IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v13y2024i1p17-d1324085.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Mixed and Door-to-Door Systems for Urban Waste Collection in Terms of Effectiveness and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study from Two Mountainous Italian Valleys

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Pietro Damiano Baltrocchi

    (Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences (DiSTA), University of Insubria, Via G.B. Vico 46, 21100 Varese, Italy)

  • Lucrezia Maggi

    (Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences (DiSTA), University of Insubria, Via G.B. Vico 46, 21100 Varese, Italy)

  • Marco Carnevale Miino

    (Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences (DiSTA), University of Insubria, Via G.B. Vico 46, 21100 Varese, Italy)

  • Vincenzo Torretta

    (Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences (DiSTA), University of Insubria, Via G.B. Vico 46, 21100 Varese, Italy)

  • Elena Cristina Rada

    (Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences (DiSTA), University of Insubria, Via G.B. Vico 46, 21100 Varese, Italy)

Abstract

Collecting urban solid waste (USW) is a critical and essential phase for proper waste management and valorization. To date, many data are available for large cities, but few studies have focused on low-density areas, such as mountainous regions. Considering this lack in the literature, this study aimed to compare two separate waste collection systems in two mountainous valleys in terms of effectiveness and GHG emissions. In the first scenario, a mixed collection system (door-to-door + centers) was used, while in the other, waste was separately collected by a full door-to-door system. The results suggested that the full door-to-door system achieved better performance than the mixed collection system (door-to-door + centers), with a fraction of separate waste collection compared to the unit equals (0.84 ± 0.01 vs. 0.79 ± 0.02). Moreover, the full door-to-door system represented the best option for collecting separate waste in mountainous areas in terms of GHG emissions, with 11.21 kg CO2, eq t waste −1 emitted vs. 15.62 kg CO2, eq t waste −1 in the case of the mixed system. Despite utilities emitting a higher amount of GHGs in the door-to-door scenario (4.66 kg CO2, eq inh −1 y −1 ), they were fully compensated for by the low GHG emissions from citizens in the mixed scenario (1.77 kg CO2, eq inh −1 y −1 vs. 6.65 kg CO2, eq inh −1 y −1 ). Given the low amount of data on this topic, this work could be considered as a pioneer study of waste management in mountainous areas by comparing the results of two systems regarding effectiveness and GHG emissions. The outcomes of this study could be helpful for waste utilities, institutional agencies, and local communities and also serve as a tool for decision-making in the case of comparing the different options for USW collection systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Pietro Damiano Baltrocchi & Lucrezia Maggi & Marco Carnevale Miino & Vincenzo Torretta & Elena Cristina Rada, 2024. "Comparison of Mixed and Door-to-Door Systems for Urban Waste Collection in Terms of Effectiveness and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study from Two Mountainous Italian Valleys," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:13:y:2024:i:1:p:17-:d:1324085
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/13/1/17/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/13/1/17/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincenzo Torretta & Athanasia K. Tolkou & Ioannis A. Katsoyiannis & Francesca Maria Caccamo & Marco Carnevale Miino & Marco Baldi & Maria Cristina Collivignarelli, 2021. "Enhancement of Methanogenic Activity in Volumetrically Undersized Reactor by Mesophilic Co-Digestion of Sewage Sludge and Aqueous Residue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-11, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:13:y:2024:i:1:p:17-:d:1324085. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.