Assessment of Sustainable Waste Management: A Case Study in Lithuania

Abstract

Sustainable waste management is a very important issue that has received increasing attention in recent years due to its significant impact on the environment and human health. As the population and urbanization increase, more and more waste is generated, leading to problems such as pollution, resource depletion, climate change, etc. Therefore, it is necessary to develop effective waste management strategies that are sustainable and do not harm the environment. The EU is making progress in sustainable waste management within the wider context of a circular economy, but challenges remain, particularly in reducing material consumption and effectively managing specific waste streams. The EU’s approach involves setting clear targets, monitoring progress in a comprehensive framework, and supporting Member States in achieving these targets. In 2019, Lithuanian companies invested about 40% more in environmental protection than in 2018. Notably, 15% of them are invested in waste management. An inhabitant throws out an average of 278 kilograms of mixed municipal waste per year. According to the global waste index in 2022, Lithuania ranked 16th (up from 23rd place), Latvia 37th (down from 35th place), and Estonia 32nd (down from 30th place). The purpose of this article is to identify the factors that determine sustainable waste management in cities and to predict the changes that will occur. Research methods: synthesis and comparison of concepts and methods in scientific literature, secondary data analysis, statistical data processing, and expert interview methods. Research results: It has been determined which factors and how they determine sustainable waste management in the country. The experts evaluated the alternatives—waste prevention, reuse, recycling, and optimization of landfills—according to the following criteria: economic, social, environmental protection, and technology. The most important criterion was determined to be the environmental protection criterion.

Full text

Academic Editor: Jose Navarro
Pedreño
Received: 28 October 2024
Revised: 19 December 2024
Accepted: 20 December 2024
Published: 27 December 2024
Citation: ˇ
Cinˇcikait˙
e, R. Assessment
of Sustainable Waste Management: A
Case Study in Lithuania. Sustainability
2025,17, 120. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su17010120
Copyright: © 2024 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
Article
Assessment of Sustainable Waste Management: A Case Study
in Lithuania
Renata ˇ
Cinˇcikait˙
e
Faculty of Business Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11,
LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania; renata.cincikaite@vilniustech.lt
Abstract: Sustainable waste management is a very important issue that has received in-
creasing attention in recent years due to its significant impact on the environment and
human health. As the population and urbanization increase, more and more waste is
generated, leading to problems such as pollution, resource depletion, climate change, etc.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop effective waste management strategies that are sus-
tainable and do not harm the environment. The EU is making progress in sustainable
waste management within the wider context of a circular economy, but challenges remain,
particularly in reducing material consumption and effectively managing specific waste
streams. The EU’s approach involves setting clear targets, monitoring progress in a com-
prehensive framework, and supporting Member States in achieving these targets. In 2019,
Lithuanian companies invested about 40% more in environmental protection than in 2018.
Notably, 15% of them are invested in waste management. An inhabitant throws out an
average of 278 kilograms of mixed municipal waste per year. According to the global
waste index in 2022, Lithuania ranked 16th (up from 23rd place), Latvia 37th (down from
35th place), and Estonia 32nd (down from 30th place). The purpose of this article is to
identify the factors that determine sustainable waste management in cities and to predict
the changes that will occur. Research methods: synthesis and comparison of concepts and
methods in scientific literature, secondary data analysis, statistical data processing, and
expert interview methods. Research results: It has been determined which factors and how
they determine sustainable waste management in the country. The experts evaluated the
alternatives—waste prevention, reuse, recycling, and optimization of landfills—according
to the following criteria: economic, social, environmental protection, and technology. The
most important criterion was determined to be the environmental protection criterion.
Keywords: sustainable waste management; expert interview methods; urbanization
1. Introduction
In the field of sustainable waste management, various studies are carried out. Propos-
als are made such as integrated sustainable management, where the main focus is on food
waste [
1
], various waste-to-energy (WTE) technologies [
2
], the use of agricultural waste
biomass as composite absorbents for sustainable wastewater treatment [
3
], the provision of
a classification of technologies that help address the challenges associated with sustainable
resource use [
4
], policies, advice, and solutions related to the sustainable management of
medical waste using green technologies [
5
], a framework to enable the integration and
sustainability of MSW in light of recent barriers and CSFs needed to implement S-ISWM
in municipalities in developing countries [
6
], an analysis of the relationship between the
circular economy and renewable energy and the importance of efficiency in achieving
Sustainability 2025,17, 120 https://doi.org/10.3390/su17010120

Sustainability 2025,17, 120 2 of 14
sustainable development in the application of the circular economy [
7
], and the imple-
mentation of the Internet of Things in the waste management system in order to eliminate
gaps in waste use [
8
]. In addition, governments and organizations have begun to imple-
ment national strategies and plans to address the problem of waste management, such as
the Palestine MTG National Waste Management Strategy [
9
] and the Australian County
Council Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2018–2022 in Australia [
10
]. A mathematical
toolkit is presented for the preliminary analysis of the financial and environmental sustain-
ability of a WEEE waste treatment facility with resource recovery based on the principles
of a circular economy [
11
]. An IWMP decision support tool has been introduced to inform
and influence higher-level decision-making policy instruments on waste-related issues [
12
].
The waste sector, especially waste disposed of in landfills, contributes significantly
to Lithuania’s greenhouse gas emissions. The multifaceted problems posed by waste
include environmental degradation, public health crises, and social and economic conse-
quences [
13
]. The degradation of the environment remains one of the biggest consequences
of improper waste management. Landfills, where most waste is often stored, not only
visually spoil the environment, but also contribute to soil and water pollution. Toxic sub-
stances leached from waste, such as heavy metals and chemical pollutants, can degrade soil
quality and contaminate groundwater resources, disrupting the delicate balance of ecosys-
tems. Furthermore, the decomposition of organic waste in landfills produces methane, a
powerful greenhouse gas that contributes significantly to global climate change [
14
]. The
consequences of waste are not limited to environmental degradation, but pose a huge threat
to public health [
15
]. The social and economic impact of waste is also very relevant. In
many non-developing regions, the informal waste management sector plays an important
role in waste management. People working in this sector often face dangerous working
conditions, social exclusion, and economic exploitation. Inefficient waste management also
leads to lost opportunities for recycling and resource utilization, further increasing the
burden on natural resources [16].
In order to secure its position as the leader of the circular economy in Europe, Lithuania
has planned until 2024 to reach the EU average in the index of the use of secondary
raw materials, and by 2030—to reduce the amount of waste disposed of in landfills to
5 percent and to have the first sewerless municipality. The ultimate goal is to make the
entire Lithuanian economy a circular economy by 2050 [
17
]. The target is ambitious, but
the generation of waste at the primary source is still growing. Therefore, the question
arises as to what factors lead to the generation of waste and its growth. To solve this
question, our research focuses on the primary dimensions: indicators of waste generation
and management, conducting a systematic analysis of statistical data to assess trends in
this phenomenon, and an expert survey to determine what influences sustainable waste
management. The next section provides a summary of relevant literature on sustainable
waste management. The third part presents the methodological base in which methods
are used: descriptive statistics and analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The fourth chapter
discusses the results and provides perspectives for future research.
2. Literature Review
Sustainable waste management is often defined by researchers as the implementation
of practices and strategies that aim to minimize the environmental, social, and economic
impacts of waste generation, collection, treatment, and disposal. Sustainable waste man-
agement aims to promote the efficient use of resources, reduce pollution, conserve natural
resources, and improve public health and well-being (see Table 1).

Sustainability 2025,17, 120 3 of 14
Table 1. The concept of sustainable waste management.
Author The Concept of Sustainable Waste Management
Nabavi-Pelesaraei
Kaab et al.,
2019 [18]
Waste management follows an ideal hierarchy with
prevention as the most acceptable method, followed
by the 3Ps (reuse, recycling, and recovery), and
landfill as the least acceptable option.
Ribi´c et al., 2017 [19]
Substantial improvement of the current waste
management system, especially taking into account
the obligations set out in various directives of the
European Union.
Wiah et al., 2022 [20]
Defined as the ability of a plastic waste management
system to remain closed, ensuring a continuous flow
of both direct and reverse products and waste.
Ming Hung Wong 2022 [1]Waste management in order to protect the
environment and human health, emphasizing the
efficiency of resource use.
Wilson et al., 2013 [21],
Memon 2020, [22]
A process that includes the physical components of
waste collection, disposal, recycling, and
management, such as financial sustainability and
proactive policies.
Cucchiella et al., 2017 [23]Environmental, economic, and social impact
assessment of possible waste management options.
E. Pongrácz 2004 [24]
Waste management is a response to the very fact of
waste generation, including its accumulation,
transportation, use, and disposal, including the
control of these processes and assessment of the
impact of disposed waste.
Podgaiskyt˙
e 2011 [25]It is not only the disposal of already generated waste,
but also the management of limited natural resources.
Although these authors have different views on sustainable waste management, they
share the common opinion that sustainable waste management is not only waste disposal
but also an inseparable connection with wider resource management, environmental
sustainability, and a circular economy. It focuses on reducing waste generation, maximizing
resource utilization, and ensuring that waste management processes are integrated into
a sustainable cycle of material use and reuse [
18
]. International organizations (OECD
and UNEP) provide a complete list of materials and products that are considered waste.
Sustainable waste management in this article will be considered as a process that ensures
environmentally friendly, economically viable, and socially acceptable ways.
To achieve sustainable waste management, it is necessary to promote the conscious
behavior of residents, factories, and companies. The following pollution prevention models
are distinguished: the requirement to take back one’s own production; deposit schemes;
subsidizing the early stages of production; and advance fees for waste management [
26
,
27
].
When it comes to sustainable waste management, it is necessary to know what categories
waste is divided into. Waste is divided into several categories according to its origin,
composition, and possibilities for reuse or recycling: municipal solid waste (MSW). This
waste, commonly called garbage, includes items thrown away by society every day, such as
household waste, packaging, food scraps, and yard waste [
28
,
29
]. Industrial waste: waste
resulting from industrial activities including manufacturing, mining, and agriculture. They
can be dangerous or non-dangerous [
18
]. Hazardous waste: waste that has properties
that make it hazardous or may be hazardous to human health or the environment [
14
].

Sustainability 2025,17, 120 4 of 14
Medical waste: items such as syringes, dressings, and surgical instruments. They can be
dangerous and require special disposal methods [
9
]. Electronic waste (e-waste): discarded
electronic devices: computers, televisions, and mobile phones [
15
]. Recyclable waste: paper,
glass, metal, and certain plastics (materials that can be recycled into new products) [
21
].
Construction and demolition waste: waste that is generated during the construction, reno-
vation, or demolition of buildings and structures [
28
]. Organic waste: biodegradable waste
from plants or animals, often used for composting [
30
]. It is necessary to emphasize that
each type of waste requires special handling, processing, and disposal methods in order to
reduce its impact on the environment and human health. Waste management is one of the
main social and management challenges, especially in urban areas with increasing popu-
lations and garbage generation. In developing countries, most cities collect only
50–80%
of the waste generated, spending 20–50% of their budgets, of which 80–95% is spent on
waste collection and transportation [
31
–
33
]. In addition, many low-income countries collect
as little as 10% of municipal waste, which poses public health and environmental risks,
including increased diarrheal and acute respiratory infections among people, especially
children, living near landfills [
31
,
34
]. Deterioration of the environment can lead to a public
health crisis (e.g., contaminated water causes disease) [
13
,
16
]. Environmental degradation
often occurs over a long period of time, and public health crises can have immediate and
acute impacts. Solving environmental problems can involve policy changes, technological
innovations, and global cooperation (e.g., reducing methane emissions from landfills) [
15
].
In 2021, Awasthi described and discussed several methods and concepts of sustainable
waste management: first of all, he suggests rethinking open landfills and closed landfills.
Traditional landfills and underground landfill methods are considered suboptimal due to
their impact on the environment. It is worth noting also that innovative technologies such
as microwave pyrolysis can be used to treat waste such as solar cells and agricultural waste,
creating useful by-products and reducing emissions during combustion. [
28
]. A zero-waste
concept, this focuses on redesigning the resource supply chain to ensure that all products
and by-products are reused or recycled [
20
,
28
]. The researchers found that extending the
life of a product can significantly reduce waste as fewer products are thrown away over
time. It is suggested to apply resource-efficient systems [18,28].
The differences between sustainable waste management and traditional waste manage-
ment were described as follows: Boakye 2023 and Oked 2022 distinguished the following
main differences: approach to energy and resources: Sustainable waste management gives
priority to renewable and sustainable energy sources, abandoning traditional fossil fuels.
This approach contrasts with traditional waste management, which often relies on land-
fills and usually does not include waste energy recovery [
2
]; environmental impact and
sustainability goals: Sustainable waste management is aligned with the Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals of the United Nations and aims to reduce the negative impact of waste on
the environment, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. Traditional
methods of waste management, such as landfilling or incineration without energy recovery,
are of great environmental concern as they contribute to emissions and pollution [
2
]; waste
management practices: sustainable waste management includes practices such as recycling,
reuse, biorecovery, and the use of nonrecyclable waste for energy production. Traditional
waste management often involves simple disposal methods such as landfills, with minimal
emphasis on recycling and reuse. Sustainable waste management practices aim to mini-
mize the negative effects of waste on health and reduce its impact on the environment [
30
];
however, the implementation of sustainable waste management practices varies widely
across regions and countries [
2
,
28
,
35
]; sustainable waste management requires greater
awareness and cultural change as it often involves more complex and integrated systems
compared to traditional methods [
2
,
28
]. Thus, by developing and implementing sustainable

Sustainability 2025,17, 120 5 of 14
waste management strategies, it is possible to reduce the negative impact of waste on the
environment and human health.
There are studies on methods used to analyze sustainable waste management, such
as the application of the AHP method [
36
], as well as research aimed at identifying the
best ways to collect plastic waste. Additionally, the application of multicriteria evaluation
methods, like TOPSIS, is intended to assist decision-makers in the Portuguese waste
management system [
37
]. After analyzing the scientific literature to determine which
methods are used to justify decisions on waste management at various levels of society,
the researchers distinguished the following methods: environmental impact assessment,
strategic environmental assessment, life cycle assessment, cost and benefit analysis, and
cost-effectiveness. Efficiency analysis, life cycle costing, risk assessment, material flow
accounting, material flow analysis, and energy analysis [
38
] are all important considerations,
but other researchers have concluded that the majority of research focuses on the broader
application of life cycle assessment, multicriteria decision-making, cost-benefit analysis,
risk assessments, and comparative analysis [
39
]. Therefore, in this article, the AHP method
is applied to determine which criterion is more important for different sustainable waste
management measures (such as waste prevention measures, waste reuse measures, waste
recycling measures, and landfill optimization measures).
3. Methodology
The work uses secondary data analysis and expert surveys. The sample is made by
snowball, otherwise known as the chain sampling method, which allows researchers to
obtain detailed information about the object of the study. This method was chosen because
it allows the informant to indicate to the researcher other experts worthy of inclusion in the
study due to their qualifications in the relevant topic, who belong to a relatively limited
group but with specific information that would be difficult for the researcher to access
and about which the researcher has very little knowledge, or does not have it at all [
40
].
Fifteen experts were interviewed, and they were selected based on the experts’ experience
(at least 10 years) and information saturation. The information saturation effect allows
the researcher to decide whether all the necessary data have been collected or whether
additional data should be sought [
41
]. This makes it possible to determine that the existing
number of experts is sufficient if all necessary information is received. Informants’ positions,
seniority, and other data are not disclosed and are encrypted for data protection, consensus,
and compliance with work research ethics.
The research was carried out in accordance with the principles of ethics: scientific
objectivity, autonomy, the anonymity of all participants in the research is ensured, and no
personal data and other data that could reveal the participants were collected.
In order to determine which criterion (see Table 2) is more important for different
measures of sustainable waste management (such as waste prevention measures, waste
reuse measures, waste recycling measures, and landfill optimization measures), the AHP
method was chosen. This method is based on the comparison of two alternative elements,
so even very complex problems can be solved in this way [
42
]. According to Šostar and
Ristanovi´c (2023), the AHP method is one of the most accurate road decision-making
methods. The hierarchy of criteria established during the research allows us to understand
how strongly individual factors of the lowest level influence the main goal. Meanwhile,
criteria weights reflect the opinion of expert evaluators about the importance of criteria
compared to other criteria. The method is applied by filling in the matrix of pairwise
comparison of experts’ indicators (T. Saaty’s importance scale (see Table 3)).

Sustainability 2025,17, 120 6 of 14
Table 2. Criteria for expert survey.
Factors Criteria Code
Legal environment National management
International management M1.1
M1.2
Economic environment Infrastructure
Taxes
Recycling
M2.1
M2.2
M2.3
Social environment Consciousness
Engaging communities
Habits
M3.1
M3.2
M3.3
Environmental protection Conservation of resources M4.1
Technologies Waste management technologies
Waste collection systems M5.1
M5.2
Table 3. T. Saaty’s importance scale and its description [43].
Level of Importance Description
1 Indicators are equally important
3 One indicator is slightly more important than the other
5 One indicator is more important than another
7 One indicator is much more important than the other
9 One indicator is incomparably more important than the other
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values
The weighting coefficients of the criteria are calculated as follows (see Equation (1)):
wj=
∑n
j=1xij
n; (1)
here:
∑n
j=1xij —the sum of the rows of a normalized matrix;
n—number of criteria;
wj—criterion weight.
A consistency ratio (CR) is calculated, which allows the detection of computational
and evaluation deficiencies (see Equation (2)).
CR =
CI
RI (2)
here:
n—number of indicators;
CI—sequential index;
RI—Value of T. Saaty’s coefficients.
If C.R. < 0.1, then it is concluded that the matrix is aligned. The averages of the
matched matrices are the final weighting factors.
4. Results
In 2024, the environmental protection rating of Lithuanian municipalities was pub-
lished, the purpose of which is to determine which of the municipalities is the most
involved/made the biggest breakthrough in getting involved in the green course [
17
]. This

Sustainability 2025,17, 120 7 of 14
assessment was carried out in several sections (waste and circularity, energy, construction,
spatial planning, communication, climate change management and policy, environmental
quality, prevention, and comfort, water quality, biodiversity, landscape, and environmental
awareness). In the waste and circularity category, the contribution of municipalities in
creating the most comfortable conditions for waste sorting and product reuse was evalu-
ated. The study results showed that the municipality of Utena district showed leadership
in this category, while the municipality of Panevežys improved its results by more than
two points (2022—36.64, 2024—38.97). In the category of environmental awareness, it was
evaluated how municipalities study residents’ satisfaction with the quality of the environ-
ment, implement community involvement initiatives, and what funding they allocate to
the environmental education of residents. In 2024, the Utena district municipality showed
leadership in this category, which improved its results by more than 13 points compared to
2023 (2023—16.48, 2024—28.91).
The first figure (Figure 1) shows the percentage of municipal waste recycled compared
to municipal waste generated. In 2022, it was more than 4 percent less than in 2018.
Sustainability2025,17,xFORPEERREVIEW8of15

initiatives,andwhatfundingtheyallocatetotheenvironmentaleducationofresidents.In
2024,theUtenadistrictmunicipalityshowedleadershipinthiscategory,whichimproved
itsresultsbymorethan13pointscomparedto2023(2023—16.48,2024—28.91).
Thefirstfigure(Figure1)showsthepercentageofmunicipalwasterecycled
comparedtomunicipalwastegenerated.In2022,itwasmorethan4percentlessthanin
2018.

Figure1.Recycledmunicipalwastecomparedtogeneratedmunicipalwaste|percent.
Theinterviewconsistedof12questions,whichcoveredfivetopics:thecountry’slegal
environment,economicenvironment,socialenvironment,environmentalprotection,and
appliedtechnologies.Expertopinionsonsustainablewastemanagementinthecountry
differedslightly.Allexperts,whenaskedabouttheirgoalsinwastemanagement,
identifiedthefollowingessentialgoals:1.toreduceenvironmentalpollution;2.toreduce
thegenerationofwaste;3.toincreasewasterecycling;4.toincreaseawarenessofboth
residentsandbusinesses;and5tosort,recycle,orreusesortedwaste.Accordingto
experts,recyclingorreuseofwastecontributestotheecologyofnature.Lesswasteends
upinlandfills,energyisextracted,oritissimplyreused.Wastesortingalsoprovidesa
slightfinancialbenefit,because,accordingtoexperts,youhavetopaymuchlessforsorted
wastethanforunsortedwaste,andsometimeswastesuchasscrapmetalorlarge-sized
wasteisevenbought.However,expertsnotethatmanycitizens,companies,andfactories
stillavoidproperlysortingordisposingofwaste.Therearealsocasesofillegalburying
andtheremovalofwasteinremoteplaces.“Itisapitythatnoteveryoneunderstandsthe
importanceofsorting,Inoticecases,andcertainlynotisolatedones,whenconstruction
wasteistransportedtothecountry’sforests”.“Ofcourse,thereisnowaytochangehabits,
andsortingissimplyinconvenientandsometimesevenillegal.Thecollectionsitesmay
notbeeasilyaccessibletoeveryone,andadditionalfundsneedtobeallocatedforthe
managementofcertainwastes”.
TheregulationofwastemanagementinLithuaniaisregulatedbyboththeEuropean
Unionandnationallegislation.Theexpertssingledoutthefollowingmaindocuments:
theWasteManagementLawoftheRepublicofLithuania,theEUWasteDirective
(2008/98/EC),andtheLawoftheRepublicofLithuaniaonPackagingandPackaging
WasteManagement.Everymunicipalityinthecountryprepareswastemanagementplans
andmustensuretheproperfunctioningofthewastecollection,sorting,andrecycling
system.Therearealsodifferentordinancesforwasteremovalandwastemanagement,
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
48.4 44.33 45.25 49.7 52.58
Year
Recycledmunicipalwastecomparedtogeneratedmunicipalwaste|percent
Figure 1. Recycled municipal waste compared to generated municipal waste|percent.
The interview consisted of 12 questions, which covered five topics: the country’s legal
environment, economic environment, social environment, environmental protection, and
applied technologies. Expert opinions on sustainable waste management in the country
differed slightly. All experts, when asked about their goals in waste management, identified
the following essential goals: 1. to reduce environmental pollution; 2. to reduce the
generation of waste; 3. to increase waste recycling; 4. to increase awareness of both
residents and businesses; and 5 to sort, recycle, or reuse sorted waste. According to experts,
recycling or reuse of waste contributes to the ecology of nature. Less waste ends up in
landfills, energy is extracted, or it is simply reused. Waste sorting also provides a slight
financial benefit, because, according to experts, you have to pay much less for sorted waste
than for unsorted waste, and sometimes waste such as scrap metal or large-sized waste
is even bought. However, experts note that many citizens, companies, and factories still
avoid properly sorting or disposing of waste. There are also cases of illegal burying and
the removal of waste in remote places. “It is a pity that not everyone understands the
importance of sorting, I notice cases, and certainly not isolated ones, when construction
waste is transported to the country’s forests”. “Of course, there is no way to change habits,
and sorting is simply inconvenient and sometimes even illegal. The collection sites may

Sustainability 2025,17, 120 8 of 14
not be easily accessible to everyone, and additional funds need to be allocated for the
management of certain wastes”.
The regulation of waste management in Lithuania is regulated by both the European
Union and national legislation. The experts singled out the following main documents: the
Waste Management Law of the Republic of Lithuania, the EU Waste Directive (2008/98/EC),
and the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Packaging and Packaging Waste Management.
Every municipality in the country prepares waste management plans and must ensure
the proper functioning of the waste collection, sorting, and recycling system. There are
also different ordinances for waste removal and waste management, depending on the
category. However, as experts have noticed, there is a lack of regulatory instruments for
promoting the responsibility of manufacturers (although the first steps are already being
taken), re-processing and secondary use, and restrictions on landfills for waste disposal.
According to the data presented in the audit report of the State Audit Office, it was
determined that national law does not ensure an effective infrastructure for waste manage-
ment, does not adequately implement the compliance with the principles of zero waste
when managing the generated waste streams (their separate types), and secondary waste
sorting and recycling also remain problematic. In Lithuania, the focal point of the aforemen-
tioned problems continues to be the problematic solutions of legal regulation and practical
implementation of municipal waste, especially textile waste.
All experts claim to see a major breakthrough in the development of waste man-
agement infrastructure: sorting containers, bulky waste sites, organic waste programs,
re-sorting workshops, and their activities, and biodegradable waste collection sites. In
addition to business taxes, experts unanimously agreed that residents have already gotten
used to the deposit system, which has been operating in Lithuania since 2016. However, it
suggests considering such taxes as landfill tax; waste disposal fee; subsidies for processed
products; and the introduction of a pay-as-you-throw tax. Asked if they had suggestions
for improving the waste infrastructure, the experts mentioned that it is necessary to reduce
as much as possible the number of landfills in the country or to think about other forms
(10 out of 15 experts), to tighten sorting responsibilities (14 out of 15 experts), and to raise
awareness (15 out of 15 experts).
Currently, there are more than 60 recycling companies operating in Lithuania, and
businesses create new products by processing one or another type of waste. Comparing
2020 with 2018, waste recycling increased in the glass sector in 2020. The biggest gap
in recycling is observed in textiles and mixed waste. Experts note that one of the main
factors determining the extent of waste recycling (of course, depending on the waste
category) is awareness and developed habits. When talking about waste sorting and
the benefits of sorting, all experts understand and describe it in the same way: waste
management is the collection, transportation, processing, recycling, and disposal of waste.
This activity is carried out in order to effectively manage waste and reduce its impact
on the environment and health. Proper waste management reduces the risk of disease
transmission through waste and ensures a cleaner and healthier living environment. Less
impact on the environment: by separating secondary raw materials from general waste, the
unit contributes to less use of landfills, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and conservation
of natural resources, reduces land use, and protects soil and water from pollution. Prevents
pollution. “Proper disposal of hazardous waste, such as batteries, electronics, and medical
supplies, protects the air, water, and soil from pollution by harmful substances”. “Saves
resources: recycling paper, plastic, glass and metals would reduce the need to extract and
process raw materials, thus saving energy and natural resources”. In addition, recycling
and waste reduction efforts also reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
Cost savings: efficient waste management can reduce municipal waste management costs.

Sustainability 2025,17, 120 9 of 14
Economic benefit: money saved: efficient management of household waste can reduce the
costs of waste collection, transport, and disposal, which means it is possible to save money
and use it more purposefully, for example, by purchasing new equipment. f we managed
and managed our waste more efficiently, we would save a significant amount in the budget.
Income from secondary raw materials: The sale of secondary raw materials can generate
income to offset some of the costs of waste management systems. Education and awareness:
Participating in waste management initiatives raises awareness of environmental issues
and promotes a sustainable lifestyle. “I sort waste both at home and here, I don’t see
any problem with it, and I encourage my colleagues”. “Fundamentally fective waste
management not only contributes to a cleaner and safer environment, but also promotes
community responsibility and sustainability”.
When experts were asked if they sort waste at home, 15 out of 15 answered that they
do. However, four experts shared their experiences when they did not pay much attention
to it before and did not realize the extent of the damage. Several mentioned that there is an
excellent educational program already in preschool education about waste, its sorting, the
benefits of sorting, and the harm of waste. The experts did not elaborate on the aspect of
resource conservation. Several emphasized (2 out of 15) that it is necessary to tighten the
control of environmental care in order to prevent illegal waste management in places not
designated for that purpose.
Unfortunately, the sorting and recycling of municipal waste is insufficient in Lithuania,
because either there is not sufficient capacity or the available equipment is not capable
(requiring modernization), so innovations (e.g., automated sorting centers, digital deposit
machines) are introduced into waste management technologies; waste collection systems
unequivocally contribute to the cohesion of the country.
In the questionnaire, the experts were presented with four tables with identical sets of
four criteria, which the experts evaluated according to four different alternatives: waste
prevention, reuse, recycling, and optimization of landfills. Experts were asked to evaluate
the importance/impact of the criterion when applying sustainable waste management
measures as an alternative. In the study, weights and ranks were assigned to each of the
criteria. The reliability of the weights was checked by calculating the consistency coefficient
(see Table 4).
Table 4. Pairwise Comparison of Criteria.
Waste Prevention
Measures
Waste Reuse
Measures Waste Recycling Landfill
Optimization
Waste prevention measures 1 0.20 0.20 0.25
Waste reuse measures 5 1 4.00 5.00
Waste recycling 5 0.25 1 0.2
Landfill optimization 4 0.20 5.00 1
Where
ʎ
max
= 4.02, RI = 1.12, CR = 0.01 (<0.1). Similar calculations were used in
Tables 5–8and their values for CR are calculated in a similar way.

Sustainability 2025,17, 120 10 of 14
Table 5. Weights of waste prevention measures contributing to sustainable waste management criteria.
Criteria Weight (Rank)
Economical 0.1523 (3)
Social 0.1632 (2)
Environmental protection 0.5427 (1)
Technologies 0.1418 (4)
Table 6. Waste reuse measures contributing to sustainable waste management criteria weights.
Criteria Weight (Rank)
Economical 0.1688 (3)
Social 0.1257 (4)
Environmental protection 0.5027 (1)
Technologies 0.2028 (2)
Table 7. Weights of waste recycling measures contributing to sustainable waste management criteria.
Criteria Weight (Rank)
Economical 0.1997 (3)
Social 0.1240 (4)
Environmental protection 0.3512 (1)
Technologies 0.3251 (2)
Table 8. Landfill optimization measures contributing to sustainable waste management criteria weights.
Criteria Weight (Rank)
Economical 0.2802 (2)
Social 0.2253 (3)
Environmental protection 0.3520 (1)
Technologies 0.1425 (4)
When experts assess the importance of the criteria for the application of waste pre-
vention measures, environmental protection (impact on the environment) is chosen as
the most important criterion (0.5427). Experts rated technology as the least significant
criterion (technologies used, modernity). After calculating the reliability coefficient of the
results, it was found that the reliability coefficient = 0.0538. Since 0.0538 < 0.1, the presented
evaluations can be considered reliable.
When experts assess the importance of the criteria for the application of the waste
reuse measure, environmental protection (impact on the environment) stands out as the
most important criterion (0.5027). Experts rated social (impact on health, well-being) as the
least significant criterion (0.1257). After calculating the reliability coefficient of the results,
it was determined that the reliability coefficient = 0.0327. Since 0.0327 < 0.1, the presented
evaluations can be considered reliable.
When experts assess the importance of the criteria for the application of the waste
reuse measure, environmental protection (impact on the environment) stands out as the
most important criterion (0.5027). Experts rated social (impact on health, well-being) as the
least significant criterion (0.1257). After calculating the reliability coefficient of the results,

Sustainability 2025,17, 120 11 of 14
it was determined that the reliability coefficient = 0.0327. Since 0.0327 < 0.1, the presented
assessments can be considered reliable.
When experts assess the importance of the criteria for the application of the landfill
optimization tool, environmental protection (impact on the environment) is selected as the
most important criterion (0.3520). Experts rated technology (the modernity of technologies
used) as the least significant criterion (0.1425). After calculating the reliability coefficient
of the results, it was found that the reliability coefficient = 0.0753. Since 0.0753 < 0.1, the
estimates presented can be considered reliable.
When experts evaluate the importance of the criteria for the optimization of landfills,
environmental protection (impact on the environment) is the most important criterion (0.3520).
Experts rated technology (0.1425) as the least significant criterion. After calculating the relia-
bility coefficient of the results, it was determined that the reliability coefficient = 0.0841; since
0.0841 < 0.1, the presented evaluations can be considered reliable.
In today’s world, the issue of sustainability and nature conservation has grown dra-
matically and become a necessity. Limitations in resources, climate warming, and the scale
of urbanization have forced us to look at the changing world differently. In the world, there
are many indexes evaluating waste management, such as countries in the Global Waste
Index 2022, where the best three positions are shared by the following countries: South
Korea, Denmark, and Germany. The 2024 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) lists
the leading countries as Luxembourg, Austria, and Switzerland. Lithuania ranks 16th in
waste management, 141st in waste generated per capita, 44th in controlled solid waste, and
18th in waste recovery rate. However, a complex systemic approach is missing. Further
areas of this research could be the creation of a complex sustainable waste management
model (for a separate waste category) and the creation of an evaluation instrument for
cities/countries/regions in terms of waste management.
5. Conclusions
After analyzing the scientific literature, sustainable waste management can be defined
as waste management in environmentally friendly, economically viable, and socially accept-
able ways. Sustainable waste management is ensured by awareness among individuals,
the development of habits, and, of course, all political, legal, and management measures.
Sustainable oil management ensures less environmental pollution and improves personal
health. However, there are still many gaps in Lithuania, both political and economic, which
must be corrected to achieve the goal. Although the current shifts towards coherence are
visible, legal regulation is expanded, educational programs are applied, infrastructure
is expanded, innovations are introduced, and more and more waste is processed every
year. Sustainable waste management is a fundamental area of environmental protection
that aims to ensure that waste is managed in a way that has minimal impact on the envi-
ronment, conserves natural resources, and reduces adverse effects on human health. To
achieve sustainable waste management results, it is necessary to combine legal, economic,
social, and environmental environments. Only by combining these environments can a
sustainable waste management system be created that reduces environmental impact and
contributes to circular economy goals. Sustainable waste management has great potential
for development in both technological, social, and economic aspects. Investments in in-
novation, infrastructure, and education are necessary to ensure that Lithuania can further
strengthen its waste management system and contribute to the circular economy goals. A
modernized and efficient waste management system can not only reduce environmental
pollution but also create new business opportunities and contribute to more sustainable
economic development.

Sustainability 2025,17, 120 12 of 14
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was waived from ethical review and approval
because anonymity and confidentiality are ensured and the study does not involve vulnerable groups
of individuals.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data is not available due to privacy and confidentiality concerns.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Wong, M.H. Integrated sustainable waste management in densely populated cities: The case of Hong Kong. Sustain. Horizons
2022,2, 100014. [CrossRef]
2.
Okedu, K.E.; Barghash, H.F.; Al Nadabi, H.A. Sustainable Waste Management Strategies for Effective Energy Utilization in Oman:
A Review. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2022,10, 825728. [CrossRef]
3.
Ribeiro, A.; Liu, F.; Srebrzynski, M.; Rother, S.; Adamowicz, K.; Wadowska, M.; Steiger, S.; Anders, H.-J.; Schmaderer, C.; Koziel, J.; et al.
Uremic Toxin Indoxyl Sulfate Promotes Macrophage-Associated Low-Grade Inflammation and Epithelial Cell Senescence. Int. J.
Mol. Sci. 2023,24, 8031. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Byˇcenkait
˙
e, G.; Burinskien
˙
e, A. Technologij
u˛
Taikymo Tvariam Ištekli
u˛
Naudojimui Analiz
˙
e. In Proceedings of the 26-Osios
Lietuvos Jaun
u˛
j
u˛
Mokslinink
u˛
Konferencijos “Mokslas—Lietuvos Ateitis“ Temin
˙
e Konferencija Proceedings of the 26th Conference for Junior
Researchers “Science—Future of Lithuania”, Vilnius, Lithuania, 17 October 2023.. Available online: https://vilniustech.lt/files/5169/2
58/12/4_0/vvf_2023%E2%80%94036.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2024).
5.
Chisholm, J.M.; Zamani, R.; Negm, A.M.; Said, N.; Abdel daiem, M.M.; Dibaj, M.; Akrami, M. Sustainable waste management of
medical waste in African developing countries: A narrative review. Waste Manag. Res. J. Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2021,39, 1149–1163.
[CrossRef]
6.
Batista, M.; Goyannes Gusmão Caiado, R.; Gonçalves Quelhas, O.L.; Brito Alves Lima, G.; Leal Filho, W.; Rocha Yparraguirre, I.T.
A framework for sustainable and integrated municipal solid waste management: Barriers and critical factors to developing
countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,312, 127516. [CrossRef]
7.
Jakubelskas, U.; Skvarciany, V. Circular economy practices as a tool for sustainable development in the context of renewable
energy: What are the opportunities for the EU? Oeconomia Copernic. 2023,14, 833–859. [CrossRef]
8.
Esmaeilian, B.; Wang, B.; Lewis, K.; Duarte, F.; Ratti, C.; Behdad, S. The future of waste management in smart and sustainable
cities: A review and concept paper. Waste Manag. 2018,81, 177–195. [CrossRef]
9.
Altowayti, W.A.H.; Shahir, S.; Eisa, T.A.E.; Nasser, M.; Babar, M.I.; Alshalif, A.F.; AL-Towayti, F.A.H. Smart Modelling of a
Sustainable Biological Wastewater Treatment Technologies: A Critical Review. Sustainability 2022,14, 15353. [CrossRef]
10.
Kostetska, K.; Khumarova, N.; Umanska, Y.; Shmygol, N.; Koval, V. Institutional Qualities of Inclusive Environmental Manage-
ment in Sustainable Economic Development. Manag. Syst. Prod. Eng. 2020,28, 15–22. [CrossRef]
11.
Cottes, M.; Mainardis, M.; Simeoni, P. Assessing the Techno-Economic Feasibility of Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment
Treatment Plant: A Multi-Decisional Modeling Approach. Sustainability 2023,15, 16248. [CrossRef]
12.
Mukwevho, P.; Radzuma, P.; Roos, C. Exploring Barriers to the Effective Implementation of Integrated Waste Management Plans
in Developing Economies: Lessons Learned from South African Municipalities. Sustainability 2024,16, 9643. [CrossRef]
13.
Evode, N.; Qamar, S.A.; Bilal, M.; Barceló, D.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Plastic waste and its management strategies for environmental
sustainability. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2021,4, 100142. [CrossRef]
14.
Edodi, S. Managing the environment: Issues and priority actions for sustainable waste management in Uganda. African Geogr.
Rev. 2023,42, 342–356. [CrossRef]
15.
Ankit; Saha, L.; Kumar, V.; Tiwari, J.; Sweta; Rawat, S.; Singh, J.; Bauddh, K. Electronic waste and their leachates impact on human
health and environment: Global ecological threat and management. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021,24, 102049. [CrossRef]
16.
Mangoro, N.; Kubanza, N.S. Community perceptions on the impacts of Solid Waste Management on Human Health and the
Environment in Sub-Saharan African Cities: A study of Diepsloot, Johannesburg, South Africa. Dev. South. Afr. 2023,40,
1214–1233. [CrossRef]
17.
Lietuvos Respublikos Aplinkos Ministerija, Lietuvos Savivaldybi
u˛
Aplinkosaugos Reitingas. Available online: https://am.lrv.lt/
lt/lietuvos-savivaldybiu-aplinkosaugos-reitingas-puslapis/lietuvos-savivaldybiu-aplinkosaugos-reitingas-2024 (accessed on 15
March 2024).
18.
Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A.; Kaab, A.; Hosseini-Fashami, F.; Mostashari-Rad, F.; Chau, K.-W. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Approach to
Evaluate Different Waste Management Opportunities. In Advances in Waste-to-Energy Technologies; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL,
USA, 2019; pp. 195–216. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2025,17, 120 13 of 14
19.
Ribi´c, B.; Vo´ca, N.; Ilakovac, B. Concept of sustainable waste management in the city of Zagreb: Towards the implementation of
circular economy approach. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2017,67, 241–259. [CrossRef]
20.
Wiah, E.N.; Addor, J.A.; Alao, F.I. Transitional probabilities for plastic waste management and implication on sustainability.
Sustain. Environ. 2022,8, 2118654. [CrossRef]
21.
Wilson, D.C.; Velis, C.A.; Rodic, L. Integrated sustainable waste management in developing countries. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Waste
Resour. Manag. 2013,166, 52–68. [CrossRef]
22.
Memon, M.A. Integrated solid waste management based on the 3R approach. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2010,12, 30–40.
[CrossRef]
23.
Cucchiella, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M. Sustainable waste management: Waste to energy plant as an alternative to landfill.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2017,131, 18–31. [CrossRef]
24.
Pongrácz, E.; Phillips, P.S.; Keiski, R.L. Evolving the Theory of Waste Management: Defining Key Concepts; WIT Press: Southampton,
UK, 2004. Available online: https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/78/14399
(accessed on 20 March 2024).
25.
Podgaiskyt
˙
e, V. Evaluation of Sustainable Waste Management: Criteria Determination/Darnus Atliek
u˛
Tvarkymo Sistemos
Vertinimas: Kriteriju˛ Nustatymas. Moksl. Liet. Ateitis 2011,3, 63–69. [CrossRef]
26. OECD Annual Report 2000; OECD Annual Report; OECD: Paris, France, 2000; ISBN 9789264176843. [CrossRef]
27.
Shinkuma, T.; Hương, N.T.M. The flow of E-waste material in the Asian region and a reconsideration of international trade
policies on E-waste. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2009,29, 25–31. [CrossRef]
28.
Awasthi, A.K.; Cheela, V.R.S.; D’Adamo, I.; Iacovidou, E.; Islam, M.R.; Johnson, M.; Miller, T.R.; Parajuly, K.; Parchomenko, A.;
Radhakrishan, L.; et al. Zero waste approach towards a sustainable waste management. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2021,3, 100014.
[CrossRef]
29.
Rouhi, K.; Shafiepour Motlagh, M.; Dalir, F. Developing a carbon footprint model and environmental impact analysis of municipal
solid waste transportation: A case study of Tehran, Iran. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2023,73, 890–901. [CrossRef]
30.
Boakye, P.; Nuagah, M.B.; Oduro-Kwarteng, S.; Appiah-Effah, E.; Kanjua, J.; Antwi, A.B.; Darkwah, L.; Sarkodie, K.;
Sokama-Neuyam, Y.A. Pyrolysis of municipal food waste: A sustainable potential approach for solid food waste manage-
ment and organic crop fertilizer production. Sustain. Environ. 2023,9, 2260057. [CrossRef]
31.
Abubakar, I.R.; Maniruzzaman, K.M.; Dano, U.L.; AlShihri, F.S.; AlShammari, M.S.; Ahmed, S.M.S.; Al-Gehlani, W.A.G.; Alrawaf, T.I.
Environmental Sustainability Impacts of Solid Waste Management Practices in the Global South. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health
2022,19, 12717. [CrossRef]
32.
Guerrero, L.A.; Maas, G.; Hogland, W. Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Manag. 2013,
33, 220–232. [CrossRef]
33.
Solid Waste Management. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/brief/solid-waste-
management (accessed on 10 April 2024).
34.
Un-Habitat. Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities: Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities 2010; Un-Habitat: Nairobi,
Kenya, 2010.
35.
Liem, Y.F.; Farahdiba, A.U.; Warmadewanthi, I.; Hermana, J. Municipal Solid Waste Management in the Top 25 Most Populated
Countries: A Review on the Application of LCA to Select Appropriate System in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Futur.
Cities Environ. 2023,9, 9. [CrossRef]
36.
Balwada, J.; Samaiya, S.; Mishra, R.P. Packaging Plastic Waste Management for a Circular Economy and Identifying a better
Waste Collection System using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Procedia CIRP 2021,98, 270–275. [CrossRef]
37.
Pires, A.; Chang, N.-B.; Martinho, G. An AHP-based fuzzy interval TOPSIS assessment for sustainable expansion of the solid
waste management system in Setúbal Peninsula, Portugal. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011,56, 7–21. [CrossRef]
38.
Finnveden, G.; Björklund, A.; Moberg, Å.; Ekvall, T.; Moberg, Å. Environmental and economic assessment methods for waste
management decision-support: Possibilities and limitations. Waste Manag. Res. J. Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2007,25, 263–269. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
39.
Allesch, A.; Brunner, P.H. Assessment methods for solid waste management: A literature review. Waste Manag. Res. J. Sustain.
Circ. Econ. 2014,32, 461–473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40.
Patton, M.Q. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv. Res. 1999,34, 1189–1208. Available
online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10591279%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=
PMC1089059 (accessed on 20 April 2024). [PubMed]
41.
Pišˇcalkien
˙
e, V.; Juozapaviˇcien
˙
e, R.; Smaidži
¯
unien
˙
e, D.; Nemˇciauskien
˙
e, D.; Rastenien
˙
e, V. Šeimos Glob
˙
ej
u˛
, Priži
¯
urinˇci
u˛
Negal˛e
Turinˇcius Asmenis, Gyvenimo Pokyˇciai ir Pagalbos Galimyb ˙
es: Patirˇciu˛ Analiz ˙
e. Visuomen˙
es Sveik. 2017,27, 33–41. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2025,17, 120 14 of 14
42.
Yildirim, F.S.; Sayan, M.; Sanlidag, T.; Uzun, B.; Ozsahin, D.U.; Ozsahin, I. Comparative Evaluation of the Treatment of COVID-19
with Multicriteria Decision-Making Techniques. J. Healthc. Eng. 2021,2021, 8864522. [CrossRef]
43.
Simanaviˇcien
˙
e, R.; Cibulskait
˙
e, J. Sprendimo, Gauto Topsis Metodu, Patikimumo Statistin
˙
e Analiz
˙
e. Lith. J. Stat. Liet. Stat. Darbai
2015,54, 110–118. Available online: www.statisticsjournal.lt (accessed on 20 April 2024).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.