4.5 Article

Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities

Journal

WASTE MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 237-254

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X12437569

Keywords

Integrated sustainable waste management; solid waste management; cities; comparative analysis; governance; technologies; benchmark indicators; informal sector

Funding

  1. UN Habitat
  2. WASTE, Advisers on Urban Environment and Development

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper uses the 'lens' of integrated and sustainable waste management (ISWM) to analyse the new data set compiled on 20 cities in six continents for the UN-Habitat flagship publication Solid Waste Management in the World's Cities. The comparative analysis looks first at waste generation rates and waste composition data. A process flow diagram is prepared for each city, as a powerful tool for representing the solid waste system as a whole in a comprehensive but concise way. Benchmark indicators are presented and compared for the three key physical components/drivers: public health and collection; environment and disposal; and resource recovery - and for three governance strategies required to deliver a well-functioning ISWM system: inclusivity; financial sustainability; and sound institutions and pro-active policies. Key insights include the variety and diversity of successful models - there is no 'one size fits all'; the necessity of good, reliable data; the importance of focusing on governance as well as technology; and the need to build on the existing strengths of the city. An example of the latter is the critical role of the informal sector in the cities in many developing countries: it not only delivers recycling rates that are comparable with modern Western systems, but also saves the city authorities millions of dollars in avoided waste collection and disposal costs. This provides the opportunity for win-win solutions, so long as the related wider challenges can be addressed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available