Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantification of solid waste management system efficiency using input–output indices

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The assessment of solid waste management systems is vital for continued improvement in the efficiency of waste management systems (WMSs). Many studies have aimed to develop metrics that examine policy and system effectiveness, but there appears to be a lack of simple and comparable metrics to evaluate the WMS efficiency. This study introduces a set of novel waste diversion indicators, including a jurisdictionally comparable index known as diversion size indicator (DSI), and employs them to analyze WMSs in Canada. DSI increased in only a single province Nova Scotia during the 14-year study period. The DSI variability was largest for all Prairie Provinces, indicating that large efficiency changes in these province’s WMSs over the study period. Combining all proposed metrics into a single rank showed that Saskatchewan outperformed all other Canadian jurisdictions, balancing diversion rate goals well with cost efficiency. Findings indicate that Alberta and Ontario rank very low in diversion efficiency and tonnage hauled efficiency. Also, Nova Scotia, the DSI leader, ranks lowest in terms of costs per tonne handled. Data availability remains a large barrier to a complete evaluation of WMSs. Nonetheless, the proposed original metrics create a framework for creating comparable and easy to use metrics for waste management efficiency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CA:

Canada

NL:

Newfoundland and Labrador

PE:

Prince Edward Island

NS:

Nova Scotia

NB:

New Brunswick

QC:

Quebec

ON:

Ontario

MB:

Manitoba

SK:

Saskatchewan

AB:

Alberta

BC:

British Columbia

YT, NT, NU:

Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut

CuPT:

Current spending per tonne handled

CV:

Coefficient of variation

DGDP:

Diversion gross domestic product ratio

GPT:

Gross domestic product Sector 562 spending per tonne handled

DR:

Diversion rate

DSI:

Diversion size indicator

NAICS:

North American Industrial Classification System

Ppl.:

People or person

WMOI:

Waste Management Output Index

WMS:

Waste management system

References

  1. UNEP (2011) Towards a Green Economy pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication, PART II: investing in energy and resource efficiency, Waste. United Nations Environment Programme. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11822/22012. Accessed on 6 Jul 2020

  2. Lombrano A (2009) Cost efficiency in the management of solid Urban waste. Resour Conserv Recycl 53:601–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Simoes P, Marques RC (2011) How does the operational environment affect utility performance? A parametric study on the waste sector. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:695–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Simoes P, Cruz NF, Marques RC (2012) The performance of private partners in the waste sector. J Clean Prod 29–30:214–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Simoes P, Marques RC (2012) On the economic performance of the waste Sector. A literature review. J Environ Manage 106:40–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jacobsen R, Buysse J, Gellynck X (2013) Cost comparison between private and public collection of residual household waste: multiple case studies in the flemish region of Belgium. Waste Manage 33:3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Greco G, Allegrini M, Del Lungo C, Gori Savellini P, Gabellini L (2015) Drivers of solid waste collection costs. Empirical evidence from Italy. J Clean Prod 106:364–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Perez-Lopez G, Prior D, Zafra-Gomez JL, Plata-Diaz AM (2016) Cost efficiency in municipal solid waste service delivery. alternative management forms in relation to local population size. Eur J Oper Res 255:583–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Di Foggia G, Beccarello M (2018) Improving efficiency in the MSW collection and disposal service combining price cap and Yardstick regulation: the Italian case. Waste Manage 79:223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Greene K, Tonjes D (2014) Quantitative assessments of municipal waste management systems: using different indicators to compare and rank programs in New York State. Waste Manage 34(4):825–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.12.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fellner J, Lederer J (2020) Recycling rate—the only practical metric for a circular economy? Waste Manage 113:319–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.06.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cervantes DET, Martinez AL, Hernandez MC, García L, de Cortázar A (2018) Using indicators as a tool to evaluate municipal solid waste management: a critical review. Waste Manage 80:51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bruce N, Ng KTW, Richter A (2017) Alternative carbon dioxide modeling approaches accounting for high residual gases in LandGEM. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(16):14322–14336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8990-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bruce N, Ng KTW, Vu HL (2018) Use of seasonal parameters and their effects on FOD landfill gas modeling. Environ Monit Assess 190:291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6663-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Xu Y, Xue X, Dong L, Nai C, Liu Y, Huang Q (2018) Long-term dynamics of leachate production, leakage from hazardous waste landfill sites and the impact on groundwater quality and human health. Waste Manage 82:156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pan C, Ng KTW, Richter A (2019) An integrated multivariate statistical approach for the evaluation of spatial variations in groundwater quality near an unlined landfill. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(6):5724–5737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3967-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Assamoi B, Lawryshyn Y (2012) The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste Manag 32(5):1019–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bruce N, Asha A, Ng KTW (2016) Analysis of solid waste management systems in Alberta and British Columbia using provincial comparison. Can J Civ Eng 43(4):351–360. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2015-0414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang Y, Ng KTW, Asha A (2016) Non-hazardous waste generation characteristics and recycling practices in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 18(4):715–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chowdhury A, Vu HL, Ng KTW, Richter A, Bruce N (2017) An investigation on Ontario’s non-hazardous municipal solid waste diversion using trend analysis. Can J Civ Eng 44(11):861–870. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2017-0168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Richter A, Bruce N, Ng KTW, Chowdhury A, Vu HL (2017) Comparison between Canadian and Nova Scotian waste management and diversion models—a Canadian Case study. Sustain Cities Soc 30:139–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.01.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Richter A, Ng KTW, Pan C (2018) Effects of percent operating expenditure on Canadian Non-Hazardous Waste Diversion. Sustain Cities Soc 38:420–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pan C, Bolingbroke D, Ng KTW, Richter A, Vu HL (2019) The use of waste diversion indices on the analysis of Canadian Waste Management models. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 21(3):478–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0809-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lakhan C (2015) North of the 46° parallel: obstacles and challenges to recycling in Ontario’s rural and northern communities. Waste Manage 44:216–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.06.044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Richter A, Ng KTW, Karimi N (2019) A data driven technique applying GIS, and remote sensing to rank locations for waste disposal site expansion. Resour Conserv Recycl 149:352–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Karimi N, Richter A, Ng KTW (2020) Siting and ranking municipal landfill sites in regional scale using nighttime satellite imagery. J Environ Manage 256:109942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Statistics Canada (1998) Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors 1996. Ottawa: Statistics Canada 2000. Catalogue no. 16F0023XIE. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/16f0023x/16f0023x1998001-eng.pdf?st=AmTmk6Re. Accessed 1 Aug 2020

  28. Statistics Canada (2000) Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors 1998. Ottawa: Statistics Canada 2003. Catalogue no. 16F0023XIE. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/16f0023x/16f0023x2000001-eng.pdf?st=zdFlD1z5. Accessed 1 Aug 2020

  29. Statistics Canada (2002) Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors 2002. Ottawa: Statistics Canada 2004. Catalogue no. 16F0023XIE. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/16f0023x/16f0023x2002001-eng.pdf?st=9QInGKs9. Accessed 1 Aug 2020

  30. Statistics Canada (2004) Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors 2004. Ottawa: Statistics Canada 2007. Catalogue no. 16F0023XIE. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/16f0023x/16f0023x2004001-eng.pdf?st=s7l02Y0S. Accessed 1 Aug 2020

  31. Statistics Canada (2006) Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors 2006. Ottawa: Statistics Canada 2008. Catalogue no. 16F0023X. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/16f0023x/16f0023x2006001-eng.pdf?st=02XYjw69. Accessed 1 Aug 2020

  32. Statistics Canada (2008) Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors 2008. Ottawa: Statistics Canada 2010. Catalogue no. 16F0023X. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/16f0023x/16f0023x2010001-eng.pdf?st=xdm9m5us. Accessed 1 Aug 2020

  33. Statistics Canada (2010) Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors 2010. Ottawa: Statistics Canada 2013. Catalogue no. 16F0023X. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/16f0023x/16f0023x2013001-eng.pdf?st=On9LXaWJ. Accessed 1 Aug 2020

  34. Statistics Canada (2019a) Table 36-10-0402-01. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at Basic Prices, by Industry, Provinces and Territories (x 1,000,000)). https://doi.org/10.25318/3610040201-eng

  35. Statistics Canada (2019b) Table 38-10-0032-01. Disposal of Waste, by Source. https://doi.org/10.25318/3810003201-eng

  36. Statistics Canada (2019c) Table 38-10-0034-01. Materials Diverted, by Type. https://doi.org/10.25318/3810003401-eng

  37. Statistics Canada (2016) North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Canada: 2017 Version 1.0. Ottawa: Statistics Canada 2017. Catalogue no. 12-501-X. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/12-501-x/12-501-x2016001-eng.pdf?st=-bE4XrO3. Accessed 1 Aug 2020

  38. Richter A, Ng KTW, Karimi N, Wu P, Kashani AH (2019) Optimization of waste management regions using recursive Thiessen polygons. J Clean Prod 234:85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Richter A, Ng KTW, Karimi N, Chang W (2020) Developing a novel proximity analysis approach for assessment of waste management cost efficiency in low population density regions. Sustain Cities Soc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102583

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this paper was supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2019-06154) to the corresponding author (K. T. W. Ng). The authors are grateful for their support. The views expressed herein are those of the writers and not necessarily those of our research and funding partners.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Systems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada

    Damien Bolingbroke, Kelvin Tsun Wai Ng, Hoang Lan Vu & Amy Richter

Authors
  1. Damien Bolingbroke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelvin Tsun Wai Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hoang Lan Vu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amy Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelvin Tsun Wai Ng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bolingbroke, D., Ng, K.T.W., Vu, H.L. et al. Quantification of solid waste management system efficiency using input–output indices. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 23, 1015–1025 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-021-01187-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-021-01187-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation