http://www.diva-portal.

org

This is the published version of a paper published in Cleaner Waste Systems.

Citation for the original published paper (version of record):

Sandhi, A., Rosenlund, J. (2024)

Municipal solid waste management in Scandinavia and key factors for improved waste
segregation: A review
Cleaner Waste Systems, 8: 100144
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2024.100144

Access to the published version may require subscription.

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

Permanent link to this version:

http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-128361
 Cleaner Waste Systems 8 (2024) 100144

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Waste Systems

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-waste-systems

Municipal solid waste management in Scandinavia and key factors for

improved waste segregation: A review
Arifin Sandhi *, Joacim Rosenlund
Department of Biology and Environmental Science, Linnaeus University, Kalmar SE-391 82, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The generation of solid waste, more specifically municipal solid waste (MSW), has been considered one of the
Municipal solid waste major global environmental problems since urbanization started. Among Scandinavian states, Denmark and
Gamification Norway have placed in the top positions (1 and 2 respectively) for high MSW production. Sweden has a steady
Waste sorting
plan for MSW management/treatments by practising material recycle, biological treatment and energy recovery.
Sustainability
Sweden
The aim of this review is to compare municipal waste generation between Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia. A
Social awareness systematic literature review was performed by screening academic and public articles to assess factors for better
Packaging MSW management based on technological solutions. Key results include the importance of new tariffs and
Circular economy legislations, producer responsibilities for electronic products, municipality involvement, distribution of re­
sponsibilities, and infrastructure developments for better MSW management in Sweden. The application of
modern technologies have also been considered for MSW management in Sweden. Societal participation (will­
ingness, awareness and concern) in Sweden also plays a significant role in MSW management. A better packaging
system, application of interactive visualization (gamification) in waste sorting, public awareness, and infra­
structure development could significantly improve the waste sorting process and conversion of waste manage­
ment from a linear economy towards a circular economy.

Introduction urban areas of the Asia continent produce approximately 760×103tons

Solid waste generation/production has existed since human civili­
zation started. Numerous anthropogenic activities actively produce
various kinds of waste. The production of waste historically was not
considered a problem due to the small size of the population compared
with the present population and urbanization (Giusti, 2009). Waste
production also strongly correlates with the income generation of the
population of that particular country. A study has found that low-income
countries contributed only 5% of global waste, whereas lower-middle,
upper-middle, and high-income countries contributed 29%, 32% and
34%, respectively (Kaza et al. 2018; Maalouf & Mavropoulos, 2022).
The global waste production has already reached the billion tonnes mark
annually and it is continuously increasing among the regions, the top 3
locations are East Asia and Pacific (468MT), Europe and Central Asia
(392 MT), South Asia (334MT) (Kaza et al., 2018; Cayumil et al., 2021).
Along with the economic status of the country, rapid urbanization also
plays a significant role in increasing waste production even in devel­
oping nations, as the studies have found that the citizens living in the
of municipal solid waste (MSW) daily, and this is predicted to increase to
1.8 million tonnes by 2025 (Pokhrel & Viraraghavan, 2005; Chatto­
padhyay et al., 2009). It has been speculated that the global waste
production rate is relatively faster than the growth of urbanization. Both
urbanization and the rapid incline of gross domestic product (GDP) play
a vital role in patronizing waste production which is also reflected in
China, parts of East Asia, and Middle and Eastern Europe (Hoornweg
et al., 2013). With regards to waste production situation in the European
Union (EU), approximately 500 million inhabitants generate more than
200 million tons of household waste annually (Bassi et al., 2017).
Waste management plays an essential role in maintaining the envi­
ronment as well as the hygiene of the inhabitants, and that has been
considered to be one of the major contemporary concerns for urban
management. To provide a legal framework for waste management in
the EU, the first directive was introduced in 2008 (Directive 2008/98/
EC), highlighting the importance of proper waste management, nutrient
recovery and recycling procedures effects on the environment and
humans (EU, 2022). Later, to announce the EU’s circular economy

* Corresponding author at: Department of Biology and Environmental Science, Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar 391 82, Sweden.
E-mail addresses: arifin.sandhi@lnu.se, arifin.sandhi@gmail.com (A. Sandhi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2024.100144
Received 18 August 2023; Received in revised form 6 March 2024; Accepted 11 March 2024
Available online 14 March 2024
2772-9125/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Sandhi and J. Rosenlund
concept in waste management, the directive was amended in 2018
(Directive (EU) 2018/851), strengthening the waste prevention process
among the member states. This amendment has focused on biowaste,
textile waste and hazardous waste material management establishment
among the member states. According to the amendment, the biowaste
needs to be collected separately and recycled at the source (ensured by
31 December 2023), and the separation of textiles and hazardous waste
collection produced from the households needs to be launched (by 1
January 2025) (EU, 2018). Besides these directives, the EU also intro­
duced the European Green Deal in 2019, focusing on the waste chal­
lenges and reducing emissions among the member states (European
Commission, 2020; Papamichael et al., 2023). The EU introduced the
waste framework directive in 2008 and also developed a European
Waste Hierarchy (EWH) that included a number of steps such as pre­
vention of waste, preparation of reuse, recycling and recovery and
finally, disposal of waste (EU, 2008). Still, commodity production, use
and disposal management utilize the linear economy model. In 2012, the
EU member states (28) consumed 5 billion tonnes of materials. Source of
materials from virgin and secondary raw material from waste was 80%
and 20%, respectively, and this was an example of the linear economic
model in the EU (EPRS, 2017). However, it has been predicted that such
linear economic model (extraction-production-use-waste) could not
persist in the long term because the volume of the resources is limited
(Korhonen et al., 2018b). The global waste problem and management
were also highlighted in the targets of several sustainable development
goals (SDGs) announced by the United Nations (UN), which introduced
the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. The waste related targets
included in several SDGs such as; goal 11-sustainable cities and com­
munities, 12- responsible consumption and production, and 14- Life
below water (United Nations, 2015).
Waste production has been considered one of the major problems in
the EU and creates pressure on the environmental sustainability of this
region. Approximately 2.5 billion tonnes of waste were produced in EU
member states in 2016, where the percentage of municipal solid waste
was less than 10% (EP, 2021). Meanwhile, another report shows that
24% of MSW went to landfills where it significantly impacted ground­
water contamination, methane production and losses of recyclable ma­
terials (Benetti, 2018; European Union, n.d.). The production of a high
volume of MSW have also increased the resource mining /extraction
processes three times higher than in the past four decades and the pace
has not decreased (Schaffartzik et al., 2014; Wiedmann et al., 2015).
Therefore, MSW has been considered a potential waste component that
needs to go to recycling processes rather than being dumped in landfills.
Currently, the circular economy (CE) model has increasingly gained
attention and exposure due to its concept of utilization of resources from
waste products, so resources are used as long as possible or returned as
nutrients to the biological cycles (Kirchherr et al., 2017). Some core
ideas behind CE was first introduced in 1966 by the economist Kenneth
Boulding (Boulding, 1966; Rathore and Sarmah, 2020). The definition of
CE has been refined by a number of researchers based on their per­
spectives (reduce the input of virgin material and output of waste or
another way to reduce, reuse and recycle materials in production) (Haas
et al., 2015; Ma et al., 2015; Blomsma & Brennan, 2017). However, a
recent definition of CE was also developed based on the
production-consumption concept (Korhonen et al., 2018a). According to
the European Parliament, the CE has been defined as the
production-consumption model, which includes sharing, leasing,
repairing, refurbishing, and recycling present materials and commod­
ities as long as possible (EP, 2022). As such, CE is also a shift from the
linear consumer norms in the existing consumer society (Hobson et al.,
2021).
Waste management plays a vital role in the circular economy prac­
tice in the EU circular economy scheme as it is interconnected with the
EWH framework (EC, 2015). The EU has also set a target for the reuse
and recycling of municipal waste to ≥55% by 2025 and landfill waste to
≤10% by 2035, whereas Sweden has already reached for recycling and
2
Cleaner Waste Systems 8 (2024) 100144
composting of municipal waste by 47% in 2017 and minimized landfill
waste to 0% (EP, 2021). On the other hand, in 2018, the MSW produced
in the US was 292.4 million US tones, recycled 23.6% (69 million
tonnes) from them, and both the recycling and composting process have
increased in comparison with the data from the 1960 s (US EPA, 2022).
Several reviews have been published focusing on improving solid
waste management in different parts of the world in recent years. Those
studies have indicated a number of factors, including design, process
development, digitalization, production of value-added products,
advancement of biogas plants for energy production, etc., that could
play vital roles in efficient urban waste management (Kurniawan et al.,
2022, Norouzi and Dutta, 2022; Sondh et al., 2022,). However, to the
best of our knowledge, no review has been published focusing on
municipal solid waste management in the Nordic region and CE
perspective. The main aims of this review are (1) Summarize the most
updated and recent information and data on municipal waste production
and disposal facilities in Scandinavian countries and compare it with
Sweden and (2) assess the factors for better household waste manage­
ment and present a framework for the application of technological so­
lutions in the waste recycling process as part of the transition from a
linear economy towards a circular economy. The purpose of this study is
to provide an overview and key factors for effective municipal solid
waste management, segregation in Scandinavia and their importance to
the different actors (i.e., policymakers, municipalities, regional au­
thorities, urban planners, academia, government organizations, etc) in
different global regions to use the factors and their functions in their
surrounding waste management system.
Methodology
The investigation was based on systematic literature review model
(Fig. 1). Confirmed information was gathered from various sources
through a screening of published literature (both academic and orga­
nizational sources and the language included English or Swedish)
available from different search engines such as Web of Science (WoS),
google scholar science direct, Eurostat (Database of European Com­
mission), and websites of waste management organizations from the
Scandinavian regions. Other search words were used during the litera­
ture search, for example, solid waste management + gamification, solid
waste, circular economy, solid waste circular economy, waste manage­
ment+Sweden, environmental management+gamification. Gamifica­
tion was selected as an example of early technological development
showing potential for the coming years. The results showed that Solid
waste management-related documents are available from the Web of
Science (articles 26, 265; review articles 2, 247 and book chapters 19).
The solid waste circular economy-related documents are available from
the Web of Science (articles 1846; review articles 416 and proceedings
paper 44). The search words’ circular economy and waste have brought
relatively more documents (total 10, 880), including (articles 8776;
review articles 1933 and book chapters 4). The search for ‘gamification,
waste management’ yielded 31 documents (including 27 articles and
review articles 4) results in the same database. Our search results
showed that most of the literature was published during 2000–2022
time frame.
Urban waste generation - the Swedish model
Waste production in Nordic countries
The trend of municipal waste production in Sweden has changed
remarkably during the last two decades. According to Eurostat data, the
production of waste (kg/capita) was 386 in 1995, and it has increased by
425 within the next five years (Eurostat, 2022a). The MSW generation
per capita was (431 kg/capita in 2020), and it has increased
(475 kg/capita in 2021) in Sweden (Eurostat, 2022b; Avfall Sverige, n.
d.). However, the situation due to COVID-19 has also played an
A. Sandhi and J. Rosenlund
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram for systematic literature review.
important role in waste generation worldwide. Studies have found that
besides increased medical waste generation, the consumption of packed
food during the homestay also increased during the pandemic, and both
food waste and plastic package waste increased by 43% and 53%,
respectively (Sinha et al., 2020; Filho et al., 2021). The Swedish Waste
Association (Avfall Sverige-Swedish) includes several methods for waste
treatment, such as; material recycling, biological treatment, energy re­
covery and the landfill system. Among these methods, the landfill
approach has been under tax since 2000, and according to the national
waste ordinance, combustible and organic waste were prohibited in
landfilling in 2001 and 2005, respectively (SFS, 2001; Eriksson, 2003).
Among the Nordic countries, the MSW production (per capita) trend
was highest for Denmark and scored above 800 kg /capita for 2011–20,
and the second highest was found in Norway in the same duration
(Eurostat, 2022b). The MSW production (per capita) in Norway ranged
(from 422–485 kg/capita) in 2011–15. Then it sharply rose to 754 kg
/capita in 2016, and the most recent data reports 776 kg /capita,
whereas the average EU was 502 kg/capita in 2019 (Environment
Norway, 2021; Eurostat, 2022a). However, Norway has several plans for
both the reduction of waste material (reduce food waste by 50% by
2030) and double production of bioenergy (combined biomass and
MSW) from 14 to 28 TW for better management of MSW (Malinauskaite
et al., 2017). In 2020, most of the Nordic countries have reduced the
annual municipal waste production (kg/capita) growth except Finland
(+5.3%) (Fig. 2). According to a report from Avfall Sverige, 4.96 M
tonnes of MSW were treated in Sweden in 2021, and this treated waste
was divided into material recycling (31%), biological treatment (15%),
energy recovery (50%) and landfill (0.9%), and with the exception of
material recycling and biological treatment, the remaining two treat­
ment percentages were increased compared with last year (Avfall
Sverige, 2022a). Meanwhile, the recycling process of waste material in
Norway is also similar to other Nordic countries, with both material
recovery (35%) and energy production (40%) and a small proportion go
to landfilling (Becidan et al., 2015). Denmark stands as the highest
MSW-producing (per capita) country in the Scandinavian region, and it
also used to process MSW by landfilling in the mid-80 s (33%) and it
decreased to 19% and 4% in 1995 and 2008, respectively (Kjær, 2013).
In comparison to the MSW processing in the Scandinavian region, the
trend in the US is far different from Sweden and the rest of the Nordic
countries. According to the Environmental Protection Agency in US (US
EPA), though most of the MSW was treated by landfilling (approxi­
mately 146 M US tons) (US EPA, 2022).
Fig. 2. Annual municipal solid waste production growth (%) EU and Nordic
countries (kg/capita) based on data (Eurostat, 2022). The figure was calculated
based on Eurostat data with written permission.
3
Cleaner Waste Systems 8 (2024) 100144
Waste management framework in Sweden
Sweden has a long history of the betterment of the environment and
commitment to environmental protection. To maintain a balanced
environment and reduce waste material in Sweden, the major environ­
mental protection activities related to the new waste treatment was
introduced in 1969 (Eionet, 2016). In the 90 s, several new regulations
regarding waste management were introduced in Sweden. An act about
producer responsibilities for certain type of products (ex; packaging,
tyres, electrical and electronic equipment, vehicles) and the collection
and treatment of household waste was introduced during the 90 s (SFS,
1997, 1998; Eriksson, 2003; Eriksson et al., 2005; Corvellec et al., 2012).
According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Swe EPA),
the MSW management responsibilities have been divided into several
actors such as the households, extended producers’ responsibilities
(ESPR) and also the municipalities (total number 290) (Swedish EPA, n.
d.). The municipalities have played an important role in Swedish Waste
management as they are responsible for collecting, transporting,
recovering and disposal of the MSW from households (Petersen & Berg,
2004; Andersson & Stage, 2018). Denmark also introduced its first na­
tional waste plan in 1992, and later they have also structured and
designed four national waste plans to align closely alignment with Eu­
ropean Union directives (Directive 2008/98/EC) (Iyamu et al., 2020).
Common current strategies for waste management in Sweden
Since 1930 Sweden has been planned for low-waste technologies and
material recycling for maintaining a decreased volume of waste gener­
ation in society (Gutberlet et al., 2020). However, the Arab oil blockage
crisis during mid-70 s impacted energy production in Sweden, and that
incident initiate the building process of incinerators (Bergquist &
Söderholm, 2016; Dzebo & Nykvist, 2017; Gutberlet et al., 2020). Ac­
cording to the Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL-In
Swedish), a total 38 incineration plants have been established in Swe­
den. In the beginning decades of the millennium, the waste incineration
process produced approximately 10–15% of municipal district heating
in Sweden (Finnveden et al., 2007). However, in order to promote
recycling of materials, a tax was introduced for waste incineration
(2006–10), even though it had less impact (slight decline) on the de­
mand for waste incineration (Furtenback, 2009; Werner, 2017). The
Swedish district heating system was mainly dependent on fossil fuels
especially in the 80 s, but later both waste incineration and biomass
energy became larger contributors to heat energy production (Ericsson
& Werner, 2016). As a result, the proportion of biomass, waste incin­
eration and fossil fuels for the district heat production was 46%, 24%
and 7% respectively in 2015 (Werner, 2017). Responsibility for Swedish
waste management continues to depend on several actors such as;
respective local authorities, manufacturers of commodities and other
waste generators (including non-manufacturing industries and business)
and the household waste management is placed under the responsibility
of municipalities (Furtenback, 2009).
Infrastructure development
Household waste collection in Sweden has been also divided into
several steps especially for those are living in a communal place. The
steps begin after household waste generation, where the resident need to
segregate different kinds of waste fractions, mainly food waste, news­
papers and packaging (plastic, paper, coloured/transparent glass, metal)
A. Sandhi and J. Rosenlund
in their home. An example from a municipality using optical sorting is
the segregation of food waste into green bags and mixed waste into red
bags, and according to Avfall Sverige (in Swedish), food waste collection
is present in 256 municipalities among the total of 290 municipalities in
Sweden (Avfall Sverige, 2022b). Here, the mixed waste includes diapers,
sanitary napkins, animal excreta, small trees and flowers, plant pots and
tobacco, whereas food waste includes leftover foods, foods left to spoil
mixed with edible portions and food portions that are discarded (Kret­
slopp Sydost, n.d.; Nunkoo et al., 2021) (Table 1, Fig. 3). As a general
rule, mixed waste consists of waste that is not packaging material,
hazardous waste or food waste. A study has reported that in three mu­
nicipality areas of Denmark, the major parts of sorted/segregated waste
from residential household waste are composed of food and miscella­
neous waste, whereas the remaining paper, board and plastic percentage
range between 5% and 15% (Edjabou et al., 2015).
Most of the household waste management (either community
apartments or houses) follows several steps for waste sorting (Fig. 3). In
most cases, the environmental houses for waste sorting can often be
accessed by a certain number of apartments and their inhabitants in a
specific area. One common way is to use a room or an environmental
house close to the apartment block where a number of bins are placed for
the sorting of the different kinds of waste fractions (Ibrahim, 2020). For
those in single occupancy houses, the close proximity solution is to place
plastic bins with smaller bins inside of them for the collection of frac­
tions. Another solution is to have recycling stations placed in a public
area for the inhabitants of apartments and houses. There are also recy­
cling centres, accessible by all inhabitants in the municipality, that are
often placed in the outskirts of the city. According to Swedish Waste
Management, more than 600 recycling centres are established in Swe­
den and these see approximately 20 million visits per year where in­
dividuals drop off special type of waste products (Avfall Sverige, 2022c).
Besides these, the available waste collection systems are also briefly
discussed in Table 1.
Regulating factors for effective waste management
A number of factors play a role in better waste management, such as;
physical, legislative, social, and behavioural factors.
Physical and legislative factors
The very first steps of waste management have started with sorting of
waste materials. The sorting of waste materials also greatly depends on
the convenience, the situation, and distribution of information as well as
the culture of the inhabitants (Rousta et al., 2011). The segrega­
tion/sorting of waste on the household level in Sweden works to a high
degree; however, there is still an issue with packaging not being segre­
gated and thus incinerated with the mixed waste (FTI, n.d.). While most
Swedes say that they recycle, this rate can be improved by addressing
individual behaviour.
The convenience factor those could also be considered due to influ­
encing physical factors for increasing waste management efficiency for
example; the position of the waste deposition point, coloured bags for
waste sorting, type of waste bins and also the placement of environ­
mental houses for waste deposition (Rousta & Ekström, 2013; Amanidaz
et al., 2019; Sörme et al., 2019). A recent study has found that the
introduction of different coloured bags and provide kerb side waste
drop-off facilities in Kalmar (a southern city of Sweden) was increased
(35%) and residual waste was decreased (15%) (Sörme et al., 2019).
Also, the waste sorting rate was increased by the introduction of white
coloured (combustible waste) and black coloured plastic bags (food
waste) 29 and 68 wt% respectively for municipal solid waste sorting in
Borås, Sweden (Rousta & Ekström, 2013). In addition, the change of
waste bin has also shown some positive impact especially
cost-effectiveness (approx. 54%), increased awareness of hygiene as­
pects and convenience of access (Amanidaz et al., 2019). The placement
of the waste drop-point (distance from the house) has considered to be
4
Cleaner Waste Systems 8 (2024) 100144
one of the important factors for successful waste management according
to a Spanish study. By decreasing the distance between the house and
the recycling bin, the number of citizens sorting their waste from their
homes also increased (Gonzalez-Torre & Adenso-Diaz, 2005). Mean­
while, Ando & Gosselin. (2005) has also showed that the waste recycling
rate could be increased by 66% when a doorstop collection was intro­
duced instead of drop-off system and similar results were found in a
questionnaire-based study in Sweden (Hage et al. 2009).
Alongside these physical factors, the governmental legislation and
new regulations also played an important role for waste management
and also the production of waste and their sorting processes during the
drop-off of waste. For example; recently the Swedish EPA has initiated a
roadmap for the sustainable use of plastics with focus on the develop­
ment of the resource-efficiency use of plastic and reduction of the
climate impact, leakage of plastic and microplastics in nature and so on
(Naturvårdsverket, 2021). Besides this, the Swedish government has
decided on a new ordinance (2022:1274) about producers’ re­
sponsibilities for packaging (where producers need to have a permit
from the Swedish EPA to collect packaging waste from the households)
collection, and that would be implemented from 1st January 2023
(Naturvårdsverket, n.d.). This will play an important role for waste
management, as most of the plastic wastes is currently considered under
mixed waste-incineration-produce heat & power and also responsible
for the emission of greenhouse gases (Nordin & Westöö, 2019).
The introduction of a weight-based tariff also plays a vital role for
waste sorting processes as the lessening mixed waste and higher amount
of collected plastic waste could be seen through the weight-based waste-
tariff introduced by the municipalities (Andersson & Stage, 2018; Hage
et al., 2018). According to Swedish Waste Association report, 31 mu­
nicipalities from Sweden have weight-based waste tariffs and the charge
varies between (1.13–4.00 SEK) and (0–3.43 SEK) for residual waste and
food waste respectively in 2021 (Avfall Sverige, 2022a).
Social factors
In addition to physical and legislative factors, the social and de­
mographic factors play an important role for waste management. Rousta
et al. (2015) has pointed out that knowledge about what to and where to
sort out the waste fractions among the people also impact on recycling
behaviour and that a lack of knowledge reduces the efficiency of waste
management. It has already been revealed that a number of socioeco­
nomic factors play an important role for municipal solid waste pro­
duction/generation, such as; occupation, education, income scale and
family composition (Bandara et al., 2007; Chen, 2018). Besides these
personal features/factors, a study has considered that the social de­
mographics also play an influential role along with economic incentives,
awareness on knowledge, and system of collection (Sörme et al., 2019).
However, the influence of social demographic variables can be doubtful
and weakly correlated with waste sorting behaviour, for example if the
local population already has a habit of segregating their waste (Hornik
et al., 1995). A research investigation in Kiruna (1193 individuals), in
the north of Sweden, found no effect of social demographic factors (for
example; gender, marital status, number of children, type of house one
lives in, house ownership, location (within town or outside town),
dimension of house, employment condition and salary) on the influence
of waste segregation behaviour (Vencatasawmy et al., 2000). In
contrast, another study has found that both economic and moral motives
influence inter-household recycling rates in several municipalities in
Sweden (Hage et al. 2009). The opposite result was also found in an
investigation in the US and showed that social demographic factors like;
age, education, income and household size influence the use of drop-off
recycling sites (Sidique et al. 2010). Economic status plays an important
role in waste production as the economic development increases the
food waste content (Wang & Wang, 2013). Ando & Gosselin. (2005) has
also suggested that variations in housing types (occupant demographics)
also play an important role in recycling rates. Several studies have found
that the knowledge of the consumer and the assurance (commitment) to
A. Sandhi and J. Rosenlund
Table 1
The common solid household waste sorting options in different cities in Sweden.
Types Structure
Two bins system These two bin systems are mainly placed in
single-family houses and row house systems.
Roadside bins These bins are mostly placed at bus stops
outside different buildings and close to shops.
People can drop different kinds of waste,
packaging waste and biodegradable waste in
these bins.
Optical sorting Different coloured bags are used for sorting
different kinds of waste materials.
Mixed waste The difference between optical illustration and
fraction mixed waste fraction whereas the waste
materials are placed in the same container. The
waste materials are placed in the same
container but in different coloured bags.
Sensory bin These kinds of waste bins are mainly placed in
the big shopping mall, and people can use them
to deposit food waste and biodegradable
products, e.g., paper cups, plates, and wooden
cutleries.
Container Placement of containers in recycling stations
collection for public access
Cleaner Waste Systems 8 (2024) 100144
Short description Illustration
This type includes two similar size bins with
different colours; one is used for combustible
waste, and another is used for biodegradable
waste material (especially food waste). There
are examples of bins within the bins for
packaging waste as well.
These bins are placed for mixed municipal solid
waste; a few have a separate section for
dropping cigarette butts.
Different colour-based sorting system has been
recently introduced in different parts of
Sweden. Both the waste collection and sorting
of recycled material have increased due this
kind of collection system (Sörme et al.,2019)
The difference between the optical illustration
and the mixed waste fraction is that the final
sorting of the waste material would be
performed in the main facilities for waste
management by a mechanical system.
The bin opening is activated when a human
comes in front of the bin. This kind of bin could
effectively reduce the smell of food waste.
Different containers have been placed in
common places (close to a shopping mall or
public area). Each container is marked with
paper, plastic, and coloured and non-coloured
glass materials.
(continued on next page)
5
A. Sandhi and J. Rosenlund
Table 1 (continued )
Types Structure
UWS – The big containers and placed party below the
underground surface soil and it could be accessible and non-
waste system accessible based on their establishment
authorities.
Mobile vacuum One of the modern technologies where bins are
waste placed partly underground, and with the help
collection of specially equipped vehicles, the stored waste
material is collected 1–3 times a week
Fig. 3. Access to different levels of waste sorting facilities from the complex community houses (green line) and single-family house (red line) residents.
waste recycling are two factors that have been considered as inherent,
whereas economic reward and social influence are also considered
extrinsic factors (Castagna et al., 2013; Hornik et al., 1995; Rousta et al.,
2015).
Behavioural factors
To implement and successfully continue municipal solid waste
management (including waste generation and waste reduction), the
acceptance and behaviour of the mass population are considered the
diving factors (Pietzsch et al., 2017; Minelgaitė & Liobikienė, 2019). The
3 R (reduce, reuse and recycle) behaviour of an individual towards
waste management also need to be understood before establishing a
waste management practice (Cecere et al., 2014). In the case of
municipal solid waste management, both the lack of knowledge and
social norms of the population play a significant barrier (Maycox, 2003).
Generally, the mass behaviour regarding waste management was
found to be relatively country-specific in the EU. A recent study has
found through analysing the municipal solid waste data (2006–2016)
from the EU that some respondents from some countries (ex: Romania
and Malta) were very rarely reduced waste, whereas the highest
Cleaner Waste Systems 8 (2024) 100144
Short description Illustration
Several labelled containers (durable materials
such as composite and aluminium) have been
placed close to community places. A recently
developed container can produce 50% less CO2
than the surface-based container system (
Hellemaa, 2022)
Besides a sustainable and stable system, this
system also reduces the bad odour from the
waste materials. The access of rodents and
insects towards waste materials also restricted
due to the closed system (Aerbin, n.d.)
recycling behaviour was found in the respondents of Austria, Belgium
and Germany (Minelgaitė & Liobikienė, 2019). Age classification play
an important role for waste sorting behaviour in human. A study has also
revealed that the female college students were more concerned and
separated MSW compared to male students in 10 different Chinese
universities (Zhang et al., 2017). It could assume that the young gen­
eration could play a vital role for waste management from their
behavioural point. Hedefalk et al. (2015) has also indicated that as a part
of development of critical thinking development regarding the envi­
ronment among children, the teacher needs to discuss the connection
between the society and the environment with regard to role of sepa­
ration of waste materials. Sweden has been considered one of the top
countries in the EU due to creating awareness and a responsible
approach among the inhabitants for municipal solid waste management
(Nukusheva et al., 2023). Moreover, it has already reported that the
adolescents can be more aware and future-oriented especially in the case
of waste management (Prestin & Pearce, 2010).
Based on the review of this section, we can draw several outcomes.
Initially that households interact with waste management both inside
houses and apartments and in the outside environment as well as in
6
A. Sandhi and J. Rosenlund
between these two categories (Fig. 4, Table 1). We call these environ­
ments private, public and in between. Households also need to have
knowledge about the waste system in both these contexts, correct
behaviour as well as access to bins and correct placement of bins. Outside of
the household, the distance is a factor, and sometimes it is necessary to
transport waste to the recycling centres, for example; A culture of waste
segregation can be developed within households, affecting the willing­
ness to sort waste. We have used these categories of interest to develop a
framework of challenges during municipal solid waste management
(Fig. 4). This framework can be used to focus further studies in this area
and the application of different technical solutions to target these
challenges. To further identify the factors relevant for waste manage­
ment and recycling we recommend that future studies examine how
different technologies work in the three different contexts presented in
Fig. 3. We also observed a lack of studies focusing on the relevance of
purely physical properties such as hatches, rooms, and doors to impact
willingness of mass population in the waste segregation process.
Technological factors
The gamification technologies have already included in several
sectors such as education, health, marketing and environmental man­
agement. Application of gamification could also play an important role
for household waste material segregation in different age levels. In
environmental management-related games, the games play a significant
role in encouraging people about ecological action and its consequences
(Willoughby & Smith, 2016; Ouariachi et al., 2020;). However,
game-based learning and gamification are different based on their per­
spectives. The game-based learning adds the actual game to provide
knowledge and skill to the users (Jääskä et al., 2021). That is using
mechanisms from games (such as point, leader boards, missions,
achievements) to promote a good environmental behaviour. Shortly it
can be defined as applying game design elements/segments in a
non-game situation (Deterding et al. 2011; Helmefalk, 2019; Helmefalk
& Rosenlund, 2020a). These can be used to connect the physical,
behavioural, social and infrastructural levels as well as providing a
bridge between the different contexts (Fig. 4). Several activities under
the waste management scheme have been integrated with gamified
approaches to perform tasks in a sustainable method, and it has been
found that gamification could change human behaviour about recycling
waste materials (Table 2) (Lidia et al., 2018; Aguiar-Castillo et al., 2019;
Helmefalk & Rosenlund, 2020b; Papamichael et al., 2023). For example,
learning about waste management at home by doing quizzes and chal­
lenges can improve the behaviour in open spaces. This can also reduce
the distance between citizens and other stakeholders within the waste
management system (Helmefalk et al., 2023). As such we suggest testing
gamification solutions in different contexts (Fig. 3) and improving the
use of different types of bins (Table 1).
Fig. 4. Challenges are classified into private (orange circle) and public (light green circle) for municipal solid waste management. The middle in between section
defines the common challenges present in both conditions.
7
Cleaner Waste Systems 8 (2024) 100144
Waste management within the circular economy
CE has a strategy of balancing the system of the natural environment
by converting the linear economy model to a circular one and utilize the
resources more efficiently. According to Dawson (2019) the circular
economy focuses the optimization of the scheme where the maximum
values could be achievable from the resources and also decreasing the
waste effect towards the environment. In another context, CE practice in
waste management mainly focuses on two things; 1) influence the pro­
duction of sustainable products for long-term use, 2) introduction of new
schemes for waste management scheme where producers and consumers
also take responsibility for their waste generation (Negrete-Cardoso
et al., 2022). The circular economy indicators also provide insights
about the sustainability of the products. Regarding key performance
indicators (KPI) for circular economy these can for example provide
knowledge about product material use and recycling rates but might risk
missing out on other aspects of the circular economy. A study has found
that the indicators of a circular economy have mostly focused on the
assessment based on the preservation of materials instead of the pres­
ervation of their functions (Moraga et al., 2019). Still, new digital
technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), internet of things (IoT)
and possibly gamification can aid the important monitoring of the cir­
cular transition using both internal and external KPI (Papamichael et al.,
2023).
Regarding waste management and circular economy strategies in
Europe, it could be argued that the waste management strategies in the
EU are increasingly moving towards alternative ways of management
rather than traditional landfilling techniques. Current regulatory goals
target to no more than 10% of MSW will be transferred to the landfill by
2035 (EU, 2018). The calorific value of municipal waste and its trans­
form to the energy become one of the important factors that could help
calculate the product value according to CE strategy (Malinauskaite
et al., 2017; Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022). Besides such technological
and strategical development for the CE practices in solid waste man­
agement, strategy monitoring is also an important task to understand the
situation of that particular municipality or region. The EU has initiated
an assessment criteria for circular economy practices such as the circular
economy monitoring framework (CEMF), and which should assess the
progress towards the CE in EU states (EC, 2018). A recent study reported
the application of the CEMF in Umeå, Sweden, and assessed the
municipality’s performance and the improvement needed in certain
areas (Henrysson et al., 2022).
Conclusions
This article systematically reviews the current status of municipal
solid waste management in the Nordic countries including current
A. Sandhi and J. Rosenlund
Table 2
Examples of gamification technologies for municipal waste management.
Name Age level Main theme
Trashwar 5–14 yrs Sorting of waste
iTrash Children above 3 yrs. Segregation of waste
Fox the recycler Adult Recycling activities
GarbMAS Adult Create simulation activities
Computer games 8–12 yrs Board game and point collections based on the value of waste
Junkbox 3–5 yrs Sorting of waste
MySusCoF Adult Perform activities and earn points
information about their production, management, infrastructure
development, framework, influencing factors and circular economy
perspectives. The effectiveness of different factors towards successful
MSW management and their advantages and disadvantages were also
discussed. In general, segregating waste at home has been considered
one of the impactful methods for increasing efficiency in the waste
management system. But this is not only the most impactful techniques,
several other factors could also improve upon the existing waste man­
agement system both in Nordic countries and other countries dealing
with high volume of MSW production, such as; 1) easy and informative
labels of packaging for the right sorting process for the end user, 2) more
awareness and motivational information for waste sorting process in the
communal places, 3) distance to the sorting facilities as well as; 4)
infrastructure development and promoting interactive sorting facilities
to increase teenager participants. One of the major limitations for this
project that most of the documents (including reports, policy papers)
from different authorities are not searchable due to their absence in the
internet and also, they are written in different Scandinavian languages.
Overall, the effectiveness and performance for the different factors
also need to be investigated according to the socioeconomic condition of
their citizens. Research on the infrastructure development and appli­
cation of AI can be enhanced to be helpful for individual countries for
their waste management strategies. Further research opportunities also
exist by using gamification as a basis for intervention studies to improve
waste sorting behaviour. The context where the research is done must
also be considered due to its dependency on where the waste sorting
behaviour is performed be it in a private, public or in-between space.
The take-home message from this review that there is no single
method or factor that would solve the continuous MSW management
issues in a particular region. Therefore, the policymakers need to
emphasise both socioeconomic factors and advanced infrastructure de­
velopments in respective countries for a better management of MSW and
harness it before it turns to be a national economic and environmental
burden.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Joacim Rosenlund: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Inves­
tigation, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – review &
editing. Arifin Sandhi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation,
Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data Availability
Data will be made available on request.
8
Cleaner Waste Systems 8 (2024) 100144
Category Country reference
Sorting India Bardhan et al. (2015)
Sorting/ Philippines Eder (2016)
segregation
Recycling Finland Santti et al. (2020)
Simulation Spain González-Briones et al. (2019)
Valuation of waste Iran Mostowfi et al. (2016)
Sorting Italy Gizzi et al. (2019)
Awareness Austria Haas et al. (2022)
Acknowledgements
Dr. Joacim Rosenlund has received grant 20200017 from the Kam­
prad Family Foundation. The authors also acknowledge Dr. Miralem
Helmefalk, Associate Senior Lecturer, Department of Marketing and
Tourism Studies, School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus Univer­
sity, Kalmar, Sweden, for insightful reading and input in this review
article. The authors are also thankful to Anders Johnson, Department of
Biology and Environmental Science, Linnaeus University, Kalmar,
Sweden, for editing English grammar of this article.
References
Aerbin, n.d. Mobile solution. Retrieved: https://aerbin.dk/en/mobile-solutions/ on
2023-01-04.
Aguiar-Castillo, L., Clavijo-Rodriguez, A., De Saa-Perez, P., Perez-Jimenez, R., 2019.
Gamification as an approach to promote tourist recycling behavior. Sustainability
11, 2201. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082201.
Amanidaz, N., Yaghmaeian, K., Dehghani, M.H., Mahvi, A.H., Bakhshoodeh, R., 2019.
Households’ behavior and social-environmental aspects of using bag dustbin for
waste recovery in Tehran. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 17 (2), 1067–1076. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40201-019-00421-7.
Andersson, C., Stage, J., 2018. Direct and indirect effects of waste management policies
on household waste behaviour: The case of Sweden. Waste Manag. 76, 19–27.
Ando, A.W., Gosselin, A.Y., 2005. Recycling in multifamily dwellings: does convenience
matter? Econ. Inq. 43, 426–438. https://doi.org/10.1093/ei/cbi029.
Avfall Sverige, 2022a. Swedish Waste management 2021. Retrieved: https://www.
avfallsverige.se/in-english/ on 2022-09-15.
Avfall Sverige, 2022b. Matavfall-In Swedish food Waste. Retrieved: https://www.
avfallsverige.se/fakta-statistik/insamling/matavfall/ on 2023-06-07.
Avfall Sverige, 2022c. Recycle centre (Återvinningscentraler in Swedish). Retrieved from
https://www.avfallsverige.se/fakta-statistik/insamling/atervinningscentraler/ on
2022-12-01.
Avfall Sverige, n.d. Kommunalt avfall-behandlad och insamlad mängd (in Swedish).
Retrieved: https://www.avfallsverige.se/fakta-statistik/avfallsstatistik/kommunal
t-avfall/ on 2022-09-14.
Bandara, N.J.G.J., Hettiaratchi, J.P.A., Wirasinghe, S.C., et al., 2007. Relation of waste
generation and composition to socio-economic factors: a case study. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 135, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9705-3.
Bardhan, R., Bahuman, C., Pathan, I., Ramamritham, K., 2015. Designing a game-based
persuasive technology to promote Pro-Environmental Behaviour (PEB). In 2015 IEEE
Region 10 Humanitarian Technology Conference (R10-HTC), Cebu, Philippines,
December 09–12, 2015.
Bassi, S.A., Christensen, T.H., Damgaard, A., 2017. Environmental performance of
household waste management in Europe - An example of 7 countries. Waste Manag.
69, 545–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.042.
Becidan, M., Wang, L., Fossum, M., Midtbust, H.O., Stuen, J., Bakken, J.I., Evensen, E.,
2015. Norwegian waste-to-energy (wte) in 2030: challenges and opportunities.
Chem. Engg Trans. 43, 2401–2406. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1543401.
Benetti, C., 2018. Chemical building blocks from municipal solid waste. BE-Sustainable.
Retrieved: https://www.besustainablemagazine.com/cms2/chemical-building-
block-from-municipal-solid-waste/ on 2023-06-02.
Bergquist, A.K., Söderholm, K., 2016. Sustainable energy transition: the case of the
Swedish pulp and paper industry 1973–1990. Energy Effic. 9, 1179–1192. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12053-015-9416-5.
Blomsma, F., Brennan, G., 2017. The emergence of circular economy: a new framing
around prolonging resource productivity. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 603–614.
Boulding, K.E., 1966. The economics of the coming spaceship earth. In: Jarrett, H. (Ed.),
Environmental Quality Issues in a Growing Economy. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, pp. 3–4.
Castagna, A., Casagranda, M., Zeni, A., Girelli, E., Rada, E.C., Ragazzi, M., Apostol, T.,
2013. 3R’S from citizens point of view and their proposal from a case-study. UPB Sci.
Bull., Ser. D. 75 (4), 253–264.
Cayumil, R., Khanna, R., Konyukhov, Y., Burmistrov, I., Kargin, J.B., Mukherjee, P.S.,
2021. An overview on solid waste generation and management: current status in
Chile. Sustainbility 13, 11644. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111644.
A. Sandhi and J. Rosenlund
Cecere, G., Maccinelli, S., Mazzanti, M., 2014. Waste prevention and social preferences:
the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Ecol. Econ. 107, 163–176.
Chattopadhyay, S., Dutta, A., Ray, S., 2009. Municipal solid waste management in
Kolkata, India - a review. Waste Manag. 29 (4), 1449–1458. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2008.08.030.
Chen, Y.-C., 2018. Effects of urbanization on municipal solid waste composition. Waste
Manag 79, 826–836.
Corvellec, H., Bramryd, T., Hultman, J., 2012. The business model of soild waste
management in Sweden-a case study of tow municipally-owned companies. Waste
Manag. Res. 30 (5), 512–518.
Dawson, L., 2019. Our waste, our resources; a strategy for England–switching to a
circular economy through the use of extended producer responsibility. Environ. Law
Rev. 21 (3), 210–218.
Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. 2011. From game design elements to
Gamefulness: defining ‘gamification’. In proceedings of 15th International academic
MindTrek conference: envisioning future media environments, Tampere, Finland,
28–30 September 2011; pp. 9–15.
Dzebo, A., Nykvist, B., 2017. A new regime and then what? cracks and tensions in the
socio-technical regime of the Swedish heat energy system. Energy, Res Soc. Sci. 29,
113–122.
EC, 2015. Closing the loop-An EU action plan for the circular economy. Retrieved:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0614 on
2022-09-02.
EC, 2018. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council,
the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions – A
new circular economy action plan for cleaner and more competitive Europe. COM
(2020) 98 final report. Brussels. Retrieved: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/9903b325-6388-11ea-b735-01aa75ed71a1 on 2023-01-07.
Eder, S.M., 2016. iTrash: proper waste segregation mobile game. Indian J. Sci. Tech. 9
(42), 1–8.
Edjabou, M.E., Jensen, M.B., Götze, R., Pivnenko, K., Petersen, C., Scheutz, C., Astrup, T.
F., 2015. Municipal solid waste composition: Sampling methodology, statistical
analyses, and case study evaluation. Waste Manag. 36, 12–23. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2014.11.009.
Eionet, 2016. Municipal waste management, country fact sheet-Sweden. P 1-15.
Retrieved https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-ce/products/country-profiles-on-
the-management-of-municipal-waste-1/sweden_msw_2016.pdf on 2022-09-13.
Environment Norway, 2021. Waste. Retrieved: https://www.environment.no/topics/w
aste/ on 2022-09-15.
EP, 2021. Waste management in the EU: infographic with facts and figures. https://www
.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20180328STO00751/eu-waste
-management-infographic-with-facts-and-figures.
EP, 2022. Circular economy: definition, importance and benefits. Retrieved: https://
www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/ci
rcular-economy-definition-importance-and-benefits on 2022-09-01.
EPRS, 2017. Towards a circular economy - waste management in the EU. European
Parliamentary Research Service Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) PE 581.913.
Ericsson, K., Werner, S., 2016. The introduction of and expansion of biomass use in
Swedish district heating systems. Bioma Bioener 94, 57–65.
Eriksson, O., 2003. Environmental and economic assessment of Swedish municipal solid
waste management in a systems perspective, ISSN 1402-7615, TRITA-KET-IM 2003:
5.
Eriksson, O., Reich, M.C., Frostell, B., Björklund, A., Assefa, G., Sundqvist, J.-O.,
Granath, J., Baky, A., Thyselius, L., 2005. Municipal solid waste management from a
systems perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 241–252.
EU, 2008. Waste framework directive. Retrieved from https://environment.ec.europa.
eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-framework-directive_en on 2023-10-23.
EU, 2018. Directive (EU) 2018/851, ammendment Directive 2008/98/EC. Retrieved
from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/851 on 2024-03-02.
EU. 2022. EU waste management law. Retrieved March 2, 2024, from https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/eu-waste-management-law.html.
European Commission, 2020. The European Green Deal. Retrieved from https
://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-gree
n-deal_enon2024-03-01.
European Union, n.d. Landfill waste. Retrieved from https://environment.ec.europa.eu/
topics/waste-and-recycling/landfill-waste_en on 2023-06-02.
Eurostat, 2022a. Municipal waste statistics. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Municipal_waste_
statistics#Municipal_waste_treatment on 2022-09-15.
Eurostat, 2022b. Municipal waste by waste management operations. Retrieved: https://
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wasmun/default/table?lang=en on
2022-09-14.
Filho, W.L., Voronova, V., Kloga, M., Paço, A., Minhas, A., Salvia, A.L., Ferreira, C.D.,
Sivapalan, S., 2021. COVID-19 and waste production in households: A trend analysis.
Sci. Total Environ. 777, 145997 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145997.
Finnveden, G., Björklund, A., Reich, M.C., Sörbom, A., 2007. Flexible and robust
strategies for waste management in Sweden. Waste Manag. 27 (8), S1–S8.
FTI, n.d. Statistics. Retrieved from https://fti.se/om-fti/statistik#insamlingsstatistik on
2023-06-07.
Furtenback, O., 2009. Demand for waste as fuel in the Swedish district heating sector: a
production function approach. Waste Manag. 29 (1), 285–292.
Giusti, L., 2009. A review of waste management practises and their impact on human
health. Wast Manag. 29 (8), 2227–2239.
Gizzi, V., Di Dio, S., Schillaci, D., 2019. Junkbox, a waste management educational game
for preschool kids. Int. Des. Arch. 40, 46–56.
9
Cleaner Waste Systems 8 (2024) 100144
González-Briones, A. et al., 2019. GarbMAS: Simulation of the Application of
Gamification Techniques to Increase the Amount of Recycled Waste Through a
Multi-agent System. In: De La Prieta, F., Omatu, S., Fernández-Caballero, A. (eds.)
Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence, 15th International Conference.
DCAI 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 800. Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94649-8_40.
Gonzalez-Torre, P.L., Adenso-Diaz, B., 2005. Influence of distance on the motivation and
frequency of household recycling. Waste Manag. 25 (1), 15–23.
Gutberlet, J., Bramryd, T., Johansson, M., 2020. Expansion of the Waste-Based
Commodity Frontier: Insights from Sweden and Brazil. Sustain 12 (7), 2628. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12072628.
Haas, R., Aşan, H., Doğan, O., Michalek, C.R., Karaca Akkan, Ö., Bulut, Z.A., 2022.
Designing and implementing the MySusCof app—a mobile app to support food waste
reduction. Foods 11, 2222. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152222.
Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Heinz, M., 2015. How circular is the global
economy? an assessment of material flows, waste production, and recycling in the
European Union and the World in 2005. J. Ind. Ecol. 19, 765–777. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jiec.12244.
Hage, O., Söderholm, P., Berglund, C., 2009. Norms and economic motivation in
household recycling: Empirical evidence from Sweden. Res Conser Recycl 53 (3),
155–165.
Hage, O., Sandberg, K., Söderholm, P., et al., 2018. The regional heterogeneity of
household recycling: a spatial-econometric analysis of Swedish plastic packing
waste. Lett. Spat. Resour. Sci. 11, 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-017-
0200-3.
Hedefalk, M., Almqvist, J., Östman, L., 2015. Education for sustainable development in
early childhood education: a review of the research literature. Environ. Edu Res 21
(7), 975–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.971716.
Hellemaa, S., 2022. The renewed MolokDomino waste container is now even more
environmentally friendly and stylish. MolokDomino Waste Management. Retrieved:
https://www.molok.com/eng/molokdomino-stylish-waste-container on 2023-01-
04.
Helmefalk, M., 2019. An interdisciplinary perspective on gamification: mechanics,
psychological mediators and outcomes: mechanics, mental mediators and outcomes.
Int J. Ser. Game 6 (1), 3–26.
Helmefalk, M., Rosenlund, J., 2020a. Make Waste Fun Again! A Gamification Approach
to Recycling. In: Brooks, A., Brooks, E. (eds) Interactivity, Game Creation, Design,
Learning, and Innovation. ArtsIT DLI 2019 2019. Lecture Notes of the Institute for
Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engg. 328. Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53294-9_30.
Helmefalk, M., Rosenlund, J., 2020b. Hedonic recycling: using gamification and sensory
stimuli enhance the recycling experience. Eur. Allian Inno 18, 1–12.
Helmefalk, M., Palmquist, A., Rosenlund, J., 2023. Understanding the mechanisms of
household and stakeholder engagement in a recycling ecosystem: The SDL
perspective. Waste Manag 160, 1–11.
Henrysson, M., Papageorgiou, A., Björklund, A., Vanhuyse, F., Sinha, R., 2022.
Monitoring progress towards a circular economy in urban areas: An application of
the European Union circular economy monitoring framework in Umeå municipality.
Sustain Cities Soc. 87, 104245 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104245.
Hobson, K., Holmes, H., Welch, D., Wheeler, K., Wieser, H., 2021. Consumption Work in
the circular economy: A research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 321, 128969.
Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., Kennedy, C., 2013. Environment: Waste production must
peak this century. Nature 502, 615–617. https://doi.org/10.1038/502615a.
Hornik, J., Cherian, J., Madansky, M., Narayana, C., 1995. Determinants of recycling
behavior: a synthesis of research results. J. Socio-Econ. 24 (1), 105–127.
Ibrahim, M.A., 2020. Modelling of risk for improper sorting of waste at recycling centers.
Waste Manag. 102 (1), 550–560.
Iyamu, H.O., Anda, M., Ho, G., 2020. A review of municipal solid waste management in
BRIC and high-income countries: a thematic framework for low-income countries.
Hab Int 95, 1020097.
Jääskä, E., Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., 2021. Game-Based Learning in Project Sustainability
Management Education. Sustainability 13, 8204. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13158204.
Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F., 2018. Urban Development Series.
What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. World
Bank, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An
analysis of 114 definitions. Res Conserv Recycl 127, 221–232.
Kjær, B., 2013. Municipal waste management in Denmark. Working paper-European
Environment Agency. Retrieved: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managi
ng-municipal-solid-waste/denmark-municipal-waste-management on 2022-09-16.
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., Seppälä, J., 2018b. Circular economy: The concept and its
limitations. Ecol. Econ. 143, 37–46.
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., Birkie, S.E., 2018a. Circular economy as an
essential contested approach. J. Clean. Prod. 175 (20), 544–552. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111.
Kretslopp sydost, n.d. Sorting guide (Sorteringsguider in Swedish). Retrieved: https
://www.kretsloppsydost.se/matavfall/sorteringsguide1/ on 2022-11-29.
Kurniawan, T.A., Liang, X., O’Callaghan, E., Goh, H., Othman, M.H.D., Avtar, R.,
Kusworo, T.D., 2022. Transformation of Solid Waste Management in China: Moving
towards Sustainability through Digitalization-Based Circular Economy. Sustainab
14, 2374. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042374.
Lidia, A.-C., Julio, R.T., Petra, D.S.P., Rafael, P.J., 2018. How to encourage recycling
behaviour? The case of WasteApp: A gamified mobile application. Sustainability 10,
1544. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051544.
A. Sandhi and J. Rosenlund
Ma, S., Hu, S., Chen, D., Zhu, B., 2015. A case study of a phosphorus chemical firm’s
application of resource efficiency and eco-efficiency in industrial metabolism under
circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 839–849.
Maalouf, A., Mavropoulos, A., 2022. Re-assessing global municipal solid waste
generation. Waste Manag. Res 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242×221074116.
Malinauskaite, J., Jouhara, H., Czajczyńska, D., Stanchev, P., Katsou, E., Rostkowsk, P.,
Thorne, R.J., Colón, J., Ponsá, S., Al-Mansour, F., Anguilano, L., Krzyżyńska, R.,
López, I.C., Vlasopoulos, A., Spencer, N., 2017. Municipal solid waste management
and waste-to-energy in the context of a circular economy and energy recycling in
Europe. Energ 141, 2013–2044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.128.
Maycox, A., 2003. The village initiative project: achieving household waste minimization
in the rural locale. Chart. Inst. Wastes Manag. (CIWM): Sci. Tech. Rev. 4, 10–17.
Minelgaitė, A., Liobikienė, G., 2019. Waste problem in European Union and its influence
on waste management behaviours. Sci. Tot Environ. 667, 86–93.
Moraga, G., Huysveld, S., Mathieux, F., Blengini, G.A., Alaerts, L., Acker, K.V.,
Meester, S. de, Dewulf, J., 2019. Circular economy indicators: what do they
measure? Resour. Conserv Recycl 146, 452–461.
Mostowfi, S., Mamaghani, N.K., Khorramar, M., 2016. Designing playful learning by
using educational board game for children in the age range of 7-12: A case study:
recycling and waste Separation Education Board Game. Int J. Environ. Sci. Edu 11
(12), 5453–5476.
Naturvårdsverket, 2021. The Swedish EPA roadmap for the sustainable use of plastics.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Stockholm 1–36. ISBN 978-91-620-
0000-0.
Naturvårdsverket, n.d. Producers responsibility for packaging. Retrieved: https://www.
naturvardsverket.se/en/guidance/extended-producer-responsibility-epr/prod
ucer-responsibility-for-packaging/ on 2022-12-05.
Negrete-Cardoso, M., Rosano-Ortega, G., Álvarez-Aros, E.L., et al., 2022. Circular
economy strategy and waste management: a bibliometric analysis in its contribution
to sustainable development, toward a post-COVID-19 era. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res
29, 61729–61746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18703-3.
Nordin, H.L., Westöö, A.-K., 2019. Plastics in Sweden: Facts and practical advice. A short
version of Kartläggning av plastflöden i Sverige. SMED report no. 2019:01. ISBN:
978-91-620-8854-5.
Norouzi, O., Dutta, A., 2022. The Current Status and Future Potential of Biogas
Production from Canada’s Organic Fraction Municipal Solid Waste. Energ 15, 475.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15020475.
Nukusheva, A., Rustembekova, D., Abdizhami, A., Au, T., Kozhantayeva, Z., 2023.
Regulatory Obstacles in Municipal Solid Waste Management in Kazakhstan in
Comparison with the EU. Sustainability 15 (2), 1034. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su15021034.
Nunkoo, R., Bhadain, M., Baboo, S., 2021. Household food waste: attitudes, barriers and
motivations. Br. Food J. 123 (6), 2016–2035. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2020-
0195.
Ouariachi, T., Li, C.-Y., Elving, W.J.L., 2020. Gamification Approaches for Education and
Engagement on Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Searching for Best Practices.
Sustainability 12, 4565. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114565.
Papamichael, I., Voukkali, I., Loizia, P., Stylianou, M., Economou, F., Vardopoulos, I.,
Zorpas, A.A., 2023. Measuring Circularity: Tools for monitoring a smooth transition
to Circular Economy. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 36, 101330 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scp.2023.101330.
Petersen, C.H.M., Berg, P.E.O., 2004. Use of recycling stations in Borlänge, Sweden-
volume weights and attitudes. Waste Manag 24 (9), 911–918.
Pietzsch, N., Ribeiro, J.D.L., Medeiros, J.F., 2017. Benefits, challenges and critical factors
of success for zero waste: a systematic literature review. Waste Manag 67, 324–353.
Pokhrel, D., Viraraghavan, T., 2005. Municipal solid waste management in Nepal:
practices and challenges. Waste Manag. 25 (5), 555–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
WASMAN.2005.01.020.
Prestin, A., Pearce, K.E., 2010. We care a lot: formative research for a social marketing
campaign to promote school-based recycling. Res, Conserv Recycl 54 (11),
1017–1026.
10
Cleaner Waste Systems 8 (2024) 100144
Rathore, P., Sarmah, S.P., 2020. Economic, environmental and social optimization of
solid waste management in the context of circular economy. Com. Indus Engg 145,
106510.
Rousta, K., Ekström, K.M., 2013. Assessing incorrect household waste sorting in a
Medium-Sized Swedish City. Sustainab 5 (10), 4349–4361. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su5104349.
Rousta, K., Moghadam, M.K., Karimkhani, P.H., Richards, T., 2011. Evaluation of the
inhabitant’s participation in separation at source by waste characterization.
WASTES: Solutions, Treatments and Opportunities, 1st Int. Conf. Portugal.12-14
Sept, 2011.
Rousta, K., Bolton, K., Lundin, M., Dhalen, L., 2015. Quantitative assessment of distance
to collection point and improved sorting information on source separation of
household waste. Waste Manag. 40, 22–30.
Santti, U., Happonen, A., Auvinen, H., 2020. Digitalization boosted recycling:
gamification as an inspiration for young adults to do enhanced waste sorting. AIP
conference Proced. 2233, 050014.
Schaffartzik, A., Mayer, A., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Loy, C., Krausmann, F, F.,
2014. The global metabolic transition: Regional patterns and trends of global
material flows, 1950–2010. Glo Environ. Chan 26, 87–97.
SFS, 1997. Förordning om producentansvar för förpackningar (Ordinance on producers’
responsibility for packages) (1997:185).
SFS, 1998. Miljöbalk (Environemental code) (1998:808). Svensk författningsamling,
Stockholm, Sweden.
SFS, 2001. Avfallsförordning (Waste ordinance-In Swedish) (2001: 1063). Retrieved:
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssa
mling/avfallsforordning-20011063_sfs-2001-1063 on 2022-09-14.
Sidique, S., Lupi, F., Joshi, S.V., 2010. The effects of behaviour and attitudes on drop-off
recycling activities. Res, Conserv Recycl 54 (3), 163–170.
Sinha, R., Michelsen, J.D., Akcura, E., 2020. COVID-19’s impact on waste sector.
International Finance Corporation (IFC). Retrieved: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/
connect/industry_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/infrastructure/resources/
covid-19-and-waste-sector on 2022-09-14.
Sondh, S., Upadhyay, D.S., Patel, S., Patel, R.N., 2022. A strategic review on municipal
solid waste (living solid waste) management system focusing on policies, selection
criteria and techniques for waste-to-value. J. Clean. Prod. 356, 131908.
Sörme, L., Voxberg, E., Rosenlund, J., Jensen, S., Augustsson, A., 2019. Coloured Plastic
Bags for Kerbside Collection of Waste from Households—To Improve Waste
Recycling. Recycl 4, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling4020020.
Swedish EPA, n.d. Roles and responsibilities in Swedish waste management. Retrieved
from https://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/topics/waste/vem-gor-vad/swedish-
waste-management/ on 2022-09-16.
United Nations. (2015). The 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from United
Nations website: https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
US EPA, 2022. National overview: Facts and figures on materials, wastes and recycle.
Retrieved: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-
recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials#Landfilling on 2022-09-02.
Vencatasawmy, C.P., Öhman, M., Brännström, T., 2000. A survey of recycling behaviour
in households in Kiruna, Sweden. Waste Manag. Res 18, 545–556. https://doi.org/
10.1034/j.1399-3070.2000.00166.x.
Wang, H., Wang, C., 2013. Municipal solid waste management in Beijing: characteristics
and challenges. Waste Manag. Res 31 (1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242×12468199.
Werner, S., 2017. District heating and cooling in Sweden. Ener 126, 419–429. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.052.
Wiedmann, T.O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., et al., 2015. The material footprint
of nations. Proc. Nat. Aca Sci. 112, 6271–6276.
Willoughby, J.F., Smith, H., 2016. Communication Strategies and New Media Platforms.
Sci. Commun. 38, 535–545.
Zhang, H., Liu, J., Wen, Z., Chen, Y.-X., 2017. College students municipal solid waste
source separation behaviour and its influential factors: a case study in Beijing, China.
J. Clean. Prod. 164, 444–454.