Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2004) 141–153

Re-defining waste, the concept of ownership

and the role of waste management
Eva Pongrácz∗ , Veikko J. Pohjola
Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 4300,
FIN-90014 Oulun yliopisto, Finland

Received 10 January 2003; received in revised form 22 March 2003; accepted 23 March 2003

Abstract

In an attempt to construct a new agenda for waste management, this paper explores the complex
relationship between definitions of waste and their subsequent impact on its ownership and man-
agement. A range of internationally accepted definitions for waste are analysed and it is concluded
that they are inadequate in scope in an attempt to describe waste. The philosophical ramifications
inherent in such definitions mean that they are not capable of constructing a system that by its
very nature results in a sustainable waste management system. This paper explores the concept of
waste and a new waste taxonomy is proposed, based on the reason for waste creation, this has pro-
found implications for ownership which in itself often dictates which waste management options
are preferentially adopted by a given community. The role of legislation in producing monitoring
systems for the transfer of ownership as well as abandonment of ownership is analysed. The new
agenda for waste management focuses upon the development of more appropriate, sustainable defi-
nitions so that what is now commonly perceived as being waste will in fact be increasingly seen as
resource-rich, ‘non-waste’. To avoid obstacles to resource conservation due to materials being consid-
ered waste, a definition for non-waste is introduced. Finally, a new definition for waste management
is proposed, one that has profound implications for the introduction of a more sustainable waste
practice.
© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Waste; Non-waste; Waste management; Ownership; Purpose; Performance; Structure

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +358-8-553-2345; fax: +358-8-553-2369.

E-mail address: eva.pongracz@oulu.fi (E. Pongrácz).

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0921-3449(03)00057-0
142 E. Pongrácz, V.J. Pohjola / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2004) 141–153

1. Introduction

Definition is said to be the most obvious, and perhaps the only adequate method of
characterising a scientific concept (Hempel, 1966). To some extent, a concept without a
definition is not even a concept, it is literally meaningless (Martin and Odell, 1995). The
precise definition of waste is seemingly trivial, but vitally important. Recycling companies
often find the definition of waste an obstacle to environmental protection. In their opinion,
as long as someone is prepared to purchase material, it is inaccurate to label it ‘waste’
(Bontoux and Leone, 1997). The concept of waste, and its definition, is far from being
obvious. Table 1 summarises some definitions of waste.
The common factor seen in these definitions is that waste is something that the holder
has disposed of/discarded or is going to dispose of/discard. Principally, both ‘dispose’ and
‘discard’ mean ‘abandonment’, perhaps ‘disposal’ is more putting it in a suitable place,
while discard has the connotation of being useless or undesirable—‘tossed aside’. It was
assumed that the purpose behind the use of the expression ‘discard’ instead of ‘disposal’
by the EU Directive was to broaden its reach, and include the widest possible acts of
abandonment of things—with or without interest in the final destination of the discarded
things (Cheyne and Purdue, 1995).
An interesting approach is to try to replace the term ‘waste’ with ‘a thing that the holder
discarded/intends to discard’. ‘Minimising the amount of things that the holder intends to
discard’ does not appear to embody the essence of waste prevention, it can be argued that it
encourages re-use, recycling or recovery measures. The type of definition, ‘a thing what its
holder discarded’ assumes that the waste is already there and the holder intends to dispose
of it, while the principal meaning of waste minimisation is to avoid waste production at the
source. This waste definition thus fails to support the highest ranking waste management
option.
The problem with the waste definitions listed in Table 1, is that they deal with existing
waste. Such definitions seem to accept the fact that people/institutions throw things away,
and therefore, existing legislation appears to be concerned with the ‘what to do with it’?
dilemma. This is understandable, as the main goal of European legislation on waste is the
protection of public health and the environment (European Council, 1991).
To conceptually describe waste is not the main purpose of these definitions. The la-
bel ‘waste’ does not necessarily mean that the thing is an ultimate waste, rather, it means
that it will be treated as waste. It appears that it is not feasible to come up with a com-
prehensive definition that unambiguously categorises every discarded object as waste
or not.

Table 1
Some definitions of waste
EU Waste shall mean any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex I which the holder
discards or is required to discard (European Council, 1991)
OECD Wastes are materials other than radioactive materials intended for disposal, for reasons
specified in this Table (OECD, 1994)
UNEP Wastes are substances or objects, which are disposed of or are intended to be disposed of or
are required to be disposed of by the provisions of national law (European Council, 1993)
 E. Pongrácz, V.J. Pohjola / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2004) 141–153 143

2. Effects of the current definitions of waste

The goal of European waste-related legislation is to protect public health and the envi-
ronment, and so far it has had a significant impact. However, given the lack of precision of
the definition of waste in the European Community’s Directive (European Council, 1993),
each Member State makes a different interpretation of the definition of waste with regard to
specific materials, resulting in trade barriers and the impact of this upon the recycling indus-
try is not to be underestimated. Under the present European definition of waste, recoverable
material is seen more as a potential pollutant than as a potential raw material (Bontoux and
Leone, 1997). As such, its movement between EU and non-OECD states falls under the
restrictive conditions of EEC Council Regulations (European Council, 1993), if they are
“hazardous”.
The essence of the legal definitions is that the owner does not want it; thus waste exists
only where it is not wanted (Cheyne and Purdue, 1995). Other definitions also explain why
the owner does not want it. A proposed definition for waste by Lox (1994) is:
“Either an output with (‘a negative market’) no economic value from an industrial system
or any substance or object that has ‘been used for its intended purpose’ (or ‘served its
intended function’) by the consumer and will not be reused”.
The second half of the definition suggests that the product was designed for one single
purpose, and as soon as the purpose was fulfilled it turns to waste. It may still be functional,
but it is no longer used nor re-used. It may also mean that the product lost its original
properties and cannot fulfil its function anymore. On the other hand, the first half of the
definition suggests that waste is a substance that no one ever wanted; it was created to be
waste. The obvious question is why?
Another problem with most of these definitions is that they do not suggest that creating
waste is an unsustainable option. It seems acceptable to discard something no longer wanted,
or to create something with no eventual long-term use at all.
Yet, there are other types of wastes. Gourlay (1992) considers the small amount of mustard
left on a plate at the end of a meal. This is neither useless, nor has it lost its properties. It has
become waste because the owner failed to consume it. Gourlay also points out other cases,
such as agricultural production and fish farming, when substances that fail to reach their
target (nitrates leaching into soil, food and chemicals fed to fish ending up at the bottom of
the sea) are wasted not because the owner has failed to use them, but because he used them
in excess. Both of these waste types defy ‘the owner discards or wants to discard’ class of
definition. Did the farmer want to discard useful fertiliser? Did the fish-farmer have any
intention of discarding perfectly useful fish food? Clearly not, but the fish food dispersed to
the bottom of the sea is unavailable to the fish; the fertiliser washed down the watercourses
is wasted and non-retrievable by any means. Why did they become waste?

3. Classifying waste

Trying to identify the collective mass of waste is problematic, its Structure has to be
disaggregated into sub-categories. The key question is: ‘what to choose as a basis for
144 E. Pongrácz, V.J. Pohjola / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2004) 141–153

Table 2
The ontology of PSSP language (Pohjola and Tanskanen, 1998)
1. Views the world as being consisted of real and abstract things, the former being descendant of the generic real
thing
2. Argues that the generic real thing—and thereby all real things—can be represented as objects having four
attributes: Purpose, Structure, State, and Performance
3. The above list of attributes is argued to be not only necessary, but also sufficient

classification?’ Most of the taxonomies classify waste either by their state (solid, liquid,
gaseous) or by their origin: processing, household, packaging, or cleaning wastes; demo-
lition and construction waste; emissions treatment waste; energy conversion waste. Or
they are classified by some of their characteristics, such as inert waste, combustible waste,
bio-degradable waste, hazardous and/or, nuclear waste. In so doing, we create a host of
sub-categories from the generic parent that only result in a diminishing of the concept of
the term ‘waste’.
The OECD sets categories for waste based on the reason why the holder wants to dispose
of it. We shall go one step back and classify waste by the reasons of their creation. The
methodology for such a classification of waste is based upon the concept system called
PSSPTM language (Pohjola and Tanskanen, 1998), which was developed at the University
of Oulu, Finland. The ontology of PSSP language is summarised in Table 2.
It has been argued that there are four waste classes (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1997). These
are summarised in Table 3.
To Class 1 belong outputs with negative market value, non-useful by-products, emissions,
processing and process wastes, cleaning wastes, etc. Class 2 is the group of single use or
disposable products; most of the packaging, single use cameras, disposable diapers, etc.
Class 3 comprises non-functional, obsolete products, old furniture, discarded household
appliances, non-rechargeable batteries, demolition waste, spoiled products, etc. Class 4
contains products used in excess, or simply products that the owners do not wish to own
anymore. They are functional and could be used, however, they became waste due to the
holder’s wrongful action, and often are non-retrievable. This last class embodies the essence
of waste.
The PSSP method of describing waste points out that creating waste is detrimental. The
description of waste as “a thing which the owner failed to use for its intended Purpose”,
highlights the fact that it was because of the (neglectful) action of the owner that the thing
became waste. When we describe waste creation as “a thing to which its producer has not
assigned a Purpose”, the action of the producer is the key determinant. At the same time,

Table 3
Classes of waste (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1997)
Class 1: Non-wanted things created not intended, or not avoided, with no Purpose
Class 2: Things that were given a finite Purpose thus destined to become useless after fulfilling it
Class 3: Things with well-defined Purpose, but their Performance ceased being acceptable
Class 4: Things with well-defined Purpose, and acceptable Performance, but their users failed to use them for the
intended Purpose
 E. Pongrácz, V.J. Pohjola / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2004) 141–153 145

we can also admit that waste of the type: “thing which is not performing in respect to its
original Purpose due to an irreversible structural change” deserve to be treated as waste.
However, this type of waste description does allow for the possibility of the waste being
turned into non-waste. In fact, it calls for an action to turn the waste into non-waste. A waste
description of the type: “a thing what its owner has discarded” (and thus possibly sent to
landfill) deprives the thing of the possibility of ever being useful again.

4. Re-defining waste

Based on the four waste classes, one can conclude that a thing is waste since:
• It has no Purpose, either because,
◦ it has never been assigned one, or because,
◦ it has not been assigned a new one after the first was fulfilled.
• It is not performing in respect to its Purpose, either because,
◦ a deficiency in its Structure, or,
◦ it does not have the proper State (=functionality).
• The owners failed, or did not use the thing for its assigned Purpose.
Using this concept, waste can be defined as (Pongrácz, 2002):

Definition 1. Waste is a man-made thing that has no Purpose; or is not able to perform with
respect to its Purpose.

One may ask that why a perfectly useful thing should be considered waste? Suppose
that the manager of a company is taking inventory of stock. The inventory finds aged spare
parts in the storeroom and the machines to which they apply have been replaced long ago.
Almost certainly, this company will discard these spare parts because they have no Purpose
for them. For a company who still has the machines to which they apply, these spare parts
are valuable and have a Purpose. This example also illustrates the dynamism of the concept
of waste. The same thing may be waste or non-waste for different groups, in different places
and at different times.

5. The concept of ownership

The concept of ‘ownership’ has been used in proceeding sections (Class 4 (Table 3) type
of waste). The waste definitions of Table 1 also suggest that waste is a thing that has been
discarded by its holder. A useful thing can turn to waste because its owner ceded owner-
ship. The concept of ownership has proven to have a particular importance in recognising
waste, and it has been defined as (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1999a):

Definition 2. Ownership over a thing can be defined as a right and a responsibility to act
upon the thing, that is, to manipulate the properties of the thing.
146 E. Pongrácz, V.J. Pohjola / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2004) 141–153

Hohfeld, suggests that rights, privileges, powers and immunities constitute a comprehen-
sive general classification of legal ‘rights’ in the generic sense. It was, however, pointed out
that ‘rights’ correlates with ‘duty’; and ‘power’ with ‘liability’ (Hohfeld, 1919).
It can be argued that waste can be recognised either as a thing with a given Purpose but
without an owner, or simply as a thing without a specified Purpose. Waste as outlined in
Definition 1 can be further refined to (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1999a):

Definition 3. Waste is a man-made thing, which in a given time and place, in its actual
Structure and State, is not useful to its owner, or an output that does not have any owner.

6. Transfer of ownership

Individuals may give up their ownership over an object because the reason(s) that caused
them to acquire it are no longer operative. The object may not perform in accordance with
its Purpose, while the loss of performance may be due to a fault in Structure or State, or it
might be argued that the thing does no longer have a Purpose. Ownership may, however, be
transferred through sale of the object in a commercial transaction. The Economic Theory of
Property suggests that transfer-ring ownership by economic transaction happens only when
the costs of the transaction are less than the gained profit (Cooter and Ulen, 1996). If a buyer
cannot be found for the unwanted object with expenditures less than the expected benefit,
then it may simply be abandoned or consigned to a waste stream. To act as responsible
owners, consumers should opt for durable products as opposed to short-life, or single-use
ones. They should look for an opportunity to donate or trade still useful objects. As a final
option, owners should support waste recovery systems that ensure that waste is utilised
(Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1999b).

7. Legal impediments to abandoning ownership

Ownership in legislation brings to mind copyrights and ownership of intellectual prop-

erty. Authors will, generally, defend their ownership of their intellectual creations: patents,
artistic or literary works, trademarks, etc. Producers of material goods will also protect
their output. However, if these are a liability, waste, or even a hazardous substance, legisla-
tion enforces the responsibility of ownership, rather than merely protecting their rights of
ownership.
Comstock, in the 19th century, has argued that (Comstock, 1856):
“I can form no notion of property which does not include the essential characteristics
and attributes with which it is clothed by the laws of society. . . among which are, fun-
damentally the right of the occupant or owner to use and enjoy (the objects) exclusively,
and his absolute power to sell and dispose of them”.
Contemporary legislation, however, can impose restrictions upon what persons may do
with their property, and it certainly does when they wish to dispose of property known as
‘hazardous waste’.
 E. Pongrácz, V.J. Pohjola / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2004) 141–153 147

Fig. 1. Object-oriented representation of an activity upon a target (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1997).

Depending on the nature of a given waste, owners may be restricted in their ability to
freely give up ownership. It is important to evaluate the risks involved in claiming ownership
and, accordingly, if we are allowed to cede ownership. The role of legislation is to initiate
systems that help decide, evaluate and monitor the conditions under which owners can
give up their ownership rights. Naturally, this includes evaluation of the hazard of a waste,
and prescribing (or motivating) actions that owners should take, if intending to give up
their ownership (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1999a). Waste legislation can thus be viewed as
a higher level, or meta-level activity, prescribing actions for those who are acting directly
upon waste.
In an object-oriented view, this occurs in the interactions between objects. Activity upon
a target consists of two sub-activities: the management activity communicating mainly with
a meta-level description or prescription of the target, and the activity manipulating the target
and/or its model directly. On the most generic level, an activity upon a target can be modelled
as a couplet of objects communicating with each other as represented on Fig. 1. The activity
object monitors the current values of the four attributes of the target object and is capable
of action to alter these.
In Fig. 2, the management activity is concerned with monitoring the current state of
the target through the model of the target, it builds up an impression of the state of the
target object and sets new sub-goals for the manipulating activity. The target, here, is a
waste-related process or product. The three objects communicating cyclically can be viewed
as a generic model of waste management (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1997). In this triplet of

Fig. 2. Object-oriented representation of generic waste management cycle (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1997).
148 E. Pongrácz, V.J. Pohjola / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2004) 141–153

objects, also referred to as design cycle (Pohjola and Tanskanen, 1998), the management
level activity refers to the role of legislation.
A fundamental aspect of legislation in question is the setting of goals for waste manage-
ment. For example, the Council Directive on waste (European Council, 1991) encourages
the prevention or reduction of waste production and, secondly, the recovery of waste by
means of recycling, re-use or reclamation as well as the use of waste as a source of energy.
In addition, the regulation of the supervision and control of transfrontier waste shipments
(European Council, 1993) controls the shipment of waste. The Directive on packaging and
packaging waste (European Council, 1994) sets targets for recovery and recycling. The
Directive on the Landfill of Waste (European Council, 1999) prescribes requirements for a
drastic reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfill.
Regulations are necessary for effective waste management. However, the international
regulation of recycling through fixed rates may be economically and environmentally detri-
mental. This is the case in Finland, especially the northern part, characterised by low popu-
lation density, cold winters, and long transportation distances to recycling facilities; given
that the major recycling facilities are located in the southern part of the country. Recycling
is an important means to achieve environmental goals, but it should not be a goal in itself
(Pongrácz, 1998). To conserve resources, instead of fixed targets for recovery or recycling,
we should be concerned with the question of how to minimise the amount of things belong-
ing to the individual waste classes, or how to turn wastes into non-wastes. For example the
main goal of Finland’s Waste Management Act, waste minimisation, should concentrate on
how to minimise the amount of waste in each category, rather than prescribing that munic-
ipal waste recovery should exceed 70% by 2005 (Ministry of the Environment (Finland),
1998).

8. The role of waste management in turning wastes into non-wastes

When classifying waste, based on ‘the reason it became waste’, we have offered solutions
how it could be turned into non-waste. The following waste management activities are
suggested (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1997):

(1) Waste is created as an unwanted but not avoided output with no Purpose. In this case
waste is process-specific and can be avoided or minimised by changing the process
Performance. Most industrial processes that are aiming at a specified output often
produce undesired by-products that we call waste. Waste management here should
refer to how to design, retrofit and operate the process with the aim of minimising
the waste of material and energy.This problem also calls for extending the designer’s
responsibility for the ‘non-useful’ by-product’s fate. A viable solution would be the
search for the possibilities of waste-trade: the waste of one process may be a valuable
raw material for another one.
(2) Waste is created because a product has fulfilled its single intended Purpose. The best
example for this category is packaging. In this case, waste management needs to take
responsibility at the design phase for the product’s fate after it has fulfilled its Pur-
pose. If the most probable fate is to end up in landfill, it is proper to design for
 E. Pongrácz, V.J. Pohjola / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2004) 141–153 149

lightweighting, low volume or collapsible shapes/flexible walls. If material recovery

is a possibility then it is essential to use materials that are the most economical to
recycle. If incineration is planned it is vital to omit chemicals that may lead to toxic
emissions.
(3) Waste is created because products are not performing to standard. Most products have
a discrete lifetime and after this time, often cease to be useful. Waste management
should focus on the product’s design stage and seek to produce goods with a maximum
lifetime. Design should focus on the acts of assembly and disassembly so that even if
the whole product ceased to be useful, some parts of it still can be utilised. Material
recycling and energy recovery activities also fall into this category.
(4) Waste is created because its owner failed to use it for its intended Purpose. This focuses
upon ethical issues, some of which have been raised earlier. While there is a possibil-
ity of controlling consumers through legislation, or by the use of motivational tools,
the best way to influencing people is by raising consumer awareness. By increasing
their knowledge through education, consumers become aware of their actions and the
possibilities and responsibilities in environmental protection. Legislation is essential,
however, the greatest gains occur through a well informed, environmentally conscious,
ethical public.

The basic waste-related activities are Purpose readjustment without manipulation of

Structure to make Performance satisfactory or readjustment of Structure by accepting
current Purpose. The higher level (or meta-level) activities are set by legislation through
constraining the right to give up ownership, or imposing duties to modify the Purpose
and/or Structure or State. The description of waste thus prescribes the way it is going to
be managed. It can be argued that effective waste management depends upon how waste is
defined.
There appears to be an emerging recognition within some Member States of the EU
that waste collected for recycling Purposes should be defined as secondary raw material.
According to Jacobs (1997):

“A by-product or residual product does not constitute waste if it is destined for direct
re-use in a further process in its existing form and if the use of a residue as a substitute
or ingredient is as environmentally sound as the material it is replacing”.

To this end, it is essential to define non-waste (Pongrácz, 2002):

Definition 4. Non-waste is an object that has been assigned a Purpose by its (or a poten-
tial) owner, and this owner will either use it for that Purpose, or by adjustment of State
or Structure ensures that the object will be able to perform in respect to the assigned
Purpose.

Things covered by this definition should not be considered waste, and should be exempt
from restrictions regarding wastes. Fig. 3 illustrates a flow chart of deciding whether a thing
is waste or non-waste based on the above considerations.
150 E. Pongrácz, V.J. Pohjola / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2004) 141–153

Fig. 3. Is the thing waste or non-waste (Pongrácz, 2002)?.

9. Re-defining waste management

In Article 1, the Council Directive on waste (European Council, 1991) defined waste
management as:

“Waste management shall mean collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste,
including the supervision of such operations and after-care of disposal sites”.

This definition of waste management has the same ‘organisational’ approach as the def-
inition of waste. It is concerned with the existing amount of waste, trying to minimise the
human-waste or environment–waste interface, to minimise potential impact. The Council
Directive on waste prescribes that waste is to be recovered or disposed by means of the
most appropriate methods and technologies to ensure a high level of protection for the en-
vironment and public health (European Council, 1991). In this context, ‘the environment’
means ‘the whole of the natural world inhabited by living organisms, especially considered
vulnerable to pollution’.
On the other hand, the ‘waste management hierarchy’, which is a widely accepted list of
preferred waste management options, gives priority to waste minimisation, which includes
changing processes to prevent waste. Here, there is some conflict between the two inter-
pretations of waste management. The definition of waste management suggests its role to
 E. Pongrácz, V.J. Pohjola / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2004) 141–153 151

be merely to get rid of existing waste, while the hierarchy suggests that, ideally, we should
avoid having (producing) waste. How then shall we understand waste management?
Semantically, the expression is an interesting use of words. ‘To manage’ is, according to
the Merriam Webster On-line Dictionary (2002): “to handle or direct with a degree of skill,
to work upon or try to alter for a purpose, to succeed in accomplishing or to direct or carry on
business or affairs”. While ‘management’ is defined as: “judicious use of means to achieve
an end”. It appears from these definitions, and it is also our understanding of management
as presented in an earlier paper (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1998), that management is control
of activities, while the expression of ‘waste management’ syntactically suggests that it is
control of materials.
Another question is; if the aim of management is to achieve an end, what will that be and
what is the aim of waste management? Based on the aim of the Council Directive quoted
earlier, it was argued that the goal of waste management is protection of the environment and
human health, and resources conservation. (Pongrácz, 2002) Waste management shall be
understood as a system, providing a medium for making changes in the way people behave
with respect to waste (Pohjola and Pongrácz, 1999). It is concluded that waste management
can be understood as (Pongrácz, 2002):

Definition 5. Waste management is control of waste-related activities with the aim of

protecting the environment and human health, and resources conservation.

Waste-related activities include waste-creating processes, waste handling as well as waste

utilisation. Control of these activities is based on the considerations prescribed before:
Purpose readjustment and Structure manipulation. The main aim of waste management
besides waste evasion is turning wastes to non-wastes (Pongrácz, 2002).

10. Conclusions

This analysis of the concept of waste and waste-related activities is triggered by the fact
that the current waste definitions at the European level are not satisfactory and will not lead
toward sustainable waste management. It was also argued in the foregoing that effective
waste management greatly relies upon how waste is defined.
Waste taxonomy is concerned with the reason(s) why a thing turns to waste. Based on
this taxonomy, it is concluded that a thing is waste because it has no Purpose–either because
it has never been assigned one, or because it has not been assigned a new one after the first
was fulfilled. Or, because it is not performing in respect to its Purpose—either because of
a fault in its State or Structure, or because its owners failed to, or did not intend to, use it
for its assigned Purpose.
The ownership concept is central to waste management, as is its role in waste classi-
fication. Most waste producers are unaware that by disposing of things, they are actually
ceding ownership and responsibility over that thing. Depending on the nature of a waste,
owners may be restricted in their right to freely giving up ownership. The role of legislation
is monitoring the conditions of ownership transfer, especially if owners intend to abandon
their property. Legislation is considered as a meta-level activity, monitoring the base-level
152 E. Pongrácz, V.J. Pohjola / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2004) 141–153

activity, and prescribing goals, requirements and conditions. While legislation should mon-
itor the conditions for handling potentially hazardous material, it should not be an obstacle
to resource conservation merely because of a material being labelled ‘waste’. To this end,
the concept of non-waste is defined and it was proposed that non-wastes be exempt from
restrictions regarding wastes.
By accepting that the way waste is described, prescribes the way it is handled; waste-
related activities need to be based on radical new waste definitions: Purpose readjustment
without Structure manipulation to make Performance satisfactory, or readjustment of Struc-
ture by accepting current Purpose. Waste management can now be defined as control of
waste-related activities with the aim of protecting the environment and human health, and
encouraging resource conservation. It is concluded that there is a great need for revision of
the definitions used in present waste management legislation.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Professor Paul S. Phillips for his invaluable comments on this
article.

References

Bontoux L, Leone F. The legal definition of waste and its impact on waste management in Europe. A report
prepared by IPTS for the Committee for Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection of the Euro-
pean Parliament. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies (IPTC), Isla de la Cartuja, Sevilla, Spain, 1997.
Cheyne I, Purdue M. Fitting definition to purpose: the search for a satisfactory definition of waste. Journal of
Environmental Law 1995;7(2):149–68.
Comstock J. Wyneham v. People 13 N.Y. 378, 396, 1856. Quoted in Hohfeld, 1919 p. 51.
Cooter R, Ulen T. Law and Economics, 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley, 1996:69–110.
European Council. Council Directive 75/442/EEC modified by Directive 91/156/EEC on waste, 1991.
European Council. Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of
shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, 1993.
European Council. European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62EC of 20th December 1994 on Packaging
and Packaging Waste, 1994.
European Council. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, 1999.
Gourlay KA. World of Waste: Dilemmas of Industrial Development. London: Zed Books Ltd, 1992:20–1.
Hempel CG. Philosophy of Natural Science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966:85–9.
Hohfeld WN. In: Cook WW, editor. Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. London,
UK: Yale University Press, 1919:51–3.
Jacobs F. Opinion of Advocate General delivered on April 24, 1997, Case C-129/96, Court of Justice of the
European Communities, Luxembourg, 1997.
Lox F (promotor). Waste management-Life Cycle Analysis of packaging. Final Report. Study Realised by the
Consortium Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Vlaamse Instelling voor Technologisch Onderzoek, Belgian Packaging
Institute, for the European Commission, DG XI/A/4, 1994.
Martin J, Odell JJ. Object-Oriented Methods: a Foundation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PTR Prentice Hall, 1995:11–21.
Merriam Webster On-line Dictionary. <URL: http://www.m-w.com/>5.11.2002.
Ministry of the Environment (Finland). National Waste Plan until 2005. Helsinki, Finland, 1998.
OECD. Decision of the Council on the reduction of transfrontier movements of wastes. 27 May 1988 C(88)90/Final
amendment on 28th–29th July 1994–C(94)152/FINAL, 1994.
 E. Pongrácz, V.J. Pohjola / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (2004) 141–153 153

Pohjola VJ, Pongrácz E. Holistic representation of waste management knowledge. Proceedings of the 15th Inter-
national Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. 12–15 December 1999, Philadelphia, PA,
USA.
Pohjola VJ, Tanskanen J. Phenomenon driven process design methodology: Formal representation. Proceedings
of the CHISA’98 Conference, 23–28 August 1998, Prague, Czech Republic. CD-ROM of full texts. Czech
Society of Chemical Engineering. Software and design, Magicware Ltd., 1998.
Pongrácz E. The environmental effects of packaging. Licentiate thesis. Department of Environmental
Technology, Tampere University of Technology, Finland, 1998. Summary available at: http://www.cc.
oulu.fi//pongracz/Licthes/index.htm.
Pongrácz E. Re-defining the concepts of waste and waste management: Evolving the Theory of Waste Management.
Doctoral dissertation. Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu, Finland,
2002. Available in electronic format at: http://www.herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514268210/.
Pongrácz E, Pohjola VJ. The conceptual model of waste management. Proceedings of the ENTREE’97, 12–14
November 1997, Sophia Antipolis, France, 1997, p. 65–77.
Pongrácz E, Pohjola VJ. Object oriented modelling of waste management. Proceedings of the 14th International
Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. 1–4 November 1998, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Pongrácz E, Pohjola VJ. The importance of the concept of ownership in waste management. Proceedings of the 15th
International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. 12–15 December 1999a, Philadelphia,
PA, USA.
Pongrácz E, Pohjola VJ. Object oriented concepts and definitions of waste and their role in legislation. Proceedings
of the First International Conference on Solid Waste. Technology, Safety, Environment. 7–9 April 1999b, Rome,
Italy, p. 1–9.