Demand management - a basis for waste policy: a critical review of the applicability of the waste hierarchy in terms of achieving sustainable waste management

Price, Jane L.; Joseph, J. B.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1719(200005)8:2<96::aid-sd133>3.0.co;2-j

Cited by 78 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, explicating these hierarchies is necessary to provide guidance to those keen to adopt it, as already outlined by Price and Joseph (2000) and Murray et al (2017). In addition, firms may take the path of least resistance to adopt CE if waste hierarchies are not explicated, e. g. only improving their recycling and thus only a small part of their operation, without the needed overhaul of the entire supply chain, mode of operation and the radical change in product materials.…”

Section: Core Principles Of the Circular Economymentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TThe circular economy concept has gained momentum both among scholars and practitioners. However, critics claim that it means many different things to different people. This paper provides further evidence for these critics. The aim of this paper is to create transparency regarding the current understandings of the circular economy concept. For this purpose, we have gathered 114 circular economy definitions which were coded on 17 dimensions. Our findings indicate that the circular economy is most frequently depicted as a combination of reduce, reuse and recycle activities, whereas it is oftentimes not highlighted that CE necessitates a systemic shift. We further find that the definitions show few explicit linkages of the circular economy concept to sustainable development. The main aim of the circular economy is considered to be economic prosperity, followed by environmental quality; its impact on social equity and future generations is barely mentioned. Furthermore, neither business models nor consumers are frequently outlined as enablers of the circular economy. We critically discuss the various circular economy conceptualizations throughout this paper. Overall, we hope to contribute via this study towards the coherence of the circular economy concept; we presume that significantly varying circular economy definitions may eventually result in the collapse of the concept.

show abstract

Section: Core Principles Of the Circular Economymentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Paradigmatic shifts in water management (Wolsink 2006 Currently, waste policy in the Netherlands, as well as other EU members, is officially based on the "waste management hierarchy" ( fig.1), a model of priorities form waste avoidance, stepping down to minimization, recycling, treatment, to the lowest priority: disposal (Price & Joseph, 2000). The original idea for this hierarchy emerged from the major challenge for government agencies, the shortage of landfill sites.…”

Section: Space-water Management As Part Of Climate Change Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast to official policy, most investments were not at all made by the top levels of the waste hierarchy, but by those at the bottom. Investments in those in processing and disposal should have been the lowest priority according to official policy, but in the 1990s about 80% of investments in infrastructure were in incineration and landfilling (Wilson, 1996;Price & Joseph, 2000). While new actors, including environmental non-governmental organizations and private businesses, promoted and performed recycling and re-use activities such as the collection of paper, glass and other recyclable materials, the initial reluctance to introduce separated-waste systems among the municipal waste-collection services is a typical example of institutional lock-in.…”

Section: Space-water Management As Part Of Climate Change Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities

Wolsink

2010

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Link to publicationCitation for published version (APA): Wolsink, M. (2010). Contested environmental policy infrastructure: socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 302-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.001 General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. AbstractDecisions to build new infrastructure are often contested. The general idea is that such infrastructure is considered to serve the (proclaimed) public interests, whereas the impact or risk is concentrated at a smaller scale, for example in local communities. The nature of such risk is that it concerns threats to environmental quality. A frequently arising type of environmental conflict arises when the proclaimed public good lies within the domain of environmental policy and sustainability. Impact assessments are essential parts of identification and assessment of acceptability and risks associated with projects, plans or programs. The social acceptability of building infrastructure as a part of environmental policy, however, is hardly conceptually defined so far, and the role of policy appraisal methods is unclear. The social acceptance of environmental-policy infrastructure is conceptually defined as institutionally determined, and will be elaborated in three cases. The first case is the policy domain of renewable energy implementation, which is a major component of climate change mitigation strategies. The empirical basis comes mainly from studies on the implementation of wind power. The second case concerns the building of waste infrastructure, which is part of environmental policies that, however, not only focus upon sound waste management and disposal, but primarily upon waste minimization (the 'waste management hierarchy'). The third case is the Dutch policy on space-water management, that tries to implement a new style of management that contrasts with the current style of water management and governance that is based on control and 'hard' infrastructure. This is now becoming the spearhead of climate change adaptation policy. All three cases show a large variety of social acceptance issues, in which the appraisal of the impact of siting the facilities is confronted with the desirability of the policies. Th...

show abstract

“…Price and Joseph have suggested five strategies for the reduction of the amount of any waste generated from industry (Price and Joseph 2000). They are, in decreasing order of preference -waste minimization, material reuse, material recycling, energy recovery and waste disposal.…”

Section: Management Of Solid Tannery Wastementioning

confidence: 99%