Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste...

13
Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadon a, b, * a School of Environment, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand b Scion, Sustainable Design Group, PO Box 10345, Wellington 6143, New Zealand article info Article history: Received 30 September 2007 Received in revised form 6 July 2010 Accepted 10 July 2010 Available online 17 July 2010 Keywords: Sustainability Waste management Systems approach Leverage abstract Waste management is viewed as part of a generation, collection and disposal system. A systems approach that reveals its relationship to other parts of the system is examined in the light of producing more sustainable practice. The move to a more sustainable society requires greater sophistication to manage waste. A traditional reductionist approach is unsustainable as it lacks exibility and long term thinking. A sustainable waste management system incorporates feedback loops, is focused on processes, embodies adaptability and diverts wastes from disposal. Transitioning to a sustainable waste management system requires identication and application of leverage points which effect change. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Waste is a result of inadequate thinking. The traditional approaches to waste management of ame, ush or ingare outmoded customs which have resulted in an unsustainable society. In the USA the total annual wastes exceed 115 billion tonnes, of which 80% is wastewater (Hawken et al., 1999). Of that amount less than 2% is recycled. Emitting waste into the environ- ment resulted in nearly 40% of all USA waters being too polluted to support their designated functions (Council on Environmental Quality, 1996) and more than 45% of the USA population live in areas where air quality was unhealthy at times because of high levels of air pollutants (USEPA, 2002). Conventionally, waste is treated as irrelevant to production, only to be managed when the pressure to handle the problem is greater than the convenience of disposal. The catalyst to manage the problem eventuates when the waste disposal impacts (polluted air, water or full landlls) affect people. Traditional practices for dealing with waste management fall short in a number of ways: a. Effort is spent collecting and analysing immaterial data. For example, conducting annual surveys of household waste composition when waste management practices do not change. b. Interventions may be irreversible, rather than providing for mechanisms to deal with emerging correctable side effects. For example, when Auckland City (New Zealand) increased waste collection containers from 40 L to 240 L they did not anticipate the resultant increase in waste quantities and did not plan for it (Seadon and Boyle, 1999). c. Solutions are based around short-term goals rather than longer term sustainability thinking. For example, reporting container recycling quantities while ignoring packaging reduction (e.g. the New Zealand Packaging Accord (PackNZ, 2004)). d. Time lags between intervention and effects are under- estimated, thus misinterpreting the perceived lack of response as a need to invoke stronger interventions resulting in over- correction that then needs to be xed. For example, the New Zealand Waste Strategy was reviewed for progress in 2004 (one year after it was instituted) and again in 2006 (MfE, 2009). e. Disregard or undervaluing the side effects of intervention. An example is the Auckland City waste collection containers mentioned above (Seadon and Boyle, 1999). f. The focus on xing individual problems rather than the viability of the Waste Management System (WMS). An example of this is the litter problem in New Zealand caused by the proliferation of one-way packaging in the 1990s. This was corrected by instituting a Packaging Accord that focused on recycling used beverage containers (PackNZ, 2004). g. Reliance on linear extrapolations of recent short-term events. This is exemplied by a comparison of the trends in waste disposal in New Zealand. The Review of Progress (MfE, 2007a) * Scion, Sustainable Design Group, P.O. Box 10 345, 6143 Wellington, New Zealand. Tel: þ64 27 444 5680. E-mail address: [email protected]. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro 0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.009 Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e1651

Transcript of Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste...

Page 1: Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadona,b,* aSchool of Environment, University of Auckland,

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e1651

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Sustainable waste management systems

Jeffrey K. Seadon a,b,*

a School of Environment, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealandb Scion, Sustainable Design Group, PO Box 10345, Wellington 6143, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 30 September 2007Received in revised form6 July 2010Accepted 10 July 2010Available online 17 July 2010

Keywords:SustainabilityWaste managementSystems approachLeverage

* Scion, Sustainable Design Group, P.O. Box 10Zealand. Tel: þ64 27 444 5680.

E-mail address: [email protected].

0959-6526/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.009

a b s t r a c t

Waste management is viewed as part of a generation, collection and disposal system. A systems approachthat reveals its relationship to other parts of the system is examined in the light of producing moresustainable practice.

The move to a more sustainable society requires greater sophistication to manage waste. A traditionalreductionist approach is unsustainable as it lacks flexibility and long term thinking.

A sustainable waste management system incorporates feedback loops, is focused on processes,embodies adaptability and diverts wastes from disposal.

Transitioning to a sustainable waste management system requires identification and application ofleverage points which effect change.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Waste is a result of inadequate thinking. The traditionalapproaches to waste management of “flame, flush or fling” areoutmoded customs which have resulted in an unsustainablesociety. In the USA the total annual wastes exceed 115 billiontonnes, of which 80% is wastewater (Hawken et al., 1999). Of thatamount less than 2% is recycled. Emitting waste into the environ-ment resulted in nearly 40% of all USA waters being too polluted tosupport their designated functions (Council on EnvironmentalQuality, 1996) and more than 45% of the USA population live inareas where air quality was unhealthy at times because of highlevels of air pollutants (USEPA, 2002).

Conventionally, waste is treated as irrelevant to production, onlyto be managed when the pressure to handle the problem is greaterthan the convenience of disposal. The catalyst to manage theproblem eventuates when the waste disposal impacts (polluted air,water or full landfills) affect people.

Traditional practices for dealing with waste management fallshort in a number of ways:

a. Effort is spent collecting and analysing immaterial data. Forexample, conducting annual surveys of household wastecompositionwhenwastemanagement practices do not change.

345, 6143 Wellington, New

All rights reserved.

b. Interventions may be irreversible, rather than providing formechanisms to deal with emerging correctable side effects. Forexample, when Auckland City (New Zealand) increased wastecollection containers from 40 L to 240 L they did not anticipatethe resultant increase inwaste quantities and did not plan for it(Seadon and Boyle, 1999).

c. Solutions are based around short-term goals rather than longerterm sustainability thinking. For example, reporting containerrecycling quantities while ignoring packaging reduction (e.g.the New Zealand Packaging Accord (PackNZ, 2004)).

d. Time lags between intervention and effects are under-estimated, thus misinterpreting the perceived lack of responseas a need to invoke stronger interventions resulting in over-correction that then needs to be fixed. For example, the NewZealandWaste Strategywas reviewed for progress in 2004 (oneyear after it was instituted) and again in 2006 (MfE, 2009).

e. Disregard or undervaluing the side effects of intervention. Anexample is the Auckland City waste collection containersmentioned above (Seadon and Boyle, 1999).

f. The focus on fixing individual problems rather than theviability of theWasteManagement System (WMS). An exampleof this is the litter problem in New Zealand caused by theproliferation of one-way packaging in the 1990s. This wascorrected by instituting a Packaging Accord that focused onrecycling used beverage containers (PackNZ, 2004).

g. Reliance on linear extrapolations of recent short-term events.This is exemplified by a comparison of the trends in wastedisposal in New Zealand. The Review of Progress (MfE, 2007a)

Page 2: Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadona,b,* aSchool of Environment, University of Auckland,

Table 2Comparison of reductionist and systems approaches. Adapted from Tapp andMamula-Stojnic (2001), Capra (1996).

Reductionist Systems

AnalyticalObjectsPartsContext independentPractitioner independentHierarchiesStructure

SynthesisRelationshipHolisticContext dependentPractitioner dependentNetworksProcess

J.K. Seadon / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e16511640

considered five years of waste data (from the adoption of theNew Zealand Waste Strategy) and found a 4.2% increase inwaste quantities disposed to landfill, while the EnvironmentNew Zealand 2007 report on decadal progress found almost nochange in waste quantities (MfE, 2007b). A linear interpolationover 25 years showed an annual increase averaging 35,000tonnes.

Vester (2007) found that these shortfalls are common whendealing with complex systems.

2. A methodical approach to waste management

In trying to adopt a methodical approach to deal with wastemanagement a spectrum emerges. This is depicted in Table 1 withincreasing complexity from disciplinary to trans-disciplinaryapproaches.

The disciplinarity and multidisciplinarity approaches usea scientific/engineering model based on the two concepts ofreductionism and cause-and-effect thinking (Ackoff, 1973). Themajor difference between them is the number of waste streamsconsidered at one time.

A central tenet of the reductionist image has a hierarchy inwhich breaks everything into smaller and smaller parts. Anexample of this is the New Zealand Solid Waste Analysis Protocolwhich separates waste into 12 primary classifications and 44secondary classifications and considers domestic and businesswaste streams separately (MfE, 2002). By gaining an understandingof each of these parts and then combining them, the observerassumes they can explain and understand the behaviour of thesystem as a whole and this will achieve the ‘best’ (highesteconomic) solution (Daellenbach, 2001). Previously, this has notproven to be the best solution from an environmental perspective(Stone, 2002).

The second basic tenet of the reductionist scientific model isassuming cause-and-effect relationships that rely on splittingeverything into parts and looking for relationships between thoseparts. It is assumed that unmeasured variables are unimportant.This may also be inadequate, because new relationships and new(emergent) properties appear, some of which are planned, butothers that may be unexpected. The relationship can be morecomplicated since the causal relationshipmay be two-way and thusthere could be mutual causality (Daellenbach, 2001). Alternately,there may be no direct relationship and the linkage is predomi-nantly through a mutual covariant. Observation and interpretationare required to determinewhich of the above scenarios are present.

While the scientific model is presented as a methodicalprogression of concepts and experiments, an historical explorationprovides a different viewpoint. Kuhn (1996) likened scientificprogression to political processes and personality cults in that itwas more important whowas promulgating the postulate and howthey went about it, rather than the ‘facts’ behind it. He observedthat science tended to move forward in a series of steps (which helabelled revolutions in keeping with the political context) thatcaused paradigm shifts, not by a blinding revelation on the part ofscientists but more, as Planck (1950) described it, “because its

Table 1Waste management approaches. Adapted from Max-Neef (2005).

Disciplinarity Multidisciplinarity Pluridiscip

Reductionist. Splitting intoseparate waste streamsfor management

Reductionist. Consider differentwaste streams without links

Cooperatiocoordinatiowaste streamanageme

opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that isfamiliar with it”. Kuhn concluded that this does not invalidatescience, but that there is a need to accept a new perspective onwhat constitutes a scientific process.

A second picture, linked to the trans-disciplinary end of thespectrum, is represented by a systems approach which has holismas a central tenet. In this approach an attempt is made to view thewhole WMS under study, not only by looking at the interaction ofthe parts, but also by looking at the dynamic processes and theemergence of properties at different levels (Tippett, 2005). Acomparison of the systems and reductionist approaches is providedin Table 2.

2.1. The systems approach

The systems approach developed out of an attempt to unifyscience. von Bertalanffy (1955) formulated a General SystemTheory (GST), which had interdisciplinarity as its essence. VonBertalanffy hoped to be able to generalise the principles of livingsystems to be applicable to all systems (concrete, conceptual,abstract or unperceivable). However, he was unable to go beyondthe general concept of holism (von Bertalanffy, 1968). While theprogress in unification of science by utilising a GST has beendebatable (e.g. (Checkland, 2000)), GST thus far has been unable toformulate principles applicable to all systems (Capra, 1996;Dubrovsky, 2004).

Rather than seeking an approach to try to unify science,a systems approach that handles complexity is more useful. Theunderstanding of the complexity of a system (for example a WMS)can enable the reconstruction of the underlying system principles(Dubrovsky, 2004), some of which will be applicable to varioussystems and others specific to the system under study.

3. Waste management as a system

A common sense definition of a system is a “set of interactingunits or elements that form an integrated whole intended to performsome function” (Clark, 1978).

The conventional waste management approach is that wastegeneration, collection and disposal systems are planned as inde-pendent operations. However, all three are very closely interlinkedand each component can influence the other. The planning requiredfor these operations requires a balance between the subsystems of

linarity Interdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity

n but non betweenmnt

Waste stream managementcoordinated from a higherlevel

Systems. Coordination ofmanagement betweenall levels and all wastestreams

Page 3: Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadona,b,* aSchool of Environment, University of Auckland,

J.K. Seadon / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e1651 1641

manufacturing, transport systems, land use patterns, urban growthand development, and public health considerations (Clark, 1978).This presents the interaction and complexity between the physicalcomponents of the system and the conceptual components thatinclude the social and environmental spheres.

When waste is seen as part of a production system, the rela-tionship of waste to other parts of the system is revealed and thusthe potential for greater sustainability of the operation increases.Conceptually, this broader view increases the difficulty ofmanagingwaste requiring an approach that handles complexity.

4. The complexity of waste management

The complexity of a WMS can be demonstrated by the numberof links between the components in the system. An example is theMinistry for the Environment which has responsibility for waste inNew Zealand. The observations below refer to the solid waste workleading up to enactment of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008).

The Waste Unit existed within the Sustainable Business Group,one of six groups in the Ministry. The Waste Unit had links withother government organisations andwaste groups outside the statesector. These relationships are analysed below.

Fig. 1 shows the links between the various Waste Unit projectsas identified by the Waste Unit members. The links betweenprojects were:

a. strong (vital or continuous);b. medium (needed to be involved on a regular basis); orc. weak (need to take into account).

The largest number of links was to theWMA project (17 links, 11strong, 3 medium and 3 weak). The development of the WMA wasthe focus of attention as this was the development of an importanttool to change waste behaviour in New Zealand. The WMA wasfollowed by local government (13, 9, 3, and 1 respectively). Thepredominance of local government was due the partnership withthe Ministry for delivery of waste minimisation in New Zealandover the previous decade (MfE, 2009).

LocalGovernment

Batterie

Agrecovery

Packaging Accord

Tyres

Public Space Recycling

BCon

Waste to Energy

Agrichemic

Silage Wrap

Degradable Plastics

Litter

Vehicle Waste

Group Standards

Waste TRACK

HazardousWaste Policy

Dairy & Clean Stream

Product Stewardship

Strong ConnectionMedium ConnectionWeak Connection

Oil

ICT = InIT/TV = REBRI =WEEE =

Fig. 1. The links between ministry for th

Fig. 2 shows the links emanating from the seven wastesubsystems that were operational:

a. containers;b. construction & demolition;c. electronics;d. farm;e. hazardous;f. organics; andg. vehicles.

The figure shows only the strong links that crossed the subsystemborders.Outof105strong links44crossed thesubsystemborders. Thisis a strong indicator of the dependency of the projects on each otherand the complexityof the internal systemmanagedby theWasteUnit.

Since all of the subsystems have strong linkages to theWMA andlocal government, this showed how central these projects were tothe Ministry’s work in the waste sector.

Fig. 3 shows the links between the Waste Unit and other teamscongregated into their Ministry groups. The Sustainable BusinessGroup had the greatest number of links (10) followed by the LocalGovernment Group (8), then the Corporate and Community Group(6). This reinforced the strong links that the waste sector had tolocal government and, through project work, to the community.

Within the Sustainable Business Group, the greatest number oflinks was with the Leading Government Sustainability Team. Thisteam focused on identifying best practice and promoting practicalsolutions within government agencies in waste management,buildings, transport and office consumables and equipment (MfE,2009) e all areas to improve resource efficiency. The conceptualflow was for policy and tools to be developed by the Waste Unit inconsultation with government, business and community sectors,then applied and refined across government by the LeadingGovernment Sustainability Team and then disseminated to thebusiness sector by the Sustainable Business Development Team.

Waste work went beyond the Ministry for the Environment. Thelinks with other government departments are shown in Fig. 4. TheWaste Unit worked with 66% of the 35 public service departments

Waste MinimisationAct

Organics

s

WEEE GuidesMobile Phones

Waste Management

Plan Emissions Trading

Sustainable Procurement

IT/TVRecycling Guide

asel vention

Cleanfill

Lighting

Treated Timber

Landfills

Biosolids

Concrete

Plaster board

Cook Islands

ICT Guides

REBRI

formation and Communication TechnologyInformation Technology and Televisions Resource Efficiency in the Building and Related Industries Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

e environment waste unit projects.

Page 4: Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadona,b,* aSchool of Environment, University of Auckland,

Product Stewardship

ICT = Information and Communication TechnologyIT/TV = Information Technology and TelevisionsREBRI = Resource Efficiency in the Building and Related IndustriesWEEE = Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

Waste Minimisation Act

Organics

LocalGovernment

Batteries

WEEE Guides

Agrecovery

Packaging Accord

Mobile Phones

Waste Management

Plan

Tyres

Public Space Recycling

Emissions Trading

Sustainable Procurement

IT/TVRecycling Guide

Basel Convention

Waste to Energy

Agrichemicals

Silage Wrap

Degradable Plastics

CleanfillLitter

Lighting

Treated Timber

Vehicle Waste

Landfills

Group StandardsWaste

TRACK

Biosolids

Concrete

Plaster board

Cook Islands

ICT Guides

HazardousWaste Policy

REBRI

Dairy & Clean Stream

Oil

Containers

Farm

Vehicle

Hazardous Electronic

Construction &

Demolition

Organics

Fig. 2. Waste unit subsystems.

Waste Unit Teams

Construction & Demolition

Leading GovernmentSustainability

Sustainable Business

Development

Resource Management Act Implementation

Government Urban

Economic Development

ICT

Hazardous Substances &

New Organisms

Batteries

Phones

Packaging Accord

Cleanfills

Liaison & Review

Environmental Reporting

Dairy & Clean Streams

Agrichemicals

Projects & Partnerships

EnvironmentalStandards

Public Space Recycling

Sustainable Households

Organics

Climate Change Implementation

Climate Change Policy

Lighting

Waste Act

Cook Islands

Finance

Hazardous Waste

Urban

Electronic Waste

Information Management

Landfills

Central

Government

Group

Corporate &

Community Group

Deputy Chief

Executive’s

Group

Local

Government

Group

Sustainable

Business Group

Reporting &

Communications

Group

ICT = Information and Communication Technology

Fig. 3. Project links with other ministry for the environment teams.

J.K. Seadon / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e16511642

with the greatest links to the Ministry of Justice (6), the Ministry ofEconomic Development (6), the Commerce Commission (5) and theMinistry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (5). These links showed theimportance of working within the legal system, with minimaleconomic impact on business and in line with New Zealand’sinternational obligations.

The projects with the greatest connection to other governmentdepartments were:

a. construction & demolition (8);b. WMA (7);c. electronic waste (6);d. hazardous waste (5); ande. lighting (5).

These projects reflected the priorities of the government at thetime e waste legislation, high volume wastes and high profilewastes. Consulting across government was a complex process asdifferent departments had different drivers and requirements,some of which were contradictory between departments. Negoti-ated outcomes were quite common, which sometimes involved theintervention of cabinet ministers.

Outside the state sector theWasteUnitmaintained linkswith thewaste sector. These links are shown in Fig. 5. The most prominentsector groups were Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and theWaste Management Institute of New Zealand (WasteMINZ), eachwith 7 links to Waste Unit projects. LGNZ represents the city anddistrict councils, which are responsible for delivering wastemanagement and minimisation within their territories, and Waste-MINZ is an umbrella organisation for the waste sector. The WasteUnit projects that had the greatest linkages to sector groups were:

a. construction & demolition (5 groups);b. the Packaging Accord (4 groups); andc. public space recycling (4 groups).

The large numbers of links enabled the Ministry to get the non-state sector groups to actively participate in formulating policy andexecuting a better process.

Page 5: Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadona,b,* aSchool of Environment, University of Auckland,

Waste Act

Waste TRACK

Tyres

Emissions Trading

Public Space Recycling

Degradable Plastics

Silage Wrap

Landfills

Construction & Demolition

E-Waste

Cook Islands

ICT

Lighting

Hazardous Waste

Basel Convention

Agri-chemicals

Biosolids

Māori Development

Transport

Treasury

Justice

Housing NZ

Agriculture & Forestry

Building & Housing

Tourism

EECA

Police

Consumer Affairs

Health

Defence

Customs

LandTransport

Commerce Commission

Social Development

Economic Development

Foreign Affairs& Trade

ERMA

Landcorp

Transit

Internal Affairs

Waste Unit Government Department

ICT = Information and Communication TechnologyEECA = Energy Efficiency & Conservation AuthorityERMA = Environmental Risk Management AuthorityPCE = Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

PCE

Fig. 4. Project links with other central government departments.

Vehicles

Landfills

Public Space Recycling

Construction & Demolition

Packaging Accord

Hazardous Waste

Organics

Waste Man. Plans

Tyres

BRANZ

NZCIC

Retailers Association

Recycling Operators of NZ

Water New Zealand

Keep NZ Beautiful

Motor Trade Association

TIANZ

Zero Waste Academy

WasteMINZ

LGNZ

Packaging Council

CRN

Waste Unit SectorGroups

BRANZ = Building Research Association of NZCRN = Community Recycling NetworkLGNZ = Local Government NZNZCIC = NZ Chemical Industry CouncilTIANZ = Tourism Industry Association of NZWasteMINZ – Waste Management Institute of NZ

Waste Act

Litter

Fig. 5. Project links with sector groups.

J.K. Seadon / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e1651 1643

Another level of complexity is demonstrated in Fig. 6, whichshows the links between the government (represented by theMinistry for the Environment’s Waste Unit), business (representedby Fonterra Co-operative Ltd) and the community (represented byWasteMINZ). The figure shows that all three sectors had commonlinks to three government agencies e the Ministry of Agricultureand Forestry (represented the base of New Zealand’s industry), theMinistry of Economic Development (highlighted New Zealand’sdesire to improve its economic performance) and the Parliamen-tary Commissioner for the Environment (Parliament’s watchdog forthe environment). Another set of common links occurred in thelocal government sector where central government and thecommunity work with Local Government New Zealand (repre-senting local government) and the community and business sectorswork with the local government agencies e the regional councilsand territorial authorities. In this way there was a cascade effectfrom central government to local government to the community.

This cascade has been demonstrated by systematic studies ofWMSs undertaken by the Minnesota Office of EnvironmentalAssistance (2001) and the Göteborg municipal solid waste system(Sundberg et al., 1994).

The Minnesota state example (Minnesota Office ofEnvironmental Assistance, 2001) modelled six categories of agents:

a. protectors of public health and environment;b. business;c. citizens;d. the solid waste and recycling industry;e. the state government; andf. the future technology research sector.

All of these agents interacted to formulate a more sustainablewaste management model.

The Göteborg system (Sundberg et al., 1994) modelled thetechnical properties of the WMS to improve the efficiency ofplanning processes. Both models showed the complexity of wastemanagement systems.

4.1. Waste management as a complex adaptive system

Waste management has many of the characteristics reminiscentof a living system, an example of complex adaptive system.Complex adaptive systems interact with their environment andchange in response to environmental change (Clayton andRadcliffe, 1996). Many of the properties of living systems identi-fied by Choi et al. (2001) can be observed inWMSs. A comparison ofthe major characteristics of a complex adaptive system and wastemanagement are shown in Table 3.

Page 6: Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadona,b,* aSchool of Environment, University of Auckland,

Community:Waste

Management Institute of NZ

GovernmentACCAuditor GeneralDepartment of LabourMoRSTStatistics

CommunityCrop and FoodEXITOMassey UniversityNZ Fire ServiceSafeguardStandards NZ

GovernmentHealthHousing NZJusticeLand TransportLandcorpSocial DevelopmentPoliceTourismMāori DevelopmentTransitTransportTreasury

CommunityBRANZKeep NZ BeautifulSBNWater NZ

GovernmentAgriculture & ForestryEconomic DevelopmentPCE

CommunityNZ Chemical Industry CouncilPackaging Council

GovernmentEECAForeign Affairs & Trade

GovernmentCustomsBuilding & HousingERMA

CommunityCommunity Recycling NetworkLocal Government NZMotor Trade AssociationRecycling Operators of NZ

Local GovernmentRegional CouncilsTerritorial Authorities

Government:Ministry for the Environment

Business:Fonterra Co-operative Ltd

EXITO = Extractive Industries Training OrganisationMoRST = Ministry of Research, Science and TechnologyNZBCSD = NZ Business Council for Sustainable DevelopmentPCE = Parliamentary Commissioner for the EnvironmentSBN = Sustainable Business Network

CommunityNZBCSD

ACC = Accident Compensation CorporationBRANZ = Building Research Association of NZEECA = Energy Efficiency & Conservation AuthorityERMA = Environmental Risk Management Authority

Fig. 6. The links between sectors.

J.K. Seadon / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e16511644

4.1.1. Internal mechanismsInternal mechanisms consist of agents and schema, self-orga-

nisation and emergence, connectivity and dimensionality.Agents (people) have varying connectivity with others in the

system. Through their connectivity agents can influence theschema, and vice versa. Agents behave to benefit from the schemaby increasing their fitness for the system (Choi et al., 2001). Forexample, the two major waste companies in New Zealand, Trans-pacific Industries and Envirowaste own landfills located at oppositeends of the Auckland region. Depending on convenience, waste that

Table 3Waste management systems as complex adaptive systems. Adapted from Clayton and Ra

Description of complexadaptive system

Internal mechanismsAgents and schema Agents share interpretive and behavioural rules

and fitness criteria at different levels of scale

Self-organisation andemergence

Patterns are created through simultaneous andparallel actions of multiple agents

Connectivity Extensive inter-relationships are possible even atlow levels of connectivity

Dimensionality Negative feedback and controls reduce dimensionalitywhile autonomy and decentralisation increase dimens

EnvironmentDynamism Changes are constant and interdependent

Rugged landscape Global optimisation is simple when criteria are indepebecomes very complex when criteria are interdepend

Co-evolutionQuasi-equilibrium andstate change

Attractors are sensitive to change as the complex adapsystem is pulled away from quasi-equilibrium state tofar-from-equilibrium state

Non-linear changes There is lack of linear correlation between causes andNon-random future Common patterns of behaviour are observable

belongs to one company can be delivered to the other company’slandfill. The result is a more economic operation that also has lessimpact on the environment through less truck movements.

In a market driven economy agents work together to achievea degree of organisation that allows a WMS to function moreeconomically, which can have environmental and social down-stream effects. Out of the self-organisation new properties of thesystem emerge. In the Transpacific Industries/Envirowaste exampleabove, market share by those two companies arose over a longperiod starting with local government privatising waste collection

dcliffe (1996).

Waste management example

Waste management companies or groups of companieswork together through alliances based on shared norms andeconomic incentivesA supply network emerges with no one firm deliberatelyorganizing and controlling itReuse, recycling, recovery and disposal operations can beconnected and may compete for common resources

,ionality

Waste management variation is minimized by over-archingcontrol schemes, whereas waste management creativity andadaptation is enhanced by autonomy and decentralisation

The membership of the waste management supplychain is constantly reassessed and reshuffled through mergers,takeovers and contract changes

ndent, butent

Waste management is a complex interdependency wherelocal optimisation needs to be balanced withglobal influences

tivea

Changes to recycled commodities prices

effects Changes to pricing mechanisms can have perverse effectsChanges in waste quantities are linked to economic changes

Page 7: Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadona,b,* aSchool of Environment, University of Auckland,

J.K. Seadon / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e1651 1645

for residents. Initially many small companies collectedwaste and ascompanies amalgamated they drew the interest of global players,which further developed market share. Results that emerged fromthe changing WMS were:

a. landfills became larger and better engineered, thus reducingthe environmental impact by reducing contamination andsmall, poorly engineered landfills closed (MfE, 2007a);

b. the economic viability of producing energy frommethane fromlandfill emissions increased. This consequently reduced theimpact on the environment from the effects of greenhousegases by 95% (Landcare Research, 2007);

c. byproducts from the waste disposal service like recovery oforganics, recycling packaging and reusing goods becameeconomic to set up for large urban catchments (MfE, 2007a); and

d. solid waste operations extended to liquid and hazardouswastes.

Connectivity and dimensionality in part determine the level ofcomplexity in a network. For example, a study undertaken in theWaikato region in New Zealand (EW 2007, 2007) showed thatwaste infrastructure was extensively interconnected in a dynamicpattern throughout the 12 councils. The snapshot study principallycovered recycling, recovery (organic) and waste disposal. Thefindings showed that there was a lot of waste movement into andout of the region (EW 2007, 2007) demonstrated by:

a. three councils sent their recycled material outside the regionfor processing and nine processed it within the region;

b. paper from throughout New Zealand was exported overseas aswell as being processed at a plant within the region;

c. organic material was composted at five facilities in the regionand used for bioenergy at a further eight facilities. Organicmaterial was brought into the region as well as being distrib-uted throughout the North Island; and

d. five landfills within the region dealt with waste from the regionas well as major waste streams imported from up to 360 kmaway.

The variety of operations in the Waikato example enabled a mixof dimensionality through large scale operations (paper reproc-essing, bioenergy and some landfills) mixed with smaller creativesolutions (community recycling schemes in small towns).

4.1.2. EnvironmentThe environment consists of agents and their links that are

external to the system and are characterised as being dynamic andrugged landscapes (Choi et al., 2001).

A complex adaptive system is in constant change; sometimesincremental and at other times substantial. The constant changealso changes the system boundaries which alter by including orexcluding agents or links (Choi et al., 2001). An example of thisoccurring in the New Zealand WMS is the enactment of the WMA(Waste Minimisation Act, 2008). This caused a substantial changein the New Zealand WMS as it provided for:

� injection of money for waste minimisation;� provision for mandatory product stewardship schemes (for allparticipants in the supply chain of a product) and accreditationfor voluntary schemes, reporting requirements on waste; and

� aWaste Advisory Board that provides advice to theMinister forthe Environment.

The waste management landscape became more rugged due tothe changes imposed by the WMA. The increase in ruggedness

means that while it is more difficult to optimise the New ZealandWMS, theWMA provided more tools to enable optimisation, whichin New Zealand’s case has been defined as ‘towards zero waste anda sustainable New Zealand’ (MfE, 2002).

4.2. Co-evolution

A WMS and its environment interact and create dynamic,emergent properties through quasi-equilibrium and state change,non-linear changes and non-random futures. The environment inwhich the WMS operates gives feedback to the system andchanges the system. In turn, the WMS causes changes to theenvironment.

Under normal conditions a WMS maintains a balance betweenorder and disorder in a quasi-equilibrium state (Goldstein, 1994).Over time the environment pushes the system far away from itsequilibrium state to the edge of chaos that can result in sudden,unpredictable changes. This is exemplified by the trend forcommodity prices for recycled materials like copper (LME, 2009).From 1998 to 2004 the spot price of copper varied from ₤1000 to₤2000 per tonne (equilibrium). From 2004 to midway through2006 the price of copper gradually rose to just under ₤9000 pertonne (system change) due to increasing productivity, particularlyin emerging economies like India and China. Frommidway through2006 till late 2008 the price fluctuated wildly between ₤5000 and₤9000 (edge of chaos), before plunging to ₤3000 (sudden change)before gradually recovering to between ₤4000 and ₤5000 (a newequilibrium).

Behaviour inWMSs stems from the complex interaction of manyloosely coupled variables and thus the system behaves in a non-linear fashion.Where a change is imposed on the system there is nodirect correlation between the size of the change and the size of thecorresponding change in the outcome (Guastello and Philippe,1997). For example, a change in pricing mechanisms can haveperverse effects. An increase in the price of waste disposal toencourage diversion can reduce the amount of recycling when therecycled goods contain a high percentage of non-recyclable mate-rials (e.g. microwave ovens in New Zealand) (MfE, 2006). Thebehaviour of a WMS is thus not amenable to prediction usinga parametric model, such as a statistical forecasting model (Choiet al., 2001).

However, this does not imply that the future is random. Similarsystems tend to behave in similar patterns when subjected tosimilar changes. Hence, past events can lead to predictions aboutbehaviour in a WMS, though not the timing of the behaviour. Forexample, the stock market crash in 1987 lead to a slow decline inwaste generated in Auckland City until 1991 which paralleleda decline in economic activity in New Zealand. Once the economystarted to gain momentum waste quantities also increased (ARC,1995).

5. Elements of a sustainable waste management system

To achieve a sustainable New Zealand requires a sustainableWMS.

The necessary elements for a sustainable WMS are:

a. negative feedback loops dominate positive feedback loops.Negative feedback provides an element of self-monitoring andself-regulation. For example, in Auckland City, halving mobilegarbage bin size plus added cost to dispose of excess weight(negative feedback) had a better effect than years of messagesextolling the virtues of recycling (positive feedback) (Seadon,2006);

Page 8: Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadona,b,* aSchool of Environment, University of Auckland,

Table 4Fonterra’s Use of Tools. Adapted from Maxwell et al. (2006).

Shift to a systems focusSustainable consumption and productionProduct service systemsEco-efficient servicesEco-effectiveness

Developing products with a reduced environmental impactDesign for the environmentLife cycle thinkingLife cycle assessmentProduct stewardship/extended producer responsibilityGreen chemistryGreen engineering

Improving environmental performance of industryClean technologyClean productionIntegrated pollution prevention and controlEco-efficiencyFactor 4/10Environmental auditingEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental management systemsEnvironmental performance indicatorsEnvironmental reportingGreen procurementEnvironmental supply chain managementGreen marketing

Improving the triple bottom line sustainabilityperformance of industry

Sustainable developmentTriple bottom line reportingSustainable productionCorporate social responsibility reporting

J.K. Seadon / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e16511646

b. system vitality is independent of quantitative growth. WMSsthat rely on growth are unsustainable. For example, Trans-pacific Industries in August 2008 relied on substantial growthin its business model and predicted ‘double digit growth’(Sydney Morning Herald, 2008) when they announced a 70%increase in profit for the previous year due to ‘acquisitions andorganic growth’. By May 2009, after the onset of a worldrecession, the company had been suspended from the sharemarket and was seeking to secure equity injection to maintaintheir operation (Brisbane Times, 2009). In contrast, The Recy-cling Center in Portland, Oregon, worked successfully on theconcept of better utilising the waste that was collected ratherthan requiring greater quantities of waste (Suzuki and Dressel,2002);

c. the system is function-oriented, not product-oriented. A basicsolid waste management operation consists of collection,transportation and storage. Societal changes required changesin end-of-life usage by waste companies. For example, WasteManagement New Zealand set up Recycle New Zealand asa subsidiary focusing on collecting materials that could bediverted and sorting them (and storing if necessary) beforereuse, recycling or recovery operations. Thus the functionswere very similar, but the ‘products’ changed with time;

d. multiple uses of products, functions and organisational struc-tures. The integration of products, functions and structuresenables a WMS to make the most efficient use of availableresources. Waste streams can be used effectively to achievebetter resource efficiency. Examples include Fonterra whichuses waste hot gases in heat exchangers to preheat incomingmilk;

e. diversion processes for the utilisation of waste. Waste isa resource that can be reused, recycled, recovered or treated.Many examples of this exist; see for example (Seadon, 2006);

f. symbiotic usage by employing coupling and exchange.Symbiotic relationships in waste management emerge asindustrial ecology which attempts to mimic the utilisation ofthe waste of an ecosystem into an industrial context (Suzukiand Dressel, 2002);

g. biological design of products, procedures and forms of orga-nisations by feedback planning. The basic biological designprocesses are exemplified by the application of The NaturalStep programme (Korhonen, 2004). In a sustainable wastemanagement context the system conditions require that:a. materials are not extracted from the earth at an increasing

rate;b. wastes are not emitted by society at an increasing rate;c. wastes are not disposed of to the earth faster than they can

break down through natural processes; andd. resources are used fairly and with waste minimisation to

meet the basic human needs globally.h. use existing forces, instead of opposing forces. The use of

leverage supports a WMS, but uses less effort to achievea desired change.

The effective use of leverage points is described below.The elements for sustainable waste management are similar to

those for sustainable living systems developed by Vester (2007).

6. Implementing a systems approach to waste management

One of the earlier attempts to use a systems approach for solidwaste management was by Clark in Cleveland, Ohio (Clark, 1978).Clark found that population trends, densities and dwelling unitdensities had a significant impact on solid waste management.Clark extended consideration to transportation networks and the

location of major arteries and expressways. As well as these phys-ical components, it was necessary to consider planned and currenturban renewal projects as changing population densities hada definite influence on solid waste planning. The legislation, fromfederal, state and county perspectives was also factored into theprocess, as these had an effect, in particular, on capital and oper-ating revenues. Overall, the process was carried out with changesbeing made en route as the project progressed after feedback fromthe operators. The reported successes were in the form of increasedefficiencies with the collection and disposal of solid waste. Whilethis was an admirable start, the chosen boundaries of the systemmeant that the focus was on what to do with the waste once it wasgenerated. The demarcation of the boundaries of a WMS is one ofthe most important delineations of the system.

7. An integrated approach to waste management systems

The extension of the system boundaries to the waste generationphase (manufacturing) and consideration of waste from all mediarequires the inclusion of waste reduction methods and the ultimateof reduction e prevention e for environmental product develop-ment. Fonterra utilises a range of tools encompassing a shift toa systems focus, developing sustainable products and services,developing products with a reduced environmental impact,improving industry environmental performance and improving thetriple bottom line performance. Within each category is a range totools as shown in Table 4.

Fonterra uses tools that act on the system as a whole to enablethe greatest change in behaviour. These are the system focus toolsof sustainable production and consumption, product servicesystems, eco-efficient services and eco-effectiveness.

Page 9: Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadona,b,* aSchool of Environment, University of Auckland,

Table 5Leverage points in a system. Adapted from Meadows (2009).

1. Parameters2. Materials stocks and flows3. Regulating negative feedback loops4. Driving positive feedback loops5. Information flows6. System rules7. The power of self-organisation8. The system goals9. The paradigm out of which the system arises

10. Transcending paradigms

J.K. Seadon / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e1651 1647

Fonterra uses the sustainable production and consumptionframework to consider short, medium and long term impacts onproduction, markets and consumption and actions by the business,government and consumers. Fonterra’s role is to: apply cleanerproduction, eco-design and other tools; manage supply andcustomer chains and promote industry self-regulation (Tukkeret al., 2008). Fonterra’s role in the medium term is to developcapabilities that successfully allow it to position it for the future. Insome waste areas Fonterra has an active research and applicationprogramme to reduce its emissions (e.g. carbon emissions). Longterm waste management requires deliberation on fundamentalissues related to markets:

a. sustainable growth;b. market promotion that fosters equity;c. lower consumption and a higher quality of life; andd. restoration of power balances between government, business

and the community.

These issues are not ones for business alone, but requireengagement of all sectors to make progress (Tukker et al., 2008).

Waste reduction is enhanced through a paradigm change fromthe focus on product systems (selling a product) to productservice systems (providing a service). For example, Fonterrareduced packaging through bulking, reuse and redesign with theend user in mind. Fonterra also exercises eco-efficient services(some of the property rights are kept by the producer (Cook et al.,2006)) and eco-effectiveness (impacts of products, processes andtechnologies are more environmentally oriented (Dyllick andHockerts, 2002)). For example, pallets used in transportation arereused as often as possible and repaired and then recycled ifpossible.

Fonterra integrates a range of tools to accomplish wastereduction. The Environmental Policy is the pre-eminent guidancetool for the Company in environmental issues. The Eco-EfficiencyStandard, which is used to balance improved production, profit-ability, stewardship of the natural resource base and ecologicalsystems, and enhancement of the vitality of rural communities,underpins the environmental policy. Application of the eco-effi-ciency programme at one site identified 268 waste streams withpotentially 35% of wastes being diverted through reduction, reuseor recycling. A year later an extra 15% of the waste streams werebeing diverted and another 3% were under investigation.

Additional tools that Fonterra used to set short and mediumterm solid waste reduction targets were:

a. factor 4 (75% reduction inwaste) and Factor 10 (90% reduction);b. measuring, monitoring and reporting to attain the require-

ments of the ISO14001 Environmental Management System(EMS). The adoption of the EMS has given confidence to Fon-terra’s customers of environmental responsibility while stillaiming for the short term easily accomplished waste reductiontargets; and

c. product stewardship with suppliers and customers to utiliseresources more efficiently, particularly packaging.

These tools have been applied at different points in theirdevelopment of waste minimisation.

One of the key principles for a sustainableWMS is the process ofgradual change which requires a toolbox of drivers.

7.1. Effecting change on a waste management system

One of the prime motivators for understanding how a WMSworks is to effect a change on the WMS to produce a desired

position. Each change in a WMS produces side effects, not the leastof which is that systems demonstrate inertia to change due to thenumerous links between components in the system (O’Connor andMcDermott, 1997). With careful planning and an understanding ofthe dynamics of the WMS under study, together with a degree offortuitousness, there are occasional ’windows of opportunity‘when large changes can be effected with very little effort. Themechanism to achieve change is through the use of leveragepoints.

7.2. Leverage

Kuhn’s (1996) viewpoint suggests a degree of politics andpersonality is involved in effecting change, and while this hasmerit there are also leverage points within a system that caneffect significant change with an apparently small effort. Lozano(2008) notes that within any organisation or group, certainindividuals or groups have more leverage than others within thegroup.

If a system does behave as an observer desires, it is onlya temporary condition due to the complexity of its self-organizing,non-linear, feedback systems that are inherently unpredictable(Meadows, 2001). This makes systems theory a tool to understandwhat is happening and not a control mechanism for a system understudy.

Meadows (2009) suggested tenways to change the effectivenessof the operation of a system. The increasing order of effectivenessand difficulty (from least to greatest) is shown in Table 5 and theirapplication to WMSs is discussed below.

7.2.1. ParametersThe usefulness of the numbers generated from monitoring is

that they are able to give corroborative evidence, rather thanmotivate change. The quantities of wastes being generated andhow much is being diverted are certainly important parameters tohave, but the reliability of these figures can be highly question-able (e.g. California Environmental Protection Agency (CaliforniaEPA, 2001)). Meadows (2009), suggested that 95% of the effortin trying to change a system is usually targeted at changingparameters. In addition, the changes that do occur throughparameter collection are normally aimed at increasing the effi-ciency of the system under study and are often achieved througha technological change (e.g. greater compaction, concentrating ordiluting a discharge or removing contaminants from air emis-sions). The realised change is a low impact, end-of-pipe changeand so requires a minimal change in behaviour on the part of theoperator. Where this information can be of benefit is where it isused to supplement a leverage point that is further down the list.An example of this is reducing the delay time in a feedback loop(e.g. having a heating control close to the object being heated).This can allow a fine-tuning of the system such that oscillationsdo not gain in amplitude and cause over- and undershooting. An

Page 10: Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadona,b,* aSchool of Environment, University of Auckland,

J.K. Seadon / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e16511648

example of a beneficial outcome was in a Kraft paper mill inCanada where water savings were used as a means to also reduceenergy (Wising et al., 2005). The adoption of wastewaterrestrictions and the recognition of future liability from as a resultof the Kyoto Protocol motivated the company to reduce waterconsumption which also reduced the energy needed for livesteam and also allowed excess energy to be used for evaporation,giving an overall saving of 4 GJ/t of product. The use of thermalpinch analysis was the integration tool to achieve energy reduc-tion and consequentially less cooling was needed as there wasless heat transferred through the system.

7.2.2. Material flows and stocksA greater commitment to change behaviour is required here, but

in combination with basic data collection, substantial wastereduction can be achieved.

Leveraging the flows and stocks allows an understanding of thelimitations and bottlenecks in the system which allows for oper-ating it so that there is the least strain on the system (Meadows,2009). In the previous example pinch analysis was used to elimi-nate the pinch points and this produced over 60% of the energysavings (Wising et al., 2005).

As well as flow considerations within the process it is essentialto have sufficient material to act as a buffer for the process, but notso much that stock expires. Thus the equilibrium between stocksand flows is crucial to reduce wastage.

7.2.3. Regulating negative feedback loopsThe absence of feedback loops is a common cause of system

malfunction. No system can be allowed to work without feedbackloops, since their absence results in the classic stages of a system’sexistence (Meadows, 2009):

a. unchecked growth;b. explosion;c. erosion; andd. collapse of a system.

Negative feedback loops can be a powerful mitigator of uncon-trolled growth leading to system collapse. Financial disincentives(e.g. levies, user charges, environmental fees and liability costs forwaste generation) act as negative feedback loops but include self-regulation and self-monitoring (Vester, 2007). The ability ofa negative feedback loop to correct system deviations depends ona combination of parameters and links. Among these are(Meadows, 2009):

a. the accuracy and speed of reporting;b. the speed and power of the response; andc. the directness and size of the correction instituted.

The strength of a negative feedback loop is relative to theimpact it is designed to correct (Meadows, 2009). For example,a nationally applied tool gives everyone a level playing field, butit is very blunt and results in a much slower response time toachieve changes in behaviour. A localised application increasesthe possibility of tailoring the tool to the local conditions andprovides a quicker response. In the Auckland region two of thecities instituted user pays rubbish bag collection and quicklyachieved a per head disposal rate about half that of the othercomparable cities (Seadon and Mamula-Stojnic, 2002). In theState of Victoria, Australia, a state-wide levy on waste disposedto landfill took eight years from institution to achieve a decreasein per head quantities (Sus Vic, 2005).

7.2.4. Driving positive feedback loopsPositive feedback loops reinforce actions on a system (Meadows,

2009). The ultimate conclusion of an unchecked positive loop is thedestruction of the system and hence, wherever there are positivefeedback loops there also need to be predominant negative feed-back loops to provide balance. An example of this is the imple-mentation of a glass recycling scheme in New Zealand to divertwaste from landfill.

The first successful bottle works was set up in Auckland in 1922,driven by the beer bottle market (Bowey, 2009). Over the years theoperation expanded and was relatively cyclic. Glass recycling wasoriginallymanaged through a container deposit system,which gaveway in the 1990s to well advertised kerbside or dropoff recyclingsystems (positive feedback). With the introduction of cheaperbottles sourced from overseas, the amount of glass for recycling inNew Zealand went beyond the capacity of the sole recycling facility,resulting in a price drop in 2004 (negative feedback) and conse-quent glass ‘mountains’ around the country. Simply recycling theglass back into containers became uneconomic in many areas. Sincethe ‘crash’, alternatives to recycling into bottles have been inves-tigated by the Glass Packaging Forum including a cycle trackdevelopment (MfE, 2006). The Glass Packaging Forum set upa contingency fund to initially subsidise glass recycling (to keep theglass recycling rates constant while alternatives were found) andthen to provide funding to research additional uses for end-of-lifeglass (MfE, 2006).

Other mechanisms to encourage positive feedback loopsinclude:

a. grants and subsidies;b. lower environmental fees;c. technical assistance for operations; andd. subsidised cleaner production programmes.

One way to lessen the speed of the loops is to reduce the gainaround the positive loop and hence reduce growth. In the glassexample above, all glasswas accepted at the facility, but quotaswerepaid for at the previous prices and all above quota amounts werepaid for at reduced prices, thus discouraging increasing quantities.

7.2.5. Information flowsThis is a loop which delivers new information to where it was

not going before. For example, in 1986 the US government requiredevery factory releasing hazardous air pollutants to publicly reportthose emissions. There were no fines attached, no determination ofsafe levels nor any prohibitions, just information. Over four years,emissions dropped by 40% and companies acted to get off the list ofheavy emitters (Meadows, 2009).

Information flows also increase the amount of accountabilitythat can be attributed to individuals or groups. In 1997, theAuckland City Council analysed the city’s solid waste productionper capita (Seadon and Boyle, 1999). Upon discovering that theCity had the highest per capita production in the region,significant moves (reversing previous decisions) were institutedto reduce that figure. The initial process was aided by theimplementation of the Local Government Amendment Act(1996) which required local authorities to prepare wastemanagement plans, taking into account the waste managementhierarchy. No time limit and no penalties were imposed but localauthorities around New Zealand responded in a similar mannerto Auckland City.

7.2.6. System rulesThe rules of the system define its scope, boundaries and degrees

of freedom. A change in the rules of the system changes behaviour

Page 11: Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadona,b,* aSchool of Environment, University of Auckland,

J.K. Seadon / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e1651 1649

and sowhoevermakes the rules has great power over the operationof the system (Meadows, 2009). In the previous example theAuckland City Council ruled that all mobile garbage bins would bereduced in size from240 L to 120 L and thatmore recycling capacitywould be introduced. The result was an overnight reduction ofwaste by a third and an increase in recycling (Seadon and Mamula-Stojnic, 2002).

7.2.7. The power of self-organisationThe initial design can change items that are less powerful

leverage points on the list. Within this is the power to create wholenew structures and behaviours and change any system aspectlower on the list (e.g. adding or deleting physical structures,changing feedback loops, information flows or rules). This revealsitself as technical advance or social revolution.

There are periods when humans are more open to social revo-lution. Elkington (1999) ascribed wave peaks and downturns to theenvironmental movement between 1969 and 1999. The peak in1988e1990 coincided with formulation of the ResourceManagement Act (1991) in New Zealand and a resultant focus onwaste management issues. The Ministry for the Environmentencouraged cleaner production programmes and local governmentsupplemented with local cleaner production programmes forindustry, municipal recycling and pay-as-you-throw schemes. Afterinitial resistance the populace accepted pay-as-you-throw and that,along with recycling are now normal activities for householders(Seadon and Mamula-Stojnic, 2002).

The next wave started through the growing awareness of theeffects of climate change in 2006, highlighted by the publicationof the Stern Review (Stern, 2009) and Al Gore’s film ‘An Incon-venient Truth’ (Paramount Pictures, 2009). These eventsprovided impetus for the New Zealand Prime Minister, in 2007,to announce broad initiatives in the ‘Sustainability Six Pack’(Clark, 2009):

a. public service carbon neutrality;b. sustainable procurement for government goods and services;c. sustainable households programme;d. support business sustainability (Fig. 7);e. eco-verification; andf. improving waste management.

The perceived difficulty in this intervention point is that it opensup the possibility of creating diversity (Meadows, 2009) and in

Fig. 7. The strong sustainability model. Adapted from Lowe (Elkington, 1999).

doing so there is a loss of control and thus a loss in influence overthe subsystems.

7.2.8. The system goalsEach of the above categories has a set of goals which conform to

the goals of the whole system. If the goal of a WMS is to reducewaste, then the system is seen in an isolated manner. However, ifthe boundaries are set so that the goal is set to improve efficiency ofthe production system, then everything from the design phase tothe production and transport phase are seen in the context of thewhole system. This is the basis of the New Zealand Waste Strategy(MfE, 2002). Being able to formulate the goals is a powerfulleverage point.

7.2.9. The paradigm out of which the system arisesGoals, information flows, feedbacks, stocks and parameters flow

from the paradigms used. The ability to change and define a para-digm is determined by people who have bought into that paradigmand hence the paradigm gains its supremacy until a new paradigmtakes its place. A paradigm change requires enunciation of theanomalies and failures of the old paradigm, a loud and insistentproclamation of the new one, bringing people of influence andpower adopting the new paradigm into the foreground andignoring the reactionaries (Kuhn, 1996). Through this process‘flame, flush and fling’ have been replaced by ‘reduce, reuse, recycleand recover’.

7.2.10. Transcending paradigmsNo paradigm is the true paradigm. This is the biggest leverage

point (Meadows, 2009). It is the ability to realise that others maycome up with better paradigms and to be able to adopt a newparadigm because it has greater merit that enables progress to bemade. The evolution of waste management from a simplisticdisposal mentality to the recognition that it is an integrated processrequiring a systems approach shows the success of allowing forparadigm shifts (Seadon, 2006).

The purpose of changing systems is to move towards a sustain-able society.

8. Sustainable societies

The writing on the wall is clear. Societies that have ignoredsustainable practices by damaging their environmental supportsystems through wasting resources and making demands beyondthe carrying capacity of the area, have witnessed the demise of thesociety. Examples of this kind of disintegration of society are theKingdom of Egypt around 1950 BC, the Sumerians in 1800 BC,the Mayans at about 600 AD, and the Polynesians of Easter Islandat about 1600 AD (Ponting, 1991).

Sustainability has been often associated with resourceconstraints and the maintenance of the status quo, rather thanopportunities for continued innovation, growth and prosperity(Fiksel, 2003).

A sustainable society is one that (Meadows et al., 1992):

a. is capable of development;b. is technically and culturally advanced;c. is dynamic in regard to all factors including population and

production;d. users non-renewable resources thoughtfully and efficiently;

ande. is diverse, democratic and challenging.

An integrated knowledge approach to sustainability requires theart of stewardship to transcend the conflict between economics and

Page 12: Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadona,b,* aSchool of Environment, University of Auckland,

J.K. Seadon / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e16511650

ecology (Shin et al., 2008). The dynamics of a transition toa sustainable society require a systems approach and wastemanagement is a fundamental system that must be confronted.

9. Conclusion

A conventional reductionist approach to waste managementfalls short of being sustainable because it:

a. focuses on collecting and analysing immaterial data;b. implements irreversible interventions rather than mechanisms

to deal with modifiable emerging side effects;c. finds short-term solutions rather than longer term sustain-

ability thinking;d. misinterprets time lags between intervention and effects as

a lack of response thus employing stronger interventions,resulting in over-correction that has to be mitigated;

e. disregards or undervalues the side effects of intervention;f. fixates on singular problems rather than the viability of theWMS; and

g. relies on linear projections of recent short-term events.

The start to a change in thinking is to realise that WMS sharemany of the characteristics of complex adaptive systems through:

a. waste management organisations working together throughagreements based on shared customs and economicmotivations;

b. numerous agents working simultaneously in parallel creatingpatterns of development;

c. extensive interconnections between agents;d. negative feedback curbing scopewhile independence increases

the scope.e. a dynamic system;f. a realisation that the greater the degree of interdependence ofthe components, the harder it is to achieve global optimisation;

g. recognition that as the systemmoves away from equilibrium itbecomes more susceptible to radical readjustment;

h. awareness that the correlations between causes and effects arenot linear; and

i. discernible general performance patterns.

A sustainable WMS has:

a. negative feedback loops dominating positive feedback loops;b. the system’s strength not depending on expansion;c. the system focusing on the processes not products;d. products, functions and organisational structures that need to

be adaptable and multi-purpose;e. no wastes as excess materials and products are diverted;f. linking and transposition are used to the mutual advantage ofall parties;

g. products, procedures and organisational forms that utilisefeedback planning to model biological systems; and

h. leverage points that are used to effect system change.

The process to transition to a sustainable WMS is achievedthrough the use of increasingly powerful leverage points to:

a. change the parameters of a WMS to make the system moreeffective;

b. change the material flows and stocks to gain an understandingof the limitations and bottlenecks in the WMS;

c. regulate the system through negative feedback loops to miti-gate uncontrolled growth;

d. drive positive feedback loops to provide direction to the WMS;e. extract new information for specific parameters to establish

trends;f. change the scope, boundaries or liberty that the WMS operatesunder;

g. allow the WMS to organise or change itself;h. set the WMS goals so that they are resilient over time and can

adapt to changing circumstances;i. change the model under which the WMS operates; andj. adopt a new model to achieve a more sustainable WMS.

The move to a sustainable WMS is an important step to producethe shift to a sustainable society.

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the support and commentsprovided by Prof. John Craig and Dr. Lesley Stone from theUniversity of Auckland, Spring Humphreys from Fonterra Cooper-ative Ltd, Nigel Clarke from WasteMINZ and Terry Beckett fromEnvirowaste Services Ltd.

References

Hawken, P., Lovis, A., Lovins, L.H.,1999. Natural Capitalism. Little Brown&Co., Boston.The 25th Anniversary Report of the Council on Environmental Quality Council on

Environmental Quality, 1996. In: Beamon, B.M. (Ed.), Designing the GreenSupply Chain. Logistics Information Management 1999 12 (4), 332e342.

USEPA, 2002. Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA454-K-02-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air QualityPlanning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Seadon, J.K., Boyle, C., 1999. Towards zero waste in auckland city. In: Proceedings ofthe Second Asia-Pacific Cleaner Production Roundtable, Brisbane, Australia.

PackNZ, 2004. The New Zealand Packaging Accord 2004e2009. Packaging Councilof New Zealand.

MfE, 2009. Waste Minimisation in New Zealand e A Discussion Document from TheMinistry for the Environment. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.

MfE, 2007a. The Targets in the New Zealand Waste Strategy 2006: Review ofProgress. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.

MfE, 2007b. Environment New Zealand 2007. Ministry for the Environment,Wellington.

Vester, F., 2007. The Art of interconnected Thinking. Ideas and Tools for tacklingwith Complexity. MCB-Verlag, Munich, Germany.

Max-Neef, M.A., 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Ecomonics 53(1), 5e16.

Ackoff, R.L., 1973. Science in the systems age. Beyond IE, OR and MS. OperationsResearch 21 (3), 661e671.

MfE, 2002. Solid Waste Analysis Protocol. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.Daellenbach, H.G., 2001. Systems Thinking and Decision Making: A Management

Science Approach. REA Publications, Christchurch, New Zealand.Stone, L., 2002. CAE Resource Stewardship/Waste Minimisation Project: Phase 1

Report: Assessment of Waste Minimisation Activities in New Zealand, Christ-church. Centre for Advanced Engineering, New Zealand.

Kuhn, T., 1996. In: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, third ed. The University ofChicago Press, Chicago, United States of America.

Planck, M., 1950. Scientific Autobiography, and Other Papers; With A MemorialAddress on Max Planck by Max von Laue. Williams & Norgate, London.

Tippett, J., 2005. The value of combining a systems view of sustainability witha participatory protocol for ecologically informed design in river basins. Envi-ronmental Modelling & Software 20 (2), 119e139.

Tapp, B.A., Mamula-Stojnic, L., 2001. In praise of non-discursiveness. In: Proceedingsof the Breakthroughs Conference: New Ways of Thinking, The Ninth Interna-tional Conference on Thinking, Auckland (New Zealand).

Capra, F., 1996. The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter. HarperCollins, Great Britain.

von Bertalanffy, L., 1955. General systems theory. Main Currents in ModernThought, 71e75.

von Bertalanffy, L., 1968. General System Theory: Foundations DevelopmentApplications. George Brazillier, New York, NY.

Checkland, P., 2000. Soft systems methodology: a thirty year perspective. SystemsResearch and Behavioral Science 17 (S1), S11eS58.

Dubrovsky, V., 2004. Toward system principles: general system theory and thealternative approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 21 (2),109e122.

Clark, R.M., 1978. Analysis of Urban Solid Waste Services: A Systems Approach. AnnArbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Page 13: Sustainable waste management systems - HIA21 waste management systems.pdf · Sustainable waste management systems Jeffrey K. Seadona,b,* aSchool of Environment, University of Auckland,

J.K. Seadon / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1639e1651 1651

Waste Minimisation Act. No. 89, 2008. New Zealand Government Printer,Wellington, New Zealand.

MfE. 2009. govt3: Towards Sustainable Practice e Environmental. Social, Economic.Available from: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/sustainable-industry/govt3/(accessed April 18, 2009).

Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, 2001. Minnesota Solid WasteSystems Mapping Report: A Systems Thinking Approach to Minnesota’s SolidWaste Management in The 21st Century. Minnesota Office of EnvironmentalAssistance, St Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Sundberg, J., Gipperth, P., Wene, C.-O., 1994. A systems approach to municipal solidwaste management: a pilot study of Göteborg. Waste Management andResearch 12 (1), 73e91.

Choi, T., Dooley, K., Rungtusanatham, M., 2001. Supply networks and complexadaptive systems: control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Manage-ment 19 (3), 351e366.

Landcare Research, 2007. Fact Files. Landcare Research. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/globalchange/fact_file.asp (accessed September 24, 2008).

Lowe, I., 1998. Reporting on the state of our environment. In: Eckersley, R. (Ed.),Measuring progress: is life getting better? CSIRO Collingwood, Australia.

Clayton, A., Radcliffe, N., 1996. Sustainability e A Systems Approach. EarthscanPublications Ltd., London, UK.

EW 2007, 2007. Waikato Regional Waste Infrastructure Stocktake and StrategicAssessment. Environment Waikato Regional Council. http://www.ew.govt.nz/Publications/Technical-Reports/Waikato-Regional-Waste-Infrastructure-Stocktake-and-Strategic-Assessment/ (accessed February 20, 2009).

MfE, 2002. New Zealand Waste Strategy. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.Goldstein, J., 1994. The Unshackled Organisation: Facing The Challenge of Unpre-

dictability Through Spontaneous Reorganization. Productivity Press, Portland,Oregon, USA.

LME, 2009. Price Graphs. London Metal Exchange. http://www.lme.co.uk/copper_graphs.asp (accessed May 30, 2009).

Guastello, S., Philippe, P., 1997. Dynamics in the development of large informationexchange groups and virtual communities. Non-linear Dynamics, Psychologyand Life Sciences 1 (2), 123e149.

MfE, 2006. Waste Policy Discussion: The Potential Unintended Consequences of ANational Waste Levy. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.

ARC, 1995. Waste Analysis Protocol Surveys for the Auckland Region. AucklandRegional Council, Auckland.

Seadon, J., 2006. Integrated waste management e looking beyond the solid wastehorizon. Waste Management 26 (12), 1327e1336.

Sydney Morning Herald, August 27, 2008. Transpacific tips double digit growth.Available from: http://business.smh.com.au/business/transpacific-tips-double-digit-growth-20080827-43fa.html.

Brisbane Times, May 14, 2009. Still no partner for wallflower Transpacific. Avail-able from: http://business.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/still-no-partner-for-wallflower-transpacific-20090514-b4se.html.

Suzuki, D., Dressel, H., 2002. Good News for A Change: Hope for A Troubled Planet.Stoddart Publishing, Toronto, Canada.

Korhonen, J., 2004. Industrial ecology in the strategic development model: strategicapplications of industrial ecology. Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (8e10),809e823.

Maxwell, D., Sheat, W., van der Vorst, R., 2006. Functional and systems aspects ofthe sustainable product and service development approach for industry. Journalof Cleaner Production 14 (17), 1466e1479.

Tukker, A., Emmert, S., Charter, M., Vezzoli, C., Sto, E., Andersen, M.M., Geerken, T.,Tischner, U., Lahlou, S., 2008. Fostering change to sustainable consumption andproduction: an evidence based view. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (11),1218e1225.

Cook, M.B., Bhamra, T.A., Lemon, M., 2006. The transfer and application of ProductService Systems: from academia to UK manufacturing firms. Journal of CleanerProduction 14 (17), 1455e1465.

Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.Business Strategy and The Environment 11 (2), 130e141.

Elkington, J., 1999. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st CenturyBusiness. Capstone Publishing, Oxford, United Kingdom.

O’Connor, J., McDermott, I., 1997. The Art of Systems Thinking. Thorsons, SanFrancisco, California, USA.

Lozano, R., 2008. Developing collaborative and sustainable organisations. Journal ofCleaner Production 16 (4), 499e509.

Meadows, D.H., 2001. Dancing with systems. Whole Earth Magazine. http://www.wholeearthmag.com/ArticleBin/447.html (accessed May 20, 2006).

Meadows, D.H., 2009. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Earthscan, London, UK.California EPA, 2001. A Comprehensive Analysis of the Integrated Waste Manage-

ment Act Diversion Rate Measurement System: Final Report to the Legislature.California Environmental Protection Agency: Integrated Waste ManagementBoard, Sacramento, California, USA.

Wising, U., Berntsson, T., Stuart, P., 2005. The potential for energy savings whenreducing the water consumption in a Kraft Pulp Mill. Applied Thermal Engi-neering 25 (7), 1057e1066.

Seadon, J.K., Mamula-Stojnic, L., 2002. Four cities, one region: implementingmunicipal solid waste reduction programmes. In: Proceedings of the Enviro2002Convention and Exhibition and IWA 3rd World Water Congress, Melbourne,Australia.

Sus Vic, 2005. Annual Survey of Victorian Recycling Industries 2004e2005.Sustainability Victoria, Victoria, Australia.

Bowey, A.M., 2007. Auckland Bottle Works New Zealand. Glass Packaging Forum. Avail-able from: http://www.glass.co.nz/NZglassbottles.htm (accessed April 10, 2009).

MfE, 2006. Environz. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.Local Government Amendment Act (No. 4), 1996. New Zealand Government Printer,

Wellington, New Zealand. No. 84.Resource Management Act, 1991. New Zealand Government Printer, Wellington,

New Zealand. No. 69.Stern,N.,2006.Sternreviewontheeconomicsofclimatechange.Treasury.Available from:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm (accessed February 20, 2009).

Paramount Pictures, 2006. An Inconvenient Truth. Paramount Pictures. http://www.aninconvenienttruth.co.uk/ (accessed February 20, 2009).

Clark,H., 2007. PrimeMinister’s Statement toParliament. TheNewZealandGovernment.http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID¼28357 (accessedMarch 30, 2009).

Ponting, C.A., 1991. Green History of the World. Sinclair-Stevenson, London, UK.Fiksel, J., 2003. Designing resilient, sustainable systems. Environmental Science &

Technology 37 (23), 5330e5339.Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., 1992. Beyond the Limits: Global Collapse

or a Sustainable Future. Earthscan, London, UK.Shin, R., Curtis, M., Huisingh, D., Zwetsloot, G.I., 2008. Development of a sustain-

ability policy model for promoting cleaner production: a knowledge integrationapproach. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (17), 1823e1837.