4.7 Article

Plastic recycling in the Nordics: A value chain market analysis

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 180-189

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.034

关键词

Plastic recycling; Recycling markets; Secondary raw materials; Circular economy

资金

  1. Nordic Council of Ministers (Nordic Waste Group)
  2. MISTRA (Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research) through the Mistra REES (Resource Efficient and Effective Solutions) programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is low utilisation of plastic waste in the Nordic region and only a fraction of plastic materials go back into production processes through reuse and recycling practices. This paper aims to increase knowledge concerning factors that inhibit demand for recycled plastics, and to identify critical barriers for plastic recycling across the regional plastics value chain. A literature review and targeted interviews with key actors across the plastics value chain enabled the mapping of interactions between the major actors and identified hotspots that act as barriers to the flow of plastic materials. Barriers identified include the lack of both supply and demand of recycled plastic and are mainly attributed to the fragmented market of secondary materials. The main hotspots identified are the low demand due to price considerations, insufficient traceability and transparency in value chain transactions, and general design deficiencies in the recyclability of products. Value chain coordination is considered as the most important intervention by the interviewees, followed by the need for increased investment in innovation and technology development. Complementary measures that could counteract the identified barriers include public procurement for resource efficiency, ban on the incineration of recyclable materials, and specifications on the design of plastic products for reducing the number of different polymers, and the number and usage of additives. (C) 2018 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