See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323632667

The Influence of Waste Collection Systems on Resource Recovery: A Review

Article  in  Procedia Manufacturing · January 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.192

CITATION READS

1 102

3 authors:

Bupe Mwanza Charles Mbohwa

University of Zambia University of Johannesburg
28 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS    407 PUBLICATIONS   1,386 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Arnesh Telukdarie
University of Johannesburg
76 PUBLICATIONS   216 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A study on safety leadership View project

LCA studies on platinum metals and related engineering processes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bupe Mwanza on 19 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available
Available online
online at
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Available
Availableonline
onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia
Procedia Manufacturing
Manufacturing 00
00 (2017)
(2017) 000–000
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect 
Procedia Manufacturing 21 (2018) 846–853
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

15th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing

The Influence of Waste Collection Systems on Resource Recovery:

Manufacturing Engineering Society International
A Review Conference 2017, MESIC 2017, 28-30 June
2017, Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain
Bupe Getrude Mwanzaaa*, Charles Mbohwaaa, Arnesh Telukdarieaa
Costing models for capacity optimization in Industry 4.0: Trade-off
University
University of
of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, Po
aa
Po Box
Box 170114
170114 Doornfontein,
Doornfontein, Johnannesburg
Johnannesburg 2028,
2028, South
South Africa
between used capacity and operational efficiencyAfrica

Abstract
Abstract
A. Santanaa, P. Afonsoa,*, A. Zaninb, R. Wernkeb
Different
Different types
types of
of waste
waste collection
collection systems
systems
a exist and
existofand
University the 4800-058
the
Minho, influenceGuimarães,
influence of each
of each Portugal
system on
system on waste
waste recovery
recovery differs.
differs. In
In order
order to
to
sustainably
sustainably recover
recover resources
resources from
from waste, it
it is
is cardinal
waste,bUnochapecó,
cardinal to
to understand
89809-000 Chapecó, the
understand the different
different types
SC, Brazil types ofof waste
waste collection
collection systems.
systems. In
In
developed
developed economies,
economies, different
different waste
waste collection
collection systems
systems have been implemented
have been implemented to to suit
suit their
their context.
context. As
As the
the developed
developed
economies
economies pursue
pursue toto recover
recover resources
resources from
from waste,
waste, it
it is
is vital
vital that
that the
the influence
influence ofof each
each collection
collection system
system isis understood.
understood. AnAn
extensive
extensive literature
literature review
review was
was conducted
conducted on on four
four different
different types
types of
of waste
waste collection
collection systems.
systems. Focus
Focus was
was paid
paid onon how
how each
each
Abstract
system
system has
has influenced
influenced resource
resource recovery
recovery from
from the
the household
household perspective.
perspective. The
The findings
findings of
of the
the results
results are
are important
important toto the
the waste
waste
management sector and manufacturing companies in the implementation of resource recovery systems and
management sector and manufacturing companies in the implementation of resource recovery systems and awareness programs. awareness programs.
Under
© 2017 the
© 2017 The concept Published
The Authors.
Authors. of "Industry
Published by 4.0", B.V.
by Elsevier
Elsevier production processes will be pushed to be increasingly interconnected,
B.V.
© 2018 The Authors.
Peer-review under Published by
responsibility of Elsevier
the B.V. committee of the 15th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing.
scientific
information
Peer-review based
under on a real
responsibilitytime
of basis
the and,
scientific necessarily,
committee
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of of much
thethe 15th
15th more
Global
Global efficient. In
on this
Conference
Conference context,
on Sustainable
Sustainable capacity optimization
Manufacturing.
Manufacturing (GCSM).
goes beyond the traditional aim of capacity maximization, contributing also for organization’s profitability and value.
Keywords: waste collection
Keywords:lean
waste collection systems;
systems; recovery;
recovery; resource,
resource, waste;
waste; households, sustainability
households,approaches
sustainability suggest capacity optimization instead of
Indeed, management and continuous improvement
maximization. The study of capacity optimization and costing models is an important research topic that deserves
contributions from both the practical and theoretical perspectives. This paper presents and discusses a mathematical
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
model for capacity management based on different costing models (ABC and TDABC). A generic model has been
developed and it was used to analyze idle capacity and to design strategies towards the maximization of organization’s
Waste recovery has been
been influenced by
by aa vs
number of
of factors and each
and each factor’s
factor’s influence
influence isis different. Despite
Despite the
the
Waste
value. Therecovery
trade-offhas capacity influenced
maximization number
operational factors
efficiency is highlighted and it is different.
shown that capacity
difference in the
difference in might impact
the impact these factors
these factors have in the management or recovery of re-use, recyclable
have in the management or recovery of re-use, recyclable or re-manufacture or re-manufacture
optimization hide operational inefficiency.
waste from
from households
households and and other
other sectors,
sectors, itit is very cardinal to also consider that waste collection systems have an
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. is very cardinal to also consider that waste collection systems have an
waste
important influence
important influence
Peer-review
in the management
in the management
under responsibility
and
of the scientificand
recovery
recovery
committee
aspect
aspect
of the
of these
of these Engineering
Manufacturing
end-of-life Society
end-of-life products.
products. A number
A number
International
of waste
of waste
Conference
collection systems exist in the management of household solid waste and each system
collection systems exist in the management of household solid waste and each system has a different impact on
2017. has a different impact on
waste recovery. According to [1] waste collection systems for households are divided
waste recovery. According to [1] waste collection systems for households are divided into drop-off points and into drop-off points and
property-close
property-close
Keywords: collection
collection
Cost Models; systems.
systems.
ABC; TDABC; However,
However,
Capacity waste Idle
waste
Management; collection
collection systems
Capacity; systems for
Operationalfor households differ
households
Efficiency differ throughout
throughout the
the world
world
and so is their organization [2]. [1] indicate that, property-close collection systems can be categorized
and so is their organization [2]. [1] indicate that, property-close collection systems can be categorized into kerbside into kerbside
collection system
collection system andand door
door toto door
door collection
collection system.
system. In In kerbside
kerbside collection,
collection, eacheach particular
particular household
household isis provided
provided
1.
with Introduction
containers and instructed to place the waste in containers at the kerbside while in door
with containers and instructed to place the waste in containers at the kerbside while in door to door collection; to door collection;
E-mail address:
** E-mail address: bupe.mwanza@gmail.com
bupe.mwanza@gmail.com
The cost of idle capacity is a fundamental information for companies and their management of extreme importance
in modern production systems. In general, it is defined as unused capacity or production potential and can be measured
in several©
2351-9789
2351-9789 ©ways:
2017 tons
2017 The
The of production,
Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by available
by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.hours of manufacturing, etc. The management of the idle capacity
B.V.
Peer-review
Peer-review under responsibility
underTel.:
* Paulo Afonso. +351 253of
responsibility of the scientific
the761;
510 scientific committee
253 604of
committee
fax: +351 the
the 15th
of741 15th Global
Global Conference
Conference on
on Sustainable
Sustainable Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.
E-mail address: psafonso@dps.uminho.pt

2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.
2351-9789 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 15th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing (GCSM).
10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.192
 Bupe Getrude Mwanza et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 21 (2018) 846–853 847
2 Bupe Getrude Mwanza, Charles Mbohwa and Arnesh Telukdarie/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000

households are instructed to keep the waste containers at their premises but each household is initially provided with
containers. In drop-off collection systems, residents are needed to deliver recyclables to the drop-off centers [3].
Buy-back collection system is a waste collection system based on waste recovery and recycling centers. Financial
incentives are given to individuals who return recyclables to the centers [3]. In a deposit-refund system, a
combination of a tax on product consumption with a rebate exists upon the return of the product’s packaging or the
product for appropriate disposal or recycling [4].
[3] alluded that, for residents in the United States, the kerbside collection system is the most convenient though it
requires separation of designated recyclables from households’ garbage by residents. [5] also indicated that using
the kerbside collection system, 55% of PET plastic containers were recovered for recycling. As for the Returnable
Container Legislation in the United States, [6] indicate that, with the legislation, the recycling rate of PET bottles
was higher. [7] also indicated that, the deposit system can contribute to 30% and 64% reduction in total road side
litter. In a study by [5], drop-off collection system is only considered efficient in rural areas where kerbside
collection systems are impractical.
Several studies have looked at waste collection systems. [8] conducted an economic and environmental
assessment on waste collection systems. The technical aspects of municipal solid waste kerbside collection were
analyzed [9]. Other studies have focused on benchmarking waste collection systems [10; 11]. Other studies have
compared the efficiency of waste amounts collected by different types of waste collection systems [12] 13]. In all the
studies, none assessed the influence of waste collection systems on waste recovery. However [14] notes that, the
type of waste collection system impacts the amount and quality of recyclables intended for collection as well as user
participation. They further indicate that, the type of collection system can establish how waste management and
collection can be charged by municipalities.
This study reviews the influence of four technical waste collection systems on the recovery of waste from
households and other sectors. In order to achieve sustainability, manufacturing industries need to develop processes
and systems that are safe for employees and the communities, conserve energy and natural resources and prevent
pollution. However, to conserve natural resources, a number of strategies need to be implemented and one of these
strategies is the production of products from re-manufactureable and recyclable end-of-life products. The use of
remanufactureable and recyclable products in the production systems requires recovery of these end-of-life products
from the supply chain and this is the stage where an understanding of the different types of waste collection systems
and their influence on the users is cardinal. Therefore, this study provides relevant information on waste collection
systems for incorporation in recovery programs of end-of-life products to manufacturing and waste management
sectors. According to [15], management and solid waste collection are one of the problem avenues that are cardinal
to many industries as well as to regions and communities. Therefore, this study attempts to bridge the gap to enable
manufacturers and waste mangers design and implement waste collection systems that will enable them recover and
utilize quality end-of-life products.
The fundamental aspect of implementing waste collection systems for the purpose of waste recovery should not
only be centered on the technical development, its capabilities and features but its influence on households should be
addressed as well. Without a common understanding of the influence waste collection systems may have on resource
recovery from the household perspective, there is a high risk of slowing down not only the recovery process but the
operational aspects of sustainable manufacturing and waste recovery programs. Fig 1 depicts a conceptual
relationship that waste collection systems and resource recovery have.
 Bupe Getrude Mwanza, Charles Mbohwa and Arnesh Telukdarie/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000 3

848 Bupe Getrude Mwanza et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 21 (2018) 846–853

Kerbside Collection
System

Drop-Off Collection Resource

System Recovery Reuse
Recycling
Energy-
Recovery
Buy-Back Collection
System

Deposit-Refund
Collection System

Fig1: Conceptual Framework showing the relationship of waste collection systems and resource recovery

This study focuses on reviewing literature on studies that have focused on the technical instruments of waste
recovery and in this case, waste collection systems. Four types of waste collection systems are considered and these
are property-close collection system (kerbside or door to door), drop-off collection system, buy-back collection
system and the deposit-refund collection system (Returnable Container Legislation system). The objective of the
review is to identify the influence each collection system has had on the recovery of solid waste from both
developing and developed economies.
The paper consists of the literature review in section 2. In section 3, the findings and analysis from the literature
review are presented. Finally section 4 summaries the main conclusions.

2. Literature Review

In many countries, developing or developed, waste collection is performed as part of the pillar of waste
management. The collection systems for wastes vary from one country to the other but at the end of the day, the
systems of collection are similar. [14] notes that, implementation of waste collection systems is public health driven
and also for the recovery of materials for recycling and reusing purposes. Though in developing economies, waste
collection is mainly performed by manually depositing the wastes in bins followed by transportation by vehicles for
disposal [16], in developed economies, the waste collection systems have advanced by collecting waste using a
number of waste flows [17]. The advancement in waste collection systems for both developed and developing
economies may seem to be different but at the end of the day, it is important to understand how these systems have
influenced the recovery of resources.
A waste collection system is a relatively complex system consisting of independent and interactive components.
The complexity of these systems requires investment in research to enable optimum returns. Several studies have
evaluated the performance of collection systems for waste using indicators. [1] applied specific waste generation
rate, source-sorting ratio, ratios of mis-sorted materials indicators and ratios of materials in the residual waste to
evaluate recycling programs. To determine the performance of waste collection systems, quality in containers rate
and annual collection rate was applied [12]. [17] applied the waste transport distances to the frequency of waste
collection. Economic and environmental aspects have also been applied to determine the performance of waste
collection systems. Using indicators related to the percentage and weight of recyclables in the bins, three different
types of indoor recycling bins were analyzed [18]. [8] applied impact assessment on categories of recycling rates,
life cycle assessment, collection costs, amount of wastes and sorting efficiencies. However for this study, focus is
 Bupe Getrude Mwanza et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 21 (2018) 846–853 849
4 Bupe Getrude Mwanza, Charles Mbohwa and Arnesh Telukdarie/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000

paid on four types of collection systems, Kerbside, drop-off, buy-back and the returnable container legislation. In
other studies these collection systems may be categorized as type of service [14]

2.1 Kerbside collection system

Waste handling in households is significantly affected by kerbside collection systems for recyclables [19; 20; 21].
Kerbside collection system involves the allocation of bins, bags or sacks to individual families as waste receptacles
while each family is responsible for placing the receptacle at the curb on collection days as well as the returning of
the emptied receptacle to its storage location [1; 22; 23].
Assessment of citizen’s behavior with regards to the various waste collection systems is vital for achieving
increments on collection efficiency of recyclables [12]. [24] discussed the issues associated with transforming
households opinions and attitudes into material recovery using kerbside recycling schemes. The review indicated
that, to capture the traditionally non-committed recycler in order to ensure higher diversions of recyclables and
maximum participation rates, provision of correct collection scheme design to households’ results in higher retain
proportions. In Denmark, an environmental and economic assessment of five collection systems with different
collection efficiency for recyclables was conducted and the results indicated that kerbside collection can be
environmentally more beneficial than bring and drop-off centers [8]. For residents concerned about the
environment, this assessment would result in more returns of recyclables using kerbside collection system as
compared to the other two systems. Further, [25] observed waste collection system designs for different households
in Sweden and found that, for points close to the property a higher amount of separate packaging was observed than
from drop-off points. In nations such as Austria, Germany, the UK and France, application of Kerbside waste
collection systems is most common and one of its benefits is increased recycling rates [26]. A study in Nordic
countries on the improvement in existing recycling and collection systems showed an increased collection rate using
kerbside system as compared to bring systems [27]. However, to enable sustainable recovery of resources, a
combination of bring systems and kerbside can be more effective compared to using one system [28, 29]. Further,
for manufacturing companies to achieve sustainability, it is cardinal that the environmental, economic and social
impacts of these waste collection systems are assessed before implementation.

2.2 Drop-off collection system

In drop-off collection systems residents are required to drop their wastes or recyclables are allocated drop points.
Two categories of drop-off points exist; drop-off centers and drop-off sites. In drop-off sites, households bring their
different types of separated waste streams to containers placed at neighbor level while in drop-off centers
households bring different types of separated waste streams to containers at recycling centers [26]. [1] indicates that,
residents are provided with dissimilar shapes and sizes of containers and also required to deliver recyclables.
Despite the system’s requirement of residents’ dropping off their wastes or recyclables, recycling behavior has been
influenced in numerous factors by this system. In drop of collection systems, the ease of accessibility to containers is
a motivating factor in recycling efforts [30; 31; 32].
To enhance sustainability in manufacturing, waste collection should be assessed from the three dimensions of
sustainability. According to a study conducted in Portugal on waste collection systems for packaging waste-Part II:
economic and environmental analysis [33], the study concluded that, bring (or drop-off) waste collection systems
reduces environmental impacts and reduced costs compared to other waste collection systems. Though some studies
have shown that drop off systems have lower recovery rates compared to kerbside systems [31]. [34] also affirms
that, in the absence of deposit refund that offer direct highly committed public behavior or economic incentive to
participate, bring schemes frequently result in low collection rates. From the three studies, different views in terms
of drop-off collection systems have been highlighted. However, manufacturers should ensure that before the
application of the drop-off collection systems, aspects of sustainability are evaluated. This is to enable profitability
and beneficiation in the recovering company or sector.
850 Bupe Getrude Mwanza et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 21 (2018) 846–853
Bupe Getrude Mwanza, Charles Mbohwa and Arnesh Telukdarie/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000 5

2.3 Buy-back collection system

These are establishments were participants can deliver recyclable or reusable materials in return for cash payment
[35]. [36] adds that, buy-back facilities purchase secondary materials usually; from the public and resell them to
brokers or manufacturers. However, these facilities may or may not process the recyclables. The fact that, these
facilities may or may not process the recyclables does not mean that, their influence on resource recovery is limited.
It is cardinal for manufacturers and waste managers to understand the contribution of buy-back centres in
resource recovery programs. They provide a linkage between waste generators and waste recoveries and therefore
understanding how these centres influence waste generators is cardinal. The factor that buy-back centres rely on
waste brought in by waste generators, sustainable factors such as location should be considered during their
establishment. To ensure the success of buy-back centres, they should be located close to industries and commercial
hubs where enough quantities of reusable, re-manufactureable and recyclable waste can be obtained [37]. However
most buy-back centres influence users to return waste as a result of the incentives offered. The centres should not
inconvenience the businesses, residents or users in the immediate surrounding area of the buy-back centres [37].
To ensure sustainability in buy-back centres, it’s the duty of the establisher to ensure that the buy-back centres are
supplied with enough recyclable waste from different sources. Focusing on the social aspect of sustainability,
establishers of buy-back contribute by creating jobs for the local communities. However, jobs are created along the
resource recovery chains, from within the established buy-back centre to collectors and processors of the recovered
waste. The creation of job along the supply-chain has influenced resource recovery as more and more wastes are
recovered because more of the informal sector gets involved in resource recovery. In developing economies were
most of the waste is recovered by the informal waste sector, establishment of buy-back centres can influence
resource recovery and at the same time contribute to sustainable manufacturing. Further, buy-back centres reduce
the amount of green or useful materials designated for landfilling and add value to these wastes [38].

2.4 Deposit refund system

The returnable container legislation system is a kind of deposit refund system. It combines product charge and a
subsidy for proper disposal or recycling. As an economic instrument, deposit refund systems have been widely
deployed aiming of increase and capture the used packaging for purposes of recycling [39]. Even though additional
handling costs are incurred by manufacturers or vendors on returned products, interest earned on deposits, sales on
collected; used products and unclaimed deposits partially offset the costs. It is not surprising to state that improperly
discarded waste products results in higher social costs compared to properly disposed of wastes. For this reason and
many other reasons not stated, the deposit refund system is very sufficient in the management of waste. Other than
discouraging illegal or improper disposal of waste, the deposit system diverts recyclable items from the waste
stream, conserves natural resources and energy as well as creating new businesses and jobs [40; 41].
It is important to note that, some systems are implemented voluntarily by the industry whereas others are state or
local authorities’ initiatives. [26] indicates that, a number of reusable packaging voluntary systems do not result in
increased reusable packaging for recycling. However [40] points out that, there is much high purity levels in terms
of the quality of materials delivered to deposit-refund collection than through kerbside collection. Also [42] shows
that in numerous case studies, 80% achievements have been recovered as a result of correlating achievement of
satisfying high recycling rates and the use of deposit-refund. Further, studies have found that, less contamination of
recyclables and higher recovery rates of used products result from deposit systems than kerbside recycling
programs; however the cost of administration is higher for deposit refunds than kerbside collection systems, [43].
It is necessary to note that, deposit refund systems are not only applied to beverage products, it is also applied to
pesticide containers, tires, batteries etc. Products with an economic value normally qualify for deposit refund
initiation. However, most potentially environmentally harmful and difficult to dispose and monitor products are
suitable for deposit refund implementation
To achieve sustainable manufacturing, it is important that before the implementation of deposit refund systems,
manufacturers should analyze the economic, environmental and social implications. It is cardinal to understand the
sustainable impact of the system on the profitability of the company. Further, it should be noted that, the
effectiveness of the deposit refund system can be influenced by high transboundary movement of products [26].
 Bupe Getrude Mwanza et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 21 (2018) 846–853 851
6 Bupe Getrude Mwanza, Charles Mbohwa and Arnesh Telukdarie/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000

3. Findings

From the analysis of the literature, it is evident that waste collection systems do have an influence on resource
recovery. Despite having not found any research that has directly looked at the influence of waste collection systems
on resource recovery, a number of studies have taken a different approach to understand how waste collection
systems does impact recourse recovery. Some studies have looked at it from an environmental, economical,
technological and social point of views. All this has been done to understand the relevance of waste collection
systems in waste management and resource recovery programs as well as on sustainable manufacturing.
Kerbside waste collection systems have been greatly researched on and compared to other systems such as drop-
off systems, buy-back systems and deposit-refund systems. With such comparisons undertaken at different
conditions, it can only be concluded that each type of waste collection system can only be relevant to specific
contexts of applications. Also the relevance of each waste collection systems in a particular context can be
influenced by other attributes such as social demographic factors, economic incentives and other supporting policies.
In order to achieve optimal and sustainable results in the recovery of resources, it is important that each type of
waste collection systems is completely studied together with the needed attributes for it to work. Further,
understanding of the type of waste type in line with the waste collection systems should be taken into consideration.
For example, the deposit refund system works well on wastes with an economic value or with environmental
implications.
To enable sustainability in the manufacturing sector as well as the waste management sector, it is important for
waste that can be reused, recycled or remanufactured to be returned in the supply-chain. For this to work, waste
collection systems play a cardinal role. They contribute to resource recovery in sustainable ways by ensuring virgin
materials are conserved, pollution is reduced, jobs are created, transportation costs are reduced and high quality in
recovered waste products [33’ 26, 40, 41]. As a result of these contributions, sustainable manufacturing is likely to
be achieved by considering waste collection systems during the design of recovery programs. However, the
application of each type of collection system should be analyzed from a sustainable point of view to enable
beneficiation.
The review has also highlighted that a combination of waste collection systems can be sustainable and work in
influencing high recovery rates [28, 29]. Deposit refund systems and kerbside can result in optimal results as were as
a combination of kerbside and drop-off or bring systems. However, decision on the type of waste collection systems
for implementation should not be considered in isolation of environmental, economic and social aspects of the
context of application. Further, the analysis has also reviewed that, it is possible to implement all the four types of
waste collection systems, but attention should be paid to the context of application and objectives of implementing
such waste collection systems. For this reason, it is important for developing economies to understand how these
waste collection systems have impacted and influenced resource recovery in developed economies. For example the
deposit refund systems have worked well in developed economies such as the United States [42]. However, its
success has been due to combining the deposit refund system with other waste collection systems and other
regulations. The kerbside system provided more success in Norway compared to the bring system [26]. Therefore,
it’s important for waste managers and manufacturers to understand that, there is ‘no one system fits all’.

4. Conclusion

This study reviewed four types of waste collection systems; kerbside, drop-off, buy-back and deposit-refund. Each
of these waste collection systems influence residents or households to participate in resource recovery differently.
However, despite the difference in the level of influence and application, waste collection systems are an important
aspect of waste management and therefore, this review provides important insight for manufacturers, waste
managers and those involved in waste recovery on the type of waste collection system to consider for
implementation. Also for waste collection system to work, other factors considered from the sustainability aspect
should be considered.
The selection of waste collection systems should not be considered in isolation of sustainability. Particular
attention should be paid on whether the selected waste collection system is economically, environmentally and
socially sustainable. Manufacturers as well as waste managers should bear in mind that other attributes influence
how well a selected waste collection system will perform. However, it has been identified that these waste collection
systems contribute to sustainability by reduction wastes, pollution, costs and improving the quality of recovered
852 Bupe Getrude Mwanza et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 21 (2018) 846–853
Bupe Getrude Mwanza, Charles Mbohwa and Arnesh Telukdarie/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000 7

wastes. However, lessons should be learnt from developed economies on how these waste collection systems have
influenced resource recovery. In developing economies, where most of the waste is informally recovered, attention
should be paid to the establishment of buy-back centres.
Future research on the development of recovery programs in developing economies should consider analysing
the impact of buy-back centres on resource recovery. This should take into account the amount of reusable,
recyclable and remanufactureable waste recovered from the informal waste sector.

Acknowledgements

We thank the University of Johannesburg, South Africa for the financial support.

References

[1] L. Dahle´n, A. Lagerkvist, Pay as you throw: strengths and weaknesses of weight-based billing in household waste collection systems in
Sweden. Waste Manage. 30, (2010), 23–31.
[2] C. Mbande, Appropriate approach in measuring waste generation, composition and density in developing areas, Journal of the South African
Institution of Civil Engineering 45 (3), (2003), 2–10.
[3] H. Zhang, Z-G. Wen, The consumption and recycling collection system of PET bottles, A case study of Beijing, China, Waste Management
34, (2014), 987–998.
[4]M.Walls, Deposit-Refund Systems in Practice and Theory, (2011) (ACCESSED ON 12 MARCH, 2017),
http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-11-47.pdf
[5] NAPCOR, Best Practices and industry standards in PET plastic recycling (1997). http://www.napcor.com/pdf/Master.pdf> (accessed
22.05.15).
[6] J. Gitlitz,, P. Franklin, The 10 cent incentive to recycle, fourth ed. Container Recycling Institute, (2006). <http://www.container-
recycling.org/assets/pdfs/ 10Cent4th-web.pdf> (accessed 22.05.15).
[7]The container recycling institute (2005), (accessed on 12 march, 2016),
http://www.reciclamospr.org/uploads/9/6/3/0/9630382/caribbean_recycling_summit_dec1_2016_collins_cri.pdf
[8] A.W. Larsen, H. Merrild, J. Moller, T.H. Christensen, Waste collection systems for recyclables: an environmental and economic assessment
for the municipality of Aarhus, Waste Manag. 30, (2010), 744-754.
[9] G. De Feo, C. Malvano, Technical, economic and environmental analysis of a MSW kerbside separate collection system applied to small
communities, Waste Manag. 32, (2012), 1760-1774.
[10] A. Karagiannidis, A. Xirogiannopoulou, G. Perkoulidis, N. Moussiopoulos, N, Assessing the collection of urban solid wastes: a step
towards municipality benchmarking. Water Air Soil Pollut. Focus 4, (2004), 397-409.
[11] C.A. Teixeira, C. Avelino, F. Ferreira, I. Bentes, Statistical analysis in MSW collection performance assessment, Waste Manag. 34, (2014),
1584-1594.
[12] A. Gallardo, M.D. Bovea, F.J. Colomer, M. Prades, M. Carlos, Comparison of different collection systems for sorted household waste in
Spain, Waste Manag.30, (2010), 2430-2439.
[13] A. Gallardo, M.D. Bovea, F.J. Colomer, M. Prades, Analysis of collection systems for sorted household waste in Spain, Waste Manag. 32,
(2012), 1623-1633.
[14] S. Rodrigues, G. Martinho, A. Pires, Waste collection systems. Part A: a taxonomy, Journal of Cleaner Production 113, (2016), 374-387.
[15] K. Urbaniec, H. Mikul, M. A. Rosen, N. Dui, A holistic approach to sustainable development of energy, water and environment systems.
Journal of Cleaner Production 155 (2017) 1-11.
[16] S.K. Amponsah, S. Salhi, The investigation of a class of capacitated arc routing problems: the collection of garbage in developing countries,
Waste Manag. 24, (007), 711-721.
[17] L. Dahl_en, S. Vukicevic, J-E. Meijer, A. Lagerkvist, Comparison of different collection systems for sorted household waste in Sweden,
Waste Manag. 27, (2007), 1298-1305.
[18] A. Del Borghi, M. Gallo, M. Del Borghi, A survey of life cycle approaches in waste management, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess, 14, (2009),
597-610.
[19] A. Andrews, M. Gregoire, H. Rasmussen, G. Witowich, Comparison of recycling outcomes in three types of recycling collection units,
Waste Manag.33, (2013), 530-535.
[20] Stern, C. Paul, Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior.,Journal of Consumer Policy 22, (1999), 461–478.
[21] A. Sörbom, Review of source separation of household waste. Den som kan –sorterar mer! Några slutsatser baserade på tidigare
forskning kring 21qaaaaaakällsortering i hushållen, FMS-report 180, Swedish Defence Research Agency. The Environmental Strategies
Research Group, Stockholm(2003), <http://www.infra.kth.se/fms>.
[22] P.L. Gonzalez-Torre, B. Adenso-Dıaz, A. Ruiz-Torres, Some comparative factors regarding recycling collection systems in regions of the
USA and Europe. J. Environ. Manag. 69, (2003), 129-138.
[23] G. Tchobanoglous, H. Theisen, S. Vigil, Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues, McGraw-
Hill, New York, (1993).
[24] D. Perrin, J. Barton, Issues associated with transforming household attitudes and opinions into materials recovery: a review of two kerbside
recycling schemes, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 33, (2001), 61–74.
 Bupe Getrude Mwanza et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 21 (2018) 846–853 853
8 Bupe Getrude Mwanza, Charles Mbohwa and Arnesh Telukdarie/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000

[25] L. Dahlén, H. Åberg, A. Lagerkvist, P.E.O. Berg, Inconsistent pathways of household waste and the importance of collection system design,
Waste Manag. 29, (2008), 1798–1806.
[26] D. Xevgenos, C. Papadaskalopoulou, V. Panaretou, K. Moustakas, D. Malami, Success Stories for Recycling of MSW at Municipal Level,
Waste Biomass Valor, 6, (2015), 657–684.
[27] TEMA NORD: Collection and recycling of plastic waste. Improvements in existing collection and recycling systems in the Nordic countries.
http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/upload/ publication_and_tool/file/427.pdf (2014). Accessed 3 Apr 2017
[28] Sidique, S.F., Lupi, F., Joshi, S.V.: The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54,
(2010), 163–170.
[29] Sidique, S.F., Joshi, S.V., Lupi, F.: Factors influencing the rate of recycling: an analysis of Minnesota counties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54,
(2010), 242–249. .
[30] T. Domina, K. Koch, K., Convenience and frequency of recycling: implications for including textiles in curbside recycling programs,
Environ. Behav. 34, (2002), 216-238.
[31] P.L. Gonzalez-Torre, B. Adenso-Dıaz, Influence of distance on the motivation and frequency of household recycling, Waste Manag. 25,
(2005), 15-23.
[32] PCAESG-Packaging Consumer Awareness and Education Steering Group, Recycling Used Packaging from the Domestic Waste Stream,
Consumer Awareness and Education, PCAESG, (1999), (accessed 30 October 2015). https://www.ipsos-
mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/1891/Recycling-Used-Packaging-From-The-Domestic-Waste-Stream-Consumer-
Awareness-And-Education.aspx.
[33] A. Pires, J. Sargedas, M. Miguel, J. Pina, G. Martinho, A case study of packaging waste collection systems in Portugal – Part II:
Environmental and economic analysis. Waste Management 61 (2017) 108–116
[34] Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism of South Africa (DEA), Undated. Working with waste – guideline on recycling of solid
waste. Available from http://www.sawic.org.za/documents/232.pdf. (Accessed 16 April 2017).
[35] C.R. Rhyner, L.J. Schwartz, R.B. Wenger, M.G. Kohrell, Waste Management and Resource Recovery, CRC Press/Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, Florida, (1995).
[36] Landfill Consult, integrated waste management plan report on recycling version V2, Lephalale Municipality, (2010).
[37] DEA
[38] l. Thompson-Meddle, Solid Waste Management, Sustainability Institute.
[39] N. Astrup, A. Hedh, European Refunding Scheme for Drinks Containers (Report), Joint Parliamentary Committee, European Economic Area
(2011).
[40] R.C. Anderson, The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC (2001)
[41] R.C. Anderson, International Experiences with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment. Report EPA-236-R-04-001. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (2004)
[42] A. Holmes, J. Fulford, C. Pitts-Tucker, Investigating the Impact of Recycling Incentive Schemes, Full Report, Eur. Commission. Eunomia
Research & Consulting, (2014).
[43] Deposit-Refund Systems, The U. S. Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment, (2001).

View publication stats