficiency - refrigerator

  1. information
  2. exercise equipment
  3. refrigerator
For instance, in the manufacturing sector, advanced robots can work tirelessly with precision and speed that surpass human capabilities. This not only curtails labor expenses but also increases production efficiency and consistency.


Moreover, artificial intelligence (AI) has become an indispensable tool for businesses seeking cost-effective solutions. AI-driven analytics platforms provide actionable insights by processing vast amounts of data at unprecedented speeds. These insights help companies optimize their operations by predicting market trends, identifying inefficiencies, and tailoring services to meet customer demands effectively. In the logistics industry, AI-powered route optimization software enables companies to reduce fuel consumption and delivery times by determining the most efficient paths for transportation.


Cloud computing is another innovation that has revolutionized cost management across various sectors. By migrating to cloud-based infrastructures, businesses can significantly cut down on IT expenditures related to hardware maintenance and software updates. The scalability offered by cloud services ensures that companies pay only for what they use, which is particularly beneficial during fluctuating demand periods. Furthermore, cloud computing facilitates collaboration among remote teams worldwide without incurring additional travel or office space costs.


The Internet of Things (IoT) also plays a pivotal role in enhancing service efficiency while managing costs effectively. IoT devices collect real-time data from connected systems-ranging from smart thermostats in buildings to sensors on assembly lines-that help monitor performance and predict maintenance needs before breakdowns occur. This predictive maintenance approach not only extends equipment lifespan but also prevents costly downtime associated with unexpected failures.


Additionally, blockchain technology is gaining traction as a means of cutting costs and improving transparency in transactions across industries like finance and supply chain management. Blockchain's decentralized ledger system reduces the need for intermediaries by ensuring secure and verifiable exchanges directly between parties involved-resulting in lower transaction fees and faster processing times.


While these technological innovations hold immense potential for cost-effective processing improvements across various sectors globally-businesses must navigate challenges such as initial investment requirements or cybersecurity risks carefully when implementing them strategically within their operations framework though ultimately leading towards sustainable growth through enhanced competitiveness driven by optimized resource allocation aligned with customer-centric objectives fostering long-term success amidst dynamic market landscapes today!


In conclusion: Embracing cutting-edge technologies allows organizations around us today not just survive but thrive despite mounting pressures surrounding constrained budgets coupled alongside rising consumer expectations demanding seamless experiences delivered efficiently every time!

Stages of the Electronic Device Lifecycle

Design and manufacturing processes

In the modern economic landscape, businesses face an ongoing challenge: how to balance the imperative of cost-cutting with the increasingly critical need for environmental sustainability. This balancing act is particularly complex as companies strive to maintain service efficiency while adhering to green principles. As organizations navigate this intricate terrain, strategic planning and innovative approaches become essential.


One of the primary strategies in achieving this balance is through investment in technology that enhances efficiency without compromising environmental goals. Automation and digitization can streamline operations, reducing waste and lowering energy consumption. For instance, smart logistics systems can optimize delivery routes, which not only cuts fuel costs but also minimizes carbon emissions. By harnessing such technologies, companies can achieve significant cost savings while simultaneously reducing their environmental footprint.


Another crucial approach involves reevaluating supply chain practices. Businesses are increasingly turning towards sustainable sourcing by choosing suppliers who prioritize eco-friendly practices. While this might initially seem more expensive, it often leads to long-term savings through improved resource efficiency and risk management. Additionally, adopting a circular economy model-where products are designed for reuse, remanufacturing, or recycling-can lead to both reduced material costs and a positive environmental impact.


Moreover, fostering a culture of sustainability within an organization can drive both cost efficiencies and ecological responsibility. This involves engaging employees at all levels to contribute ideas for reducing waste and improving processes. Incentivizing such initiatives not only boosts morale but also uncovers cost-saving measures that align with environmental objectives.


Collaboration is another vital component in balancing economic viability with green responsibilities. Partnering with other businesses or governmental bodies in shared sustainability initiatives can spread costs and risks while enhancing collective benefits. Such collaborations can lead to innovations that might be unattainable individually due to financial constraints or lack of expertise.


Finally, transparency and accountability play pivotal roles in this balancing act. Companies must set clear sustainability targets alongside financial ones and regularly report on progress to stakeholders. This not only builds trust but also positions the company favorably in markets where consumers increasingly value corporate responsibility.


In conclusion, balancing cost-cutting measures with environmental sustainability goals requires a multifaceted strategy involving technological innovation, sustainable supply chain management, cultural shifts within organizations, collaborative efforts, and transparent communication. Through these strategies, businesses can achieve service efficiency while honoring their commitment to preserving our planet-a dual pursuit that promises enduring success in today's conscientious marketplace.

Usage phase: maintenance and longevity

Balancing the costs of e-waste processing with service efficiency is a pressing concern in today's technology-driven world. As electronic waste continues to mount globally, finding sustainable and economically viable solutions becomes imperative. Several companies and municipalities have pioneered successful models that offer valuable insights into managing this balance effectively. Through real-world case studies, we can explore how these entities have achieved a harmonious blend of cost-effectiveness and high-quality service in e-waste management.


One exemplary model is found in Sweden, where the municipality of Gothenburg has implemented an innovative approach to e-waste processing through its Kretsloppsparken recycling park. This facility not only serves as a collection point for electronic waste but also integrates repair workshops and resale shops, promoting the reuse and refurbishment of electronics.

Balancing Costs With Service Efficiency - information

  1. environmentalism
  2. furniture
  3. habitat
By investing in infrastructure that extends the life cycle of devices, Gothenburg has significantly reduced disposal costs while creating employment opportunities within the community. The financial savings from reduced landfill use are reinvested into further enhancing service efficiency, making it a self-sustaining model.


Another notable example comes from Japan's Panasonic Eco Technology Center (PETEC), which showcases a corporate-led initiative towards efficient e-waste management. PETEC employs advanced sorting technologies and robotic systems to disassemble electronic products systematically. This automation reduces labor costs while maintaining high precision in material recovery processes. By extracting valuable materials like gold, copper, and rare earth metals from discarded electronics, Panasonic not only offsets processing expenses but also contributes to resource conservation.


In India, the informal sector has long played a role in e-waste recycling, albeit often at significant environmental and human health costs due to unsafe practices. However, some organizations have successfully formalized these operations with impressive results. E-Parisaraa Pvt Ltd., based in Bengaluru, partners with local governments to streamline e-waste collection and processing through certified facilities. They train informal workers on safe recycling techniques while providing them with stable employment conditions-thereby reducing operational risks associated with informal handling methods-and improving overall service efficiency.


These case studies illuminate key strategies for balancing costs with service efficiency: embracing innovation through technology integration; fostering collaboration between public entities and private enterprises; investing in community-based models that capitalize on local strengths; prioritizing environmental stewardship alongside economic gains-all crucial steps toward sustainable e-waste management solutions globally.


As we continue grappling with growing volumes of obsolete electronics worldwide-with projections suggesting exponential increases-it becomes increasingly vital for stakeholders across sectors-from policymakers crafting regulations governing disposal protocols down supply chains ensuring ethical sourcing-to draw lessons learned thus far when designing future interventions aimed at achieving equitable outcomes both financially viable socially responsible manner alike bridging gaps traditionally existed separating profit-driven motives broader ecological concerns overall well-being planet inhabitants today tomorrow generations come after us alike together forging path forward brighter cleaner technologically advanced era yet remain mindful legacy leave behind amidst ever-evolving landscape modernity rapid technological advancement inevitably brings forth challenges opportunities hand-in-hand intertwined complex web interconnectedness shapes contemporary existence collectively navigate wisely thoughtfully intentionality purposefulness guiding principles underpinning endeavors undertake shared responsibility safeguarding natural resources preserving biodiversity nurturing environments thrive sustainably balanced harmony coexistence humanity nature symbiotic relationship essential continued survival prosperity all involved endeavors ultimately shape trajectory course history unfolds before very eyes momentous times unfold around us beckoning call action response readiness embrace transformation embrace change wholeheartedly courageously boldly stepping unknown uncertain horizons await discovery exploration possibilities lie ahead infinite potential awaiting realization imagination creativity ingenuity spirit collective consciousness united common cause betterment world entirety each every one plays part journey progress evolution society itself strives evolve mature wiser more compassionate empathetic understanding inclusive equitable resilient adaptive agile

End-of-Life Management for Electronic Devices

In today's rapidly advancing digital age, the issue of electronic waste, or e-waste, has become a matter of critical importance. With technological innovations accelerating and consumer electronics becoming increasingly disposable, the volume of e-waste generated worldwide is growing at an alarming rate. This scenario presents significant challenges for both environmental sustainability and economic efficiency. Central to addressing these challenges are government policies and regulations that shape the economics and efficiency of e-waste processing systems. Balancing costs with service efficiency in this context requires a nuanced understanding of how policy frameworks can support sustainable practices while fostering industry innovation.


Government policies play a pivotal role in setting the stage for efficient e-waste management systems. Regulatory measures, such as extended producer responsibility (EPR), mandate that manufacturers bear some responsibility for the disposal and recycling of their products. This approach incentivizes companies to design products with longer lifespans and easier recyclability, thus reducing overall waste. However, implementing EPR schemes effectively involves substantial costs related to logistics, infrastructure development, and compliance monitoring. As such, policymakers must carefully calibrate these requirements to avoid imposing prohibitive financial burdens on businesses that could stifle innovation or lead to increased consumer prices.


Moreover, regulations surrounding e-waste often include stringent health and safety standards aimed at minimizing harmful environmental impacts during processing. These standards necessitate investments in advanced technologies capable of safely dismantling complex electronic devices while extracting valuable materials like gold, silver, and copper. While these technologies enhance service efficiency by increasing recovery rates and reducing landfill dependency, they also entail significant capital expenditure. Therefore, balancing costs with service efficiency involves ensuring that regulatory frameworks encourage technological innovation without rendering market entry financially unviable for smaller enterprises.


On the other hand, effective policy-making should also consider providing incentives for developing local e-waste processing capabilities. In many regions, e-waste is exported to countries with lower labor costs where it is processed under less stringent regulations-a practice that undermines global sustainability efforts and exacerbates environmental degradation in recipient countries. By offering tax incentives or subsidies for establishing domestic processing facilities compliant with international standards, governments can stimulate local industries while promoting job creation and skills development.


Additionally, public awareness campaigns funded through governmental channels can significantly enhance service efficiency by educating consumers about proper disposal methods and encouraging responsible behavior regarding electronic product life cycles. When consumers understand the importance of recycling electronics correctly-such as utilizing designated collection points or participating in take-back schemes-they contribute directly to more efficient resource recovery processes.


Ultimately, crafting policies that balance cost considerations against service efficiency demands an integrative approach involving multiple stakeholders across sectors-from manufacturers to recyclers to consumers themselves. Policymakers must remain attuned not only to immediate economic implications but also long-term ecological outcomes inherent within evolving technological landscapes.


By creating adaptive regulatory environments conducive both economically viable solutions alongside ecologically sound practices will ensure holistic progress towards sustainable management paradigms capable meeting future demands head-on without compromising planetary health nor societal prosperity alike-a delicate equilibrium indeed yet one whose realization promises enduring benefits far beyond mere fiscal calculus alone!

Identifying when a device reaches its end-of-life

As the world becomes increasingly digitized, the proliferation of electronic devices has led to a burgeoning challenge: e-waste management. The need for sustainable solutions to manage electronic waste is more pressing than ever. As we look towards future trends and opportunities in this field, it is crucial to balance cost-efficiency with service quality. Understanding how evolving technologies and innovative practices can enhance both aspects without compromise is key to advancing e-waste processing.


One of the most promising trends in e-waste management is the application of advanced automation technologies. Robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) offer immense potential for improving efficiency in sorting and recycling processes. Automated systems can handle complex tasks that are traditionally labor-intensive, reducing human error and speeding up operations. For instance, AI-driven robots equipped with advanced sensors can precisely identify and segregate different types of materials from e-waste, thereby optimizing recovery rates while minimizing costs.


Another significant trend is the development of circular economy models tailored specifically for electronics. By redesigning products with end-of-life considerations in mind, manufacturers can facilitate easier disassembly and material recovery. This approach not only reduces waste but also lowers recycling costs by ensuring that valuable components are readily accessible at the end of a product's life cycle. Collaborative initiatives between manufacturers, recyclers, and policymakers could further drive this shift towards more sustainable design practices.


Furthermore, blockchain technology holds potential as a tool for enhancing transparency and traceability within the e-waste supply chain. By providing an immutable record of each step in the waste management process-from collection to final disposal or recycling-blockchain ensures accountability and compliance with environmental regulations. This increased transparency can lead to better decision-making and resource allocation, ultimately driving down operational costs while maintaining high service standards.


The integration of Internet of Things (IoT) technology into waste management systems also presents opportunities for improved efficiency. IoT devices can monitor collection bins' fill levels in real-time, allowing for optimized route planning and reduced fuel consumption during pick-up operations. Moreover, predictive maintenance enabled by IoT sensors on recycling machinery could decrease downtime and extend equipment lifespan, thus lowering maintenance expenses without sacrificing performance quality.


Finally, education and awareness campaigns remain crucial components in effectively managing e-waste streams. By informing consumers about proper disposal methods and encouraging responsible electronics use through incentives or take-back programs, we can reduce improper disposal practices that complicate recycling efforts.


In conclusion, the future landscape of e-waste management will likely be shaped by technological advancements that drive both cost-efficiency and service quality enhancements. Automation through robotics and AI will streamline sorting processes; circular economy principles will promote sustainable product designs; blockchain will increase transparency; IoT will optimize logistics; all while consumer education fosters responsible behavior towards electronic waste disposal. Embracing these emerging trends provides an exciting opportunity not only to manage e-waste more sustainably but also to do so economically-ensuring we protect our planet while supporting continued technological innovation.

 

A specialized trash collection truck providing regular municipal trash collection in a neighborhood in Stockholm, Sweden
Waste pickers burning e-waste in Agbogbloshie, a site near Accra in Ghana that processes large volumes of international electronic waste. The pickers burn the plastics off of materials and collect the metals for recycling, However, this process exposes pickers and their local communities to toxic fumes.
Containers for consumer waste collection at the Gdańsk University of Technology
A recycling and waste-to-energy plant for waste that is not exported

Waste management or waste disposal includes the processes and actions required to manage waste from its inception to its final disposal.[1] This includes the collection, transport, treatment, and disposal of waste, together with monitoring and regulation of the waste management process and waste-related laws, technologies, and economic mechanisms.

Waste can either be solid, liquid, or gases and each type has different methods of disposal and management. Waste management deals with all types of waste, including industrial, biological, household, municipal, organic, biomedical, radioactive wastes. In some cases, waste can pose a threat to human health.[2] Health issues are associated with the entire process of waste management. Health issues can also arise indirectly or directly: directly through the handling of solid waste, and indirectly through the consumption of water, soil, and food.[2] Waste is produced by human activity, for example, the extraction and processing of raw materials.[3] Waste management is intended to reduce the adverse effects of waste on human health, the environment, planetary resources, and aesthetics.

The aim of waste management is to reduce the dangerous effects of such waste on the environment and human health. A big part of waste management deals with municipal solid waste, which is created by industrial, commercial, and household activity.[4]

Waste management practices are not the same across countries (developed and developing nations); regions (urban and rural areas), and residential and industrial sectors can all take different approaches.[5]

Proper management of waste is important for building sustainable and liveable cities, but it remains a challenge for many developing countries and cities. A report found that effective waste management is relatively expensive, usually comprising 20%–50% of municipal budgets. Operating this essential municipal service requires integrated systems that are efficient, sustainable, and socially supported.[6] A large portion of waste management practices deal with municipal solid waste (MSW) which is the bulk of the waste that is created by household, industrial, and commercial activity.[7] According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), municipal solid waste is expected to reach approximately 3.4 Gt by 2050; however, policies and lawmaking can reduce the amount of waste produced in different areas and cities of the world.[8] Measures of waste management include measures for integrated techno-economic mechanisms[9] of a circular economy, effective disposal facilities, export and import control[10][11] and optimal sustainable design of products that are produced.

In the first systematic review of the scientific evidence around global waste, its management, and its impact on human health and life, authors concluded that about a fourth of all the municipal solid terrestrial waste is not collected and an additional fourth is mismanaged after collection, often being burned in open and uncontrolled fires – or close to one billion tons per year when combined. They also found that broad priority areas each lack a "high-quality research base", partly due to the absence of "substantial research funding", which motivated scientists often require.[12][13] Electronic waste (ewaste) includes discarded computer monitors, motherboards, mobile phones and chargers, compact discs (CDs), headphones, television sets, air conditioners and refrigerators. According to the Global E-waste Monitor 2017, India generates ~ 2 million tonnes (Mte) of e-waste annually and ranks fifth among the e-waste producing countries, after the United States, the People's Republic of China, Japan and Germany.[14]

Effective 'Waste Management' involves the practice of '7R' - 'R'efuse, 'R'educe', 'R'euse, 'R'epair, 'R'epurpose, 'R'ecycle and 'R'ecover. Amongst these '7R's, the first two ('Refuse' and 'Reduce') relate to the non-creation of waste - by refusing to buy non-essential products and by reducing consumption. The next two ('Reuse' and 'Repair') refer to increasing the usage of the existing product, with or without the substitution of certain parts of the product. 'Repurpose' and 'Recycle' involve maximum usage of the materials used in the product, and 'Recover' is the least preferred and least efficient waste management practice involving the recovery of embedded energy in the waste material. For example, burning the waste to produce heat (and electricity from heat). Certain non-biodegradable products are also dumped away as 'Disposal', and this is not a "waste-'management'" practice.[15]

Principles of waste management

[edit]
Diagram of the waste hierarchy

Waste hierarchy

[edit]

The waste hierarchy refers to the "3 Rs" Reduce, Reuse and Recycle, which classifies waste management strategies according to their desirability in terms of waste minimisation. The waste hierarchy is the bedrock of most waste minimization strategies. The aim of the waste hierarchy is to extract the maximum practical benefits from products and to generate the minimum amount of end waste; see: resource recovery.[16][17] The waste hierarchy is represented as a pyramid because the basic premise is that policies should promote measures to prevent the generation of waste. The next step or preferred action is to seek alternative uses for the waste that has been generated, i.e., by re-use. The next is recycling which includes composting. Following this step is material recovery and waste-to-energy. The final action is disposal, in landfills or through incineration without energy recovery. This last step is the final resort for waste that has not been prevented, diverted, or recovered.[18][page needed] The waste hierarchy represents the progression of a product or material through the sequential stages of the pyramid of waste management. The hierarchy represents the latter parts of the life-cycle for each product.[19]

Life-cycle of a product

[edit]

The life-cycle of a product, often referred to as the product lifecycle, encompasses several key stages that begin with the design phase and proceed through manufacture, distribution, and primary use. After these initial stages, the product moves through the waste hierarchy's stages of reduce, reuse, and recycle. Each phase in this lifecycle presents unique opportunities for policy intervention, allowing stakeholders to rethink the necessity of the product, redesign it to minimize its waste potential, and extend its useful life.

During the design phase, considerations can be made to ensure that products are created with fewer resources, are more durable, and are easier to repair or recycle. This stage is critical for embedding sustainability into the product from the outset. Designers can select materials that have lower environmental impacts and create products that require less energy and resources to produce.

Manufacturing offers another crucial point for reducing waste and conserving resources. Innovations in production processes can lead to more efficient use of materials and energy, while also minimizing the generation of by-products and emissions. Adopting cleaner production techniques and improving manufacturing efficiency can significantly reduce the environmental footprint of a product.

Distribution involves the logistics of getting the product from the manufacturer to the consumer. Optimizing this stage can involve reducing packaging, choosing more sustainable transportation methods, and improving supply chain efficiencies to lower the overall environmental impact. Efficient logistics planning can also help in reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the transport of goods.

The primary use phase of a product's lifecycle is where consumers interact with the product. Policies and practices that encourage responsible use, regular maintenance, and the proper functioning of products can extend their lifespan, thus reducing the need for frequent replacements and decreasing overall waste.

Once the product reaches the end of its primary use, it enters the waste hierarchy's stages. The first stage, reduction, involves efforts to decrease the volume and toxicity of waste generated. This can be achieved by encouraging consumers to buy less, use products more efficiently, and choose items with minimal packaging.

The reuse stage encourages finding alternative uses for products, whether through donation, resale, or repurposing. Reuse extends the life of products and delays their entry into the waste stream.

Recycling, the final preferred stage, involves processing materials to create new products, thus closing the loop in the material lifecycle. Effective recycling programs can significantly reduce the need for virgin materials and the environmental impacts associated with extracting and processing those materials.

Product life-cycle analysis (LCA) is a comprehensive method for evaluating the environmental impacts associated with all stages of a product's life. By systematically assessing these impacts, LCA helps identify opportunities to improve environmental performance and resource efficiency. Through optimizing product designs, manufacturing processes, and end-of-life management, LCA aims to maximize the use of the world's limited resources and minimize the unnecessary generation of waste.

In summary, the product lifecycle framework underscores the importance of a holistic approach to product design, use, and disposal. By considering each stage of the lifecycle and implementing policies and practices that promote sustainability, it is possible to significantly reduce the environmental impact of products and contribute to a more sustainable future.

Resource efficiency

[edit]

Resource efficiency reflects the understanding that global economic growth and development can not be sustained at current production and consumption patterns. Globally, humanity extracts more resources to produce goods than the planet can replenish. Resource efficiency is the reduction of the environmental impact from the production and consumption of these goods, from final raw material extraction to the last use and disposal.

Polluter-pays principle

[edit]

The polluter-pays principle mandates that the polluting parties pay for the impact on the environment. With respect to waste management, this generally refers to the requirement for a waste generator to pay for appropriate disposal of the unrecoverable materials.[20]

History

[edit]

Throughout most of history, the amount of waste generated by humans was insignificant due to low levels of population density and exploitation of natural resources. Common waste produced during pre-modern times was mainly ashes and human biodegradable waste, and these were released back into the ground locally, with minimum environmental impact. Tools made out of wood or metal were generally reused or passed down through the generations.

However, some civilizations have been more profligate in their waste output than others. In particular, the Maya of Central America had a fixed monthly ritual, in which the people of the village would gather together and burn their rubbish in large dumps.[21][irrelevant citation]

Modern era

[edit]
Edwin Chadwick's 1842 report The Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population was influential in securing the passage of the first legislation aimed at waste clearance and disposal.

Following the onset of the Industrial Revolution, industrialisation, and the sustained urban growth of large population centres in England, the buildup of waste in the cities caused a rapid deterioration in levels of sanitation and the general quality of urban life. The streets became choked with filth due to the lack of waste clearance regulations.[22] Calls for the establishment of municipal authority with waste removal powers occurred as early as 1751, when Corbyn Morris in London proposed that "... as the preservation of the health of the people is of great importance, it is proposed that the cleaning of this city, should be put under one uniform public management, and all the filth be...conveyed by the Thames to proper distance in the country".[23]

However, it was not until the mid-19th century, spurred by increasingly devastating cholera outbreaks and the emergence of a public health debate that the first legislation on the issue emerged. Highly influential in this new focus was the report The Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population in 1842[24] of the social reformer, Edwin Chadwick, in which he argued for the importance of adequate waste removal and management facilities to improve the health and wellbeing of the city's population.

In the UK, the Nuisance Removal and Disease Prevention Act of 1846 began what was to be a steadily evolving process of the provision of regulated waste management in London.[25] The Metropolitan Board of Works was the first citywide authority that centralized sanitation regulation for the rapidly expanding city, and the Public Health Act 1875 made it compulsory for every household to deposit their weekly waste in "moveable receptacles" for disposal—the first concept for a dustbin.[26] In the Ashanti Empire by the 19th century, there existed a Public Works Department that was responsible for sanitation in Kumasi and its suburbs. They kept the streets clean daily and commanded civilians to keep their compounds clean and weeded.[27]

Manlove, Alliott & Co. Ltd. 1894 destructor furnace. The use of incinerators for waste disposal became popular in the late 19th century.

The dramatic increase in waste for disposal led to the creation of the first incineration plants, or, as they were then called, "destructors". In 1874, the first incinerator was built in Nottingham by Manlove, Alliott & Co. Ltd. to the design of Alfred Fryer.[23] However, these were met with opposition on account of the large amounts of ash they produced and which wafted over the neighbouring areas.[28]

Similar municipal systems of waste disposal sprung up at the turn of the 20th century in other large cities of Europe and North America. In 1895, New York City became the first U.S. city with public-sector garbage management.[26]

Early garbage removal trucks were simply open-bodied dump trucks pulled by a team of horses. They became motorized in the early part of the 20th century and the first closed-body trucks to eliminate odours with a dumping lever mechanism were introduced in the 1920s in Britain.[29] These were soon equipped with 'hopper mechanisms' where the scooper was loaded at floor level and then hoisted mechanically to deposit the waste in the truck. The Garwood Load Packer was the first truck in 1938, to incorporate a hydraulic compactor.

Waste handling and transport

[edit]
Moulded plastic, wheeled waste bin in Berkshire, England

Waste collection methods vary widely among different countries and regions. Domestic waste collection services are often provided by local government authorities, or by private companies for industrial and commercial waste. Some areas, especially those in less developed countries, do not have formal waste-collection systems.

Waste handling and transport

[edit]

Curbside collection is the most common method of disposal in most European countries, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and many other parts of the developed world in which waste is collected at regular intervals by specialised trucks. This is often associated with curb-side waste segregation. In rural areas, waste may need to be taken to a transfer station. Waste collected is then transported to an appropriate disposal facility. In some areas, vacuum collection is used in which waste is transported from the home or commercial premises by vacuum along small bore tubes. Systems are in use in Europe and North America.

In some jurisdictions, unsegregated waste is collected at the curb-side or from waste transfer stations and then sorted into recyclables and unusable waste. Such systems are capable of sorting large volumes of solid waste, salvaging recyclables, and turning the rest into bio-gas and soil conditioners. In San Francisco, the local government established its Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance in support of its goal of "Zero waste by 2020", requiring everyone in the city to keep recyclables and compostables out of the landfill. The three streams are collected with the curbside "Fantastic 3" bin system – blue for recyclables, green for compostables, and black for landfill-bound materials – provided to residents and businesses and serviced by San Francisco's sole refuse hauler, Recology. The city's "Pay-As-You-Throw" system charges customers by the volume of landfill-bound materials, which provides a financial incentive to separate recyclables and compostables from other discards. The city's Department of the Environment's Zero Waste Program has led the city to achieve 80% diversion, the highest diversion rate in North America.[30] Other businesses such as Waste Industries use a variety of colors to distinguish between trash and recycling cans. In addition, in some areas of the world the disposal of municipal solid waste can cause environmental strain due to official not having benchmarks that help measure the environmental sustainability of certain practices.[31]

Waste segregation

[edit]
Recycling point at the Gdańsk University of Technology

This is the separation of wet waste and dry waste. The purpose is to recycle dry waste easily and to use wet waste as compost. When segregating waste, the amount of waste that gets landfilled reduces considerably, resulting in lower levels of air and water pollution. Importantly, waste segregation should be based on the type of waste and the most appropriate treatment and disposal. This also makes it easier to apply different processes to the waste, like composting, recycling, and incineration. It is important to practice waste management and segregation as a community. One way to practice waste management is to ensure there is awareness. The process of waste segregation should be explained to the community.[32]

Segregated waste is also often cheaper to dispose of because it does not require as much manual sorting as mixed waste. There are a number of important reasons why waste segregation is important such as legal obligations, cost savings, and protection of human health and the environment. Institutions should make it as easy as possible for their staff to correctly segregate their waste. This can include labelling, making sure there are enough accessible bins, and clearly indicating why segregation is so important.[33] Labeling is especially important when dealing with nuclear waste due to how much harm to human health the excess products of the nuclear cycle can cause.[34]

Hazards of waste management

[edit]

There are multiple facets of waste management that all come with hazards, both for those around the disposal site and those who work within waste management. Exposure to waste of any kind can be detrimental to the health of the individual, primary conditions that worsen with exposure to waste are asthma and tuberculosis.[35] The exposure to waste on an average individual is highly dependent on the conditions around them, those in less developed or lower income areas are more susceptible to the effects of waste product, especially though chemical waste.[36] The range of hazards due to waste is extremely large and covers every type of waste, not only chemical. There are many different guidelines to follow for disposing different types of waste.[37]

Diagram showing the multiple ways that incineration is hazardous to the population

The hazards of incineration are a large risk to many variable communities, including underdeveloped countries and countries or cities with little space for landfills or alternatives. Burning waste is an easily accessible option for many people around the globe, it has even been encouraged by the World Health Organization when there is no other option.[38] Because burning waste is rarely paid attention to, its effects go unnoticed. The release of hazardous materials and CO2 when waste is burned is the largest hazard with incineration.[39]

Financial models

[edit]

In most developed countries, domestic waste disposal is funded from a national or local tax which may be related to income, or property values. Commercial and industrial waste disposal is typically charged for as a commercial service, often as an integrated charge which includes disposal costs. This practice may encourage disposal contractors to opt for the cheapest disposal option such as landfill rather than the environmentally best solution such as re-use and recycling.

Financing solid waste management projects can be overwhelming for the city government, especially if the government see it as an important service they should render to the citizen. Donors and grants are a funding mechanism that is dependent on the interest of the donor organization. As much as it is a good way to develop a city's waste management infrastructure, attracting and utilizing grants is solely reliant on what the donor considers important. Therefore, it may be a challenge for a city government to dictate how the funds should be distributed among the various aspect of waste management.[40]

An example of a country that enforces a waste tax is Italy. The tax is based on two rates: fixed and variable. The fixed rate is based on the size of the house while the variable is determined by the number of people living in the house.[41]

The World Bank finances and advises on solid waste management projects using a diverse suite of products and services, including traditional loans, results-based financing, development policy financing, and technical advisory. World Bank-financed waste management projects usually address the entire lifecycle of waste right from the point of generation to collection and transportation, and finally treatment and disposal.[6]

Disposal methods

[edit]

Landfill

[edit]
A landfill in Łubna, Poland in 1999

A landfill[a] is a site for the disposal of waste materials. It is the oldest and most common form of waste disposal, although the systematic burial of waste with daily, intermediate and final covers only began in the 1940s. In the past, waste was simply left in piles or thrown into pits (known in archeology as middens).

Landfills take up a lot of land and pose environmental risks. Some landfill sites are used for waste management purposes, such as temporary storage, consolidation and transfer, or for various stages of processing waste material, such as sorting, treatment, or recycling. Unless they are stabilized, landfills may undergo severe shaking or soil liquefaction of the ground during an earthquake. Once full, the area over a landfill site may be reclaimed for other uses.
A landfill compaction vehicle in action.
Spittelau incineration plant in Vienna

Incineration

[edit]
Tarastejärvi Incineration Plant in Tampere, Finland

Incineration is a disposal method in which solid organic wastes are subjected to combustion so as to convert them into residue and gaseous products. This method is useful for the disposal of both municipal solid waste and solid residue from wastewater treatment. This process reduces the volume of solid waste by 80 to 95 percent.[42] Incineration and other high-temperature waste treatment systems are sometimes described as "thermal treatment". Incinerators convert waste materials into heat, gas, steam, and ash.

Incineration is carried out both on a small scale by individuals and on a large scale by industry. It is used to dispose of solid, liquid, and gaseous waste. It is recognized as a practical method of disposing of certain hazardous waste materials (such as biological medical waste). Incineration is a controversial method of waste disposal, due to issues such as the emission of gaseous pollutants including substantial quantities of carbon dioxide.

Incineration is common in countries such as Japan where land is more scarce, as the facilities generally do not require as much area as landfills. Waste-to-energy (WtE) or energy-from-waste (EfW) are broad terms for facilities that burn waste in a furnace or boiler to generate heat, steam, or electricity. Combustion in an incinerator is not always perfect and there have been concerns about pollutants in gaseous emissions from incinerator stacks. Particular concern has focused on some very persistent organic compounds such as dioxins, furans, and PAHs, which may be created and which may have serious environmental consequences and some heavy metals such as mercury[43] and lead which can be volatilised in the combustion process..

Recycling

[edit]
Steel crushed and baled for recycling

Recycling is a resource recovery practice that refers to the collection and reuse of waste materials such as empty beverage containers. This process involves breaking down and reusing materials that would otherwise be gotten rid of as trash. There are numerous benefits of recycling, and with so many new technologies making even more materials recyclable, it is possible to clean up the Earth.[44] Recycling not only benefits the environment but also positively affects the economy. The materials from which the items are made can be made into new products.[45] Materials for recycling may be collected separately from general waste using dedicated bins and collection vehicles, a procedure called kerbside collection. In some communities, the owner of the waste is required to separate the materials into different bins (e.g. for paper, plastics, metals) prior to its collection. In other communities, all recyclable materials are placed in a single bin for collection, and the sorting is handled later at a central facility. The latter method is known as "single-stream recycling".[46][47]

A recycling point in Lappajärvi, Finland

The most common consumer products recycled include aluminium such as beverage cans, copper such as wire, steel from food and aerosol cans, old steel furnishings or equipment, rubber tyres, polyethylene and PET bottles, glass bottles and jars, paperboard cartons, newspapers, magazines and light paper, and corrugated fiberboard boxes.

PVC, LDPE, PP, and PS (see resin identification code) are also recyclable. These items are usually composed of a single type of material, making them relatively easy to recycle into new products. The recycling of complex products (such as computers and electronic equipment) is more difficult, due to the additional dismantling and separation required.

The type of material accepted for recycling varies by city and country. Each city and country has different recycling programs in place that can handle the various types of recyclable materials. However, certain variation in acceptance is reflected in the resale value of the material once it is reprocessed. Some of the types of recycling include waste paper and cardboard, plastic recycling, metal recycling, electronic devices, wood recycling, glass recycling, cloth and textile and so many more.[48] In July 2017, the Chinese government announced an import ban of 24 categories of recyclables and solid waste, including plastic, textiles and mixed paper, placing tremendous impact on developed countries globally, which exported directly or indirectly to China.[49]

Re-use

[edit]

Biological reprocessing

[edit]
An active compost heap

Recoverable materials that are organic in nature, such as plant material, food scraps, and paper products, can be recovered through composting and digestion processes to decompose the organic matter. The resulting organic material is then recycled as mulch or compost for agricultural or landscaping purposes. In addition, waste gas from the process (such as methane) can be captured and used for generating electricity and heat (CHP/cogeneration) maximising efficiencies. There are different types of composting and digestion methods and technologies. They vary in complexity from simple home compost heaps to large-scale industrial digestion of mixed domestic waste. The different methods of biological decomposition are classified as aerobic or anaerobic methods. Some methods use the hybrids of these two methods. The anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of solid waste is more environmentally effective than landfill, or incineration.[50] The intention of biological processing in waste management is to control and accelerate the natural process of decomposition of organic matter. (See resource recovery).

Energy recovery

[edit]

Energy recovery from waste is the conversion of non-recyclable waste materials into usable heat, electricity, or fuel through a variety of processes, including combustion, gasification, pyrolyzation, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas recovery.[51] This process is often called waste-to-energy. Energy recovery from waste is part of the non-hazardous waste management hierarchy. Using energy recovery to convert non-recyclable waste materials into electricity and heat, generates a renewable energy source and can reduce carbon emissions by offsetting the need for energy from fossil sources as well as reduce methane generation from landfills.[51] Globally, waste-to-energy accounts for 16% of waste management.[52]

The energy content of waste products can be harnessed directly by using them as a direct combustion fuel, or indirectly by processing them into another type of fuel. Thermal treatment ranges from using waste as a fuel source for cooking or heating and the use of the gas fuel (see above), to fuel for boilers to generate steam and electricity in a turbine. Pyrolysis and gasification are two related forms of thermal treatment where waste materials are heated to high temperatures with limited oxygen availability. The process usually occurs in a sealed vessel under high pressure. Pyrolysis of solid waste converts the material into solid, liquid, and gas products. The liquid and gas can be burnt to produce energy or refined into other chemical products (chemical refinery). The solid residue (char) can be further refined into products such as activated carbon. Gasification and advanced Plasma arc gasification are used to convert organic materials directly into a synthetic gas (syngas) composed of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The gas is then burnt to produce electricity and steam. An alternative to pyrolysis is high-temperature and pressure supercritical water decomposition (hydrothermal monophasic oxidation).

Pyrolysis

[edit]

Pyrolysis is often used to convert many types of domestic and industrial residues into a recovered fuel. Different types of waste input (such as plant waste, food waste, tyres) placed in the pyrolysis process potentially yield an alternative to fossil fuels.[53] Pyrolysis is a process of thermo-chemical decomposition of organic materials by heat in the absence of stoichiometric quantities of oxygen; the decomposition produces various hydrocarbon gases.[54] During pyrolysis, the molecules of an object vibrate at high frequencies to the extent that molecules start breaking down. The rate of pyrolysis increases with temperature. In industrial applications, temperatures are above 430 °C (800 °F).[55]

Slow pyrolysis produces gases and solid charcoal.[56] Pyrolysis holds promise for conversion of waste biomass into useful liquid fuel. Pyrolysis of waste wood and plastics can potentially produce fuel. The solids left from pyrolysis contain metals, glass, sand, and pyrolysis coke which does not convert to gas. Compared to the process of incineration, certain types of pyrolysis processes release less harmful by-products that contain alkali metals, sulphur, and chlorine. However, pyrolysis of some waste yields gases which impact the environment such as HCl and SO2.[57]

Resource recovery

[edit]

Resource recovery is the systematic diversion of waste, which was intended for disposal, for a specific next use.[58] It is the processing of recyclables to extract or recover materials and resources, or convert to energy.[59] These activities are performed at a resource recovery facility.[59] Resource recovery is not only environmentally important, but it is also cost-effective.[60] It decreases the amount of waste for disposal, saves space in landfills, and conserves natural resources.[60]

Resource recovery, an alternative approach to traditional waste management, utilizes life cycle analysis (LCA) to evaluate and optimize waste handling strategies. Comprehensive studies focusing on mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) have identified a preferred pathway for maximizing resource efficiency and minimizing environmental impact, including effective waste administration and management, source separation of waste materials, efficient collection systems, reuse and recycling of non-organic fractions, and processing of organic material through anaerobic digestion.

As an example of how resource recycling can be beneficial, many items thrown away contain metals that can be recycled to create a profit, such as the components in circuit boards. Wood chippings in pallets and other packaging materials can be recycled into useful products for horticulture. The recycled chips can cover paths, walkways, or arena surfaces.

Application of rational and consistent waste management practices can yield a range of benefits including:

  1. Economic – Improving economic efficiency through the means of resource use, treatment, and disposal and creating markets for recycles can lead to efficient practices in the production and consumption of products and materials resulting in valuable materials being recovered for reuse and the potential for new jobs and new business opportunities.
  2. Social – By reducing adverse impacts on health through proper waste management practices, the resulting consequences are more appealing to civic communities. Better social advantages can lead to new sources of employment and potentially lift communities out of poverty, especially in some of the developing poorer countries and cities.
  3. Environmental – Reducing or eliminating adverse impacts on the environment through reducing, reusing, recycling, and minimizing resource extraction can result in improved air and water quality and help in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
  4. Inter-generational Equity – Following effective waste management practices can provide subsequent generations a more robust economy, a fairer and more inclusive society and a cleaner environment.[18][page needed]

Waste valorization

[edit]
 

Waste valorization, beneficial reuse, beneficial use, value recovery or waste reclamation[61] is the process of waste products or residues from an economic process being valorized (given economic value), by reuse or recycling in order to create economically useful materials.[62][61][63] The term comes from practices in sustainable manufacturing and economics, industrial ecology and waste management. The term is usually applied in industrial processes where residue from creating or processing one good is used as a raw material or energy feedstock for another industrial process.[61][63] Industrial wastes in particular are good candidates for valorization because they tend to be more consistent and predictable than other waste, such as household waste.[61][64]

Historically, most industrial processes treated waste products as something to be disposed of, causing industrial pollution unless handled properly.[65] However, increased regulation of residual materials and socioeconomic changes, such as the introduction of ideas about sustainable development and circular economy in the 1990s and 2000s increased focus on industrial practices to recover these resources as value add materials.[65][66] Academics focus on finding economic value to reduce environmental impact of other industries as well, for example the development of non-timber forest products to encourage conservation.

Liquid waste-management

[edit]

Liquid waste is an important category of waste management because it is so difficult to deal with. Unlike solid wastes, liquid wastes cannot be easily picked up and removed from an environment. Liquid wastes spread out, and easily pollute other sources of liquid if brought into contact. This type of waste also soaks into objects like soil and groundwater. This in turn carries over to pollute the plants, the animals in the ecosystem, as well as the humans within the area of the pollution.[67]

Industrial wastewater

[edit]
 
Wastewater from an industrial process can be converted at a treatment plant to solids and treated water for reuse.

Industrial wastewater treatment describes the processes used for treating wastewater that is produced by industries as an undesirable by-product. After treatment, the treated industrial wastewater (or effluent) may be reused or released to a sanitary sewer or to a surface water in the environment. Some industrial facilities generate wastewater that can be treated in sewage treatment plants. Most industrial processes, such as petroleum refineries, chemical and petrochemical plants have their own specialized facilities to treat their wastewaters so that the pollutant concentrations in the treated wastewater comply with the regulations regarding disposal of wastewaters into sewers or into rivers, lakes or oceans.[68]: 1412  This applies to industries that generate wastewater with high concentrations of organic matter (e.g. oil and grease), toxic pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, volatile organic compounds) or nutrients such as ammonia.[69]: 180  Some industries install a pre-treatment system to remove some pollutants (e.g., toxic compounds), and then discharge the partially treated wastewater to the municipal sewer system.[70]: 60 

Most industries produce some wastewater. Recent trends have been to minimize such production or to recycle treated wastewater within the production process. Some industries have been successful at redesigning their manufacturing processes to reduce or eliminate pollutants.[71] Sources of industrial wastewater include battery manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, electric power plants, food industry, iron and steel industry, metal working, mines and quarries, nuclear industry, oil and gas extraction, petroleum refining and petrochemicals, pharmaceutical manufacturing, pulp and paper industry, smelters, textile mills, industrial oil contamination, water treatment and wood preserving. Treatment processes include brine treatment, solids removal (e.g. chemical precipitation, filtration), oils and grease removal, removal of biodegradable organics, removal of other organics, removal of acids and alkalis, and removal of toxic materials.

Sewage sludge treatment

[edit]
 
Sludge treatment in anaerobic digesters at a sewage treatment plant in Cottbus, Germany

Sewage sludge treatment describes the processes used to manage and dispose of sewage sludge produced during sewage treatment. Sludge treatment is focused on reducing sludge weight and volume to reduce transportation and disposal costs, and on reducing potential health risks of disposal options. Water removal is the primary means of weight and volume reduction, while pathogen destruction is frequently accomplished through heating during thermophilic digestion, composting, or incineration. The choice of a sludge treatment method depends on the volume of sludge generated, and comparison of treatment costs required for available disposal options. Air-drying and composting may be attractive to rural communities, while limited land availability may make aerobic digestion and mechanical dewatering preferable for cities, and economies of scale may encourage energy recovery alternatives in metropolitan areas.

Sludge is mostly water with some amounts of solid material removed from liquid sewage. Primary sludge includes settleable solids removed during primary treatment in primary clarifiers. Secondary sludge is sludge separated in secondary clarifiers that are used in secondary treatment bioreactors or processes using inorganic oxidizing agents. In intensive sewage treatment processes, the sludge produced needs to be removed from the liquid line on a continuous basis because the volumes of the tanks in the liquid line have insufficient volume to store sludge.[72] This is done in order to keep the treatment processes compact and in balance (production of sludge approximately equal to the removal of sludge). The sludge removed from the liquid line goes to the sludge treatment line. Aerobic processes (such as the activated sludge process) tend to produce more sludge compared with anaerobic processes. On the other hand, in extensive (natural) treatment processes, such as ponds and constructed wetlands, the produced sludge remains accumulated in the treatment units (liquid line) and is only removed after several years of operation.[73]

Sludge treatment options depend on the amount of solids generated and other site-specific conditions. Composting is most often applied to small-scale plants with aerobic digestion for mid-sized operations, and anaerobic digestion for the larger-scale operations. The sludge is sometimes passed through a so-called pre-thickener which de-waters the sludge. Types of pre-thickeners include centrifugal sludge thickeners,[74] rotary drum sludge thickeners and belt filter presses.[75] Dewatered sludge may be incinerated or transported offsite for disposal in a landfill or use as an agricultural soil amendment.[76]

Energy may be recovered from sludge through methane gas production during anaerobic digestion or through incineration of dried sludge, but energy yield is often insufficient to evaporate sludge water content or to power blowers, pumps, or centrifuges required for dewatering. Coarse primary solids and secondary sewage sludge may include toxic chemicals removed from liquid sewage by sorption onto solid particles in clarifier sludge. Reducing sludge volume may increase the concentration of some of these toxic chemicals in the sludge.[77]

Avoidance and reduction methods

[edit]

An important method of waste management is the prevention of waste material being created, also known as waste reduction. Waste Minimization is reducing the quantity of hazardous wastes achieved through a thorough application of innovative or alternative procedures.[78] Methods of avoidance include reuse of second-hand products, repairing broken items instead of buying new ones, designing products to be refillable or reusable (such as cotton instead of plastic shopping bags), encouraging consumers to avoid using disposable products (such as disposable cutlery), removing any food/liquid remains from cans and packaging,[79] and designing products that use less material to achieve the same purpose (for example, lightweighting of beverage cans).[80]

International waste trade

[edit]
 

The global waste trade is the international trade of waste between countries for further treatment, disposal, or recycling. Toxic or hazardous wastes are often imported by developing countries from developed countries.

The World Bank Report What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management, describes the amount of solid waste produced in a given country. Specifically, countries which produce more solid waste are more economically developed and more industrialized.[81] The report explains that "Generally, the higher the economic development and rate of urbanization, the greater the amount of solid waste produced."[81] Therefore, countries in the Global North, which are more economically developed and urbanized, produce more solid waste than Global South countries.[81]

Current international trade flows of waste follow a pattern of waste being produced in the Global North and being exported to and disposed of in the Global South. Multiple factors affect which countries produce waste and at what magnitude, including geographic location, degree of industrialization, and level of integration into the global economy.

Numerous scholars and researchers have linked the sharp increase in waste trading and the negative impacts of waste trading to the prevalence of neoliberal economic policy.[82][83][84][85] With the major economic transition towards neoliberal economic policy in the 1980s, the shift towards "free-market" policy has facilitated the sharp increase in the global waste trade. Henry Giroux, Chair of Cultural Studies at McMaster University, gives his definition of neoliberal economic policy:

"Neoliberalism ...removes economics and markets from the discourse of social obligations and social costs. ...As a policy and political project, neoliberalism is wedded to the privatization of public services, selling off of state functions, deregulation of finance and labor, elimination of the welfare state and unions, liberalization of trade in goods and capital investment, and the marketization and commodification of society."[86]

Given this economic platform of privatization, neoliberalism is based on expanding free-trade agreements and establishing open-borders to international trade markets. Trade liberalization, a neoliberal economic policy in which trade is completely deregulated, leaving no tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions on international trade, is designed to further developing countries' economies and integrate them into the global economy. Critics claim that although free-market trade liberalization was designed to allow any country the opportunity to reach economic success, the consequences of these policies have been devastating for Global South countries, essentially crippling their economies in a servitude to the Global North.[87] Even supporters such as the International Monetary Fund, “progress of integration has been uneven in recent decades.”[88] Specifically, developing countries have been targeted by trade liberalization policies to import waste as a means of economic expansion.[89] The guiding neoliberal economic policy argues that the way to be integrated into the global economy is to participate in trade liberalization and exchange in international trade markets.[89] Their claim is that smaller countries, with less infrastructure, less wealth, and less manufacturing ability, should take in hazardous wastes as a way to increase profits and stimulate their economies.[89]

Challenges in developing countries

[edit]

Areas with developing economies often experience exhausted waste collection services and inadequately managed and uncontrolled dumpsites. The problems are worsening.[18][page needed][90] Problems with governance complicate the situation. Waste management in these countries and cities is an ongoing challenge due to weak institutions, chronic under-resourcing, and rapid urbanization.[18][page needed] All of these challenges, along with the lack of understanding of different factors that contribute to the hierarchy of waste management, affect the treatment of waste.[91][full citation needed]

In developing countries, waste management activities are usually carried out by the poor, for their survival. It has been estimated that 2% of the population in Asia, Latin America, and Africa are dependent on waste for their livelihood. Family organized, or individual manual scavengers are often involved with waste management practices with very little supportive network and facilities with increased risk of health effects. Additionally, this practice prevents their children from further education. The participation level of most citizens in waste management is very low, residents in urban areas are not actively involved in the process of waste management.[92]

Technologies

[edit]

Traditionally, the waste management industry has been a late adopter of new technologies such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags, GPS and integrated software packages which enable better quality data to be collected without the use of estimation or manual data entry.[93] This technology has been used widely by many organizations in some industrialized countries. Radiofrequency identification is a tagging system for automatic identification of recyclable components of municipal solid waste streams.[94]

Smart waste management has been implemented in several cities, including San Francisco, Varde or Madrid.[95] Waste containers are equipped with level sensors. When the container is almost full, the sensor warns the pickup truck, which can thus trace its route servicing the fullest containers and skipping the emptiest ones.[96]

[edit]

The "Global Waste Management Outlook 2024," supported by the Environment Fund - UNEP’s core financial fund, and jointly published with the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), provides a comprehensive update on the trajectory of global waste generation and the escalating costs of waste management since 2018. The report predicts municipal solid waste to rise from 2.3 billion tonnes in 2023 to 3.8 billion tonnes by 2050. The direct global cost of waste management was around USD 252 billion in 2020, which could soar to USD 640.3 billion annually by 2050 if current practices continue without reform. Incorporating life cycle assessments, the report contrasts scenarios from maintaining the status quo to fully adopting zero waste and circular economy principles. It indicates that effective waste prevention and management could cap annual costs at USD 270.2 billion by 2050, while a circular economy approach could transform the sector into a net positive, offering a potential annual gain of USD 108.5 billion. To prevent the direst outcomes, the report calls for immediate action across multiple sectors, including development banks, governments, municipalities, producers, retailers, and citizens, providing targeted strategies for waste reduction and improved management practices.[97]

Waste generated by country, 2020[98]
Country GDP (USD) Population Total waste generated (t) Share of population living in urban areas Waste generated per capita (kg/person)
 Aruba 35,563 103,187 88,132 44% 854
 Afghanistan 2,057 34,656,032 5,628,525 26% 162
 Angola 8,037 25,096,150 4,213,644 67% 168
 Albania 13,724 2,854,191 1,087,447 62% 381
 Andorra 43,712 82,431 43,000 88% 522
 United Arab Emirates 67,119 9,770,529 5,617,682 87% 575
 Argentina 23,550 42,981,516 17,910,550 92% 417
 Armenia 11,020 2,906,220 492,800 63% 170
 American Samoa 11,113 55,599 18,989 87% 342
 Antigua and Barbuda 17,966 96,777 30,585 24% 316
 Australia 47,784 23,789,338 13,345,000 86% 561
 Austria 56,030 8,877,067 5,219,716 59% 588
 Azerbaijan 14,854 9,649,341 2,930,349 56% 304
 Burundi 840 6,741,569 1,872,016 14% 278
 Belgium 51,915 11,484,055 4,765,883 98% 415
 Benin 2,227 5,521,763 685,936 48% 124
 Burkina Faso 1,925 18,110,624 2,575,251 31% 142
 Bangladesh 3,196 155,727,056 14,778,497 38% 95
 Bulgaria 22,279 7,025,037 2,859,190 76% 407
 Bahrain 47,938 1,425,171 951,943 90% 668
 Bahamas 35,400 386,838 264,000 83% 682
 Bosnia and Herzegovina 12,671 3,535,961 1,248,718 49% 353
 Belarus 18,308 9,489,616 4,280,000 79% 451
 Belize 7,259 359,288 101,379 46% 282
 Bermuda 80,982 64,798 82,000 100% 1,265
 Bolivia 7,984 10,724,705 2,219,052 70% 207
 Brazil 14,596 208,494,896 79,069,584 87% 379
 Barbados 15,445 280,601 174,815 31% 623
 Brunei 60,866 423,196 216,253 78% 511
 Bhutan 6,743 686,958 111,314 42% 162
 Botswana 14,126 2,014,866 210,854 71% 105
 Central African Republic 823 4,515,392 1,105,983 42% 245
 Canada 47,672 35,544,564 25,103,034 82% 706
  Switzerland 68,394 8,574,832 6,079,556 74% 709
 Channel Islands 46,673 164,541 178,933 31% 1,087
 Chile 20,362 16,829,442 6,517,000 88% 387
 China 16,092 1,400,050,048 395,081,376 61% 282
 Côte d'Ivoire 3,661 20,401,332 4,440,814 52% 218
 Cameroon 3,263 21,655,716 3,270,617 58% 151
 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1,056 78,736,152 14,385,226 46% 183
 Republic of the Congo 4,900 2,648,507 451,200 68% 170
 Colombia 12,523 46,406,648 12,150,120 81% 262
 Comoros 2,960 777,424 91,013 29% 117
 Cape Verde 6,354 513,979 132,555 67% 258
 Costa Rica 18,169 4,757,575 1,460,000 81% 307
 Cuba 12,985 11,303,687 2,692,692 77% 238
 Curaçao 27,504 153,822 24,704 89 161
 Cayman Islands 66,207 59,172 60,000 100% 1,014
 Cyprus 39,545 1,198,575 769,485 67% 642
 Germany 53,785 83,132,800 50,627,876 77% 609
 Djibouti 6,597 746,221 114,997 78% 154
 Dominica 11,709 72,400 13,176 71% 182
 Denmark 57,821 5,818,553 4,910,859 88% 844
 Dominican Republic 15,328 10,528,394 4,063,910 83% 386
 Algeria 11,826 40,606,052 12,378,740 74% 305
 Ecuador 11,896 16,144,368 5,297,211 64% 328
 Egypt 10,301 87,813,256 21,000,000 43% 239
 Eritrea 1,715 4,474,690 726,957 41% 162
 Spain 40,986 47,076,780 22,408,548 81% 476
 Estonia 36,956 1,326,590 489,512 69% 369
 Ethiopia 1,779 99,873,032 6,532,787 22% 65
 Finland 48,814 5,520,314 3,124,498 86% 566
 Fiji 10,788 867,086 189,390 57% 218
 France 46,110 67,059,888 36,748,820 81% 548
 Faroe Islands 44,403 48,842 61,000 42% 1,249
 Federated States of Micronesia 3,440 104,937 26,040 23% 248
 Gabon 18,515 1,086,137 238,102 90% 219
 United Kingdom 46,290 66,460,344 30,771,140 84% 463
 Georgia 12,605 3,717,100 800,000 59% 215
 Ghana 3,093 21,542,008 3,538,275 57% 164
 Gibraltar 43,712 33,623 16,954 100% 504
 Guinea 1,623 8,132,552 596,911 37% 73
 Gambia 2,181 1,311,349 193,441 63% 148
 Guinea-Bissau 1,800 1,770,526 289,514 44% 164
 Equatorial Guinea 24,827 1,221,490 198,443 73% 162
 Greece 30,465 10,716,322 5,615,353 80% 524
 Grenada 13,208 105,481 29,536 37% 280
 Greenland 43,949 56,905 50,000 87% 879
 Guatemala 8,125 16,252,429 2,756,741 52% 170
 Guam 59,075 159,973 141,500 95% 885
 Guyana 9,812 746,556 179,252 27% 240
 Hong Kong 57,216 7,305,700 5,679,816 100% 777
 Honduras 5,396 9,112,867 2,162,028 58% 237
 Croatia 28,829 4,067,500 1,810,038 58% 445
 Haiti 2,953 10,847,334 2,309,852 57% 213
 Hungary 32,643 9,769,949 3,780,970 72% 387
 Indonesia 10,531 261,115,456 65,200,000 57% 250
 Isle of Man 44,204 80,759 50,551 53% 626
 India 6,497 1,352,617,344 189,750,000 35% 140
 Ireland 83,389 4,867,316 2,910,655 64% 598
 Iran 14,536 80,277,424 17,885,000 76% 223
 Iraq 10,311 36,115,648 13,140,000 71% 364
 Iceland 55,274 343,400 225,270 94% 656
 Israel 37,688 8,380,100 5,400,000 93% 644
 Italy 42,420 60,297,396 30,088,400 71% 499
 Jamaica 9,551 2,881,355 1,051,695 56% 365
 Jordan 10,413 8,413,464 2,529,997 91% 301
 Japan 41,310 126,529,104 42,720,000 92% 338
 Kazakhstan 22,703 16,791,424 4,659,740 58% 278
 Kenya 3,330 41,350,152 5,595,099 28% 135
 Kyrgyzstan 4,805 5,956,900 1,113,300 37% 187
 Cambodia 3,364 15,270,790 1,089,000 24% 71
 Kiribati 2,250 114,395 35,724 56% 312
 Saint Kitts and Nevis 25,569 54,288 32,892 31% 606
 South Korea 42,105 51,606,632 20,452,776 81% 396
 Kuwait 58,810 2,998,083 1,750,000 100% 584
 Laos 6,544 6,663,967 351,900 36% 53
 Lebanon 16,967 5,603,279 2,040,000 89% 364
 Liberia 1,333 3,512,932 564,467 52% 161
 Libya 8,480 6,193,501 2,147,596 81% 347
 Saint Lucia 14,030 177,206 77,616 19% 438
 Liechtenstein 45,727 36,545 32,382 14% 886
 Sri Lanka 12,287 21,203,000 2,631,650 19% 124
 Lesotho 1,979 1,965,662 73,457 29% 37
 Lithuania 37,278 2,786,844 1,315,390 68% 472
 Luxembourg 114,323 619,896 490,338 91% 791
 Latvia 30,982 1,912,789 839,714 68% 439
 Macau 117,336 612,167 377,942 100% 617
 Morocco 6,915 34,318,080 6,852,000 64% 200
 Monaco 43,712 37,783 46,000 100% 1,217
 Moldova 10,361 3,554,108 3,981,200 43% 1,120
 Madagascar 1,566 24,894,552 3,768,759 39% 151
 Maldives 17,285 409,163 211,506 41% 517
 Mexico 19,332 125,890,952 53,100,000 81% 422
 Marshall Islands 3,629 52,793 8,614 78% 163
 North Macedonia 16,148 2,082,958 626,970 58% 301
 Mali 2,008 16,006,670 1,937,354 44% 121
 Malta 43,708 502,653 348,841 95% 694
 Myanmar 1,094 46,095,464 4,677,307 31% 101
 Montenegro 20,753 622,227 329,780 67% 530
 Mongolia 10,940 3,027,398 2,900,000 69% 958
 Northern Mariana Islands 60,956 54,036 32,761 92% 606
 Mozambique 1,217 27,212,382 2,500,000 37% 92
 Mauritania 4,784 3,506,288 454,000 55% 129
 Mauritius 20,647 1,263,473 438,000 41% 347
 Malawi 999 16,577,147 1,297,844 17% 78
 Malaysia 23,906 30,228,016 12,982,685 77% 429
 Namibia 6,153 1,559,983 256,729 52% 165
 New Caledonia 57,330 278,000 108,157 72% 389
 Niger 1,038 8,842,415 1,865,646 17% 211
 Nigeria 4,690 154,402,176 27,614,830 52% 179
 Nicaragua 4,612 5,737,723 1,528,816 59% 266
 Netherlands 56,849 17,332,850 8,805,088 92% 508
 Norway 64,962 5,347,896 4,149,967 83% 776
   Nepal 2,902 28,982,772 1,768,977 21% 61
 Nauru 11,167 13,049 6,192 100% 475
 New Zealand 41,857 4,692,700 3,405,000 87% 726
 Oman 30,536 3,960,925 1,734,885 86% 438
 Pakistan 4,571 193,203,472 30,760,000 37% 159
 Panama 28,436 3,969,249 1,472,262 68% 371
 Peru 11,877 30,973,354 8,356,711 78% 270
 Philippines 7,705 103,320,224 14,631,923 47% 142
 Palau 18,275 21,503 9,427 81% 438
 Papua New Guinea 3,912 7,755,785 1,000,000 13% 129
 Poland 33,222 37,970,872 12,758,213 60% 336
 Puerto Rico 34,311 3,473,181 4,170,953 94% 1,201
 Portugal 34,962 10,269,417 5,268,211 66% 513
 Paraguay 11,810 6,639,119 1,818,501 62% 274
 Palestine 5,986 4,046,901 1,387,000 77% 343
 French Polynesia 60,956 273,528 147,000 62% 537
 Qatar 96,262 2,109,568 1,000,990 99% 475
 Romania 29,984 19,356,544 5,419,833 54% 280
 Russia 26,013 143,201,680 60,000,000 75% 419
 Rwanda 1,951 11,917,508 4,384,969 17% 368
 Saudi Arabia 48,921 31,557,144 16,125,701 84% 511
 Sudan 4,192 38,647,804 2,831,291 35% 73
 Senegal 3,068 15,411,614 2,454,059 48% 159
 Singapore 97,341 5,703,600 1,870,000 100% 328
 Solomon Islands 2,596 563,513 179,972 25% 319
 Sierra Leone 1,238 5,439,695 610,222 43% 112
 El Salvador 7,329 6,164,626 1,648,996 73% 267
 San Marino 58,806 33,203 17,175 97% 517
 Somalia 1,863 14,317,996 2,326,099 46% 162
 Serbia 18,351 6,944,975 2,347,402 56% 338
 South Sudan 1,796 11,177,490 2,680,681 20% 240
 São Tomé and Príncipe 3,721 191,266 25,587 74% 134
 Suriname 16,954 526,103 78,620 66% 149
 Slovakia 31,966 5,454,073 2,296,165 54% 421
 Slovenia 39,038 2,087,946 1,052,325 55% 504
 Sweden 52,609 10,285,453 4,618,169 88% 449
 Eswatini 8,321 1,343,098 218,199 24% 162
 Seychelles 23,303 88,303 48,000 58% 544
 Syria 8,587 20,824,892 4,500,000 55% 216
 Chad 1,733 11,887,202 1,358,851 24% 114
 Togo 1,404 7,228,915 1,109,030 43% 153
 Thailand 16,302 68,657,600 26,853,366 51% 391
 Tajikistan 2,616 8,177,809 1,787,400 28% 219
 Turkmenistan 11,471 5,366,277 500,000 53% 93
 Timor-Leste 3,345 1,268,671 63,875 31% 50
 Tonga 5,636 104,951 17,238 23% 164
 Trinidad and Tobago 28,911 1,328,100 727,874 53% 548
 Tunisia 10,505 11,143,908 2,700,000 70% 242
 Turkey 28,289 83,429,616 35,374,156 76% 424
 Tuvalu 3,793 11,097 3,989 64% 360
 Tanzania 2,129 49,082,996 9,276,995 35% 189
 Uganda 1,972 35,093,648 7,045,050 25% 201
 Ukraine 11,535 45,004,644 15,242,025 70% 339
 Uruguay 20,588 3,431,552 1,260,140 96% 367
 United States of America 61,498 326,687,488 265,224,528 83% 812
 Uzbekistan 5,164 29,774,500 4,000,000 50% 134
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 11,972 109,455 31,561 53% 288
 Venezuela 14,270 29,893,080 9,779,093 88% 327
 British Virgin Islands 24,216 20,645 21,099 49% 1,022
 United States Virgin Islands 30,437 105,784 146,500 96% 1,385
 Vietnam 5,089 86,932,496 9,570,300 37% 110
 Vanuatu 3,062 270,402 70,225 26% 260
 Samoa 6,211 187,665 27,399 18% 146
 Yemen 8,270 27,584,212 4,836,820 38% 175
 South Africa 12,667 51,729,344 18,457,232 67% 357
 Zambia 3,201 14,264,756 2,608,268 45% 183
 Zimbabwe 3,191 12,500,525 1,449,752 32% 116

Waste management by region

[edit]

China

[edit]

Municipal solid waste generation shows spatiotemporal variation. In spatial distribution, the point sources in eastern coastal regions are quite different. Guangdong, Shanghai and Tianjin produced MSW of 30.35, 7.85 and 2.95 Mt, respectively. In temporal distribution, during 2009–2018, Fujian province showed a 123% increase in MSW generation while Liaoning province showed only 7% increase, whereas Shanghai special zone had a decline of −11% after 2013. MSW composition characteristics are complicated. The major components such as kitchen waste, paper and rubber & plastics in different eastern coastal cities have fluctuation in the range of 52.8–65.3%, 3.5–11.9%, and 9.9–19.1%, respectively. Treatment rate of consumption waste is up to 99% with a sum of 52% landfill, 45% incineration, and 3% composting technologies, indicating that landfill still dominates MSW treatment.[99]

Morocco

[edit]

Morocco has seen benefits from implementing a $300 million sanitary landfill system. While it might appear to be a costly investment, the country's government predicts that it has saved them another $440 million in damages, or consequences of failing to dispose of waste properly.[100]

San Francisco

[edit]

San Francisco started to make changes to their waste management policies in 2009 with the expectation to be zero waste by 2030.[101] Council made changes such as making recycling and composting a mandatory practice for businesses and individuals, banning Styrofoam and plastic bags, putting charges on paper bags, and increasing garbage collection rates.[101][102] Businesses are fiscally rewarded for correct disposal of recycling and composting and taxed for incorrect disposal. Besides these policies, the waste bins were manufactured in various sizes. The compost bin is the largest, the recycling bin is second, and the garbage bin is the smallest. This encourages individuals to sort their waste thoughtfully with respect to the sizes. These systems are working because they were able to divert 80% of waste from the landfill, which is the highest rate of any major U.S. city.[101] Despite all these changes, Debbie Raphael, director of the San Francisco Department of the Environment, states that zero waste is still not achievable until all products are designed differently to be able to be recycled or compostable.[101]

Turkey

[edit]
 
 

Turkey generates about 30 million tons of solid municipal waste per year; the annual amount of waste generated per capita amounts to about 400 kilograms.[103] According to Waste Atlas, Turkey's waste collection coverage rate is 77%, whereas its unsound waste disposal rate is 69%.[103] While the country has a strong legal framework in terms of laying down common provisions for waste management, the implementation process has been considered slow since the beginning of 1990s.

United Kingdom

[edit]

Waste management policy in England is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). In England, the "Waste Management Plan for England" presents a compilation of waste management policies.[104] In the devolved nations such as Scotland Waste management policy is a responsibility of their own respective departments.

Zambia

[edit]

In Zambia, ASAZA is a community-based organization whose principal purpose is to complement the efforts of the Government and cooperating partners to uplift the standard of living for disadvantaged communities. The project's main objective is to minimize the problem of indiscriminate littering which leads to land degradation and pollution of the environment. ASAZA is also at the same time helping alleviate the problems of unemployment and poverty through income generation and payment of participants, women, and unskilled youths.[105]

E-waste

[edit]

A record 53.6 million metric tonnes (Mt) of electronic waste was generated worldwide in 2019, up 21 percent in just five years, according to the UN's Global E-waste Monitor 2020, released today. The new report also predicts global e-waste – discarded products with a battery or plug – will reach 74 Mt by 2030, almost a doubling of e-waste in just 16 years. This makes e-waste the world's fastest-growing domestic waste stream, fueled mainly by higher consumption rates of electric and electronic equipment, short life cycles, and few options for repair. Only 17.4 percent of 2019's e-waste was collected and recycled. This means that gold, silver, copper, platinum, and other high-value, recoverable materials conservatively valued at US$57 billion – a sum greater than the Gross Domestic Product of most countries – were mostly dumped or burned rather than being collected for treatment and reuse.[106] E-wasteis predicted to double by 2050.[107][108]

Transboundary movement of e-waste

[edit]

The Transboundary E-waste Flows Monitor quantified that 5.1 Mt (just below 10 percent of the total amount of global e-waste, 53.6 Mt) crossed country borders in 2019. To better understand the implication of transboundary movement, this study categorizes the transboundary movement of e-waste into controlled and uncontrolled movements and also considers both the receiving and sending regions.[109]

Scientific journals

[edit]

Related scientific journals in this area include:

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Also known as a tip, dump, rubbish tip, rubbish dump, garbage dump, trash dump, or dumping ground.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Environment Statistics". United Nations Statistics Division. Archived from the original on 17 March 2017. Retrieved 3 March 2017.
  2. ^ a b Giusti, L. (1 August 2009). "A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health". Waste Management. 29 (8): 2227–2239. Bibcode:2009WaMan..29.2227G. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2009.03.028. ISSN 0956-053X. PMID 19401266. Archived from the original on 25 November 2018. Retrieved 4 December 2020.
  3. ^ "Waste". Environment Statistics. United Nations Statistics Division. Archived from the original on 1 December 2017. Retrieved 3 March 2017.
  4. ^ "Wastes". U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2 November 2017. Retrieved 19 August 2023.
  5. ^ Davidson, Gary (June 2011). "Waste Management Practices: Literature Review" (PDF). Dalhousie University – Office of Sustainability. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 February 2012. Retrieved 3 March 2017.
  6. ^ a b "Solid Waste Management". World Bank. Archived from the original on 30 September 2020. Retrieved 28 September 2020.
  7. ^ "Glossary of environmental and waste management terms". Handbook of Solid Waste Management and Waste Minimization Technologies. Butterworth-Heinemann. 2003. pp. 337–465. doi:10.1016/B978-075067507-9/50010-3. ISBN 9780750675079.
  8. ^ "Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change". www.ipcc.ch. Retrieved 5 April 2022.
  9. ^ Gollakota, Anjani R. K.; Gautam, Sneha; Shu, Chi-Min (1 May 2020). "Inconsistencies of e-waste management in developing nations – Facts and plausible solutions". Journal of Environmental Management. 261: 110234. Bibcode:2020JEnvM.26110234G. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110234. ISSN 0301-4797. PMID 32148304. S2CID 212641354. Archived from the original on 20 September 2021. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
  10. ^ Elegba, S. B. (2006). "Import/export control of radioactive sources in Nigeria". Safety and security of radioactive sources: Towards a global system for the continuous control of sources throughout their life cycle. Proceedings of an international conference. Archived from the original on 20 September 2021. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
  11. ^ "E –Waste Management through Regulations" (PDF). International Journal of Engineering Inventions. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 July 2021. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
  12. ^ "Health crisis: Up to a billion tons of waste potentially burned in the open every year". phys.org. Archived from the original on 25 January 2021. Retrieved 13 February 2021.
  13. ^ Cook, E.; Velis, C. A. (6 January 2021). "Global Review on Safer End of Engineered Life". Global Review on Safer End of Engineered Life. Archived from the original on 22 February 2021. Retrieved 13 February 2021.
  14. ^ R. Dhana, Raju (2021). "Waste Management in India – An Overview" (PDF). United International Journal for Research & Technology (UIJRT). 02 (7): 175–196. eISSN 2582-6832. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 June 2021. Retrieved 21 June 2021.
  15. ^ Sankar, Ajith (2015). Environmental Management. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199458912.
  16. ^ Albert, Raleigh (4 August 2011). "The Proper Care and Use of a Garbage Disposal". Disposal Mag. Archived from the original on 13 July 2018. Retrieved 3 March 2017.
  17. ^ "14.6: Waste Management". Medicine LibreTexts. 30 August 2021. Retrieved 19 August 2023.
  18. ^ a b c d Guidelines for National Waste Management Strategies Moving from Challenges to Opportunities (PDF). United Nations Environmental Programme. 2013. ISBN 978-92-807-3333-4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  19. ^ "14.6: Waste Management". Medicine LibreTexts. 30 August 2021. Retrieved 17 June 2023.
  20. ^ "What is the polluter pays principle?". LSE. 11 May 2018. Archived from the original on 6 February 2020. Retrieved 7 February 2020.
  21. ^ Barbalace, Roberta Crowell (1 August 2003). "The History of Waste". EnvironmentalChemistry.com. Retrieved 9 December 2013.
  22. ^ Florence Nightingale, Selected Writings of Florence Nightingale Archived 1 November 2014 at the Wayback Machine, ed. Lucy Ridgely Seymer (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1954), pp. 38287
  23. ^ a b Herbert, Lewis (2007). "Centenary History of Waste and Waste Managers in London and South East England". Chartered Institution of Wastes Management.[permanent dead link]
  24. ^ Chadwick, Edwin (1842). Report...from the Poor Law Commissioners on an Inquiry into the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Population of Great Britain. London. pp. 369–372. Archived from the original on 30 May 2019. Retrieved 13 January 2015 – via The Victorian Web.
  25. ^ Hamlin, Christopher; Sheard, Sally (29 August 1998). "Revolutions in public health: 1848, and 1998?". BMJ: British Medical Journal. 317 (7158): 587–591. doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7158.587. ISSN 0959-8138. PMC 1113797. PMID 9721121.
  26. ^ a b "History of Solid Waste Management". Washington, D.C.: National Waste & Recycling Association. Archived from the original on 24 October 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013.
  27. ^ Maier, D. (1979). "Nineteenth-Century Asante Medical Practices". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 21 (1): 63–81. doi:10.1017/S0010417500012652. JSTOR 178452. PMID 11614369. S2CID 19587869.
  28. ^ Gandy, Matthew (1994). Recycling and the Politics of Urban Waste. Earthscan. ISBN 9781853831683.
  29. ^ "Covered Bodies". Archived from the original on 6 January 2015.
  30. ^ "Siemens" (PDF). www.siemens.com. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 January 2021. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  31. ^ Kaufman, Scott M.; Krishnan, Nikhil; Themelis, Nickolas J. (1 August 2010). "A Screening Life Cycle Metric to Benchmark the Environmental Sustainability of Waste Management Systems". Environmental Science & Technology. 44 (15): 5949–5955. Bibcode:2010EnST...44.5949K. doi:10.1021/es100505u. ISSN 0013-936X. PMID 20666561.
  32. ^ "Segregation of waste". The Nation. 2 February 2019. Archived from the original on 25 September 2020. Retrieved 28 September 2020.
  33. ^ "Why should I segregate my waste properly? | EMS". www.em-solutions.co.uk. 10 August 2016. Archived from the original on 22 September 2020. Retrieved 28 September 2020.
  34. ^ Raj, K.; Prasad, K. K.; Bansal, N. K. (1 April 2006). "Radioactive waste management practices in India". Nuclear Engineering and Design. India's Reactors: Past, Present, Future. 236 (7): 914–930. Bibcode:2006NuEnD.236..914R. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2005.09.036. ISSN 0029-5493. Archived from the original on 12 January 2012. Retrieved 4 December 2020.
  35. ^ Tomita, Andrew; Cuadros, Diego F; Burns, Jonathan K; Tanser, Frank; Slotow, Rob (16 June 2020). "Exposure to waste sites and their impact on health: a panel and geospatial analysis of nationally representative data from South Africa, 2008–2015". The Lancet. Planetary Health. 4 (6): e223–e234. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30101-7. ISSN 2542-5196. PMC 7302423. PMID 32559439.
  36. ^ "Why is poverty linked with exposure to toxic chemicals?". www.medicalnewstoday.com. 12 August 2021. Retrieved 6 November 2023.
  37. ^ "Regulatory and Guidance Information by Topic: Waste". Environmental Protection Agency. 10 November 2014.
  38. ^ "Overview of technologies for the treatment of infectious and sharp waste from health care facilities". www.who.int. Retrieved 7 November 2023.
  39. ^ Velis, Costas; Conversation, The. "Health crisis: Up to a billion tons of waste potentially burned in the open every year". phys.org. Retrieved 7 November 2023.
  40. ^ "Financing of Solid Waste Management Projects | BioEnergy Consult". 28 September 2019. Archived from the original on 23 October 2020. Retrieved 28 September 2020.
  41. ^ Ergun, Merve (5 August 2022). "The Waste Tax in Italy". doi:10.2139/ssrn.4182310. S2CID 251685226. cite journal: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  42. ^ "01-DMG" (PDF). web.mit.edu. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 June 2018. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  43. ^ Carroll, Gregory J.; Thurnau, Robert C.; Fournier, Donald J. (5 March 2012). "Mercury Emissions from a Hazardous Waste Incinerator Equipped with a State-of-the-Art WetScrubber". Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 45 (9): 730–736. doi:10.1080/10473289.1995.10467401.
  44. ^ "Energies". www.mdpi.com. Archived from the original on 11 October 2020. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
  45. ^ "what is recycling". What is Recycling. 28 September 2020 – via conserve energy future.[permanent dead link]
  46. ^ City of Chicago, Illinois. Department of Streets and Sanitation. "What is Single Stream Recycling." Archived 23 February 2014 at the Wayback Machine Accessed 2013-12-09.
  47. ^ Montgomery County, Maryland. Division of Solid Waste Services. "Curbside Collection." Archived 17 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine Accessed 2013-12-09.
  48. ^ "Types of Recycling". ISM Waste & Recycling. Archived from the original on 6 February 2020. Retrieved 28 September 2020.
  49. ^ Walker, T. R. (2018). China's ban on imported plastic waste could be a game changer. Nature, 553(7689), 405–405.
  50. ^ "Waste Management – Biological Reprocessing". 3 July 2010. Archived from the original on 30 September 2020. Retrieved 28 September 2020.
  51. ^ a b "Energy Recovery from Waste". USEPA. 2014. Archived from the original on 7 April 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  52. ^ "Waste Hierarchy". New Energy Corporation. 2014. Archived from the original on 16 May 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  53. ^ CzajczyÅ„ska, D.; Anguilano, L.; Ghazal, H.; KrzyżyÅ„ska, R.; Reynolds, A.J.; Spencer, N.; Jouhara, H. (September 2017). "Potential of pyrolysis processes in the waste management sector". Thermal Science and Engineering Progress. 3: 171–197. Bibcode:2017TSEP....3..171C. doi:10.1016/j.tsep.2017.06.003.
  54. ^ Oxford Reference – Pyrolysis
  55. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica
  56. ^ By Prabir Basu: Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis, and Torrefaction: Practical Design and Theory
  57. ^ Chen, Dezhen; Yin, Lijie; Wang, Huan; He, Pinjing (December 2014). "Pyrolysis technologies for municipal solid waste: A review". Waste Management. 34 (12): 2466–2486. Bibcode:2014WaMan..34.2466C. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.08.004. PMID 25256662.
  58. ^ "Frequent Questions". USEPA. 2012. Archived from the original on 7 April 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  59. ^ a b "Resource Recovery". Government of Montana. 2012. Archived from the original on 7 April 2014. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  60. ^ a b "What is Resource Recovery?". Grand Traverse County. 2006. Archived from the original on 7 April 2014. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  61. ^ a b c d Kabongo, Jean D. (2013), "Waste Valorization", in Idowu, Samuel O.; Capaldi, Nicholas; Zu, Liangrong; Gupta, Ananda Das (eds.), Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 2701–2706, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_680, ISBN 978-3-642-28036-8, retrieved 17 June 2021
  62. ^ "Waste Valorization". www.aiche.org. Retrieved 17 June 2021.
  63. ^ a b "When a waste becomes a resource for energy and new materials". www.biogreen-energy.com. 28 December 2017. Retrieved 17 June 2021.
  64. ^ Nzihou, Ange; Lifset, Reid (March 2010). "Waste Valorization, Loop-Closing, and Industrial Ecology". Journal of Industrial Ecology. 14 (2): 196–199. Bibcode:2010JInEc..14..196N. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00242.x. S2CID 155060338.
  65. ^ a b "Waste and Biomass Valorization". Springer. Retrieved 17 June 2021.
  66. ^ Arancon, Rick Arneil D.; Lin, Carol Sze Ki; Chan, King Ming; Kwan, Tsz Him; Luque, Rafael (2013). "Advances on waste valorization: new horizons for a more sustainable society". Energy Science & Engineering. 1 (2): 53–71. Bibcode:2013EneSE...1...53A. doi:10.1002/ese3.9. ISSN 2050-0505.
  67. ^ "Liquid Waste | Waste Management". u.osu.edu. Retrieved 28 September 2020.
  68. ^ Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL, Stensel HD (2003). Metcalf & Eddy Wastewater Engineering: treatment and reuse (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Company. ISBN 0-07-041878-0.
  69. ^ George Tchobanoglous; Franklin L. Burton; H. David Stensel (2003). "Chapter 3: Analysis and Selection of Wastewater Flowrates and Constituent Loadings". Metcalf & Eddy Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-041878-0. OCLC 48053912.
  70. ^ Von Sperling, M. (2007). "Wastewater Characteristics, Treatment and Disposal". Water Intelligence Online. 6. doi:10.2166/9781780402086. ISSN 1476-1777. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  71. ^ "Pollution Prevention Case Studies". Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 11 August 2021.
  72. ^ Henze, M.; van Loosdrecht, M.C.M.; Ekama, G.A.; Brdjanovic, D. (2008). Biological Wastewater Treatment: Principles, Modelling and Design. IWA Publishing. doi:10.2166/9781780401867. ISBN 978-1-78040-186-7. S2CID 108595515. (Spanish and Arabic versions are available online for free)
  73. ^ Von Sperling, M. (2015). "Wastewater Characteristics, Treatment and Disposal". Water Intelligence Online. 6: 9781780402086. doi:10.2166/9781780402086. ISSN 1476-1777.
  74. ^ "Centrifuge Thickening and Dewatering. Fact sheet". EPA. September 2000. EPA 832-F-00-053.
  75. ^ "Belt Filter Press. Fact sheet". Biosolids. EPA. September 2000. EPA 832-F-00-057.
  76. ^ Panagos, Panos; Ballabio, Cristiano; Lugato, Emanuele; Jones, Arwyn; Borrelli, Pasquale; Scarpa, Simone; Orgiazzi, Albert o; Montanarella, Luca (9 July 2018). "Potential Sources of Anthropogenic Copper Inputs to European Agricultural Soils". Sustainability. 10 (7): 2380. doi:10.3390/su10072380. ISSN 2071-1050.
  77. ^ C., Reed, Sherwood (1988). Natural systems for waste management and treatment. Middlebrooks, E. Joe., Crites, Ronald W. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 268–290. ISBN 0070515212. OCLC 16087827.cite book: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  78. ^ "Waste Minimization". ehs.ucsc.edu. Archived from the original on 21 January 2021. Retrieved 28 September 2020.
  79. ^ "Removing food remains to reduce waste". Recycling Guide. 14 February 2008. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
  80. ^ Schneider, Michael; Johnson, Liz. "Lightweighting". Projects in Scientific Computing. Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh. Archived from the original on 25 February 2009. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
  81. ^ a b c "3: Waste Generation" (PDF). What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management (Report). Urban Development. World Bank. pp. 8–13.
  82. ^ Nixon, Rob (2011). Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  83. ^ Grossman, Gene M.; Krueger, Alan B. (1994). "Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement". In Garber, Peter (ed.). The U.S. Mexico Free Trade Agreement. MIT Press. pp. 13–56. doi:10.3386/w3914. ISBN 0-262-07152-5.
  84. ^ Smith, Jackie (March 2001). "Globalizing Resistance: The Battle of Seattle and the Future of Social Movements" (PDF). Mobilization: An International Quarterly. 6 (1): 1–19. doi:10.17813/maiq.6.1.y63133434t8vq608.
  85. ^ 15 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 373 (1992)Fallacies of Free Market Environmentalism, The ; Blumm, Michael C.
  86. ^ Polychroniou, CJ. "Neoliberalism and the Politics of Higher Education: An Interview With Henry A. Giroux." Truthout. N.p., 26 Mar. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. <http://truth-out.org/news/item/15237-predatory-capitalism-and-the-attack-on-higher-education-an-interview-with-henry-a-giroux>.
  87. ^ Gérard Duménil; Dominique Lévy (23 September 2005). "Neoliberalism – Neoimperialism" (PDF). EconomiX-CNRS and PSE-CNRS: 1–12. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 July 2014.
  88. ^ "Global Trade Liberalization and the Developing Countries". An IMF Issues Brief. International Monetary Fund. November 2001. Retrieved 11 April 2014.
  89. ^ a b c Jay Johnson; Gary Pecquet; Leon Taylor (Fall 2007). "Potential Gains from Trade in Dirty Industries: Revisiting Lawrence Summers' Memo" (PDF). Cato Journal. 27 (3). Cato Institute: 398–402.
  90. ^ Dao-Tuan, Anh; Nguyen-Thi-Ngoc, Anh; Nguyen-Trong, Khanh; Bui-Tuan, Anh; Dinh-Thi-Hai, Van (2018), Chen, Yuanfang; Duong, Trung Q. (eds.), "Optimizing Vehicle Routing with Path and Carbon Dioxide Emission for Municipal Solid Waste Collection in Ha Giang, Vietnam", Industrial Networks and Intelligent Systems, Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol. 221, Springer International Publishing, pp. 212–227, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74176-5_19, ISBN 9783319741758
  91. ^ Abarca Guerrero, Lilliana; Maas, Ger; Hogland, William (2013). "Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries" (PDF). Waste Management. 33 (1): 220–232. Bibcode:2013WaMan..33..220G. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.008. PMID 23098815. S2CID 205673283. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 June 2024 – via Academia Ucentral.
  92. ^ Zafar, Salman (29 January 2020). "Waste Management Challenges in Developing Nations". BioEnergy Consult. Archived from the original on 27 September 2020. Retrieved 28 September 2020.
  93. ^ Claire Swedberg (4 February 2014). "Air-Trak Brings Visibility to Waste Management". RFID Journal. Archived from the original on 2 October 2015. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
  94. ^ Abdoli, S (28 September 2020). "RFID Application in Municipal Solid Waste Management system". International Journal of Environmental Research – via ResearchGate.
  95. ^ "Sensors Used in Waste Management". NORD SENSE. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
  96. ^ "Madrid: Eliminating Overflowing Waste with Reliable and High-Quality Data". NORD SENSE. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
  97. ^ United Nations Environment Programme, UN. "Global Waste Management Outlook 2024" (PDF). www.unep.org. Retrieved 4 April 2024.
  98. ^ "No time to waste: A sustainability challenge for cities". Atlas of Sustainable Development Goals 2023. Retrieved 20 May 2024.
  99. ^ Ding, Yin (2021). "A review of China's municipal solid waste (MSW) and comparison with international regions: Management and technologies in treatment and resource utilization". Journal of Cleaner Production. 293: 126144. Bibcode:2021JCPro.29326144D. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126144. S2CID 233579268.
  100. ^ "How the world should cope with its growing piles of rubbish". The Economist. Archived from the original on 3 October 2018. Retrieved 3 October 2018.
  101. ^ a b c d "Zero Waste Case Study: San Francisco". U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1 March 2013. Retrieved 3 August 2023.
  102. ^ Brigham, Katie (14 July 2018). "How San Francisco sends less trash to the landfill than any other major U.S. city". CNBC. Retrieved 3 August 2023.
  103. ^ a b "Turkey". Waste Atlas. University of Leed and ISWA. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  104. ^ DEFRA, Waste management plan for England Archived 25 January 2021 at the Wayback Machine, accessed 22 December 2020
  105. ^ "Project Detail". sgp.undp.org. Retrieved 28 September 2020.
  106. ^ "The Global E-waste Monitor 2020 – Quantities, flows, and the circular economy potential". UNITA.
  107. ^ "Map". unitar.
  108. ^ Parajuly K, Kuehr R, Awasthi AK, Fitzpatrick C, Lepawsky J, Smith E, Widmer R, Zeng X (2019). Future E-waste Scenarios (PDF). unitar (Report). StEP (Bonn), UNU ViE-SCYCLE (Bonn) & UNEP IETC (Osaka).
  109. ^ "The Global Transboundary E-waste Flows Monitor 2022". Unitar. United Nation Institute for Training and Research.
[edit]

 

Customer satisfaction is a term frequently used in marketing to evaluate customer experience. It is a measure of how products and services supplied by a company meet or surpass customer expectation. Customer satisfaction is defined as "the number of customers, or percentage of total customers, whose reported experience with a firm, its products, or its services (ratings) exceeds specified satisfaction goals."[1] Enhancing customer satisfaction and fostering customer loyalty are pivotal for businesses, given the significant importance of improving the balance between customer attitudes before and after the consumption process.[2]

Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory is the most widely accepted theoretical framework for explaining customer satisfaction.[3] However, other frameworks, such as Equity Theory, Attribution Theory, Contrast Theory, Assimilation Theory, and various others, are also used to gain insights into customer satisfaction.[4][5][6] However, traditionally applied satisfaction surveys are influence by biases related to social desirability, availability heuristics, memory limitations, respondents' mood while answering questions, as well as affective, unconscious, and dynamic nature of customer experience.[2]

The Marketing Accountability Standards Board endorses the definitions, purposes, and measures that appear in Marketing Metrics as part of its ongoing Common Language in Marketing Project.[7] In a survey of nearly 200 senior marketing managers, 71 percent responded that they found a customer satisfaction metric very useful in managing and monitoring their businesses.[1] Customer satisfaction is viewed as a key performance indicator within business and is often part of a Balanced Scorecard. In a competitive marketplace where businesses compete for customers, customer satisfaction is seen as a major differentiator and increasingly has become an important element of business strategy.[8]

Purpose

[edit]
A business ideally is continually seeking feedback to improve customer satisfaction.

Customer satisfaction provides a leading indicator of consumer purchase intentions and loyalty.[1] The authors also wrote that "customer satisfaction data are among the most frequently collected indicators of market perceptions. Their principal use is twofold:" [1]

  1. "Within organizations, the collection, analysis and dissemination of these data send a message about the importance of tending to customers and ensuring that they have a positive experience with the company's goods and services."[1]
  2. "Although sales or market share can indicate how well a firm is performing currently, satisfaction is perhaps the best indicator of how likely it is that the firm’s customers will make further purchases in the future. Much research has focused on the relationship between customer satisfaction and retention. Studies indicate that the ramifications of satisfaction are most strongly realized at the extremes."

On a five-point scale, "individuals who rate their satisfaction level as '5' are likely to become return customers and might even evangelize for the firm.[9] A second important metric related to satisfaction is willingness to recommend. This metric is defined as "[t]he percentage of surveyed customers who indicate that they would recommend a brand to friends." A previous study about customer satisfaction stated that when a customer is satisfied with a product, he or she might recommend it to friends, relatives and colleagues.[10] This can be a powerful marketing advantage. According to Faris et al., "[i]ndividuals who rate their satisfaction level as '1,' by contrast, are unlikely to return. Further, they can hurt the firm by making negative comments about it to prospective customers. Willingness to recommend is a key metric relating to customer satisfaction."[1]

Theoretical ground

[edit]

In the research literature, the antecedents of customer satisfaction are studied from different perspectives. These perspectives extend from the psychological to the physical as well as from the normative perspective. However, in much of the literature, research has been focused on two basic constructs, (a) expectations prior to purchase or use of a product and (b) customer perception of the performance of that product after using it.

A customer's expectations about a product bear on how the customer thinks the product will perform. Consumers are thought to have various "types" of expectations when forming opinions about a product's anticipated performance. Miller (1977) described four types of expectations: ideal, expected, minimum tolerable, and desirable. Day (1977) underlined different types of expectations, including ones about costs, the nature of the product, benefits, and social value.

It is considered that customers judge products on a limited set of norms and attributes. Olshavsky and Miller (1972) and Olson and Dover (1976) designed their researches as to manipulate actual product performance, and their aim was to find out how perceived performance ratings were influenced by expectations. These studies took out the discussions about explaining the differences between expectations and perceived performance."[11]

In some research studies, scholars have been able to establish that customer satisfaction has a strong emotional, i.e., affective, component.[12] Still others show that the cognitive and affective components of customer satisfaction reciprocally influence each other over time to determine overall satisfaction.[13]

Especially for durable goods that are consumed over time, there is value to taking a dynamic perspective on customer satisfaction. Within a dynamic perspective, customer satisfaction can evolve over time as customers repeatedly use a product or interact with a service. The satisfaction experienced with each interaction (transactional satisfaction) can influence the overall, cumulative satisfaction. Scholars showed that it is not just overall customer satisfaction, but also customer loyalty that evolves over time.[14]

The Disconfirmation Model

[edit]

"The Disconfirmation Model is based on the comparison of customers’ [expectations] and their [perceived performance] ratings. Specifically, an individual’s expectations are confirmed when a product performs as expected. It is negatively confirmed when a product performs more poorly than expected. The disconfirmation is positive when a product performs over the expectations (Churchill & Suprenant 1982). There are four constructs to describe the traditional disconfirmation paradigm mentioned as expectations, performance, disconfirmation and satisfaction."[11] "Satisfaction is considered as an outcome of purchase and use, resulting from the buyers’ comparison of expected rewards and incurred costs of the purchase in relation to the anticipated consequences. In operation, satisfaction is somehow similar to attitude as it can be evaluated as the sum of satisfactions with some features of a product."[11] "In the literature, cognitive and affective models of satisfaction are also developed and considered as alternatives (Pfaff, 1977). Churchill and Suprenant in 1982, evaluated various studies in the literature and formed an overview of Disconfirmation process in the following figure:" [11]

Construction

[edit]
A four-item six-point customer service satisfaction form

Organizations need to retain existing customers while targeting non-customers.[15] Measuring customer satisfaction provides an indication of how successful the organization is at providing products and/or services to the marketplace.

"Customer satisfaction is measured at the individual level, but it is almost always reported at an aggregate level. It can be, and often is, measured along various dimensions. A hotel, for example, might ask customers to rate their experience with its front desk and check-in service, with the room, with the amenities in the room, with the restaurants, and so on. Additionally, in a holistic sense, the hotel might ask about overall satisfaction 'with your stay.'"[1]

As research on consumption experiences grows, evidence suggests that consumers purchase goods and services for a combination of two types of benefits: hedonic and utilitarian.[16] Hedonic benefits are associated with the sensory and experiential attributes of the product. Utilitarian benefits of a product are associated with the more instrumental and functional attributes of the product (Batra and Athola 1990).[17]

Customer satisfaction is an ambiguous and abstract concept and the actual manifestation of the state of satisfaction will vary from person to person and product/service to product/service. The state of satisfaction depends on a number of both psychological and physical variables which correlate with satisfaction behaviors such as return and recommend rate. The level of satisfaction can also vary depending on other options the customer may have and other products against which the customer can compare the organization's products.

Work done by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (Leonard L)[18] between 1985 and 1988 provides the basis for the measurement of customer satisfaction with a service by using the gap between the customer's expectation of performance and their perceived experience of performance. This provides the measurer with a satisfaction "gap" which is objective and quantitative in nature. Work done by Cronin and Taylor propose the "confirmation/disconfirmation" theory of combining the "gap" described by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry as two different measures (perception and expectation of performance) into a single measurement of performance according to expectation.

The usual measures of customer satisfaction involve a survey[19] using a Likert scale. The customer is asked to evaluate each statement in terms of their perceptions and expectations of performance of the organization being measured.[1][20]

Good quality measures need to have high satisfaction loading, good reliability, and low error variances. In an empirical study comparing commonly used satisfaction measures it was found that two multi-item semantic differential scales performed best across both hedonic and utilitarian service consumption contexts. A study by Wirtz & Lee (2003),[21] found that a six-item 7-point semantic differential scale (for example, Oliver and Swan 1983), which is a six-item 7-point bipolar scale, consistently performed best across both hedonic and utilitarian services. It loaded most highly on satisfaction, had the highest item reliability, and had by far the lowest error variance across both studies. In the study,[21] the six items asked respondents’ evaluation of their most recent experience with ATM services and ice cream restaurant, along seven points within these six items: “pleased me to displeased me”, “contented with to disgusted with”, “very satisfied with to very dissatisfied with”, “did a good job for me to did a poor job for me”, “wise choice to poor choice” and “happy with to unhappy with”. A semantic differential (4 items) scale (e.g., Eroglu and Machleit 1990),[22] which is a four-item 7-point bipolar scale, was the second best performing measure, which was again consistent across both contexts. In the study, respondents were asked to evaluate their experience with both products, along seven points within these four items: “satisfied to dissatisfied”, “favorable to unfavorable”, “pleasant to unpleasant” and “I like it very much to I didn’t like it at all”.[21] The third best scale was single-item percentage measure, a one-item 7-point bipolar scale (e.g., Westbrook 1980).[23] Again, the respondents were asked to evaluate their experience on both ATM services and ice cream restaurants, along seven points within “delighted to terrible”.[21]

Finally, all measures captured both affective and cognitive aspects of satisfaction, independent of their scale anchors.[21] Affective measures capture a consumer’s attitude (liking/disliking) towards a product, which can result from any product information or experience. On the other hand, cognitive element is defined as an appraisal or conclusion on how the product’s performance compared against expectations (or exceeded or fell short of expectations), was useful (or not useful), fit the situation (or did not fit), exceeded the requirements of the situation (or did not exceed).

A single-item four-point HappyOrNot customer satisfaction feedback terminal

Recent research shows that in most commercial applications, such as firms conducting customer surveys, a single-item overall satisfaction scale performs just as well as a multi-item scale.[24] Especially in larger scale studies where a researcher needs to gather data from a large number of customers, a single-item scale may be preferred because it can reduce total survey error.[25] An interesting recent finding from re-interviewing the same clients of a firm is that only 50% of respondents give the same satisfaction rating when re-interviewed, even when there has been no service encounter between the client and firm between surveys.[26] The study found a 'regression to the mean' effect in customer satisfaction responses, whereby the respondent group who gave unduly low scores in the first survey regressed up toward the mean level in the second, while the group who gave unduly high scores tended to regress downward toward the overall mean level in the second survey.

Methodologies

[edit]

American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is a scientific standard of customer satisfaction. Academic research has shown that the national ACSI score is a strong predictor of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth, and an even stronger predictor of Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) growth.[27] On the microeconomic level, academic studies have shown that ACSI data is related to a firm's financial performance in terms of return on investment (ROI), sales, long-term firm value (Tobin's q), cash flow, cash flow volatility, human capital performance, portfolio returns, debt financing, risk, and consumer spending.[28][29] Increasing ACSI scores have been shown to predict loyalty, word-of-mouth recommendations, and purchase behavior. The ACSI measures customer satisfaction annually for more than 200 companies in 43 industries and 10 economic sectors. In addition to quarterly reports, the ACSI methodology can be applied to private sector companies and government agencies in order to improve loyalty and purchase intent.[30]

The Kano model is a theory of product development and customer satisfaction developed in the 1980s by Professor Noriaki Kano that classifies customer preferences into five categories: Attractive, One-Dimensional, Must-Be, Indifferent, Reverse. The Kano model offers some insight into the product attributes which are perceived to be important to customers.

SERVQUAL or RATER is a service-quality framework that has been incorporated into customer-satisfaction surveys (e.g., the revised Norwegian Customer Satisfaction Barometer[31]) to indicate the gap between customer expectations and experience.

J.D. Power and Associates provides another measure of customer satisfaction, known for its top-box approach and automotive industry rankings. J.D. Power and Associates' marketing research consists primarily of consumer surveys and is publicly known for the value of its product awards.

Other research and consulting firms have customer satisfaction solutions as well. These include A.T. Kearney's Customer Satisfaction Audit process,[32] which incorporates the Stages of Excellence framework and which helps define a company’s status against eight critically identified dimensions.

The Net Promoter Score (NPS) is also used to measure customer satisfaction. On a scale of 0 to 10, this score measures the willingness of customers to recommend a company to others. Despite many points of criticism from a scientific point of view, the NPS is widely used in practice.[33] Its popularity and broad use have been attributed to its simplicity and its openly available methodology.

For B2B customer satisfaction surveys, where there is a small customer base, a high response rate to the survey is desirable.[34] The American Customer Satisfaction Index (2012) found that response rates for paper-based surveys were around 10% and the response rates for e-surveys (web, wap and e-mail) were averaging between 5% and 15% - which can only provide a straw poll of the customers' opinions.

In the European Union member states, many methods for measuring impact and satisfaction of e-government services are in use, which the eGovMoNet project sought to compare and harmonize.[35]

These customer satisfaction methodologies have not been independently audited by the Marketing Accountability Standards Board according to MMAP (Marketing Metric Audit Protocol).

There are many operational strategies for improving customer satisfaction but at the most fundamental level you need to understand customer expectations.

Recently there has been a growing interest in predicting customer satisfaction using big data and machine learning methods (with behavioral and demographic features as predictors) to take targeted preventive actions aimed at avoiding churn, complaints and dissatisfaction.[36]

Prevalence

[edit]

A 2008 survey found that only 3.5% of Chinese consumers were satisfied with their online shopping experience.[37] A 2020 Arizona State University survey found that customer satisfaction in the United States is deteriorating. Roughly two-thirds of survey participants reported feeling "rage" over their experiences as consumers. A multi-decade decline in consumer satisfaction since the 1970s was observed. A majority of respondents felt that their customer service complaints were not sufficiently addressed by businesses.[38] A 2022 report found that consumer experiences in the United States had declined substantially in the 2 years since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.[39] In the United Kingdom in 2022, customer service complaints were at record highs, owing to staffing shortages and the supply crisis related to the COVID pandemic.[40]

See also

[edit]
  • Customer experience
  • Business case
  • Computer user satisfaction
  • Customer satisfaction research
  • Customer service
  • Customer Loyalty
  • The International Customer Service Institute

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Farris, Paul W.; Bendle, Neil T.; Pfeifer, Phillip E.; Reibstein, David J. (2010). Marketing Metrics: The Definitive Guide to Measuring Marketing Performance. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. ISBN 0-13-705829-2..
  2. ^ a b Godovykh, Maksim; Tasci, Asli D. A. (2020-09-16). "Satisfaction vs experienced utility: current issues and opportunities". Current Issues in Tourism. 23 (18): 2273–2282. doi:10.1080/13683500.2020.1769573. ISSN 1368-3500.
  3. ^ Oliver, Richard L. (November 1980). "A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions". Journal of Marketing Research. 17 (4): 460–469. doi:10.1177/002224378001700405. ISSN 0022-2437.
  4. ^ Adams, J. Stacy (November 1963). "Towards an understanding of inequity". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67 (5): 422–436. doi:10.1037/h0040968. ISSN 0096-851X.
  5. ^ Kelley, Harold H. (February 1973). "The processes of causal attribution". American Psychologist. 28 (2): 107–128. doi:10.1037/h0034225. ISSN 1935-990X.
  6. ^ Anderson, Rolph E. (February 1973). "Consumer Dissatisfaction: The Effect of Disconfirmed Expectancy on Perceived Product Performance". Journal of Marketing Research. 10 (1): 38. doi:10.2307/3149407. ISSN 0022-2437.
  7. ^ http://www.commonlanguage.wikispaces.net/ Archived 2019-04-05 at the Wayback Machine Material used from this publication in this article has been licensed under Creative Commons Share Alike and Gnu Free Documentation License. See talk.
  8. ^ Gitman, Lawrence J.; Carl D. McDaniel (2005). The Future of Business: The Essentials. Mason, Ohio: South-Western. ISBN 978-0-324-32028-2.
  9. ^ Coelho, Pedro S.; Esteves, Susana P. (May 2007). "The Choice between a Fivepoint and a Ten-point Scale in the Framework of Customer Satisfaction Measurement". International Journal of Market Research. 49 (3): 313–339. doi:10.1177/147078530704900305. ISSN 1470-7853. S2CID 166325179.
  10. ^ Dawes, John; Stocchi, Lara; Dall’Olmo-Riley, Francesca (May 2020). "Over-time variation in individual's customer satisfaction scores" (PDF). International Journal of Market Research. 62 (3): 262–271. doi:10.1177/1470785320907538. ISSN 1470-7853. S2CID 213159177.
  11. ^ a b c d Kucukosmanoglu, Ahmet Nuri; Sensoy Ertan (2010). "Customer Satisfaction: A Central Phenomenon in Marketing". [1]
  12. ^ Westbrook, Robert A., and Richard L. Oliver. "The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction." Journal of consumer research (1991): 84-91.
  13. ^ Homburg, Christian, Nicole Koschate, and Wayne D. Hoyer. "The role of cognition and affect in the formation of customer satisfaction: a dynamic perspective." Journal of Marketing 70.3 (2006): 21-31.
  14. ^ Johnson, Michael D., Andreas Herrmann, and Frank Huber. "The evolution of loyalty intentions." Journal of marketing 70.2 (2006): 122-132.
  15. ^ John, Joby (2003). Fundamentals of Customer-Focused Management: Competing Through Service. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. ISBN 978-1-56720-564-0.
  16. ^ Parker, Christopher J.; Wang, Huchen (2016). "Examining hedonic and utilitarian motivations for m-commerce fashion retail app engagement". Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 20 (4): 487–506. doi:10.1108/JFMM-02-2016-0015.
  17. ^ Batra, Rajeev and Olli T. Athola (1990), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes,” Marketing Letters, 2 (2), 159-70.
  18. ^ Berry, Leonard L.; A. Parasuraman (1991). Marketing Services: Competing Through Quality. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-903079-0.
  19. ^ Kessler, Sheila (2003). Customer satisfaction toolkit for ISO 9001:2000. Milwaukee, Wis.: ASQ Quality Press. ISBN 0-87389-559-2.
  20. ^ Wirtz, Jochen and John E. G. Bateson (1995), “An Experimental Investigation of Halo Effects in Satisfaction Measures of Service Attributes,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6 (3), 84-102.
  21. ^ a b c d e Wirtz, Jochen; Chung Lee, Meng (2003), “An Empirical Study on The Quality and Context-specific Applicability of Commonly Used Customer Satisfaction Measures,” Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5, No. 4, 345-355.
  22. ^ Eroglu, Sergin A. and Karen A. Machleit (1990), “An Empirical Study of Retail Crowding: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Retailing, 66 (Summer), 201-21.
  23. ^ Westbrook, Robert A. (1980), “A Rating Scale for Measuring Product/Service Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing, 44 (Fall), 68-72.
  24. ^ Drolet, Aimee L., and Donald G. Morrison. "Do we really need multiple-item measures in service research?." Journal of service research 3, no. 3 (2001): 196-204.
  25. ^ Salant, Priscilla, and Don A. Dillman. "How to Conduct your own Survey: Leading professional give you proven techniques for getting reliable results." (1995)
  26. ^ Dawes, J. Stocchi, L., Dall'Olmo-Riley, F. "Over-time Variation in Customer Satisfaction Scores", International Journal of Market Research, March 2020
  27. ^ Fornell, C., R.T. Rust and M.G. Dekimpe (2010). "The Effect of Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Spending Growth," Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1), 28-35.
  28. ^ Anderson, E.W., C. Fornell & S.K. Mazvancheryl (2004). "Customer Satisfaction and Shareholder Value." Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, October, 172-185.
  29. ^ Fornell, C., S. Mithas, F.V. Morgeson III, and M.S. Krishnan (2006). "Customer Satisfaction and Stock Prices: High Returns, Low Risk," Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 3−14.
  30. ^ Morgeson, F. V., & Petrescu, C. (2011). "Do They All Perform Alike? An Examination of Perceived Performance, Citizen Satisfaction and Trust with US Federal Agencies." International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(3), 451-479.
  31. ^ Johnson, Michael D.; Anders Gustafssonb; Tor Wallin Andreassenc; Line Lervikc; Jaesung Cha (2001). "The evolution and future of national customer satisfaction index models". Journal of Economic Psychology. 22 (2): 217–245. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.134.7658. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(01)00030-7. ISSN 0167-4870.
  32. ^ Bluestein, Abram; Michael Moriarty; Ronald J Sanderson (2003). The Customer Satisfaction Audit. Axminster: Cambridge Strategy Publications. ISBN 978-1-902433-98-1.
  33. ^ Reichheld, Frederick F. (December 2003). "One Number You Need to Grow". Harvard Business Review. 81 (12): 46–54, 124. PMID 14712543.
  34. ^ Customer Relationship Management, Emerging Concepts, Tools and Application, Edited by Jagsish N Sheth, Atul Parvatiyar and G Shainesh, published by Tata McGraw-Hill Education - see Chapter 21, pages 193 to 199
  35. ^ European Commission: eGovMoNet: eGovernment Monitor Network.
  36. ^ Pokryshevskaya, Elena B.; Antipov, Evgeny A. (2017). "Profiling satisfied and dissatisfied hotel visitors using publicly available data from a booking platform". International Journal of Hospitality Management. 67: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.07.009.
  37. ^ Liu, Xia; He, Mengqiao; Gao, Fang; Xie, Peihong (1 January 2008). "An empirical study of online shopping customer satisfaction in China: a holistic perspective". International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 36 (11): 919–940. doi:10.1108/09590550810911683. ISSN 0959-0552.
  38. ^ "Customer service is worse than ever and so is consumers' rage". ASU News. 18 June 2020.
  39. ^ Deighton, Katie (7 June 2022). "Customer Experience Is Getting Worse". Wall Street Journal.
  40. ^ Clark, Jess (5 July 2022). "UK customer service complaints at highest level on record, research finds". The Guardian.
[edit]
  • Customer Satisfaction: A Central Phenomenon in Marketing
Photo
Photo
Photo
Photo
Photo

Driving Directions in New Hanover County


Driving Directions From Sabor Hispano 2 to The Dumpo Junk Removal & Hauling
Driving Directions From Pho Vanhly Noodle House to The Dumpo Junk Removal & Hauling
Driving Directions From Harbor Way Gardens to The Dumpo Junk Removal & Hauling
Driving Directions From Jungle Rapids Family Fun Park to The Dumpo Junk Removal & Hauling
Driving Directions From Airlie Gardens to The Dumpo Junk Removal & Hauling
Driving Directions From Wilmington Riverwalk to The Dumpo Junk Removal & Hauling

Reviews for


Greg Wallace

(5)

I highly recommend Dumpo Junk Removal. Very professional with great pricing and quality work.

Kirk Schmidt

(5)

They are great with junk removal. Highly recommend them

Jennifer Davidson

(5)

Great work! Bryce and Adrian are great!

Howard Asberry

(5)

The manager was very helpful, knowledgeable and forthright. He definitely knew what he was talking about and explained everything to me and was very helpful. I'm looking forward to working with him

Kelly Vaughn

(5)

Great service with professionalism. You can't ask for more than that!

View GBP

Frequently Asked Questions

Implementing advanced sorting technologies, optimizing logistics for collection and transport, adopting lean management practices, and fostering partnerships to share resources can help reduce costs while maintaining service efficiency.
Automation and AI-driven systems can enhance sorting accuracy, increase throughput, reduce labor costs, and minimize errors, leading to more efficient processes that save money over time.
Compliance ensures access to government incentives and avoids fines. By integrating compliance into operational procedures, companies can streamline processes while meeting regulations efficiently.
Data analytics helps identify inefficiencies, optimize resource allocation, predict maintenance needs for equipment, and improve decision-making processes to balance costs while enhancing service efficiency.
Collaborating with manufacturers for take-back schemes or municipalities for shared facilities can spread costs across partners. Joint efforts lead to improved economies of scale without sacrificing service quality.