Effectiveness analysis of electronic waste collection models
Experience of electronic waste effective collection management is summarized. The method of its estimation and assessment is offered. The results of its practical approbation are given. Key words: effectiveness, management, collection, model, electronic waste.
Gespeichert in:
| Datum: | 2010 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Інститут економіки промисловості НАН України
2010
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Економічний вісник Донбасу |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online Zugang: | http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/24006 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Zitieren: | Effectiveness analysis of electronic waste collection models / Y. Shulayeva // Економічний вісник Донбасу. — 2010. — № 4(22). — С. 175-178. — Бібліогр.: 7 назв. — англ. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
irk-123456789-24006 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
irk-123456789-240062013-02-13T03:23:57Z Effectiveness analysis of electronic waste collection models Shulayeva, Y. Marketing Experience of electronic waste effective collection management is summarized. The method of its estimation and assessment is offered. The results of its practical approbation are given. Key words: effectiveness, management, collection, model, electronic waste. Узагальнено досвід ефективного управління збором електронних відходів. Запропоновано метод його виміру і кількісної оцінки. Наведено результати практичної апробації. Ключові слова: ефективність, управління, збір, модель, електронні відходи. Обобщен опыт эффективного управления сбором электронных отходов. Предложен метод его измерения и количественной оценки. Приведены результаты практической апробации. Ключевые слова: эффективность, управление, сбор, модель, электронные отходы. 2010 Article Effectiveness analysis of electronic waste collection models / Y. Shulayeva // Економічний вісник Донбасу. — 2010. — № 4(22). — С. 175-178. — Бібліогр.: 7 назв. — англ. 1817-3772 http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/24006 669.2/.8:338 en Економічний вісник Донбасу Інститут економіки промисловості НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
English |
| topic |
Marketing Marketing |
| spellingShingle |
Marketing Marketing Shulayeva, Y. Effectiveness analysis of electronic waste collection models Економічний вісник Донбасу |
| description |
Experience of electronic waste effective collection management is summarized. The method of its estimation and assessment is offered. The results of its practical approbation are given. Key words: effectiveness, management, collection, model, electronic waste. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Shulayeva, Y. |
| author_facet |
Shulayeva, Y. |
| author_sort |
Shulayeva, Y. |
| title |
Effectiveness analysis of electronic waste collection models |
| title_short |
Effectiveness analysis of electronic waste collection models |
| title_full |
Effectiveness analysis of electronic waste collection models |
| title_fullStr |
Effectiveness analysis of electronic waste collection models |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Effectiveness analysis of electronic waste collection models |
| title_sort |
effectiveness analysis of electronic waste collection models |
| publisher |
Інститут економіки промисловості НАН України |
| publishDate |
2010 |
| topic_facet |
Marketing |
| url |
http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/24006 |
| citation_txt |
Effectiveness analysis of electronic waste collection models / Y. Shulayeva // Економічний вісник Донбасу. — 2010. — № 4(22). — С. 175-178. — Бібліогр.: 7 назв. — англ. |
| series |
Економічний вісник Донбасу |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT shulayevay effectivenessanalysisofelectronicwastecollectionmodels |
| first_indexed |
2025-07-03T03:28:42Z |
| last_indexed |
2025-07-03T03:28:42Z |
| _version_ |
1836594834007130112 |
| fulltext |
175
Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4 (22), 2010
Y. Shulayeva
Topic problem explanation
Electronic waste (e-waste) is the most rapidly
growing segment of the municipal waste stream. It
contains toxic materials such as lead, barium, mercury,
and cadmium that require proper management as well as
valuable resources that should be recovered. Agencies
that collect, transport, recycle, or dispose of e-waste
need specific guidance to assure that the growing waste
flow of end-of-life electronic products is managed in a
way that protects public health and the environment and
conserves resources. The volume, weight, storage needs,
and costs of e-waste management present special
challenges, as compared to managing solid waste or
household hazardous waste.
The problem of the e-waste management is a topical
for the most of the developing countries where primitive
methods and technologies are used for its burning and
processing, there is no recycling infrastructure and legal
regulations of e-waste management. One of the most
important stage of e-waste effective management
development in Ukraine is to choose and implement the
right models of its collection. This subject is learnt in a
number of foreign authors works such as Washington
C. [1], Davis S. [2], Matthews H. [3], Tonetti R. [4],
Remolador M. [5] and others. Researches of Ukrainian
and Russian scientists in this area are limited. That is
why it is important and necessary to make the analysis
of the e-waste collection models operating in developed
countries and scientifically explain the suitability of the
chosen models. That is the aim of the present work.
A number of models for e-waste collection are
available. These models are used in the most of developed
European countries for collection of recyclables, bulky
goods, and household hazardous waste. The most
common currently used collection models are the
following:
1. drop-off event (one-day or multiple days);
2. permanent collection facility;
3. collection on request (curbside collection);
4. retail collection;
5. nonprofit/thrift retail collection.
1. Drop-off event (one-day or multiple days). A
drop-off event is a one-day or multi-day program that
allows residents to bring their electronic waste to a central
location for recycling or reuse. Typically, the sponsor
chooses a well-known and centrally located site to
conduct the program. On-site activities include unloading
vehicles and sorting and packaging wastes, followed by
transportation to a recycling facility. At the end of the
event, the facility or parking lot returns to its original
function. Most special waste collection programs begin
as one-day events. Some programs go on to provide
services at permanent facilities, while others find that
special events are a better solution. Special events are a
good way to serve residents in geographically large and
diverse regions, because services can be brought to
residents.
2. Permanent collection facilities. Permanent
collection facilities offer regular collection hours for
residents to bring electronic waste for recycling. These
facilities are often combined with other municipal services
such as recycling centers, household hazardous waste
facilities, or solid waste disposal facilities. If the facility
already has a fee collection infrastructure and staffing,
sharing those resources may be a possible cost savings
solution. Permanent programs require a larger up-front
investment than one day collections, but they have the
potential to reduce costs through use of municipal
employees instead of contractors.
3. Collection on request. Curbside collection
programs often are available in urban areas to handle bulky
waste. These programs may operate as special spring or
fall cleanup events, on-call pickups, or regularly scheduled
pick-up. E-waste can be added on to an existing curbside
program. Waste haulers can deliver the electronic waste
to a central consolidation point or directly to a recycling
facility.
4. Retail collection. A local store might be willing
to allow residents and/or small businesses drop off
specific types of e-waste at their retail location. This type
of partnership is most often made with a business that
sells electronic products. Sometimes the business is
willing to give discounts on the purchase of new
equipment if the resident brings in their obsolete
equipment at the time of purchase.
5. Nonprofit/thrift retail collection. This
collection model is similar to the retail collection model
but is focused on nonprofit or thrift stores. These types
of stores already accept donation of other used items
(such as clothing, furniture, etc.) and have a complete
infrastructure in place to do so.
Before making conclusion about the most suitable
collection model it is necessary to make a comparative
analysis which is presented in the table 1.
УДК 669.2/.8:338
Y. Shulayeva,
Donetsk Nathional Ttchnical University, Ukraine
EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF ELECTRONIC WASTE COLLECTION MODELS
176
Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4 (22), 2010
Y. Shulayeva
It is possible to have one or more of these models
in place for the collection of other types of materials,
and it’s important to decide whether to collect e-waste
onto an existing program or hold a separate event. The
use of more than one model is applicable. Considering all
advantages and disadvantages of e-waste collection
models and also European experience of the e-waste
collection in this work is recommended to use two models:
1) retail collection;
2) collection on request.
Table 1
Electronic waste collection models comparative analysis [1, p. 33]
Collection model Advantages Disadvantages
Drop-off event -low up-front (setup) costs;
-possib le sponsorship opportunities;
-may use volunteers to offset labor cost;
-media attention to raise awareness;
-collect large quantities in short time;
-cost control by limiting hours and frequency of
collection events;
-turnkey contracts eliminate need to hire
additional municipal staff;
-could be adjunct to an existing program using
special events for collection;
-suitable model for rural communities and first-
time collections;
-short time to implement (no
permitting/construction barriers).
-requires extensive staff planning time;
-publicity is primary driver for participation and
will increase demand for service;
-limited time for diverting equipment for reuse;
-expensive contract costs;
-long waiting lines to drop off e-waste;
-may conflict with other events;
-setup and breakdown must be done for each
event; time consuming;
-hard to predict participation numbers without
appointment system;
-hard to plan proper staffing levels;
- difficulties in finding a site.
Permanent collection
facility
-increased access to collection by extending
hours of operation;
-economies of scale possible because equipment
is stored onsite;
-extended time for diverting material for reuse;
-can be an adjunct to another program (solid
waste recycling; household hazardous waste);
-year-round collection;
-no setup/breakdown needed;
-participants become familiar with site;
-permanent workers have no
training curve with each event.
-need permanent staff;
-increased operational hours can increase
staffing needs;
-existing sites may not have adequate storage;
-new construction is cost-prohibitive;
-difficult to find location to permit facilities;
-permitting and construction takes a long time;
-solid waste facilities are often isolated and not
convenient to participants;
-not mobile; cannot move to accommodate
d ifferent geographic areas.
Collection on request -convenient for residents;
-could be adjunct to existing
program (bulky waste);
-can be operated as neighborhood cleanup or by
resident appoin tment;
-neighborhood-specific promotion possible;
-promotion through solid waste or utility billing;
-cost per pound may decrease
with increased volume.
-program (not resident) becomes responsible for
transportation costs;
-e-waste could end up dumped illegally;
-cleanup events encourage illegal dumping from
other jurisdictions that are not contributing
financially to the program;
-overall costs higher due to higher labor costs
and increased quantity of waste;
-more difficult in rural areas.
Retail collection -program flexibility;
-retailer can promote new
equipment sales (take-back
program in return for product d iscount);
-retailer gets “green” reputation;
-opportunity to pursue shared
costs of transportation and
recycling with retailer.
-retailer recycling contracts may not meet
agency environmental requirements;
-retailers may not have adequate storage space;
-take-back is not a core retail business activity;
-difficult to get corporate approval to participate.
Nonprofit/ thrift retail
collection
-drop-off infrastructure availability;
-pickup infrastructure availability.;
-better potential for resale and reuse as
compared to other models;
-provides nonprofit with inventory source;
-possib le job training opportunities.
-possible increase in illegal dumping at donation
stations;
-no trained staff for refurbishing/repairing
electronic equipment;
-may not have adequate storage;
-may not be able to resell due to technical
obsolescence.
177
Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4 (22), 2010
Y. Shulayeva
The suitability of these two models for the use is
explained further.
The most of Ukrainian population prefer to leave
their outdated electrical and electronic equipment at home
than to bring and give it to the collection points of e-
waste free of charge. It is confirmed by the results of
the survey made among the group of people. The
respondents’ selection was made on the basis of the
spontaneous sampling.
For the purposes of the sample representativeness
the following formula was used for its calculation:
TNA
NTn 22
2
25,0
25,0
∗+∗
∗∗
= , (1)
where n — the volume of the sample;
N — the volume of the general totality;
A — the confidence level of sample;
T 2 — the coefficient, which considers sample
error and confidence probability.
The general totality of the survey is the residents of
Donetsk at the age of 20-60, which according to the
population census made in 2007 is nearly 55% of all the
population of the city. There are 1033 thousand people
reside in Donetsk [6], it means that the general totality is
568 thousand people ( 568000=N ).
The confidence level of sample is 5% ( 05,0=A ).
The coefficient T 2 according to the Student’s table
tends to one because a large volume of the sample is
provided, i.e. n >30 ( 95,02 =T ).
After putting the given parameters into formula (1)
the value n can be obtained. The volume of the sample
is 95 people.
95
95,025,05680000025,0
56800095,025,0
≈
∗+∗
∗∗
=n
It means that this volume provides the maximum
of the sample representativeness.
The following questions had been asked:
1) What are you doing with the outdated electrical
and electronic equipment?
2) Are you ready to transport and give outdated
electrical and electronic equipment to the e-waste
collection points in case of its opening free of charge?
The results of the survey after its ranking in
decreasing order are presented in the table 2.
The standard deviation on the separated obtained
indicator is calculated on the formula 2:
volumesample
%)indicator,(100%indicator,devationStandart −∗
= . (2)
It means that the value of the indicator is located in
the interval «indicator + standart devation», i.e. 83,2%
(table 2), which is obtained while making survey, its equal
83,2 ± 3,83% and can possess the value between 79,37%
and 87,03%.
Thereby, for the general totality (568 thousand
people) these values will be 494330450822 ≤≤ N .
The results of the survey confirm the unavailability
of the population to transport and give the outdated
electrical and electronic equipment to drop-off or
permanent collection facility points. There are two
possible variants of the population stimulation to bring
their e-waste to the collection points: legislative stimulation
with the use of fines in case of its breach and financial
stimulation. The discounts given when purchasing the
item at the retailer of the electrical and electronic
equipment are the main financial stimulus. The suitability
of the first collection model adoption is also explained by
the possibility of the cost reduction because the retailer
will cover the part of expenses on transportation and
recycling of e-waste.
In the most of the EU countries the collection of e-
waste by request is the additional model to the existent
program of the waste collection. The main part of e-
waste is bulky electrical and electronic equipment, thus
Table 2
The results of survey
The quantity of
answers
The quantity of
answers
N The variants of the answers on
the first question
number %
The variants of the answers on
the second question
number %
1. Leaving it home 48 50,5 No 79 83,2
2. Resell it 26 27,4 Yes (considering the collection
points’ proximity, equipment
sizes etc.)
16 16,8
3. Dump it 12 12,6
4 . Present it 5 5,3
5 . Other 4 4,2
178
Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4 (22), 2010
Y. Shulayeva
the use of this model will help to avoid the problem of
the transportation outdated equipment to the collection
points by people themselves. Collection of the bulky
equipment is done by request, which is issued as an
application, during a week.
Resume
Best management practices are guidelines for
selecting the most environmentally desired methods for
managing a waste stream. E-waste collection programs
need guidelines to assure that products are managed in a
way that protects public health and the environment and
conserves valuable resources. End-of-life electronic
equipment contains valuable resources such as precious
metals, engineered plastics, glass, and other materials, all
of which require energy to manufacture. If these resources
are not recovered, additional pollution will be generated to
manufacture new products out of virgin materials.
E-waste collection models which usage in Ukraine
explained in this work is approved by Ukrainian enterprise
AOZT “Donetskvtorresursy-V’ and by Maltese state
enterprise “Malta Waste Serv. Ltd.”.
References
1. Washington C. Best management practices for
electronic waste / Report produced under contract by
Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health.
— California, 2006. — 76 p. 2. Davis S. E-Waste
Contracting Alternatives: Promoting Environmental and
Economic Sustainability / Davis Sheila // The Monitor of
Electronics Recycling Issues, Materials for the Future
Foundation, 2006. — № 3. — 196 p. 3. Matthews H.S.
Disposition and End-of-Life options for personal
computers. / H.S. Matthews, F.C. McMichael, C.T.
Hendrickson, D.J. Hart // Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh. — 1997. — 96 p. 4. Tonetti R.
Environmentally Sound Management of Used and Scrap
Personal Computers // OECD Workshop on
Environmentally Sound Management of Wastes Destined
for Recovery Operations, Vienna, 2000. — 84 p.
5. Remolador M. Used Electronics Market Study Survey
Analysis // Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC).
— 2003. — 52 p. 6. Регіональна доповідь про стан
навколишнього природного середовища в Донецькій
області у 2008 році. — Донецьк : Держуправління охо-
рони навколишнього природного середовища в До-
нецькій області, 2009. — 116 с. 7. Давыдов А.А.
Методы сбора и анализа социологических данных /
А.А. Давыдов // Социологические исследования. —
М., 2000. — №1. — С. 115—121.
Shulayeva Y. Effectiveness analysis of electronic
waste collection models
Experience of electronic waste effective collection
management is summarized. The method of its estimation
and assessment is offered. The results of its practical
approbation are given.
Key words: effectiveness, management, collection,
model, electronic waste.
Шулаєва Ю.Є. Аналіз ефективності моделей
збору електронних відходів
Узагальнено досвід ефективного управління збо-
ром електронних відходів. Запропоновано метод його
виміру і кількісної оцінки. Наведено результати прак-
тичної апробації.
Ключові слова: ефективність, управління, збір,
модель, електронні відходи.
Шулаева Ю.Е. Анализ эффективности моде-
лей сбора электронных отходов
Обобщен опыт эффективного управления сбором
электронных отходов. Предложен метод его измере-
ния и количественной оценки. Приведены результаты
практической апробации.
Ключевые слова: эффективность, управление,
сбор, модель, электронные отходы.
Received by the editors: 11.10.2010
and final form in 01.12.2010
|