![UK GHG emissions by industrial sectors, 2020 [14]](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382233645/figure/fig1/AS:11431281260217029@1720884287124/UK-GHG-emissions-by-industrial-sectors-2020-14_Q320.jpg)
![Global share of waste generation by income level [31]](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382233645/figure/fig2/AS:11431281260191361@1720884287273/Global-share-of-waste-generation-by-income-level-31_Q320.jpg)
![Global waste composition [31]](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382233645/figure/fig3/AS:11431281260217030@1720884287418/Global-waste-composition-31_Q320.jpg)
![The waste hierarchy [42]](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382233645/figure/fig4/AS:11431281260191362@1720884287575/The-waste-hierarchy-42_Q320.jpg)
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-024-02003-8
REVIEW
Progress ofwaste management inachieving UK’s net‑zero goal
ZeinabZandieh1· PatriciaThornley1· KatieChong1
Received: 17 January 2024 / Accepted: 10 June 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract
The net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions strategy aims to avoid emissions from all economic sectors by 2050. Although
the reduction of GHGs has been considered an urgent issue in all industrial divisions, there are still gaps in climate change
mitigation strategies and policies in other sectors, such as waste, accounting for 3–5% of GHG emissions generation which
are emitted from landfills, waste transport, waste treatment processes, and incinerators (Clark etal. in Nat Clim Chang
6:360–369, 2016; Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai AP, Connors C P, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M.
Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R., and Matthews TKM, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds) (2021)
Climate Change 2021: the physical science basis. editor, contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;). Waste management is a worldwide issue related to the circular economy.
The share of the waste sector in the UK for GHG emissions generation is 3.7% in 2021, and landfills are responsible for 70%
of the emissions (Rogelj etal. in Nat Clim Chang 591:365–368, 2021). Therefore, a new approach to waste management and
disposal strategies is crucial. This paper reviews the key elements and challenges involved in waste management systems,
specifically in the UK, including policy and legislation, infrastructure, and technological advancements. The review offers a
clear summary of the application of circularity waste management strategies, focusing on the UK’s goal to achieve the net-
zero target. This review found that to reach the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and 2050 net-zero goals, the existing
waste management hierarchy is no longer appropriate for the global and national setting. The metrics in waste management
in the context of the circular economy should be aligned with the optimization of using resources, waste minimization, and
increasing product life cycle by considering environmental impacts. Therefore, the circular model can be deployed instead
of the hierarchy concepts.
Graphical abstract
Keywords Waste management· Net-zero 2050· Circular economy· Environmental pollution· Sustainability development
goals (SDGs)· Waste metrics
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
Introduction
Background information
The release of approximately 2560 billion tons of CO2
into the Earth’s atmosphere between 1750 and 2019 is
widely attributed to human activities and is considered
the foremost contributor to climate change [1]. The current
annual release of approximately 40 billion tons of CO2 into
the atmosphere continues to exacerbate the issue of ris-
ing global temperatures [2]. These findings underscore the
pressing need for effective interventions to curb anthropo-
genic CO2 emissions and mitigate climate change impacts.
To address the issue of rising global temperatures
caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the UK
committed to the Paris Agreement in 2015. This commit-
ment involves balancing GHG emissions and ensuring
that global temperatures do not exceed a 2°C increase by
removing more GHG from the atmosphere than is emitted.
This strategy, known as the net-zero target, entails achiev-
ing zero GHG emissions [3–5]. A global reduction of 1.4
billion tons of CO2 annually is necessary to achieve the
net-zero CO2 emissions target by 2050 [6].
UK’s carbon budget and2050 net‑zero target
The remaining carbon budget is the total amount of CO2
that can be emitted to limit global warming. It involves
reducing global CO2 emissions to reach net-zero levels
and stabilizing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
The remaining global carbon budget from the beginning
of 2020 to limit global warming to below 1.5°C has been
estimated to be between 420 and 570 billion tons of CO2
based on the “Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6)” [2, 6,
7]. The annual CO2 emissions worldwide were about 36.4
billion tons of CO2 in 2021 [8]. China, the United States,
and India were the world’s largest CO2 emitters in 2020,
with 10.7, 4.7, and 2.4 billion tons, respectively [6, 9].
Hence, the remaining 420 billion tons of CO2 from the car-
bon budget will be used by 2030 if CO2 emissions remain
unchanged.
In 2008, the UK's target was to reduce GHG emissions
by 80% in 2050 compared to the 1990 level, which was 813
million tons (Mt) CO2eq [10]. The UK’s GHGs were 417.1
MtCO2e in 2022, which was a 51.27% reduction compared
to 1990 [11]. However, in light of the new net-zero carbon
target, the UK government revised its goal to a 100% reduc-
tion in GHG emissions by 2050 [12]. The UK has imple-
mented five-yearly carbon budget strategies to attain net-
zero carbon emissions by 2050 [13]. There are six carbon
budgets from 2008 until June 2021 [12]. In the sixth carbon
budget, emissions from international aviation and shipping
have been considered for the first time [14]. Table1 details
the status of each carbon budget amount and the status of
meeting deadlines [15]. Based on the UK government's final
statement reports for the first and second carbon budget peri-
ods, the UK successfully remained 36 MtCO2e below the
limitation level of 3018 MtCO2e in the first carbon budget.
In the second carbon budget, the UK achieved 384 MtCO2e
below the cap of 2782 MtCO2e [12, 14]. To comply with the
third carbon budget limit, the UK must reduce its net yearly
emissions below 508.8 MtCO2e [14]. Therefore, if the UK
aims to keep the carbon budget at its baseline, a 20% annual
reduction is required [16].
UK's net-zero emissions strategy aims to avoid emissions
from all economic sectors by 2050 [17]. For the past twenty
years, the UK’s priorities in reducing GHG have been pre-
dominantly focused on curbing GHG generation by energy
supply and transportation sectors. There are still gaps and
opportunities in climate change mitigation strategies and
policies in other industrial sectors such as building, agricul-
ture, process industries, and waste [18]. Figure1 shows the
UK's industrial emissions by source in 2020. The transpor-
tation sector accounted for 25.7% of net GHG in the UK,
followed by energy supply (20.4%), business (17.7%), resi-
dential (16.3%), and agriculture (11.2%). The remaining sec-
tors, waste management, industrial processes, and the public
sector, accounted for 8.6% [14].
Table 1 UK carbon budgets
[15, 194]Carbon budget Time scaling Carbon budget cap
(MtCO2e)
Reduction below
1990 levels
Status
CB1 2008–2012 3,018 25% Done
CB2 2013–2017 2,782 31% Done
CB3 2018–2022 2,544 37% by 2020 In progress (will be
published in May
2024)
CB4 2023–2027 1,950 51% by 2025 –
CB5 2028–2032 1,725 57% by 2030 –
CB6 2033–2037 965 78% by 2035 –
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
Although the share of the waste contribution to national
emissions is lower than other divisions, there are crucial
matters that cover a range of environmental, economic, sus-
tainability, and social issues related to decarbonizing the
waste sector. Waste streams commonly contain valuable
resources, including metals, plastics, organic compounds,
etc. [19], so resource conservation from waste streams is
essential. Natural resources would be saved by preventing
these materials from being disposed of in landfills or burned
in incinerators [20]. Moreover, soil, air, and water pollution
can result from improper waste management. Effective waste
stream management can reduce these detrimental environ-
mental effects and positively impact the environment [21].
An added benefit is that waste-to-energy technology
could turn particular wastes into electricity or heat, helping
to increase energy output and lowering the need for fossil
fuels. Besides, effective waste management lessens GHG
emissions from incineration and landfill decomposition [22,
23]. In other words, proper waste management can result
in lower disposal costs, energy production and economic
benefits from selling recycled waste [24]. Waste production
and its adverse environmental effects can be minimized
by promoting a circular economy, which includes reusing,
repairing, remanufacturing, and recycling materials [25, 26].
In addition, by recycling and reusing materials from waste
streams, extended product life will be attainable [27], which
will drop the demand for new production. By adequately
handling waste streams, the need to import raw resources for
nations will be lessened, boosting national resource security
[28].
Proper waste management limits environmental risks
through the secure disposal of waste, improving ecological
protection and the overall quality of life and well-being in
societies [29]. In this regard, technological advancements
for more effective waste management drive technological
innovations in waste management, resulting in more sus-
tainable solutions [20, 30]. To mitigate climate change, reli-
able and sustainable waste management systems diminish
GHG emissions significantly [23]. Consequently, addressing
waste streams is vital for decreasing environmental impact,
protecting resources, boosting economic growth, and pro-
moting a sustainable and responsible approach to waste
management.
Solid waste generation has rapidly increased with the
growing global population, rapid urbanization, and eco-
nomic growth worldwide. By 2050, the number of waste
products is expected to exceed population growth by over
double [31, 32]. As a result, the share of global GHG emis-
sions generated from solid waste will be 5% [31, 33], and
improvement in this sector affects GHG reduction, commu-
nity health, welfare, productivity, and cleanliness [31].
Even though there has been a 70% reduction in GHG
emissions in the UK's waste sector over the last three dec-
ades [14] by improvements in managing and controlling
landfill site operations, applying novel carbon capture tech-
nologies in energy recovery facilities, and following the EU
Waste Framework Directive (WFD) and policies, there are
still further potential actions and improvements in the UK’s
waste management strategy [13]. In other words, more emis-
sion reductions in this sector are viable, enabling the UK to
reach its carbon budget by reducing the reliance on emission
reduction targets in different economic sectors and accom-
plishing the government’s long-term goal of becoming a
zero-avoidable waste economy by 2050.
Aim ofthis review
The review aims to examine the main challenges and the
current status of UK waste management systems and how
the UK’s 2050 net-zero goals can be reached by improved
circularity.
Waste management andcircularity terms
Waste andwaste management strategies
Solid waste (SW) is a heterogeneous mixture of waste mate-
rials generated from various sources, such as households,
industries, businesses, farms, and buildings [22]. SW gen-
eration has rapidly increased with the growing global popu-
lation, rapid urbanization, and economic growth worldwide.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
GHG emission, %
Fig. 1 UK GHG emissions by industrial sectors, 2020 [14]
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
Global waste per person is 0.74kg daily, varying by income,
region, and population growth [31]. Due to natural resource
consumption and lifestyle changes, SW will increase from
2.01 in 2016 to 3.4 billion tons annually by 2050 [22, 31].
Figure2 depicts the influence of income level circumstances
on waste generation worldwide. It proves that high-income
nations generate more waste than low-income due to various
consumption patterns, accessibility of products, affordabil-
ity and lifestyles in lower-income settings. The quality of
waste is influenced by numerous factors, including collec-
tion methods, seasonal patterns, and recycling practices [34].
According to Fig.3 [13, 16], food, paper and plastic waste
ranks among the top global waste generation. Developed
countries with high income levels generate more plastics
and paper waste while developing countries produce more
organic waste, including food and agricultural waste [35].
Almost 40% of global waste is buried in landfills, 19% is
recycled or composted, 11% is processed through advanced
incineration and energy recovery methods, and 33% is lit-
tered into the environment [31, 36]. As a result, SW gen-
eration leads to severe air, land, and water pollution. For
instance, the leakage of liquid leachate from landfills con-
tains heavy metals and toxic components which pollute sur-
face water and soil [30].
Efforts to improve waste management by reducing landfill
emissions and increasing energy recovery through recycling
can mitigate global GHG emissions by approximately 15%
[18, 22]. Studies in different industries address how to mini-
mize the effects of environmental, economic, health, and
risk issues related to the generated volume of SW sent to
landfills and waste disposal sites worldwide [37–39]. They
recommend a combined SW network for sorting, collecting,
and transferring to disposal sites based on waste types and
increasing waste treatment capacities, particularly in recy-
cling infrastructures. Moreover, they suggested that system-
atic policies can tackle waste management issues in various
industrial sectors.
The definition of waste management in the “Waste
Framework Directive (WFD) 2008/98/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council” law of 2008 is “the collection,
transport, recovery, and disposal of waste with the supervi-
sion of such operations and after-care of disposal sites as
a dealer or broker” [40–42]. Based on each phase of the
waste management system, research has been conducted on
waste reduction, recycling, enhanced landfill gas recovery,
composting, and energy recovery [18, 22, 43–45]. The WFD
5%
29%
32%
34%
Low-income Lower-middle income
Upper-middleincome High-income
Fig. 2 Global share of waste generation by income level [31]
44%
5%
4%
14%
17%
12%
2% 2%
Food andgreen Glass
MetalOther
Paperand cardboard Plastic
Rubber andleather Wood
Fig. 3 Global waste composition [31]
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
uses the term waste for any holder's material or objects to be
discarded or required to be discarded [40, 46].
Energy recovery from SW is one of the main topics in
developing waste management systems to tackle the envi-
ronmental problems of disposal sites and improve incin-
eration facilities. It is a practical option that covers the use
or extraction of discarded waste materials for reuse, limits
GHG emissions, and reduces the volume of disposed waste.
In addition, solid wastes have a significant energy potential,
and waste treatment processing and conversion technologies
might be utilized to generate heat, gas, or electricity.
Two waste-to-energy processes based on SW's nature
and quantities are favored. The thermal breakdown of waste
materials produces energy through thermochemical conver-
sions such as incineration, gasification, combustion, pyroly-
sis, carbonization, and mechanical extraction. The biochemi-
cal conversion process is based on the denaturation of waste
material with the help of enzymes or microbes. Two impor-
tant biochemical conversion processes are anaerobic diges-
tion and fermentation. These techniques are widely used for
SW with a high putrescible percentage and moisture content,
boosting microbial activity.
In 2017, most European countries used incinerators
to convert waste into energy, which is the most efficient
approach to eliminating SW from landfills [22, 30, 47, 48].
The most common waste management systems reviewed in
the literature are characterized in Table2 [22, 30]. However,
focusing just on energy recovery disregards other alternative
approaches like recycling.
The waste management hierarchy is a key concept in
WFD, playing a crucial role in promoting effective waste
management practices. This hierarchy outlines a structured
approach to prioritize various waste management strategies.
The aim is to encourage waste reduction at its source, stimu-
late the re-utilization of materials, and emphasize recycling
and recovery techniques over traditional disposal methods.
The WFD underscores the hierarchy’s significance, rec-
ognizing its potential to limit environmental repercussions,
conserve resources, and alleviate pressure on landfills. By
endorsing this framework, the WFD underscores its dedi-
cation to fostering a circular economy, leading to a more
sustainable approach to waste management. Article 4 of
WFD’s waste hierarchy consists of stages to manage and
prevent waste (Fig.4) [40–42]. The stages are arranged
according to the circular economy strategy of increasing
the value of existing resources in the prevention, reuse,
and refurbishment phases. Furthermore, minimizing waste
through recycling and conversion to new resources. This
waste management hierarchy is valid for most materials.
However, the waste hierarchy can be explicitly altered to
Table 2 Main waste management systems [22, 30]
Conversion method Main products By-products Toxic components Operating temperature °C
Incineration Heat, energy Ash Dioxins, heavy metals 400–1000
Gasification CO, H2, N2, CH4Vitreous slag Polyhalogenated organic compounds 550–900 (in air gasifica-
tion), 1000–1600
Combustion CO2, H2O Ash Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 850–1200
Pyrolysis CO2, H2, CH4, Wax,
tar, bio-oil
Char Hydrogen cyanides, polyacrylonitriles 200–760
Anaerobic digestion Biogas, CH4, CO2Sludge/slurry NH330–60
Fermentation Ethanol, CO2Bio-solids NH330–35
Carbonization Hydro-char Oils, Chemical, Rich
process water
HCN, CO, NH3180–350
Mechanical extraction Oil, particle board Press residues Phenolic compounds 140–185
Fig. 4 The waste hierarchy [42]
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
reduce the environmental effects of waste materials like
paper, food, garden waste, glass, and plastic [42].
Current frameworks of waste management hierarchies
do not include specific environmental measures, indica-
tors, or metrics. They prioritize specific actions on avoid-
ing, minimizing, and restoring steps and pay less attention
to quantitatively measuring specific environmental results
from each step. This omission limits their effectiveness
in achieving ecological and resource conservation or
sustainability objectives. Therefore, additional tools and
methodologies should be added to the waste management
hierarchy to assess environmental impacts quantitatively
and ensure accountability and effectiveness in reaching
environmental goals related to each stage.
Several research investigations examined sustain-
able waste management models and analyzed the models
regarding environmental performance, financial concerns,
and material management [49–52]. Over the last two dec-
ades, the systems analysis methodology has been used to
conduct waste management systems based on engineering
models and assessment tools. Simulation, optimization,
prediction, profit analysis, and integrated modeling sys-
tems have been discussed in systems engineering models.
In addition, the contribution of data management systems,
scenario selection, material flow analysis, life cycle assess-
ment, risk assessment, socio-economic assessment, and
decision support tools to waste management are consid-
ered in system assessment tools [53].
These studies reviewed the merits and limitations of
various waste management models alone or combined with
other assessment models and tools [30, 47, 52, 53]. GHG
mitigation costs and potential elements influencing social,
environmental, and economic issues from a system level
cost perspective in various waste management systems
were the outputs measured in these studies. They came
to a conclusion with multifaceted models and cooperative
methods for evaluating sustainability that may be used in
policy decisions,however, they might not be transferable to
other settings or regions with differing waste legislations.
The significant gaps found from these evaluations are
related to data input and output to waste management sys-
tems due to growth in SW quantities and various quali-
ties. Hence, efficient data collection is recommended for
analyzing complex waste management systems. Moreover,
most case studies have not focused on waste prevention
strategies. Therefore, a new concept of zero waste manage-
ment has been reviewed for suggestions to policymakers.
At the same time, only a few research concentrated on
zero-waste design, engineering, sustainable consumption,
and assessment. To reach a feasible zero-waste philosophy,
there are technical issues to implement for waste genera-
tors, waste collectors, and waste-to-resource converters
[45, 54, 55].
Even though several studies have examined sustainable
waste concepts and methods worldwide, universal monitor-
ing and management of global waste to reach comprehensive
global strategies are still limited. To develop a comprehen-
sive and sustainable waste management system, concerns
linked to prevailing waste management philosophies in vari-
ous countries should be examined, environmental assess-
ments should be made, and the capability of prospective
waste recycling or reusing should be considered.
Therefore, to improve the hierarchy of waste minimiza-
tion in achieving waste reduction and sustainability goals,
the contribution of relevant metrics as quantitative and quali-
tative measures, which is the main gap in the waste hierar-
chy, should be considered. These metrics are categorized
based on the prioritized levels shown in Fig.4, including
the rate of waste generation rate, rate of waste diversion,
recycling rate, composting rate, efficiency of energy recov-
ery processes, carbon emission reduction, financial savings,
resource conservation indicators, environmental impact indi-
cators, driving improvements in waste reduction strategies
and circular economy.
Circular economy andwaste management
Since natural resources on the Earth are limited, a sustain-
able way of using rare resources to gain economic growth,
social welfare, and environmental protection is desirable
[26]. However, despite global prosperity and wealth devel-
opment through linear economic thinking up to the twentieth
century, using finite resources and extracting raw materials
in unsustainable methods led to massive waste and pollu-
tion [56–58]. In other words, instead of using the traditional
linear economy notion, including “take, make, use, and dis-
pose”, the new concept of circular economy (CE) approach
based on reuse, resource efficiency, and closed-loop terms
has emerged (Fig.5). CE is vital in tackling climate change,
environmental issues, worldwide population growth, lack
of natural resources, and fossil feedstock shortage [56, 59].
The early work on a sustainable economy term was ini-
tiated in 1966, which proposed implementing a cyclical
ecological system as a replacement for considering open
systems (the linear economic models) in energy and mate-
rial supplements [60]. The concept of a closed-loop, self-
sustaining economic system was introduced in 1982 [61].
In 1989, the CE definition was announcedfor the first time,
and in 1990, the work on the transition from “resource–prod-
ucts–pollution” thinking toward “resource–products–regen-
erated resources” in business models was developed [57,
62].
In the 1990s, the CE “Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle” prin-
ciples resulted in green manufacturing focusing on reduc-
ing finite natural resource consumption and minimizing
pollution, emissions, and waste during manufacturing [26].
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
Global corporations and enterprises have used closed-loop
supply chains throughout the last decade to prevent turn-
ing large amounts of resources into waste or pollution [56].
Furthermore, some studies have been completed on using
resources repeatedly to keep the maximum available qual-
ity of products and commodities in the economy [63–66].
They suggested the new term upcycling rather than recy-
cling. They highlighted that rather than allowing resources,
components, and products to depreciate, try to keep their
high worth [63–66].
The CE concept focuses on collecting waste streams for
reuse and recycling as a source of secondary resources.
Applying CE in the product design process will optimize
the lifetime while minimizing the environmental effect.
The European Commission established a “European Union
Action Plan for a Circular Economy” in 2015 [31] to create
a global, low-carbon economy that is resource efficient and
sustainable based [67]. This action plan consists of legisla-
tion for directives on waste, packaging waste, and landfills
[68]. The European Union introduced a comprehensive strat-
egy in 2018 to facilitate the Action Plan’s execution and the
EU’s goal of a circular economy [31, 68, 69].
Through several approaches, the CE model can help the
UK reach its net-zero goal by 2050 [70–72]. By applying the
CE model, the demand for virgin resources [73] and waste
production will be reduced by promoting the reuse, repair,
and recycling of materials, which is correlated to lower GHG
emissions linked to resource extraction, manufacture, and
disposal [72, 74]. Circular methods also improve the life of
materials, which drops the need for frequent replacements
and, over time, lowers energy consumption and carbon emis-
sions [75, 76]. In addition, developing renewable energy
usage can be a shift to circular business models, which low-
ers emissions in the UK [77, 78].
Some studies show that keeping resources in use as long
as possible, extracting maximum value, and minimizing
waste in the packaging industry [79–81] and food supply
chain can be the method of applying of the CE model based
on policy statements issued by the UK government [82–84].
Likewise, aligning net-zero goals with CE approaches could
reduce up to 50% of the UK’s carbon emissions if applied to
producing and using key materials like cement, steel, plas-
tic, and aluminum [85–89]. This finding demonstrates the
potential of CE approaches to contribute meaningfully to
the UK’s net-zero ambitions [85, 86]. The CE can decrease
emissions, promote resource efficiency, and advance a sus-
tainable future through government policies, industry prac-
tices, and a shift in societal consumption patterns in the UK.
Additionally, studies highlight the need to create
long-lasting and items easy to disassemble, reducing the
requirement for virgin materials and the related emissions
connected with manufacture in terms of waste electrical
and electronic equipment [90–93]. The outcomes reveal
that only 17% of these wastes are recycled in the UK,
and the rest are dumped in landfills without being dis-
posed of effectively, leading to hazardous compounds
Fig. 5 Linear economy vs circu-
lar economy steps
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
contaminating the land, water, and air, threatening human
health and the ecosystem [72, 94]. By implementing these
concepts, the UK could switch from a system of massive
waste generation in all sectors to a closed-loop strategy
that maximizes resource utilization, reducing overall GHG
emissions and aiding in the activity of net-zero aims.
In 2010, it was estimated that around 22% of the busi-
ness sectors employed the UK CE practice. This metric
has not been updated in the past decade. According to
the ‘Waste and Resources Action Programme’ (WRAP)
report, the circularity of the UK economy may climb to
27% by 2030, with a 30 million ton drop in annual material
consumption [41, 95]. The concept of CE in business mod-
els by some companies across the UK has been applied
recently,however, different attitudes toward CE have been
shaped throughout the UK. The reason is that fundamental
policy fields have been divided among several entities, and
there is no unity in local authorities, governmental bodies,
and statistics assigning policy. Therefore, each body has
its strategy for applying, supporting, and measuring CE
concepts [96].
As described earlier, a CE approach keeps materials and
resources in the production supply chain. It extends their
lifetime in the market to limit waste generation and ease
the burden on finite natural resources demands for feed-
stock supply. Therefore, a sustainable waste management
hierarchy aligned with CE notions in creating added value
to waste, reducing carbon footprints, and increasing energy
efficiency will be desirable to achieve the most significant
environmental benefits and introduce valuable resources
into the economy. To establish a sustainable waste man-
agement system, environmental and potential pollution
assessment in different sustainable disposal techniques
aligned with economic development should be regarded
as a transition from a linear economy to a circular econ-
omy. The circular economy concept focuses on reusing and
recycling waste streams as a source of secondary resources
and keeping them in the production cycle to minimize the
environmental impact of final waste treatment methods.
Most waste management studies have concentrated on
multi-industrial supply chains from a growing economic
efficiency point of view and suggested further production
during recycling without considering sustainable infra-
structures for environmental aspects such as releasing
emissions [97]. This concept contributes to intensifying
pollution in the environment [98]. Although the CE prin-
ciple is a sustainable approach to producing products from
waste materials, it requires management adaptation in the
commercial and industrial sectors to minimize pollution
[99]. However, there are substantial obstacles to waste
management adoption in some firms and industries, sum-
marized as follows [67, 97, 100–105]:
• The importance of waste reduction and its application
are undervalued.
• Making a product from waste is challenging since it
necessitates creative thinking and novel technologies.
• Collecting, sourcing, treating, and remanufacturing
waste is a costly procedure.
• Due to the nature of the waste and waste quantities,
recycling is a challenging process.
• Employee training and updated skills regarding new
technologies need time and cost.
• Lack of sufficient investment and support from the gov-
ernment and stakeholders.
• Lack of customer acceptance of recycled products due
to concerns about the quality of reused materials.
The initial studies on CE concentrated on working with
closed-loop systems for materials and energy in advanced
processes [26, 66, 67, 106, 107]. However, a significant
gap existed between developing, designing, and optimizing
technologies for industry practice and achieving CE funda-
mentals linked to commercial needs in the manufacturing
supply chain. In addition, the impediment associated with
converting waste into value from non-convertible waste
is another challenging process [67, 104, 108–110]. More-
over, different CE approaches should be applied due to
various waste hierarchy implementations and operational
steps like collection, sorting, pre-treatment, reusing, recy-
cling, composting, biological treatment, energy recovery,
incineration, and landfills, leading to different potential
measurements in waste statistics. As a result, there is a
substantial gap between waste statistics and waste opera-
tions efficiency in each stage of the waste management
hierarchy [25].
Most related works on CE in the UK are related to pol-
icy and the contribution of different sectors in decision-
making scenarios for waste management principles. They
suggested indicator tools to gain the optimum and uniting
decisions agreed upon by all stakeholders [111].
Therefore, to obtain CE approaches in waste sectors,
quantitative metrics to improve the hierarchy of waste
minimization framework can be a novel framework of the
hierarchy edition mentioned in Sect.3.1. CE emphasizes
practices including recycling, reusing, and remanufactur-
ing to minimize waste and make the most of resources.
These contributions are aligned with CE principles such as
recyclability, material efficiency, waste diversion, energy
efficiency, circular design, and energy efficiency. By con-
tributing to enhancing associated metrics within the frame-
work of CE techniques, increasing sustainability, waste
reduction, and responsible resource management can be
achieved.
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
UK waste overview
Waste generation by economic sectors in the UK is defined
as construction and demolition and excavation (CD and E),
commercial and industrial (C and I), waste from households,
and hazardous waste [17], which are governed under Arti-
cle 3 of WFD [40]. The UK statistics on waste [22] show
that total waste generation in England has risen from 187 to
222 million tons from 2016 [17] until 2018 [112]. Table3
illustrates that England’s entire UK waste generation share
is 84% of the UK’s total waste generation [113]. The most
significant portion of waste generation is related to CD and
E, with a share of 62% of the total UK waste (Fig.6) [113].
The highest waste material category in the UK in 2018 was
‘mineral wastes’ and ‘soils’, accounting for 80.4 million tons
and 58.5 million tons, respectively,nearly two-thirds (63%)
of total UK waste belongs to this waste [113].
The share of the waste sector in the fourth and fifth car-
bon budgets is projected to be about 3%. It is estimated that
emissions from the waste management sector will decrease
from 93 Mt CO2e in the second budget to 55 Mt CO2e in
the fifth budget at the end of 2032, leading to total GHG
emissions reduction to 6 and 9% for the fourth and fifth car-
bon budget respectively [13]. The waste management sector
accounts for 4% of GHG emissions in the UK in 2020 [14]
from waste disposal at landfill sites, incineration facilities,
wastewater treatment, and biological treatment [13, 14]. The
waste management sector’s GHG emissions were reduced by
73% between 1990 and 2020. The reasons are improvements
in landfilling standards, changes in the types of waste going
to landfills (such as lowering the amount of food waste), and
the use of landfill gas for electricity or heat generation [14].
In 2015, 67% of the sector’s total emissions belonged
to landfill sites [13]. It is reported that landfill sites were
responsible for 14,446 tons of CO2e in 2015, which is
projected to increase to 17,821 tons of CO2e by 2030. In
this regard, waste reuse, recycling scenarios, and landfill
taxes have been considered in the UK strategies to control
emission production. As a result, CO2e will be reduced to
801,105 tons by 2030 [30, 114]. Imposing a landfill tax in
the UK is one of the significant actions to reduce waste
volumes sent to landfill. This tax was introduced in 1996
following EU landfill directive regulation and considered
£7 per ton of waste. It was increased to £102.10 per ton in
2023 [115, 116].
In other words, implementing high landfill taxes has
incentivized waste managers to adopt alternative waste
disposal and management practices, such as recycling,
composting, and waste-to-energy conversion, as more
cost-effective alternatives. However, this approach might
be prioritizing economic benefits beyond environmental
effects, potentially leading to the adoption of waste man-
agement techniques that are advantageous commercially
but may not always be the most environmentally friendly.
For example, encouraging incinerators is advantageous for
producing more energy and potentially decreasing land-
fill dependency, but GHGs and other pollutants will be
escalated. The main obstacle here is ensuring the environ-
mental effects of various waste management solutions to
balance energy production and environmental protection
Table 3 Waste generation
per sector (million tons) and
% change, UK and England,
2016–2018 [113]
Year C and I CD and E Households Other Totals
UK 2016 39.8 136.2 27.3 15 218.3
2018 42.6 137.8 26.4 15.4 222.2
Change 7% 1.2% − 3.3% 2.8% 1.8%
England 2016 32.1 120.3 22.8 9.5 184.6
2018 36.1 119.4 22 9.7 187.3
Change 12.4% − 0.7% − 3.2% 2.9% 1.4%
19%
62%
12%
7%
C&I CD&E HousholdsOther
Fig. 6 Waste generation share by source, UK, 2018 [113]
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
instead of just going with the simplest or most cost-effec-
tive option.
Treatment methods intheUK
The current waste treatment methods in the UK between
2016 and 2018 are presented in Fig.7 [113]. In 2018, the
UK’s most common final waste treatment type was ‘recy-
cling and another recovery’, accounting for 50.4%. The
recovery of mineral wastes and soils from the construction,
demolition, and excavation sectors accounts for roughly two-
thirds of ‘recycling and another recovery’. A landfill is the
UK’s second most used waste disposal method, accounting
for 23.6% of total waste disposal in 2018 [112].
The recycling rate has increased by a negligible 4.3% in
this period, whereas the use of incineration facilities with-
out recovery methods has increased significantly, reaching
28.3%. These changes highlight the role landfill taxes played
in encouraging incineration. However, it is crucial to recog-
nize that there could be an increase in GHG emissions linked
to these incineration facilities, particularly without recovery
facilities, resulting in the need for thoughtful deliberation
and mitigating measures. Even though the landfill volume
treatment rate has dropped to 2.8%, stepping up waste man-
agement (WM) procedures in the UK is still crucial. This
is essential for raising the recycling rate and lowering land-
fill utilization rates. An improved WM hierarchy, includ-
ing the environmental impacts of each metric (discussed in
the circular economy part), is crucial to advancing toward
more sustainable and effective waste handling and disposal
practices.
Through addressing waste management issues and
advancing resource recovery, technological improvements
in waste treatment systems substantially influence the reduc-
tion in UK GHG emissions in the waste sector. One of the
efficient ways to reduce GHG in this sector is by capturing
methane from the pyrolysis process in the chemical recy-
cling of waste or burning the waste in incineration facili-
ties with energy recovery and a carbon capture system [71].
Moreover, to limit methane leakage from landfill sites (the
primary source of methane emissions in the UK) and avoid
related environmental pollution, it is essential to improve
recycling facilities to convert waste to fuel or recyclate prod-
ucts to reduce waste sent to landfills [71, 117].
Advanced waste to energy technologies (WtE) convert
waste into energy through incineration with energy recovery
or advanced thermal waste treatment methods such as pyrol-
ysis, gasification, hydrothermal liquefaction, and anaerobic
digestion [118]. Advanced WtE generates energy through
heat, electricity, or biofuels and keeps waste out of land-
fills, where organic matter breaks down anaerobically and
releases methane, a potent GHG [119, 120]. WtE technology
displaces energy generation based on fossil fuels, which low-
ers emissions overall [121, 122].
Some studies state that WtE reduces GHG emissions in
the UK and depends heavily on recycling and energy recov-
ery obtained from waste. They state that 44% emission sav-
ings on average can be achieved using technologies includ-
ing incineration with energy recovery, mechanical heat
treatment, and mechanical biological treatment [123, 124].
Another efficient practice in waste treatment methods in
the UK is advanced thermal treatment technologies, such
Fig. 7 Treatment methods in the
UK (million tons), 2016–2018
[112]
020406080100 120
Recyclingand otherrecovery
Incineration with energy recovery
Incineration without energy recovery
Backfilling
Landfill
Land treatmentand releaseintowater
bodies
Milliontonnes
Recycling
andother
recovery
Incineration
with energy
recovery
Incineration
without
energy
recovery
Backfilling Landfill
Land
treatmentand
release into
waterbodies
UK 2018 108.48.5 7.314.250.
82
5.7
UK 2016 103.97.3 5.716.852.
32
5.5
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
as pyrolysis and gasification, for recovering energy and
recycling valuable materials. These methods use high tem-
peratures to transform waste into syngas, char, and fuels,
with lower emissions and environmental effects than typi-
cal incineration facilities. Thermal treatment technologies
contribute to GHG emission reductions and support a CE
approach to waste management by diverting waste from
landfills [124–127]. Findings indicate that the GHG emis-
sion drop from these plants is around 74% compared to
landfills [128], which highlights the necessity of develop-
ing these waste treatment methods.
Additionally, anaerobic digestion (AD) is a biological
process that degrades organic waste without oxygen, yield-
ing biogas (methane and CO2) and digestate (a nutrient-rich
fertilizer), which can be used as one of the waste treatment
methods in the UK context [129–131]. Technological devel-
opments in AD systems, such as improved reactor designs,
pre-treatment technologies, and biogas purification pro-
cesses, improve process efficiency, boosts biogas yield, and
reduces organic waste decomposition emissions [131–134].
AD produces biogas that can generate energy, heat, and fuel
vehicles, replacing fossil fuels and cutting GHG emissions.
Additionally, it is a cost-effective method of energy genera-
tion compared to WtE [130].
According to UK governmental reports, AD has already
reduced carbon emissions by over 1% and has the potential
to lower them by a further 6% [135]. In the UK, AD plants
generate over 19 TWh of biogas annually, with approxi-
mately 6.5 TWh converted to grid-ready biomethane, equiv-
alent to 3.8 million barrels of oil [135, 136]. Currently, the
UK government encourages the recycling of food waste by
AD to produce biogas through a number of tax reductions
on the feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme based on the environmen-
tal program’s goal of promoting renewable usage and low-
carbon electricity generation [44]. Finally, technological
advancements in waste treatment methods are instrumental
in reducing GHG emissions in the UK by diverting waste
from landfills, recovering energy and resources from organic
waste streams, and promoting a more sustainable approach
to waste management. Continued innovation and investment
in these technologies are essential for achieving the UK's
waste management and climate goals while supporting the
transition to a low-carbon circular economy.
Law andpolicy ofwaste management intheUK
In the UK and other European countries, efforts to reduce
GHG emissions through waste management regulations
and policies have shown promising results by prioritizing
recycling, composting, landfill taxes, and energy recovery
schemes [137, 138]. Investigations show significant pro-
gress in increasing recycling rates in Germany and Austria
by around 70 and 60%, respectively [139–141]. The EU has
made tremendous advancements with the Landfill Direc-
tive law in 1999, which aimed at preventing waste from
landfills. Methane emissions from landfills have decreased
due to investment in composting, recycling infrastructures,
anaerobic digestion by applying methane capture for use as
green energy, and waste incineration with energy recovery.
Despite a 30% increase in recycling rates, landfilling
remains the dominant waste management strategy in the
USA (51% of total disposal methods in the USA), contrib-
uting to larger GHG releases due to landfill’s high organic
waste content [142]. According to reports, the waste sector
in the USA was responsible for 14.5% of total methane emis-
sions in 2020 due to landfill emission generation [142–144].
Data availability for GHG reductions from waste manage-
ment in Africa and Asia is limited. Asia and Africa tackle
particular issues due to rapid urbanization and industrializa-
tion, which results in massive waste generation [145–147].
However, countries like Japan and South Korea have estab-
lished effective waste management systems through decar-
bonization of the entire life cycle of each material via mate-
rial cycles [148, 149] to limit the relevant environmental
impacts and GHG reduction, particularly in increasing
the recycling rate by over 80 and 60%, respectively [148,
150–152].
In contrast, other Asian countries struggle with waste
management systems and GHG reduction due to lower recy-
cling rates, inefficient recycling facilities, open burning and
uncontrolled landfills [150, 153]. For instance, India's recy-
cling rate is 20%, which needs more recycling development
and an advanced waste management system to drop GHG
emissions as one of the leading countries in GHG produc-
tion [154–156]. In Africa, between 4 and 10% of waste is
recycled, and the rest is burned in the open area or disposed
of in landfills [157, 158].
These studies demonstrate regional variations in waste
management implementation and emphasize the need for
coordinated efforts to increase sustainability and lower GHG
emissions worldwide by imposing national and international
rules and regulations as well as international collabora-
tions and knowledge-sharing facilitating the exchange of
best practices and innovative technologies, enabling coun-
tries to improve their waste management systems further
and achieve greater reductions in GHG emissions [159,
160]. The review primarily focuses on the UK, highlight-
ing improvements and gaps with other nations in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions policies from waste management.
Based on the “European Commission” frameworks for
waste management systems in 1989, the UK published the
“Environmental Protection Act” in 1990 to consider the
effects of waste on the environment. Five years later, in
1995, the UK revised and issued the ‘Doing Waste Work’
strategy for England and Wales with sustainability terms
in waste management to decrease the sending of waste to
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
landfill sites and more reusing of wastes. In 2000, England
and Wales’s “Waste Strategy” publication followed sustain-
able development by managing waste and using natural
resources [161].
After 2000, some considerable changes and revised
parts regarding “EU waste laws” were implemented in the
UK waste strategies in 2007 entitled “Waste Strategy for
England”, focused on waste generation conditions and dis-
posal methods. “The Waste (England and Wales) Regula-
tions” were provided in 2011 by the UK based on “(WFD)”
policies for handling produced waste and the application
of waste hierarchy [162]. In 2013, the circular economy’s
role in using resources efficiently and sustainable economic
growth instead of the linear economy to protect the environ-
ment and minimize waste impacts on nature was highlighted
after some updates in WFD works in sustainability and waste
prevention measurements. Therefore, the “Waste Preven-
tion Programme for England” focuses on reducing waste
quantities and moving toward a resource-efficient economy
through financial support. This program takes actions con-
sisting of three essential aspects [163].
A new “Waste Management Plan for England” was pub-
lished in 2013 based on “The Waste (England and Wales)
Regulations 2011” policies and principles, and critical fea-
tures and equivalent waste strategies for Wales, Scotland,
and Northern Ireland were issued, too. In this strategy, the
government provided six UK waste policies, including waste
hierarchy, diversion of waste from landfills, increased recy-
cling, reduced waste from the economy, controlling hazard-
ous waste, and shared responsibility [164]. Although this
plan concentrates on waste arisings, statistics, and their
current management systems, “The Waste (England and
Wales) Regulations 2011” focused on the circular econ-
omy approach in waste management and using resources
efficiently. The UK government issued the updated “Waste
Management Plan for England” in 2021 [23]. This revised
plan emphasizes sustainable waste management to meet
the net-zero emissions target by 2050, aligned with “Our
Waste, Our Resources: A strategy for England” and “25
Year Environment Plan” published in 2018. “Our Waste,
Our Resources: A strategy for England” consists of essen-
tial principles [165] focusing on minimizing waste effects
on the environment via waste reduction and reusing mate-
rial by considering the lifecycle approach and the circular
economy model.
This strategy framework aligns with the “25-Year Envi-
ronment Plan” commitments issued in 2018. In this plan, by
identifying the following goals, the UK government intends
to protect the natural environment and secure better health
conditions for humans and wildlife. This plan's policies set
out to double resource productivity by 2050, reuse materials,
and minimize waste to control their environmental impact
and pressure [17, 166]. The current UK waste policies from
1990 until 2018, with a specific focus on England and Wales,
are summarized in Table4.
It is crucial to evaluate the effectiveness of the UK’s
present WM policies [17, 163, 167] in addressing the con-
cepts of CE to assess progress and determine areas that need
improvement [72, 168, 169]. The UK’s waste management
framework incorporates policies and programs that pro-
mote CE concepts [165, 170, 171]. These include boosting
industry resource efficiency, lowering landfilling, and raising
recycling rates [172–176]. Further attempts are required in a
few crucial areas to conform completely with CE standards.
One aspect is to develop comprehensive and standardized
waste collection and recycling systems nationwide. While
progress has been made in increasing recycling rates [177,
178], there are still disparities in recycling infrastructure and
practices across different areas in the UK [174, 179–182].
Standardizing collection methods and improving accessibil-
ity to recycling facilities can help improve recycling rates
and reduce waste sent to landfills.
Promoting circular design for production is another area
that demands much more work in the UK [183, 184]. There
Table 4 The UK acts, policies, strategies, and regulations in waste management
Year UK policy Goals
1990 Environmental Protection Act Effects of waste on the environment
1995 Making waste work strategy Sustainability terms in waste management
2000 Waste strategy Sustainable development for using natural resources
2007 Waste strategy for England Waste generation conditions and disposal methods
2011 The waste (England and wales) regulations Managing produced waste and application of waste hierarchy
2013 Waste prevention program for England Reducing waste quantities and circular economy
2013 Waste management plan for England waste hierarchy, diversion of waste from landfills, increased recycling, reduction of
waste from the economy, controlling hazardous waste, and shared responsibility
2018 Our waste, our resources: a strategy for England Considering the lifecycle approach and the circular economy model to minimize waste
effects
2018 25-year environment plan Protect the natural environment and secure human and wildlife conditions
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
is still room for improvement to push manufacturers and pro-
ducers to embrace more sustainable design principles, man-
age the whole life cycle of their products and accept greater
responsibility for their environmental impact throughout the
product lifecycle by strengthening legislation and offering
encouragement to support eco-friendly design [185, 186].
In this regard, conducting a life cycle assessment (LCA)
for products and relevant manufacturing processes can be
a circular attempt to find how the circularity of the product
can be obtained from LCA outputs [187–190].
Moreover, more financing for waste infrastructure and
innovation is also necessitated across the country to shift
to a CE. To enable the recovery and recycling of valuable
resources from waste streams, this involves investing in cut-
ting-edge recycling technology, such as material recovery
facilities and chemical recycling facilities [118, 191–193].
It will be essential going forward for the UK to maintain
giving CE ideas top priority in its waste management strate-
gies and policies. This could entail establishing more chal-
lenging goals for recycling, waste reduction, and resource
efficiency and putting supportive laws and incentives in
place to promote sustainable behaviors in all realms of the
economy. Government, business, and society collaboration
will be essential to proceed with the CE concepts and meet
the UK's 2050 net-zero emissions goal.
Conclusions andrecommendations
This article examines the essential components and obstacles
of the UK’s waste management systems, including infra-
structure, technical improvements, policy and regulation,
and waste reduction strategies. After reviewing existing
literature, it was noted that there is a need for a thorough
environmental assessment and circularity evaluation specifi-
cally for waste management in the UK.
As highlighted by the review study, developing and
advancing waste management methods plays a crucial role in
attaining the UK’s net-zero goal in the waste sector. Energy
recovery, composting, and recycling must be prioritized to
lessen the carbon impact. It is necessary to keep funding
recycling infrastructure and technology to minimize waste
production and shift to a CE model. Implementing best prac-
tices and accelerating the transition to net-zero emissions
require national and international cooperation and knowl-
edge sharing. To achieve the UK’s climate goals, waste man-
agement must be integrated into larger climate agendas to
promote environmental sustainability.
The issue is that the hierarchy system cannot cover all
relevant metrics such as the rate of waste generation, rate of
waste diversion, recycling rate, composting rate, efficiency
of energy recovery processes, carbon emission reduction,
financial savings, resource conservation indicators, and
environmental impact indicators. The circularity of each
stage in the hierarchy of WM has not been linked to meas-
urable metrics for environmental impact assessment, which
directly affects the decarbonization of the waste sector and
has only been discussed in practices and procedures.
Sustainable and cutting-edge solutions will shape future
waste management in the UK. For example, smart waste
management systems and advanced waste-to-energy technol-
ogy can improve resource recovery and lessen environmental
impact. Additionally, encouraging a circular economy and
giving durability and recyclability top priority in product
design will result in a waste management system that is more
sustainable. The UK has made commendable progress in
waste management, focusing on waste reduction, recycling,
and landfill diversion. The UK strives to establish a sus-
tainable and circular economy through recycling initiatives,
strategies to reduce landfill use, and support for innovation.
However, challenges remain, including addressing waste
export and achieving higher recycling rates. Continued
research, education, and infrastructure investment will pave
the way for effective waste management practices, ensuring
a cleaner and healthier environment for present and future
generations. To conclude, a circularity system should be
considered for the waste management system instead of a
linear hierarchy that can be linked to a relevant metric at
each level.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no known com-
peting financial interests or personal relationships that could have ap-
peared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability No data were used for the review study described in
the article.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
1. Clark PU, Shakun JD, Marcott SA, Mix AC, Eby M, Kulp S,
Levermann A, Milne GA, Pfister PL, Santer BD, Schrag DP,
Solomon S, Stocker TF, Strauss BH, Weaver AJ, Winkelmann
R, Archer D, Bard E, Goldner A, Lambeck K, Pierrehumbert
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
RT, Plattner G-K (2016) Consequences of twenty-first-century
policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change. Nat
Clim Chang 6(4):360–369
2. Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai AP, Connors C P, S. Berger, N.
Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leit-
zell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R., and Matthews TKM, T. Waterfield,
O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds) (2021) Climate Change
2021: the physical science basis. editor, contribution of work-
ing group I to the sixth assessment Report of the Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change
3. Rogelj J, Geden O, Cowie A, Reisinger A (2021) Three
ways to improve net-zero emissions targets. Nat Clim Chang
591(7850):365–368
4. Bataille CG (2020) Physical and policy pathways to net-zero
emissions industry Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Clim
Change 12(1):633
5. Fuss S, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Jackson RB, Jones CD, Lyngfelt
A, Peters GP, Van Vuuren DP (2020) Moving toward Net-Zero
emissions requires new alliances for carbon dioxide removal.
One Earth 3(2):145–149. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. oneear.
2020. 08. 002
6. Friedlingstein P, Jones MW, O’Sullivan M, Andrew RM, Bak-
ker DCE, Hauck J, Le Quéré C, Peters GP, Peters W, Pon-
gratz J, Sitch S, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Jackson RB, Alin SR,
Anthoni P, Bates NR, Becker M, Bellouin N, Bopp L, Chau
TTT, Chevallier F, Chini LP, Cronin M, Currie KI, Decharme
B, Djeutchouang L, Dou X, Evans W, Feely RA, Feng L, Gas-
ser T, Gilfillan D, Gkritzalis T, Grassi G, Gregor L, Gruber
N, Gürses Ö, Harris I, Houghton RA, Hurtt GC, Iida Y, Ilyina
T, Luijkx IT, Jain AK, Jones SD, Kato E, Kennedy D, Klein
Goldewijk K, Knauer J, Korsbakken JI, Körtzinger A, Land-
schützer P, Lauvset SK, Lefèvre N, Lienert S, Liu J, Marland
G, McGuire PC, Melton JR, Munro DR, Nabel JEMS, Nakaoka
SI, Niwa Y, Ono T, Pierrot D, Poulter B, Rehder G, Resp-
landy L, Robertson E, Rödenbeck C, Rosan TM, Schwinger
J, Schwingshackl C, Séférian R, Sutton AJ, Sweeney C, Tan-
hua T, Tans PP, Tian H, Tilbrook B, Tubiello F, van der Werf
G, Vuichard N, Wada C, Wanninkhof R, Watson A, Willis
D, Wiltshire AJ, Yuan W, Yue C, Yue X, Zaehle S, Zeng J
(2021) Global carbon budget 2021. Earth Syst Sci Data Dis-
cuss 2021:1–191. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5194/ essd- 2021- 386
7. Hamilton LA, Feit S (2019) Plastic & climate: the hidden costs
of a plastic planet. CIEL Web. https:// www. ciel. org/ plast icand
clima te. Accessed May 2019
8. Statista. (2022) Annual CO2 emissions worldwide. Available
from: https:// www. stati sta. com/ stati stics/ 276629/ global- co2-
emiss ions/# main- conte nt
9. GlobalCarbonProject. (2020) The global carbon atlas platform.
Available from: http:// www. globa lcarb onatl as. org/ en/ CO2- emiss
ions
10. Brown K, Cardenas M, MacCarthy J, Murrells T, Pang Y, Pas-
sant N, Watterson D (2012) UK greenhouse gas inventory, 1990
to 2010. Annual report for submission under the Framework Con-
vention on Climate Change (pp 357). Department for Environ-
ment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
11. Hayes W Provisional (2024) UK greenhouse gas emissions
national statistics 2023. Department for Energy Security and
Net-Zero (UK) Web. https:// www. gov. uk/ gover nment/ stati stics/
provi sional- uk- green house- gas- emiss ions- natio nal- stati stics-
2023. Accessed 28 Mar 2024
12. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy UK
(2021) Carbon budgets. GOV.UK Web. https:// www. gov. uk/
guida nce/ carbon- budge ts. Accessed 13 July 2021
13. Zafeiridou M, Kirkman R, Kyle C, McNeil S, Voulvoulis N
(2018) An exploration of the resource sector’s greenhouse gas
emissions in the UK, and its potential to reduce the carbon
shortfall in the UK 4th and 5th carbon budgets. Imperial College
London report Web. https:// www. imper ial. ac. uk/ media/ imper
ial- colle ge/ facul ty- of- natur al- scien ces/ centre- for- envir onmen
tal- policy/ Veolia- report. pdf. Accessed Dec 2018
14. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy UK
(2022) Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics
1990–2020. GOV.UK Web. https:// www. gov. uk/ gover nment/ stati
stics/ final- uk- green house- gas- emiss ions- natio nal- stati stics- 1990-
to- 2020. Accessed 30 June 2022
15. The Climate Change Committee. (2021) Advice on reducing
the UK’s emissions. Available from: https:// www. theccc. org. uk/
about/ our- exper tise/ advice- on- reduc ing- the- uks- emiss ions/#: ~:
text=A% 20car bon% 20bud get% 20is% 20a,level% 20of% 20each%
20car bon% 20bud get
16. Campbell I. (2022) UK CO2 budget. Available from: https://
www. carbo ninde pende nt. org/ 33. html
17. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2021) Waste
management plan for England. GOV.UK Web. https:// www. go v.
uk/ gover nment/ publi catio ns/ waste- manag ement- plan- for- engla
nd- 2021. Accessed 27 Jan 2021
18. Lee CT, Rozali NEM, Van Fan Y, Klemes JJ, Towprayoon S
(2018) Low-carbon emission development in Asia: energy sec-
tor, waste management and environmental management system.
Clean Technol Environ Policy 20(3):443–449
19. Lee S, Kim J, Chong K (2016) The causes of the municipal solid
waste and the greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector in
the United States. Waste Manag 56:593–599
20. El Haggar S (2010) Sustainable industrial design and waste
management: cradle-to-cradle for sustainable development. Aca-
demic Press, USA
21. Siddiqua A, Hahladakis JN, Al-Attiya WAK (2022) An over-
view of the environmental pollution and health effects associated
with waste landfilling and open dumping. Environ Sci Pollut Res
29(39):58514–58536
22. Shah AV, Srivastava VK, Mohanty SS, Varjani S (2021) Munici-
pal solid waste as a sustainable resource for energy production:
State-of-the-art review. J Environ Chem Eng 9(4):105717
23. Jeswani HK, Azapagic A (2016) Assessing the environmental
sustainability of energy recovery from municipal solid waste in
the UK. Waste Manag 50:346–363. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
wasman. 2016. 02. 010
24. Khan AH, Sharholy M, Alam P, Al-Mansour AI, Ahmad K,
Kamal MA, Alam S, Pervez MN, Naddeo VJJOKSU-S (2022)
Evaluation of cost benefit analysis of municipal solid waste man-
agement systems. J King Saud Univ Sci 34(4):101997
25. Pires A, Martinho G (2019) Waste hierarchy index for circular
economy in waste management. Waste Manag 95:298–305
26. Jawahir I, Bradley R (2016) Technological elements of circular
economy and the principles of 6R-based closed-loop material
flow in sustainable manufacturing. Procedia Cirp 40:103–108
27. Islam MT, Iyer-Raniga U, Trewick SJR (2022) Recycling
perspectives of circular business models: a review. Recycling
7(5):79
28. Bianchi M, Cordella M (2023) Does circular economy mitigate
the extraction of natural resources? Empirical evidence based on
analysis of 28 European economies over the past decade. Ecol
Econ 203:107607
29. Jayasinghe R, Koliyabandara PA, Vithanage M (2023) Waste in
one health: building resilient communities through sustainable
waste management. One health: human, animal, and environment
triad, pp 211–220
30. Das S, Lee S-H, Kumar P, Kim K-H, Lee SS, Bhattacharya SS
(2019) Solid waste management: scope and the challenge of sus-
tainability. J Clean Prod 228:658–678
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
31. Kaza S, Yao L, Bhada-Tata P, Van Woerden F (2018) What a
waste 2.0: a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050.
World Bank Publications, Japan
32. Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P, Kennedy CJJOIE (2015) Peak waste:
when is it likely to occur. J Ind Ecol 19(1):117–128
33. Metz B, Davidson O, Swart R, Pan J (2001) Climate change
2001: mitigation: contribution of Working Group III to the third
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, UK
34. Al-Salem SM, Evangelisti S, Lettieri P (2014) Life cycle assess-
ment of alternative technologies for municipal solid waste and
plastic solid waste management in the Greater London area.
Chem Eng J 244:391–402. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cej. 2014.
01. 066
35. Sudibyo H, Majid AI, Pradana YS, Budhijanto W, Deendarlianto,
and Budiman A, (2017) Technological evaluation of municipal
solid waste management system in Indonesia. Energy Procedia
105:263–269. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. egypro. 2017. 03. 312
36. Nanda S, Berruti FJECL (2021) Municipal solid waste manage-
ment and landfilling technologies: a review. Environ Chem Lett
19(2):1433–1456
37. Shindhal T, Rakholiya P, Varjani S, Pandey A, Ngo HH, Guo W,
Ng HY, Taherzadeh MJJB (2021) A critical review on advances
in the practices and perspectives for the treatment of dye industry
wastewater. Bioengineered 12(1):70–87
38. Varjani S, Upasani VN, Pandey A (2020) Bioremediation of oily
sludge polluted soil employing a novel strain of Pseudomonas
aeruginosa and phytotoxicity of petroleum hydrocarbons for seed
germination. Sci Total Environ 737:139766. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. scito tenv. 2020. 139766
39. Xiao S, Dong H, Geng Y, Francisco M-J, Pan H, Wu F (2020)
An overview of the municipal solid waste management modes
and innovations in Shanghai, China. Environ Sci Poll Res
27(24):29943–29953
40. The European Parliament and the Council of The European
Union (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing
certain Directives. EUR-Lex Web. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ eli/
dir/ 2008/ 98/ oj. Accessed Nov 2008
41. House of Commons (2014) Growing a circular economy: End-
ing the throwaway society. HC-214. Londres House Commons
Environ Audit Committee 18:434A–441A
42. Defra UK (2011) Guidance on applying the Waste Hierarchy.
GOV.UK Web. https:// assets. publi shing. servi ce. gov. uk/ media/
5a795 abde5 274a2 acd18 c223/ pb135 30- waste- hiera rchy- guida
nce. pdf. Accessed Mar 2011
43. Assamoi B, Lawryshyn Y (2012) The environmental comparison
of landfilling vs incineration of MSW accounting for waste diver-
sion. Waste Manag 32(5):1019–1030. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
wasman. 2011. 10. 023
44. Ng KS, Yang A, Yakovleva N (2019) Sustainable waste manage-
ment through synergistic utilisation of commercial and domestic
organic waste for efficient resource recovery and valorisation in
the UK. J Clean Prod 227:248–262. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jclep ro. 2019. 04. 136
45. Kerdlap P, Low CJS, Ramakrishna S (2019) Zero waste manu-
facturing: a framework and review of technology, research, and
implementation barriers for enabling a circular economy transi-
tion in Singapore. Res Conserv Recycl 151:104438. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2019. 104438
46. Gharfalkar M, Court R, Campbell C, Ali Z, Hillier G (2015)
Analysis of waste hierarchy in the European waste directive
2008/98/EC. Waste Manag 39:305–313. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. wasman. 2015. 02. 007
47. Jaunich MK, Levis JW, DeCarolis JF, Barlaz MA, Ranjithan SR
(2019) Solid waste management policy implications on waste
process choices and systemwide cost and greenhouse gas per-
formance. Environ Sci Technol 53(4):1766–1775
48. Istrate IR, Iribarren D, Gálvez-Martos J-L, Dufour J (2020)
Review of life-cycle environmental consequences of waste-to-
energy solutions on the municipal solid waste management sys-
tem. Res Conserv Recycl 157:104778
49. Chang NB, Davila E, Dyson B, Brown R (2005) Optimal design
for sustainable development of a material recovery facility in a
fast-growing urban setting. Waste Manag 25(8):833–846
50. Chang NB, Davila E (2007) Minimax regret optimization
analysis for a regional solid waste management system. Waste
Manag 27(6):820–832
51. Najm MA, El-Fadel M, Ayoub G, El-Taha M, Al-Awar F (2002)
An optimisation model for regional integrated solid waste man-
agement I Model formulation. Waste Manag Res 20(1):37–45
52. Allesch A, Brunner P (2014) Assessment methods for solid
waste management: a literature review. Waste Manag Res
32(6):461–473
53. Pires A, Martinho G, Chang NB (2011) Solid waste manage-
ment in European countries: a review of systems analysis tech-
niques. J Environ Manage 92(4):1033–1050
54. Zaman AU, Lehmann S (2013) The zero waste index: a perfor-
mance measurement tool for waste management systems in a
zero waste city. J Clea Prod 50:123–132
55. Singh S, Ramakrishna S, Gupta MK (2017) Towards zero
waste manufacturing: a multidisciplinary review. J Clean Prod
168:1230–1243
56. Jørgensen S and Pedersen L (2018) The circular rather than the
linear economy. Springer. p 103–120
57. Sariatli F (2017) Linear economy versus circular economy: a
comparative and analyzer study for optimization of economy
for sustainability. J Bioecon Sustain Dev 6(1):31–34
58. Sillanpaa M, Ncibi C (2019) The circular economy: Case stud-
ies about the transition from the linear economy. Academic
Press, Finland
59. Liu Z, Adams M, Cote RP, Chen Q, Wu R, Wen Z, Liu W,
Dong L (2018) How does circular economy respond to green-
house gas emissions reduction: an analysis of Chinese plastic
recycling industries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 91:1162–1169
60. Boulding K E (1966) The economics of the coming spaceship
earth. New Yor. p 1–17
61. Stahel WR (1982) The product life factor. An inquiry into the
nature of sustainable societies: the role of the private sector,
NARC, p 74–96
62. Pearce DW, Turner RK, and Turner RK (1990) Economics of
natural resources and the environment: Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press
63. McDonough W and Braungart M, (2013) The upcycle: beyond
sustainability—designing for abundance, Macmillan
64. McDonough W and Braungart M (2010) Cradle to cradle:
Remaking the way we make things, North point press
65. Webster K (2017) The circular economy: a wealth of flows,
Ellen MacArthur Foundation Publishing
66. Zhong S, Pearce JM (2018) Tightening the loop on the circu-
lar economy: coupled distributed recycling and manufacturing
with recyclebot and RepRap 3-D printing. Res Conserv Recycl
128:48–58
67. Jones P, Comfort D (2017) Towards the circular economy: a
commentary on corporate approaches and challenges. J Public
Aff 17(4):e1680
68. Smith L (2022) Plastic waste. House of Commons Library
69. European Communication (2018) A European strategy for plas-
tics in a circular economy. p 1–24
70. Khalifa AA, Ibrahim A-J, Amhamed AI, El-Naas MHJS
(2022) Accelerating the transition to a circular economy for
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
net-zero emissions by 2050: a systematic review. Sustainability
14(18):11656
71. Castle JL and Hendry DF (2021) Can the UK achieve net-zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050?
72. Sundar D, Mathiyazhagan K, Agarwal V, Janardhanan M,
Appolloni A (2023) From linear to a circular economy in
the e-waste management sector: Experience from the transi-
tion barriers in the United Kingdom. Bus Strategy Environ
32(7):4282–4298
73. Voulvoulis N (2022) Transitioning to a sustainable circular
economy: the transformation required to decouple growth from
environmental degradation. Front Sustain 3:859896
74. Velenturf AP, Purnell P, Tregent M, Ferguson J, Holmes AJS
(2018) Co-producing a vision and approach for the transition
towards a circular economy: perspectives from government part-
ners. Sustainability 10(5):1401
75. Allwood JM (2014) Squaring the circular economy: the role of
recycling within a hierarchy of material management strategies,
Elsevier. p. 445–477
76. Mestre A, Cooper T (2017) Circular product design. A multiple
loops life cycle design approach for the circular economy. Des J
20(sup1):S1620–S1635
77. De Angelis R (2018) Business models in the circular economy:
concepts, examples and theory. Springer
78. Upadhyay A, Kumar A, Akter S (2021) An analysis of UK retail-
ers’ initiatives towards circular economy transition and policy-
driven directions. Clean Technol Environ Policy 24:1209–1217
79. Ford N, Trott P, Simms C, Hartmann DJIOIM (2014) Case analy-
sis of innovation in the packaging industry using the cyclic inno-
vation model. Int J Innovation Manage 18(5):1450033
80. Niero M, Kalbar PPJR, Conservation and Recycling (2019) Cou-
pling material circularity indicators and life cycle based indica-
tors: a proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy
strategies at the product level. 140: 305–312
81. Stewart R, Niero M (2018) Circular economy in corporate sus-
tainability strategies: a review of corporate sustainability reports
in the fast-moving consumer goods sector. Bus Strategy Environ
27(7):1005–1022
82. Ciccullo F, Cagliano R, Bartezzaghi G, Perego A (2021) Imple-
menting the circular economy paradigm in the agri-food supply
chain: the role of food waste prevention technologies. Resour
Conserv Recycl 164:105114
83. Gonçalves MLM, Maximo GJ (2023) Circular economy in the
food chain: production, processing and waste management. Cir-
cular Econ Sustain 3(3):1405–1423
84. Farooque M, Zhang A, Thürer M, Qu T, Huisingh DJJOCP
(2019) Circular supply chain management: a definition and struc-
tured literature review. J Cleaner Prod 228:882–900
85. Eduljee G (2023) The circular economy, employment, and low
carbon in the UK manufacturing sector, Springer. p 301–329
86. Armstrong K, Avery G, Bhatt A, Burton R, Carpenter A, Cresko
J, Dollinger C, Dong W, Iloeje C, Graziano D (2023) Sustainable
Manufacturing and the Circular Economy (No. NREL/TP-6A20-
80177; DOE/EE-2696). National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), Golden, CO, USA
87. Ogwumike C, Akponeware A, Oyewole A, Dawood H, Pinedo-
Cuenca R, Ling-Chin J, Roskilly AP, Dawood NJER (2024)
Transitioning or tinkering at a net-zero economy? Introducing
an assessment framework for industrial cluster decarbonisation
in the United Kingdom. Energy Res Soc Sci 110:103459
88. Rani A, Negi S, Fan C, Lam SS, Kim H, Pan S-YJJOHM (2024)
Revitalizing plastic wastes employing bio-circular-green econ-
omy principles for carbon neutrality. J Hazardous Mater 134394
89. Browning M, McFarland J, Bistline J, Boyd G, Muratori M, Bin-
sted M, Harris C, Mai T, Blanford G, Edmonds JJE, Change C
(2023) Net-zero CO2 by 2050 scenarios for the United States
in the energy modeling forum 37 study. Energy Clim Change
4:100104
90. Barapatre S and Rastogi M (2022) e-Waste management: a transi-
tion towards a circular economy, Springer, p. 1499–1521
91. Bozkurt Ö, Stowell AJNT (2016) Skills in the green economy:
recycling promises in the UK e-waste management sector. Work
Emp 31(2):146–160
92. Yazdi M, Moradi R, Nedjati A, Ghasemi Pirbalouti R, Li H
(2024) E-waste circular economy decision-making: a com-
prehensive approach for sustainable operation management
in the UK. Neural Comput Appl. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s00521- 024- 09754-3
93. Shittu S, Williams D, Shaw P (2021) Global E-waste man-
agement: can WEEE make a difference? a review of e-waste
trends, legislation, contemporary issues and future challenges.
Waste Manage 120:549–563
94. Debnath B, Das A, Das A (2022) Towards circular economy in
e-waste management in India: issues, challenges, and solutions,
In: Circular economy and sustainability, pp 523–543
95. Rizos V, Tuokko K, Behrens A (2017) The circular economy:
a review of definitions, processes and impacts. CEPS Papers
12440, Centre for European Policy Studies
96. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2016)
Designing a circular economy, postnote. UK Parliament Web.
https:// webar chive. parli ament. uk/. Accessed 26 Sept 2016
97. Ozkan-Ozen YD, Kazancoglu Y, Mangla SK (2020) Synchro-
nized barriers for circular supply chains in industry and transi-
tion for sustainable resource management. Res Conserv Recycl
161:104986
98. Mungai EM, Ndiritu SW, Rajwani T (2020) Do voluntary
environmental management systems improve environmental
performance? Evidence from waste management by Kenyan
firms. J Clean Prod 265:121636
99. Barreiro-Gen M, Lozano R (2020) How circular is the circular
economy? Analysing the implementation of circular economy
in organisations. Bus Strategy Environ 29(8):3484–3494
100. Hazen BT, Mollenkopf DA, Wang Y (2017) Remanufacturing
for the circular economy: an examination of consumer switch-
ing behavior. Bus Strategy Environ 26(4):451–464
101. Sharma NK, Govindan K, Lai KK, Chen WK, Kumar V
(2021) The transition from linear economy to circular
economy for sustainability among SMEs: a study on pros-
pects, impediments, and prerequisites. Bus Strategy Environ
30(4):1803–1822
102. Morseletto P (2020) Targets for a circular economy. Res Con-
serv Recycl 153:104553
103. Ormazabal M, Prieto-Sandoval V, Puga-Leal R, Jaca C (2018)
Circular economy in Spanish SMEs: challenges and opportuni-
ties. J Clean Prod 185:157–167
104. Homrich AS, Galvao G, Abadia LG, Carvalho MM (2018)
The circular economy umbrella: trends and gaps on integrating
pathways. J Clean Prod 175:525–543
105. Sanchez F, Boudaoud H, Camargo M, Pearce JM (2020) Plas-
tic recycling in additive manufacturing: a systematic literature
review and opportunities for the circular economy. J Clean
Prod 264:121602
106. Sadhukhan J, Martinez-Hernandez E (2017) Material flow and
sustainability analyses of biorefining of municipal solid waste.
Bioresource Technol 243:135–146. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
biort ech. 2017. 06. 078
107. Malinauskaite J, Jouhara H, Czajczyńska D, Stanchev P, Kat-
sou E, Rostkowski P, Thorne RJ, Colon J, Ponsá S, Al-Mansour
F (2017) Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-
energy in the context of a circular economy and energy recy-
cling in Europe. Energy 141:2013–2044
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
108. Lieder M, Rashid A (2016) Towards circular economy imple-
mentation: a comprehensive review in context of manufactur-
ing industry. J Clean Prod 115:36–51
109. Geng Y, Fu J, Sarkis J, Xue B (2012) Towards a national cir-
cular economy indicator system in China: an evaluation and
critical analysis. J Clean Prod 23(1):216–224
110. Ewijk V. (2014) Three challenges to the circular economy.
Available from: https:// blogs. ucl. ac. uk/ susta inable- resou rces/
2014/ 03/ 10/ three- chall enges- to- the- circu lar- econo my/
111. Palafox-Alcantar G, Hunt DV, Rogers CD (2020) A hybrid
methodology to study stakeholder cooperation in circular
economy waste management of cities. Energies 13(7):1845
112. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2023) UK
statistics on waste. GOV.UK Web. https:// www. gov. uk/ gover
nment/ stati stics/ uk- waste- data. Accessed 28 June 2023
113. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2021)
Official Statistics: UK statistics on waste. GOV.UK Web.
https:// www. gov. uk/ gover nment/ stati stics/ uk- waste- data/
uk- stati stics- on- waste#: ~: text= The% 20lat est% 20est imates%
20for% 20Eng land,tonne s)% 20of% 20the% 20UK% 20tot al.
Accessed 15 July 2021
114. Clarke C, Williams ID, Turner DA (2019) Evaluating the car-
bon footprint of WEEE management in the UK. Res Conserv
Recycl 141:465–473. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2018.
10. 003
115. Panzone L, Ulph A, Areal F, Grippo V (2021) A ridge regres-
sion approach to estimate the relationship between landfill
taxation and waste collection and disposal in England. Waste
Manag 129:95–110. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. wasman. 2021. 04.
054
116. Jeswani H, Krüger C, Russ M, Horlacher M, Antony F, Hann S,
Azapagic A (2021) Life cycle environmental impacts of chemical
recycling via pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste in comparison with
mechanical recycling and energy recovery. Sci Total Environ
769:144483
117. Castle L, Hendry F (2022) CAN THE UK ACHIEVE NET
ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY 2050?. Nat Inst
Econ Rev 24:1–11
118. Foster W, Azimov U, Gauthier-Maradei P, Molano LC, Com-
brinck M, Munoz J, Esteves JJ, Patino LJR, Reviews SE (2021)
Waste-to-energy conversion technologies in the UK: Processes
and barriers—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 135:110226
119. Bishoge OK, Huang X, Zhang L, Ma H, Danyo C (2019) The
adaptation of waste-to-energy technologies: towards the conver-
sion of municipal solid waste into a renewable energy resource.
Environ Rev 27(4):435–446
120. Vazquez-Peraita L (2022) Towards sustainable energy and fuels
from waste pathways for the UK. Dissertation, University of
Nottingham.
121. Mubeen I, Buekens A (2019) Energy from waste: future pros-
pects toward sustainable development. In: Current developments
in biotechnology and bioengineering, pp 283–305
122. Saira H (2021) The role of waste and solid biofuels in heating and
power sector; cases of Sweden, Poland and UK. Lappeenranta-
Lahti University of Technology. Dissertation
123. Papageorgiou A, Barton J, Karagiannidis A (2009) Assessment
of the greenhouse effect impact of technologies used for energy
recovery from municipal waste: a case for England. J Environ
Manage 90(10):2999–3012
124. Goli V, Singh D, Baser T (2021) A critical review on thermal
treatment technologies of combustible fractions from mechanical
biological treatment plants. J Environ Chem Eng 9(4):105643
125. Porshnov DJWIRE (2022) Evolution of pyrolysiss and gasifica-
tion as waste to energy tools for low carbon economy. Environ-
ment 11(1):e421
126. Hasan M, Rasul M, Khan M, Ashwath N, Jahirul MJR (2021)
Energy recovery from municipal solid waste using pyrolysis tech-
nology: a review on current status and developments. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 145:111073
127. Sajid M, Ahamad MI, Rehman AU, Rehman MSU, and Azim
MM (2023) Thermal waste management techniques, Apple Aca-
demic Press. p. 329–362
128. Panepinto D, Ravina M, Zanetti M (2022) An overview of ther-
mal treatment emissions with a particular focus on CO2 param-
eter. Sustainability 14(23):15852
129. Ackrill R, Abdo HJ (2020) On-farm anaerobic digestion uptake
barriers and required incentives: a case study of the UK East
Midlands region. J Cleaner Prod 264:121727
130. Hussain Z, Mishra J, Vanacore E (2020) Waste to energy and
circular economy: the case of anaerobic digestion. J Enterp Inf
Manage 33(4):817–838
131. Seruga P (2021) The municipal solid waste management sys-
tem with anaerobic digestion. Energies 14(8):2067
132. Akhiar A, Zamri A, Torrijos M, Battimelli A, Roslan E, Mar-
zuki M, Carrere H (2020) Anaerobic digestion industries pro-
gress throughout the world. In: IOP conference series: Earth
and environmental science, Vol. 476, No. 1, p. 012074
133. Slorach C, Jeswani K, Cuéllar-Franca R, Azapagic A (2020)
Assessing the economic and environmental sustainability of
household food waste management in the UK: Current situa-
tion and future scenarios. Sci Total Environ 710:135580
134. O'Connor S, Ehimen E, Pillai S, Black A, Tormey D, Bartlett
R (2021) Biogas production from small-scale anaerobic diges-
tion plants on European farms. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
139:110580
135. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2022)
British survey of fertiliser practice 2021. GOV.UK Web.
https:// www. gov. uk/ gover nment/ stati stics/ briti sh- survey- of-
ferti liser- pract ice- 2021. Accessed 28 July 2022
136. Bywater A, Kusch-Brandt S (2022) Exploring farm anaerobic
digester economic viability in a time of policy change in the
UK. Processes 10(2):212
137. Di Vaio A, Van Engelenhoven E, Chhabra M, Garofalo A
(2024) Decarbonization of waste management practices and
GHG accounting for energy transition: evidence from Euro-
pean electricity corporation’s reporting. Environ Dev Sustain.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10668- 024- 04629
138. Shah HH, Amin M, Pepe F, Tregambi C (2024) Sustainable
waste management and waste-to-energy in the context of a
circular economy through various waste management tech-
nologies. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11356- 024- 33223
139. Falsafi A (2023) An assessment of the speed of transition from
municipal solid waste and packaging waste landfilling to recy-
cling. Dissertation, Lappeenranta–Lahti University of Technol-
ogy LUT
140. Albizzati PF, Foster G, Gaudillat P, Manfredi S, Tonini D (2024)
A model to assess the environmental and economic impacts
of municipal waste management in Europe. Waste Manage
174:605–617
141. Fischer C, Gentil E, Ryberg M, Reichel A (2013) Managing
municipal solid waste-a review of achievements in 32 European
countries. European environment agency, pp 1–36
142. Agency EPA (2022) Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
and sinks: 1990–2020. EPA Web. https:// www. epa. gov/ ghgem
issio ns/ inven tory- us- green house- gas- emiss ions- and- sinks- 1990-
2020. Accessed 15 Apr 2022
143. Karim M, Wetterhan J (2020) A comparative study of solid waste
management in the United States, Europe and Asia. Ann Civil
Environ Eng 4:003–011
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
144. Mukherjee C, Denney J, Mbonimpa EG, Slagley J, Bhowmik
RJR (2020) A review on municipal solid waste-to-energy trends
in the USA. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 119:109512
145. Sutthasil N, Chiemchaisri C, Chiemchaisri W, Ishigaki T, Ghee-
wala SH (2023) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of emerg-
ing municipal solid waste management options: a case study in
Thailand. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 25(2):662–673. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10163- 022- 01584-6
146. Agamuthu P, Babel SJWM (2023) Waste management develop-
ments in the last five decades: Asian perspective. Waste Manage
Res 41(12):1699–1716
147. LAUDA N (2022) What a waste: innovations in Africa’s waste
material management. Point Web. https:// thepo int. gm/ africa/
gambia/ edito rial/ innov ations- in- afric as- waste- mater ial- manag
ement. Accessed Oct 2021
148. Yamada K, Ii R, Yamamoto M, Ueda H, Sakai S (2023) Japan’s
greenhouse gas reduction scenarios toward net zero by 2050
in the material cycles and waste management sector. J Mater
Cycles Waste Manag 25(4):1807–1823. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10163- 023- 01650-7
149. Inaba R, Tasaki T, Kawai K, Nakanishi S, Yokoo Y, Takagi S
(2022) National and subnational outcomes of waste manage-
ment policies for 1718 municipalities in Japan: development of
a bottom-up waste flow model and its application to a declin-
ing population through 2030. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
24(1):155–165. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10163- 021- 01303-7
150. Yang G, Liu M, Gao Y, Han S, Meng F, Ju T, Jiang J (2024) A
review on the evaluation models and impact factors of green-
house gas emissions from municipal solid waste management
processes. Environ Sci Pollut Res 31(19):27531–27553. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11356- 024- 33042-1
151. Herrador M, de Jong W, Nasu K, Granrath L (2022) Circular
economy and zero-carbon strategies between Japan and South
Korea: a comparative study. Sci Total Environ 820:153274
152. Yang W-S, Park J-K, Park S-W, Seo Y-CJJOMC (2015) Past,
present and future of waste management in Korea. J Mater Cycles
Waste Manage 17:207–217
153. Kumari T, Raghubanshi A (2023) Waste management practices
in the developing nations: challenges and opportunities. Waste
management and resource recycling in the developing World, pp
773–797
154. Patel B, Patel A, Patel P (2023) Waste to energy: a decision-
making process for technology selection through characteriza-
tion of waste, considering energy and emission in the city of
Ahmedabad, India. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 25(2):1227–
1238. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10163- 023- 01610-1
155. Di Maria F, Mersky L, Daskal S, Ayalon O, Ghosh K (2020)
Preliminary comparison among recycling rates for developed and
developing countries: The case of India, Israel, Italy and USA.
Sustain Waste Manage Policies Case Stud 7th IconSWM 1:1–13
156. Ojha P, Pohit S, Ghosh J (2020) Recycling carbon tax for inclu-
sive green growth: a CGE analysis of India. Energy Policy
144:111708
157. Omokaro G, Michael I (2024) Assessing the environmental and
health implications of waste disposal: a case study of Africa's
largest dumping site. J Geogr Environ Earth Sci Int 28(5):16–30
158. Kabera T, Nishimwe H (2019) Systems analysis of municipal
solid waste management and recycling system in east Africa:
benchmarking performance in Kigali city, Rwanda. E3S web of
conferences 80:03004
159. Allesch A, Huber-Humer M (2023) A brief glance on global
waste management. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp
227–258
160. Mbama CA, Otegbulu A, Beverland I, Beattie TK (2023)
Solid waste recycling within higher education in developing
countries: a case study of the University of Lagos. J Mater
Cycles Waste Manag 25(2):886–898. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10163- 022- 01569-5
161. Akhavan Limoodehi F, Tayefeh SM, Heydari R, Abdoli MA
(2017) Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste manage-
ment in Tehran. Environ Energy Econ Res 1(2):207–218
162. UK GOV (2011) Waste (England and Wales) regulations 2011.
Legislation.gov.uk Web. https:// www. legis lation. gov. uk/ uksi/
2011/ 988/ conte nts. Accessed 28 Mar 2011
163. UK GOV (2013) Waste prevention programme for England.
GOV.UK Web. https:// www. gov. uk/ gover nment/ publi catio ns/
waste- preve ntion- progr amme- for- engla nd. Accessed 11 Dec
2013
164. Association UELLE. Available from: http:// www. envir onmen
tlaw. org. uk/ rte. asp? id= 82
165. UK GOV (2018) Our waste, our resources: a strategy for Eng-
land. GOV.UK Web. https:// assets. publi shing. servi ce. gov. uk/
media/ 5c18f 11740 f0b60 bbee0 d827/ resou rces- waste- strat egy-
dec- 2018. pdf. Accessed 18 Dec 2018
166. UK GOV (2018) A green future: our 25 year plan to improve the
environment. GOV.UK Web. https:// assets. publi shing. servi ce.
gov. uk/ media/ 65fd7 13d65 ca2f0 0117d a89e/ CD1.H_ HM_ Gover
nment_A_ Green_ Future_ Our_ 25_ Year_ Plan_ to_ Impro ve_ the_
Envir onment. pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2018
167. Fletcher A, Dunk R (2018) In the search for effective waste pol-
icy: alignment of UK waste strategy with the circular economy.
Detritus 4:48–62
168. Hudson RJLE (2022) ‘Levelling up’in post-Brexit United King-
dom: economic realism or political opportunism? Local Econ
37(1–2):50–65
169. Nikolaou IE, Jones N, Stefanakis AJCE (2021) Circular economy
and sustainability: the past, the present and the future directions.
Sustainability 1:1–20
170. Purnell P, Velenturf A, Marshall R (2019) New governance for
circular economy: policy, regulation and market contexts for
resource recovery from waste. Royal society of chemistry
171. Ng S, Yang A (2023) Development of a system model to predict
flows and performance of regional waste management planning:
a case study of England. J Environ Manage 325:116585
172. Gopinath D (2020) Waste management in England and the ‘cir-
cular economy’ model. Geography 105(1):39–46
173. Wang D, He J, Tang Y-T, Higgitt D, Robinson D (2020) Life
cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management in Not-
tingham, England: past and future perspectives. J Cleaner Prod
251:119636
174. Wang D, Tang Y-T, Sun Y, He J (2022) Assessing the transition
of municipal solid waste management by combining material
flow analysis and life cycle assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl
177:105966
175. Panzone L, Ulph A, Areal F, Grippo V (2021) A ridge regression
approach to estimate the relationship between landfill taxation
and waste collection and disposal in England. Waste Manage
129:95–110
176. Jamasb T, Nepal R (2010) Issues and options in waste manage-
ment: a social cost–benefit analysis of waste-to-energy in the
UK. Res Conserv Recycl 54(12):1341–1352. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. resco nrec. 2010. 05. 004
177. Ghaffar SH, Burman M, Braimah N (2020) Pathways to cir-
cular construction: an integrated management of construction
and demolition waste for resource recovery. J Cleaner Prod
244:118710
178. Ali M, Courtenay PJWM (2014) Evaluating the progress of
the UK’s material recycling facilities: a mini review. Research
32(12):1149–1157
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
179. Oluwadipe S, Garelick H, McCarthy S, Purchase D (2022) A
critical review of household recycling barriers in the United
Kingdom. Waste Manage Res 40(7):905–918
180. Tansel B (2020) Increasing gaps between materials demand and
materials recycling rates: a historical perspective for evolution
of consumer products and waste quantities. J Environ Manage
276:111196
181. Kahlert S, Bening CRJR (2022) Why pledges alone will not get
plastics recycled: comparing recyclate production and anticipated
demand. Conserv Recycl 181:106279
182. Wang D, Tang Y-T, Long G, Higgitt D, He J, Robinson D (2020)
Future improvements on performance of an EU landfill directive
driven municipal solid waste management for a city in England.
Waste Manage 102:452–463
183. Sumter D, De Koning J, Bakker C, Balkenende R (2020) Circular
economy competencies for design. Sustainability 12(4):1561
184. Medkova K, Fifield B (2016) Circular design-design for circular
economy. Lahti Cleantech Ann Rev 32:1–72
185. Baldassarre B, Keskin D, Diehl JC, Bocken N, Calabretta G
(2020) Implementing sustainable design theory in business prac-
tice: a call to action. J Cleaner Prod 273:123113
186. Sartal A, Bellas R, Mejías AM, García-Collado A (2020) The
sustainable manufacturing concept, evolution and opportuni-
ties within Industry 4.0: a literature review. Adv Mech Eng
12(5):1687814020925232
187. Bjørnbet MM, Vildåsen SS (2021) Life cycle assessment to
ensure sustainability of circular business models in manufactur-
ing. Sustainability 13(19):11014
188. Linder M, Boyer RH, Dahllöf L, Vanacore E, Hunka A (2020)
Product-level inherent circularity and its relationship to environ-
mental impact. J Cleaner Prod 260:121096
189. Gheewala SH, Silalertruksa T (2021) Life cycle thinking in a cir-
cular economy. An introduction to circular economy, pp 35–53
190. Schmidt Rivera X, Balcombe P, Niero M (2021) Life cycle
assessment as a metric for circular economy. Royal society of
chemistry
191. Schwartz M, Fouad MM, Hansen M, Verdier M (2020) Well
spent: how strong infrastructure governance can end waste in
public investment. International Monetary Fund, USA
192. Savini FJJOEP (2021) The circular economy of waste: recovery,
incineration and urban reuse. Management 64(12):2114–2132
193. Dieckmann E, Sheldrick L, Tennant M, Myers R, Cheeseman
C (2020) Analysis of barriers to transitioning from a linear to a
circular economy for end of life materials: a case study for waste
feathers. Sustainability 12(5):1725
194. Turner DA (2016) Evaluating the life cycle climate impacts
of solid waste management. Dissertation, University of
Southampton
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Authors and Aliations
ZeinabZandieh1· PatriciaThornley1· KatieChong1
* Zeinab Zandieh
zzand21@aston.ac.uk
1 Energy andBioproducts Research Institute, College
forEngineering andPhysical Science, Aston University,
Aston Triangle, BirminghamB47ET, UK
