Application of criteria for the choice of waste indicators

integrated waste management cycle are:

− Quantity of waste disposed (tonne or m³ per day or year)

− Volume of waste illegally dumped per year

− Volume of waste entering unpermitted landfills per year.

5.7.3. Application of criteria for the choice of waste indicators

The evaluation, according to the criteria defined in Table 25, of the waste indicators presented in section 5.7.2 is summarized in Table 36. An attempt to categorize the presented indicators according to the DPSIR system is reported in Table 37.

The basic indicators are usually used for ascertaining the status of waste management and are also used in policy targets as measures are introduced for controlling waste generation, recycling promotion, and environmental impacts.

When setting numerical targets for policies, it is possible to set target values using selected indicators which are compared to other places in similar conditions. But

such indicators are more response indicators (R in the DPSIR system), measuring environmental policies, rather than environmental impact indicators (I in the DPSIR system). Among all the selection criteria, waste indicators are mainly selected based on the source generating waste and the pressure (P in the DPSIR) system) on the environment. In few cases, the state (S) of the environment can be estimated as for soil contamination or water pollution.

Table 36. Evaluation of waste indicators Category

Represent. Operation Application

Indicator

Validity Reliability Sensitivity Measurability Data availability Ethical concerns Transparency Interpretability Target relevance Actionability

SOURCE CATEGORY: ROAD TRANSPORT

Tons of waste generated / acre xxx xxx xxx xxxx xx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xx Solid waste generated biofuel process... xxx xxx xxx xxxx xx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xx Wastewater generated by the biofuel... xxx xxx xxx xxxx xx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xx Volume of pavement waste to landfill xxx xxx xxx xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xx x Number of vehicles scrapped xxx xx xx xxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xx x Quantity of used motor oil ... disposed xx xx xxx xxx xx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xx Quantity of used tires landfilled... xxx xxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xx Quantity of lead-acid batteries... xx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xx Amount of waste produced by cars... xx xx xxx xx xx xxxx xxxx xxxx xx x Number of motor vehicles stopped... xx xx xx xxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxx x xx

SOURCE CATEGORY: RAIL TRANSPORT

Quantity of reported releases of toxic... xx xx xx xx x xxxx xxx xxx xx xx SOURCE CATEGORY: AIR TRANSPORT

Recycling of aircraft scrappage xx xx xx xxx xx xxxx xxx xxxx xx x Quantity of waste generated per WLU... xxx xxx xxx xxx x xxxx xxx xxx x x Av. quantity in-flight waste / RTK/RPK xxx xxx xxx xxx x xxxx xxx xxx x x

SOURCE CATEGORY: MARITIME TRANSPORT

Quantity releases toxic chemicals xxx xx xxxx x x xxxx xx xxx xx xx Dilapidated or scrapped vessels xxx xxx xx xxx xx xxxx xxx xxx x x Quantity of garbage generated... xx xxx xxx x xx xxxx xxx xxxx xxx x Number of oily birds xx xx xxxx x x xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxx km of beaches contaminated by oil xxx xxx xxxx xx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx Abundance of marine litter xx xxx xx x x xxxx xxxx xxx xx x Amounts of wastes delivered to ports... xx xxx xx xx xx xxxx xxxx xxxx x x Number of polluters found in sea... x x xx x x xxxx xxx xxxx xx x Accidental oil spills from shipping xx xx xxx xx xxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxx xxx Number of vessels w ballast water... xx xx xxx xxx xx xxxx xxx xxxx xx xx x=poor; xx=limited; xxx=good; xxxx=excellent.

Table 37. A tentative categorization of some waste indicators according to the DPSIR system

D P S I R SOURCE CATEGORY: ROAD TRANSPORT

Tons of waste generated / acre x Solid waste generated biofuel process... x Wastewater generated by the biofuel... x Volume of pavement waste to landfill x Number of vehicles scrapped x Quantity of used motor oil ... disposed x Quantity of used tires landfilled... x Quantity of lead-acid batteries... x Amount of waste produced by cars... x Number of motor vehicles stopped... x

SOURCE CATEGORY: RAIL TRANSPORT

Quantity of reported releases of toxic... x SOURCE CATEGORY: AIR TRANSPORT

Recycling of aircraft scrappage x

Quantity of waste generated per WLU... x Av. quantity in-flight waste / RTK/RPK x

SOURCE CATEGORY: MARITIME TRANSPORT

Quantity releases toxic chemicals x Dilapidated or scrapped vessels x Quantity of garbage generated... x

Number of oily birds x x

km of beaches contaminated by oil x x

Abundance of marine litter x x

Amounts of wastes delivered to ports... x Number of polluters found in sea... x Accidental oil spills from shipping x Number of vessels w ballast water... x

5.7.4. Recommended indicators

Possible fields or activities where use could be made of some of the indicators listed above are suggested in Table 38.

Table 38. Recommended waste indicators

Selected Indicator Use

Total number of contaminated sites Hazardous waste management policy

Quantity of waste generated per workload unit in

an airport during a given period of time Waste management policy Average quantity of in-flight waste per revenue

per ton or passenger kilometre Waste management policy Volume of waste collected by the municipality for

disposal per annum Evaluation and efficiency of waste collection

Volume of waste illegally dumped per year Evaluation and efficiency of waste collection, control and regulation Volume of waste entering unpermitted landfills

per year

Evaluation and efficiency of waste collection, control and regulation Direct deterioration of habitats from dredging Environ. impact control and policy Habitat disruption and contamination from

disposal of dredged material Environ. impact control and policy Wetland losses due to dredging Environ. impact control and policy Quantity of releases of toxic chemicals by

vessels Hazardous waste management

policy Number of certain species killed by entanglement

in plastic marine debris Environ. impact control and policy Quantity of garbage generated by the maritime

sector Environ. impact control and policy

Number of oily birds Environ. impact control and policy Number of beaches contaminated by oil (in km) Environ. impact control and policy Number of polluters found in sea, ocean, rivers,

etc. Environ. impact control and policy

Mortality of marine animal due to ingestion,

entanglement, toxicity in marine debris Environ. impact control and policy Degraded wetlands integrity due to salinity Environ. impact control and policy Number of roadsides trees killed per year due to

salting typical road Environ. impact control and policy Quantity of used tires landfilled or stockpiled Recycling policy efficiency Number of motor vehicles stopped annually

(number of end-of-life vehicles),

Evaluation and management of waste from transport

Recovery / recycled rate for used tires and their

share of the solid waste stream Recycling policy efficiency

5.8. Discussion

Defining and describing the chain of causality is the natural starting point for the search for indicators for a certain chain. Without a clear definition and description of the chain, there will be no solid ground for the choice of chain stage(s) for which indicators are sought.

The criteria for the choice of the causality chains used to exemplify indicator selection in this chapter were met to varying degrees. For each of the seven example chains, the criteria on relevance to planners and policy makers are hopefully met for at least one of the three decision levels specified (European, national and regional). All seven chains can also be judged to be of interest to researchers and other academics. Indicators for some chains are of immediate interest to the general public (e.g. “Noise”) whereas indicators for some chains are more directed towards policy makers (e.g. “Greenhouse effect” and “Non-renewable resource use”) or scientists (e.g. “Habitat fragmentation" and "Loss of cultural heritage”).

The pedagogic value of choosing these chains is difficult to judge but some comments could be given: The chain “Loss of cultural heritage due to land take”

demonstrates one of the first trials to construct an indicator in a sector where experts are usually not acquainted with the indicator concept. This example clearly points to the need for further indicator development but, perhaps more importantly, will possibly give rise to discussions on the practicability of indicators in that field.

The chosen chains are qualitatively different - some are short and easily grasped such as “Noise” or “Waste disposal” whereas some are long, complicated and characterized by multiple interacting inter-relationships, such as “Greenhouse effect”. The chosen chains also show the great variation in the means in which indicator data can or have to be gathered: field studies of varying duration, inquiries, archive studies, simple desk-top calculation work, computer-heavy simulations, etc. The chain “Greenhouse effect” is well described since substantial scientific effort has been put into clarifying its multiple and complicated chain steps, and far-reaching consensus has been reached on the scientific underpinning of the widely used indicator GWP. In contrast, the chain “Waste disposal” has only relatively recently become subject to deeper scientific study, and existing indicators appear to cover only some of the chain steps. This chain, together with “Noise” and “Non-renewable resource use”, is also an example of chains where there is a wide range of indicators for different types of usage. This in contrast to “Loss of cultural heritage” where no indicator seems to have existed hitherto.

In the lack of specified application situations, the seven examples treated in this chapter cannot do justice to the importance of adapting the process of candidate indicator selection to the actual application situation. On the other hand, most of the treated indicators can possibly be re-designed to fit a range of application situations.

The interpretation of the criteria defined in the Chapter 4 (Table 25) for the selection of indicators runs the risk of being highly subjective. What value to put

on each of the criteria should be discussed among experts. Such discussions have not taken place in the work presented here - the application of the criteria to the indictor selection has been made by single working-group members who are not necessarily experts in the respective fields. Likewise, the grounds for recommending specific indicators to be used should ideally have been discussed among scientists, and this has not taken place here. Instead, the recommendations given here for some indicators are rather based on some knowledge on which indicators are much used.

As evident, the procedure for the selection / construction of indicators recommended in section 4.4.2 has been followed only in some of the example chains in Chapter 5. Where followed, the examples intend to demonstrate the practicability of the procedure. Lack of sufficient information, experience or time are common reasons where compliance with the recommended procedure has been out of reach of the authors.

The reported efforts to assess indicators with the use of the ten specified criteria also provide the opportunity of assessing the criteria themselves.

Interestingly, in all cases where indicators have been assessed against the criteria, the criterion “Ethical concerns” has been judged to be “excellent”, i.e.

without problems. Further elaboration, and discussion among true experts, may lead to other judgments on ethical concerns. Also, the seeming lack of concern in the cases reported here does not indicate any lack of relevance of this criterion in other cases.

6. Methods for joint consideration of