4.7 Article

Barriers to smart waste management for a circular economy in China

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 240, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118198

关键词

Smart enabling technologies; Internet of things; IoT; Smart waste management; Circular economy; Circular supply chain management

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51875251]
  2. 2018 Guangzhou Innovation Leading Talent Program (China) [2019-09-03-06-1004-0002]
  3. Blue Fire Project (Huizhou) IndustryUniversity-Research Joint Innovation Fund of Ministry of Education (China) [CXZJHZ201722]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (China) [11618401]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Waste management requires a new vision and drastic improvements for a transition to a zero-waste circular economy. In reality, however, many economies are producing more and more waste, which poses a serious challenge to environmental sustainability. The problem is enormously complex as it involves a variety of stakeholders, demands behavioral changes, and requires a complete rethinking of the current waste management systems and the dominant linear economic model. Smart enabling technologies can aid in a transformation of waste management toward a circular economy, but many barriers persist. This study first shortlists twelve important barriers to smart waste management in China based on interviews with experienced practitioners. It then prioritizes these barriers through a scientific prioritization technique, fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL), based on the survey data from three representative stakeholders. It identified three key causal barriers: the lack of regulatory pressures, the lack of environmental education and culture of environmental protection, and the lack of market pressures and demands. Practical and theoretical implications were discussed based on the research results and findings. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据