research paper on garbage

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Environmental Sustainability Impacts of Solid Waste Management Practices in the Global South

Ismaila rimi abubakar.

1 College of Architecture and Planning, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia

Khandoker M. Maniruzzaman

2 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, College of Architecture and Planning, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia

Umar Lawal Dano

Faez s. alshihri, maher s. alshammari, sayed mohammed s. ahmed, wadee ahmed ghanem al-gehlani.

3 Department of Architecture, College of Architecture and Planning, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 32141, Saudi Arabia

Tareq I. Alrawaf

4 Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Planning, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia

Associated Data

No data were reported in this review article.

Solid waste management (SWM) is one of the key responsibilities of city administrators and one of the effective proxies for good governance. Effective SWM mitigates adverse health and environmental impacts, conserves resources, and improves the livability of cities. However, unsustainable SWM practices, exacerbated by rapid urbanization and financial and institutional limitations, negatively impact public health and environmental sustainability. This review article assesses the human and environmental health impacts of SWM practices in the Global South cities that are the future of global urbanization. The study employs desktop research methodology based on in-depth analysis of secondary data and literature, including official documents and published articles. It finds that the commonplace SWM practices include mixing household and commercial garbage with hazardous waste during storage and handling. While waste storage is largely in old or poorly managed facilities such as storage containers, the transportation system is often deficient and informal. The disposal methods are predominantly via uncontrolled dumping, open-air incinerators, and landfills. The negative impacts of such practices include air and water pollution, land degradation, emissions of methane and hazardous leachate, and climate change. These impacts impose significant environmental and public health costs on residents with marginalized social groups mostly affected. The paper concludes with recommendations for mitigating the public and environmental health risks associated with the existing SWM practices in the Global South.

1. Introduction

Solid waste management (SWM) continues to dominate as a major societal and governance challenge, especially in urban areas overwhelmed by the high rate of population growth and garbage generation. The role of SWM in achieving sustainable development is emphasized in several international development agendas, charters, and visions. For example, sustainable SWM can help meet several United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), such as ensuring clean water and sanitation (SDG6), creating sustainable cities and inclusive communities (SDG11), mitigating climate change (SDG13), protecting life on land (SDG15), and demonstrating sustainable consumption and production patterns (SDG12) ( https://sdgs.un.org/goals , accessed on 26 September 2022). It also fosters a circular urban economy that promotes reductions in the consumption of finite resources, materials reuse and recycling for waste elimination, pollution reduction, cost saving, and green growth

However, coupled with economic growth, improved lifestyle, and consumerism, cities across the globe will continue to face an overwhelming challenge of SWM as the world population is expected to rise to 8 billion by 2025 and to 9.3 billion by 2050, out of which around 70% will be living in urban areas [ 1 , 2 ]. In developing countries, most cities collect only 50–80% of generated waste after spending 20–50% of their budgets, of which 80–95% are spent on collecting and transporting waste [ 3 , 4 ]. Moreover, many low-income countries collect as low as 10% of the garbage generated in suburban areas, which contributes to public health and environmental risks, including higher incidents of diarrhea and acute respiratory infections among people, particularly children, living near garbage dumps [ 5 ]. Obstacles to effective municipal SWM include lack of awareness, technologies, finances, and good governance [ 6 , 7 , 8 ].

Removing garbage from homes and businesses without greater attention to what was then carried out with it has also been the priority of municipal SWM in several cities of developing countries [ 9 ]. In most developing countries, garbage collected from households is disposed of in landfills or dumpsites, the majority of which are projected to reach their capacities within a decade. The unsustainable approach of dumping or burning waste in an open space, usually near poor communities on the city edge, or throwing garbage into water bodies was an acceptable garbage disposal strategy. Similarly, several cities still use old-generation or poorly managed facilities and informal uncontrolled dumping or open-air waste burning. Often, these practices affect marginalized social groups near the disposal sites [ 10 ]. Moreover, this approach poses several sustainability problems, including resource depletion, environmental pollution, and public health problems, such as the spread of communicable diseases.

However, ever since the advent of the environmental movement in the 1960s, there has been a far-reaching appreciation of environmental and public health risks of unsustainable SWM practices. In the 1970s and onward, SWM was a technical issue to be resolved using technology; hence, the emphasis and investments were placed on garbage collection equipment [ 5 ]. Although modern technology can significantly reduce emissions of hazardous substances, by the 1990s, that viewpoint changed when municipalities become unable to evacuate and dispose of garbage effectively without the active involvement of service users and other stakeholders [ 5 ]. The inability of the public sector in the global South to deliver sufficient improvement of SWM, coupled with the pressure from the financial institutions and other donor agencies, led to privatization policies at the end of the decade. However, as privatization failed to provide municipal SWM services to the poor and marginalized communities, the current global thinking on addressing municipal SWM problems is changing.

A more sustainable waste management approach prioritizes practices such as reduced production, waste classifications, reuse, recycling, and energy recovery over the common practices of landfilling, open dumps, and open incineration [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. This approach, which is still at an early stage but getting increased attention in the Global South, is more inclusive and environment-friendly and has less negative impact on human health and the environment than the common practices [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. As such, there is a need to assess SWM practices in the Global South and their impacts on environmental and human health because 90% of the expected growth in the urban population by 2050 is expected to happen here. So far, there are a few studies on the impacts of SWM practices on human health and the environment in the global regions.

Therefore, this review article addresses this knowledge gap by assessing the negative impacts of the dominant SWM practices on human and environmental health. Section 2 presents the research methodology. Section 3 reviews the major SWM practices in the Global South and assesses the environmental and public health implications of SWM practices in the Global South cities. While Section 4 discusses the implications of the findings and proffers recommendations that could help authorities to deal with SWM challenges and mitigate public and environmental health risks associated with unsustainable SWM practices, Section 5 concludes the paper.

2. Materials and Methods

The present paper utilizes a desktop research method of collecting and analyzing relevant data from the existing literature, as utilized in some previous studies [ 17 , 18 ]. The method consists of three iterative stages shown in Figure 1 : (a) scoping, (b) collecting relevant literature, and (c) data analysis. Firstly, the scoping stage involves defining and understanding the research problem under investigation and setting the study scope and boundary. The scope of the paper is to explore human and environmental impacts of SWM practices toward policy and practical recommendations for a more sustainable SWM system, with the Global South as the study boundary. This stage also helped identify relevant keywords to search for during the literature review in the second stage.

The flow chart of the research method (Source: [ 18 ] (p. 4)).

The second stage involved identifying and collecting relevant literature from online sources. The researchers utilized Google Scholar and Scopus databases to identify peer-reviewed academic works (peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings, and books) as well as the gray literature. The literature that satisfied the following three inclusion criteria was identified and downloaded: (1) It is related to the study’s objective; (2) it is in the English language; and (3) it was published within the last twenty years, although some old documents about established concepts and approaches were also accessed. The downloaded gray literature includes newspaper articles, statistics, technical reports, and website contents from international development organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations, and the World Bank.

In the last stage, the authors organized, analyzed, and synthesized the data collected from the literature. The downloaded works were organized according to the similarity of topics, even though some fit in more than one category. Then, each document was thoroughly examined, and themes concerned with SWM practices and their human and environmental impacts were collated, synthesized, and harmonized. Finally, the themes were summarized in Table A1 , Table A2 and Table A3 (see Appendix A ) and discussed. Implications and recommendations of the findings are then highlighted.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. solid waste management practices in the global south.

Global municipal solid waste (MSW) generation rose from 1.3 billion tons in 2012 to 2.1 billion tons (0.74 kg/capita/day) as of 2016, which by 2050 is expected to increase by 70% to reach a total of 3.40 billion tons or 1.42 kg/capita/day [ 19 ]. The per capita MSW generation varies among regions and countries. In the EU (European Union), it ranges from 0.3–1.4 kg/capita/day [ 20 ], and in some African cities, the average is 0.78 kg/capita/day [ 21 ]. In Asia, urban areas generate about 760,000 tons of MSW per day, which is expected to increase to 1.8 million tons per day or 26% of the world’s total by 2025, despite the continent housing 53% of the world’s population [ 22 , 23 ]. In China, the total MSW generation was around 212 million tons (0.98 kg/capita/day) in 2006, out of which 91.4%, 6.4%, and 2.2% were disposed of via landfilling, incineration, and composting [ 24 ]. In 2010, only 660 Chinese cities produced about 190 million tons of MSW, accounting for 29% of the world’s total, while the total amount of solid waste in China could reach at least 480 million tons in 2030 [ 25 ]. In China, industrial waste (more than one billion tons) was five times the amount of MSW generated in 2002, which is expected to generate approximately twice as much MSW as the USA, while India will overtake the USA in MSW generation by 2030 [ 26 ].

In Malaysia, while the average rate of MSW generation was about 0.5–0.8 kg/person/day, Kuala Lumpur’s daily per capita generation rate was 1.62 kg in 2008 [ 27 ], which is expected to reach 2.23 kg in 2024 [ 28 ]. About 64% of Malaysia’s waste consists of household and office waste, 25% industrial waste, 8% commercial waste, and 3% construction waste [ 29 ]. In Sri Lanka, the assessed mean waste generation in 1999 was 6500 tons/day or 0.89 kg/cap/day, which is estimated to reach 1.0 kg/cap/day by 2025 [ 30 ]. With a 1.2% population growth rate, the total MSW generation in 2009 was approximately 7250 tons/day [ 31 ]. In Ghana, the solid waste generation rate was 0.47 kg/person/day, or about 12,710 tons per annum, consisting of biodegradable waste (0.318), non-biodegradable (0.096), and inert and miscellaneous waste (0.055) kg/person/day, respectively [ 32 ].

Moreover, global SWM costs are anticipated to increase to about $375.5 billion in 2025, with more than four-fold increases in lower- to middle-income countries and five-fold increases in low-income countries [ 33 ]. Globally, garbage collection, transportation, and disposal pose a major cost component in SWM systems [ 19 ]. Inadequate funding militates against the optimization of MSW disposal services. Table 1 compares the everyday SWM practices in low-, middle- and high-income countries according to major waste management steps. The literature indicates that waste generation rates and practices depend on the culture, socioeconomic status, population density, and level of commercial and industrial activities of a city or region.

Common MSW management practices by country’s level of economic development (adapted from [ 34 ]).

3.2. Environmental and Public Health Impacts of SWM Practices in the Global South

• (a)  Weak and Inadequate SWM System

Many problems in the cities of the global South are often associated with a weak or inadequate SWM system, which leads to severe direct and indirect environmental and public health issues at every stage of waste collection, handling, treatment, and disposal [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Inadequate and weak SWM results in indiscriminate dumping of waste on the streets, open spaces, and water bodies. Such practices were observed in, for example, Pakistan [ 35 , 36 ], India [ 37 ], Nepal [ 38 ], Peru [ 39 ], Guatemala [ 40 ], Brazil [ 41 ], Kenya [ 42 ], Rwanda [ 43 ], South Africa [ 44 , 45 ], Nigeria [ 46 ], Zimbabwe [ 47 ], etc.

The problems associated with such practices are GHG emissions [ 37 , 48 ], leachates [ 40 , 44 , 49 ], the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue [ 36 ], odor [ 35 , 38 , 50 , 51 ], blocking of drains and sewers and subsequent flooding [ 52 ], suffocation of animals in plastic bags [ 52 ], and indiscriminate littering [ 38 , 39 , 53 ].

• (b)  Irregular Waste Collection and Handling

Uncollected and untreated waste has socioeconomic and environmental costs extending beyond city boundaries. Environmental sustainability impacts of this practice include methane (CH 4 ) emissions, foul odor, air pollution, land and water contamination, and the breeding of rodents, insects, and flies that transmit diseases to humans. Decomposition of biodegradable waste under anaerobic conditions contributes to about 18% and 2.9% of global methane and GHG emissions, respectively [ 54 ], with the global warming effect of about 25 times higher than carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions [ 55 ]. Methane also causes fires and explosions [ 56 ]. Emissions from SWM in developing countries are increasing due to rapid economic growth and improved living standards [ 57 ].

Irregular waste collection also contributes to marine pollution. In 2010, 192 coastal countries generated 275 million metric tons of plastic waste out of which up to 12.7 million metric tons (4.4%) entered ocean ecosystems [ 58 ]. Moreover, plastic waste collects and stagnates water, proving a mosquito breeding habitat and raising the risks of dengue, malaria, and West Nile fever [ 56 ]. In addition, uncollected waste creates serious safety, health, and environmental consequences such as promoting urban violence and supporting breeding and feeding grounds for flies, mosquitoes, rodents, dogs, and cats, which carry diseases to nearby homesteads [ 4 , 19 , 59 , 60 ].

In the global South, scavengers often throw the remaining unwanted garbage on the street. Waste collectors are rarely protected from direct contact and injury, thereby facing serious health threats. Because garbage trucks are often derelict and uncovered, exhaust fumes and dust stemming from waste collection and transportation contribute to environmental pollution and widespread health problems [ 61 ]. In India’s megacities, for example, irregular MSW management is one of the major problems affecting air and marine quality [ 62 ]. Thus, irregular waste collection and handling contribute to public health hazards and environmental degradation [ 63 ].

• (c)  Landfilling and Open Dumping

Most municipal solid waste in the Global South goes into unsanitary landfills or open dumps. Even during the economic downturn during the COVID-19 pandemic, the amount of waste heading to landfill sites in Brazil, for example, increased due to lower recycling rates [ 64 ]. In Johor, Malaysia, landfilling destroys natural habitats and depletes the flora and fauna [ 65 ]. Moreover, landfilling with untreated, unsorted waste led to severe public health issues in South America [ 66 ]. Based on a study on 30 Brazilian cities, Urban and Nakada [ 64 ] report that 35% of medical waste was not properly treated before disposal, which poses a threat to public health, including the spread of COVID-19. Landfills and open dumps are also associated with high emissions of methane (CH 4 ), a major GHG [ 67 , 68 ]. Landfills and wastewater release 17% of the global methane emission [ 25 ]. About 29 metric tons of methane are emitted annually from landfills globally, accounting for about 8% of estimated global emissions, with 1.3 metric tons released from landfills in Africa [ 7 ]. The rate of landfill gas production steadily rises while MSW accumulates in the landfill emissions. Released methane and ammonia gases can cause health hazards such as respiratory diseases [ 37 , 69 , 70 , 71 ]. Since methane is highly combustible, it can cause fire and explosion hazards [ 72 ].

Open dumping sites with organic waste create the environment for the breeding of disease-carrying vectors, including rodents, flies, and mosquitoes [ 40 , 45 , 51 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 ]. Associated vector-borne diseases include zika virus, dengue, and malaria fever [ 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 ]. In addition, there are risks of water-borne illnesses such as leptospirosis, intestinal worms, diarrhea, and hepatitis A [ 80 , 81 ].

Odors from landfill sites, and their physical appearance, affect the lives of nearby residents by threatening their health and undermining their livelihoods, lowering their property values [ 37 , 38 , 68 , 82 , 83 , 84 ]. Moreover, the emission of ammonia (NH 3 ) from landfill sites can damage species’ composition and plant leaves [ 85 ]. In addition, the pollutants from landfill sites damage soil quality [ 73 , 84 ]. Landfill sites also generate dust and are sources of noise pollution [ 86 ].

Air and water pollution are intense in the hot and rainy seasons due to the emission of offensive odor, disease-carrying leachates, and runoff. Considerable amounts of methane and CO 2 from landfill sites produce adverse health effects such as skin, eyes, nose, and respiratory diseases [ 69 , 87 , 88 ]. The emission of ammonia can lead to similar problems and even blindness [ 85 , 89 ]. Other toxic gaseous pollutants from landfill sites include Sulphur oxides [ 89 ]. While less than 20% of methane is recovered from landfills in China, Western nations recover up to 60% [ 90 ].

Several studies report leachate from landfill sites contaminating water sources used for drinking and other household applications, which pose significant risks to public health [ 36 , 43 , 53 , 72 , 75 , 83 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 ]. For example, Hong et al. [ 95 ] estimated that, in 2006, the amount of leachates escaping from landfill sites in Pudong (China) was 160–180 m 3 per day. On the other hand, a properly engineered facility for waste disposal can protect public health, preserve important environmental resources, prevent clogging of drainages, and prevent the migration of leachates to contaminate ground and surface water, farmlands, animals, and air from which they enter the human body [ 61 , 96 ]. Moreover, heat in summer can speed up the rate of bacterial action on biodegradable organic material and produce a pungent odor [ 60 , 97 , 98 ]. In China, for example, leachates were not treated in 47% of landfills [ 99 ].

Co-mingled disposal of industrial and medical waste alongside municipal waste endangers people with chemical and radioactive hazards, Hepatitis B and C, tetanus, human immune deficiency, HIV infections, and other related diseases [ 59 , 60 , 100 ]. Moreover, indiscriminate disposal of solid waste can cause infectious diseases such as gastrointestinal, dermatological, respiratory, and genetic diseases, chest pains, diarrhea, cholera, psychological disorders, skin, eyes, and nose irritations, and allergies [ 10 , 36 , 60 , 61 ].

• (d)  Open Burning and Incineration

Open burning of MSW is a main cause of smog and respiratory diseases, including nose, throat, chest infections and inflammation, breathing difficulty, anemia, low immunity, allergies, and asthma. Similar health effects were reported from Nepal [ 101 ], India [ 87 ], Mexico, [ 69 ], Pakistan [ 52 , 73 , 84 ], Indonesia [ 88 ], Liberia [ 50 ], and Chile [ 102 ]. In Mumbai, for example, open incineration emits about 22,000 tons of pollutants annually [ 56 ]. Mongkolchaiarunya [ 103 ] reported air pollution and odors from burning waste in Thailand. In addition, plastic waste incineration produces hydrochloric acid and dioxins in quantities that are detrimental to human health and may cause allergies, hemoglobin deficiency, and cancer [ 95 , 104 ]. In addition, smoke from open incineration and dumpsites is a significant contributor to air pollution even for persons staying far from dumpsites.

• (e)  Composting

Composting is a biological method of waste disposal that entails the decomposing or breaking down of organic wastes into simpler forms by naturally occurring microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi. However, despite its advantage of reducing organic waste by at least half and using compost in agriculture, the composting method has much higher CO 2 emissions than other disposal approaches. In Korea, for example, composting has the highest environmental impact than incineration and anaerobic digestion methods [ 105 ]. The authors found that the environmental impact of composting was found to be 2.4 times higher than that of incineration [ 105 ]. Some reviews linked composting with several health issues, including congested nose, sore throat and dry cough, bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis, and extrinsic allergic alveolitis [ 36 , 106 ].

4. Implications and Recommendations

As discussed in the section above, there are many negative impacts of unsustainable SWM practices on the people and the environment. Although all waste treatment methods have their respective negative impacts, some have fewer debilitating impacts on people and the environment than others. The following is the summary of key implications of such unsustainable SWM practices.

• Uncollected organic waste from bins, containers and open dumps harbors rodents, insects, and reptiles that transmit diseases to humans. It also produces odor due to the decomposition of organic wastes, especially in the summer, and leachates that migrate and contaminate receiving underground and surface waters.
• Open dumps and non-engineered landfills release methane from decomposing biodegradable waste under anaerobiotic conditions. Methane is a key contributor to global warming, and it can cause fires and explosions.
• Non-biodegradable waste, such as discarded tires, plastics, bottles, and tins, pollutes the ground and collects water, thus creating breeding grounds for mosquitoes and increasing the risk of diseases such as malaria, dengue, and West Nile fever.
• Open burning of MSW emits pollutants into the atmosphere thereby increasing the incidences of nose and throat infections and inflammation, inhalation difficulties, bacterial infections, anemia, reduced immunity, allergies, and asthma.
• Uncontrolled incineration causes smog and releases fine particles, which are a major cause of respiratory disease. It also contributes to urban air pollution and GHG emissions significantly.
• Incineration and landfilling are associated with reproductive defects in women, developmental defects in children, cancer, hepatitis C, psychosocial impacts, poisoning, biomarkers, injuries, and mortality.

Therefore, measures toward more sustainable SWM that can mitigate such impacts must be worked out and followed. The growing complexity, costs, and coordination of SWM require multi-stakeholder involvement at each process stage [ 7 ]. Earmarking resources, providing technical assistance, good governance, and collaboration, and protecting environmental and human health are SWM critical success factors [ 47 , 79 ]. As such, local governments, the private sector, donor agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the residents, and informal garbage collectors and scavengers have their respective roles to play collaboratively in effective and sustainable SWM [ 40 , 103 , 107 , 108 ]. The following are key practical recommendations for mitigating the negative impacts of unsustainable SWM practices enumerated above.

First, cities should plan and implement an integrated SWM approach that emphasizes improving the operation of municipalities to manage all stages of SWM sustainably: generation, separation, transportation, transfer/sorting, treatment, and disposal [ 36 , 46 , 71 , 77 , 86 ]. The success of this approach requires the involvement of all stakeholders listed above [ 109 ] while recognizing the environmental, financial, legal, institutional, and technical aspects appropriate to each local setting [ 77 , 86 ]. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can likewise aid in selecting the method and preparing the waste management plan [ 88 , 110 ]. Thus, the SWM approach should be carefully selected to spare residents from negative health and environmental impacts [ 36 , 39 , 83 , 98 , 111 ].

Second, local governments should strictly enforce environmental regulations and better monitor civic responsibilities for sustainable waste storage, collection, and disposal, as well as health hazards of poor SWM, reflected in garbage littering observable throughout most cities of the Global South [ 64 , 84 ]. In addition, violations of waste regulations should be punished to discourage unsustainable behaviors [ 112 ]. Moreover, local governments must ensure that waste collection services have adequate geographical coverage, including poor and minority communities [ 113 ]. Local governments should also devise better SWM policies focusing on waste reduction, reuse, and recycling to achieve a circular economy and sustainable development [ 114 , 115 ].

Third, effective SWM requires promoting positive public attitudes toward sustainable waste management [ 97 , 116 , 117 , 118 ]. Therefore, public awareness campaigns through print, electronic, and social media are required to encourage people to desist from littering and follow proper waste dropping and sorting practices [ 36 , 64 , 77 , 79 , 80 , 82 , 91 , 92 , 119 ]. There is also the need for a particular focus on providing sorting bins and public awareness about waste sorting at the source, which can streamline and optimize subsequent SWM processes and mitigate their negative impacts [ 35 , 45 , 46 , 64 , 69 , 89 , 93 ]. Similarly, non-governmental and community-based organizations can help promote waste reduction, separation, and sorting at the source, and material reuse/recycling [ 103 , 120 , 121 , 122 ]. In Vietnam, for example, Tsai et al. [ 123 ] found that coordination among stakeholders and appropriate legal and policy frameworks are crucial in achieving sustainable SWM.

Fourth, there is the need to use environmentally friendly technologies or upgrade existing facilities. Some researchers prefer incineration over other methods, particularly for non-recyclable waste [ 44 , 65 ]. For example, Xin et al. [ 124 ] found that incineration, recycling, and composting resulted in a 70.82% reduction in GHG emissions from solid waste in Beijing. In Tehran city, Iran, Maghmoumi et al. [ 125 ] revealed that the best scenario for reducing GHG emissions is incinerating 50% of the waste, landfilling 30%, and recycling 20%. For organic waste, several studies indicate a preference for composting [ 45 , 51 , 75 ] and biogas generation [ 15 , 42 , 68 ]. Although some researchers have advocated a complete ban on landfilling [ 13 , 42 ], it should be controlled with improved techniques for leak detection and leachate and biogas collection [ 126 , 127 ]. Many researchers also suggested an integrated biological and mechanical treatment (BMT) of solid waste [ 66 , 74 , 95 , 119 ]. In Kenya, the waste-to-biogas scheme and ban on landfill and open burning initiatives are estimated to reduce the emissions of over 1.1 million tons of GHG and PM2.5 emissions from the waste by more than 30% by 2035 [ 42 ]. An appropriately designed waste disposal facility helps protect vital environmental resources, including flora, fauna, surface and underground water, air, and soil [ 128 , 129 ].

Fifth, extraction and reuse of materials, energy, and nutrients are essential to effective SWM, which provides livelihoods for many people, improves their health, and protects the environment [ 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 ]. For example, recycling 24% of MSW in Thailand lessened negative health, social, environmental, and economic impacts from landfill sites [ 89 ]. Waste pickers play a key role in waste circularity and should be integrated into the SWM system [ 65 , 89 , 101 , 137 ], even to the extent of taking part in decision-making [ 138 ]. In addition, workers involved in waste collection should be better trained and equipped to handle hazardous waste [ 87 , 128 ]. Moreover, green consumption, using bioplastics, can help reduce the negative impacts of solid waste on the environment [ 139 ].

Lastly, for effective SWM, local authorities should comprehensively address SWM challenges, such as lack of strategic SWM plans, inefficient waste collection/segregation and recycling, insufficient budgets, shortage of qualified waste management professionals, and weak governance, and then form a financial regulatory framework in an integrated manner [ 140 , 141 , 142 ]. Effective SWM system also depends on other factors such as the waste generation rate, population density, economic status, level of commercial activity, culture, and city/region [ 37 , 143 ]. A sustainable SWM strives to protect public health and the environment [ 144 , 145 ].

5. Conclusions

As global solid waste generation rates increase faster than urbanization, coupled with inadequate SWM systems, local governments and urban residents often resort to unsustainable SWM practices. These practices include mixing household and commercial garbage with hazardous waste during storage and handling, storing garbage in old or poorly managed facilities, deficient transportation practices, open-air incinerators, informal/uncontrolled dumping, and non-engineered landfills. The implications of such practices include air and water pollution, land degradation, climate change, and methane and hazardous leachate emissions. In addition, these impacts impose significant environmental and public health costs on residents with marginalized social groups affected mostly.

Inadequate SWM is associated with poor public health, and it is one of the major problems affecting environmental quality and cities’ sustainable development. Effective community involvement in the SWM requires promoting positive public attitudes. Public awareness campaigns through print, electronic, and social media are required to encourage people to desist from littering and follow proper waste-dropping practices. Improper SWM also resulted in water pollution and unhealthy air in cities. Future research is needed to investigate how the peculiarity of each Global South country can influence selecting the SWM approach, elements, aspects, technology, and legal/institutional frameworks appropriate to each locality.

Reviewed literature on the impacts of SWM practices in Asia (compiled by authors).

Reviewed literature on the impacts of SWM practices in South America (compiled by authors).

Reviewed literature on the impacts of SWM practices in Africa (compiled by authors).

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.R.A. and K.M.M.; methodology, I.R.A., K.M.M. and U.L.D.; validation, I.R.A., K.M.M. and U.L.D.; formal analysis, I.R.A. and K.M.M.; investigation, I.R.A., K.M.M., U.L.D., F.S.A., M.S.A., S.M.S.A. and W.A.G.A.-G.; resources, I.R.A., K.M.M., U.L.D., F.S.A., M.S.A., S.M.S.A., W.A.G.A.-G. and T.I.A.; data curation, U.L.D., F.S.A., M.S.A., S.M.S.A. and W.A.G.A.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, I.R.A., K.M.M., U.L.D., F.S.A., M.S.A., S.M.S.A. and W.A.G.A.-G.; writing—review and editing, I.R.A., K.M.M. and U.L.D.; supervision, F.S.A. and T.I.A.; project administration, I.R.A.; funding acquisition, I.R.A., K.M.M., U.L.D., F.S.A., M.S.A., S.M.S.A., W.A.G.A.-G. and T.I.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest in conducting this study.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Advertisement

A review of waste paper recycling networks focusing on quantitative methods and sustainability

• Published: 13 October 2020
• Volume 23 , pages 55–76, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Cristiane Maria Defalque   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6984-5405 1 , 2 ,
• Fernando Augusto Silva Marins 1 ,
• Aneirson Francisco da Silva 1 &
• Elen Yanina Aguirre Rodríguez 1  

1304 Accesses

7 Citations

Explore all metrics

A discussion is currently under way in the literature on the sustainable benefits of recycling material, particularly paper, which has high global consumption and polluting capacity. Optimized planning of waste paper recycling networks stimulates sustainable processing efficiency, motivating the investigation of quantitative methods to guide decision-making. The objective of this article is to review papers that present quantitative models for planning waste paper recycling networks considering optimization of the echelons of this process, to analyze the evolution of research, find research opportunities and contribute to future research. The article presents an analysis of five categories of the selected studies: I—evolution of publications; II—echelons considered in different waste paper recycling systems; III—the sustainability pillars considered in the objectives of the formulated model; IV—formulations and techniques used; and V—uncertainty analysis. The proposal for waste paper recycling networks involves summary of the echelons considered in selected articles, to help future analysis. Research suggestions involving sustainability objectives, especially considering social issues, using different solution techniques and considering uncertainty were identified. This study, by reviewing the articles and identifying possibilities for future research, contributes to the development of research using quantitative methods for the efficient management of waste paper recycling networks or similar arrangements.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source: prepared by the authors. The data were obtained from Scopus— www.scopus.com and Web of Science— www.webofknowledge.com . The maps were built using VOSviewer [ 63 ]

Source: prepared by the authors

Source: prepared by the authors. Selected articles (Table 3 ) available in databases and other references described in “ Research method ”

Source: prepared by the author. Selected articles (Table 3 ) available in databases and other references described in “ Research method ”. Number of citations obtained from Scopus— www.scopus.com and Web of Science— www.webofknowledge.com

Source: prepared by the authors, based on echelons considered in the analyzed articles (Table 3 )

Source: prepared by the authors, based on echelons and operations verified in the analyzed articles (Table 3 )

Source: prepared by the authors, based on analyses of the selected articles (Table 3 )

Similar content being viewed by others

Waste prevention for sustainable resource and waste management.

Waste management and green technology: future trends in circular economy leading towards environmental sustainability

Measuring the recycling potential of industrial waste for long-term sustainability

European Parliament and Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives. Off J Eur Union L 312:3–30 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098&from=RO . Accessed 18 Dec 2019

Brasil (2010) Lei nº 12.305, de 2 de agosto de 2010. Institui a Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos; altera a Lei nº 9.605, de 12 de fevereiro de 1998; e dá outras providências (in Portuguese). In: Brasília, DF. Presidência da República. . https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2010/lei/l12305.htm . Accessed 18 Dec 2019

Brasil (2010) Decreto nº 7.404, de 23 de dezembro de 2010. Regulamenta a Lei nº 12.305, de 2 de agosto de 2010, que institui a Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos, cria o Comitê Interministerial da Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos e o Comitê Orientador para a Implantação dos Sistemas de Logística Reversa, e dá outras providências (in Portuguese). In: Brasília, DF. Presidência da República planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007–2010/2010/Decreto/D7404.htm. Accessed 18 Dec 2019

Govindan K, Soleimani H, Kannan D (2015) Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain: A comprehensive review to explore the future. Eur J Oper Res 240:603–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.012

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Ervasti I, Miranda R, Kauranen I (2016) A global, comprehensive review of literature related to paper recycling: A pressing need for a uniform system of terms and definitions. Waste Manag 48:64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2015.11.020

Article   Google Scholar  

Kara SS, Onut S (2010) A two-stage stochastic and robust programming approach to strategic planning of a reverse supply network: The case of paper recycling. Expert Syst Appl 37:6129–6137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.116

Rajeev A, Pati RK, Padhi SS, Govindan K (2017) Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. J Clean Prod 162:299–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.026

Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone, Oxford, United Kingdom

Google Scholar  

IPIECA/API (2005) Oil and Gas Industry Guidance on Voluntary Sustainability Reporting. Using Environmental , Health & Safety , Social and Economic Performance Indicators. In: London, United Kingdom and Washington. DC, USA International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association and American Petroleum Institute. https://www.ingenieroambiental.com/4030/reporting_guide.pdf . Accessed 6 Oct 2017

Alumur SA, Nickel S, Saldanha-da-Gama F, Verter V (2012) Multi-period reverse logistics network design. Eur J Oper Res 220:67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.12.045

Melo MT, Nickel S, Saldanha-da-Gama F (2009) Facility location and supply chain management – A review. Eur J Oper Res 196:401–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.05.007

Soleimani H, Govindan K, Saghafi H, Jafari H (2017) Fuzzy multi-objective sustainable and green closed-loop supply chain network design. Comput Ind Eng 109:191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.04.038

Yu H, Solvang WD (2016) A general reverse logistics network design model for product reuse and recycling with environmental considerations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 87:2693–2711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-8612-6

Chen Y-W, Wang L-C, Wang A, Chen T-L (2017) A particle swarm approach for optimizing a multi-stage closed loop supply chain for the solar cell industry. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 43:111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2015.10.006

Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P (2012) What a Waste. A Global Review of Solid Waste Management.Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers; knowledge Papers No. 15.World Bank, Washington 281:44 p. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13058

Villanueva A, Wenzel H (2007) Paper waste – Recycling, incineration or landfilling? A review of existing life cycle assessments. Waste Manag 27:S29–S46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.019

Schmidt JH, Holm P, Merrild A, Christensen P (2007) Life cycle assessment of the waste hierarchy – A Danish case study on waste paper. Waste Manag 27:1519–1530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.09.004

Pati RK, Vrat P (2010) Economic paper blending optimization model with competing materials. Manag Environ Qual An Int J 21:602–617. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777831011067917

Sahamie R, Stindt D, Nuss C (2013) Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainable Operations - An Application to Closed-Loop Supply Chains. Bus Strateg Environ 22:245–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1771

Berglund C, Söderholm P, Nilsson M (2002) A note on inter-country differences in waste paper recovery and utilization. Resour Conserv Recycl 34:175–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00101-X

Ervasti I, Miranda R, Kauranen I (2016) Paper recycling framework, the “Wheel of Fiber”. J Environ Manage 174:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.03.004

Miranda R, Concepcion Monte M, Blanco A (2011) Impact of increased collection rates and the use of commingled collection systems on the quality of recovered paper. Part 1: Increased collection rates. Waste Manag 31:2208–2216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.06.006

Cormier D, Magnan M (1997) Investors’ assessment of implicit environmental liabilities: An empirical investigation. J Account Public Policy 16:215–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4254(97)00002-1

ABNT (2009) NBR ISO 14040: Gestão ambiental - Avaliação do ciclo de vida - Princípios e estrutura (in Portuguese). In: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas 1–22

Hart A, Clift R, Riddlestone S, Buntin J (2005) Use of Life Cycle Assessment to Develop Industrial Ecologies—A Case Study: Graphics Paper. Process Saf Environ Prot 83:359–363. https://doi.org/10.1205/psep.04391

Sevigné-Itoiz E, Gasol CM, Rieradevall J, Gabarrell X (2015) Methodology of supporting decision-making of waste management with material flow analysis (MFA) and consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA): case study of waste paper recycling. J Clean Prod 105:253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.026

Berglund C, Söderholm P (2003) Complementing Empirical Evidence on Global Recycling and Trade of Waste Paper. World Dev 31:743–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00007-X

Van Beukering PJH, Bouman MN (2001) Empirical Evidence on Recycling and Trade of Paper and Lead in Developed and Developing Countries. World Dev 29:1717–1737. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00065-1

Nielsen L (2011) Classifications of Countries Based on Their Level of Development : How it is Done and How it Could be Done. Washington, DC, United States https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1131.pdf . Accessed 28 Dec 2019

Salema MIG, Barbosa-Povoa AP, Novais AQ (2007) An optimization model for the design of a capacitated multi-product reverse logistics network with uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 179:1063–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.05.032

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Roghanian E, Pazhoheshfar P (2014) An optimization model for reverse logistics network under stochastic environment by using genetic algorithm. J Manuf Syst 33:348–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.02.007

Sheriff KMM, Subramanian N, Rahman S, Jayaram J (2017) Integrated optimization model and methodology for plastics recycling: Indian empirical evidence. J Clean Prod 153:707–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.137

Alwaeli M (2011) An Economic Analysis of Joined Costs and Beneficial Effects of Waste Recycling. Environ Prot Eng 37:92–103. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287455009_An_economic_analysis_of_joined_costs_and_beneficial_effects_of_waste_recycling

Feitó-Cespón M, Sarache W, Piedra-Jimenez F, Cespón-Castro R (2017) Redesign of a sustainable reverse supply chain under uncertainty: A case study. J Clean Prod 151:206–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.057

Zhalechian M, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Rahimi Y (2017) A self-adaptive evolutionary algorithm for a fuzzy multi-objective hub location problem: an integration of responsiveness and social responsibility. Eng Appl Artif Intell 62:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2017.03.006

Govindan K, Paam P, Abtahi A-R (2016) A fuzzy multi-objective optimization model for sustainable reverse logistics network design. Ecol Indic 67:753–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.017

Farrokhi-Asl H, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Asgarian B, Sangari E (2017) Metaheuristics for a bi-objective location-routing-problem in waste collection management. J Ind Prod Eng 34:239–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1253619

Hahler S, Fleischmann M (2017) Strategic grading in the product acquisition process of a reverse supply chain. Prod Oper Manag 26:1498–1511. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12699

John ST, Sridharan R, Kumar PNR (2017) Multi-period reverse logistics network design with emission cost. Int J Logist Manag 28:127–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-08-2015-0143

Demirel N, Özceylan E, Paksoy T, Gökçen H (2014) A genetic algorithm approach for optimising a closed-loop supply chain network with crisp and fuzzy objectives. Int J Prod Res 52:3637–3664. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.879616

Hosseinzadeh M, Roghanian E (2012) An Optimization Model for Reverse Logistics Network under Stochastic Environment Using Genetic Algorithm. Int J Res Bus Soc Sci 3:249–264

Moghaddam KS (2015) Fuzzy multi-objective model for supplier selection and order allocation in reverse logistics systems under supply and demand uncertainty. Expert Syst Appl 42:6237–6254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.02.010

Nadizadeh A, Kafash B (2017) Fuzzy capacitated location-routing problem with simultaneous pickup and delivery demands. Transp Lett. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2016.1270798

Gooran AN, Rafiei H, Rabani M (2018) Modeling risk and uncertainty in designing reverse logistics problem. Decis Sci Lett 1:13–24. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2017.5.001

Babazadeh R, Jolai F, Razmi J (2015) Developing scenario-based robust optimisation approaches for the reverse logistics network design problem under uncertain environments. Int J Serv Oper Manag 20:418. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2015.068526

Pishvaee MS, Rabbani M, Torabi SA (2011) A robust optimization approach to closed-loop supply chain network design under uncertainty. Appl Math Model 35:637–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2010.07.013

Agrawal S, Singh RK, Murtaza Q (2015) A literature review and perspectives in reverse logistics. Resour Conserv Recycl 97:76–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.02.009

Akçalı E, Çetinkaya S, Üster H (2009) Network design for reverse and closed-loop supply chains: An annotated bibliography of models and solution approaches. Networks 53:231–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/net.20267

Barbosa-Póvoa AP, da Silva C, Carvalho A (2018) Opportunities and challenges in sustainable supply chain: An operations research perspective. Eur J Oper Res 268:399–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.10.036

Dekker R, Bloemhof J, Mallidis I (2012) Operations Research for green logistics - An overview of aspects, issues, contributions and challenges. Eur J Oper Res 219:671–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.11.010

Fleischmann M, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Dekker R et al (1997) Quantitative models for reverse logistics: A review. Eur J Oper Res 103:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00230-0

Govindan K, Soleimani H (2017) A review of reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chains: a Journal of Cleaner Production focus. J Clean Prod 142:371–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.126

Govindan K, Fattahi M, Keyvanshokooh E (2017) Supply chain network design under uncertainty: A comprehensive review and future research directions. Eur J Oper Res 263:108–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.009

Ilgin MA, Gupta SM (2010) Environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery (ECMPRO): A review of the state of the art. J Environ Manage 91:563–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.037

Jaehn F, Juopperi R (2019) A Description of Supply Chain Planning Problems in the Paper Industry with Literature Review. Asia-Pacific J Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217595919500040

Lyeme HA, Mushi A, Nkansah-Gyekye Y (2017) Review of multi-objective optimization models for solid waste management systems with environmental considerations. J Math Comput Sci 7:150–174. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312525358_REVIEW_OF_MULTI-OBJECTIVE_OPTIMIZATION_MODELS_FOR_SOLID_WASTE_MANAGEMENT_SYSTEMS_WITH_ENVIRONMENTAL_CONSIDERATIONS

Singh A, Trivedi A (2016) Sustainable green supply chain management: trends and current practices. Compet Rev 26:265–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-05-2015-0034

Stindt D, Sahamie R (2014) Review of research on closed loop supply chain management in the process industry. Flex Serv Manuf J 26:268–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10696-012-9137-4

Tang CS, Zhou S (2012) Research advances in environmentally and socially sustainable operations. Eur J Oper Res 223:585–594. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.07.030

Van Engeland J, Beliën J, De Boeck L, De Jaeger S (2020) Literature review: Strategic network optimization models in waste reverse supply chains. Omega 91:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.12.001

Rutkowski J, Rutkowski E (2017) Recycling in Brasil: Paper and Plastic Supply Chain. Resources 6:43. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6030043

Fleischmann M, Beullens P, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Van Wassenhove LN (2001) The Impact of Product Recovery on Logistics Network Design. Prod OperManag 10:156–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2001.tb00076.x

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Van Wassenhove LN, Gabel HL, Weaver PM (1996) An environmental life cycle optimization model for the European pulp and paper industry. Omega 24:615–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(96)00026-6

Frota Neto JQ, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Van Nunen JAEE, Van Heck E (2008) Designing and evaluating sustainable logistics networks. Int J Prod Econ 111:195–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.10.014

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2006) Economic analysis of paper recycling vis-à-vis wood as raw material. Int J Prod Econ 103:489–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.08.006

Zhou X, Zhou Y (2015) Designing a multi-echelon reverse logistics operation and network: A case study of office paper in Beijing. Resouces Conserv Recycl 100:58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.04.009

Byström S, Lönnstedt L (1997) Paper recycling: environmental and economic impact. Resour Conserv Recycl 21:109–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(97)00031-1

Safaei AS, Roozbeh A, Paydar MM (2017) A robust optimization model for the design of a cardboard closed-loop supply chain. J Clean Prod 166:1154–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.085

Glassey CR, Gupta VK (1974) A Linear Programming Analysis of Paper Recycling. Manage Sci 21:392–408. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.21.4.392

Kleineidam U, Lambert AJD, Blansjaar J et al (2000) Optimising product recycling chains by control theory. Int J Prod Econ 66:185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(99)00120-6

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2008) A MILP Model for design of paper recycling network. Int J Ecol Dev 9:69–86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259296422_A_MILP_Model_for_design_of_paper_recycling_network

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2009) Decision-Making Model For Economical Wastepaper Collection. Product A Q J Natl Product Counc 49:265–271. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259296517_Decision_Support_Model_for_Economic_Waste_Paper_Collection

Suyabatmaz AÇ, Altekin FT, Şahin G (2014) Hybrid simulation-analytical modeling approaches for the reverse logistics network design of a third-party logistics provider. Comput Ind Eng 70:74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.01.004

Li M, Wang X, Zhang X, Li X (2018) Optimization design of multi-echelon recycling networks for third-party reverse logistics provider in the context of binary path selection. Acad J Manuf Eng 16:97–105. https://auif.utcluj.ro/images/PDF_AJME_2018_16_1/L13.pdf

Takamatsu T, Shioya S, Tsujimoto Y (1982) Optimal inter-regional distribution of waste paper and board in the waste paper recycling system. Resour Conserv 8:95–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-3097(82)90035-9

Wang C-H, Even JC, Adams SK (1995) A mixed-integer linear model for optimal processing and transport of secondary materials. Resour Conserv Recycl 15:65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-3449(95)00024-D

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2007) Three-win strategy with optimisation approach for recycled paper manufacturer. Int J Environ Waste Manag 1:269. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWM.2007.013636

Bogh MB, Mikkelsen H, Wohlk S (2014) Collection of recyclables from cubes - A case study. Socioecon Plann Sci 48:127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2014.02.001

Entezaminia A, Heidari M, Rahmani D (2017) Robust aggregate production planning in a green supply chain under uncertainty considering reverse logistics: a case study. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 90:1507–1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9459-6

Georgiadis P (2013) An integrated system dynamics model for strategic capacity planning in closed-loop recycling networks: A dynamic analysis for the paper industry. Simul Model Pract Theory 32:116–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2012.11.009

Kara SS, Onut S (2010) A stochastic optimization approach for paper recycling reverse logistics network design under uncertainty. Int J Environ Sci Technol 7:717–730. https://link.springer.com/article/ https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03326181#citeas

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2004) Cost optimisation model in recycled waste reverse logistics system. Int J Bus Perform Manag 6:245. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2004.005631

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2006) Integrated chain analysis of recycled vis-à-vis wood pulp paper industry: An Indian manufacturer viewpoint. Int J Value Chain Manag 1:44–63. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJVCM.2006.009023

Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2008) A goal programming model for paper recycling system. Omega 36:405–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2006.04.014

Rahmani-Ahranjani A, Bozorgi-Amiri A, Seifbarghy M, Najafi E (2017) Managing Environmentally Conscious in Designing Closed-loop Supply Chain for the Paper Industry. Int J Eng 30:1038–1047. https://doi.org/10.5829/ije.2017.30.07a.13

Rahmani-Ahranjani A, Seifbarghy M, Bozorgi-Amiri A, Najafi E (2018) Closed-loop supply chain network design for the paper industry: A multi-objective stochastic robust approach. Sci Iran 25:2881–2903. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.24200/sci.2017.4464

Rinsatitnon N, Dijaroen W, Limpiwun T, et al (2018) Reverse logistics implementation in the construction industry: Paper waste focus. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol 40:798–805. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.14456/sjst-psu.2018.113

Schweiger K, Sahamie R (2013) A hybrid Tabu Search approach for the design of a paper recycling network. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 50:98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2012.10.006

Sharma N, Balan S, Vrat P, Kumar P (2006) Analysis of bullwhip effect in reverse supply chain. J Adv Manag Res 3:18–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/97279810680001243

Tseng S-H, Wee HM, Song PS, Jeng S (2019) Optimal green supply-chain model design considering full truckload. Kybernetes 48:2150–2174. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-07-2018-0415

Rahman MO, Hussain A, Basri H (2014) A critical review on waste paper sorting techniques. Int J Environ Sci Technol 11:551–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-013-0222-3

UNCTADStat (2018) Development status groups and composition. In: United Nations Conf. Trade Dev. - UNCTADStat. https://unctadstat.unctad.org/EN/Classifications/DimCountries_DevelopmentStatus_Hierarchy.pdf . Accessed 26 Jan 2019

World Bank (2017) Data Bank World Bank.org Population 2017. https://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/POP.pdf . Accessed 28 Dec 2019

T&A (2017) A Indústria de Papel e Celulose na Índia (in Portuguese). In: T&A Consult. https://investexportbrasil.dpr.gov.br/arquivos/PesquisasMercado/PMRIndiaSetorPapeleiro2017.pdf . Accessed 28 Dec 2019

Dijkgraaf E, Gradus RHJM (2014) The Effectiveness of Dutch Municipal Recycling Policies. Soc Sci Res Netw. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2540085

Council for the Environment Infrastructure (2013) DUTCH LOGISTICS 2040: DESIGNED TO LAST. www.rli.nl . Accessed 3 Nov 2018

Bing X, Bloemhof JM, Ramos TRP et al (2016) Research challenges in municipal solid waste logistics management. Waste Manag 48:584–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.11.025

Sharma VK, van Beukering P, Nag B (1997) Environmental and economic policy analysis of waste paper trade and recycling in India. Resour Conserv Recycl 21:55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(97)00025-6

Alwaeli M (2015) An Overview of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Poland. The Current Situation. Problems and Challenges Environ Prot Eng 41:181–193. https://doi.org/10.5277/epe150414

Alwaeli M (2009) Editorial. Waste Manag 29:3054–3055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.09.004

Levlin J-E, Read B, Grossmann H, et al (2010) COST Action E48 – The Future of Paper Recycling in Europe: Opportunities and Limitations. The Paper Industry Technical Association (PITA), Bury, Greater Manchester, England https://www.cost.eu/publications/the-future-of-paper-recycling-in-europe-opportunities-and-limitations . Accessed 31 Jul 2020

Feng H, Tomonari S (2013) Cause analysis of low collection rate of Chinese waste paper. pp 685–695. https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/173/24503 . Accessed 31 Jul 2020

Wu X (2013) Optimization of waste paper’s enzymatic deinking processes based on neural network and particle swarm optimization. Proc - 2013 Int Conf Mechatron Sci Electr Eng Comput MEC 2013:44–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/MEC.2013.6885048

Vashisth S, Bennington CPJ, Grace JR, Kerekes RJ (2011) Column Flotation Deinking: State-of-the-art and opportunities. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:1154–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.06.013

Leu HG, Lin SH (1998) Cost-benefit analysis of resource material recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 23:183–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(98)00020-2

Fleischmann M, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Beullens P, Dekker R (2004) Reverse Logistics Network Design. In: Dekker R, Fleischmann M, Inderfurth K, Van Wassenhove LN (eds) Reverse Logistics: Quantitative Models for Closed-Loop Supply Chains. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp 83–87. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24803-3

Cheung WM, Pachisia V (2015) Facilitating waste paper recycling and repurposing via cost modelling of machine failure, labour availability and waste quantity. Resour Conserv Recycl 101:34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.011

Ahluwalia PK, Nema AK (2011) Capacity planning for electronic waste management facilities under uncertainty: multi-objective multi-time-step model development. Waste Manag Res 29:694–709. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X10382592

Van Beukering PJH, Schoon E, Mani A (1996) The Informal Sector and Waste Paper Recovery in Bombay. Amsterdam, Netherlands. https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/8124IIED.pdf . Accessed 28 Dec 2019

Dekker R, Fleischmann M, Inderfurth K, WassenhoveVLN (2004) Quantitative Models for Reverse Logistics Decision Making. In: Dekker R, Fleischmann M, Inderfurth K, Van Wassenhove LN (eds) Reverse Logistics: Quantitative Models for Closed-Loop Supply Chains. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, p 34. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24803-3

Xu Z, Elomri A, Pokharel S et al (2017) Global reverse supply chain design for solid waste recycling under uncertainties and carbon emission constraint. Waste Manag 64:358–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.02.024

Fleischmann M, Krikke HR, Dekker R, Flapper SDP (2000) A characterisation of logistics networks for product recovery. Omega 28:653–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(00)00022-0

Alem D (2011) Programação estocástica e otimização robusta no planejamento da produção de empresas moveleiras (in Portuguese). https://teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/55/55134/tde-29112011-162103/publico/alem.pdf . Accessed 27 Dec 2019

Alem D, Morabito R (2015) Planejamento da produção sob incerteza: programação estocástica versus otimização robusta (in Portuguese). Gestão & Produção 22:539–551. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X1211-14

da Silva AF, Marins FAS (2014) Revisão da literatura sobre modelos de Programação por Metas determinística e sob incerteza (in Portuguese). Production 25:92–112. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-65132014005000003

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was financed in part by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq—302730/2018; CNPq—303350/2018-0), the São Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP—2018/06858-0; FAPESP—2018/14433-0) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel—Brazil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Production Department, Engineering College-São Paulo State University, Avenida Ariberto Pereira da Cunha, 333, Portal das Colinas, Guaratinguetá, SP, 12516-410, Brazil

Cristiane Maria Defalque, Fernando Augusto Silva Marins, Aneirson Francisco da Silva & Elen Yanina Aguirre Rodríguez

Agulhas Negras Military Academy (Academia Militar das Agulhas Negras-AMAN), Rodovia Presidente Dutra, km 306, s/nº, Resende, RJ, 27534-970, Brazil

Cristiane Maria Defalque

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristiane Maria Defalque .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Defalque, C.M., Marins, F.A.S., da Silva, A.F. et al. A review of waste paper recycling networks focusing on quantitative methods and sustainability. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 23 , 55–76 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01124-0

Download citation

Received : 29 April 2020

Accepted : 25 September 2020

Published : 13 October 2020

Issue Date : January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01124-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Waste paper recycling
• Network planning
• Sustainability
• Quantitative modeling
• Literature review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research