Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 857863

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Social acceptance for the development of a waste-to-energy plant in an urban

area
Ch. Achillas a, , Ch. Vlachokostas a , N. Moussiopoulos a , G. Banias a , G. Kafetzopoulos a , A. Karagiannidis a,b
a
b

Laboratory of Heat Transfer and Environmental Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Aristotle University, Box 483, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
Hellenic Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (SYNERGIA), Greece1

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 29 April 2010
Received in revised form 31 January 2011
Accepted 25 April 2011
Keywords:
Waste-to-energy
Public opinion
Waste management
Survey

a b s t r a c t
Public acceptance is considered most critical for the effectiveness of any integrated Municipal Solid Waste
management scheme. Especially for alternatives widely debated, such as waste-to-energy (WtE) in areas
without any prior experience, the widely discussed Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) syndrome needs to
be considered when planning the development of the required infrastructure. This paper presents the
ndings of a survey conducted in order to assess social acceptance for the development of a WtE facility in
Thessaloniki, Greece. Face-to-face interviews revealed a rather positive compared to waste landlling
public attitude on the integration of thermal treatment in the local waste management strategy, on the
contrary to what was initially expected. However, the NIMBY syndrome is evidently portrayed between
the lines in the analysis, while also responses reect a signicant gap of information at the level of local
communities.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Solid waste has emerged as a signicant pressure on the environment, mostly due to the late population growth and changing
consuming habits and patterns of developed communities. Besides
cement production, Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) corresponds
to the largest volume that is produced worldwide (Themelis and
Koroneos, 2004). At the same time, citizens demand for environmentally sound management of MSW has signicantly increased
during the last decades. Having realised that one single waste
management option cannot provide a holistic solution for all different kinds of wastes generated and populations with different
characteristics, customs and habits, a concatenation of different
processes and technologies is beginning to take shape to manage
waste (Kollikkathara et al., 2009).
Scientic research shows that landlling of all waste a common current management practice in many areas worldwide
presents poor performance and the highest environmental impact
(e.g. Cherubini et al., 2009; Emery et al., 2007; Koneczny and
Pennington, 2007; Marchettini et al., 2007; Mendes et al., 2004;
Arena et al., 2003; Chung and Poon, 1996). Apart from waste
disposal, thermal treatment technologies provide alternatives for
an efcient waste management scheme. Waste incineration is

Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2310 994109; fax: +30 2310 996012.
E-mail address: achillas@aix.meng.auth.gr (Ch. Achillas).
1
http://www.wtert.gr/.
0921-3449/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.04.012

often portrayed as the only realistic alternative steadily rising

over the last decades to dwindling landll opportunities, taking
also into consideration the fact that emerging waste management
technologies e.g. gasication are still relatively immature to
be currently put into practice through commercial applications
(Porteous, 2005). Communities do not primarily choose wasteto-energy (WtE) based on their energy demand since producing
energy from waste does not price-compete with producing energy
from fossil fuels (Miranda and Hale, 1997). However, incineration is not only increasingly presented as the only cost-effective
approach to waste disposal, but also considered as an effective means towards reaching the targets for renewable energy
production and an integral source for future sustainable energy
policies (ISWA, 2009). Although costly, there is a critical mass
of scientists who argue that incineration is even less expensive
than landlling when accounting also social costs (e.g. Porter,
2002; Goddard, 1995). Moreover, in contrast to the misbelief
that incineration sabotages other MSW management alternatives,
the practice shows that countries which present high rates of
energy recovery from waste, also show considerable rates of
recycling. On the other hand, countries where landlling is the
dominant waste management practice present also low rates of
recycling (Eurostat, 2010). Unfortunately, all above-mentioned
issues are not always imprinted in the decision-making process
for the development of an integrated waste management strategy.
A prerequisite for the effectiveness of any integrated MSW management scheme is its acceptance by the local community (e.g.

858

Ch. Achillas et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 857863

Kikuchi and Gerardo, 2009; Joos et al., 1999). There are numerous past examples where the opposition of the local community to
a proposed project led to major delays or even to its withdrawal.
Incineration is often preferred to landlling as a waste management alternative, even at times when WtE facilities did not include
sophisticated pollution abatement equipment (Petts, 1992). Local
communities ignorance on waste management issues and operation of relevant facilities is one possibility for the widely discussed
Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) syndrome, which should be taken
into account in most real life cases. The NIMBY syndrome for the
development of a WtE facility becomes more intense for countries
or areas that either do not have any similar previous experience,
or waste incineration or any other alternative was unsuccessfully implemented in the past (NIMBY NIMBY = NIMBY2 ).
In such cases, the public is expected to be more sceptic towards
the implementation of such plans. Moreover, social acceptance is
further bounded in densely populated areas such as urban conurbations. However, WtE plants may be considered as viable only
for those cases that the co-generated heat from the thermal treatment is exploitable by at least 8090%, replacing conventional fuels.
Therefore, the application of direct thermal treatment requires heat
consumption in a relatively short distance (domestic and industrial consumers), as well as the existence of adequate infrastructure
for the distribution of thermal energy (district heating). This often
results to an increased local community opposition to such investments. Such a typical example is analytically presented by Gandy
(1995), who exhibits public objections to the construction of a
waste incineration plant in Brooklyn, NY. What is revealed is that
concerns are mainly focused on the interrelated issues of public
health and environmental protection.
Kikuchi and Gerardo (2009) discuss on the main causative factors of NIMBY in the development of a WtE plant, communicating
a case study of the syndrome in Souselas, Portugal. Similarly,
Davies (2008) presents an analysis on anti-incineration and social
movements and provides a number of WtE opposition campaigns,
putting emphasis on conceptual and empirical developments in
the analysis of civil society activism in the case of Carranstown in
Ireland. Contreras et al. (2008) discuss on citizens and environmental activists opposition actions to solid waste incineration plants
including the closure of some due to episodes of mercury air
pollution (e.g. the incinerator in Claremont, NH). The syndrome is
further enforced by the fact that incinerators operation involves
numerous parameters and public health and safety does not only
depend on pollution control options. Operation of WtE facilities
involves controlling a complex set of numerous parameters including temperature, oxygen concentration, residence time and mixing
to ensure maximum destruction of organic compounds, which
are today highly regulated and have to be monitored systematically.

2. Background mechanics of the study

In literature, scientic interest principally revolves around economic and technical appraisal of different policy options, neglecting
somehow the critical issue of the social dimension in the introduction of energy recovery in an integrated waste management
scheme. The aforementioned parameters primarily triggered the
need for conducting a relevant survey in order to identify thoughts
and beliefs of urban communities with practically no prior experience in waste incineration practices. Development of thermal
treatment facilities for MSW management is not novel for Greece.
Since the early 90s, environmental managers together with scientists have been examining the potential of WtE with mass-burn
incineration constituting the most promising and mature one at
least for the time being (Perkoulidis et al., 2010; Technical Chamber

of Greece, 2010) and the development of adequate infrastructure

nationally. However, none such facility is currently operational at
a national level.
For the needs of the study, the Greater Thessaloniki Area (GTA)
in northern Greece was selected as the case area. Thessaloniki is
the second-largest city in Greece with a population of approximately 1 million inhabitants. The area was selected on the grounds
that: (i) it faces signicant environmental pressures from waste
(e.g. Achillas et al., 2010; Banias et al., 2010; Moussiopoulos et al.,
2010; Moussiopoulos and Nikolaou, 2008) and air quality (e.g.
Vlachokostas et al., in press, 2009), (ii) landlling is practically the
only current alternative for waste management, (iii) plans for the
development of a WtE facility are now quite politically mature following the existing regional waste planning and (iv) previously
applied waste management practices differed signicantly from
what was originally planned. In this context, a thorough survey
was carried out in the period OctoberDecember 2009, in order to
assess social acceptance for the development of a WtE facility in
the GTA. The main objective was to capture the trend of local preoperational attitude towards the development of a WtE facility in
the citys outskirts.
Following the existing regional waste plan and long debates during the last decade, two treatment plants for the post-recycling
MSW of GTA are scheduled to be built; one in the southern part of
the GTA within the municipality of Ag. Antonios and another in its
northern part, in the area of Mavrorachi, close to the areas principal sanitary landll that has started operating recently (Fig. 1).
The two proposed MSW treatment plants are considered to be the
entry point of WtE, as they will be either (a) producing refusederived fuel from incoming mixed residual MSW at an MBT plant
each and then combusting it or (b) directly combusting incoming residual MSW, with the regional waste management authority
currently favouring the 1st option. This bi-polar scheme has been
included and approved in the contemporary regional waste management plan for GTA the last few years but is still facing delays
in its implementation, with the primary reason being the tenuous
and inefcient permitting procedure. It should be noted that especially for the case of Ag. Antonios, signicant public opposition has
been raised from local communities lingering the development of
the WtE plant, mainly due to past appalling experiences (NIMBY2 ).
The area is located near the recently closed Tagarades landll which
was operating facing signicant deciencies in its environmental
standards from 1991 up to 2008. Operational deciencies were
climaxed in the re that broke out on July 14th, 2006 in a lled part
and over an area of 15,000 m2 . The re lasted 16 days and about
57,500 Mg of MSW was burned, raising signicant public and political concern. The re emitted signicant quantities of PCDD/Fs to the
air. Dioxin concentration reached and exceeded the recommended
safe limits in areas adjacent to the site (Moussiopoulos et al., 2006).
In that sense, the sinful environmental past practices leaded to
considerable public mistrust for future plans.
In order to assess social attitude for the development of a WtE
plant in the GTA, the following common methods were analysed;
telephone interview, in-person (face-to-face) interview, mailed
questionnaire and web-based questionnaire. According to Assefa
and Frostell (2007), the factors determining the method of data
collection to be employed include depth and type of information
needed, ease of data quantication, scale of applicability, representativeness, staff requirement, time and cost constraints. Without
consideration of time and resource constraints, combined methodologies seem preferable (Assefa and Frostell, 2007). In our case,
face-to-face interviews with the use of a simple questionnaire were
selected as the most appropriate technique, in order to better detect
local trend. This decision was primarily based on the peculiarity
of the technology investigated, at least for local people who are
not yet adequately familiarised with such a waste management

Ch. Achillas et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 857863

859

Fig. 1. Locations of planned WtE facilities in the Greater Thessaloniki Area, Greece.

alternative. The questionnaire incorporated all critical parameters that a decision-maker encounters in the process towards the
development of a WtE facility. Emphasis was given on the clarity of questionnaire, particularly since it was directed to people of
all ages and levels of education. In that sense, efforts focused on
the reconciliation of the questions unambiguousness, maintaining their technical nature and context. A total of 511 valid replies
were collected, using the stratied sampling method. On this basis,
demographic stratication of the sample of respondents (Fig. 2)
with the areas population a most critical issue in order for the
results to be credible was achieved both in the average age and
educational level.
3. Discussion of results
Statistical analysis of the surveys results are summarised in
Fig. 3. The general attitude of local people is in principal rather positive in favour of the introduction of thermal treatment technologies
within an integrated waste management scheme in the area, at
least compared to waste landlling. In the literature, this is also
encountered in a number of papers (e.g. McQuaid-Cook and Simons,
1989; Siskind and Susskind, 1989; Furuseth and OCallaghan, 1991),
yet what is mostly expected is records of major oppositions (e.g.
Davies, 2008). However, notwithstanding positive thoughts, the
NIMBY syndrome is evidently portrayed between the lines in the
analysis. Dissemination of available information is critical towards
public acceptance and needs to be confronted as such. In respect
to all possible risks, considerable effort is required towards persuasion of local communities in favour or against any proposed waste
management alternative. To that end, responses also reect a considerable lack of public information on the subject (Fig. 3i). More

than 85% of the interviewees questioned do not have a clear view

or have never been informed on such technologies advantages and
disadvantages.
The general positive attitude is predominantly illustrated in
Fig. 3ii. The competition in the decision-making concerning the
most appropriate waste management strategy is only restricted to
landlls and WtE facilities. The latter motivated us to record public perceptions regarding the comparison of those two alternatives
in a number of critical parameters, namely: waste management
cost, safety to public health, aesthetic nuisance, land degradation
and energy recovery. In general, WtE alternative seems preferable
to disposal in landlls for all examined parameters, with the only
exception of management costs. WtE is superior even as regards
public health concerns for which opposite results were initially
expected.
Positive attitude is also depicted in Fig. 3iii and iv, where respondents perceptions on WtE safety issues are presented. Health and
safety is widely accepted as the principal obstacle against the
alternatives promotion. The survey results revealed that three
quarters of the sample consider that MSW thermal treatment is
safe for the public health, especially when carried out in specially designed units. This is probably aligned with the signicant
progress achieved over the last years regarding WtE plants pollution control. Nevertheless, the topic is of vital importance and
the remaining 25% of those who consider the method harmful to
public health or do not choose sides should not be in any case
neglected (Fig. 3iii). To that end, focus needs to be given on adequate monitoring and frequent checks on the facilities day-to-day
operations in order to maximise public acceptance. Any attempt
to integrate thermal treatment as a MSW management alternative
ought to involve the development of sufcient control mechanisms

Fig. 2. Surveys demographical characteristics.

860

Ch. Achillas et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 857863

Fig. 3. Statistical analysis of survey results.

Ch. Achillas et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 857863

(Fig. 3iv) and provide a framework for the denition of Best Available Techniques for WtE plants. Thus, the type of body to shoulder
the responsibilities is also most important in order to be trusted
by the public. The survey results, presented in Fig. 3v, show that
the majority favours a PublicPrivate Partnership (PPP), which is
expected to benet from the advantages of each type of body.
Public participation in WtE projects favoured by at least 70%
of those who provided an answer is generally desirable since
such investments involve several health, scientic, technological,
economic and locating issues, while also it will ensure tight control in the operational phase of the WtE plant, also supported by
Ahmed and Ali (2006). Siskind and Susskind (1989) also agitate
issues such as fair taxing of the beneciaries, strict monitoring for
the identication of violations and enforcement of strict penalties, as well as standards set. As a minimum, regulators should set
guidelines considering critical parameters of any WtE facility that
are often neglected, at least during the designing phase of such
a project. These guidelines could support shutdown procedures,
fair compensation for host communities, ash safe disposal or public participation throughout the facilitys life cycle, involving local
communities from the earliest possible phase, e.g. identication
of optimal plant location. On the other side, a private company is
expected to provide introduction of innovative technologies, exibility to the investment, while ensuring economic viability. This is
also in line with literature where MSW management services are
expected to improve through PPPs despite potential institutional
and/or nancial constraints present (e.g. Ahmed and Ali, 2006).
However, it is worthy pointing out that middle-aged population
is more sceptical on PPPs and seems to display higher condence
on public bodies (47% for ages 4064), mostly due to stricter and
more intensive monitoring.
A critical concern in any MSW management scheme lies in its
economic viability. Total MSW management costs are expected to
increase in the case that thermal treatment is integrated in the
scheme (ISWA, 2009), as also reected in the present study (Fig. 3ii).
Thus, in order to achieve a consensus by the local society, it is decisive whether the latter feel they already pay increased amounts or
not. Waste management charges in Greece are still rather low in
comparison to real costs, since in most cases, very low landll gate
fees are imposed, although this is lately changing (Malamakis et al.,
2009; Zotos et al., 2009), often in the form of steep fee increase.
However, this fact is not always clear to the public, who usually
is willing to pay additional service charge provided that the services are of acceptable quality (e.g. Jones et al., 2010; Ahmed and
Ali, 2006). For the case of Thessaloniki, the results (Fig. 3vi) suggest that local people are oblivious of current MSW management
costs. This is clearly reected in the disparity of responds. In practice, the amount paid for waste management is hidden as it is
vaguely included into an overall municipal tax, directly related
only to homes surface. This fact undoubtedly does not provide
any incentives for the reduction and alternative management of
MSW. On the contrary, the signicant fraction (almost 50%) of the
sample who consider current costs fair enough or less than what
charges should have been present a promising starting point for
a public acceptance in the introduction of MSW thermal treatment
alternative, at least from an economic perspective.
Economic viability is also enhanced by the exploitation of
the produced steam for district heating. In order for heat to be
exploitable, the facility needs to be closely located to urban conurbations or industrial clients, following the example of numerous
such cases around the world. In line with the NIMBY syndrome, the
survey resulted into a negative (only 43% agrees since that would
reduce costs) corresponding attitude, which moreover shows a relative lack of the respondents knowledge on the subject. This is
based on the fact that locating WtE plant in remote areas does
not comply with current international practice (Fig. 3vii). Locating

861

WtE plants close to residential areas was further investigated in

respect to the reasons on which local communities mainly protest.
To this particular question, the respondents were invited to provide
more than one answer. Public health issues were included in 43%
of the responds, followed by aesthetic reasons and land depreciation (Fig. 3viii). Increased percentages concerning danger to public
health in Fig. 3vii and viii, respectively, are aligned with the fact
that the public doubts that control mechanisms will be strong and
the pollution abatement standards will not be met and/or antipollution technologies that will be nally applied will differ from
the specied ones (Fig. 3iv). On the contrary, only a small fraction
of the respondents feel very safe. There is a signicant mistrust in
the party that would undertake WtE operations in the future which
explains these discrepancies.
Greece is one of the few countries in EU that still has not
introduced MSW thermal treatment. This is however not based
on scientic evidence but mostly on decit in political will and
misjudgements on social acceptance. In this direction, the survey
targeted at the identication of the main reasons for not still promoting WtE nationally. More than one response was also invited.
Lack of public information is regarded as the main reason, seconded
by inadequate technological know-how. Incomplete legal framework, inadequate political will and increased infrastructural cost
closely followed. Objections, either by local authorities or NGOs
which often advocate misleadingly against incineration (Moghissi,
1991) do not seem to present major obstacles in the development
of a WtE facility for the case of the GTA. Another interesting nding of the survey rests in the fact that only one in ten respondents
consider environmental burden as a threat, further strengthening
the argument that local communities are mature enough for the
development of WtE plants.
Last but not least, critical parameters in the designing of a
WtE plant were surveyed. Primary social concerns relate to health
effects of incinerators emissions, potential accidents involving
toxic waste, adverse impact on the quality of life and management
of industrial waste (Petts, 1992). Despite late radical improvements
in WtE capabilities (Bilitewski, 2008; Themelis, 2007; Porteous,
2001), terms such as dioxins, furans, toxic waste and PCBs
gain not always unreasonably intense care and create diachronically a signicant debate. A thorough review of waste management
practices and their impact on human health is explicitly presented
by Giusti (2009). This is clearly reected also in the surveys results
(Fig. 3x) where emissions of air pollutants are by far considered the
most critical for the public during the design phase of a WtE facility.
Additionally, more than 90% of respondents included this within
the three most critical parameters. In that sense, adequate abatement strategies need to be designed and scholastically applied,
while monitoring and control should be continuous during facilities operational phase in order to convince local communities,
achieve a broad consensus in favour of WtE alternative and comply with environmental standards. As also stated in the work of
Johnke (1992), the discussions show that the acceptance of waste
incineration cannot be improved merely by pointing out that emissions meet or remain below the stringent emission standards and
that modern process technology is used. In that sense, more key
parameters are also decisive. Ability to manage larger quantities
of waste and the ability to produce greater amounts of energy followed in respondents prioritisation of the most critical parameters
in a WtE facilitys original design. Although the latter fall far behind
emissions of air pollutants, those are also fundamental, since waste
quantities and energy production were included in the top three
critical parameters of the 78% and 70% of the respondents, respectively. Aesthetics of the WtE plant, creation of new jobs and trafc
conditions in the neighbouring area are not considered top priorities for the public, even if those also need to be meticulously studied
for the investments smooth operations.

862

Ch. Achillas et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 857863

4. Conclusions
The effectiveness of any MSW management scheme and its
smooth operation heavily depends on its acceptance by the local
community. This becomes even more imperative for communities
with practically no prior experience in specic waste treatment
alternatives, as is the case of the introduction of MSW thermal treatment in Greece. Taking into account that WtE facilities viability
also relies on the exploitation of the heat produced and therefore
need to be built close to urban conurbations, public objections to
the construction of a waste incineration plant becomes often much
greater.
Although mistrust to any scheduled development of a WtE plant
was expected as an initial reaction of local communities, especially due to the intense activism in the area, a thorough survey
conducted for the metropolitan area of Thessaloniki in northern
Greece, revealed a rather positive public attitude on the integration of MSW thermal treatment in the local waste management
strategy compared to landll alternative. Even this might sound
odd, it does not only originate from recent pollution abatement
technologies, but it is also aligned with ndings that aroused from
a meeting on waste incineration at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, back in June 1988 (Ehrenfeld et al., 1989). The public is
not as opposed to incineration as people might think, but when the
public sees what is happening in practice, when public authorities
and industry are not playing fair, they get upset.
However, responses uncovered lack of public awareness on
such a critical eld, even though local authorities have long ago
commenced planning for the development of two WtE plants in
the area. In principal, dissemination aims at social reassurance
(e.g. ability of regulatory control to detect hazardous conditions),
persuasion (e.g. appropriateness of environmental standards and
selection of site location), arousal (e.g. appropriate emergency
action) and last but not least adequate technical expertise (e.g.
competence of the operator and regulator). Additionally, besides
risks from the development of a waste treatment facility, the
perception of public unfair treatment is also an issue of utmost
importance as regards facilitys location (Wolsink, 2010; WesterHerber, 2004). In the survey herein presented, the widely discussed
NIMBY syndrome is clearly demonstrated, although one cannot
nd a simple reason for correlating WtE with the syndrome. Emissions of air pollutants and resulting public health issues seem to
play the most critical role towards social acceptance. In this light,
air pollution abatement measures need to be carefully designed
and implemented, while also the plants operations to be thoroughly monitored and controlled. Additionally, the dissemination
procedure crucially depends on the stakeholder who manages the
communication and overall strategy. To this end, increased efforts
are required for our case study. However, it should be pointed out
that for the local community, WtE alternative seems signicantly
superior to its prime opponent, i.e. waste disposal in sanitary
landlls, with the only exception of MSW managerial costs that
are expected to rise considerably in the case of its implementation.
Another critical issue that needs to be raised is the response
of environmental managers to the whole risk management strategy. Regardless of the view angle, in order to appease the NIMBY
syndrome from the development of a waste treatment facility, environmental managers and decision makers should focus on building
condence in their design, safety and control, also supported by
Portney (1984) and Siskind and Susskind (1989). Day-to-day monitoring should be backed up by strict enforcement, even involving
the shut down of plants for violation of designed standards. Efforts
should also focus on the persuasion of public that adequate care is
given on risk mitigation, since threats will always exist, no matter
what sophisticated technologies are used. The area does not have
any previous relative experience and it is clear that a lot of effort

is required towards this direction, especially by the local government, media and academia. Key responsibilities of all stakeholders
should be clearly assigned to ensure accountability. It should be
stressed that compensating local communities for risks imposed
does not add towards public acceptance of the WtE alternative
and should be only adopted as a last option, although the latter
represents common practice in most cases.
In addition, what is also imperative is the involvement of communities in risk decision. All stakeholders in the integrated waste
management scheme share common responsibility and therefore
adequate information is pre-required for its effectiveness. Towards
this direction, communication should reach high standards in an
effort to contribute to the maximisation of a public consensus.
It is indispensable that the public is provided with the opportunity to fully access and assess all background information and
clearly understand the development plans, the selected approach,
together with all potential impacts, both positive and negative,
without delay. Thus, the public needs to be involved early during the decision-making process, especially for cases similar to
Greece where activism and protest is routine modus vivendi.
Vague discussions and qualitative assessment of incineration hazards small, low, insignicant risks is no longer acceptable
since the last two decades. Risk communication, which is an ongoing process throughout a WtE facilitys life cycle and not only a
response to specic arguments, should better constitute a bidirectional process. In other words, stakeholders authorities and
the public need to be prepared to modify opinions and strategies according to debated arguments, decisions already taken and
specic elements of the risk concerns, so as to reach a conciliatory
agreement. It is all stakeholders shared responsibility to solve the
waste management problem and co-operation is the key.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for
their valuable comments, which greatly improved the quality of the
manuscript.
References
Achillas Ch, Vlachokostas Ch, Moussiopoulos N, Banias G. Decision support system
for the optimal location of electrical and electronic waste treatment plants: a
case study in Greece. Waste Management 2010;30(5):8709.
Ahmed SA, Ali SM. People as partners: facilitating peoples participation in
publicprivate partnerships for solid waste management. Habitat International
2006;30:78196.
Arena U, Mastellone ML, Perugini F. The environmental performance of alternative solid waste management options: a life cycle assessment study. Chemical
Engineering Journal 2003;96:20722.
Assefa G, Frostell B. Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology
assessment: a case study of energy technologies. Technology in Society
2007;29:6378.
Banias G, Achillas Ch, Vlachokostas Ch, Moussiopoulos N, Tarsenis S. Assessing multiple criteria for the optimal location of a construction and demolition waste
management facility. Building and Environment 2010;45(10):231726.
Bilitewski B. Thermal treatment and energetic utilization of solid waste current
status and perspectives. Presentation at the Aristotle University Thessaloniki;
2008.
Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management
strategies: landlling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy 2009;34:211623.
Chung SS, Poon CS. Evaluating waste management alternatives by the multiple criteria approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1996;17(3):189210.
Contreras F, Hanaki K, Aramaki T, Connors S. Application of analytical hierarchy process to analyze stakeholders preferences for municipal solid waste management
plans, Boston, USA. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2008;52:97991.
Davies A. Civil society activism and waste management in Ireland: the Carranstown
anti-incineration campaign. Land Use Policy 2008;25:16172.
Ehrenfeld J, Craig E, Nash J. Waste incineration: confronting the sources of disagreement. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1989;9:30515.
Emery A, Davies A, Grifths A, Williams K. Environmental and economic modelling: a
case study of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Wales. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 2007;49:24463.
Eurostat. Eurostat newsrelease 43/2010. Luxembourg: Eurostat Press Ofce; 19
March 2010.

Ch. Achillas et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 857863

Furuseth O, OCallaghan J. Community response to a municipal waste incinerator:
NIMBY or neighbor? Landscape and Urban Planning 1991;21:16371.
Gandy M. Political conict over waste-to-energy schemes the case of incineration
in New York. Land Use Policy 1995;12(1):2936.
Giusti L. A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health.
Waste Management 2009;29(8):222739.
Goddard H. The benets and costs of alternative solid waste management policies.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1995;13:183213.
International Solid Waste Association (ISWA). Waste and climate change. ISWA
White Paper, Vienna, Austria; 2009 December.
Jones N, Evangelinos K, Halvadakis CP, Iosides T, Sophoulis CM. Social factors
inuencing perceptions and willingness to pay for a market-based policy
aiming on solid waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
2010;54:53340.
Johnke B. Waste incineration an important element of the integrated
waste management system in Germany. Waste Management & Research
1992;10(4):30315.
Joos W, Carabias V, Winistoerfer H, Stuecheli A. Social aspects of public waste management in Switzerland. Waste Management 1999;19(6):41725.
Kikuchi R, Gerardo R. More than a decade of conict between hazardous waste management and public resistance: a case study of NIMBY syndrome in Souselas
(Portugal). Journal of Hazardous Materials 2009;172:16815.
Kollikkathara N, Feng H, Stern E. A purview of waste management evolution: special
emphasis on USA. Waste Management 2009;29:97485.
Koneczny K, Pennington D. Life cycle thinking in waste management: summary of
European Commissions Malta 2005 workshop and pilot studies. Waste Management 2007;27(8):S927.
Malamakis A, Karagiannidis A, Perkoulidis G. Simulation and assessment of alternative pay-as-you-throw scenarios aiming at maximizing municipal waste
diversion by the resulting direct promotion of minimization and recovery
schemes. In: Cossu R, Diaz LF, Stegmann R, editors. Proceedings of the 12th
International waste management and Landll symposium; 2009.
Marchettini N, Ridol R, Rustici M. An environmental analysis for comparing waste
management options and strategies. Waste Management 2007;27(4):56271.
McQuaid-Cook J, Simons CS. Development and operation of a waste management
system in Alberta, Canada. Waste Management & Research 1989;7:21927.
Mendes MR, Aramaki T, Hanaki K. Comparison of the environmental impact of
incineration and landlling in So Paulo City as determined by LCA. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 2004;41(1):4763.
Miranda ML, Hale B. Waste not, want not: the private and social costs of waste-toenergy production. Energy Policy 1997;25(6):587600.
Moghissi A. Advantages of incineration. Waste management 1991;11:vii.
Moussiopoulos N, Achillas Ch, Vlachokostas Ch, Spyridi D, Nikolaou K. Environmental, social and economic information management for the evaluation of
sustainability in urban areas: a system of indicators for Thessaloniki, Greece.
Cities 2010;27:37784.
Moussiopoulos N, Nikolaou K, editors. Indicators for the environment and
sustainability of Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki, Greece, December: Hellenic Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning & Public Works, Organisation for

863

the Master Plan and Environmental Protection of Thessaloniki, Aristotle

University of Thessaloniki; 2008, ISBN 978-960-98642-0-6, Available from:
http://delta.meng.auth.gr/sdpa/sistima deikton.pdf [in Greek].
Moussiopoulos N, Karagiannidis A, Tsatsarelis Th, Douros I, Tsegas G. Atmospheric
dispersion and deposition of PCDD/Fs from a landll re in Tagarades, Greece.
In: Proceedings Venice 2006, Biomass and Waste to Energy Symposium; 2006.
Perkoulidis G, Karagiannidis A, Papageorgiou A, Kalogirou E. Integrated assessment
of a new waste-to-energy facility in Central Greece in the context of regional
perspectives. Waste Management 2010;30(7):1395406.
Petts J. Incineration risk perceptions and public concern: experience in
the U.K. improving risk communication. Waste Management & Research
1992;10:16982.
Porteous A. Why energy from waste incineration is an essential component
of environmentally responsible waste management. Waste Management
2005;25:4519.
Porteous A. Energy from waste incineration a state of the art emissions review
with an emphasis on public acceptability. Applied Energy 2001;70:15767.
Porter R. The economics of waste. Washington, USA: Resources for the Future; 2002.
Portney KE. Allaying the NIMBY syndrome: the potential for compensation in hazardous waste treatment facility siting. Hazardous Waste 1984;1:41121.
Siskind E, Susskind L. The incineration conict: addressing public concerns. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1989;9:31729.
Technical Chamber of Greece. Thermal exploitation of Municipal Solid Waste and
prospects of waste-to-energy application in the Region of Central Macedonia,
Greece. In: Katsanevakis I, Malamakis A, Perkoulidis G, Tsatsarelis Th, editors,
Final report. Section of Central Macedonia; 2010 March [in Greek].
Themelis N. Thermal treatment review, JulyAugust. Waste Management World;
2007. pp. 3744.
Themelis N, Koroneos C. Assessing waste-to-energy and landlling in the
U.S. Technica Chronika, Scientic Edition of Technical Chamber of Greece
2004;4(12):720 [in Greek].
Vlachokostas Ch, Achillas Ch, Moussiopoulos N, Kalogeropoulos K, Sigalas G, Kalognomou E-A. Health effects and social costs of particulate and photochemical air
pollution: a case study for Thessaloniki, Greece. Air Quality, Atmosphere and
Health, in press.
Vlachokostas Ch, Achillas Ch, Moussiopoulos N, Hourdakis E, Tsilingiridis G, Ntziachristos L, et al. Decision Support System for the evaluation of urban air
pollution control options: application for particulate pollution in Thessaloniki,
Greece. Science of the Total Environment 2009;407(23):593748.
Wester-Herber M. Underlying concerns in land-use conicts the role of placeidentity in risk perception. Environmental Science & Policy 2004;7:10916.
Wolsink M. Contested environmental policy infrastructure: socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 2010;30:30211.
Zotos G, Karagiannidis A, Zampetoglou S, Malamakis A, Antonopoulos I, Kontogianni
S, et al. Developing a holistic strategy for integrated waste management within
municipal planning: challenges, policies, solutions and perspectives for Hellenic municipalities in the zero-waste, low-cost direction. Waste Management
2009;29(5):168692.