Received: 29 July 2017 Revised: 19 September 2017 Accepted: 2 October 2017

DOI: 10.1002/bsd2.7

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Indicators for establishing and assessing waste management

systems in developing countries: A holistic approach to
sustainability and business opportunities
Mahdi Ikhlayel

885‐137 Higashifukai, Chiba, Nagareyama

270‐0101, Japan
Correspondence
Mahdi Ikhlayel, Ph.D., Chiba, Nagareyama
270‐0101, 885‐137 Higashifukai, Japan.
Email: mahdi.ikhlayel@ieee.org
Abstract
Waste management is a pressing issue for sustainable development, particularly in developing
countries. Its urgent nature is an outcome of the increasing waste produced and the poor
waste management in several developing countries. Waste is associated with negative environ-
mental impacts, dangers to public health, social acceptability, and economic aspects. Several
factors exacerbate the waste problem: inadequate waste disposal methods, mixing portions
of waste electrical and electronic equipment components with municipal waste, and informal
recycling. Other factors are a lack of awareness of the toxic nature of hazardous waste and
limited legislation to regulate and control the disposal of hazardous waste. Focusing on
municipal waste and waste electrical and electronic equipment, this article classifies the levels
of waste management and proposes 26 indicators for assessing and enhancing waste manage-
ment systems. The purpose of this research is to make a contribution to accelerating the
transition to sustainable development in developing countries and to highlight business
opportunities.

KEY W ORDS
indicators, integrated waste management, integrative thinking, stakeholders, sustainability,
sustainable development

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N ecological systems. Now waste management has emerged as a signifi-

cant issue for sustainable development (SD). Waste management is a

1.1 | Background
Waste refers to materials of little or no value to humans (Pichtel,
2005). In this context, disposal of such materials may be preferred
(Pichtel, 2005). Traditionally, municipal waste has been managed so
that it is isolated from the living environment, and therefore, it was
given a low priority. Massive quantities of generated waste as a result
of dynamic population increases, economic and industrial develop-
ment, and lifestyle changes have made waste management an urgent
issue. The environmentally safe waste management may always be a
problem because societies will continue to produce more waste due
to the drivers of their growth and the demands for developing modern
societies (Rada, 2016). As discussed by Kissinger, Sussman, Moore, and
Rees (2013), the resource use and waste generation in cities make
urban centers key contributors to global ecological change. For exam-
ple, carbon emissions and resource depletion cause severe stress in
complex problem with technical, socioeconomic, legal, ecological, polit-
ical, and even cultural components (Chang, Pires, & Martinho, 2011).
Therefore, traditional management approaches to this problem must
be revisited as they create unsustainable societies (Seadon, 2010).
In today's modern societies, an efficient waste management system
that isolates the adverse impacts of waste on the environment and
protects human health is a fundamental service that should be provided
by municipalities. Because proper management of waste requires the
active participation of residents, the public awareness levels should be
a concern for local governments. Therefore, an interdisciplinary under-
standing of the nature of waste issues is necessary when developing
sustainable plans. The question here is how to advance sustainable
waste management practices so that they will be appraised as a constit-
uent of SD. Various articles have been written about sustainability
research, SD, and indicators for measuring sustainability in different
domains, such as agriculture, water resource management, and natural

Bus Strat Dev. 2018;1:31–42. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bsd2 Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment 31
32
resources management. However few studies discuss waste from a sus-
tainable approach founded on a holistic view and indicators assessment.
Further, sustainability indicators to assess waste management plans
have seldom been examined in the literature. For any city, country, or
region, sustainability indicators should be developed to accelerate the
shift from traditional management approaches to an efficacious ones.
Existing research has investigated a wide range of waste manage-
ment‐related issues over the past 25 years. These endeavors are critical
to highlighting the weak points, improve waste management outcomes,
and examine alternatives. Nevertheless, a gap remains on how to bridge
these efforts to replace unsustainable practices and attitudes with
integrated action plans that sustain waste management. Given that, this
work addresses this gap in the context of developing countries.
1.2 | Objective
The study presented here attempts to build upon the work by
Ikhlayel and Nguyen (2017) published in an SD‐focused journal.
The study by Ikhlayel and Nguyen (2017) addresses the sustainabil-
ity challenge. The authors discussed how an integrated approach
can lead to finding solutions to complex issues for modern societies
in the SD context.
The presented work in this study seeks to propose sustainability
indicators based on an integrated approach for proceeding toward
effective management plans in developing countries. Such plans can
help to mitigate the impacts of poor waste management, accelerate
the process of SD, and improve people's lives. Therefore, this work
attempts to advance an interdisciplinary understanding of intertwined
elements between sustainability and relevant waste drivers. Thus,
drivers include waste generation dynamics, waste technologies, and
interrelated issues with economic development, environmental pollu-
tion, and society. The article highlights the differences between waste
management in developed and developing countries. It also highlights
the sustainability and business opportunities of waste management
for developing countries. As a result, the presented set of indicators
is expected to provide a measure of progress toward developing sus-
tainable waste management systems.
2 | METHODS
A systematic procedure was designed for conducting this study. The
steps performed are explained below:
1. Seventy‐eight peer‐reviewed articles that serve the objective of
this research were systematically reviewed. The articles discuss
topics related to municipal waste management (32 articles), waste
electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) management (22 arti-
cles), sustainability (8 articles), SD (11 articles), and sustainability
indicators (5 articles). The purpose of the review was as follows:
• Advance an understanding of the research gaps;
• Review the concept of integrated waste management (IWM)
in the existing literature and in the context of developing
countries; and
• Understand the sustainability indicators reported in the
literature.
IKHLAYEL
2. The articles published in international and peer‐reviewed journals
were retrieved from the Web of Science database.
3. The qualitative data analysis method was applied to build a the-
matic analysis of the relative content in the articles. Coding was
applied to passages in the articles to identify common topics.
The codes used include municipal waste, WEEE, e‐waste, informal
recycling, waste collection, waste dumping, open burning, indica-
tors, waste disposal, waste treatment, research objective, research
method, research key findings, and research conclusion. In the
next step, the codes were annotated with comments on how
the authors approached the topics and with a brief interpretation.
“Networks” of codes that represented connections between the
codes were created. The purpose of building the networks was
to gain a better understanding of the flow of information and
the relationships between each code. Each “network” was
assigned a “context.” A “context” is a group of “networks” based
on the discussion themes in the articles. Examples of “networks”
are health impacts, environmental impacts, and stakeholders.
Examples of “contexts” are sustainability, SD, indicators, and
geographical location. The qualitative data analysis procedure
was carried out using ATLAS.ti1 software to accelerate the coding
process.
4. Waste management status and issues in developing countries
from different regions were analyzed. Studies on those countries
are listed in Table 1.
5. Building upon the work by Ikhlayel and Nguyen (2017) and the
related publications reviewed in this study, the concept of IWM
as an approach of life‐cycle and integrative thinking was discussed
and presented. The concept was reviewed as a crucial step to
propose sustainable waste management indicators (SWMIs) for
developing countries.
6. The life cycle assessment (LCA) method was discussed as a means
to advocate the IWM and as an integrated approach to waste
management. More importantly, the environmental impact cate-
gories (hereinafter “environmental themes”) of the methods of life
cycle impact assessment (LCIA) were reviewed in the literature
(26 categories in total). Those themes were allocated to three
major indicators for the proposed SWMIs: damage to health,
damage to the ecosystem, and damage to the environment. The
overall procedure of the study is depicted in Figure 1.
3 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1 | Waste management in developing and
developed countries
Waste management remains a challenge worldwide, particularly with
respect to sustainability and SD. Major concerns with this include sub-
stantial amounts of generated municipal waste and WEEE; waste
reduction and reuse; and public awareness. The 2012 World Bank
report (Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012) showed that the world's cities
1
http://atlasti.com
IKHLAYEL 33

TABLE 1 Reference on the reviewed waste management status in exist or have not been established adequately. Further, the Basel
selected developing countries Convention has not been enforced in several countries (Tansel, 2017).
Country Reference In developed countries, for instance, EEA (2017) data indicates

Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Abu‐Qudais and Abu‐Qdais (2000),
Lebanon, and Egypt Mrayyan and Hamdi (2006), SWEEP‐
NET (2013), Tarawneh and Saidan
(2013), SWEEP‐NET (2014), Saidan and
Tarawneh (2015), Ikhlayel, Higano,
Yabar, and Mizunoya (2016), and Ikhlayel
(2017)
Indonesia Andarani and Goto (2013)
India Garlapati (2016)
China Zhang, Tan, and Gersberg (2010)
The Philippines Paul, Arce‐Jaque, Ravena, and Villamor
(2012)
Ghana Oteng‐Ababio, Melara Arguello, and
Gabbay (2013)
generate about 1.3 billion tons of municipal solid waste per year, the
amount is expected to reach 2.2 billion tons by 2025. With WEEE, a
report by United Nations University (Baldé, Wang, Kuehr, & Huisman,
2014) estimated that 41.8 million tons of WEEE were generated in
2014, up from 33.8 million tons in 2010, and only 4 billion people
are covered by national legislation (four out of every seven people).
In several developing countries, uncontrolled waste disposal, open
dumping, and open burning are practiced. Issues noted in the literature
include inadequate practices, poor infrastructure, lack of legislation,
and existing informal recycling practices. The economic burden and
environmental and health impacts are also a matter of concern. This
alarming situation does not necessarily apply to all developing coun-
tries as due to differences in their respective economic levels and
advances in offering educational programs. However, when these
issues are present, developing countries should take further—and
prompt—actions.
Tansel (2017) reviewed the challenges associated with the increas-
ing WEEE quantities. The author came to the conclusion that the han-
dling and fate of WEEE in various countries show significant
differences between developed and developing countries. According
to the author, one of the most commonly used waste management
options for WEEE is disposed in landfills. Several of those countries lack
adequate mechanisms to regulate WEEE, or such mechanisms do not
that the recycling rate of municipal and packaging waste has increased
notably. Recycling rates of municipal waste grew by 13% between
2004 and 2014, and recycling rates for packaging waste grew by
10% between 2005 and 2013. Also, according to the data, in 2014,
43% of the municipal waste produced in the EU‐27 and Norway was
recycled. In 2013, 65% of packaging waste generated was recycled.
In 2014, 24 countries recycled 55% or more packaging waste. These
high recycling rates for packaging waste compared to municipal waste
are a result of packaging waste targets being introduced, which
increased producer responsibility.
Implementing advanced technology to properly collect, manage,
treat, and dispose of waste comes at a high cost, and cost remains a
major challenge for several developing countries, particularly those
slow to establish advanced management systems for both municipal
solid waste and WEEE. Overall, advanced technologies represent
higher potential to protect human health and the environment. Besides
mitigating these issues, advanced technologies also provide lower
overall risk. Although less advanced or conventional technologies are
cheaper, they pose a high risk to both human health and the environ-
ment. Figure 2 depicts the relationship between technological
advances and the risk in both developed and developing countries.
3.2 | Sustainable development and waste
management
Over the past decade, SD has increasingly framed international
debates about environmental and developmental policy‐making
(Lafferty, 2000). Nevertheless, there are varying definitions of SD.
For instance, Martens (2006) explained that SD aims to provide the
fundamental needs of humankind without violating the natural sys-
tem of life on earth. El Haggar (2007) explained SD as a methodology
that attempts to encompass social, technological, economic, and envi-
ronmental aspects. According to El Haggar (2007), these aspects rein-
force each other to attain a “win–win” solution. Strange and Bayley
(2008) explained that SD as it provides a way to assess the situation,
set goals that will produce better results, and make the right choices

FIGURE 1 Illustration of the overall approach.

WEEE = waste electrical and electronic
equipment
34
about the direction to take. Hák, Moldan, and Dahl (2012) explained
that the concept of SD and the ability to measure progress toward
its goals have become immensely important for many professionals,
researchers, educators, planners, nongovernment organizations,
experts, policy analysts, policymakers, and the wider public.
With waste management, it is a complex issue in SD due to its
multidimensionality (cutting across the areas of environment, public
health, society, education, economy, culture, technology, and natural
resources). Defining sustainable waste management is critical for
developing solutions to these related issues. In this context, Chang
and Pires (2015) defined sustainable waste management as follows:
A method of waste management sciences in concert with
urban development, in which resource use aims to meet
human needs of daily consumption while ensuring the
sustainability of natural systems and the environment
through appropriate waste collection, treatment,
resources conservation, and recycling.
The authors stated that it is necessary to judge where the optimal
balance should lie among environmental protection, social well‐being,
and economic growth. Brunner and Rechberger (2004) cautioned that
a major goal of a modern waste management system should be to
ensure that the wastes of today's generation do not pose an economic
or ecological burden to future generations. Therefore, a sustainable
waste management system goes beyond the technical aspect of
managing the produced waste streams; it must protect the natural
resources.
Agamuthu, Khidzir, and Hamid (2009) described four groups of
drivers of sustainable waste management, specifically in Asia. The four
groups of drivers comprise three human elements (human, economic,
and institutional) and the environment as a single driving group. The
authors concluded that each driving group must be investigated in a
local context to ensure each nation agrees on its own sustainability
goals. Some environmental issues associated with waste problems
occur on a global level—for example, climate change. Others are on a
IKHLAYEL
FIGURE 2 Trade‐off between advances in
technology, cost, and risk
local scale, such as human toxicity; water, air, and soil contamination;
and other related issues.
Sustainable waste management can also create business and
employment opportunities, for example, through recycling. A sustain-
able waste management approach emphasizes resource use. Reused
waste is rich with several valuable materials and metals, which should
be put back into the supply chain. Business opportunities for develop-
ing countries exist and can be achieved through encouraging private
sector participation. Paper, paper packaging, glass, and metals such
as copper, iron, steel, and aluminum can be recycled. WEEE is like-
wise a valuable source for both nonprecious and precious metals.
However, determining what materials and metals are preferable for
recycling depends on several factors—for example, recyclable waste
in the waste stream in a country (waste composition or fractions),
waste separation practices by residents (as the value of recycling is
a function of waste mixing, e.g., the less waste separation, the less
recyclable materials, and revenues), and the cost of technology. Given
those factors, the materials and metals to be recycled should be well‐
examined to select the most beneficial one from an economic
viewpoint.
3.3 | Levels of management
From the literature review, waste management systems can be
classified into three levels: (a) the traditional level, (b) the integrated
level, and (c) the sustainable level. The traditional level is the one in
which the waste problem occurs, whereas the integrated one aims to
solve the problem. The sustainable level goes beyond integrated
management.
3.3.1 | Traditional level
The traditional level mostly aims to provide the highest possible collec-
tion coverage to residents and businesses in both rural and urban
areas. Dumping of waste is the most preferred disposal option. This
level of management aims to isolate produced waste from living
IKHLAYEL
environments rather than to establish environmental and public health
measures. In the traditional level, waste landfill or dumping is preferred
due to the low cost and fewer technical requirements. This level pro-
vides limited business opportunities including, for example, revenues
from waste collection, recycling, and job opportunities.
3.3.2 | Integrated level
McDougall, White, Franke, and Hindle (2001) discussed the concept of
the integrated waste management and its related elements. They argued
that the traditional approach to managing waste is no longer valid
because today's societies demand an approach that goes beyond the iso-
lation of the negative impact of waste disposal. According to the authors,
the alternative approach is IWM, which can reduce the environmental
impacts, optimize the associated cost, and achieve social acceptability.
The authors argue that it is required because the traditional approach
cannot deal with the entire waste stream; a combination of treatment
and disposal methods is necessary. The IWM approach aims to reduce
the environmental burden, reduce the cost, and increase revenues. It also
seeks to achieve social acceptance and preserve natural resources with
emphasis on energy production and materials and metals recovery from
waste. To achieve an ideal IWM, major ingredients are required, including
waste prevention, avoidance, and minimization. These ingredients are
subject to cultural and educational elements of the whole life‐cycle of a
product (production, consumption, and waste). The ingredients differ
from one society to another, and achieving an ideal waste management
system rests upon existing and traditional practices. Figure 3 illustrates
the overall processes required for the IWM system.
The IWM approach is summarized by Ikhlayel and Nguyen (2017),
who delineated the following characteristics of an IWM approach:
1. The approach should take the entire life‐cycle of waste into
consideration.
2. It should consider all the elements of a waste management
system, from prevention to final disposal.
FIGURE 3 The overall processes required for the integrated waste management system
35
3. It must integrate various management, treatment, and disposal
technologies. They should be examined with various aspects so
that the best available technologies can be selected.
4. It must achieve societal acceptance, reduce environmental
burdens, and increase economic benefits.
5. It should look at a waste management system from all of its
aspects, both technical and nontechnical. For example, it should
consider existing practices, agendas, or plans, as well as society
and stakeholder involvement.
6. It should consider the resources available, such as whether lands
and materials are abundant or scarce.
7. It should select the appropriate management option for a city or
country based on the above considerations.
The concept of IWM is depicted in Figure 4, where the IWM is
presented with its three dimensions (called “contexts”): the
stakeholders, the aspects, and the management. Each context is
divided into “elements.” For instance, the elements of “stakeholders”
are government, local authorities, society, and so forth. The context
of “aspects” includes environmental impact reduction, economic cost
optimization, and public health protection. The “management” context
in the technical dimension involves waste avoidance and reduction,
waste separation and collection, energy recovery, and disposal. The
IWM starts with determining the goals and identifying the drivers
and challenges for successful implementation. Next, policy instruments
are developed, and then the IWM is implemented. An IWM system
should be monitored and evaluated in each phase of the implementa-
tion process. The relationship between the dimensions is, to some
extent, complicated due to the need for several supporting elements,
the participatory process, and the interactions between each element.
An instance of such an interaction is as follows:
• Public health requires regulations and enforcement.
36
FIGURE 4 Illustration of the IWM concept
• Environmental aspects require regulations, environmental, and
economic instruments.
• Waste avoidance, reduction, and reuse require elements with
sophisticated interaction: individuals', communities', and society's
active participation. Social instruments are crucial, as are the
environmental and economic instruments.
3.4 | Life cycle assessment
Allesch and Brunner (2014) conducted a literature review on evalua-
tion methods to support decisions regarding waste management. Their
study analyzed 151 articles. The authors found the most employed
methods are: benchmarking, cost‐benefit analysis, cost‐effectiveness
analysis, eco‐efficiency analysis, emergy analysis, environmental impact
assessment, LCA, life‐cycle costing, Multiple‐criteria decision‐making,
risk assessment, statistical analysis, and strategic environmental assess-
ment. In their review, the LCA method accounted for 41% of the
employed methods. Klöpffer and Grahl (2014) defined LCA as follows:
LCA studies the environmental aspects and potential
impacts throughout a product's life (i.e. cradle‐to‐grave)
from raw materials acquisition through production, use,
and disposal. The general categories of environmental
impacts needing consideration include resource use,
human health, and ecological consequences.
In this study, LCA is discussed as a supporting method to establish
environmental indicators for sustainable waste management. LCA
quantifies how a product, process, or system affects the environment.
For example, it estimates the emissions or pollutants from several pro-
cesses that enter the medium (water, air, and soil), such as carbon diox-
ide and methane emissions from municipal waste and heavy metals
from WEEE. The LCA method comprises four phases (a) the goal and
scope definition, (b) inventory analysis, (c) impact assessment, and (d)
IKHLAYEL
interpretation. In the first phase, the aim of the study and the system
boundaries are defined. In the second phase, resources and energy
are quantified with environmental emissions. These emissions are
associated with each process in the waste management system. In
the third phase, the inventory results are described in an environment
relative information (environmental themes). In the fourth phase, the
results of an LCA study are interpreted. In this study, the third phase
(the impact assessment) is utilized for proposing the SWMIs. Several
LCIA methods are used in the impact assessment phase in order to
evaluate a waste management system with respect to several environ-
mental themes (e.g., climate change, human toxicity, and ecotoxicity).
The LCIA methods of the LCA cover a wide range of environmen-
tal themes. These themes are classified into two assessment levels: the
midpoint and the endpoint levels. In methods such as ReCiPe 2008,
the midpoint categories are aggregated into three endpoint categories:
damage to human health, ecosystems, and resources. In this study, the
environmental themes at the midpoint level were reviewed in the sur-
veyed literature. These impacts were aggregated (allocated) to three
levels of damage: damage to health, damage to ecosystems, and
damage to resources. The aggregation of the midpoint to the endpoint
impacts was based on ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al., 2008) and IMPACT
2002+ (Jolliet et al., 2003) both of which are midpoint‐ and end-
point‐oriented. Table 2 summarizes the impact themes (the midpoint)
reviewed in the literature and their allocation to the endpoint levels
in this study. The endpoint themes are regarded here as environmental
indicators for waste management.
3.5 | Proposed indicators for sustainable waste
management
In this study, based on (a) the literature reviewed on municipal
waste and WEEE management in developing countries; (b) the
IWM approach; and (c) the environmental themes of the LCIA
methods, the SWMIs were proposed. The SWMIs aim to help
TABLE 2 The use of environmental impacts categories as appeared in the literature

Environmental Yi, Kurisu, Xiao, Zhang, Song, Wang, Song Parkes, Hong, Shi, Hong, Li, Dong Bernstad, la Cour Al‐Salem, Ikhlayel
IKHLAYEL

themes and Hanaki Liu, and Li, and Zeng et al. Lettieri, and Wang, Chen, and Cui et al. Jansen, and Evangelisti, and et al. Ikhlayel
(midpoint) (2011) Yuan (2015) (2012) (2012) Bogle (2015) and Li (2015) (2010) (2014) Aspegren (2011) Lettieri (2014) (2016) (2017)
Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Allocation to endpoint
wastea E‐waste E‐waste E‐waste wastea E‐wastea wastea wastea Municipal wastea wastea wastea E‐wastea environmental theme

AD ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ x
AP ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ x
ALO ✓ ✓ Damage to ecosystem
ET ✓ ✓ ✓ x
EC ✓ Damage to resources
EP ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Damage to ecosystem
quality
FD ✓ ✓ Damage to resources
FWAE ✓ ✓ ✓ Damage to ecosystem
quality
FWE ✓ ✓ ✓ Damage to ecosystem
quality
GWP ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Climate change, damage to
human health, damage
to ecosystem quality
HTP ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Damage to health
IR ✓ ✓ Damage to human health
MAETP ✓ ✓ ✓ Damage to ecosystem
quality
ME ✓ ✓ ✓ Damage to ecosystem
quality
MD ✓ ✓ Damage to resources
NLT ✓ ✓ Damage to resources
NE ✓ ✓ x
OLD ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Damage to ecosystem
quality, damage to
human health
PMF ✓ ✓ Damage to human health
PCO ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Damage to ecosystem
quality
PCOCP ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Damage to ecosystem
quality
x
RC ✓ x
TA ✓ ✓ Damage to ecosystem
quality

(Continues)
37
38 IKHLAYEL

ecotoxicity (FWAE); freshwater eutrophication (FWE); global warming potential (climate change; GWP); human toxicity potential (HTP); ionizing radiation (IR); marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP); marine eutro-
Note. Midpoint: abiotic depletion (AD); acidification potential (AP); agricultural land occupation (ALO); ecotoxicity (ET); energy consumption (EC); eutrophication potentials (EP); fossil depletion (FD); freshwater aquatic

phication (ME); metal depletion (MD); natural land transformation (NLT); nutrient enrichment (NE); ozone layer depletion (OLD); particulate matter formation (PMF); photochemical oxidation (PCO); photochemical ozone
establish sustainable waste management systems in developing
countries. They also aim to provide a baseline for evaluating waste

Allocation to endpoint

Damage to ecosystem

Damage to ecosystem

Damage to ecosystem
E‐wastea environmental theme

Damage to resources
management systems' performance and show how far a waste
management system is from reaching the targets. The indicators
presented here consider municipal waste and WEEE only. The

quality

quality

quality
indicators are lined up with the environmental, economic, and
societal aspects. They are aligned by considering the IWM concept
(Section 3.3.2). They were also allocated to the aggregated LCIA
Ikhlayel

method's indicators (Table 2). The concept of these indicators is

(2017)

creation potential (PCOCP); resource consumption (RC); terrestrial acidification (TA); terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP); urban land occupation (ULO); and water depletion (WD).
built on measuring the sustainability of waste management through
✓

(a) damage or improvement to the ecosystem, (b) damage or

Municipal
Ikhlayel

improvement of human health, and (c) damage or improvement to

wastea
(2016)
et al.

resources. In the presented ISWMs, both the IWM and LCA are
viable concepts to assess and enhance waste systems based on
Evangelisti, and
Lettieri (2014)

an integrative life‐cycle thinking and the holistic approaches. Such

Municipal
Al‐Salem,

approaches prove their applicability as it is discussed in the litera-

wastea

ture to consider the full life‐cycle of waste from generation to final

disposition. It also looks at the three aspects of sustainability
Bernstad, la Cour

Municipal wastea

through reducing the environmental burden associated with

Aspegren (2011)

multiple and negative impacts of waste handling. They also consider

Jansen, and

cost optimization through generating revenues as well raising the

social acceptability of existing and future management systems.
A sustainable waste management system should be founded on
a holistic approach. The major goal is the transition from a
Municipal
wastea
(2014)

traditional system that depends on landfilling (controlled, uncon-

Dong
et al.

trolled, or dumping) to one that prioritizes resource recovery

(revenues, materials, metals, and energy). The transition process will
Municipal
Hong, Li,
and Cui

wastea

be gradual and puts emphasis on waste prevention plans and

(2010)

utilizes landfilling for waste residues. The transition processes

✓

should be within a defined period with accordance to a government

and Li (2015)
Wang, Chen,

vision of waste management, part of a national agenda of environ-

Hong, Shi,

E‐wastea

mental plans and sustainability goals. Table 3 presents the proposed

SWMIs.
✓

✓
Bogle (2015)
Lettieri, and

Municipal
Parkes,

E‐waste wastea

3.6 | Prioritizing the proposed indicators and policy

The LCA study is a comparative study that included scenario development.

implications
✓
(2012)

This work proposes that prioritizing the SWMIs developed in this study
Song, Wang, Song
Li, and Zeng et al.

for certain countries and for driving policies depends mainly on the
✓

factors below:
E‐waste
(2012)

1. The most substantial concerns in a country regarding human

✓

health impacts, environmental aspects, cost, and revenues.

Xiao, Zhang,

Yuan (2015)

2. Considering and addressing the waste‐related issues at a national

E‐waste
Liu, and

level.
3. Emphasizing business opportunities. Such opportunities should
✓
and Hanaki

turn waste into valuable resources, offer private sector participa-

Yi, Kurisu,

Municipal

tion, engage stakeholders, and offer job opportunities.

wastea
(2011)
(Continued)

This study emphasizes that sustainable waste management goes

Environmental

beyond both the traditional and IWM approaches, particularly in creat-

(midpoint)

ing businesses and establishing or improving, for example, the circular

themes
TABLE 2

TETP

ULO

economy. Materials and metals of both municipal waste and WEEE

WD

should be put back into the supply chain with regard to both recyclable
a
IKHLAYEL 39

TABLE 3 Proposed indicators for sustainable waste management (environment, economic, social, and business)
Aspects Proposed indicators
(environment,
economic, social, Environmental
Number and business) Indicators Indicators' elements Indicator description damage category

1 Environment, Number of Informal sector Individuals or households are working in the Damage to ecosystem,
social, and people informal sector using inadequate recycling damage to human
business working in techniques, such as burning of plastic wires to health, and damage
informal extract copper and acid extraction to retrieve to resources
sector precious metals from printed circuit boards.
2 All Recycling rate Materials recycled versus Percentage of recycling practices in formal and Damage to ecosystem,
commodity and economic modern recycling facilities of materials (paper, damage to human
value plastic, glass, etc.), nonprecious metals health, and damage
(copper, aluminum, steel, etc.), and precious to resources
metals (gold, palladium, platinum, silver, etc.)
against their economic values.
3 All Environmental Goal setting, monitoring, and As described in Section 3.3.2, these are Damage to ecosystem,
management evaluation requirements for an IWM system. The damage to human
and policy progress in implementing a sustainable waste health, and damage
management system should be assessed in to resources
each phase.
4 Economic and Fees for Fees versus waste disposed How much residents should pay for the Damage to ecosystem,
environment collection collection service provided for both damage to human
services individuals and businesses. Higher fees might health, and damage
against waste reduce waste generated. Municipalities should to resources
produced ensure a full rate of cost recovery.
5 Economic Management Waste collected and An IWM should be able to optimize the cost of Damage to ecosystem,
expenditures disposed the entire management system. However, a damage to human
trade‐off between the overall expenditures health, and damage
and the environmental and social benefits to resources
might be considered.
6 Economic Revenues Recycling, energy recovery, An IWM should be able to generate revenues— Damage to resources
and cost recovery for example, the fees for the collection
services, implementation of recycling
schemes, energy recovery from controlled
landfill sites, and interaction plans. The clean
development mechanism might be a source of
revenues.
7 Environment and Access to Infrastructure Citizens should be able to access Damage to human
business disposal environmentally sound waste facilities. That health and damage
sound includes collection services, for example, to ecosystem
facilities deposit containers and a drop‐off recycling
center.
8 Environment Air quality Environmental management Percentage of areas with air pollution Damage to human
health and damage
to ecosystem
9 Environment, Sustainable Legislation Waste can be a source of business when, for Damage to resources,
economic, and business instance, enterprises are involved in the waste damage to human
business system. This aims to reduce the negative health, and damage
environmental impacts, engage the recyclers to ecosystem
into the IWM, and improve living conditions of
communities and societies. It also is regarded
as a means for sustainable economic
development.
10 Environment, Energy recovery Organic fraction, the Energy recovery is one element of an IWM Damage to resources
economic, and percentage of the paper/ system. It is a function of waste composition;
business cardboard fraction, and therefore, establishing a policy that aims to
caloric value of waste produce energy from waste should also
consider the waste fractions.
11 Environment and Environmentally Population growth rate and Waste managers should consider population Damage to human
business sound population density growth and its density when planning for an health, damage to
collection IWM system. ecosystem, and
coverage damage to
resources
12 Environment Methane Amounts of methane This indicator aims to measure the progress of Damage to human
reduction emitted from landfills GHG reduction from waste disposal. health and damage
to ecosystem
13 Environment Portion of Waste intensive Hazardous waste should be separated from Damage to human
hazardous consumption, GDP per municipal waste. Their negative health and health and damage
waste treated to ecosystem

(Continues)
40 IKHLAYEL

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Aspects Proposed indicators

(environment,
economic, social, Environmental
Number and business) Indicators Indicators' elements Indicator description damage category
capita, and household environmental impacts should be isolated in
consumption expenditure an IWM system.
14 Environment Reduction of Level of integration (meeting Environmental impacts mitigation is one of the Damage to ecosystem
environmental the requirements of IWM) major dimensions of IWM. It aims to achieve and damage to
impacts an environmentally friendly waste system. human health
15 Environment Reduction of Level of integration Health impacts should be eliminated. That Damage to human
health impacts includes for both residents and workers. health
16 Environment Soil quality Environmental management Percentage of areas with heavy metals Damage to ecosystem
contamination and other pollutants. and damage to
human health
17 Environment Percentage of Environmental management Practices such as open burning, open dump, and Damage to ecosystem,
uncontrolled uncontrolled landfill sites should be eliminated damage to human
disposal and replaced by environmentally sound health, and damage
disposal option. to resources
18 Environment Waste treated Population growth rate and Waste produced per person should be treated. Damage to ecosystem,
per population density damage to human
population health, and damage
to resources
19 Environment Water quality Environmental management Percentage of areas with heavy metal Damage to ecosystem,
contamination and other pollutants and damage to human
access to improved water source. health, and damage
to resources
20 Social and Employment Unemployment IWM should be able to create employment Damage to ecosystem,
business opportunities opportunities that include workers, experts, damage to human
and practitioners health, and damage
to resources
21 Social, Waste value Degree of waste type mixing The value of waste is a function of “degree of Damage to resources
environment, mixing”.
and business
22 Social and Waste Waste intensive Amounts generated per person per year. Damage to ecosystem,
environment generation consumption, GDP per damage to human
per capita capita, and household health, and damage
consumption expenditure to resources
23 Social and Waste Waste intensive Governments should promote education and Damage to ecosystem,
environment minimization consumption, GDP per awareness toward the environment and damage to human
capita, and household waste. Education for SD needs to be health, and damage
consumption expenditure considered. to resources
24 Social and Waste Waste intensive Waste management policies should promote Damage to ecosystem,
environment prevention consumption, gap per waste minimization and reduction. damage to human
capita, and household health, and damage
consumption expenditure to resources
25 Social Working Level of integration IWM should ensure safe working conditions for Damage to human
conditions workers. health
26 Social, Waste diversion Waste intensive IWM aims to divert waste going to landfills. Damage to ecosystem,
environment, consumption, GDP per damage to human
and business capita, and household health, and damage
consumption expenditure to resources

Note. IWM = integrated waste management; GDP = gross domestic product; GHG = greenhouse gas.

materials and the financial benefits. In this regard, a sustainable waste
management scheme should improve the livelihood and quality of life
of residents and workers, from health and environmental problems to
business aspects. Thus, policy agenda should be set based on the most
pressing issues in each country (health, economic, environmental, and
social), the available resources, and the governmental vision of a waste
management model. Sustainability is a broad concept and should be
defined at the local level with the most pressing environmental issues
addressed by each country. Therefore, in this sense, the goal of
sustainable waste management should be to achieve environmental
stability, economic profit, business and employment opportunities,
and a socially accepted system.
4 | CO NC LUSIO NS
Proper waste management schemes are urgently needed in several
developing countries. Such schemes can protect human health and
the environment and improve quality of life. Further, they advance
sustainable practices so that waste management will be appraised as
IKHLAYEL
a constituent of SD. To achieve that, sustainability indicators of waste
management are required. Several indicators for measuring sustainabil-
ity in different domains exist. However, indicators to assess waste
management plans founded on integrated and holistic views have sel-
dom been considered in the existing literature. Such indicators should
be designed to accelerate the shift from traditional management
approaches to efficacious ones. This work, therefore, aimed to propose
suitable indicators for waste management for developing countries,
focusing on municipal waste and WEEE. A systematic approach was
designed to propose 26 indicators, which serve as a baseline for eval-
uating the performance of national waste management plans. They aim
to support sustainable waste management planning and to show how
far countries are from attaining waste management targets. Further,
they are expected to contribute to accelerating the transition to SD
in those countries.
This study classified waste management into three levels. The first
is the traditional level in which the waste problem occurs in developing
countries. The second is the integrated level that seeks to tackle the
problem. The third is the sustainable level that goes beyond the
integrated one. The sustainable level is a wider holistic level that con-
siders waste management as a part of the SD process or the transition
toward sustainable societies. This level provides wider opportunities
for business, in which it intersects with the waste aspects (health,
environmental, economic, and social). Although the economic aspect
is a crucial part of the integrated level in which it mainly focuses on
cost reduction and revenue generation, the sustainable level aims to
create business and employment opportunities. This classification can
help decision‐makers to plan for an appropriate system, which can be
achieved through the corresponding implementation level that meets
a country's local conditions and policies. A waste management strategy
that shifts the existing municipal improper waste and WEEE to a
suitable, cost‐effective, and culturally considered alternative can be
achieved gradually over time. The study concluded that the best solu-
tion might be a trade‐off between environmental, economic, and social
aspects regarding the local conditions of each country. The findings of
this study will likely highlight approaches to establishing or improving
existing waste systems in several developing countries—emphasizing
the need to take action and help define real working strategies. Such
strategies can be measured and monitored through the set of
proposed indicators developed in this work.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author extends his gratitude to the two reviewers of this paper.
The author acknowledges their contribution in advancing this work
through constructive feedback.
RE FE R ENC E S
Abu‐Qudais, M.d., & Abu‐Qdais, H. A. (2000). Energy content of municipal
solid waste in Jordan and its potential utilization. Energy Conversion and
Management, 41, 983–991.
Agamuthu, P., Khidzir, K. M., & Hamid, F. S. (2009). Drivers of sustainable
waste management in Asia. Waste Manag Res, 27, 625–633.
Allesch, A., & Brunner, P. H. (2014). Assessment methods for solid waste
management: A literature review. Waste Manag Res, 32, 461–473.
Al‐Salem, S. M., Evangelisti, S., & Lettieri, P. (2014). Life cycle assessment of
alternative technologies for municipal solid waste and plastic solid
41
waste management in the Greater London area. Chemical Engineering
Journal, 244, 391–402.
Andarani, P., & Goto, N. (2013). Potential e‐waste generated from
households in Indonesia using material flow analysis. Journal of Material
Cycles and Waste Management, 16, 306–320.
Baldé, C.P., Wang, F., Kuehr, R. & Huisman, J. 2014. The global e‐waste
monitor: Quantities, flows, and resources. Bonn, Germany: Bonn.
Bernstad, A., la Cour Jansen, J., & Aspegren, H. (2011). Life cycle assess-
ment of a household solid waste source separation programme: A
Swedish case study. Waste Management & Research, 29, 1027–1042.
Brunner, P., & Rechberger, H. (2004). Practical handbook of material flow
analysis. Florida: CRC Press LLC.
Chang, N.‐B., & Pires, A. (2015). Sustainable solid waste management: A
systems engineering approach. New Jersey: Wiley‐IEEE Press.
Chang, N.‐B., Pires, A., & Martinho, G. (2011). Empowering systems analysis
for solid waste management: Challenges, trends, and perspectives. Crit-
ical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 41, 1449–1530.
Dong, J., Chi, Y., Zou, D., Fu, C., Huang, Q., & Ni, M. (2014). Comparison of
municipal solid waste treatment technologies from a life cycle perspec-
tive in China. Waste Manag Res, 32, 13–23.
EEA (2017). Waste recycling. Denmark: European Environment Agency
(EEA) Available: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data‐and‐maps/indica-
tors/waste‐recycling‐1/assessment
El Haggar, S. (2007). Sustainable industrial design and waste management:
Cradle‐to‐cradle for sustainable development. Burlington, USA: Academic
Press.
Garlapati, V. K. (2016). E‐waste in India and developed countries: Manage-
ment, recycling, business and biotechnological initiatives. Renewable &
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 874–881.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J. &
Zelm, R. 2008. ReCiPe 2008, a life cycle impact assessment method
which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and
the endpoint level, Report I: Characterisation. First edition (version
1.08) ed. Leiden.
Hák, T., Moldan, B., & Dahl, A. L. (2012). Sustainability indicators: A scientific
assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Hong, J., Li, X., & Cui, Z. (2010). Life cycle assessment of four municipal
solid waste management scenarios in China. Waste Management, 30,
2362–2369.
Hong, J., Shi, W., Wang, Y., Chen, W., & Li, X. (2015). Life cycle assessment
of electronic waste treatment. Waste Management, 38, 357–365.
Hoornweg, D., & Bhada‐Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: A global review of
solid waste management. Washington: World Bank.
Ikhlayel, M. (2017). Environmental impacts and benefits of state‐of‐the‐art
technologies for E‐waste management. Waste Management, 68, 458–474.
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.
Ikhlayel, M., & Nguyen, L. H. (2017). Integrated approaches to water resource
and solid waste management for sustainable development. Sustainable
Development. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.1683/full
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., &
Rosenbaum, R. (2003). IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact
assessment methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assess-
ment, 8, 324.
Kissinger, M., Sussman, C., Moore, J., & Rees, W. (2013). Accounting for the
ecological footprint of materials in consumer goods at the urban scale.
Sustainability, 5, 1960–1973.
Klöpffer, W., & Grahl, B. (2014). Life cycle assessment (LCA): A guide to best
practice. Weinheim, Germany: John Wiley & Sons.
Lafferty, W. M. (2000). Implementing sustainable development: Strategies and
initiatives in high consumption societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martens, P. (2006). Sustainability: Science or fiction? Sustainability: Science,
Practice, & Policy, 2, 36–41.
42
McDougall, F., White, P., Franke, M., & Hindle, P. (2001). Integrated solid
waste management: A life cycle inventory. Bodmin, Cornwall: Wiley‐
Blackwell.
Mrayyan, B., & Hamdi, M. R. (2006). Management approaches to integrated
solid waste in industrialized zones in Jordan: A case of Zarqa City.
Waste Manag, 26, 195–205.
Oteng‐Ababio, M., Melara Arguello, J. E., & Gabbay, O. (2013). Solid waste
management in African cities: Sorting the facts from the fads in Accra,
Ghana. Habitat International, 39, 96–104.
Parkes, O., Lettieri, P., & Bogle, I. D. (2015). Life cycle assessment of
integrated waste management systems for alternative legacy scenarios
of the London Olympic Park. Waste Manag, 40, 157–166.
Paul, J. G., Arce‐Jaque, J., Ravena, N., & Villamor, S. P. (2012). Integration of
the informal sector into municipal solid waste management in the
Philippines—What does it need? Waste Management, 32, 2018–2028.
Pichtel, J. (2005). Waste management practices: Municipal, hazardous, and
industrial. Boca Raton, USA: CRC press.
Rada, E. C. (2016). Solid waste management: Policy and planning for a sustain-
able society. New Jersey, USA: Apple Academic Press.
Saidan, M., & Tarawneh, A. (2015). Estimation of potential e‐waste genera-
tion in Jordan. Ekoloji, 24, 60–64.
Seadon, J. K. (2010). Sustainable waste management systems. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 18, 1639–1651.
Song, Q., Wang, Z., Li, J., & Zeng, X. (2012). Life cycle assessment of TV sets
in China: A case study of the impacts of CRT monitors. Waste Manag,
32, 1926–1936.
Strange, T., & Bayley, A. (2008). OECD insights sustainable development
linking economy, society, environment: Linking economy, society,
environment. Paris: OECD Publishing.
IKHLAYEL
SWEEP‐NET (2013). Country report on the solid waste management in
Jordan. The Regional Solid Waste Exchange of Information and Exper-
tise Network in Mashreq and Maghreb Countries (SWEEP‐NET).
SWEEP‐Net (2014). The solid waste management situation in Mashreq and
Maghreb Countries: Update on the challenges and opportunities. Tunis:
The Regional Solid Waste Exchange of Information and Expertise
Network in Mashreq and Maghreb Countries (SWEEP‐NET).
Tansel, B. (2017). From electronic consumer products to e‐wastes: Global
outlook, waste quantities, recycling challenges. Environ Int, 98, 35–45.
Tarawneh, A., & Saidan, M. (2013). Households awareness, behaviors, and
willingness to participate in e‐waste management in Jordan. Interna-
tional Journal of Ecosystem, 3, 124–131.
Xiao, R., Zhang, Y., Liu, X., & Yuan, Z. (2015). A life‐cycle assessment of
household refrigerators in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 95,
301–310.
Yi, S., Kurisu, K. H., & Hanaki, K. (2011). Life cycle impact assessment and
interpretation of municipal solid waste management scenarios based
on the midpoint and endpoint approaches. The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 16, 652–668.
Zhang, D. Q., Tan, S. K., & Gersberg, R. M. (2010). Municipal solid waste
management in China: Status, problems and challenges. J Environ
Manage, 91, 1623–1633.
How to cite this article: Ikhlayel M. Indicators for establishing
and assessing waste management systems in developing coun-
tries: A holistic approach to sustainability and business oppor-
tunities. Bus Strat Dev. 2018;1:31–42. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bsd2.7