A Comparative Study of Waste Classification Laws and Policies: Lessons from the United States, Japan and China
With the rapid increase of municipal solid waste (MSW), the phenomenon of waste siege exists all over the world. To solve this problem, waste classification is wildly applied. Previous studies have shown that residents’ support for laws and policies, as a critical factor, is often conducive to waste classification. At present, governments around the world have enacted waste classification laws and policies (WCLP) for MSW reduction. In order to construct a sound WCLP system, we analyzed and compared the typical WCLP systems of the United States, Japan and China. It shows that these three countries are focused on making laws and/or policies according to their own national conditions or specific situations. A more general legal system for the waste classification in various countries has been summarized. It would be beneficial to the thorny problem solving of waste siege faced by most of the countries and the new idea conceiving for global sustainable development.
KeywordsWaste classification and recycling Laws and policies Comparative analysis Sustainable development
This research is supported by the Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (Grant No. 17YJC630096).
- 1.Apip, A.: Study of law development policy in government act liability as state administrative tools. Public Policy Adm. Res. 4(4), 76–84 (2014)Google Scholar
- 2.Chen, F., Luo, Z. et al.: Enhancing municipal solid waste recycling through reorganizing waste pickers: A case study in nanjing, china. Waste Manag. Res. J. Int. Solid Wastes Public Clean. Assoc. Iswa 734242X18766216 (2018)Google Scholar
- 9.Han, H., Zhang, Z., Xia, S.: The crowding-out effects of garbage fees and voluntary source separation programs on waste reduction: Evidence from china. Sustainability 8, 1–17 (2016)Google Scholar
- 26.Yong, C.W., Lian, F.X.: Analysis of the barrier factors of municipal solid waste classification recycling. Adv. Mater. Res. 726–731, 2618–2621 (2013)Google Scholar