Sustainable Development

Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)

Published online 23 February 2017 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/sd.1683

Integrated Approaches to Water Resource and Solid

Waste Management for Sustainable Development
Mahdi Ikhlayel1*,† and Lan Huong Nguyen1,2,†
1
Graduate Program in Sustainability Science – Global Leadership Initiative (GPSS-GLI), Graduate School of Frontier
Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba Japan
2
Department of Environmental Engineering, National University of Civil Engineering, Hanoi Vietnam

ABSTRACT
We aim in this paper to address the sustainability challenge of how an integrated approach can
lead to figuring out solutions to complex issues for modern societies. We reviewed papers related
to integrated water resource management (IWRM) and integrated solid waste management
(ISWM) to advocate some innovative concepts and methodologies of sustainability science. An
investigation of the concepts of IWRM and ISWM over various sustainability science research
clusters and dimensions is presented. Water resource management projects at different scales
and across various geographical boundaries are reviewed to understand the IWRM approach.
The ISWM approach is discussed with regard to research topics and methodologies from selected
case studies in developed and developing countries. We sought to look at various definitions, the
integrated elements, and the similarities and differences between the two approaches. We also
present our definitions for each approach. Our findings show how integrated thinking can help in
achieving sustainable development. Finally, we present our recommendations for possible impli-
cations to the integrated approach in order to accelerate the process of sustainable development.
Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Received 1 March 2016; revised 23 December 2016; accepted 2 January 2017

Keywords: sustainable development; watershed management; solid waste management; integrated approaches; stakeholder engage-
ment; environmental policy

Introduction

S
USTAINABILITY SCIENCE SEEKS AN INTEGRATED UNDERSTANDING OF CLOSELY COUPLED HUMAN–ENVIRONMENT SYSTEMS (KATES, 2011).
Martens (2006) argues that sustainability at the systemic level must be assessed, bringing to bear the follow-
ing procedural elements: an analysis of deeper-lying structures of the system, projections into the future and
assessment of sustainable and unsustainable trends. This means that scientists must tackle the problems

*Correspondence to: Mahdi Ikhlayel, Graduate Program in Sustainability Science – Global Leadership Initiative (GPSS-GLI), Graduate School of Frontier
Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.
E-mail: mahdi.ikhlayel@ieee.org
†
Both authors are first authors. They contributed to this work equally. Names Mahdi Ikhlayel and Lan Huong Nguyen in alphabetical order.
[Correction added on 5 May 2017, after first online publication: The affiliation of Lan Huong Nguyen has been revised and is now corrected in this version.]

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
468 M. Ikhlayel and L. H. Nguyen

and search for solutions on all temporal and spatial scales. For example, Martens (2006) highlighted the integrated
approaches made in research to implement policy in water and solid waste management that take into account
interactions between urban, rural, industrial and natural ecosystems.
Sustainability science and sustainable development are often viewed as essentially multidimensional topics that
are best analyzed and understood from an interdisciplinary perspective (Mog, 2004). By analyzing 281 articles from
Thompson ISI Web of Science, Lam et al. (2014) argue that there are few publications that touch upon both the
process of integration and the formation of a new discipline, namely sustainability science. Sustainability as a
general concept must focus more intensely on the integrative principle (Christen and Schmidt, 2012). Therefore,
it is crucial for academia to explore the contribution of integrated thinking to the current understanding of
sustainable development and the sustainability science discourse.
In this paper, the authors focus on the concept of integrated thinking in sustainability science as an approach that
combines different methods and solutions to specific sustainability issues across various temporal and spatial scales,
such as certain cities, countries, regions or across boundaries. Such an approach can accelerate the process of
sustainable development, making it easier to solve complex problems and achieve sustainability. Specifically, we
investigate the topic of integration and related elements to address the issue of how sustainability challenges are
addressed in practice and policy studies and how an integrated approach can better advocate solutions for such
issues in a modern society. Water resource management and solid waste management are two areas in which
integrated thinking has apparently taken root. We consider water and solid waste management approaches that
exemplify integrative thinking and review the interaction of different elements of such systems to identify the
sustainable policy implications that were previously addressed by Martens (2006).
We review the case of integrated water resource management (IWRM) from the viewpoint of sustainability sci-
ence, which employs an approach that looks at the interactions between the water resource base and socioeconomic
dynamics operating at different scales and with various levels of society. In the next step, we analyze sustainability
indicators in each of the selected cases in order to obtain a critical assessment of a project’s outcome. The policy
value generated from the reviewed IWRM projects is evaluated for the contribution they make to IWRM and local
and regional development. In this study, the evolution of IWRM in sustainability science is highlighted. We also
address integrated solid waste management (ISWM). We investigate waste management issues and their complexity
and importance. We review traditional waste management approaches, various ISWM definitions and why an
integrated approach is necessary in the context of waste management when developing future plans. We also
present a revision of existing definitions after looking at the current understanding of ISWM, reviewing various
research issues and selecting case studies appropriate for the aim of this paper. We also compare IWRM and ISWM,
addressing the similarities and differences between the two approaches. Finally, possible policy implications for
accelerating the process of sustainable development in regard to both issues are presented.

Materials and Methods

To gain an in-depth evaluation of the definition of an integrated approach to sustainability science, we took IWRM and
ISWM to represent two case studies. We then attempted to review articles related to each subject in several key aca-
demic journals. The reviewed journals were categorized into three groups: sustainability science discipline journals,
water resource management journals and waste management journals. The following periodicals were considered.
• Water Resources Management (WRM): 1987–2015, Springer, monthly
• Sustainable Development (SD): 1993–2013, Wiley, bimonthly
• The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology (IJSDWE): 1994–2013, Taylor and Francis,
bimonthly
• Environment, Development and Sustainability (EDS): 1999–2013, Springer, bimonthly
• Waste Management (WM): 2000–2015, Elsevier, monthly
• Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy (SSPP): 2005–2013, ProQuest, biannually
• Sustainability Science (SS): 2006–2013, Springer, triannually
• Journal of Sustainable Development (JSD): 2009–2016, Canadian Center of Science and Education, bimonthly.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Integrated Approaches to Sustainability Practice and Policy 469

From six of the sustainability science journals, EDS, IJSDWE, JSD, SD, SS and SSPP, a total of 349 papers were
selected and categorized based on their contribution to sustainability practice and policy. Among these publications,
the words integrate, integrated and integrating were mentioned in the titles, keywords or abstracts of 145 articles,
comprising nearly 30 percent of the total. Figure 1 shows the trend for publications related to integration in sustain-
able practice and policy research. The figure shows a general increase in the number of articles through a period of
17 years from when the first articles were published by the Journal of Sustainable Development in 1997. The majority
of articles citing the term integrate were found in Sustainable Development and Sustainability Science. The publications
indicate how, by nature, sustainability science has a solid emphasis on the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
component, which can contribute to the sustainable development of societies for different environmental issues.

Results and Findings

Integrated Water Resource Management
Definitions and Interpretations
IWRM is an empirical concept built up from the field experience of its practitioners (Hassing et al., 2009). IWRM
has been implemented over decades in many countries all over the world. However, there is no clear understanding
of what exactly IWRM means (Biswas, 2014).
As a concept, IWRM has been understood and implemented from many different perspectives. IWRM was first
introduced as an approach to incorporate the multiple competing uses of water resources at the 1997 United
Nations Conference on Water in Mar del Plata, Argentina. The concept was not popular until the Dublin Conference
in 1992, at which the concept gained popularity and was embraced by Al-Maaded et al. (2012) and Biswas (2008).
Thomas (2003) and Biswas (2014) define IWRM as an approach for sustainable water management that recognizes
its multidimensional character and multidiscipline and multistakeholder coordination. The IWRM concept shares
similarities in its approach to those taken in sustainability science, which recognizes that water issues have become
multidimensional in terms of time, space and integration between various disciplines and stakeholders (Thomas,
2003, Biswas, 2014). IWRM is not an end state to be achieved; it is a continuous process of balancing and making
trade-offs between different goals and views in an informed way (Thomas, 2003). Arguing the Dublin principles on
IWRM, Gain et al. (2013) proposed that ‘IWRM is an integrated form of sustainably managing water and associated
resources at the river basin scale involving specific governance forms that guarantee multi-stakeholder participation,

Figure 1. Number of relevant articles and years of publication in sustainability science discipline journals. [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
470 M. Ikhlayel and L. H. Nguyen

equitable access and efficient use of water resources. In this definition, Gain et al. (2013) emphasize the adaptive
capacity of IWRM in relation to climate change and aim to develop the current IWRM approach to be even more
adaptive and flexible.
To our knowledge, an IWRM definition from the viewpoint of sustainability science has not yet been considered,
even though IWRM and sustainability science both look at the interactions between the water resource base and so-
cioeconomic dynamics operating at different scales and various levels of a society.

The Multidimensional Aspect of Integrated Water Resource Management

IWRM uses the catchment as a management unit, implying that there are unique geographical characteristics
belonging to a given watershed that are not limited to the following viewpoints on water: energy flow, materials
or information, and other forms of matter (Jewitt, 2012). The hierarchy of the structure of a catchment is, therefore,
fundamental when identifying problems and implementing managerial strategies. Over the last few decades,
researchers and policy planners have been pursuing IWRM in various locations around the world and on different
levels of scale. Table 1 shows the locations and scales of some IWRM projects that have been implemented across
the world.
It can be observed from Table 1 that IWRM projects have been implemented mostly on local or regional scales.
The watersheds range from small projects surrounding the Appalachian State University campus and towns in
North Carolina, USA, and the communities in Ga District in Ghana, namely Oyarifa, Abokobi, Teiman and Sesemi
(OATS), to several districts in a particular region of a country. The largest scale IWRM project recorded is the one
found in the Nile river basin, which covers 10 East African countries.
A sub-basin level IWRM project was studied by Opare (2011), where water system management in four rural
communities in the Ga District of Ghana comprised the water schemes implemented in the Greater Accra Region.
The project’s success was largely due to the three-stage approach, which adopted an initial co-management
partnership between the communities, public agencies and a private consulting firm. Regional IWRM projects

Watershed unit Country/region Scale Source

Local Tianjin Industrial Park China 36 km2 Geng and Yi (2006)

Biliu River Basin China 2814 km2 Geng et al. (2010)
The Waas Floodplain Europe hypothetical case Haasnoot et al. (2011)
Tianjin City (downstream of China 11 200 km2 Bai and Imura (2001)
Haihe River Basin)
water supply system Ghana four rural communities in Ga District Opare (2011)
campus water system United States Appalachian State University (ASU) Cockerill and Carp (2009)
campus, surrounding towns
Bugri and Gagbiri Irrigation Ghana 51 hectares (Bugri), 95 hectares Jonah and Dawda (2014)
District (Gagbiri)
Regional Lower Amazon Floodplain Brazil floodplain ecosystem McGrath et al. (2008)
Jagannathpur Upazila Bangladesh Hoar Area, Sunamganj District Ahamed et al. (2008)
Msunduzi River Catchment South Africa 540 km2 Boakye and Akpor (2012)
watersheds Costa Rica eight watersheds participate Miranda et al. (2006)
in the voluntary environmental
agreements (VEAs)
Ndop Floodplain Cameron drainage basin on the Noun River Mbih et al. (2014)
Haigad Watershed India 9.5 km2, four villages Rawat et al. (1997)
Paraiba do Sul River Basin Brazil 55 500 km2 Ioris (2008)
Guadalquivir Basin Spain three irrigation farming setups in Rodríguez et al. (2002)
southern Spain
Upper Nene Valley England seven villages along the valley Kwolek and Jackson (2001)
International Nile Basin Eastern Africa 2.9 million km2, 10 countries Laki (1998)

Table 1. Watershed spatial locations and scales (the order is according to the project’s scale)

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Integrated Approaches to Sustainability Practice and Policy 471

aimed to empower localities to manage their water resources in a sustainable and cooperative manner. Such projects
were implemented in several village districts, with watersheds belonging to different administrative bodies that were
also sharing other common watersheds in larger regions of the country.
International IWRM faces the challenge of building agreements regarding the sharing of watershed resources.
For example, the Nile River Basin Commission is led by a committee that must deal with people’s growing water
needs while considering water quality protection, the efficiency of water delivery and the effectiveness of water
use. They also call for human resource development and technology transfers, because these factors are critical
for the proper management and efficient use of water resources in the Nile region (Laki, 1998).

Multiple Stakeholders in Integrated Water Resource Management

Effective management is a necessity, since IWRM should involve a range of actors who reflect the complexity of the
government system and the relationships between water, land and other resources. This leads to a diversity of
stakeholders at each development stage and generates a variety of benefits (Agarwal et al., 2000).
The biggest challenge in IWRM implementation is the integration of the different but related considerations to
reach the project’s ultimate goal. Various projects focus on different aspects of integration. Some studies attempt to
integrate water resource management with resource extraction and conservation, while others concentrate on
integrating technology, social factors and cultural factors with natural and ecological conservation for better
watershed management, as illustrated in Table 2. We found that in watershed projects at different scales with a
variety of integration subjects the actors involved were very closely related to the emerging issues for their
watersheds.
Ioris (2008) presented multiple barriers to the successful integration of socioeconomic considerations in the sus-
tainable management of water systems, such as environmental improvement and stakeholder collaboration
conflicting with regulatory reforms. IWRM policies may emphasize the reorganization of a river basin committee
with more flexible policy instruments but ignore the influence of social inequalities and political asymmetries.
Meanwhile, regional watershed management confronts a complex web of challenges that involve a diversity of
stakeholders. IWRM practice highlights the important role of local stakeholders, such as villagers, farmers, local
communities and authorities, while acknowledging the supporting roles of outside actors, specifically the private
sector, state authorities, academia, NGOs and donors.

Watershed scale Internal actors External factors Subjects of integration Sources

Local communities, villagers, provincial authorities, water resource abstraction Bai and Imura (2001),
farmers, fishermen, state authorities (water supply, hydropower Geng and Yi (2006),
government, generation), quality Cockerill and Carp
city authorities, management, flood control, (2009), Haasnoot et al.
private entities, climate change resilience (2011), Opare (2011)
enterprises, academia
Regional communities, NGOs, government policy planners, river basin, regional Rawat et al. (1997),
associations researchers, international watershed and floodplain Laki (1998), Kwolek and
(fishermen, farmers) NGOs, national donors and management: resource Jackson (2001), Miranda
the private sector, federal/state management, livelihood et al. (2007), McGrath et al.
government improvement, economic (2008), Ahamed et al.
growth, biodiversity (2008), Ioris (2008)
conservation
International ten country-level political and nonpolitical water quality, water Laki (1998)
representatives Nile River Commission delivery, water use
(authorities, policy
makers, researchers,
practitioners

Table 2. Actors and subjects of integration involved in IWRM

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
472 M. Ikhlayel and L. H. Nguyen

Integrated Water Resource Management Evaluation and Policy Implication

IWRM is implemented in a wide manner and encompasses all aspects of various sustainability issues that emerge
in watershed boundaries. Therefore, each project has a typical target and integration subject that results in a diverse
group of indicators. These indicators have been categorized as being physical, natural or sociocultural in nature, as
shown in Table 3.
The projects studied aim to integrate different indicators in order to achieve various outcomes. The integration of
sociocultural dimensions into project assessment indicates that the results of a given project put more emphasis on
its contribution to the development of the community and society being serviced. Thus, the community and society
are the key elements in making these projects more sustainable. Regardless of a project’s scale and integrity, most of
the IWRM cases support establishing a watershed management committee and developing mutual agreements
between stakeholders. The watershed commission can ensure the equitable sharing of water resources and resolve
potential water-related conflicts. An example of a local agreement is illustrated by the voluntary environmental
agreements (VEAs) in the watershed protection project from Costa Rica (Miranda et al., 2007). The evaluation
indicates that VEAs have been able to grow as powerful policy instruments that generate positive environmental
effects. Nevertheless, a full implementation of any agreement will take into consideration cooperation among all
stakeholders, which includes the exchange of information, funding of joint projects, enhancement of water quality,
equitable allocation, and socioeconomic and environmental studies. With transboundary watersheds, the settlement
of future water disputes must be done through mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial remedy, since
international water law gives no role to the joint management of such shared resources (Laki, 1998).

Integrated Solid Waste Management

Background
Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is one of the most significant and complex by-products of humankind.
Its importance underlies the fact that it is a day-to-day issue we deal with. The significant amount of municipal solid
waste (MSW) generated makes it a complex health, environmental, social and economic issue. It endangers public
health, including both residents and workers, due to improper management practices. This is particularly true in
developing countries. MSW poses significant environmental problems, for example, with the pollution of water,
air and soil (Calabro, 2009, Scheutz et al., 2009, Zeng et al., 2014). MSWM can be a social issue as well, since
residents will determine the social acceptance of the MSWM services in their own localities; and it is an economic
issue because of the management burden, which includes collection and final disposal, especially in low- and
middle-income countries. The amount of MSW being created is rising rapidly worldwide. A report written by
Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata (2012) and published by the World Bank highlights the enormous volume of
waste that was generated globally in 2012. The report estimates that the global MSW generation was approximately
1.3 billion tons for the year and is expected to increase to approximately 2.2 billion tons in 2025. According to the
same report, the per capita rates of waste generation are expected to rise from 1.2 kg per person in 2012 to
1.42 kg per person in 2025.

Sustainable Waste Management and Integrated Solid Waste Management

A sustainable ISWM approach must be employed and integrated into city waste management plans in order to
tackle the waste issues that have been described previously. The traditional waste management approach, which
relies on waste collection and final disposal, is no longer appropriate to manage waste effectively and cannot deal
with the rapid development of modern societies. Historically, public health issues were the main concern for waste
management plans (McDougall et al., 2001). However, today’s societies demand a waste management approach that
can deal with growing concerns over issues such as the mitigation of environmental damage, the improvement of
social acceptance and the optimization of economic costs.
Waste-related problems are driven by factors such as increasing population, rapid urbanization, industrial
development and changes in consumption patterns. The huge amount of waste being generated and the situation
with the traditional approach depending mainly on dump sites and landfills makes MSW an important
environmental issue. Moreover, natural resources are becoming scarcer, and energy is now more expensive, further
fueling reconsideration of the traditional approach. These issues emphasize the fact that ISWM is necessary to take

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
 IWRM projects
Lower Amazon Floodplain
Jagannathpur Upazila
Watersheds in Costa Rica
OATS water supply
system
Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Nile Basin
Haigad Watershed
ASU campus water system
Paraiba do Sul River Basin
Guadalquivir Basin
Upper Nene Valley
Tianjin Industrial Park
Biliu River Basin
The Waas Floodplain
Tianjin City
Table 3. Sustainability indicators to evaluate IWRM projects and policy outcomes
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
Physical indicators Natural indicators Sociocultural indicators Policies
– – land policy: local management Agro-extractive Settlement
initiatives and authorities’ interactions Project PAE model
– land use patterns local participation resource mapping, community-
based management
– water quantity and quality, payments for ecosystem services VEAs
degraded land, forest
protection area
operation efficiency – household connection rate, stakeholder community-based management
interaction
database collection and – legal and institutional agreements transboundary water development
sharing, water delivery, policies
environmental impact
resource utilization soil and water quality – action plan for sustainable
watershed development
– – flexibility, conflict, cooperation, synergy water resource planning committee
environmental parameters, – perceptions and motives of local amendment of new regulatory
Integrated Approaches to Sustainability Practice and Policy
hydrological data stakeholders framework
irrigation efficiency – income, expenditure, yield assessment framework, farmer-
initiated irrigation projects
– – environmental awareness, community project: Friend of the
local participation, cooperation in Upper Nene (FUN)
planning and implementing
short/long term
information system – economic instruments, capacity building policy framework for IWRM
monitoring databases – stakeholder engagement, compensation IWRM framework
– – costs/benefits, robustness, flexibility, sustainable water management
perception of change strategies
technology water quality lifestyles IWRM framework and
implementation strategy
473
474 M. Ikhlayel and L. H. Nguyen

into account waste recycling in order to preserve natural resources. The ISWM approach must deal with all of these
issues. It should be a holistic and sustainable approach, but it must be considered in context when developing waste
management plans for a specific city or country. The immense quantities of waste that are being generated consume
energy in terms of waste collection, which translates into an economic burden when the limitation of energy
resources is considered. The report by Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata (2012) shows that municipalities in low-income
countries spend most of their budgets on waste collection services. Table 4 lists the amount of waste generated
worldwide by level of income. It can be observed that dumping and landfilling are the most practiced waste disposal
methods in low-income, lower-middle-income and middle-income countries (the developing world). In the case of
high-income countries, various methods are utilized to treat waste (e.g., composting, recycling and incineration).
McDougall et al. (2001) explain the concept of sustainable waste management as a system that must ensure
human health and safety. It must be safe for workers and public health by preventing the spread of diseases. Besides
these prerequisites, a sustainable system for solid waste management must be environmentally effective,
economically affordable and socially acceptable (McDougall and Hruska, 2000).
Shekdar (2009) defined ISWM as ‘the selection and application of suitable techniques, technologies, and
management approaches to achieve specific objectives and goals’. Wilson et al. (2012) view ISWM as a framework
that ‘distinguishes three dimensions for analysis of solid waste management and recycling systems: the physical
system and its technological components, sustainability aspects (social, institutional, political, financial, economic,
environmental and technical) and the various groups of stakeholders involved’. According to Wilson et al. (2012),
ISWM has three components: public health, environmental protection and resource management. Brunner and
Rechberger (2004) breaks ISWM into a sustainable approach with four major goals:
1. to protect human health and the environment;
2. to conserve resources such as materials and energy;
3. to treat waste before disposal and
4. to utilize the precautionary principle.
ISWM is required mainly because materials found in the waste stream cannot be handled using the same
treatment method as other types of waste (McDougall et al., 2001). A combination of treatment methods can be
merged to manage MSW in an efficient manner. Such treatment options include recycling, thermal treatment,

High income Upper middle income

Treatment method Amount Percentage Treatment method Amount Percentage

Dumps 0.05 0.01 Dumps 44 32.4

Landfills 250 42.51 Landfills 80 58.92
Composting 66 11.22 Composting 1.3 0.96
Recycled 129 21.94 Recycled 1.9 1.40
Incineration 122 20.75 Incineration 0.18 0.13
Other 21 3.57 Other 8.4 6.19

Low income Lower middle income

Treatment method Amount Percentage Treatment method Amount Percentage

Dumps 0.47 12.5 Dumps 27 48.8

Landfills 2.2 58.51 Landfills 6.1 11.03
Composting 0.05 1.33 Composting 1.2 2.17
Recycled 0.02 0.53 Recycled 2.9 5.24
Incineration 0.05 1.33 Incineration 0.12 0.22
Other 0.97 25.8 Other 18 32.54

Table 4. MSW disposal by level of income (million tons; Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012)

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Integrated Approaches to Sustainability Practice and Policy 475

biological treatment and landfilling. Waste-to-energy projects can also recover energy from waste in the form of
electricity by supporting gas recovery from sanitary landfill sites and incinerators. The concept of ISWM is based
on the holistic management of solid waste. The advantages of applying an ISWM approach include (1) the ability
to handle the waste effectively, (2) the achievement of environmental benefits and (3) the optimization of any
associated economic costs (Ikhlayel et al., 2016). This idea can be illustrated in a waste management hierarchy,
where the optimal case starts from waste prevention followed by reuse of waste and then recycling. Traditional or
conventional waste management schemes are founded on the final disposal of waste (in sanitary or unsanitary
landfills or open dumps, in which case a sanitary landfill is the best option), where waste prevention and recycling
receive less attention. In contrast to these approaches, ISWM emphasizes waste diversion plans (e.g. reduce, reuse
and recycle). The waste management hierarchy for ISWM is illustrated in Figure 2, which appears widely in some
form across relevant literature.

Integrated Solid Waste Management and Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management Implementation
The concepts of ISWM and sustainability can be observed to some extent in the literature reviewed. For example,
Georges (2006) applied a data analysis method to the British Virgin Islands in order to explore ‘the utility of waste
as an indicator in Tortola in the British Virgin Islands’. The work describes solid waste management as an indicator
of sustainable development for the selected case study, and concludes that by following the concept of ISWM the
decision maker is provided with a more balanced picture of the island’s position on sustainability. Deutz et al.
(2010) employed the concept of ISWM in the design process of products by utilizing design theory. The authors
used the United Kingdom as a case study and found that ‘for eco-design to be effective, sustainable waste manage-
ment must be established as a functional requirement in the design process’. Ikhlayel et al. (2016) employed the
ISWM approach and the life cycle assessment (LCA) method to introduce an ISWM system in Jordan. The authors
proposed 9 MSWM scenarios based on ISWM to examine the most environmentally friendly and economically
viable alternatives to the current traditional system in the country. The study highlighted the numerous environ-
mental issues associated with the existing system and the environmental and economic advantages of implementing
alternative waste treatment technologies.
By taking recycling into consideration as a pressing issue in sustainable waste management and by seeking an
integrated approach, many researchers consequently focused their work on waste recycling. For instance, Holland
(2000) researched the recycling of domestic waste in the United Kingdom. The study explored the motivation for
individuals to recycle household waste and the environmental impacts of different methods of recycling. Holland
(2000) concluded that recycling has to be implemented as a starting point for greater awareness of wider and more

Figure 2. A holistic view of the solid waste management hierarchy (adapted from McDougall et al., 2001, p. 24). [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
476 M. Ikhlayel and L. H. Nguyen

complex environmental issues. The final recommendation was that life cycle consideration and greater understand-
ing in participants will improve the positive aspects of recycling and allow it to become a widely practiced activity
through which communities may move towards a sustainable future. Holland’s (2000) findings are important
because they bridge the gap between recycling practices and the creation of a sustainable society by viewing
recycling as a starting point for positive developments in the future.
It was interesting in the review process to look at the topic of waste management research in both developed
and developing countries. In the case of developing countries, the main problems that received attention were
those of waste collection and treatment. Research on developed countries mostly focused on the review and im-
plementation of zero-waste and waste-to-energy plans. The concept of ISWM is being explored in developing
countries, but it is rarely utilized, whereas it is regularly implemented in developed countries. This difference
can be attributed to the fact that developed countries have already established their ISWM plans to meet their
current and future needs. Based on the reviewed literature, the concept of sustainability is to some extent still
being expanded in developing countries with waste management issues. However, even though a considerable
amount of literature addresses waste management problems through the concept of sustainability, overall it is
not defined as well as the ISWM approach. The main concern in developing countries, especially in low-income
countries, is centered on waste collection and managing landfill sites as the major and the most preferred
waste disposal method. Unlike their counterparts, developed countries have already implemented waste
management plans that consider the most pressing issues and can typically adequately manage waste in
addition to including educational and public awareness schemes, accounting for waste separation at the source,
maintaining proper collection systems, supporting a variety of waste disposal options and implementing
waste-to-energy schemes.
By looking at the methodologies used to research waste management issues for both developed and developing
countries, we have found that LCA appears to be one of the major methodologies used. Other methods include
employing statistical analysis and mathematical modeling along with theoretical methods. Table 5 presents
examples of studies that follow the ISWM approach. In these cases, the LCA method is often used to measure
the environmental burden of various waste management processes (e.g. sorting, collection and final disposal).
LCA is also used to compare different waste management options for a particular city or country, because it is a
well-established environmental impact assessment method that can effectively evaluate the entire life cycle of a
particular product or system. In the case of waste management, it can examine and assess the environmental
burden of waste from the point of generation to its final disposal. According to Guinée (2002), LCA is a ‘compilation
and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its
life cycle’.
There are several LCA computer-aided tools to help design and assess ISWM systems, and they feature
user-friendly interfaces. Such tools include, but are not limited to, IWM-2 by McDougall and Hruska (2000), the
EASETECH model by Clavreul et al. (2014), the Co-benefits Evaluation Tools for Municipal Solid Waste by Dashti
and Doll (2014) and the WRATE software.

Integrated Water Resource Management and Integrated Solid Waste Management

The concept of IWRM was defined by the Agarwal et al. (2000) and has been applied in both the discipline of water
resource management and sustainability science with regard to integration among different sectors and scales.
IWRM attempts to integrate water as a resource with other relevant policies concerning topics such as water man-
agement and agriculture, whereas the sustainability approach would look at integrating water, climate, ecology, en-
ergy etc., with interaction between all sectors. In terms of time, the sustainable approach often considers future
uncertainties such as climate change and hence searches for long-term strategies that can help populations prepare
for change and adapt to future conditions (Haasnoot et al., 2011). Sustainability metrics have been applied to the sus-
tainability approach in water resource management, and they include considerations of the boundaries of a given
system, the time frame for a project and indicators to assess sustainability (Hermanowicz, 2008).
From the viewpoint of sustainability science, we define IWRM as an approach that manages water resources with
regard to the interactions between all relevant elements and ensures the integration of the four dimensions of

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Integrated Approaches to Sustainability Practice and Policy 477

Title Author(s) Method or approach Geographical location

Application of life cycle assessment (LCA) for Erses Yay (2015) LCA Sakarya
municipal solid waste management: a case study
of Sakarya
Assessment of municipal solid waste management Tulokhonova and LCA Russia
scenarios in Irkutsk (Russia) using a life cycle Ulanova (2013)
assessment–integrated waste management model
Developing a common framework for integrated Olley et al. (2014) Process Flow Diagram Nicaragua
solid waste management advances in Managua, (PFD)
Nicaragua
Environmental assessment of the integrated municipal Herva et al. (2014) LCA Portugal
solid waste management system in Porto (Portugal)
Improving integrated waste management at the Rigamonti et al. (2013) LCA Lombardia
regional level: the case of Lombardia
Integrated approach to solid waste management in Joseph et al. (2012) review India
Chennai: an Indian metro city
Introducing an integrated municipal solid waste Ikhlayel et al. (2016) LCA Jordan
management system: assessment in Jordan
LCA of integrated MSW management systems: case Buttol et al. (2007) LCA Italy
study of the Bologna District
LCA of local strategies for energy recovery from waste Tunesi (2011) LCA United Kingdom
in England, applied to a large municipal flow
Life cycle assessment of integrated municipal solid Tabata et al. (2011) LCA Japan
waste management systems, taking account of climate
change and landfill shortage trade-off problems
Life cycle assessment of integrated waste management Parkes et al. (2015) LCA United Kingdom
systems for alternative legacy scenarios of the
London Olympic Park
Perspectives for integrated municipal solid waste Papachristou et al. analysis based on results Greece
management in Thessaloniki, Greece (2009) of existing research
programs investigating the
evolution of MSW
Sustainable solid waste management: an integrated Shekdar (2009) proposal of a multipronged Asian countries
approach for Asian countries integrated approach
The holistic impact of integrated solid waste Liamsanguan and LCA Phuket
management on greenhouse gas emissions in Phuket Gheewala (2008)

Table 5. Examples of ISWM-based studies

watershed management: multidimensional consideration, multistakeholder involvement, transdisciplinary

participation and degree of resilience.
With the ISWM approach, we define and explain the concept as a systematic life-thinking approach that considers
the entire waste management system as a whole and incorporates different components of the waste process from
prevention to final disposal. It must aim to optimize current waste management practices by achieving societal
acceptance, reducing environmental burdens and increasing economic benefits. This integrated approach must look
at the waste management scheme from all perspectives, including existing practices, waste management agendas or
plans, society and stakeholder involvement, and environmental and economic assessment. It must incorporate a
number of ingredients, including waste prevention, waste minimization, a well-established separation scheme,
waste collection, waste transportation (including transfer stations) and waste treatment options (recycling,
composting, biogasification, incineration and landfilling) while considering material and energy recovery in order
to select the appropriate management option. Based on the current situation, a combination of the most suitable
possibilities can be used to manage waste and obtain benefits in the process. ISWM also considers the resources
available in a specific city or country, noting where there are land and materials in abundance or in scarcity.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
478 M. Ikhlayel and L. H. Nguyen

Multidimensional Multistakeholder Transdisciplinary criterion Resilience and adaptive

assessment capacity

IWRM spatial and temporal scales
ISWM social acceptance,
environmental impact
reduction, economic
optimization
stakeholder participation,
watershed management
committee
stakeholder participation
(society, government,
private sector, practitioners,
and academia)
natural, physical, and
sociocultural indicators
life cycle thinking,
emissions reduction,
resource conservation,
cost–benefit
climate change adaptation
pollution reduction
(emissions to air, water,
and soil)

Table 6. Similarities and differences between IWRM and ISWM

The similarities and differences between IWRM and ISWM are shown in Table 6. Resilience and adaptive capac-
ity in addition to stakeholder participation are points of commonality. They are all crucial in the fruitful establish-
ment of IWRM and ISWM approaches. However, it should be noted that the approaches still differ in their scope
and assessment criteria.
Regardless of the differences between IWRM and ISWM, both approaches have a strong emphasis on taking an
interdisciplinary approach to policy implications. They advocate the integration of different stakeholders in the
policy-making process and encourage active local participation in such projects. In order to achieve greater
sustainability practices, academia should collaborate closely with other people in different disciplines. Any
government involved must also promote sustainability in its educational programs in order to raise the level of
awareness among its citizens.

Conclusion
IWRM as a practice varies in terms of scale and is affected by watershed boundaries. These boundaries are often also
administrative boundaries. Small and regional IWRM projects emphasize the role of the local community and often
promote the empowerment of local villagers so that they will be able to actively participate in water resource
management. International IWRM projects, on the other hand, call for local and international NGOs, donors and
academia to support specific communities in their capacity building to yield efficient and sustainable water resource
management. IWRM demands a mutual understanding of and equal responsibility among the stakeholders in a
watershed agreement. To ensure the sustainability of IWRM projects, negotiations must be made through a
watershed committee. In the IWRM approach, sustainability is achieved by considering multidimensional aspects
and maintaining a resilient time frame that is able to address uncertainties. Regardless of the different approaches
taken in specific IWRM projects, the ultimate goal is to empower poor people, reduce poverty, improve livelihoods
and sustain economic growth in order to support the conservation and management of water resources.
With the idea of an ISWM, it must be noted that overall it is an emerging concept in many developing countries.
A number of researchers use the term without a clear definition, choosing instead to use the concept from a
technical standpoint rather than to define it. This basic step of getting to a shared meaning for the concept is
significant, because it differentiates between traditional and integrated solid waste management concepts and can
facilitate its sustainable development and implementation. ISWM must supplant the traditional approach when it
comes to responding to the demands of today’s modern societies. The traditional MSW approach can no longer deal
with the complex waste-related issues that current people are facing, and more importantly it will not achieve
sustainable growth. The ISWM approach must incorporate diverse components of MSW that have been shown to
work in order to achieve social acceptance, environmental impact reduction and economic optimization. LCA was
found to be a well-established, valid and widely utilized tool in the planning, design and assessment of waste
management in both developing and developed nations that have adopted an ISWM approach.
Integration is key to successful sustainability practices, because then many proven elements are built into a given
approach to ensure the effective management of water and waste. IWRM and ISWM share commonalities and

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Integrated Approaches to Sustainability Practice and Policy 479

contribute to the growth of societies in a sustainable manner by finding effective responses to today’s most complex
water and waste management concerns.
Our findings highlight the positive role of integrated thinking when it comes to solving issues associated with
water resource management and waste handling, which are two pressing concerns in the development of
sustainable societies. Addressing the two problems from a technical standpoint alone is not sufficient. For instance,
stakeholder engagement is crucial to attaining sustainable development. Residents, local authorities, governments
and academia must all be encouraged to participate in accelerating the development process in a healthy manner.
Technical solutions, when coupled with stakeholder participation, can lead to policy implementation that will
actually solve these issues and improve the present situation. Examples of policy implications include educational
programs to promote deeper understandings of and appreciation for sustainability and sustainable development.
A specific government can take actions to engage various businesses in the water resource and solid waste
management process. New recycling plans can be managed by recycling enterprises in the case of waste
management. Utilization of research methods such as LCA can lead to a better decision-making process and
therefore aid in the implementation of new policies. Another example can be seen with the public–private
partnership in the sphere of investment where local enterprises are encouraged by the government to participate
in providing sustainable water services.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the faculty members of the Graduate Program in Sustainability Science–Global
Leadership Initiative (GPSS-GLI) at The University of Tokyo: Professor Masafumi Nagao, Professor Tomohiro Tasaki, Professor
Miguel Esteban, Dr. Tomohiro Akiyama, Dr. Emmanuel Mutisya and Dr. Chiahsin Chen, for providing the authors with their
invaluable feedback on this work.

References
Agarwal A, Angeles M, Bhatia B, Chéret I, Davila-Poblete S, Falkenmark M, Villarreal F, Jonch-Clausen T, Kadi M, Kindler J, Rees J, Roberts P,
Rogers P, Solanes M, Wright A 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management. Stockholm, Sweden.
Ahamed T, Khan MIN, Takigawa T, Koike M, Tasnim F, Zaman JMQ 2008. Resource management for sustainable development: a community-
and GIS-based approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability 11: 933–954.
Al-Maaded M, Madi NK, Kahraman R, Hodzic A, Ozerkan NG 2012. An overview of solid waste management and plastic recycling in Qatar.
Journal of Polymers and the Environment 20: 186–194.
Bai X, Imura H 2001. Towards sustainable urban water resource management: a case study in Tianjin, China. Sustainable Development 9: 24–35.
Biswas AK 2008. Integrated water resources management: is it working? International Journal of Water Resources Development 24: 5–22.
Biswas AK 2014. Integrated water resources management: a reassessment. Water International 29: 248–256.
Boakye MK, Akpor OB 2012. Stakeholders’ participation in water management: a case study of the Msunduzi Catchment Management Forum of
KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Journal of Sustainable Development 5: 104–112.
Brunner P, Rechberger H 2004. Practical Handbook of Material Flow Analysis. CRC Press LLC: Florida.
Buttol P, Masoni P, Bonoli A, Goldoni S, Belladonna V, Cavazzuti C 2007. LCA of integrated MSW management systems: case study of the
Bologna District. Waste Management 27: 1059–1070.
Calabro PS 2009. Greenhouse gases emission from municipal waste management: the role of separate collection. Waste Management 29:
2178–2187.
Christen M, Schmidt S 2012. A formal framework for conceptions of sustainability – a theoretical contribution to the discourse in sustainable
development. Sustainable Development 20: 400–410.
Clavreul J, Baumeister H, Christensen TH, Damgaard A 2014. An environmental assessment system for environmental technologies.
Environmental Modelling and Software 60: 18–30.
Cockerill K, Carp J 2009. Leveraging opportunities for campus sustainability: a case study of water resources. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and
Policy 5: 28–37.
Dashti M, Doll CN 2014. The Co-benefits Evaluation Tools for Municipal Solid Waste. United Nations University, Institute for the Advanced
Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS): Tokyo. http://tools.ias.unu.edu.
Deutz P, Neighbour G, McGuire M 2010. Integrating sustainable waste management into product design: sustainability as a functional
requirement. Sustainable Development 18: 229–239.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
480 M. Ikhlayel and L. H. Nguyen

Erses Yay AS 2015. Application of life cycle assessment (LCA) for municipal solid waste management: a case study of Sakarya. Journal of Cleaner
Production 94: 284–293.
Gain AK, Rouillard JJ, Benson D 2013. Can integrated water resources management increase adaptive capacity to climate change adaptation?
A critical review. Journal of Water Resource and Protection 5: 11–20.
Geng Y, Mitchell B, Tsuyoshi F, Nakayama T 2010. Perspectives on small watershed management in China: the case of Biliu. International Journal
of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 17: 172–179.
Geng Y, Yi J 2006. Integrated water resource management at the industrial park level: a case of the Tianjin Economic Development Area.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 13: 37–50.
Georges NM 2006. Solid waste as an indicator of sustainable development in Tortola, British Virgin Islands. Sustainable Development 14:
126–138.
Guinée J 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standard, Kluwer: New York.
Haasnoot M, Middelkoop H, van Beek E, van Deursen WPA 2011. A method to develop sustainable water management strategies for an uncertain
future. Sustainable Development 19: 369–381.
Hassing J, Ipsen N, Clausen T, Larsen H, Lindgaard-Jørgensen P 2009. Integrated Water Resources Management in Action. Paris, France.
Hermanowicz SW 2008. Sustainability in water resources management: changes in meaning and perception. Sustainability Science 3: 181–188.
Herva M, Neto B, Roca E 2014. Environmental assessment of the integrated municipal solid waste management system in Porto (Portugal).
Journal of Cleaner Production 70: 183–193.
Holland L 2000. Recycling domestic waste: a proxy for environmental sustainability? International Journal of Sustainable Development and World
Ecology 7: 271–276.
Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P 2012. What a Waste: a Global Review of Solid Waste Management, World Bank: Washington, DC.
Ikhlayel M, Higano Y, Yabar H, Mizunoya T 2016. Introducing an integrated municipal solid waste management system: assessment in Jordan.
Journal of Sustainable Development 9: 43–53.
Ioris A 2008. The limits of integrated water resources management: a case study of Brazil’s Paraíba do Sul River Basin. Sustainability: Science,
Practice, and Policy 4: 4–11.
Jewitt G 2012. Can integrated water resources management sustain the provision of ecosystem goods and services? Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth 27: 887–895.
Jonah A, Dawda TD 2014. Improving the management and use of water resources for small-scale irrigation farming in the Garu Tempane District
of Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Development 7: 214–222.
Joseph K, Rajendiran S, Senthilnathan R, Rakesh M 2012. Integrated approach to solid waste management in Chennai: an Indian metro city.
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 14: 75–84.
Kates RW 2011. What kind of a science is sustainability science? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:
19449–19450.
Kwolek AVA, Jackson JI 2001. Floodplains and Agenda 21: the Upper Nene Valley Project. Sustainable Development 9: 165–174.
Laki SL 1998. Management of water resources of the Nile Basin. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 5: 288–296.
Lam JCK, Walker RM, Hills P 2014. Interdisciplinarity in sustainability studies: a review. Sustainable Development 22: 158–176.
Liamsanguan C, Gheewala SH 2008. The holistic impact of integrated solid waste management on greenhouse gas emissions in Phuket. Journal
of Cleaner Production 16: 1865–1871.
Martens P 2006. Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 2: 36–41.
Mbih RA, Ndzeidze SK, Driever SL, Bamboye GF 2014. The Bamendjin Dam and its implications in the Upper Noun Valley, Northwest
Cameroon. Journal of Sustainable Development 7: 123–132.
McDougall FR, Hruska JP 2000. Report: the use of Life Cycle Inventory tools to support an integrated approach to solid waste management.
Waste Management and Research 18: 590–594.
McDougall F, White P, Franke M, Hindle P 2001. Integrated Solid Waste Management: a Life Cycle Inventory, Bodmin, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
McGrath DG, Cardoso A, Almeida OT, Pezzuti J 2008. Constructing a policy and institutional framework for an ecosystem-based approach to
managing the Lower Amazon floodplain. Environment, Development and Sustainability 10: 677.
Miranda M, Dieperink C, Glasbergen P 2006. Voluntary agreements in watershed protection experiences from Costa Rica. Environment,
Development and Sustainability 9: 1–19.
Miranda M, Dieperink C, Glasbergen P 2007. Voluntary agreements in watershed protection in Costa Rica. Environment, Development and
Sustainability 9: 1–19.
Mog JM 2004. Struggling with sustainability – a comparative framework for evaluating sustainable development programs. World Development
32: 2139–2160.
Olley JE, IJgosse J, Rudin V, Alabaster G 2014. Developing a common framework for integrated solid waste management advances in Managua,
Nicaragua. Waste Management and Research 32: 822–833.
Opare S 2011. Sustaining water supply through a phased community management approach: lessons from Ghana’s ‘oats’ water supply scheme.
Environment, Development and Sustainability 13: 1021–1042.
Papachristou E, Hadjianghelou H, Darakas E, Alivanis K, Belou A, Ioannidou D, Paraskevopoulou E, Poulios K, Koukourikou A, Kosmidou N,
Sortikos K 2009. Perspectives for integrated municipal solid waste management in Thessaloniki, Greece. Waste Management 29: 1158–1162.
Parkes O, Lettieri P, Bogle ID 2015. Life cycle assessment of integrated waste management systems for alternative legacy scenarios of the London
Olympic Park. Waste Management 40: 157–166.
Rawat DS, Joshi M, Sharma S, Rikhari HC, Palni LMS 1997. Sustainable development and management of rural ecosystems in the Central
Himalaya: a case study from Haigad watershed. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 4: 214–225.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Integrated Approaches to Sustainability Practice and Policy 481

Rigamonti L, Falbo A, Grosso M 2013. Improving integrated waste management at the regional level: the case of Lombardia. Waste Management
and Research 31: 946–953.
Rodríguez MM, Sáez Fernández FJ, Aragón Correa JA, Ferrer EM, Ferrero NR 2002. Evaluation of irrigation projects and water resource
management: a methodological proposal. Sustainable Development 10: 90–102.
Scheutz C, Kjeldsen P, Gentil E 2009. Greenhouse gases, radiative forcing, global warming potential and waste management – an introduction.
Waste Management and Research 27: 716–723.
Shekdar AV 2009. Sustainable solid waste management: an integrated approach for Asian countries. Waste Management 29: 1438–1448.
Tabata T, Hishinuma T, Ihara T, Genchi Y 2011. Life cycle assessment of integrated municipal solid waste management systems, taking account
of climate change and landfill shortage trade-off problems. Waste Management & Research 29: 423–432.
Thomas D 2003. Integrated Water Resource Management: looking at the whole picture. Desalination 156: 21–28.
Tulokhonova A, Ulanova O 2013. Assessment of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Irkutsk (Russia) using a life cycle
assessment–integrated waste management model. Waste Management and Research 31: 475–484.
Tunesi S 2011. LCA of local strategies for energy recovery from waste in England, applied to a large municipal flow. Waste Management 31:
561–571.
Wilson DC, Rodic L, Scheinberg A, Velis CA, Alabaster G 2012. Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities. Waste Management
and Research 30: 237–254.
Zeng L, Zhu H, Ma Y, Huang J, Li G 2014. Greenhouse gases emissions from solid waste: an analysis of Expo 2010 Shanghai, China. Journal of
Material Cycles and Waste Management 16: 616–622.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sust. Dev. 25, 467–481 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/sd