waste disposal

Waste Disposal

Author: Dakshata Mahadik

  • Solid waste management :

GUPTA et al (2024) states  that they discuss the challenges  faced in solid waste management (SWM) in  India and proposes a Public private partnership (PPP) model for improvement , focusing on Dehradun city  Uttarakhand as a case study .They  highlights the inefficiency in the current municipal SWM system ,such as lack of waste segregation at  the source ,irregular  waste collection, inadequate street sweeping ,and improper waste disposal .The proposed PPP model suggests integrating waste collection ,transportation ,and processing under private sector involvement ,with revenue generate from electricity production through waste processing and selling carbon credits. They  emphasize the need for an economically viable approach to SWM and suggests modifications to ensure the inclusion of informal waste pickers .Additionally ,they proposes setting up small independent power plant (IPPs) for green electricity generation ,which col contrite to addressing both the  power deficits and environmental concerns. Overall, the article concludes that implementing the proposed   PPP model could enhance SWM services and address environmental and energy challenges in Indian cities.

 

  • Polishing the big apple:

RICCIO et al (2024) states that they discuss highlight the role of management science in improving street cleanliness in New York City, particularly within the Department of Sanitation. Despite facing challenges such as a decrease in the number of street cleaners and low morale among staff, the department implemented management science techniques to address these issues. By analyzing the street cleaning problem from this perspective, the department achieved five consecutive years of improved cleanliness ratings, nearing record levels with 700 fewer cleaners than a decade ago. This success led to significant cost savings of $12 million annually. Management science played a crucial role in changing decision-making processes, leading to increased cleanliness, productivity, and recognition from independent watchdog groups.

 

  • Restaurant Sanitation:

GURNEY et al (2024) states that they discuss the impact of disclosing sanitation inspection grades (SIGs) in restaurants on consumer behavior and public health. They  highlights how mandatory disclosure policies, like those in Los Angeles County, have led to better sanitation practices and reduced foodborne illnesses. However, despite the benefits of SIG disclosure, some restaurants still avoid it, even when they have favorable grades. Theoretical models suggest that consumers should infer negative information when SIGs are not disclosed, but empirical evidence shows that consumers often fail to do so, leading to potential health risks. The passage also mentions interventions aimed at increasing consumer sensitivity to missing SIGs and the shift towards digital platforms like Yelp for accessing such information.

  • Consumer e –waste disposal behavior:

GILAL et al (2024) states that they discuss the issue of electronic waste (e-waste) generation and its impact on the environment and human health. They highlight the lack of systematic assessment of consumer e-waste disposal behavior and the need for comprehensive research in this area. The review aims to provide an overview of existing studies on consumer e-waste disposal behavior, identifying gaps and proposing research agendas. Key factors influencing e-waste disposal behavior include motivation, perceived benefits, recycling convenience, past behavior, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms. The review adopts a conventional theme-based review technique and outlines the scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews. They  examines 43 research publications on e-waste disposal behavior published in Scopus-indexed journals between 2000 and 2021, identifying tensions, contradictory findings, and major research gaps. The review concludes that additional investigation into consumer e-waste disposal behavior’s is warranted, emphasizing the need for contemporary design methodologies and data analysis tools.

  • Waste disposal cost for health care product :

VANBERKEL et al (2024) states that waste disposal costs and their impact on healthcare products, focusing on the research conducted by Vanberkel and colleagues. They explore how waste disposal costs affect healthcare organizations and the healthcare industry as a whole. The research likely examines various factors such as waste management practices, environmental regulations, and economic implications for healthcare facilities. The summary would provide insights into how waste disposal costs influence decision-making processes within healthcare settings and may offer recommendations for more sustainable waste management practices in the healthcare sector.

  • Waste disposal and avoidance

WIESE et al (2024) states that they discuss the origins of waste disposal issues, which stem from both production processes and the need for product redemption post –use .They highlight the growing significance of extended product responsibility, especially concerning electronic products like computers and their components. The discussion expands to include the calculation of total ownership costs, emphasizing the rising sensitivity to electronic scrap problems. The concepts of waste disposal are likened to inventory control theory, with the applications of the Harris formula to optimize waste disposal operations. Extension to the waste disposal model is introduced, including waste –avoidance costs and monopolistic waste disposal companies, with implications for inventory control theory.

  • Sanitary and phytosanitary:

CRIVELLI et al (2024) states that they discuss the increasing prevalence of non –tariff measures (NTMs) ,particularly sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)measures ,in trade policy due to decreasing tariffs and quotas ,these measures aim to protect human ,animal and plant health and may also serve domestic producer protection objectives. While economic  theory doesn’t offer clear predictions on the trade impact of SPS measures , the may both hinder trade due to increased production costs and enhance it by improving consumer confidence and promoting producer efficacy .Policymaker face choices in implementing SPS measures ,with varying impacts on trade depending on the measure chosen. The analysis distinguishes between conformity assessment –related SPS measures and those related to product characteristics, suggesting that the former may act as market entry barriers while the latter can facilitate trade by enhancing consumer trust. Additionally ,they discusses the methodological approach used in the study ,including the estimation of models to assess the impact of SPS measures on trade with considerations for robustness and control variables such a bilateral tariffs and the revealed comparative advantage index . 

  • Food waste paradox:

PORPINO et al (2024) states that they discuss the prevalence of food waste in the context of scarcity of natural resources and extreme poverty, particularly focusing on lower-middle class families in Brazil. Despite facing financial constraints, cultural factors like hospitality and perception of food as wealth contribute to excessive purchasing and over –preparation, leading to significant food waste. Additionally lack of knowledge about food storage and the practice of feeding leftovers to pets further exacerbate the issue. The study suggests that educating households about healthier diets is urgently needed to address this problem. In a world that faces both scarcity of natural resources and extreme poverty, why does household food waste seem to be so prevalent? While more than 2.2 billion people are either near or living in poverty (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2014), almost one third of the food produced worldwide is wasted. This waste equates to 250 km3 of water and 1.4 billion hectares of land use, adding 3.3 billion tons of greenhouse gas,(spas as to the earth’s atmosphere (The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 2013). The seventh largest economy in the world (World Bank, 2013) and a major food exporter, Brazil concentrates most of its losses in the immediate post-harvest stage (Soares, 2009), but it also has large amounts of waste at the end of the chain.  

  • Natures call :Orissa

DICKINSON et al (2024) states that they discuss the global issue of inadequate sanitation facilities, particularly focusing on the practice of open defecation and its implication for public health. Despite increased attention to sanitation in public health and development, there is a lack of empirical research on the subject .The prevalence of open defecation ,especially in South Asia ,poses significant health risks with India being a major hotspot .The government’s efforts to   address the sanitation challenges have evolved from supply –side engineering approaches to demand –side stratifies ,such as the Total Sanitation Campaign and the Commit –Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) The effectiveness of these interventions is debated ,with some advocating for economic subsidies while there emphasize behavioral and social marketing approaches .A study conducted in Bhadrak district ,Orissa ,assessed the impact of CLTS-inspired intervention on sanitation behavior’s ,child health outcomes ,and welfare measures. The findings suggest improvements in sanitation practices and child health indicators following the intervention.   

  • E- waste management India:

TURAGA et al (2024) states that they discuss article on e -waste management in India provides insights into the challenges and strategies relates to handling electronic waste in the country. They discuss the increasing volume of electronic waste due to technological advancement and consumer behavior. They highlight the environmental and health hazards associated with improper disposal of e waste and emphasizes the need for effective management practices It explores various initiatives and policies implicate  the Indian government and stakeholders to address the e waste problem ,including regulations , awareness campaigns ,and recycling programs .additionally ,the article  discusses the role of extended producer responsibility (EPR) and the challenges faced in implementing e waste management systems . Overall, it underscores the importance of holistic approaches and collaboration among government, industry, and civil society to tackle the growing e- waste crisis in India.  

 

Conclusion:

I identified various aspects of dealing with waste management issues needs a complete plan that includes rules, new technologies, changes in how people act, and working together with different groups. Using Public-Private Partnerships can make services better, and using smart management methods can make streets cleaner and work more efficient. Requiring restaurants to show how clean they are can make them cleaner, even though some don’t like it. Knowing how people throw away old electronics is important, as well as managing the cost of throwing away medical waste. Making companies take more responsibility for their products and trying not to waste things are important for making things better and dealing with old electronics. The rules about how food is safe to eat can affect trading between countries in different ways. Even though there isn’t always enough food, some cultural things make people throw away food, so we need to teach people better ways to store and use food. Programs like the one in Orissa that help people have cleaner bathrooms make kids healthier. To deal with old electronics in India, companies need to work together with others and take responsibility. In general, we need to do a lot of things together to manage waste in a way that’s good for the environment.

 

  • Reference:
  1. GUPTA, S.; KUMAR, A. PPP in Solid Waste Management: A Study of Dehradun City in Uttarakhand. IUP Journal of Infrastructure, [s. l.], v. 9, n. 2, p. 21–33, 2011. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=51643bb2-bb35-3aca-8822-94616be55e05. Acesso em: 20 Feb. 2024.
  2. RICCIO, L. J.; MILLER, J.; LITKE, A. Polishing the Big Apple: How Management Science Has Helped Make New York Streets Cleaner. Interfaces, [s. l.], v. 16, n. 1, p. 83–88, 1986. DOI 10.1287/inte.16.1.83. Disponível em:   https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=56f9178a-4bad-330b-882c-274081b748cd. Acesso em: 20 Feb. 2024
  3. GURNEY, N.; LOEWENSTEIN, G. Filling in the Blanks: What Restaurant Patrons Assume About Missing Sanitation Inspection Grades. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, [s. l.], v. 39, n. 3, p. 266–283, 2020. DOI 10.1177/0743915619875419. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=500a4d9f-e34f-35cf-a79a-23b572af730b. Acesso em: 20 Feb. 2024.
  4. GILAL, F. G. et al. Consumer e‐waste disposal behavior: A systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, [s. l.], v. 46, n. 5, p. 1785–1803, 2022. DOI 10.1111/ijcs.12767. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=3e337f36-cf42-3263-a2e9-57a74a29d48a. Acesso em: 20 Feb. 2024
  5. VANBERKEL, P. T.; MOAYED, S. Y. A general model to compute activity-based waste disposal costs for health care products. Engineering Economist, [s. l.], v. 62, n. 2, p. 132–145, 2017. DOI 10.1080/0013791X.2016.1173267. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=9281cbf7-4855-3002-b61e-af3f7796d270. Acesso em: 20 Feb. 2024.
  6. WIESE, H.; ZELEWSKI, S. Waste disposal and waste avoidance. International Journal of Production Research, [s. l.], v. 40, n. 14, p. 3391–3400, 2002. DOI 10.1080/00207540210146549. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=d50b0b61-a24f-3156-bbc2-5ed204f09c6e. Acesso em: 20 Feb. 2024.
  7. CRIVELLI, P.; GROESCHL, J. The Impact of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on Market Entry and Trade Flows. World Economy, [s. l.], v. 39, n. 3, p. 444–473, 2016. DOI 10.1111/twec.12283. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=c8d97028-fa61-3bf0-94c2-106f378bc1f3. Acesso em: 20 Feb. 2024.
  8. PORPINO, G.; PARENTE, J.; WANSINK, B. Food waste paradox: antecedents of food disposal in low income households. International Journal of Consumer Studies, [s. l.], v. 39, n. 6, p. 619–629, 2015. DOI 10.1111/ijcs.12207. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=6b7f2064-fed5-368d-9ff5-f9befec90f74. Acesso em: 20 Feb. 2024. 64
  9. DICKINSON, K. L. et al. Nature’s Call: Impacts of Sanitation Choices in Orissa, India. Economic Development & Cultural Change, [s. l.], v., n. 1, p. 1–29, 2015. DOI 10.1086/682958. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=ed8cae83-286f-3f4f-b85b-da95a6872c6f. Acesso em: 20 Feb. 2024.
  10. TURAGA, R. M. R. et al. E-Waste Management in India: Issues and Strategies. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, [s. l.], v. 44, n. 3, p. 127–162, 2019. DOI 10.1177/0256090919880655. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=a8212f21-70e2-3f43-a4b9-859909c7b1b7. Acesso em: 20 Feb. 2024.

 

Leave a comment