Modelling the correlations of e-waste quantity with economic increase

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.288Get rights and content

Highlights

  • An increase of 1000 GDP PPS means an additional 0.27 kg of e-waste collected.

  • An increase of 1000 GDP PPS means an additional 0.22 kg of e-waste reused/recycled.

  • An increase of 7.7 kg of e-waste collected for each additional citizen.

  • An increase of 6.2 kg of e-waste reused/recycled for each additional citizen.

  • Eleven countries have higher values than EU 28 ones in all the three indicators examined.

Abstract

Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE or e-waste) is regarded as one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world and is becoming an emerging issue owing to adverse consequences on the natural environment and the human health. This research article reveals the presence of a strong linear correlation among global e-waste generation and Gross Domestic Product. The obtained results indicate that the best fit for data can be reached by comparing e-waste collected volumes and GDP PPS. More in detail, an increase of 1000 GDP PPS means an additional 0.27 kg of e-waste collected and 0.22 kg of e-waste reused/recycled. Furthermore, for each additional citizen, there will be an increase of 7.7 kg of e-waste collected and 6.2 kg of e-waste reused/recycled. The better collection of e-waste acts an important role concerning the circular economy, and it can be an advantageous approach. Therefore, e-waste could be considered as an opportunity for recycling or recovery of valuable metals (e.g., copper, gold, silver, and palladium), given their significant content in precious metals than in mineral ores.

Introduction

Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE or e-waste) is considered as the fastest increasing stream of waste in the world (Guo and Yan, 2017; Zeng et al., 2017b). The increasing publications in the recent two decades (Fig. S1 in Supplementary content (SC)) indicate that e-waste management has become a global and emerging issue, from developing countries to industrial nations (Awasthi and Li, 2017; Li et al., 2015; Sthiannopkao and Wong, 2013). The generated quantities of e-waste are highlighted owing to its fundamental significance in both new policies definition and process development. In principle, the experts described e-waste generated amounts like a logical effect of the technological progress, especially in developed countries (Song et al., 2016). The main idea was that it is useless trying to estimate future e-waste generation because there are so many factors influencing these amounts that there are very few chances to give a real value (Cucchiella et al., 2016b; Zeng et al., 2016). The same issue can be described for yearly growth rates. The list of obsolete products considered as e-waste is so variegated and numerous that there are too many different customer behaviours to consider for doing a real estimation of trends (Guo and Yan, 2017; Tran et al., 2016). As evidenced in some work (Cucchiella et al., 2015), the disruptive innovation characterizing some technological product, together with new environmental measures and critical materials restrictions, modified the natural obsolescence of some electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), by actively increasing their substitution rate. A typical example reported in the literature is about the technological shift between cathode-ray tube and liquid-crystal display screens (Sun et al., 2016).

Recently, some authors started in studying the possible presence of any mathematical relation among e-waste generated volumes and the anthropogenic behaviour in developed (and developing) countries (Duan et al., 2016; Song et al., 2017). For example, Kumar et al. (2017) evaluated the relationship among e-waste generated volumes, national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and population. Kusch and Hills (2017) refined the previous results by considering GDP at Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) – instead of usual GDP – for limiting/standardizing the effect of different purchasing powers in different nations taken into account during their work.

GDP-PPS is an artificial currency unit, that analyses factors of each country to define a number on a person's standard of living within that country. For this reason, GDP PPS is better than usual GDP (Coccia, 2010; Dennett, 2014). However, the analysis of data characterizing e-waste volumes, including—collection, reuse and recycling with macro-variables are not well analysed in literature. Given a vast difference between generated and collected volumes subject to both illegal flows of WEEE (Li et al., 2013), absence of standardized measuring systems (Ongondo and Williams, 2011), and population habits (Wang et al., 2011), it is of utmost importance to have two distinct views of the context. In general terms, generated volumes are those amounts that, usually, are estimated through statistical data by experts (Garlapati, 2016; Ongondo et al., 2015). Given the previous issues, real data on these amounts are very challenging to gather. As opposite, collected volumes are those numbers that are measured by national governments and that give a correct idea of the real recycling performance of nations (Nelen et al., 2014; Salhofer et al., 2016). However, both generated and collected volumes refer to waste amounts prior to their treatment. Instead of reuse, recycling and recovery are resorted to waste amounts after their treatment (Robinson, 2009). Reused/recycled numbers refer to wastes that, after treatment, can directly re-enter within the traditional value chain (e.g., plastics, wood, glass, metals). Recovered amounts, instead refer to wastes that – given their physical features – cannot re-enter in the value chain and must be incinerated for the production of green energy (Bovea et al., 2016; Golsteijn and Valencia Martinez, 2017). This way, it is important to distinguish the two measures also when there is a need to define a new performance parameter.

Considering the global challenges subject to e-waste, this paper aims to reach two objectives: (1) the mathematical relationship among economic growth, population, and e-waste amount, concerning the 28 European countries during the year of 2009–2014, will be examined in six case-studies such as GDP PPS and collected amount, GDP PPS and reuse & recycling amount, population and collected amount, population and reuse & recycling amount, GDP PPS per capita and collected amount per capita, GDP PPS per capita and reuse & recycling amount per capita. And (2) the future projection of e-waste amount will be uncovered with a comparison among 28 European countries.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

This section is structured as follows. Section 2.1 will present a general discussion about circular economy principles. Section 2.2 will link these principles with European governmental actions, evidencing current and future strategies regulated by the EU Commission towards the sound management of e-waste. Section 2.3 will demonstrate a state-of-the-art analysis on e-waste management, uncovering the existing literature gaps. Finally, 2.4 Model assumptions, 2.5 Input data will describe the model

Correlation model of e-waste volumes and GDP

Starting by the model assumptions defined in Section 2.4 and input data proposed in Section 2.5 (SC: Tables S2, S4, and S6), a regression model for e-waste (distinguished between collected and reused/recycled) and GDP PPS is evaluated in Fig. 1. The number of data points analysed in this comparison is equal to one hundred and sixty-four for e-waste collected vs GDP PPS and one-hundred and fifty-nine for e-waste recycled/reused vs GDP PPS.

By considering both the graph and the related equations,

Conclusions and implications

This research article reveals the presence of a strong linear correlation among global e-waste generation and GDP. The obtained results indicate that the best fit for data can be reached by comparing e-waste collected volumes and GDP PPS. Besides, the current work evidenced as e-waste plays a relevant role in the global economy and their growth rate depends from human behaviours. Although, many directives and policies were deliberated during the last decades trying to limit and control e-waste

Abbreviations

    CE

    circular economy

    EoL

    End of Life

    F

    F value

    Fcrit

    F critical value

    GDP

    Gross Domestic Product

    N

    number of data points

    P

    P-value

    PPP

    purchasing power parity

    PPS

    Purchasing Power Standards

    R2

    coefficient of determination

    WEEE

    Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment

Acknowledgements

The work is financially supported by Key Laboratory of Carrying Capacity Assessment for Resource and Environment, Ministry of Land and Resources (CCA2017.12), Key Laboratory for Solid Waste Management and Environment Safety (Tsinghua University), Ministry of Education of China (No. SWMES 2015-01), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (71373141).

References (64)

  • X. Guo et al.

    Estimation of obsolete cellular phones generation: a case study of China

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2017)
  • K.M.N. Islam

    Greenhouse gas footprint and the carbon flow associated with different solid waste management strategy for urban metabolism in Bangladesh

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2017)
  • A. Kumar et al.

    E-waste: an overview on generation, collection, legislation and recycling practices

    Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

    (2017)
  • J. Li et al.

    Regional or global WEEE recycling. Where to go?

    Waste Manag.

    (2013)
  • M. Lieder et al.

    Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2016)
  • D. Nelen et al.

    A multidimensional indicator set to assess the benefits of WEEE material recycling

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2014)
  • F.O. Ongondo et al.

    Mobile phone collection, reuse and recycling in the UK

    Waste Manag.

    (2011)
  • F.O. Ongondo et al.

    How are WEEE doing? A global review of the management of electrical and electronic wastes

    Waste Manag.

    (2011)
  • F.O. Ongondo et al.

    Distinct urban mines: exploiting secondary resources in unique anthropogenic spaces

    Waste Manag.

    (2015)
  • S.Y. Pan et al.

    Strategies on implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy system: a review

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2015)
  • K. Parajuly et al.

    Potential for circular economy in household WEEE management

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • J. Park et al.

    Creating integrated business and environmental value within the context of China's circular economy and ecological modernization

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2010)
  • B.H. Robinson

    E-waste: an assessment of global production and environmental impacts

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2009)
  • P. Rosa et al.

    Comparison of current practices for a combined management of printed circuit boards from different waste streams

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2016)
  • S. Salhofer et al.

    WEEE management in Europe and China–a comparison

    Waste Manag.

    (2016)
  • Q. Song et al.

    Measuring the generation and management status of waste office equipment in China: a case study of waste printers

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2016)
  • S. Sthiannopkao et al.

    Handling e-waste in developed and developing countries: initiatives, practices, and consequences

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2013)
  • Z. Wang et al.

    Willingness and behavior towards e-waste recycling for residents in Beijing city, China

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2011)
  • Z. Wang et al.

    Determinants of residents' e-waste recycling behaviour intentions: evidence from China

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2016)
  • Y. Wang et al.

    Factors influencing the atmospheric concentrations of PCBs at an abandoned e-waste recycling site in South China

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2017)
  • K. Winans et al.

    The history and current applications of the circular economy concept

    Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.

    (2017)
  • X. Zeng et al.

    Measuring the recyclability of e-waste: an innovative method and its implications

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2016)
  • Cited by (125)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text