4.6 Article

City of Waste-Importance of Scale

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13073909

Keywords

municipal waste; city; scaling; population; population density; city area; GDP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the impact of city size on waste production and finds that population and city area are important factors influencing the amount of waste. For cities in Poland, larger cities do not show economies of scale in waste production.
By 2050, the world population is expected to reach 9.7 billion, almost 90% of which will live in urban areas. With such a fast growth in population and urbanization, it is anticipated that the annual waste generation will increase by 70% in comparison with current levels, and will reach 3.40 billion tons in 2050. A key question regarding the sustainability of the planet is the effect of city size on waste production. Are larger cities more efficient at generating waste than smaller cities? Do larger cities show economies of scale over waste? This article examines the allometric relationship between the amount of municipal waste (total and per capita) and the populations, city area, density, and wealth of city residents. The scope of the research concerned 930 Polish cities. Using the allometric equation, the waste scaling factors were calculated for selected parameters, and the Hellwig method was used to optimize their selection for cities with more than 50,000 inhabitants. The calculations show that the parameter population (1.059) and then the city area (0.934) are important elements influencing the scaling of the amount of municipal waste in cities of all sizes, but none came close to the value of the animal metabolism model (0.75). In response to the question of whether larger cities show benefits from economies of scale, it should be stated that, for the model of city size in Poland, such a regularity does not exist.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available