Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in developing countries Rachael E. Marshall ⇑ , Khosrow Farahbakhsh 1 School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Albert A. Thornbrough Building, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1 article info Article history: Received 14 September 2012 Accepted 11 December 2012 Available online 26 January 2013 Keywords: Systems approaches Integrated solid waste management Developing countries Industrialized countries Post-normal science Complex adaptive systems abstract Solid waste management (SWM) has become an issue of increasing global concern as urban populations continue to rise and consumption patterns change. The health and environmental implications associated with SWM are mounting in urgency, particularly in the context of developing countries. While systems analyses largely targeting well-defined, engineered systems have been used to help SWM agencies in industrialized countries since the 1960s, collection and removal dominate the SWM sector in developing countries. This review contrasts the history and current paradigms of SWM practices and policies in industrialized countries with the current challenges and complexities faced in developing country SWM. In industrialized countries, public health, environment, resource scarcity, climate change, and pub- lic awareness and participation have acted as SWM drivers towards the current paradigm of integrated SWM. However, urbanization, inequality, and economic growth; cultural and socio-economic aspects; policy, governance, and institutional issues; and international influences have complicated SWM in developing countries. This has limited the applicability of approaches that were successful along the SWM development trajectories of industrialized countries. This review demonstrates the importance of founding new SWM approaches for developing country contexts in post-normal science and complex, adaptive systems thinking. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The primary purposes of solid waste management (SWM) strat- egies are to address the health, environmental, aesthetic, land-use, resource, and economic concerns associated with the improper dis- posal of waste (Henry et al., 2006; Nemerow, 2009; Wilson, 2007). These issues are an ongoing concern for nations, municipalities, corporations, and individuals around the world (Nemerow, 2009), and the global community at large (Wilson, 2007). In developing countries, the waste produced by burgeoning cities is overwhelm- ing local authorities and national governments alike (Tacoli, 2012; Yousif and Scott, 2007). Limited resources result in the perpetua- tion and aggravation of inequalities already being experienced by the most vulnerable of populations (Konteh, 2009; UNDP, 2010). Systems analyses – engineering models, analysis platforms, and assessment tools predominantly targeting tightly defined engi- neered systems – have been applied to help SWM agencies in developed countries since the 1960s (Chang et al., 2011). These system models have been used both as decision-support tools for planning processes, and for monitoring and optimizing existing SWM systems. While some systems analysis tools have been used in developing countries (e.g. see Charnpratheep and Garner, 1997; Chang et al., 1997; Chang and Wang, 1996), most models were developed in Canada and the United States (Chang et al., 2011). Even in developed country contexts, prior to 2000, very few models considered social aspects of SWM, focusing solely on the economic and environmental spheres (Morrissey and Browne, 2004). None considered involving all relevant stakeholders, from government officials, industry and formal private sector services providers to local communities and rag pickers; and none considered the full waste management cycle from prevention to final disposal (Morrissey and Browne, 2004). To date, few models take a holistic perspective of the SWM system; most focus on isolated problems within the larger system and are of little use to decision makers (Chang et al., 2011; Shmelev and Powell, 2006). While nearly all systems analyses have been unsuccessful at achieving a broad systems perspective of SWM, they have made more obvious the need for holistic, integrating methodologies that address the interconnectedness of socio-cultural, environmental, economic, and technical spheres. This need is particularly strong in developing countries, where the complexities of SWM systems are often higher for a number of reasons, and the SWM sector is predominantly preoccupied with collection and removal services (Wilson, 2007). This paper builds upon the work of Wilson (2007), who explores 6 broad categories of SWM development drivers in developed and developing country contexts. As Wilson (2007) points out, building 0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.023 ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 362 7809; fax: +1 519 836 0227. E-mail addresses: [email protected](R.E. Marshall), khosrowf@uoguelph. ca (K. Farahbakhsh). 1 Fax: +1 519 836 0227. Waste Management 33 (2013) 988–1003 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Waste Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman
Transcript
Waste Management 33 (2013) 988–1003
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Solid waste management (SWM) has become an issue of increasing global concern as urban populationscontinue to rise and consumption patterns change. The health and environmental implications associatedwith SWM are mounting in urgency, particularly in the context of developing countries. While systemsanalyses largely targeting well-defined, engineered systems have been used to help SWM agencies inindustrialized countries since the 1960s, collection and removal dominate the SWM sector in developingcountries. This review contrasts the history and current paradigms of SWM practices and policies inindustrialized countries with the current challenges and complexities faced in developing countrySWM. In industrialized countries, public health, environment, resource scarcity, climate change, and pub-lic awareness and participation have acted as SWM drivers towards the current paradigm of integratedSWM. However, urbanization, inequality, and economic growth; cultural and socio-economic aspects;policy, governance, and institutional issues; and international influences have complicated SWM indeveloping countries. This has limited the applicability of approaches that were successful along theSWM development trajectories of industrialized countries. This review demonstrates the importance offounding new SWM approaches for developing country contexts in post-normal science and complex,adaptive systems thinking.
� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The primary purposes of solid waste management (SWM) strat-egies are to address the health, environmental, aesthetic, land-use,resource, and economic concerns associated with the improper dis-posal of waste (Henry et al., 2006; Nemerow, 2009; Wilson, 2007).These issues are an ongoing concern for nations, municipalities,corporations, and individuals around the world (Nemerow, 2009),and the global community at large (Wilson, 2007). In developingcountries, the waste produced by burgeoning cities is overwhelm-ing local authorities and national governments alike (Tacoli, 2012;Yousif and Scott, 2007). Limited resources result in the perpetua-tion and aggravation of inequalities already being experienced bythe most vulnerable of populations (Konteh, 2009; UNDP, 2010).Systems analyses – engineering models, analysis platforms, andassessment tools predominantly targeting tightly defined engi-neered systems – have been applied to help SWM agencies indeveloped countries since the 1960s (Chang et al., 2011). Thesesystem models have been used both as decision-support tools forplanning processes, and for monitoring and optimizing existingSWM systems. While some systems analysis tools have been used
All rights reserved.
: +1 519 836 0227.rshall), khosrowf@uoguelph.
in developing countries (e.g. see Charnpratheep and Garner, 1997;Chang et al., 1997; Chang and Wang, 1996), most models weredeveloped in Canada and the United States (Chang et al., 2011).Even in developed country contexts, prior to 2000, very few modelsconsidered social aspects of SWM, focusing solely on the economicand environmental spheres (Morrissey and Browne, 2004). Noneconsidered involving all relevant stakeholders, from governmentofficials, industry and formal private sector services providers tolocal communities and rag pickers; and none considered the fullwaste management cycle from prevention to final disposal(Morrissey and Browne, 2004). To date, few models take a holisticperspective of the SWM system; most focus on isolated problemswithin the larger system and are of little use to decision makers(Chang et al., 2011; Shmelev and Powell, 2006).
While nearly all systems analyses have been unsuccessful atachieving a broad systems perspective of SWM, they have mademore obvious the need for holistic, integrating methodologies thataddress the interconnectedness of socio-cultural, environmental,economic, and technical spheres.
This need is particularly strong in developing countries, wherethe complexities of SWM systems are often higher for a numberof reasons, and the SWM sector is predominantly preoccupied withcollection and removal services (Wilson, 2007).
This paper builds upon the work of Wilson (2007), who explores6 broad categories of SWM development drivers in developed anddeveloping country contexts. As Wilson (2007) points out, building
an understanding about what has driven SWM in the past can pro-vide much needed context and insight for how best to move for-ward in the future. While the focus of Wilson (2007) is equallyon the SWM drivers in both industrialized and developing coun-tries, this paper tailors this discussion to developing country con-texts by reviewing his drivers as part of the historical backdropthat frames current SWM practices in developing countries andexploring the present-day issues specific to SWM in developing na-tions. Additionally, while Wilson (2007) closes with the need towork towards integrated, sustainable SWM systems that are locallyappropriate to specific developing country contexts, this papertakes his perspective a step further by providing a means to beginworking towards this goal: post-normal science approaches andcomplex adaptive systems (CAS) thinking. Thus, this review beginsby examining the historical development of SWM in high-incomecountries. It then explores the state of SWM systems in developingcountries by examining the challenges presented by economic, so-cial, cultural, political, and international influences. Finally, it ex-plores the need for a systemic approach in developing countrycontexts by examining the beneficial perspectives of post-normalscience and CAS thinking.
It should be noted that the author recognizes that stark situa-tional differences exist at all levels: between nations, regions, cit-ies, communities, households, and even individuals. While thispaper makes reference to categories of countries (i.e. developing,developed, industrialized, high-, medium-, and low-income), byno means does it imply that the problems are the same amongstthese groups. Indeed, ‘‘we always pay for generality by sacrificingcontent, and all we can say about practically everything is almostnothing’’ (Boulding, 1956, p. 197); it is for this reason that systemsapproaches, which are founded upon specific, locally appropriatemethodologies, are so crucial to the future of SWM practices.
2. Solid waste management in high-income countries
The historical forces and mechanisms that have driven the evo-lution of SWM in high-income countries can provide insight abouthow to move forward in developing country contexts (Wilson,2007). The following sections explore the origins and principaldrivers of SWM development in industrialized countries in orderto provide some context for the changes that are currently takingplace in developing countries.
2.1. Historical origins of solid waste management
Humans have been mass-producing solid waste since they firstformed non-nomadic societies around 10,000 BC (Worrell and Ves-ilind, 2012). Historically, public health concerns, security, scarcityof resources, and aesthetics acted as central drivers for waste man-agement systems (Louis, 2004; Melosi, 1981; Ponting, 1991;Wilson, 2007; Worrell and Vesilind, 2012). Small communitiesmanaged to bury solid waste just outside their settlements or dis-pose of it in nearby rivers or water bodies, but as population den-sities increased, these practices no longer prevented the spread offoul odours or disease (Seadon, 2006). As waste accumulated inthese growing communities, people simply lived amongst the filth.There were exceptions: organized SWM processes were imple-mented in the ancient city of Mahenjo-Daro in the Indus Valleyby 2000 BC (Worrell and Vesilind, 2012); the Greeks had both is-sued a decree banning waste disposal in the streets and organizedthe Western world’s first acknowledged ‘municipal dumps’ by 500BC (Melosi, 1981); and Chinese cities had ‘‘disposal police’’ respon-sible for enforcing disposal laws by 200 BC. However, as Worrelland Vesilind (2012, p. 1) so aptly describe, ‘‘for the most part, peo-ple in cities lived among waste and squalor’’ (p. 1). In both Athens
and Rome, waste was only relocated well outside city boundarieswhen defenses were threatened because opponents could scaleup the refuse piles and over the city walls (Worrell and Vesilind,2012).
City streets in the Middle Ages were plastered in an odorousmud composed of soil, stagnant water, household waste, and ani-mal and human excrement (Louis, 2004). This created very favour-able conditions for vectors of disease. Indeed, the Black Death,which struck Europe in the early 1300s, may have been partiallycaused by the littering of organic wastes in the streets (Louis,2004; Tchobanoglous et al., 1977; Worrell and Vesilind, 2012). Incolonial America, the urban population lived in similar putrid con-ditions (Melosi, 1981). Many initiatives were implemented to cleanup the streets, but all were short-lived because the poor were fo-cused feeding themselves and the rich were opposed to paying toclean up for the poor (Wilson, 2007). However, scarcity of re-sources ensured many items were repaired and reused, and thewaste stream was thoroughly scavenged (Woodward, 1985).
When SWM progress finally began, it was driven by five princi-pal factors: public health, the environment, resource scarcity andthe value of waste, climate change, and public awareness and par-ticipation. These driving forces and the progress they instigated aredepicted in Fig. 1.
2.2. Driver 1: Public Health – The sanitary revolution
The industrial revolution brought rapid expansion to both Euro-pean and American cities. A new era in sanitation began to takeshape between 1790 and 1850 in London, where the high ash con-tent of household waste caused by heating and cooking with coalcreated a flourishing market for waste collection and use as araw material to meet the excess demand for bricks (Wilson,2007). In the late 1830s the sanitation revolution began in Londonwith the appointment of the Sanitation Commission, which estab-lished the first clear linkages between disease and poor sanitaryconditions. It was during this time that a governmental interestin public health drove better solid waste management practicesforward through legislation, enforcement, and investment in infra-structure. In 1848 and 1875 Public Health Acts were established,the latter of which required households to dispose of their wastein a moveable receptacle, which local authorities were responsiblefor emptying weekly (see Fig. 1). Similar legislation was imple-mented in other European countries (Wilson, 2007). In Americancities, population density and the reliance on imported goods in-creased dramatically between 1790 and 1920 (Louis, 2004). Like-wise, the need to export the waste products of their burgeoninggrowth beyond immediate city limits increased. Public concernabout sanitation rose as epidemic diseases continued to rock citiesregularly. Thus, governmental interest in public health drove solidwaste management improvements in American cities as wellthrough legislation and investment in infrastructure (Louis, 2004).
Public health legislation continued to drive waste managementforward in the following century. The first municipal priority wasto collect and remove waste from the immediate vicinity of resi-dential areas (Wilson, 2007). Once the waste had been removedfrom underfoot, priorities shifted to other aspects of the wastemanagement chain, such as the proliferation of landfills (Seadon,2006). However, from 1900 to 1970, disposal was for the most partunregulated and uncontrolled, consisting of dumping and burning(Wilson, 2007). The focus remained on waste collection and trans-portation out of the city (UN-HABITAT, 2010).
2.3. Driver 2: Environment – The ‘modernization’ of SWM
After the Second World War landfilling was still the principalwaste disposal method, and rapid growth in consumption from
1960 onwards resulted in a larger municipal waste stream with ahigher plastics content (Wolsink, 2010). Finally, the environmentalmovement of the 1960s and 1970s brought waste disposal onto thepolitical agenda in industrialized countries (Wilson, 2007; Wol-sink, 2010), which created a significant shift in policymakers’ per-spectives on how to approach SWM (Wolsink, 2010). Newlegislation addressing water pollution and SWM emerged, initiallytargeting the elimination of uncontrolled disposal (see Fig. 1).Subsequent SWM legislation increasingly raised environmentalstandards to reduce the contamination of land, air, and water(UN-HABITAT, 2010; Wilson, 2007). The environmental movementacted as a primary driver of the policy stages from the 1970s on-wards (Wilson, 2007). SWM policy from the 1970s to mid-1980sfocused on waste control, and was therefore characterized by mea-sures such as the daily covering and compacting of landfills andretrofitting incinerators for dust control. The following policystage, which emerged in the 1980s and continues today, focusedon gradually increasing technical standards, beginning with land-fill gas and leachate control, incinerator gas and dioxin reduction,and now spanning to odour control for composting facilities and
anaerobic digesters (Wilson, 2007). In the 1990s, integrative policygained much attention because it had become evident that advo-cating for ever-increasing environmental protection was not en-ough; an integrative regulatory approach was needed thatencompassed not only the technical and environmental but alsothe political, social, financial, economic, and institutional elementsof waste management if environmental protection were to be real-ized (McDougall et al., 2001; van de Klundert and Anschutz, 2001;Wilson, 2007).
2.4. Driver 3: The resource scarcity and value of waste
In pre-industrial times, resources were relatively scarce. Any-thing vendible in the waste stream was scavenged and consumergoods were reused and repaired rather than tossed into the wastestream (UN-HABITAT, 2010; Wilson, 2007). As cities grew in sizeduring the industrial revolution, the resource value of waste roseagain, and ‘rag pickers’ or ‘street buyers’ collected, used, and soldmaterials from the waste stream; an activity that continues todayin many developing countries (see Fig. 1) (UN-HABITAT, 2010).
However, recycling rates plummeted from the high levels of pre-industrial times to single digits by the 1970s (Wilson, 2007), as thiswas a period of immense increase in consumption, strong market-ing of commodities, and little regard for resource consumption.The recycling and reuse that went on in the 19th century wassparked again in the 1970s by the European concept of the ‘wastehierarchy’, on which current waste policy in the EU is based (Wil-son, 2007; Wolsink, 2010). The original idea for the waste hierar-chy was first borne out of the Dutch government’s shortage oflandfill sites (Wolsink, 2010), but the idea was propelled forwardprimarily by the environmental movement. First introduced inthe European Union’s Second Environment Action Programme in1977 (CEC, 1977), the waste hierarchy is a model of waste manage-ment priorities based on the ‘‘Ladder of Lansink’’, a hierarchy ofwaste handling techniques going in order from prevention to re-use, reduction, recycling, energy recovery, treatment (such asincineration), and finally landfill disposal (Price and Joseph, 2000;Wilson, 2007; Wolsink, 2010). Thus, the availability of land andits value as a resource somewhat acted as a driver for the moveaway from landfilling, though land scarcity primarily led to newtreatment options, such as incineration. The waste hierarchysparked a massive transition from end-of-pipe to preventativethinking, which emerged with a multitude of new terms andphrases – pollution prevention, source reduction, waste minimiza-tion, waste reduction, toxics use reduction, clean or cleaner tech-nology, etc. – to replace the old terms that focused on reactionand control instead of prevention (Hirschhorn et al., 1993).
This policy shift away from landfilling has significantly in-creased the use of medium priority waste handling methods,which were historically more prominent due to resource scarcitybut dropped to single digit percentages in Europe during the firsthalf of the 20th century. Recycling, for example, has reboundedto 25% or higher in Europe (Wilson, 2007), reaching rates as highas 60% in Austria and the Netherlands (Kollikkathara et al., 2009).However, Wilson (2007) points out that this is ‘‘often driven bystatutory targets rather than by the resource value per se ... recy-cling is practiced because it is the right thing to do, not becausethe value of the recovered materials covers the costs’’ (p. 200).
Many governments, industry members, educators, environmentgroups, and programs have adopted and endorsed the waste man-agement hierarchy (Gertsakis and Lewis, 2003; Seadon, 2006),which, along with what Seadon (2006) describes as ‘‘an almostmantra-like acceptance among waste professionals’’ (p. 1328),has sparked a flurry of criticisms. According to Gertsakis and Lewis(2003), the hierarchy is difficult to implement because solid wastemanagers in industry and government have little control over pro-duction decisions that could influence higher-level priorities, suchas waste prevention and minimization. Additionally, McDougallet al. (2001) point out that the waste hierarchy does not makeroom for combinations of techniques, account for costs or specificconstraints, lacks scientific or technical basis, and cannot providewhat is fundamentally needed – an assessment of the context-spe-cific system as a whole.
2.5. Driver 4: Climate change
Climate change has acted as an environmental driver since theearly 1990s, leading to a shift away from landfilling biodegradablewaste, which is a major source of methane emissions, and astrengthened focus on energy recovery from waste (UN-HABITAT,2010; Wilson, 2007). This driver was brought on by the global con-cern about climate change issues, which led to pressure and advo-cacy around the world. This driver led to a policy stage focused onwaste prevention and target achievements, and characterized by aseries of preventative policy measures, including laws and targetsfor compost and recycling goals, diversion from landfill, extended
producer responsibility, and landfill bans for recyclable materials(UN-HABITAT, 2010; Wilson, 2007). Policies such as the EU LandfillDirective require reductions in levels of biodegradable materialsent to landfill as a method to recover valuable materials and re-duce methane emissions (Wilson, 2007). This has further increasedrecycling and composting rates, which have been on the rise in cit-ies modernizing their waste systems (UN-HABITAT, 2010). How-ever, since climate change measures can only have significantimpact if many adhere to this objective, there is no immediate na-tional gain from reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is the pri-mary weakness of this driver, and one of the primary reasons it isso difficult to gain consensus for a post-2012 convention for reduc-ing carbon dioxide levels.
2.6. Driver 5: Public concern and awareness – NIMBY and behaviouralchange
Public concern and awareness have also acted as SWM driversin high-income countries. Poor practices in the past, such as burn-ing dumps and polluting incinerators, have left the public withnegative perceptions of new SWM strategies (Wilson, 2007). Whilethe public may recognize the need for SWM facilities, the common‘‘Not In My Backyard’’, or NIMBY, attitude means they would ratherhave them located elsewhere (Schübeler, 1996). Wilson (2007, p.201) describes how negative perceptions of past facilities ‘‘haveled to the almost inevitable NIMBY reaction to proposals for anynew waste management facility, no matter how clean or sustain-able that may be’’. Unsustainable behaviour also inhibits move-ment towards better SWM. Therefore, strategies that includemore recycling, repair, reuse, home composting, sustainable con-sumption, etc. require behavioural change (Wilson, 2007), whichJackson (2005) believes is becoming the ‘holy grail’ of any sustain-able development strategy. The systems that shape patterns of thepublic’s activities create complex barriers to sustainable behaviour.Many people are unable to exercise deliberate choice because theyfind themselves locked into unsustainable patterns caused by hab-its, routines, a lack of knowledge, institutional structures, inequal-ities in access, social expectations, and cultural values (Jackson,2005; McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999). Additionally, each formof sustainable behaviour has a unique and complex set of barriersthat vary amongst social groups (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith,1999). Even seemingly closely associated sustainable behaviour,such as composting and recycling, can be barricaded by differentsets of obstacles (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999). Therefore,transferring initiatives that appear successful in a specific contextis unlikely to be effective (Southerton et al., 2011). Overcomingpublic attitudes and unsustainable behaviour requires effectivecommunication, a broad public understanding of the requirementsof SWM, and active participation of all relevant stakeholdersthroughout all project stages (Schübeler, 1996). For example, someof the top strategies identified for overcoming NIMBY oppositioninclude building project supporters before implementation, devel-oping a comprehensive understanding of causes of opposition, andacting to remove them through stakeholder consultation, correc-tion of misinformation, and compromise. These ‘best practices’have been effective at combating NIMBY opposition to many majordevelopment projects (Noto, 2010). Thus, building public aware-ness through such measures and focusing public concern on theneed to develop sustainable behaviour have acted as SWM drivers.
3. Solid waste management in developing countries
For a variety of reasons, poor waste management practices andassociated public health implications remain severely problematicin many developing countries a century and a half after the
European sanitary revolution, despite increasing globalization(Konteh, 2009). In industrialized nations, the health benefits fromsolid waste and sanitation systems are largely taken for granted,and the focus has moved from sanitation-related communicablediseases to ‘diseases of affluence’ (cancer, cardiovascular disease,drug and alcohol abuse) and ‘‘sustainability’’ (Konteh, 2009; Lange-weg et al., 2000; McGranahan, 2001). Meanwhile, many developingcountries are currently affected by the ‘double burden’ of the com-bined effects of the diseases of affluence and communicable dis-eases (Boadi et al., 2005; Konteh, 2009). Wilson (2007, p. 204)points out that ‘‘[i]n some countries, simple survival is such a pre-dominant concern, that waste management does not featurestrongly on the list of public concerns’’. When SWM is on the publicagenda in developing countries, it is driven by the same concernsas industrialized countries, although it tends to be driven moststrongly by public health; the key priority is still getting the wasteout from underfoot, as it was for the Europe and the United Statesup until the 1960s (Coffey and Coad, 2010; Memon, 2010; Rodicet al., 2010; Wilson, 2007). Environmental protection is still rela-tively low on the political and public agendas, although this isstarting to change (Wilson, 2007). Though legislation is often inplace requiring closure and phasing out of unregulated disposal,enforcement tends to be weak (Wilson, 2007). The resource valueof waste is an important driver in many developing countries to-day; informal recycling provides a livelihood for the urban poorin many parts of the world (UN-HABITAT, 2010; Wilson, 2007). Cli-mate change is an important driver worldwide – the clean devel-opment mechanism under the Kyoto protocol, in whichdeveloped countries can buy ‘carbon credits’ from developing na-tions, can provide a key source of income to encourage cities indeveloping countries to improve waste management systems (Wil-son, 2007).
Many similarities exist between the historical SWM develop-ment trajectories of industrialized countries and the current trajec-tories of developing countries. Many cities in lower income nationsare experiencing similar conditions to those of the 19th century inhigh income countries: ‘‘high levels of urbanization, degrading san-itary conditions and unprecedented levels of morbidity and mor-tality, which affected mostly the working class population’’(Konteh, 2009, p. 70). Indeed, increasing urbanization and socio-economic disparities, inadequate provision of sanitary and envi-ronmental amenities, social exclusion and inequalities related toexisting SWM systems, and high levels of morbidity and mortalitylinked to inadequate sanitation, waste disposal, and water supplyprovision were common then as they are today, particularly inpoorer urban neighbourhoods in lower income countries (Konteh,2009).
In spite of the apparent parallels, the contexts in which devel-oping nations are situated are starkly different from the historicalcontexts of developed countries. Rapid urbanization, soaringinequality, and the struggle for economic growth; varying eco-nomic, cultural, socio-economic, and political landscapes; gover-nance, institutional, and responsibility issues; and internationalinfluences have created locally specific, technical and non-techni-cal challenges of immense complexity (see Fig. 3). The followingsections will explore these contextual aspects and the challengesthey present for SWM systems in the developing world.
3.1. Urbanization, inequality, and economic growth
Urbanization has exploded with great speed and scale in recentdecades with ‘‘more than half the world’s population now living inurban centres’’ (Tacoli, 2012, p. 4), as countries and even individualcities struggle to be competitive in the global marketplace (Cohen,2004). While just 16 cities contained at least a million people at thestart of the 20th century – the vast majority of which were in
industrial nations – at the start of the 21st century 400 cities con-tained over a million people, and approximately three-quarters ofthese urban centers were in low- and middle-income countries(Cohen, 2004). This rapid, unplanned growth has resulted in anumber of extreme land use planning and infrastructural chal-lenges that have crippled the capacity of national and municipalgovernments to increase SWM service levels at the rate they aredemanded. This, in combination with extremely slow and ineffi-cient institutional structures, has had a disastrous effect on thequality and reach of SWM services in many regions of the world– one that is projected to worsen in the future. The fact that nearlyall of the world’s population growth is projected to occur in urbanareas (Cohen, 2004) from now until 2050 – much of which willtake place in the world’s poorer regions – has raised ‘‘concernsabout growing urban poverty and the inability of national and citygovernments to provide services to the residents of their burgeon-ing cities’’ (Tacoli, 2012, p. 5). Many more people will be pushedinto slums, where sanitary conditions are appalling and wasteamenities are non-existent; the number of people living in slumsis now estimated at some 828 million and growing in actual num-bers even though 200 million slum-dwellers have moved out ofslum quality conditions (UNFPA, 2011).
Almost invariably, the SWM demands of these high-density,low-income settlements are inadequately served or neglected alto-gether even though these areas have the greatest need for theseservices since there is no space among the densely packed housingfor waste burial or composting and they are less able to make alter-nate arrangements to dispose of waste (Coffey and Coad, 2010).Collection may not be carried out in these unplanned settlementsdue to a lack of space for refuse containers, narrow roadways, steepgradients, and unsurfaced roads that standard collection vehiclescannot manage (see Fig. 3) (Coffey and Coad, 2010; Henry et al.,2006). Therefore, waste is dumped into open spaces, on accessroads and in waterways where disease vectors breed (see Fig. 3)(Coffey and Coad, 2010; Konteh, 2009). Waste clogs drains, creat-ing flooded, stagnant nurseries for mosquitos carrying malariaand dengue fever. Animals and waste pickers scatter the waste,and leachate from garbage heaps percolates into soil and water-ways. This results in contaminated food, water, and soil, and seri-ous environmental and health implications, particularly for themost vulnerable, such as children and the elderly (Coffey and Coad,2010; Tacoli, 2012). This kind of environmental degradation canalso negatively impact the (sometimes fragile) economies of thosecountries that rely heavily on tourism (Henry et al., 2006).
3.2. Cultural and socio-economic aspects
The structure and functioning of SWM systems are founded onthe behaviour patterns and underlying attitudes of the population– factors that are shaped by the local cultural and social context(Schübeler, 1996). The substantial diversity of social and ethnicgroups that often exists within rapidly expanding cities, even with-in individual residential communities, greatly influences munici-palities’ capacities to implement SWM strategies (Schübeler,1996). Public awareness and attitudes towards waste can impactthe entire SWM system, from household storage to separation,interest in waste reduction, recycling, demand for collection ser-vices, willingness to pay for SWM services, opposition to proposedlocations of waste facilities, the amount of waste in the streets, andultimately the success or failure of a SWM system (Henry et al.,2006; Schübeler, 1996; Yousif and Scott, 2007; Zurbruegg, 2003).In parts of the Arab world and Latin America, for example, oppor-tunities to strengthen waste institutions may be limited by the factthat SWM is not seen as an honourable profession (Wilson, 2007).
The cultural and socio-economic context also influences thewaste composition generated by a population (Coffey and Coad,
2010; Schübeler, 1996). In some cases, shops sell food that is lar-gely pre-prepared, while in others, fresh meat or large quantitiesof fresh vegetables and fruit drastically alter the waste composi-tion. Cooking and heating with solid fuel affects the waste compo-sition by eliminating items that would otherwise be discarded,such as paper, and contributing hot, abrasive ashes to the wastestream (Coffey and Coad, 2010). Local architecture, such as mudbrick housing and unpaved floors can mean large quantities of dustand soil enter the waste stream, while sanitary practices can influ-ence the quantity of excreta in the waste (Coffey and Coad, 2010).Socio-economic status at the neighbourhood and household levelaffect waste composition: higher literacy increases the paper con-tent of waste, and wealthier groups often choose to discard durableitems instead of repairing them (Coffey and Coad, 2010). Recyclingand reuse is affected by differences in how social groups valueitems that would otherwise enter the waste stream. Often muchof the organic waste is fed to livestock, and items like food anddrink containers are reused in the household (Coffey and Coad,2010). Informal recycling is carried out by waste pickers, who va-lue much of what might otherwise enter the waste stream (Coffeyand Coad, 2010; Schübeler, 1996; UN-HABITAT, 2010; Wilson,2007).
Social expectations of waste collection are also dependent onwaste composition, and therefore on cooking and eating habits. Iflarge quantities of odour-generating food (e.g. fish) are consumed,waste collection rates are expected to be more frequent, particu-larly in warmer climates (Coffey and Coad, 2010; Jha et al.,2011). Disposal is also greatly influenced by social attitudes. Somesocial groups always dispose of waste in the appropriate contain-ers, while others view the street as an appropriate disposal loca-tion. Householders and city officials alike may have no interest inwhether waste is dumped illegally or sent to a proper disposalfacility, as long as it is removed from the urban zone (Coffey andCoad, 2010). In some urban areas, the primary focus is still on food,shelter, security and livelihoods; waste will become a priority onlywhen these more basic needs have been met (Konteh, 2009), andonly becomes an issue when public health or environmental dam-age impact these priorities (Wilson, 2007).
3.3. Political landscapes: Policy, governance, institutional issues
Politics inevitably play a large role in SWM systems. The struc-ture, functioning, and governance of SWM systems are affected bythe relationship between central and local governments, the role ofparty politics in local government administration, and the extentthat citizens participate democratically in policy making processes(Schübeler, 1996). In low-income countries, the greatest challenge‘‘is to strike the right balance between policy, governance, institu-tional mechanisms and resource provision and allocation’’ (Konteh,2009, p. 74).
3.3.1. PolicyA democratic, public process of SWM goal formulation is essen-
tial to determine the actual needs of the citizens, and therefore tobe able to prioritize limited municipal resources in a just manner.Policy weaknesses are consequently some of the critical causes offailed SWM systems in many low-income countries, as inadequateformulation and implementation of realistic policies is common(see Fig. 3) (Konteh, 2009). While developed countries addressedtheir SWM needs by putting in place effective, functioning policymeasures, ‘‘[i]n many cities of the developing world remedial mea-sures have been elusive; efforts are uncoordinated or ad hoc, andthe resources invested in the sector inadequate’’ (Konteh, 2009,p. 72). Additionally, civil unrest and political instability has con-tributed to the growing SWM problem in low-income urban areas
by forcing millions of displaced people to seek refuge in major cit-ies (Boadi et al., 2005; Konteh, 2009).
SWM is also not always a high priority for local and nationalpolicy makers and planners. Other issues with more social andpolitical urgency may take precedence and leave little budget forwaste issues (Memon, 2010; Yousif and Scott, 2007). In some coun-tries, such as Guatemala, serious SWM project continuity problemsarise because all municipal office workers – including those not in-volved in elections – are replaced during any change in govern-ment (Yousif and Scott, 2007). This lack of long-termcommitment results in the abandonment of work completed inprevious terms (Zarate et al., 2008). Projects can also be shelveddue to political fallout between different political parties and localauthorities (Henry et al., 2006).
3.3.2. GovernanceIn all urban centers around the world, any form of environ-
mental management ‘‘is an intensely political task, as differentinterests (including very powerful interests) compete for the mostadvantageous locations, for the ownership or use of resources andwaste sinks, and for publicly provided infrastructure and services’’(Hardoy et al., 2001, p. 19). Many of these conflicting interestscontribute to the degradation of essential resources and urbanenvironmental health if good environmental management is ab-sent (Hardoy et al., 2001; Konteh, 2009). As these factors havegained recognition, there has been a shift in the urban develop-ment literature from ‘government’, which focuses on the role,responsibilities and performance of government bodies, to ‘gover-nance’, which additionally considers the relationship betweengovernment and civil society (Hardoy et al., 2001). Good gover-nance requires the participation and collaboration of all relevantparties, including government, non-governmental organizations(NGOs), community groups and the private sector (see Fig. 3)(Konteh, 2009). According to the Asian Development Bank, thefour principle elements of good governance are accountability,participation, predictability, and transparency (Bhuiyan, 2010).Good governance allows low-income groups to influence policyand resource allocation (Hardoy et al., 2001), and therefore it isessential for equitable, effective, and efficient SWM. Indeed, theefficiency, along with ‘‘the effectiveness of SWM in a city [aresome] of the indices for assessing good governance’’ (Bhuiyan,2010, p. 126). Low-income countries tend to lack the appropriategovernance institutions and structures typically found in high-in-come countries, such as public policy research institutions, free-dom of information laws, judicial autonomy, auditors general,police academies, etc. (Bhuiyan, 2010). This lack of democraticstructures and competent, representative local government cre-ates barriers to proper SWM. Political jostling for power meansthat local authorities base decision-making on the interests oftheir parties (Henry et al., 2006; Zurbruegg, 2003). Henry de-scribes how ‘‘the upgrading of Nairobi slums has not been imple-mented because some councilors incite their constituents to rejectsuch a move out of an unfounded fear of voters who might bemoved out once slum upgrading efforts get underway. There areinstances when some councilors hinder particular projects forpolitical reasons only’’ (Henry et al., 2006, p. 97). Governmentbodies maintain inflated workforces for political reasons, whichconsume much-needed funds (Henry et al., 2006). Petty and highprofile corruption are also rampant in many countries. While ‘‘ithas been widely recognized that corruption retards economicgrowth, distorts the political system, debilitates administrationand undermines the interests and welfare of the community’’, cor-ruption remains one of the most pervasive and least confrontedchallenges facing public institutions in developing countries(Bhuiyan, 2010, p. 131).
3.3.3. InstitutionsEffective SWM requires the definition of clear roles and legal
responsibilities of institutions and government bodies to avoidcontroversies, ineffectiveness, inaction, and making SWM systemspolitically unstable (Schübeler, 1996). Even when regulatory andlegislative frameworks exist, governments with weak institutionalstructures are easily overwhelmed by increasing demands forSWM as urban populations explode (Halla and Majani, 1999; Har-doy et al., 2001; Konteh, 2009).
Institutional aspects of SWM include:
� the degree of decentralization, i.e. distribution of authority,functions, and responsibilities between central and local gov-ernmental institutions;� the structure of institutional systems responsible for SWM and
how they interact with other urban management sectors;� organizational procedures, for planning and management;� the capacity of responsible institutions; and� involvement of other sectors, including the private sector and
community groups (Schübeler, 1996).
Institutional aspects also include the current and future legisla-tion, and the extent to which it is enforced (Zurbruegg, 2003). Astraightforward, transparent, unambiguous legal and regulatoryframework, including functioning inspection and enforcement pro-cedures at the national, provincial, and local levels, is essential tothe proper functioning of a SWM strategy (Coffey and Coad, 2010;Schübeler, 1996). According to Wilson (2007, p. 203), ‘‘there seemsto be general consensus that weak institutions are a major issue inemerging and developing countries (e.g. Asia, Africa, Latin America,Russia), so that institutional strengthening and capacity buildingbecomes a major driver’’ for SWM (see Fig. 3). Enforcement of lawsgoverning regular SWM activities and new project implementationis often poor, resulting in improperly functioning SWM systems(Coffey and Coad, 2010; Henry et al., 2006). For example, the ‘‘pol-luter pays’’ policy is inappropriate for many countries because thelack of enforcement causes large waste generators to simply dumpillegally (Coffey and Coad, 2010). Developing effective, efficient mu-nicipal SWM plans is difficult in developing countries because dataon waste generation and composition is largely unreliable andinsufficient, seldom capturing system losses or informal activities(Jha et al., 2011; Shimura et al., 2001; UN-HABITAT, 2010).
In developing countries, SWM is often under-funded due to acombination of inadequate resources from municipal tax revenues,insufficient user fees, and the mismanagement of funds (Coffey andCoad, 2010; Zurbruegg, 2003). This persistent lack of funds pre-vents capacity building and the improvement and expansion ofSWM handling capacities (Henry et al., 2006). According to theWorld Bank and USAID, it is therefore common for municipalitiesin developing countries to spend 20–50% of their available munici-pal budget on SWM, which often can only stretch to serve less than50% of the population (Henry et al., 2006; Memon, 2010). In low-income countries, 80–90% of this budget is spent on collectionwhile in high-income countries less than 10% is spent on collectionservices (Memon, 2010). As the price of land increases, it becomesincreasingly difficult to for municipalities to site landfills close tourban areas, while transportation costs become a major constraintto constructing landfills at a distant location (Memon, 2010), exac-erbating the problem. Much-needed resources are consumed byinefficiencies, frequently caused by inefficient institutional struc-tures and organizational procedures, and poor management capac-ity (Zurbruegg, 2003). Structural problems often arise whenrevenue collection and investment decisions happen at the centralgovernment level while operation and maintenance occur at thelocal level. Capacity issues are also common. Schübeler (1996, p.32) states that ‘‘large discrepancies often exist between the job
requirements and the actual qualification of the staff at the mana-gerial and operational levels’’. Overstaffed local authorities find itdifficult to meet the large wage payments of poorly trained work-ers (Henry et al., 2006).
One substantial way that funds are mismanaged in developingcountries is through the use of techniques from the ‘‘conventional’’SWM approach of industrialized countries (Henry et al., 2006). Im-ported, sophisticated vehicles and equipment for collection, treat-ment, and disposal are expensive and difficult to maintain andoperate (Coffey and Coad, 2010; Zurbruegg, 2003). Frequently,the waste composition in developing countries is very differentfrom the waste characteristics they are designed to handle, causingthem to break down rapidly or be of little use in the first place(Memon, 2010; Zurbruegg, 2003). Typically, within a short periodof time only a small percentage of the vehicle fleet remains in oper-ation (Coffey and Coad, 2010).
These managerial challenges are compounded by the fact thatwaste quantities are increasing rapidly in most cities at a greaterrate than in high-income countries due to increases in wealthand in quantities of waste produced per person, an increase inthe number of people living and working in the city, and risingquantities of waste produced by businesses (UN-HABITAT, 2010).
3.4. International influences
In the absence of strong political or cultural drivers, interna-tional financial institutions (IFIs), such as the World Bank, act askey drivers for SWM development. IFIs generally have a strong fo-cus on environmental policies (including those related to climatechange), poverty reduction, institutional capacity building, goodgovernance, and private sector participation (see Fig. 3) (Wilson,2007). While most of these focus areas are indeed crucial to prop-erly functioning solid waste systems, the approaches used by IFIsare not always appropriate for the particular context of their clien-tele. The World Bank had several unsuccessful SWM projects in the1990s (e.g. Philippines, Mexico, Sri Lanka) due in part to weak insti-tutions and governance issues, but also due to a lack of financialcapacity in the receiving country to sustain the expensive facilitieswhen Bank funding ran out (Wilson, 2007). Indeed, while loans maybe obtained for infrastructure (CAPEX), in most cases none areavailable for operational expenditures (OPEX). This often leads tooperational failures as the IFIs focus their attention solely on theacquisition and building of infrastructure, not on its operation.
Unequal funding opportunities within regions and pressure tomeet the same high environmental standards creates affordabilityissues (Wilson, 2007). Investments in the social sectors are oftenmade in areas of global concern over local environmental healthproblems (Hardoy et al., 2001; Konteh, 2009; McGranahan,2001). At the global arena, preoccupation with the ‘green agenda’,which focuses on reducing human impacts on ecosystems andtheir natural resources, is thought to be at the expense of the‘brown agenda’, which focuses on environmental threats to healthin poor regions, and is therefore undermining SWM efforts in low-income countries (Konteh, 2009). Konteh (2009, p. 72) points outthat ‘‘when sanitation and communicable diseases were a seriousproblem in Europe and North America, the public health focuswas exclusively on those same issues which today fail to receiveadequate attention in the developing world in spite of being a ma-jor threat to public health; green environmental issues were not onthe agenda then’’.
The rising urgency of urban environmental problems and needfor capacity building at the municipal level has directed the atten-tion of numerous bilateral and multilateral development agenciesto SWM in recent years (Schübeler, 1996; Zarate et al., 2008).However, these donors may be motivated by bureaucratic proce-dures or goals of their home offices rather than an understanding
of the local situation. van de Klundert (1995) makes several obser-vations about this: donor biases exist towards certain technical ap-proaches or insistence on the use of equipment that supports theirown export industries; the scale at which donors work is ofteninappropriate for local conditions; either too small, without suffi-cient consideration for various larger contexts, or too large for aparticular situation; coordination issues arise between donorsfrom different countries, which may be competing for contracts,and within countries as development agencies work at cross-pur-poses; and donors without the time or political will to produce lo-cally appropriate results opt for large, technical interventionsrather than small-scale, context appropriate approaches, since theyare easier to understand, finance, and monitor.
Coffey and Coad (2010) report that the objective of many for-eign aid programs for SWM in developing countries is to capturemarkets for supplying sophisticated machinery and related spareparts, which are more often than not completely inappropriatefor local conditions. Additionally, municipal SWM is often a com-ponent within a wider development program aimed at improvingurban environmental projection and/or urban management capac-ity, meaning many bilateral and multilateral development agencieslack the considerable expertise needed to implement successfulSWM programs (Schübeler, 1996).
Such issues have a detrimental effect on the evolution of SWMpractices in many developing countries. Zarate et al. (2008, p.2543) point out that ‘‘in spite of the million-dollar loans and grantsthat developing countries have received to improve the basic ser-vices sector, including SWM, the lack of suitable qualified humanresources contributed to the inability of municipalities and com-munities to implement new projects’’. Grants or loans for sanitarylandfill construction do not always result in the actual use of thismethod of disposal; well-trained personnel and sufficient financialsupport for a reasonable standard of operation are also necessary(Zurbruegg, 2003). Many SWM projects initially funded throughgrants or loans have had problems obtaining continued externalfunding to operate and maintain SWM systems (Coffey and Coad,2010). Overseas consultants often recommend techniques andequipment developed in counties with extremely different socialand economic conditions, and entirely different waste characteris-tics (Coffey and Coad, 2010). For example, numerous cases havebeen documented in which expensive, sophisticated compostingand recycling plants have failed for a wide range of reasons: theuse of imported, inappropriate technology that is too expensive ordifficult to maintain; limited development of a market for recycla-ble materials; absence of technical personnel to with operational ormanagement capacity; failure to complete the necessary financialand economic appraisals; and failure to adequately consult signifi-cant stakeholders and the public (Yousif and Scott, 2007).
Researchers are calling for multifaceted SWM methods that areconsidered on a case-to-case basis and tailored to each commu-nity’s individual needs (Jha et al., 2011; Yousif and Scott, 2007).Schübeler (1996, p. 19) aptly summarizes the need for a differentapproach: ‘‘The essential condition of sustainability implies thatwaste management systems must be absorbed and carried by thesociety and its local communities. These systems must, in otherwords, be appropriate to the particular circumstances and prob-lems of the city and locality, employing and developing the capac-ities of all stakeholders, including the households and communitiesrequiring service, private sector enterprises and workers (both for-mal and informal), and government agencies at the local, regionaland national levels’’ [original emphasis].
4. The need for a systems approach
Managing waste is a complex task that requires appropriatetechnical solutions, sufficient organizational capacity, and co-oper-
ation between a wide range of stakeholders (Zarate et al., 2008).According to Seadon (2010), the interdisciplinary and multi-sec-toral considerations needed for the proper management of solidwaste – manufacturing, transportation, urban growth and develop-ment, land use patterns, public health, etc. – highlights ‘‘the inter-action and complexity between the physical components of thesystem and the conceptual components that include the socialand environmental spheres. When waste is seen as part of a ... sys-tem, the relationship of waste to other parts of the system is re-vealed and thus the potential for greater sustainability of theoperation increases. Conceptually, this broader view increasesthe difficulty of managing waste requiring an approach that han-dles complexity’’ (Seadon, 2010, p. 1641). However, the conven-tional SWM approach is reductionist, not tailored to handlecomplexity; interacting systems and their elements are dividedinto ever-smaller parts. System processes, such as waste genera-tion, collection, and disposal operations, are considered indepen-dently, though each is interlinked and influenced by the others(Seadon, 2010). This reductionist approach is even applied towaste, as it is not a single entity that can be easily managed(Dijkema et al., 2000). It is typically separated into many primaryand many more secondary classifications, and waste streams fromdifferent sectors, such as residential and commercial, are oftenconsidered separately (Seadon, 2010). Techniques therefore tendto focus on dealing with one type of waste at a time, leading to afocus on single technologies instead of waste management sys-tems. Consequentially, one waste problem can be solved, but otherwaste problems are often generated with each compartmentalized‘solution’ (Dijkema et al., 2000). This tendency to analyze things insmall, understandable pieces, to trace straight paths from cause toeffect, and to problem solve by attempting to control the system ofconcern is increasingly being recognized as problematic (Fun-towicz and Ravetz, 1993; Meadows, 2008). This is evidenced inthe SWM sector by the growing demand for SWM approaches thatrecognize the social, cultural, political, and environmental spheres;that engage with a broad community of stakeholders; and thatconsider the larger system through holistic, integratingmethodologies
(Carabias et al., 1999; Dijkema et al., 2000; Henry et al., 2006;McDougall et al., 2001; Morrissey and Browne, 2004; Petts, 2000;Seadon, 2006, 2010; Turner and Powell, 1991; Wilson, 2007; Zarateet al., 2008).
4.1. Integrated solid waste management – The current paradigm
Integrated solid waste management (ISWM), the current SWMparadigm that has been widely accepted throughout the developedworld, emerged from the policy shift away from landfilling and thepush for a broader perspective that began in the 1990s. While the‘modern’ SWM practices that began in the 1970s were defined inengineering terms – technical problems with technical solutions(van de Klundert and Anschutz, 2001), the concept of ISWM strivesto strike a balance between three dimensions of waste manage-ment: environmental effectiveness, social acceptability, and eco-nomic affordability (see Fig. 2). (McDougall et al., 2001;Morrissey and Browne, 2004; Petts, 2000; Thomas and McDougall,2005; van de Klundert and Anschutz, 2001). ISWM also focuses onthe integration of the many inter-related processes and entities thatmake up a waste management system (McDougall et al., 2001). Toreduce environmental impacts and drive costs down, a systemshould be integrated (in waste materials, sources of waste, andtreatment methods), market oriented (i.e. energy and materialshave end uses), and flexible, allowing for continual improvement(McDougall et al., 2001). ISWM systems are tailored to specificcommunity goals by incorporating stakeholders’ perspectives andneeds; the local context (from the technical, such as waste
characteristics, to the cultural, political, social, environmental, eco-nomic and institutional); and the optimal combination of available,appropriate methods of prevention, reduction, recovery and dis-posal (Kollikkathara et al., 2009; McDougall et al., 2001; van deKlundert and Anschutz, 2001).
It has been widely recognized that waste management systemsthat ignore social components and priorities are doomed to failure(Carabias et al., 1999; Dijkema et al., 2000; Henry et al., 2006;Morrissey and Browne, 2004; Petts, 2000). The issues of publicacceptance, changing value systems, public participation in plan-ning and implementation stages, and consumer behaviour areequally as important as the technical and economic aspects ofwaste management (Carabias et al., 1999). Effective waste manage-ment must be fully embraced by local authorities and the publicsphere, and go beyond traditional consultative methods that re-quire the ‘expert’ to outline a solution prior to public involvement(Henry et al., 2006; Morrissey and Browne, 2004). Key elements tothe success of these programs are public participation and empow-erment, decision transparency, networking, co-operation and col-lective action, communication, and accessibility of information(Carabias et al., 1999; Zarate et al., 2008). However, it has been dif-ficult to fully integrate stakeholders and ensure public involve-ment (Morrissey and Browne, 2004); this is in large part due tothe fact that citizens did not shape the SWM systems they dependupon. These systems were shaped by technically minded ‘‘experts’’who defined and designed the system in engineering terms.
Traditionally, the term ‘waste’ has assumed a negative connota-tion, but it is a subjective concept – a label applied to somethingunwanted by the person discarding it (Dijkema et al., 2000; vande Klundert and Anschutz, 2001). In the context of ISWM, ‘waste’bears a negative connotation only if it cannot be regarded as a re-source that that has not been used to its full potential and can sub-sequently be processed to produce useful energy or goods(Dijkema et al., 2000; van de Klundert and Anschutz, 2001). In thissense, ISWM incorporates elements of the waste hierarchy ‘‘byconsidering direct impacts (transportation, collection, treatmentand disposal of waste) and indirect impacts (use of waste materialsand energy outside the waste management system)’’ (Seadon,2006, p. 1328). However, unlike the hierarchy, ISWM does notdefine the ‘best’ system, as there is no universal best system(McDougall et al., 2001). In reality, ISWM is a theoretical, optimaloutcome – a framework from which new systems can be designedand implemented and existing ones can be optimized (UNEP,1996). However, the integrated nature of ISWM creates a host ofvariables that may pull a system in different directions. Clearly, itis difficult to optimize more than one variable, and for this reasonthere will always be trade-offs (McDougall et al., 2001). No ISWMsystem design will achieve either environmental or economic sus-tainability because ‘‘[t]his is a total quality objective ... it can neverbe reached, since it will always be possible to reduce environmen-tal impacts further, but it will lead to continual improvements’’(McDougall et al., 2001, p. 19).
Despite the fact that ISWM is a holistic ideal, it has become some-what of a buzzword with a different meaning in practice. Oftenmuch of what is termed ‘integrated waste management’ simplyincorporates the waste hierarchy and may attempt to engage withstakeholders early on, but lacks actual integration. Thornloe et al.(1997), for example, observed that in the United States many ‘ISWM’programs focused on individual components making up the systeminstead of the system as a whole. This kind of compartmentalizationis prevalent throughout all aspects of municipal waste management.Collection and disposal may be the duty of separate local authorities,and may be contracted out to different private waste managementcompanies. Likewise, different operating companies may controlrecycling, incineration, composting, and landfill operations (McDou-gall et al., 2001). Therefore, no one has control over the whole sys-tem, making it difficult to manage on a more holistic level.Consequentially, the bulk of the effort remains focused on lower-le-vel priorities such as recycling, which are important, but not suffi-cient (Gertsakis and Lewis, 2003; UNEP, 2010).
Managing waste on a systemic level is particularly difficult inthe absence of regulation (Gertsakis and Lewis, 2003). This hasbeen recognized by many governments and other entities, andhas sparked a move towards programs and regulations thatencourage closing the loop; ‘‘moving from the concept of ‘end-of-pipe’ waste management towards a more holistic resource manage-ment’’ (Wilson, 2007, p. 205). Examples of this shift in focus includethe push for more ‘sustainable consumption and production’ initia-tives and regulations like the European Ecolabel and the Eco-Man-agement and Audit Scheme, and eco-innovation and nationalwaste prevention programs (BIO Intelligence Service, 2011; Euro-pean Commission, 2010).
Shifting focus upstream to product design and to ‘decoupling’waste growth from economic growth are a step in the right
direction, but waste management systems in high-income coun-tries are still far from integrated (Wilson, 2007). Progress is stillslowed by barriers to policy and program implementation, suchas a lack of infrastructure and/or capacity to comply; unequal mar-ket development (costs, levies, incentives, etc.) between countries;administrative competency and capacity; enforcement measures;knowledge barriers (gaps, knowledge-sharing, awareness-raising);lack of quantitative targets; and economic ability to comply withtargets (BIO Intelligence Service, 2011).
It is clear that although considerable efforts are being made bymany governments and entities to confront waste-related prob-lems head-on, major gaps still exist in SWM practices in high-in-come countries. A lack of ‘systems thinking’ has been pinpointedas a major contributor to the inadequacy of these approaches(McDougall et al., 2001; Seadon, 2010; Turner and Powell, 1991).Despite the fact that some types of systems analyses have been ap-plied to SWM issues since the 1960s (Chang et al., 2011), the sectorstruggles to handle the growing complexities that arise at thenexus of social and ecological systems. This is particularly true inthe context of rapidly developing areas where poor SWM practicesare impacting the most vulnerable populations. Two schools ofthought of particular relevance to the challenges faced in theSWM sector in such regions are those of post-normal science,and complex, adaptive, eco-social systems. The following sectionswill explore these areas and their relevance to future SWMpractices.
4.2. Post-normal science
In the mid-1980s, there was a growing community of scientistsand social scientists interested in major social and environmentalconcerns characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and high
socio-ecological risks, such as acid rain, ozone depletion, and cli-mate change (Turnpenny et al., 2011). Frustrations were growingwith the ‘‘normal science’’ of Kuhn (1962), described by Funtowiczand Ravetz (1993, p. 740) to be the ‘‘unexciting, indeed anti-intel-lectual routine puzzle solving by which science advances steadilybetween its conceptual revolutions’’. In response to the increasingchallenges at the intersection of policy, risk, and environment, Fun-towicz and Ravetz (1993) developed a problem-solving frameworkcalled ‘‘post-normal science’’ based on the assumptions of incom-plete control, unpredictability, and multiple legitimate perspec-tives. The post-normal science paradigm recognizes the relevanceof both process and location, in place and time, and is ‘issue-driven’as opposed to the ‘curiosity-motivated’, ‘mission-oriented’, or ‘cli-ent-serving’ goals of core science, applied science, and professionalconsultancy, respectively (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). Theauthors viewed this emerging science as a platform from which is-sues that traditional scientific methodologies fail to handle can beapproached. Such issues have either high uncertainties (i.e. the sci-entific, technical, and managerial complexities of the system beingconsidered, and the array of potential results) or high decision-making stakes (possible costs, benefits, and value commitmentsfor stakeholders) (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991, 1993; Turnpennyet al., 2011).
Post-normal science explicitly challenges traditional ap-proaches to science, recognizing its limitations and the need forunconventional approaches ‘‘when uncertainties are either of theepistemological or the ethical kind, or when decision stakes reflectconflicting purposes among stakeholders’’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz,1993, p. 750). It calls for the inclusion of extended peer communi-ties – groups of legitimate participants – in the processes of qualityassurance, policy debate, and research. The extension of legitimatepeers is not only founded on ethical or political reasons; it also en-riches the practice of scientific investigation (Funtowicz and Ra-vetz, 1993). Post-normal science also recognizes the value ofhistory and context as essential elements of the scientific process.
SWM systems could benefit from a post-normal science per-spective; highly complex technical, scientific, and especially man-agerial aspects (and therefore high uncertainties), and conflicting,often immense costs, benefits, and value commitments for variousstakeholders (i.e. high decision stakes) make SWM systems idealfor alternative, post-normal problem-solving approaches. ‘‘Indeed,any of the problems of major technological hazards or large-scalepollution belongs to this class’’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993, p.750). While many SWM systems analyses have considered theimportance of uncertainty to decision-making since the 1990s(Chang et al., 2011), most have failed to include multiple, legiti-mate perspectives, and therefore to consider the high decisionstakes associated with SWM processes. Most, especially in devel-oping country contexts, have also failed to develop solutions thattruly consider the specific context of the SWM system in question– a critical aspect for developing functional, integrated, and appro-priate SWM policies and processes. This is largely due to the lack ofreal stakeholder involvement; involving all relevant stakeholdersin decision making and planning processes can bring togetherpowerful, historical narratives that richly define the particulars ofa given context. Such narratives are often implicit, and ‘‘are influ-ential on how we frame problems and manage for perceivedimprovements’’ (Waltner-Toews et al., 2005, p. 161). This includesthe perspectives of so-called ‘objective’ scientists and engineers,who design SWM systems according to their own historicalnarratives, developed in their own contexts. Creating whatWaltner-Toews et al. (2005) call a ‘‘meta-narrative’’, composed ofthe perspectives of all relevant stakeholders, is particularly impor-tant for understanding the constantly changing relationshipsamong governance, decision-making power, and eco-social systemdynamics (Waltner-Toews et al., 2005). Revealing this kind of
context, in turn, can provide a rich, holistic perspective of theSWM system, its sub-systems, and the larger systems of which itis a part – addressing the criticism that most SWM systems analy-ses to date have been narrow-minded and focused on a singleproblem.
A 10-year study conducted by Waltner-Toews et al. (2005) con-cretely demonstrates the applicability and strength of post-normalapproaches to SWM. The study was originally designed to preventthe transmission of a parasitic disease of people associated with atapeworm of dogs in Kathmandu, Nepal. However, the study even-tually shifted away from this single-problem focus; the communitybecame part of the research team, participatory methods wereintroduced, and through community participation, it became clearthat several large-scale issues had to become part of the researchfocus, including SWM (Waltner-Toews et al., 2005). A new modelthat did not assume a single, ‘‘correct’’ perspective was createdfrom the narratives of a wide range of community members. Thiscollective narrative brought to light the fact that ‘‘solid waste gen-eration (which attracted dogs) and management was part of acomplex set of political, caste, and gender hierarchies which hadresisted the technological solutions proposed and transientlyimplemented’’ (Waltner-Toews et al., 2005, p. 157). The resultingsystem model enabled the community to identify a range of inter-actions, strongly divergent perspectives, potential areas of conflictamong stakeholder groups, and where negotiation of tradeoffs, vi-sions, and future actions were needed (Waltner-Toews et al.,2005).
While this is but one example of the applicability of post-nor-mal science to SWM and the particular tools and methods usedby Waltner-Toews et al. (2005) may not be universally effective,the fundamental principles behind their research approach are ex-tremely relevant for SWM decision making, planning, monitoringand optimization. This kind of publicly engaged science that re-quires and creates uniquely tailored, context specific, locallyowned approaches will be crucial for the future of SWM in devel-oping country contexts.
4.3. Systems thinking: The foundations of systems approaches
‘Systems thinking’, a term in good currency in research acrossmany fields, has only been explicitly recognized since the 1950s.The concept was borne out of von Bertalanffy’s mathematical fieldof a ‘general theory of systems’, which was first presented in Chi-cago in 1937 and published in a German journal in 1949 (Drackand Schwarz, 2010). Von Bertalanffy’s General System Theory(GST) aimed to promote the ‘Unity of Science’ by providing a lan-guage and theory for systemic problem solving in many differentdisciplines, which were independently stumbling upon generalsystem characteristics and principles (von Bertalanffy, 1950). GSTstruck a strong chord with researchers ready to part with reduc-tionism across the disciplines, as it was originally intended to do.While interest in GST peaked during the two decades before vonBertalanffy’s death in 1972 and the quest for a general theory ofsystems subsequently subsided (Drack and Schwarz, 2010), itspawned a plethora of derivatives and sparked a widespread inter-est in systemic approaches. New systems concepts have emerged,and previously existing ones have since been applied in many sub-ject areas (everything from health care, organizational develop-ment, and family research to international development, physicalgeography, policy, economic analysis, and management science(Chai and Yeo, 2012; Checkland, 2000; Patton, 2002)).
According to Checkland (1981), systems thinking is an attemptto escape the reductionism of normal science. Indeed, a holisticperspective is crucial to systems thinking (Patton, 2002). The func-tion and meaning of both a system and its parts are lost when it istaken apart; any system is dependent on its own internal
interdependencies. Therefore, systems thinking is intrinsically fo-cused on relationships (Checkland, 2000), along with patterns, pro-cesses, and context (Capra, 2005). It also ensures in any givensituation (at least) three levels are considered: the system (what?),the sub-system (how?), and the wider system (why?) (Checkland,2000).
Several perspectives on the meaning of a ‘systems approach’ ex-ist among researchers. While a vast literature about systems the-ory and applied systems research has developed since vonBertalanffy’s original publication, much of it has been highly tech-nical and quantitative, involving computer simulations of specifi-cally defined, ‘‘engineered’’ systems whose goals and objectiveshave been made explicit by external ‘experts’ (Checkland, 2000;Patton, 2002). However, according to Patton (2002, p. 120), ‘‘(1) asystems perspective is becoming increasingly important in dealingwith and understanding real-world complexities, viewing things aswhole entities embedded in context and still larger wholes; (2)some approaches to systems research lead directly to and dependheavily on qualitative inquiry; and (3) a systems orientation can bevery helpful in framing questions and, later, making sense out ofqualitative data’’. While systems thinking originated from the‘hard’ science of mathematics, many researchers felt that a ‘hard’systems approach was insufficient to handle complex, messy, realworld problems (i.e. not the technical problems for which it wasdeveloped), and a ‘soft’ systems methodology quickly emerged(Checkland, 2000). This initiated a debate between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’systems methodologies. Essentially, ‘hard’ systems thinking as-sumes the world is a set of systems that can be engineered to reacheasy-to-define goals and objectives, and performance can be mea-sured quantitatively (Chai and Yeo, 2012; Checkland, 2000). On theother hand, ‘soft’ systems thinking uses systems not as representa-tions of the real world but as intellectual devices, based on de-clared world-views, to explore problematic situations anddesirable changes to them; the entire approach is used as an orga-nized ‘learning system’ (Checkland, 2000). Therefore, ‘hard’ sys-tems thinking is ideal for well-defined, technical problems, and‘soft’ systems thinking is appropriate for poorly defined, messy sit-uations involving social and cultural considerations (Chai and Yeo,2012; Checkland, 2000).
Systems approaches to SWM have been largely of the ‘hard’variety – narrowly focused, tightly defined, and compartmental-ized – the ‘systems’ in question being (predominantly technical)subsystems of a larger messy, ill-defined, eco-social system. Theproblematic surprises that arise in relation to these tightly definedsystems are a result of poorly chosen (i.e. too narrowly drawn) sys-tem boundaries. System boundaries – mental models about wherea system ends and the rest of the world begins – must be defined inorder to simplify the system enough to begin understanding it. Yetthese boundaries are almost always artificial, as systems seldomhave real boundaries. As Meadows (2008, p. 97) describes, ‘‘thereis no single, legitimate boundary to draw around a system. Wehave to invent boundaries for clarity and sanity; and boundariescan produce problems when we forget that we’ve artificially cre-ated them’’. SWM practitioners and systems analysts alike arechallenged to define suitable system boundaries that are neithertoo narrow nor too wide. When too narrowly drawn, larger, morecomplicated problems are often created. For example, if waste isthrown into a river that flows beyond municipal boundaries, hu-man health and ecological wellbeing will be impacted down-stream, and the resulting damage will be even more difficult toaddress. If system boundaries are too broadly drawn, as many sys-tem analysts tend to do, enormously complicated analyses are pro-duced that often only obscure the solutions to an already complexproblem (Meadows, 2008). Choosing a system boundary that bestfits the situation at hand demands mental flexibility and contextspecificity; boundaries should be re-defined for each new project,
discussion, question, or purpose (Meadows, 2008). When bound-aries are chosen, it is imperative to keep in mind that the boundedsystem description is always a simplification of the real intercon-nectedness of issues; a system boundary defines what is includedin an analysis and what is not, and accepting this simplificationcan come with consequences.
4.4. Complex, adaptive, eco-social systems
Systems theory has provided a baseline from which other inno-vative perspectives of the world have drawn upon, includingcybernetics, catastrophe theory, chaos theory, non-equilibriumthermodynamics, self-organization, and complexity theory (Kayet al., 1999). Complexity can be defined as the domain between lin-early determined order and indeterminate chaos (Byrne, 1998).Complexity theory, technically known as nonlinear dynamics, isconcerned with modeling and describing complex, non-linear sys-tems and ‘‘developing a unified view of life by integrating life’s bio-logical, cognitive and social dimensions’’ (Capra, 2005, p. 33).Reality is understood to be composed of complex open systemswith emergent properties and transformational potential (Byrne,2005). These characteristics are typical of complex, adaptive sys-tems (CAS), of which eco-social systems are a part. Crucial to thesesystems is the concept of multiple scales, both spatially and tem-porally (see Fig. 4).
While systems are composed of elements, these elements arethemselves wholes, composed of units at a smaller scale. ArthurKoestler (1978) defined this abstract concept of an entity whichis both a whole and a part as a ‘holon’, which exists in a nested net-work of other holons called a ‘holarchy’. Holling (2001) describedthese ‘hierarchical’ structures as semi-autonomous levels of similarvariables that communicate information or material to the nexthigher, slower, and coarser level. Each level serves two functions:(1) preserving and stabilizing conditions for the quicker, smallerlevels; and (2) functioning as an ‘‘adaptive cycle’’ by producingand testing innovations (Holling, 2001). Holling’s representationof an adaptive cycle demonstrates a figure-eight movement be-tween four system functions: from exploitation to conservation,release, and finally reorganization. There are potentially multipleconnections between nested sets of adaptive cycles. The connec-tion Holling labelled ‘revolt’ occurs when a smaller, faster levelcauses a larger, slower level to collapse, demonstrating thatchanges in quicker, smaller cycles have the ability to influencethe behaviour of slower, larger ones. Holling (2001) labelled an-other key connection ‘remember’, which demonstrates that slower,larger levels can buffer smaller, faster ones from disturbances.Many such relationships can be observed in SWM systems. Forexample, the rapidly increasing processes of urbanization and con-sumption overwhelm slower processes, such as institutionalcapacity building, which can completely overload the SWM systemand result in negative SWM practices (e.g. open dumping on landor in water, backyard burning, etc.). After this type of ‘collapse’,Holling (2001) describes how the release of accumulated ‘poten-tial’, high levels of uncertainty, and weak controls can result insurges of innovation and novel recombinations. Hence, waste pick-ing and other informal sector activities emerge as a means to makea living, acting as innovative, reorganized contributions to the sys-tem that can no longer serve its community as it did in the past.
Self-organization is another key attribute of CAS (Kay et al.,1999; Patton, 2002). Such systems contain a web of positive andnegative feedback loops operating over a range of spatial and tem-poral scales that ‘‘lead both to stable states of self-organizationand, in some instances, to surprising outcomes from apparentlystraightforward interventions’’ (Waltner-Toews et al., 2003, p.25). Kay et al. (1999) describe self-organization as a dissipativeprocess that CAS undergo when high quality energy, known as
Fig. 4. Complex adaptive systems: nested sets of four phase adaptive cycles (adapted from Holling (2001)).
‘‘exergy’’, attempts to push the system beyond a critical distancefrom equilibrium. CAS resist the push away from equilibriumthrough the spontaneous emergence of dissipative structures andnew behaviour, which uses the exergy to organize and maintainthe system’s new structure (see Fig. 5).
A system’s movement away from equilibrium is often triggeredby disturbances such as increased material and energy flow (bothcan be considered as forms of exergy), or flow of disruptive infor-mation. A complex adaptive system’s response to disturbancesrelates to the magnitude of the disturbances. Therefore, as the
Fig. 5. Conceptual model of the dissipative nature of a self-organizing system(adapted from Kay et al. (1999)).
magnitude or potential impact of disturbances increase, CAS resortto more efficient mechanisms (dissipative structures) to dissipatethe disturbance and return to equilibrium. Over time this processresults in more complex dynamic systems with greater diversityand increased ability to withstand movement away from equilib-rium. The particular manifestation of the dissipative structures isdependent upon the context (i.e. the history and environment inwhich the system is embedded), the available exergy and other dis-turbances. Newly emerging structures provide a new context, inwhich new processes manifest, in which new structures emergeyet again (Kay et al., 1999). Therefore, the contents of the systemare the product of the history of the system itself (Checkland,2000). Kay et al. (1999) define these systems as self-organizing hol-archic open (SOHO) systems: ‘‘a nested constellation of self-orga-nizing dissipative process/structures, organized about a particularset of sources of exergy, materials, and information, embedded ina physical environment, that give rise to coherent self-perpetuat-ing behaviours’’ (Kay et al., 1999, p. 724). The tendency to self-organize into ‘‘hierarchical’’ (holarchic) structures is also apparentin SWM systems. For example, as waste generation levels sky-rocked in the first half of the 20th century, land availability becamean issue of importance, particularly in small European countries.Increased solid waste quantities acted as increased material flowin and out of the system, and land availability acted as disruptiveinformation flows. These two flows formed disturbances sufficientenough to push the waste generation system away from its equi-librium (in this case the paradigm of consumption and waste gen-eration). However, to maintain the status quo (equilibrium), newtechnologies and practices (dissipative structures) were born, suchas incineration, to allow business as usual. New structures werecreated as new workers were hired and departments were formed
to manage the inward and outward flow of materials and informa-tion. A second example of this kind of self-organization emerged inthe 1970s, when the environmental movement pushed for the pro-tection of ecosystems from poor waste management practices. Inthis case, environmental issues acted as information flows that,in combination with increased waste material flows, disturbedthe system’s equilibrium. Instead of moving to a new equilibriumwhere waste generation levels would be dramatically reduced,recycling facilities began to spring up. As recycling evolved dueto sustained pressure to protect the environment, a few recyclingstreams differentiated into tens and even hundreds of specializedstreams, and again, new departments and systemic relationshipswere generated to manage the flow, pay the workers, and coordi-nate the selling of raw materials. The waste management system,meanwhile, remained near the original equilibrium of waste gen-eration, though disposal methods had proliferated into a host ofhierarchical structures. Many more examples of this kind of adap-tation and self-organization in SWM systems exist. In both of theseinstances, the SWM system resisted a complete flip to a new equi-librium state where waste generation would have dramatically de-creased, (more) environmental systems would have collapsed, or ahost of other surprises would have occurred. This was accom-plished by creating elaborate hierarchies of structure and relation-ships to reduce disturbances to the system (i.e., consume excessmaterial, or ‘‘exergy’’). However, the maintenance of the currentstate of equilibrium has required significant input of energy and re-sources and is pushing waste management systems to their limitsof viability in many jurisdictions.
The self-organizing tendencies of CAS highlight the challengeshumans face in attempting to ‘manage’ them (or our outrightinability to do so). It also highlights the potential for surprisingoutcomes due to ‘‘time lags, cross-scale effects, and what mighthave been left out [of a system model]. These types of feedbackmean that prediction of individual outcomes is limited; predictionof overall system behaviour is only possible in broad outline, andthen only if we have historical data to suggest the canon of statesavailable to that system... Such data are rarely available’’ (Waltner-Toews et al., 2003, p. 25). Both ecological and human systemsexhibit strongly developed self-organized patterns, meaning thatlinear policies are more likely to produce temporary solutionsand many worsening problems in the future (Holling, 2001). Walt-ner-Toews et al. (2005) hold the view that ecological and socialsystems are intertwined, and the separation of these systems isboth artificial and arbitrary. The term ‘eco-social systems’acknowledges these connections. Limits for the possible alterna-tive states of such systems are set by the accumulated social, cul-tural, ecological, and economic capital, in addition to chanceinnovations (Holling, 2001). SWM systems are certainly eco-socialsystems, and thus their evolution is shaped by these factors.
Central to a CAS approach is the essential need to include multi-ple perspectives. Kay et al. (1999) consider human values and adiversity of views to be crucial to the process of identifying appro-priate methods of investigation necessary to deal with issues in asystemic context. Issues of social reality, which are ‘‘continuouslysocially constructed and reconstructed by individuals and groups’’(Checkland, 2000, p. S24), are relevant, as are issues of inclusive-ness, mutual trust in the investigation process, and relative poweramong stakeholders (Kay et al., 1999). Any action taken must befeasible in the context of the local history, relationships, culture,and aspirations of all concerned parties (Checkland, 2000). Culturalcontext and historical narratives are strongly influential on howpublic decisions about environment and health are both framedand managed (Waltner-Toews et al., 2005). Ensuring real stake-holder participation in SWM processes – everything from deter-mining what problems are most important to solutionimplementation – will greatly help to identify system structures,
behavioural tendencies, precious historical information, and po-tential future system states. Developing this kind of shared under-standing of the eco-social SWM systems in developing countriescan lay the groundwork for much needed innovation and improve-ment in the sector.
5. Conclusion
While the need for a systems approach to SWM has been bothexplicitly recognized (e.g. see Seadon (2010)) and inexplicitly recog-nized through the many calls for ‘integrated’ methodologies, there isa lack of literature exploring the actual application of post-normalapproaches and complex, adaptive systems thinking to SWM sys-tems in many developing country contexts. While not a cure-all‘solution’, this kind of publicly engaged systems thinking can pro-vide some understanding and create approaches for coping withcomplexity (Waltner-Toews et al., 2008). Collaborating with a hostof legitimate peers can also help to create rich ‘‘meta-narratives’’that enable stakeholders to frame their particular context, and takethe next appropriate SWM steps. The need for this kind of contextspecificity is critical for the future of SWM. It has been widely recog-nized that it is counterproductive for developing countries to usestrategies and policies developed for high-income countries; ap-proaches should be locally sensitive, critical, creative, and ‘owned’by the community of concern (Coffey and Coad, 2010; Henry et al.,2006; Konteh, 2009; Schübeler, 1996; UN-HABITAT, 2010). Hollingsuggests beginning an analysis ‘‘with a historical reconstruction ofthe events that have occurred, focusing on the surprises and crisesthat have arisen as a result of both external influences and internalinstabilities’’, in the ecological, social, political, and economic sys-tems, and the management institutions (Holling, 2001, p. 402).
It should be noted that while systems thinking is concerned withhow patterns of relationships translate into emergent behaviours(Waltner-Toews et al., 2008), these translations take time and sowill any system alterations; delays are inherent in complex systems(Meadows, 2008). It has taken decades for the management, effi-ciency, and reliability of SWM systems in high-income countriesto evolve to the far from ideal states they are currently in (Coffeyand Coad, 2010). Wilson (2007) describes the impracticality of cur-rent expectations for developing country SWM systems: ‘‘If there isone key lesson that I have learned from 30 years in waste manage-ment, it is that there are no ‘quick fixes’. All developed countrieshave evolved their current systems in a series of steps; developingcountries can benefit from that experience, but to expect to movefrom uncontrolled dumping to a ‘modern’ waste management sys-tem in one great leap is just not realistic’’ (Wilson, 2007, p. 205).
Approaches developed to handle the complexity of specificdeveloping country contexts, particularly at the nexus of eco-socialsystems, could contribute substantially to solid waste manage-ment research and decision-making in developing country con-texts. Thus, there is a need for new approaches emerging fromthe interface of SWM, post-normal science, and complex-adaptivesystems research as the bleak state of SWM systems in manydeveloping regions continues to threaten and degrade the healthof the most vulnerable human populations and the ecosystemsthey are a part of. While systems thinking has played a role in tech-nically-focused SWM research, predominantly in developed coun-tries, solid waste researchers and decision-makers will need toadopt a strongly participatory, contextually grounded complex,adaptive systems perspective if any real progress is to be madein the SWM practices of the developing world.
References
Bhuiyan, S.H., 2010. A crisis in governance: urban solid waste management inBangladesh. Habitat International 34 (1), 125–133.
BIO Intelligence Service, 2011. Implementing EU Waste Legislation for GreenGrowth Final Report Prepared for European Commission DG ENV.
Boadi, K., Kuitunen, M., Raheem, K., Hanninen, K., 2005. Urbanisation withoutdevelopment: environmental and health implications in African cities.Environment, Development and Sustainability 7 (4), 465–500.
Boulding, K.E., 1956. General systems theory – the skeleton of science. ManagementScience 2 (3), 197–208.
Byrne, D., 2005. Complexity, configurations and cases. Theory, Culture & Society 22(5), 95–111.
Byrne, D.S., 1998. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction.Routledge, London; New York.
Capra, F., 2005. Complexity and Life. Theory, Culture & Society 22 (5), 33–44.Carabias, W.J.V., Winistoerfer, H., Stuecheli, A., 1999. Social aspects of public waste
management in Switzerland. Waste Management 19 (6), 417–425.CEC, 1977. Second EC Environment Action Programme. Commission of the European
Communities, Brussels.Chai, K.-H., Yeo, C., 2012. Overcoming energy efficiency barriers through systems
approach—a conceptual framework. Energy Policy 46, 460–472.Chang, N.B., Chen, Y., Wang, S., 1997. A fuzzy interval multiobjective mixed integer
programming approach for the optimal planning of solid waste managementsystems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 89 (1), 35–60.
Chang, N.B., Pires, A., Martinho, G., 2011. Empowering systems analysis for solidwaste management: challenges, trends and perspectives. Critical Reviews inEnvironmental Science and Technology 41 (16), 1449–1530.
Chang, N.B., Wang, S., 1996. Managerial fuzzy optimal planning for solid wastemanagement systems. Journal of Environmental Engineering 122 (7), 649–658.
Charnpratheep, K.S., Garner, B., 1997. Preliminary landfill site screening using fuzzygeographical information systems. Waste Management and Research 15 (2),197–215.
Checkland, P., 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. J. Wiley, Chichester,England; Toronto.
Checkland, P., 2000. Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. SystemsResearch and Behavioral Science 17 (S1), S11–S58.
Coffey, M., Coad, A., 2010. Collection of Municipal Solid Waste in DevelopingCountries. UN-HABITAT, Malta.
Cohen, B., 2004. Urban growth in developing countries: a review of current trendsand a caution regarding existing forecasts. World Development 32 (1), 23–51.
Dijkema, G.P.J., Reuter, M.A., Verhoef, E.V., 2000. A new paradigm for wastemanagement. Waste Management 20 (8), 633–638.
Drack, M., Schwarz, G., 2010. Recent developments in general system theory.Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27 (6), 601–610.
European Commission, 2010. 2009 Environment Policy Review. Brussels.Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1991. A new scientific methodology for global
environmental issues. In: Costanza, R. (Ed.), Ecological Economics: TheScience and Management of Sustainability. Columbia University Press, NewYork, pp. 137–152.
Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25 (7),739–755.
Gertsakis, J., Lewis, H., 2003. Sustainability and the Waste Management Hierarchy:A Discussion Paper on the Waste Management Hierarchy and its Relationship toSustainability. RMIT University, Melbourne, pp. 1–15.
Halla, F., Majani, B., 1999. Innovative ways for solid waste management in Dar-Es-Salaam: toward stakeholder partnerships. Habitat International 23 (3), 351–361.
Hardoy, J.E., Mitlin, D., Satterthwaite, D., Hardoy, J.E., 2001. Environmental Problemsin an Urbanizing World: Finding Solutions for Cities in Africa, Asia, and LatinAmerica. Earthscan Publications, London, Sterling, VA.
Henry, R.K., Yongsheng, Z., Jun, D., 2006. Municipal solid waste managementchallenges in developing countries – Kenyan case study. Waste Management 26(1), 92–100.
Hirschhorn, J., Jackson, T., Baas, L., 1993. Towards Prevention: the emergingenvironmental management paradigm. In: Jackson, T. (Ed.), Clean ProductionStrategies: Developing Preventative Environmental Management in theIndustrial Economy. Lewis, Chelsea, MI.
Holling, C.S., 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, andsocial systems. Ecosystems 4 (5), 390–405.
management in low income group of cities: a review. Tropical Ecology 52 (1),123–131.
Kay, J.J., Regier, H.A., Boyle, M., Francis, G., 1999. An ecosystem approach forsustainability: addressing the challenge of complexity. Futures 31 (7), 721–742.
Koestler, A., 1978. Janus: A Summing Up, first American Ed ed. Random House, NewYork.
Kollikkathara, N., Feng, H., Stern, E., 2009. A purview of waste managementevolution: special emphasis on USA. Waste Management 29 (2), 974–985.
Konteh, F.H., 2009. Urban sanitation and health in the developing world: reminiscingthe nineteenth century industrial nations. Health & Place 15 (1), 69–78.
Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.
Langeweg, F., Hilderink, H., Maas, R., 2000. Urbanisation, Industrialisation andSustainable Development Globo Report Series No. 27: RIVM.
Louis, G.E., 2004. A historical context of municipal solid waste management in theUnited States. Waste Management & Research 22 (4), 306–322.
McDougall, F., White, P.R., Franke, M., Hindle, P., 2001. Integrated Solid WasteManagement: A Lifecycle Inventory, second ed. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.
McGranahan, G., 2001. The Citizens at Risk: From Urban Sanitation to SustainableCities. Earthscan: Stockholm Environment Institute, London, Sterling, VA.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., Smith, W., 1999. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: AnIntroduction to Community-Based Social Marketing. New Society Publishers,Gabriola Island (B.C.).
Meadows, D.H., 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Earthscan, London, Sterling,VA.
Melosi, M.V., 1981. Garbage in the Cities: Refuse, Reform, and the Environment,1880-1980, first ed. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Tex.
Memon, M.A., 2010. Integrated solid waste management based on the 3R approach.Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 12 (1), 30–40.
Morrissey, A.J., Browne, J., 2004. Waste management models and their applicationto sustainable waste management. Waste Management 24 (3), 297–308.
Nemerow, N.L., 2009. Environmental Engineering: Environmental Health and Safetyfor Municipal Infrastructure, Land Use and Planning, and Industry, sixth ed.Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, third ed. SagePublications, Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Petts, J., 2000. Municipal waste management: inequities and the role ofdeliberation. Risk Analysis 20 (6), 821–832.
Ponting, C., 1991. A Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapseof Great Civilizations. St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Price, J.L., Joseph, J.B., 2000. Demand management—a basis for waste policy: acritical review of the applicability of the waste hierarchy in terms of achievingsustainable waste management. Sustainable Development 8 (2),96–105.
Rodic, L., Scheinberg, A., Wilson, D.C., 2010. Comparing Solid Waste Management inthe World’s Cities. Paper Presented at the ISWA World Congress 2010, UrbanDevelopment and Sustainability – A Major Challenge for Waste Management inthe 21st Century, Hamburg, Germany.
Schübeler, P., 1996. Conceptual framework for municipal solid waste managementin low-income countries. In: Wehrle, K., Christen, J. (Eds.), St. GallenSwitzerland: UNDP/UNCHS/World Bank/SDC Collaborative Programme onMunicipal Solid Waste Management in Low-Income Countries.
Shimura, S., Yokota, I., Nitta, Y., 2001. Research for MSW flow analysis in developingnations. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 3 (1), 48–59.
Southerton, D., McMeekin, A., Evans, D., 2011. International Review of BehaviourChange Initiatives. Scottish Government Social Research.
Tacoli, C., 2012. Urbanization, Gender and Urban Poverty: Paid Work and UnpaidCarework in the City. International Institute for Environment and Development:United Nations Population Fund, London, UK.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Eliassen, R., 1977. Solid Wastes: EngineeringPrinciples and Management Issues. Mcgraw-Hill, New York; Toronto.
Thomas, B., McDougall, F., 2005. International expert group on life cycle assessmentfor integrated waste management. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (3), 321–326.
Thornloe, S.A., Weitz, K., Nishtala, S., Barlaz, M., Ranjithan, R., Ham, R.K., 1997.Update on the US study applying life-cycle management to compare integratedwaste management strategies. In: Christensen, T.H., Cossu, R., Stegmann, R.(Eds.), International Landfill Symposium. Environmental Sanitary EngineeringCentre, Sardinia, Italy.
Turner, R.K., Powell, J., 1991. Towards an integrated waste management strategy.Environmental Management and Health 2 (1), 6–12.
Turnpenny, J., Jones, M., Lorenzoni, I., 2011. Where now for post-normal science? Acritical review of its development, definitions, and uses. Science, Technology &Human Values 36 (3), 287–306.
UN-HABITAT, 2010. Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities: Water andSanitation in the World’s Cities 2010. In: Earthscan (Series Ed.).
UNDP, 2010. Regional Human Development Report for Latin America and theCaribbean 2010. United Nations Development Programme, Costa Rica.
UNEP, 1996. International Source Book on Environmentally Sound Technologies forMunicipal Solid Waste Management International Environmental TechnologyCentre Technical Publication Series: United Nations Environmental Programme.
UNEP, 2010. Waste and Climate Change: Global Trends and Strategy Framework.Osaka; Shiga: United Nations Environmental Programme.
UNFPA, 2011. State of World Population 2011: United Nations Population Fund.van de Klundert, A., 1995. Community And Private (Formal And Informal) Sector
Involvement In Municipal Solid Waste Management In Developing Countries.Paper presented at the UMP workshop, Ittingen.
van de Klundert, A., Anschutz, J., 2001. Integrated sustainable waste management –the concept: tools for decision-makers. Experiences from the Urban WasteExpertise Programme (1995–2001). In: Scheinberg, A. (Ed.), Gouda. UrbanWaste Expertise Programme, Netherlands.
von Bertalanffy, L., 1950. An outline of general system theory. British Journal for thePhilosophy of Science 1 (2), 134–165.
Waltner-Toews, D., Kay, J., Lister, N.-M.E., 2008. The Ecosystem Approach:Complexity, Uncertainty, and Managing for Sustainability. ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York.
